the_role_of_media_in_children_s_development__an 9

Prévia do material em texto

<p>196</p><p>0196-206X/00/2503-0196</p><p>Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics Vol. 25, No. 3, June 2004</p><p>Copyright # 2004 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Printed in U.S.A.</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development:</p><p>An Ecological Perspective</p><p>AMY JORDAN, PH.D.</p><p>The Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania</p><p>ABSTRACT. This article reviews the literature on the role of media in children’s physical, behavioral, and</p><p>cognitive development. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective, the review focuses on the contexts of</p><p>childhood that shape the availability and use of the media. The relationship between children’s media uses/</p><p>exposures and their ecological contexts are traced through three areas of the research literature: disordered</p><p>eating, anti- and prosocial behaviors; and school achievement. While traditional and newer forms of electronic</p><p>and print media are considered, the review gives particular attention to the ways in which ecological contexts</p><p>shape the impact of television on children’s development. The article offers evidence-based suggestions for</p><p>parents concerning best practices for children’s media use, and concludes with an agenda for future research</p><p>in the field of children and media. J Dev Behav Pediatr 25:196–206, 2004. Index terms: children’s television</p><p>use, children’s media use, obesity, eating disorders, aggression, school achievement.</p><p>Children growing up today have a qualitatively different</p><p>experience of childhood than children of previous gener-</p><p>ations. The radical shift in how children spend their time,</p><p>a greater access to a larger world, and the reshaping of</p><p>the domestic environment can be linked to the introduction</p><p>of new and widely available media technologies. While the</p><p>average child growing up in the 1970s had one family TV</p><p>with four channels, the average child today has four tele-</p><p>vision sets (often one is his/her bedroom), access to dozens</p><p>of channels, a VCR or DVD player, a videogame console,</p><p>a personal computer, and access to the internet.1</p><p>The topic of children and media has naturally garnered a</p><p>great deal of attention over the decades. Most research,</p><p>however, has tended to focus on specific problem areas,</p><p>such as violence or academic difficulty, without attempting</p><p>to understand the confluence of forces that shape children’s</p><p>media choices. Specifically, one can critique much of the</p><p>research in this field for the lack of consideration paid to</p><p>the contexts of children’s lives and their role in shaping</p><p>identity, choice and world view. These contexts are often</p><p>‘‘controlled for’’ rather than integral components of</p><p>research models. In this article, I suggest a theoretical</p><p>paradigm that is a useful means through which to un-</p><p>derstand the critical ways children’s contexts shape, and</p><p>are shaped by, their media use.</p><p>THE CONTEXTS OF CHILDREN’S LIVES</p><p>Bronfenbrenner’s ecological approach considers the</p><p>‘‘nested environments’’ of children’s lives.2 The child, in</p><p>this approach, is seen as embedded within the contexts</p><p>which Bronfenbrenner labels the ‘‘microsystem’’ (everyday</p><p>encounters and experiences a child has in the primary</p><p>contexts of the family and the school), the ‘‘exosystem’’</p><p>(people and institutions that influence children but in which</p><p>they do not necessarily participate), and the ‘‘mesosystem’’</p><p>(the intersections of microsystems with one another and</p><p>with the exosystems of a child’s life). Encompassing all of</p><p>these systems is the ‘‘macrosystem’’—the larger cultural</p><p>context that defines the child’s interpretation of the people</p><p>and events in each of the systems that make up his/her</p><p>developmental context. (See Table 1)</p><p>What is useful about the ecological perspective is that it</p><p>allows for a simultaneous focus on the characteristics of the</p><p>individual child, the critical setting of the home, and the</p><p>ubiquitous cultural environment.3 The approach of this</p><p>review, therefore, is to lay out examples of the research that</p><p>speak to the interplay of influence between the child and the</p><p>media but also form a larger picture of the ways in which</p><p>media have come to reflect and shape children’s develop-</p><p>mental contexts.</p><p>One can examine research on the effectiveness of</p><p>different parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative,</p><p>indulgent, or neglectful) to observe the variety of systems</p><p>that impact the child. Several studies suggest that</p><p>‘‘authoritative’’ parenting (characterized by warmth and</p><p>autonomy) puts children at greater advantage than other</p><p>Dr. Amy Jordan, Senior Research Investigator, The Annenberg Public</p><p>Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Phila-</p><p>delphia, PA 19104-6220; e-mail: Ajordan@asc.upenn.edu.