Upload
tranxuyen
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PEDIATRICS Vol. 75 No. 2 February 1985 233
Television’s Impact on Children
Diana M. Zuckerman, PhD, and Barry S. Zuckerman, MD
From the American Psychological Association, and Department of Pediatrics, BostonUniversity School of Medicine and Boston City Hospital, Boston
ABSTRACT. Television has a major impact on children’sknowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Research has dem-onstrated the association between television viewing andfour areas: (1) children’s aggressive behavior; (2) racialand sex-role stereotypes; (3) decreased interest in readingand school activities; and (4) poorer health habits andattitudes. Methodological limitations make it difficult todraw firm conclusions about a causal relationship be-tween television viewing and children’s behavior. Repre-sentative studies in these four areas are reviewed, impor-tant methodological concerns are pointed out, and con-clusions from the research findings are drawn. The im-plications of the data for pediatricians and other healthprofessionals are discussed. Pediatrics 1985;75:233-240;television, health habits, aggression, sex roles, racial ster-otypes, reading.
Television is a major source of information and
influence for children’s lives. More than 96% of
American homes have at least one television set;the average American child spends more time
watching television than in the classroom. In recentyears, television is increasingly being perceived as
having a negative impact on the mental and phys-ical well-being of children. The theoretical basis for
concern about television’s impact on children is
social learning theory, which predicts that a child
will learn and imitate behavior seen on television,even in the absence of any obvious reinforcement.This learning through observation can apply to any
content area presented, regardless of the intentions
of the message and regardless of whether the mes-
sage appears on programs or commercials.
As physicians, psychologists, and educators have
become more involved in assessing television’s im-
Received for publication Feb 24, 1983; accepted March 30, 1984.
Dr D. Zuckerman is a Congressional Science Fellow, US Houseof Representatives.Reprint requests to (B.S.Z.) Child Development Unit, BostonCity Hospital, Boston, MA 02118.
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright © 1985 by the
American Academy of Pediatrics.
pact and vocalizing their concern, they have focused
primarily on television violence. However, duringthe last decade, three less well publicized areas ofresearch have been developing. These areas include
television’s influence on children’s attitudes toward
minorities and women, its impact on children’s
reading abilities and classroom behaviors, and the
effect of television advertising on children’s health
attitudes and behaviors. The purpose of this paper
is to review the data of representative studies of
television’s impact on children in the four areas
outlined above. In addition to summarizing thedata, we shall also critically review the research
methodologies for two reasons: (1) there is a con-troversy about the causal relationship between tel-
evision viewing and children’s behavior, stemming
from limitations of the methodologies used, and (2)
contradictory findings have been reported that maybe a consequence of different assessment proce-dures for the variables assessed rather than of true
differences. Regarding the first point, most of the
research has demonstrated only an association
rather than a causal relationship between television
viewing and children’s behavior. A causal relation-
ship could only be proven by a longitudinal study
in which children were randomly assigned to watch
specific television programs over long periods of
time. Because this is not possible, studies that
assess the impact of television on children’s behav-ior and attitudes independent of other possible
confounding factors will be emphasized in this re-
view. Regarding the second point, different proce-
dures have been used to assess television viewing.
For example, some studies use the total amount of
television viewed, other studies assess specific types
of television programs viewed, whereas still others
measure children’s expressed preference for certain
types of programs. In addition, television viewing
has been measured by parental recall, children’srecall, or the use of a diary. The reliability of these
methods is rarely reported. Finally, studies use dif-ferent measures of assessing the same outcome
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
234 IMPACT OF TELEVISION
behavior. For example, aggression has been mea-sured by teachers’ reports, children’s reports, or by
trained observers. This review will point out thevarious methodologies used in the reported studiesand discuss their impact on the findings, in orderto draw conclusions about the relationship betweentelevision viewing and specific outcomes.
VIOLENCE
Most of the research has focused on the impact
of television violence on children’s aggressive be-
havior. According to the Neilson Index, the averageAmerican child watches 18,000 television murdersbefore he or she graduates from high school.’ Inaddition, beatings, bombings, and other types ofviolence are frequently represented on television.In a comprehensive review of the research literatureon television content, Signorielli and colleagues2concluded that consistently high levels of violenceand aggression have been reported in studies oftelevision programming, regardless of the measuresused to define or assess violence. They reported
that children’s television programs are six times asviolent as adults’ television programs. In their own
research, they found that the average amount ofviolence on television has remained stable since1967. However, they found that on children’s pro-
grams the average number of violent acts increasesdramatically one year, decreases substantially thefollowing year, increases again the next year, and
so on.