</p><p>Review Articles</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>types of parenting.4 Yet a significant limitation of this</p><p>research is that it is generally conducted with families from</p><p>a single ecological context: middle class, white, two-parent</p><p>households. Thus, in a novel and sustained course of re-</p><p>search, Steinberg and his colleagues explored whether the</p><p>benefits of this style of parenting are equally strong for</p><p>children with different demographic profiles.5 Rather than</p><p>treating socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, or family</p><p>structures as ‘‘nuisance’’ variables, Steinberg uses them to</p><p>construct ‘‘ecological niches’’ such as ‘‘intact, working</p><p>class Asian-Americans’’ or ‘‘nonintact, middle-class Afri-</p><p>can-Americans’’ (p. 442). An ecological niche might bring</p><p>to a child a unique set of parental expectations, cultural</p><p>norms, or peer pressures. Indeed, Steinberg’s analyses</p><p>indicate that the benefits of authoritative parenting are not</p><p>entirely similar across ecological niches. In the realm of</p><p>school performance, the macrosystem of the ethnic back-</p><p>ground of youth may be an important factor. Minority</p><p>youth, for example, appear to be more influenced by their</p><p>peer groups than European-American youth. In addition,</p><p>parenting style in children’s network of peers (an exosys-</p><p>tem variable) is associated with their healthy adjustment.</p><p>Finally, the mesosystem, or the overlap between the fam-</p><p>ily, the peer group and the community environment, has</p><p>important consequences for adolescents. The social capital</p><p>of a child’s social network (such as the watchful eyes of</p><p>a tight-knit community or the employment connections of</p><p>friends’ parents) will typically amplify rather than com-</p><p>pensate for the home environment (p. 452).</p><p>Steinberg’s approach to understanding the influence of</p><p>parenting styles offers important lessons for practitioners,</p><p>parents, and scholars concerned about how media may affect</p><p>children today. It illustrates the kinds of concentric circles</p><p>that envelop a child growing up in a modern society—</p><p>lessons that can be applied to an understanding of the ways</p><p>in which media may differentially influence children.</p><p>Clearly, what happens at home and with peers matters (the</p><p>microsystem), what happens with the surrounding commu-</p><p>nity matters (the exosystem), the paralleling of the value</p><p>systems of the social milieu (peers, neighborhood) and</p><p>the familial milieu matters (the mesosystem), and the</p><p>broader context of ethnicity and social class matters (the</p><p>macrosystem).5</p><p>In this review I suggest that media scholars adopt the</p><p>ecological approach as a useful paradigm for thinking about</p><p>and studying how media shape children’s development. To</p><p>this end, I do not offer a traditional review that sets</p><p>particular boundaries around a body of literature. Rather,</p><p>I have selected several areas key to children’s healthy de-</p><p>velopment which empirical studies suggest might be in-</p><p>fluenced by media.</p><p>Ecological theory has been an important presence in the</p><p>discipline of developmental psychology for several deca-</p><p>des. As the ‘‘father’’ of ecological theory, Urie Bronfen-</p><p>brenner has looked at the reciprocal influences of children</p><p>and their</p><p>systems. Curiously, neither Bronfenbrenner nor</p><p>the scholars who have worked within this paradigm write</p><p>much about the role of media in these systems; perhaps</p><p>because the research tradition focuses on relationships be-</p><p>tween human beings.2,6 Yet the media must be recognized</p><p>for the critical role they play in shaping the contexts of</p><p>childhood. In the section that follows, the microsystem of</p><p>the family’s domestic environment is considered.</p><p>THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AS A</p><p>MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENT</p><p>Television and other media have become intricately</p><p>woven into the fabric of the daily lives of families. Families</p><p>arrange their living rooms not for ease in conversation or</p><p>interaction but for ease in viewing.7,8 Media shape not only</p><p>the spatial organization of homes, but also the temporal</p><p>patterns of family life. Lull, for example, found that families</p><p>use television to ‘‘punctuate time and family activity such</p><p>as mealtime, bedtime, chore time, homework periods, and a</p><p>host of related activities’’ (p. 202).9 My own ethnographic</p><p>research indicates that families from different social classes</p><p>have television viewing patterns that reflect distinct orien-</p><p>tations toward time.10,11 Parents with more education and</p><p>more autonomy in the workplace tend to view children’s</p><p>time as a ‘‘resource’’ that needs to be ‘‘wisely spent.’’