Social science researchers have questioned the
effect of televised violence for the last 25 years intwo ways: (1) In laboratory settings (i.e., experi-ments in day care centers or schools), does a child
behave more aggressively after watching a violentmovie or television program? (2) In the community,are the children who watch more television moreaggressive than other children?
Dozens of laboratory studies have consistentlydemonstrated that children imitate the violencethat they have just watched on television.3 Despitepsychologists’ suggestions made in the 1950s that
watching television violence has a cathartic affect,and thus reduces viewers’ aggressive behavior, thereare no data from recent years to support that the-ory. In a recent review of the literature publishedby the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH), Huesmann4 stated that “At this time, itshould be difficult to find any researcher who does
not believe that a significant positive relation exists
between viewing television violence and subsequentaggressive behavior under most conditions.” In one
study,5 for example, nursery school children imi-tated new forms of aggression that they had just
seen on the television screen. In another study,6
children aged 5 to 9 who were exposed to 3.5 mm-utes of “The Untouchables,” a violent television
program, were more willing to hurt another childthan were children who were exposed to a nonvi-olent program. There is evidence that the behaviors
of young adults of college age are also influencedby television violence: students who watched a beat-ing on television were later given the opportunityto administer electric shocks to a person who hadannoyed them before the program. The studentswho had been told that the television beating wasdeserved administered more severe shocks thanstudents who were told the beating was not de-
served.7 In nonlaboratory settings, children have
injured themselves by imitating behaviors viewedon television. The “Eve! Knievel syndrome” is anexample of children suffering significant injuries by
imitating motorcycle jumps with their bicycles.8In addition to imitating violence, children who
watch violent television programs may learn toperceive aggressive behavior as normal and accept-able. Drabman and Thomas9 reported that after
observing televised violence, children were moretolerant of what they thought was real life aggres-sion against children for whom they were babysit-ting.
There are two major shortcomings of laboratoryresearch. First, because “laboratory settings” areoften nursery schools or classrooms, children might
be more likely to learn from what they see ontelevision than they would in a home setting. Sec-
ond, the effects may be short-lived, rather thanlonger term. Studies in the community overcomethese shortcomings. Most community studies in the1960s and 1970s support findings in the laboratorysetting that children who watch more violent tele-
vision programs behave more aggressively. How-
ever, many of these studies failed to control statis-tical!y for such important influences on children’s
behavior as their social class, intelligence, or theirparents’ behaviors. These considerations are im-portant because children who choose to watch moreviolent television programs may be different fromor more violent than their peers before they watchthe programs. For example, children who are lesssupervised by their parents may be permitted towatch more violent programs than other children.Their violent behavior may therefore be due to lackof parental supervision rather than the viewing ofviolent television programs. In addition, these earlystudies also used relatively unsophisticated statis-
tical analyses such as product-moment correlationsor analysis of variance.
These methodological and statistical shortcom-ings have been overcome in several recent studies.
These studies indicate that when family back-ground is taken into account, there is still a clear
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
ARTICLES 235
relationship between children’s behaviors and their
viewing of violent television programs. For exam-
ple, in a study’#{176}of 158 third, fourth, and fifth grade
students in a middle-class suburb, the children who
watched more violent television programs were
rated by their teachers as less cooperative, less
successful in interpersonal relationships, and less
happy. The children’s television viewing habits
were recorded by their parents, and their teachers
were unaware ofthese behaviors. These results were
statistically significant at the P < .05 level or better
regardless of the children’s age, sex, social class, IQ,or parents’ television viewing behaviors. Whereas
the children who watched more violent programs
were not described as more aggressive, in this study,
their behaviors indicated interpersonal difficulties.
It is important to note that the violent programs
these children watched were usually “fantasy” pro-
grams with actors depicting superheroes such as
Wonder Woman, the Hulk, and the Six Milion
Dollar Man. However, the children’s viewing of
cartoons, most of which are also violent, was notassociated with any of these negative behaviors.