</p><p>Higher SES parents tend to have few rules about what</p><p>their children can watch, and instead have rules about how</p><p>much time their children can spend with the medium. The</p><p>opposite is true for lower SES families.</p><p>The family system provides a rich context for under-</p><p>standing how children develop notions about how to use</p><p>media and what to think about the world of ideas delivered</p><p>electronically to the home. One can conceptualize the home</p><p>as providing an intersection between the microsystem (e.g.,</p><p>parenting practices) and the macrosystem (e.g., cultural</p><p>practices). Following Kohn, one can see that parent socio-</p><p>economic status defines the rules parents have for their</p><p>children in part because their experiences in education and</p><p>in the workplace shape their conceptions of time.12 Mothers</p><p>and fathers who work in occupations with greater autonomy</p><p>may feel that they need to teach their children to budget</p><p>their time—an exosystem influence that spills into the do-</p><p>main of children’s television viewing.</p><p>Table 1. Ecological Systems</p><p>Context Definitions/Examples</p><p>Microsystems Child’s day-to-day setting: the places</p><p>they inhabit, the people they live</p><p>with, the things they do together</p><p>Examples: family, peers, teachers</p><p>Mesosystems Relationships or intersections between</p><p>microsystems</p><p>Examples: the congruence of family</p><p>orientations and peer orientations</p><p>Exosystems Social settings that influence a child’s</p><p>development but in which the child</p><p>does not necessarily have a</p><p>direct role</p><p>Examples: parents’ workplace; media</p><p>Macrosystems The broader cultural context that</p><p>shapes attitudes, beliefs and</p><p>behaviors.</p><p>Examples: ethnicity; historical setting</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective 197</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>Children’s Access to Media in the Home</p><p>A national telephone survey conducted by the Annenberg</p><p>Public Policy Center (APPC) in 2000 with a random sample</p><p>of 1235 parents of 2–17 year olds and 416 8–16 year olds</p><p>indicates that today’s homes are literally saturated with</p><p>media.1 The vast majority of the respondents owned three</p><p>or more TV sets, had access to cable or satellite channels,</p><p>and owned at least one VCR or DVD player. Most also had</p><p>a videogame system and a computer with online access.</p><p>(See Figure 1.)</p><p>Children’s Time with Media in the Home</p><p>The 2–17-year-old children in this sample spend over</p><p>six hours a day with media, according to the parents</p><p>interviewed. More than four of those hours involve the use</p><p>of a screen medium such as television, videotape, video-</p><p>game, or computer. Though it is difficult to know how</p><p>much of this use occurs simultaneously (e.g., checking</p><p>emails while watching TV), it is clear that many of</p><p>children’s nonschool hours are spent with the electronic</p><p>media. (See Figure 2.)</p><p>Family characteristics appear to be related to the ways</p><p>in which children use media. Children from families with</p><p>lower household incomes spend significantly more time</p><p>watching television and videotapes and significantly more</p><p>time playing videogames than children from families with</p><p>greater household incomes. In addition, parents’ own be-</p><p>havior with television predicts children’s time with media.</p><p>As Woodard writes: ‘‘The children of heavy television</p><p>viewing parents (more than two hours daily) themselves</p><p>spend significantly more time watching television and vi-</p><p>deotapes, surfing the web, and playing video games than</p><p>children of parents who watch less television’’ (p. 20).</p><p>Finally, the children in this study who were characterized</p><p>as heavier television viewers (more than two hours daily)</p><p>were also heavier videotape viewers and videogame play-</p><p>ers. (Television use was unrelated to the use of other media</p><p>such as browsing the internet or reading books and</p><p>magazines, however.)</p><p>Bedroom TVs</p><p>Children’s bedrooms have also become multimedia</p><p>centers in and of themselves. More than half (57%) of</p><p>8–16 year olds in this survey reported having a TV set in</p><p>their bedroom. In addition, 39% have videogame equip-</p><p>ment, 30% have a VCR, 20% have a computer, and 11%</p><p>have online access. (See Figure 3.)</p><p>Older children were significantly more likely to have a</p><p>bedroom TV than younger children, and boys were signif-</p><p>icantly more likely than girls to have a bedroom TV, a trend</p><p>that might be linked to the need for a screen to which to</p><p>attach their videogame system.