A special opportunity to assess the impact oftelevised violence in a community setting occurred
with the introduction of television in a small Ca-
nadian community that had never had access to
television before. The results demonstrated that
verbal and physical aggression increased among
primary school children in this community after
television became available.11 No such changes in
behavior were found among children in two “con-
trol” communities that already had television.
Long-term changes in children’s behavior as a re-
suit of television viewing have also been an impor-tant source of information regarding causality be-
tween television viewing and behavior. In a 2-year
longitudinal study of 758 American children,
Huesmann4 found that watching television violence
was a significant precursor of aggressive behavior.
Similarly, Lefkowitz and colleagues12 documented
a significant relationship between preference for
violent television programs and aggression mea-
sured 10 years later.
Although these studies have indicated that chil-
dren who watch more television violence are more
aggressive, television viewing appears to be only
one of many factors associated with children’s ag-
gressive behaviors. In statistical terms, television
viewing rarely accounts for more than 10% of the
variance in explaining aggression in children. Theresults of these studies should be interpreted cau-tiously due to the self-selected nature of television
viewing, the potential inaccuracies of self-reported
television viewing, and the many variables that
might influence both television viewing habits and
aggressive behavior. The Lefkowitz et al’2 study has
been particularly criticized because they used pref-
erence for violent television programs as the pre-
dictor rather than the number of hours of viewing
of violent programs. Nevertheless, the consistency
of the results of research in this area strongly
suggests that violence on television influences view-ers’ behavior, particularly in the direction of in-
creasing aggressive behavior.
One of the few studies that contradicts these
findings was conducted by researchers at the Na-
tional Broadcasting Company.’3 They found the
relationship between viewing television violence
and aggressive behavior several years later became
insignificant when social class was controlled. The
study had several important limitations. First, chil-dren’s aggressive behavior was defined strictly toinclude only “physical or verbal acts intended or
known in advance to cause injuries to others” and
did not include “rough play” or other unintended
aggressive behavior. Teenagers’ aggression was
measured by intentional violence, vandalism, and
theft. Second, less than half of the original sample
of 800 teenage boys completed the study. The au-
thors reported that more aggressive respondentswere more likely to drop out of the study, so this
attrition may have minimized the apparent impact
of viewing televised violence. Finally, the use of
self-reported viewing, particularly for the younger
children, may have resulted in inaccurate data. The
authors checked the accuracy of the self-reports by
using a “dummy item,” the title of a nonexistentprogram in their list of programs. The authorsadmitted that “a number” of children reported that
they had watched the nonexistent program. Unfor-tunately, the authors did not mention how fre-
quently this misreporting occurred and claimed
that the inclusion of these “less valid reporters” did
not affect the results significantly. Given these
limitations, the results of this study do not negate
an association between viewing television violence
and aggressive behavior described in the vast ma-
jority of studies.In the last decade, research on television violence
has assessed a new area, television viewers’ percep-tions of the world. A review of research in this areasuggests that adults who watch more television aremore fearful of being the victims of crime, more
pessimistic about the crime rate, and less trustfulof others. Similar results for children and adoles-
cents are reported even when socioeconomic status,race, and other potentially confounding traits are
statistically controlled.14
Because research has consistently shown that
television violence has a negative effect on chil-
dren’s behaviors, it is not surprising that prosocial
television programs apparently influence children’s
behaviors in positive ways. Several studies’5 have
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
236 IMPACT OF TELEVISION
found that programs such as “Mr. Rogers’ Neigh-
borhood” have a positive impact, because childrenimitate the cooperative behaviors that are depicted.
Unfortunately, there are few programs that explic-
itly depict such behaviors. However, in a study of
the content of prime time and Saturday morning
programs, Dominick and colleagues’6 found that
many television characters solved problems
through positive behaviors (eg, helping behaviors
or assertive, nonaggressive behaviors). In fact,physical and verbal aggression comprised only one
third of the problem-solving “strategies” depicted
on prime time action/adventure programs. In con-
trast, aggressive responses comprised approxi-
mately half of the responses to conflicts on Satur-
day morning programs. These data suggest that
television programs may teach children positive
strategies to solve problems. However, the investi-
gators only measured the number of strategies por-
trayed and not the amount of time spent portraying
positive or negative behaviors. It could be that the
violent incidents, although fewer in number, may
have lasted longer or been more dramatically pre-
sented, compared with the more positive responses
to conflict that were portrayed.
PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPES
Studies of many different kinds of programs have
consistently shown that minority group members
are infrequently shown on television and when they
are shown they tend to be portrayed in stereotypicroles. For example, the number of nonwhite char-
acters on television has increased in the last decade,
but nonwhite characters tend to be depicted in
smaller, less important roles,’7 as criminals and
victims,’8 and in roles in which they are dominated
by whites.19
The statistics for female television characters are
similar. There are fewer female characters than
male characters in prime-time and daytime televi-
sion,20’2’ on children’s programs,22 and on public
television programs.23 Analysis of their roles mdi-cates that women tend to be dominated by men.19
Women in traditional roles are presented morefavorably: single women are more likely to be por-
trayed as victims of violence than are married
women, and employed women are more likely to beportrayed as villains than are full-time home-
makers.18
Laboratory and community studies have dem-
onstrated that television can influence children’s
racial stereotypes and perceptions of appropriateroles for men and women. For example, girls whowere exposed to commercials than depicted women
in nontraditional jobs (eg, pharmacist, butcher)
became more interested in these occupations.24
Community studies have shown that increased tel-
evision viewing is associated with specific attitudes
about sex roles.25’26 Although these studies did notcontrol for possible confounding variables, a more
recent study27 of 155 elementary school childrenindicates that viewing of particular types of televi-
sion programs is related to sex and race prejudice
regardless of the children’s age, social class, IQ, or
parents’ TV viewing habits. In this study, children’s
stereotypes associated with race or gender were
assessed by a projective test. The test consisted of55 slides of children in ambiguous school situations,
each accompanied by a brief description of one of
the children portrayed in the slide. The students
were asked to guess which of the children was being
described; for example, which child “will win at tic-
tac-toe.” The white children who watched more
violent television programs believed that black chil-
dren were less competent and less obedient than
white children. White children who watched more
television programs with major black characters
expressed more positive attitudes toward black chil-
dren regarding their athletic abilities. Boys’ sex
prejudice was not related to their television viewing.
However, girls who watched more game shows andvariety programs perceived girls to be less compe-
tent than boys. These results indicate an associa-
tion and not a causal relationship between televi-
sion viewing and role stereotypes. However, becausethe findings were significant regardless of family
background and child’s IQ, television viewing of
specific programs might be considered either to
encourage or to reconfirm these attitudes.
Although there has not been a great deal of
research on the impact of television stereotypes,
the results that have been reported tend to support
the clinical impression that children learn the ster-
eotypes presented on television.28 These findings
have important implications, not only for the de-
velopment of attitudes toward women and minority
groups, but also because of the potential impact on
a child’s developing self-esteem that results whenchildren see members of their sex or group por-
trayed in certain ways on television. Longitudinal
research is needed in order to evaluate this issue.
READING AND RELATED CLASSROOMBEHAVIOR
The decline in students’ reading scores and the
increased concern with children’s short attention
spans and their lack of enthusiasm in school have
been widely blamed on television. However, rela-
tively little research has been done to examine
television’s potential impact on children’s reading
behaviors or abilities and general motivation in
school.
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
ARTICLES 237
There are several hypotheses of how televisionmay influence reading and school behaviors. Themost obvious is that television displaces reading:children have less incentive to read and spend lesstime reading.29 This would be especially importantduring the elementary school years when childrenare first learning to read. During the years whenchildren most need to practice reading in order toimprove their skills, they are spending a great dealof time watching television, reaching a peak of threeto five hours a day at age 12 years.3#{176}Even comicbooks and other “light reading” offer the opportu-nity to practice reading. A child who spends at least35 hours a week at school and 20 to 35 hours eachweek watching television will not have much timeto read at home.