</p><p>Family differences also predict the presence of a bed-</p><p>room TV. A greater percentage of children living in single</p><p>parent households had a bedroom TV. There was also a</p><p>negative relationship between family income and the</p><p>presence of a TV in the child’s bedroom. Finally, parents</p><p>who spend more time with the medium themselves are more</p><p>likely to have children with bedroom TV sets.</p><p>PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC CONCERNS</p><p>Despite (or because of ) the ubiquity of media in Amer-</p><p>ican homes, parents continually express concern over</p><p>children’s use of media. Studies show that parents have</p><p>rules in place that restrict certain television programs and</p><p>media,1,13,14,15 but it is not clear whether parents are</p><p>providing the socially acceptable answer or whether the</p><p>rules are acknowledged by the child and consistently en-</p><p>forced by parents. The center of parents’ concerns and the</p><p>focus of the rules in the home have typically been on</p><p>graphic violence and sex,16 and parents’ concerns may be</p><p>well founded. Recent studies have found that the amount</p><p>of sex on television has increased in recent years and that</p><p>violence is pervasive in primetime television.17,18</p><p>Yet parents today have more tools at their disposal that</p><p>can limit children’s access to media. In 1999, Congress</p><p>FIGURE 1. Media in homes with children 2–17.a</p><p>FIGURE 3. Distribution of media in children’s bedrooms (age 8–16).a</p><p>FIGURE 2. Average daily minutes spent with media by all children</p><p>2–17 (Parental Report).</p><p>a</p><p>198 JORDAN JDBP/June, Vol. 25, No. 3</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>mandated that all new television sets include a computer</p><p>chip that can be programmed by parents to block out prog-</p><p>rams based on their ratings (a device known as the V-Chip).</p><p>In a recent APPC study, 110 families from a large metro-</p><p>politan area were provided with V-Chip-equipped TVs and</p><p>tracked over a one-year period. Participating families had at</p><p>least one child between the age</p><p>of 7 and 11. The sample</p><p>included families from a variety of socioeconomic strata</p><p>and ethnic groups. Findings indicate that only 8 percent of</p><p>the families had the V-Chip engaged when researchers</p><p>visited their homes at the end of the study period and less</p><p>than one quarter (22%) tried the V-Chip over the course of</p><p>the year.19 Similarly, internet filtering devices have been</p><p>widely available for nearly ten years, yet less than one</p><p>third (32%) of parents in a national telephone survey</p><p>conducted in 1999 had installed the software on their home</p><p>computers.20</p><p>Are low levels of use the result of parents’ unwillingness</p><p>to use such devices? Perhaps not. Studies with the V-Chip</p><p>and internet filtering devices show that not only are the</p><p>blocking technologies fallible, they are often intimidating to</p><p>program.19 Many parents (perhaps falsely) believe that their</p><p>children are more technologically sophisticated than they</p><p>are—that even if they do set up the filters their children may</p><p>be able to override them. In addition, much of children’s</p><p>media use appears to go on outside of parents’ purview.</p><p>Families participating in the V-Chip study, for example,</p><p>said that having a V-Chip on one television set did not</p><p>preclude the motivated child from finding the program on a</p><p>non-V-Chip equipped television set in another part of the</p><p>house.21</p><p>It is perhaps not surprising, given such easy access and</p><p>general lack of oversight, that the average child on an</p><p>average day will spend 4.5 hours looking at a screen of</p><p>some type.1,22 While the amount of time children spend</p><p>watching television has remained fairly constant over the</p><p>last decade (on average, between two and three hours per</p><p>day), children have supplemented this time with additional</p><p>sedentary media activity: most notably, time spent online</p><p>and engaged in videogame play. Predictors of children’s</p><p>heavy television use are not well understood.23 In their</p><p>analysis of a nationally representative sample of 6–11 year</p><p>olds with a four-year follow-up, they found that ‘‘very little</p><p>predicts TV viewing in this sample’’ ( p. 360). Other cross-</p><p>sectional studies, however, have linked high levels of media</p><p>use to low SES, heavy parental media use, and ethnic</p><p>minority status.1,22</p><p>A key question is whether parents are consciously con-</p><p>structing environments that offer children so much in the</p><p>way of diversion and distraction. Media can provide an</p><p>economical source of entertainment and education, partic-</p><p>ularly for children who live in dangerous neighborhoods</p><p>and who have few alternative resources. Media may also be</p><p>seen as safe babysitters for parents whose lives are in-</p><p>creasingly stressed and/or fractured by divorce. While moth-</p><p>ers and fathers may have a sense that