Research conducted in the 1950s and early 1960sfound no significant relationship between televisionviewing and grades.31’32 Several more recent studieshave found small but significant negative correla-tions between the number of hours children spendwatching television and their reading grades33 andreading comprehension scores.34 In the stud?3 dem-onstrating a negative association between televisionviewing on reading grades, the parents’ educationalattainment and social class were not controlled. Inaddition, television viewing was assessed by thechildren’s reports of the programs that they viewed
regularly. Such a self-report could be quite maccur-ate, and may not include many hours of watchingmovies and special programs on television. In con-trast, the study34 of reading comprehension ad-dressed many of these shortcomings. Televisionviewing was assessed by having 625 students ingrades 6 through 9 estimate their daily televisionviewing hours. The authors reported reliabilites of.70 to .80 for this measure. The results demon-
strated that children who watched more televisionscored lower on tests of reading comprehensioneven when the child’s sex, grade, socioeconomicstatus, birth order, and number of siblings werecontrolled. This relationship was higher for boys (r
= .29) than for girls (r = .15). However, when IQwas also statistically controlled, the inverse asso-ciation between television viewing and readingcomprehension was significant only for studentswith higher IQs. Heavy television viewing seemedto be an important factor in this relationship. Al-though high-IQ, “light,” and “moderate” televisionviewers had similar reading scores, high-IQ, heavytelevision viewers had lower scores.
Conflicting results are described from a study ina middle-class Connecticut suburb. In this study,35children who watched television spent less timereading, but the amount of their television viewingwas not associated with reading ability when IQand socioeconomic status were controlled. The dif-
ference between these results and those of the pre-vious study could be due to the relatively smallnumber of heavy viewers determined in the Con-necticut study or the use of a different measure oftelevision viewing. In the Connecticut study, tele-vision viewing was measured by parents’ reports ofdaily television viewing.
Concerns have also been expressed regarding tel-evision’s impact on other classroom behaviors. Thequick pace of most television programs may influ-ence children’s learning habits. Cartoons, actionprograms, and fast-paced educational programssuch as “Sesame Street” cater to children’s shortattention spans. However, in the Connecticutstudy35 cited above, television viewing and viewing
of cartoons were associated with teachers’ rating ofchildren as less enthusiastic but not less attentivein school.
Less research has been conducted on television’simpact on reading or school behaviors than in theareas of television’s role in promoting violent be-havior and stereotypes. At the present time, tele-vision does not appear to have an impact on mostchildren’s reading abilities or classroom behaviors.Preliminary findings suggest that research focusingon a subsample of the heaviest television viewersmight clarify the conflicting results.
ADVERTISING AND HEALTH BEHAVIORS
The average child watches more than 20,000 tel-evisidn commercials each year36; approximately twothirds of these are for food, most frequently high-sugar foods.37 Although young children do not ac-tually purchase products themselves, they exertconsiderable influence on their parents’ purchases.Children’s requests for advertised products fre-quently result in adversarial interactions betweenparents and their children when parents deny theirchildren’s repeated requests. A naturalistic studyconducted in a supermarket demonstrated that pre-school children attempted to influence their moth-ers’ purchases approximately once every two mm-utes, primarily for candy and sugared cereals. Thechildren who watched more commercial televisionprograms made more requests for purchases.38
Young children are especially vulnerable to tele-vision commercial messages because they do notunderstand what a commercial is. Young childrenhave difficulty distinguishing between programcontent and the commercial message, and they areeasily influenced by the special effects and othertechniques used to enhance the attractiveness ofproducts.39 Although children’s understanding ofcommercials increases during the elementaryschool years, most children continue to assume thatcommercials provide accurate information. Because
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
238 IMPACT OF TELEVISION
commercials for health-related products are oftenmisleading, they may be a source of misinformationfor many children.4#{176}For example, in one study,4’fifth and sixth grade students were asked to de-scribe several commercials for health products andvitamins that they saw on television. Nearly half ofthe children believed all of the ‘commercials thatthey described. Overall, the 208 children in the
study believed 70% of the health-related commer-cials that they viewed. Commercial messages weremost likely to be believed by children who had usedproducts that were advertised, or who knew thattheir parents used the products. In those cases, theyoften justified their belief in the product on thebasis of their own or their parents’ experiences. A
modest correlation between the viewing of moreproprietary drug commercials and children’s beliefin the efficacy of the drugs (r = .16) and their