media can be</p><p>deleterious, they may rationalize their children’s indulgence</p><p>with the argument that their children are immune to the</p><p>media’s effects. Studies with adults have found evidence</p><p>for a ‘‘third person effect’’—a phenomenon whereby an</p><p>individual believes that media have an influence on others</p><p>but that they themselves are unaffected.24,25</p><p>The following sections explore the ways in which media</p><p>use shapes children’s physical, social, and cognitive de-</p><p>velopment. The research spans the variety of the contexts</p><p>of children’s lives—from exosystems to microsystems—</p><p>where media may provide links between the external press</p><p>of the environment and the individual proclivities of the</p><p>child. The foci are three research areas which tie children’s</p><p>media use to their development: overweight and disordered</p><p>eating; antisocial (aggression) and prosocial behaviors; and</p><p>academic success.</p><p>THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN CHILDREN’S</p><p>PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT</p><p>Childhood Overweight</p><p>As the amount of time children spend with media has</p><p>risen, public health experts, including the Centers for</p><p>Disease Control and Prevention, have chronicled a steady</p><p>increase in the prevalence of childhood overweight.26</p><p>Dowd et al report that 22% of 6–17 year olds were</p><p>overweight in 1995 and 25% were overweight in 1998.27</p><p>Being overweight during childhood has been shown to</p><p>be more than a cosmetic issue. Mossberg, for example,</p><p>followed 500 overweight children over the course of 40</p><p>years at 10-year intervals and found that, beyond a family</p><p>history of obesity, the degree of overweight in puberty was</p><p>the most important predictor of adulthood body weight.</p><p>Moreover, overweight in childhood was associated with</p><p>morbidity and mortality in adulthood.28</p><p>The problem of obesity hits especially hard on minority</p><p>children. Strauss and Pollack, examining data from the Na-</p><p>tional Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) 1986–1998,</p><p>found that the prevalence of overweight increased fastest</p><p>among minorities.29 By 1998, 21.5% of African-American</p><p>and 21.8% of non-white Hispanic were overweight com-</p><p>pared to 12.3% of white children. Anderson et al note</p><p>several ‘‘worrisome trends among adolescent females and</p><p>ethnic minority groups,’’ in particular that non-Hispanic</p><p>black girls report two or fewer bouts of vigorous activity</p><p>each week.30</p><p>There is skepticism, however, that attempts to increase</p><p>physical activity among children will be effective in</p><p>changing body fatness.31 A Canadian study of nearly</p><p>1000 9–18 year olds found only a weak correlation between</p><p>indicators of physical activity and health-related fitness.32</p><p>The mechanism by which TV use translates into overweight</p><p>children may be more complicated than the problem of</p><p>simply being sedentary. Crespo et al, using data from the</p><p>Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,</p><p>found that total energy intake was positively associated with</p><p>hours of TV watched, but found no clear trends between</p><p>obesity and participation in vigorous physical activity.32</p><p>Several authors, including Crespo, posit that TV use may</p><p>displace physical activity but also increase caloric intake</p><p>during viewing, as well as heighten interest in purchasing</p><p>the high-fat, high-sugar, nutritionally empty products so</p><p>heavily advertised.23,31,32 There is evidence from surveys</p><p>that track children’s eating habits and nutritional choices to</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective 199</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>support the contention that TV influences both how much</p><p>and what children eat.32,33</p><p>Despite the difficulty in establishing exactly why heavy-</p><p>viewing children are more likely to become overweight,</p><p>there is at least one study that suggests a causal connection.</p><p>Researchers at Stanford University designed an experimen-</p><p>tal intervention that targeted media use alone, without</p><p>substituting alternative behaviors such as physical activity.31</p><p>Third and fourth graders who received an in-school media</p><p>literacy curriculum and were encouraged to limit TV,</p><p>videotape, and videogame use had statistically significant</p><p>relative decreases in body mass index (BMI) when com-</p><p>pared with matched children in a control condition.