reported frequency of requesting the drug whenthey are not feeling well (r = .30) was reported in
another study.42 This latter association was evenstronger for children with less educated parents.However, there was no relationship between view-ing of these commercials and actual use of proprie-
tary drugs.Overall, studies on the impact of TV commercials
on health-related behaviors suggest that children’sattitudes toward food, medicine, and health prod-ucts are influenced by television commercials. How-ever, as is the case with other areas cited earlier,the statistical associations are modest, usually ac-counting for less than 10% of the variance. Theimpact on children of health behaviors practiced bytelevision characters also needs to be assessed. Forinstance, Gerbner et al43 reports 36% of prime timemajor characters consume alcohol, and seat beltsare used in only 23% of commercials involvingdriving. On the positive side, of the major primetime television characters, only 11% of males and2% of females smoke cigarettes. Nevertheless, the
authors suggest that adults who watch more tele-vision may develop a less healthy life-style by beingless concerned about good eating habits, alcoholconsumption, and exercise. Because the develop-ment of a healthy life-style is an important goal forchildren, the impact of television viewing on chil-dren’s health habits needs futher consideration andassessment.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Whereas children’s behavior and attitudes areshaped by many factors, the research reviewed in-dicates that television must be considered a con-tributor to aggressive behavior, to stereotypes as-sociated with race and gender, and to selectedhealth habits. The impact of television on other
behaviors such as interpersonal relationships, achild’s developing self-esteem, reading, and otherhealth habits needs further study.
Health professionals need to be aware of theprograms that children watch, and to be sensitiveto their potential impact on children. Althoughtelevision programs do not seem to have a detri-mental effect on all children, research results con-sistently indicate that some children may be partic-ularly vulnerable to the specific content of televi-sion programming. For a variety of reasons, paren-tal censorship is probably not the answer. Parentsshould monitor the programs that children watch,but forbidding all or most television programs willprobably result in children watching television atfriends’ houses or when their parents are not athome.
Instead, pediatricians and other health profes-sionals should encourage parents to limit the num-ber and kinds of programs that their childrenwatch, and suggest that parents set a good exampleby also watching television selectively. Moreover,
with the advent of cable television and videocas-sette recorders, more children will have access totelevision programs not intended for or inappro-priate for children. These technologic advancesmake parental monitoring and selective viewingeven more important now than in the past. Parentsshould be encouraged to watch television with theirchildren when possible, and to talk to their childrenabout the programs that they watch. As familieshave bought more television sets, it has becomeincreasingly uncommon for parents to watch tele-vision with their children. More positive use oftelevision is possible by making television viewinga family activity and by using programs as a spring-board for family discussions. For example, parentsand children can discuss alternatives to the violentsolutions presented in a television program. Many
programs have plots that parents and children can“rewrite” together; eg, how would a telephone callto the police have helped to avoid a dangerous carchase or a violent shoot-out between the privatedetective and the criminal, thus, changing the plotof the story? Parents can encourage their childrento be “TV detectives” who look for minorities andnonstereotypic characters. Discussing children’stelevision habits and parents’ attitudes about tele-vision viewing, and suggesting a more positive useof television, as described above, should be a stand-ard part of counseling by pediatricians and familyphysicians during well-child care.
The lack of attention by child health profession-als to television viewing has been described in astudy44 reporting more daytime television viewingin hospitalized than in nonhospitalized children.Much of the daytime programming is directed to-
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
ward adults, and the authors describe much of the
ARTICLES 239
viewing as indiscriminate. Therefore, hospitalstaffs need to be aware of the influence of television
on children and, if possible, of the need to providealternative programming or activities.
Physicians and other health professionals dealingwith children also need to study the effect of tele-vision viewing on children and adults at risk for
behavioral or emotional disorders. For example, itis important to assess whether children who havedifficulty controlling their impulses, as seen with
attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity, aremore negatively influenced by televised violencethan other children. The modest statistical associ-ations between television viewing and children’s
cognitive or behavioral problems may be “masking”the more extreme responses of small groups ofespecially vulnerable children. The identification ofa high-risk subsample of children has been virtuallyignored in the research that has been conductedthus far.