</p><p>Disordered Eating and Dysmorphic</p><p>Body Perceptions</p><p>Children’s media use has also been linked with dys-</p><p>morphic body perceptions as well. The media’s use of</p><p>excessively thin models and actors is seen as contributing</p><p>to a growth in the number adolescents suffering from dis-</p><p>ordered eating. Eating disorders occur most commonly in</p><p>adolescents and young adults and are 10 times more</p><p>common in females than in males.34 While eating disorders</p><p>occur in all ethnic groups, they are most common among</p><p>whites.34 In young women, the risk of developing anorexia</p><p>is 0.5 to 1% and the risk of developing bulimia is 2 to</p><p>5 %.35,36 Genetic predisposition has not been ruled out,</p><p>but contextual factors (e.g., participating in activities that</p><p>promote thinness such as ballet dancing) and personality</p><p>traits (e.g., low self-esteem, difficulty expressing negative</p><p>emotions, difficulty resolving conflict, and being a per-</p><p>fectionist) have also been identified</p><p>as risk factors.34,35,37</p><p>Do media constitute part of that context by creating</p><p>a macrosystem climate that implicitly and explicitly sets</p><p>up unattainable body ideals? Analyses of media content</p><p>reveal a thin body ideal; and the use of very thin media</p><p>models has increased over the last half decade.38 One</p><p>researcher argues that more than half of female media per-</p><p>sonalities meet the criteria for anorexia nervosa.39 Converse-</p><p>ly, content analyses indicate that while the use of overweight</p><p>models in media is rare, overweight female characters are</p><p>portrayed in a less flattering light than thin characters.40</p><p>Efforts to link exposure to very thin or very overweight</p><p>models to audience attitudes and behaviors indicate that</p><p>there is likely a relationship. Several studies have found</p><p>a correlation between exposure to fashion and fitness</p><p>magazines and the endorsement of personal thinness and</p><p>dieting41,42 and dissatisfaction with self.43 Importantly,</p><p>several surveys have also found a relationship between</p><p>females’ exposure to magazines with very thin models and</p><p>disordered eating.38,42,44,45</p><p>Television’s influence on food and body-related attitudes</p><p>and behaviors appears somewhat different than that of</p><p>magazines. One experiment found that viewers’ body shape</p><p>perception could be altered after watching less than</p><p>30 minutes of television.46 They write: ‘‘If the mental</p><p>construct of a woman’s body image is responsive to cues,</p><p>television appears to be a significant carrier of those cues’’</p><p>(p. 126). Harrison, after controlling for selective exposure</p><p>to body-improvement content in media and overall expo-</p><p>sure to television, found that females’ self-reported expo-</p><p>sure to fat-character television content was related to</p><p>bulimia in a sample of high school students.38</p><p>The role of the media in shaping children’s relationship</p><p>with food and their perceptions of their bodies is not clear-</p><p>cut. Children and adolescents receive many messages about</p><p>how they should eat and how they should look from a</p><p>variety of contexts. In the microsystem, parents provide</p><p>models for eating and structure children’s nutrition. Yet the</p><p>influence of the microsystem may be weakened by a</p><p>cultural environment that pitches fast food, sugared cereals,</p><p>candy, and soda to children while at the same time holding</p><p>up extremes of body types as models for success (the very</p><p>thin) or ridicule (the overweight).</p><p>Lessons from Steinberg’s research on ecological niches</p><p>highlight the need to examine other environmental forces</p><p>that might reinforce or reject the environmental press of</p><p>the media. Botta, for example, argues that while the appeal</p><p>of the thin ideal is similar for African-American and</p><p>European-American teenagers, the white females in her</p><p>study were more likely to report eating disordered behav-</p><p>iors than the black females.47 This, she found, may be con-</p><p>nected to differences in beliefs about what constitutes the</p><p>ideal body type. Epstein has argued that childhood over-</p><p>weight is related to community factors as well—including</p><p>the resources available in the community.48 Foods with high</p><p>sugar and fat content are cheap and easier to acquire than</p><p>healthful foods, particularly in economically depressed</p><p>neighborhoods, making the media’s promotion of fast food</p><p>and junk food all the more salient for children who are eco-</p><p>nomically disadvantaged. Thus, what resonates for children</p><p>in their mesosystem is the appeal of high calorie, low nutri-</p><p>tion foodstuffs.</p><p>THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN CHILDREN’S</p><p>SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT</p><p>Antisocial Behavior</p><p>For nearly five decades, social scientists have explored</p><p>whether there is a relationship between exposure to violent</p><p>programming and subsequent aggressive attitudes and</p><p>behaviors in children. The strengths of this research lie</p><p>not only in the studies’ efforts to establish a causal rela-</p><p>tionship but also in attempts to understand the mechanism</p><p>by which exposure translates into consequences. While</p><p>space limitations preclude a comprehensive review of the</p><p>existing literature on the impact of violent TV, several</p><p>key studies illuminate the ways in which the ecological</p><p>approach can illuminate the possible impact of children’s</p><p>media use on antisocial behavior.