Pediatricians and other health professionalscould become more effective advocates for childrenregarding TV programming. In the late 1970s, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics and the AmericanAcademy of Child Psychiatry issued position papersregarding their concern about the impact of televi-sion programs on children. The research evidence
clearly substantiates their concern in addition todocumenting other adverse effects of television.More active involvement may be appropriate inorder to have an impact on this important socialforce that influences children’s mental and physicalwell-being.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported, in part, by the William T.Grant Foundation (No. 81-062978 to B.S.Z.).
The authors thank Susan Simon for her help in pre-paring the manuscript and Deborah Frank, MD, HowardDubowitz, MD, and Nancy Dietz for the helpful com-ments.
REFERENCES
1. Rothenberg MB: Effects of television violence on childrenand youth. JAMA 1975;234:1043-1046
2. Signorielli N, Gross L, Morgan M: Violence in television
programs: Ten years later, in Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J(eds): Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Prog-
ress and Implications for the Eighties: Technical Reviews. US
DHHS, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 1982,vol 2
3. Liebert RM, Meale JM, Davidson ES: The Early Window:
Effects of Television on Children and Youth. New York,
Pergamon Press, 1973
4. Huesmann LR: Television violence and aggressive behavior,in Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J (eds): Ten years of Scientific
Progress and Implications for the Eighties: Technical Re-
views. US DHHS, NIMH, 1982, vol 2
5. Bandura A, ROSS D, ROSS SA: Imitation of film-mediatedaggressive models. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 1972;66:3-11
6. Liebert RM, Baron RA: Some immediate effects of televisedviolence on children’s behavior. Dev Psychol 1972;6:469-475
7. Berkowitz L: Aggressive cues in aggressive behavior andhostility catharsis. Psychol Rev 1964;71:104-122
8. Daren J, O’Conner JF, Briggs R: The consequences of imi-tative behavior in children: The “Evel Knievel syndrome.”
Pediatrics 1976;56:418-419
9. Drabman RS, Thomas MH: Does watching violence ontelevision cause apathy? Pediatrics 1976;57:329
10. Singer DG, Singer JL, Zuckerman, DM: Teaching television.
New York, Dial Press, 1981
11. Williams TM: Differential impact of TV on children: A
natural experiment in communities with and without TV.
Paper presented at the meeting of the International Societyfor Research on Aggression, Washington, DC, 1978
12. Lefkowitz MM, Eron LD, Walder LA, et al: Television
violence and child aggression: A followup study, in Comstock
GA, Rubenstein E (eds): Television and Social Behavior: III.Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. US Government
Printing Office, 197213. Milavsky JR, Kessler R, Stipp H, et al: Television and
aggression: Results of a panel study, in Pearl D. Bouthilet
L, Lazar J, (eds): Television and Behavior: Ten Years of
Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties: Tech-nical Reviews. US DHHS, NIMH, 1982, vol 2
14. Hawkins RP, Pingree 5: Television’s influence on social
reality, in Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J (eds): Television
and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and 1mph-
cation.s for the Eighties: Technical Reviews. US DHHS,
NIMH, 1982, vol 215. Rushton JP: Television and prosocial behavior, in Pearl D,
Bouthilet L, Lazar J (eds): Television and Behavior: Ten
Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties:
Technical Reviews. US DHHS, NIMH, 1982, vol 2
16. Dominick JR, Richman S, Wurtzel A: Problem solving inTV shows popular with children: Assertion vs aggression.Journalism 1979;56:455-463
17. Hinton JL, Seggar JF, Northcott HC, et al: Tokenism andimproving imagery ofblacks in TV drama and comedy: 1973.
J Broadcasting 1974;18:423-432
18. Gerbner G: Violence in television drama: Trends and sym-
bolic functions, in Comstock GA, Rubenstein EA (eds):
Media Content and Control: Television and Social Behavior.