</p><p>Many argue that a direct and causal link between</p><p>television viewing and aggressive behavior has been estab-</p><p>tlished through longitudinal surveys49,50 and controlled</p><p>experiments.51,52 Researchers at Columbia University</p><p>tracked 707 upstate New York families between 1975</p><p>and 2000 (beginning when youth’s average age was 5.8</p><p>years).50 Using over-time assessments of television viewing</p><p>and aggressive acts (as reported by mothers and child-</p><p>ren), researchers found ‘‘significant associations between</p><p>200 JORDAN JDBP/June, Vol. 25, No. 3</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>television viewing during early adolescence and subsequent</p><p>aggressive acts against other persons after the covariates</p><p>that were associated with television viewing and aggres-</p><p>sive behavior were controlled statistically’’ (p. 2469). The</p><p>study’s conclusions, however, may be limited by the fact</p><p>that it is assumed that heavy viewers are exposed to large</p><p>numbers of violent acts.</p><p>Some researchers argue that there is not yet evidence of a</p><p>causal relationship between exposure to violent television</p><p>viewing and subsequent aggressive behavior, but rather that</p><p>children with aggressive tendencies are drawn to media</p><p>containing violence.53 Predictors of adolescent use include</p><p>alienation from school or family, gender, and sensation</p><p>seeking.54,55</p><p>One might also conceive of the relationship between</p><p>violent television viewing and children’s aggressive be-</p><p>thavior as multidirectional. Anderson’s General Aggression</p><p>Model (GAM) helps to illustrate how exposure to violence</p><p>translates into aggressive thoughts and actions, building</p><p>on several theories that suggest how media cut across,</p><p>undermine, and reinforce the messages children receive in</p><p>their ecological contexts.56 According to the GAM model,</p><p>children learn ‘‘scripts’’ of violence through their exposure</p><p>to violent media. The learned behaviors can come from</p><p>repeated exposure to violent media as well as interactions</p><p>within the microsystem. Ultimately, the learned aggression</p><p>alters affective states, decision processes, and actions</p><p>thereby changing the person. Changes in the person,</p><p>Anderson contends, lead to changes in situational variables.</p><p>As people become more aggressive, their social environ-</p><p>ments respond. The types of people who are willing to</p><p>interact with them, the types of interactions that occur, and</p><p>the types of situations made available to them all change.</p><p>For example, interactions with teachers, parents, and non-</p><p>taggressive peers are likely to decrease in frequency and</p><p>quality, whereas interactions with other ‘‘deviant’’ peers are</p><p>likely to increase (p. 106).</p><p>This process may ultimately lead children back to the</p><p>media content that fits their increasingly skewed vision of</p><p>the world. From an ecological perspective, the GAM model</p><p>illuminates the reciprocal relationship between the child,</p><p>his/her microsystems, and the macrosystem of the mediated</p><p>culture.</p><p>Much of the research on media violence suggests that</p><p>answers lie in the areas where micro-, macro-, and exo-</p><p>tsystems converge. We see in Bandura’s classic bobo doll</p><p>studies that while boys and girls are equally as likely to</p><p>learn the filmed aggressive behavior, the boys in the</p><p>experiments are more likely to express it in their play.57</p><p>Bandura and others have argued that this is because boys</p><p>are more likely to receive positive reinforcement for such</p><p>behavior in ‘‘real life’’ while girls are more likely to receive</p><p>negative reinforcement.53,57 In addition, cultivation theory</p><p>suggests that heavy viewers of television are more likely to</p><p>see the world as a mean and scary place if they live in</p><p>environments that resonate with</p><p>television’s violent reali-</p><p>ty—that is, if they live in crime-ridden neighborhoods or</p><p>experience domestic violence.58</p><p>While research is extensive in the realm of television</p><p>violence, the impact of children’s experiences with newer</p><p>‘‘interactive’’ media such as videogames and computers is</p><p>yet to be fully explored. Several experiments suggest that</p><p>violent videogames, like violent television shows, ‘‘prime’’</p><p>children to be more aggressive after they have consumed</p><p>violent media.59,60 Such research, grounded in Berkowitz’s</p><p>‘‘aggressive cues’’ model, indicates that children may</p><p>become psychologically aroused such that they are in a</p><p>‘‘ready state’’ to be aggressive if situational factors provoke</p><p>them.61 Thus, if the microsystem context is sufficiently</p><p>frustrating, the child’s aggressive tendencies are more likely</p><p>to be expressed.