US Government Printing Office, 1972, vol 1
19. Lemon J: Women and blacks on prime-time television. JCommunication 1977;27:70-80
20. Seggar JF: Television’s portrayal of minorities and women,1971-1975. J Broadcasting 1977;21:435-446
21. Dominick JR: The portrayal of women in prime time, 1953-
1977. Sex Roles 1979;5:405-411
22. Sternglanz SH, Serbin LA: Sex role stereotyping in chil-dren’s television programs. Dev Psychob 1974;10:710-715
23. Cantor MS: Where are the women in public broadcasting?
in Tuchman G, Daniels AK, Benet T (eds): Hearth and
Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media. New York,
Oxford University Press, 197824. O’Bryant SL, Corder-Boltz CR: The effects of television on
children’s stereotyping of women’s work roles. J VocationalBehavior 1978;12:233-244
25. Beuf A: Doctor, lawyer, household drudge. J Communica-tions 1974;24:142-145
26. Freuh T, McGhee PE: Traditional sex role development andamount of time spent watching television. Dev Psychol
1975;11: 109
27. Zuckerman DM, Singer DG, Singer JF: Children’s television
viewing: Racial and sex-role attitudes. J AppI Soc Psychol1980;10:281-294
28. Greenberg BS: Television and role socialization: An over-view, in Pearl D, Bouthilet L, Lazar J (eds): Television and
Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implicationsfor the Eighties: TechnicalReviews. US DHHS, NIMH, 1982,
vol 229. Hornik R: Television access and the slowing of cognitive
growth. Am Educ Res J 1978;15:1-15
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
240 IMPACT OF TELEVISION
30. Comstock GS, Chaffee 5, Katzman N, et al: Television and
Human Behavior. New York, Columbia University Press,
1978
31. Witelson SF: Sex and the single hemisphere: Specialization
of the right hemisphere for spacial processing. Science1976;193:425-427
32. Ridder J: Public opinion and the relationship of TV viewing
to academic achievement. J Educ Res 1963;57:204-20733. Ridley-Johnson R, Cooper H, Chance J: The relation of
children’s television viewing to school achievement and IQ.
J Educ Res 1983;294-29734. Morgan M, Gross L: Television viewing, IQ, and academic
achievement. J Broadcasting 1980;24:117-133
35. Zuckerman DM, Singer DG, Singer JL: Television viewing,children’s reading, and related classroom behavior. J Com-munication 1980;30:166-174
36. Choate R: Testimony before the Federal Trade Commission
in the matter of a trade regulation rule on food nutritionadvertising. Washington, DC, Council on Children, Media
and Merchandising, 1976
37. Barcus FE, Wolkin R: Children ‘s Television: An Analysis of
Programming and Advertising. New York, Praeger, 1977
38. Galst JP, White MA: The unhealthy persuader: The rein-
forcing value of television and children’s purchase-influenc-ing attempts at the supermarket. Child Dev 1976;47:1089-
1096
39. Ward 5, Wickman DB, Wartella E: How children Learn toBuy: The Development of Consumer Information Processing
Skills. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 197640. Smith FA, Rivas G, Zuehlke DA, et al: Health information
during a week of television. N EngI J Med 1972;286:516
41. Lewis CE, Lewis MA: The impact of television commercials
on health-related beliefs and behaviors of children. Pediat-rics 1974;53:431-435
42. Rossiter JR, Robertson TS: Children’s dispositions toward
proprietary drugs and the role of television drug advertising.Public Opinion Q 1980;44:316-329
43. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, et al: Health and medicineon television. N EngI J Med 1982;305:901-904
44. Guttentag DNW, Albritten WL, Kettner RB: Daytime tel-evision viewing by hospitalized children. Pediatrics
1981;68:672-676
DECISION MAKING
In science one must choose between being absolutely safe but entirely sterileon the one hand, and on the other having the courage to think beyond one’s
facts. The conclusion of the latter method may require revision-it will certainlyentail some mistakes and is bound to expose one to the ridicule or suspicion of
those who would rather be safe than constructive. Nevertheless, most of thegreat discoveries of science have been made with the inductive rather than thedeductive method.
Ascribed to Menninger
Submitted by Edward B. Shaw, MD
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
1985;75;233Pediatrics Diana M. Zuckerman and Barry S. Zuckerman
Television's Impact on Children
ServicesUpdated Information &
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/2/233including high resolution figures, can be found at:
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtmlentirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its
Reprintshttp://www.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlInformation about ordering reprints can be found online:
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from
1985;75;233Pediatrics Diana M. Zuckerman and Barry S. Zuckerman
Television's Impact on Children
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/2/233the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
Copyright © 1985 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397. American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007.been published continuously since 1948. Pediatrics is owned, published, and trademarked by the Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has
by guest on August 26, 2018www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from