</p><p>Prosocial Behavior</p><p>Comparatively little is known about the capacity of</p><p>media to develop prosocial attitudes and behaviors in</p><p>children. One recent meta-analysis on the effects of</p><p>prosocial television indicates that programs designed to</p><p>teach lessons about friendship, acceptance of diversity, and</p><p>altruism are most effective for children under age eight,</p><p>possibly because these lessons are novel or have yet to be</p><p>mastered in younger children.62 Recent Federal Communi-</p><p>cations Commission (FCC) guidelines mandating educa-</p><p>tional programming on commercial broadcast stations have</p><p>resulted in an upswing of enriching shows that have the</p><p>potential to reach a larger audience. By 1999, nearly 40</p><p>hours of educational programming was available on com-</p><p>mercial broadcast stations—potentially changing the mac-</p><p>rosystem of children’s television. Nevertheless, very few</p><p>mothers interviewed during the same season knew about</p><p>the educational mandate or the existence of the shows.63,64</p><p>The shows themselves tended to have ‘‘prosocial lessons’’</p><p>rather than traditionally academic ones, focusing on topics</p><p>such as friendship, honesty, and family loyalty.63</p><p>The prosocial programs that have emerged as a result</p><p>of this rule may be beneficial to children’s development.</p><p>Georgetown University researchers asked 97 children</p><p>around the country to submit reports via the internet about</p><p>what they watched and what they learned.65 Not only did</p><p>children remember and report on the prosocial programs</p><p>they viewed, the researchers concluded that they also rem-</p><p>embered the social-emotional lessons conveyed by the shows.</p><p>The vast majority of studies linking prosocial behavior</p><p>to television viewing have been conducted with preschool-</p><p>oriented shows on public broadcasting stations. One expe-</p><p>riment with the program ‘‘Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood’’</p><p>indicated that preschool children exposed to this show over</p><p>a one month period were more likely to obey rules, delay</p><p>gratification, and be cooperative on the playground than</p><p>children who watched ‘‘Batman’’ and ‘‘Superman.’’66 A</p><p>subsequent study found that the context in which ‘‘Mister</p><p>Rogers’’ was viewed could also make a difference.67</p><p>Specifically, kindergartners were shown the program with</p><p>two types of adult mediation—one where they were</p><p>encouraged to use hand puppets to reenact scenes and one</p><p>where they were taught to describe how the characters felt.</p><p>Children learned more of the prosocial content in the</p><p>experimental conditions when compared to the control</p><p>condition, in which children played unrelated, individual</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective 201</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>games, or read unrelated books. In addition, children’s</p><p>learning of prosocial content increased their helping be-</p><p>havior in situations similar to and different from that</p><p>modeled in the program. Interestingly, the verbal labeling</p><p>condition was most effective for girls and the role-playing</p><p>condition was most effective for boys. The researchers</p><p>hypothesize that the different conditions matched different</p><p>proclivities and learning styles of the children (i.e., girls are</p><p>comfortable sitting and listening and boys are comfortable</p><p>with physical activity).</p><p>Thus, a critical issue in considering the influence of</p><p>children’s media use on prosocial behavior may be</p><p>accounting for the context in which it is received, including</p><p>whether an adult is available to help children process</p><p>mediated content. Singer and Singer found that very young</p><p>children (3 and 4 year olds) only respond to prosocial</p><p>programming when an adult is present to engage them</p><p>and give immediate feedback.68 Similarly, researchers at</p><p>‘‘Sesame Street’’ found that while children grew more</p><p>accepting of interethnic friendship after watching a clip</p><p>modeling such behavior, they were no more likely to say</p><p>that they themselves would play with a child from a</p><p>different ethnic background. Researchers’ conversations</p><p>with the children revealed that this was because the view-</p><p>ers believed their mothers would not approve of the</p><p>friendship, perhaps because the clip did not include a parent</p><p>who modeled approval.69 Thus, an educational program’s</p><p>effort to change television’s macrosystem messages about</p><p>race and friendship will not be accepted by children if they</p><p>are inconsistent with children’s beliefs about microsystem</p><p>orientations.</p><p>CHILDREN’S MEDIA USE AND SCHOOL</p><p>PERFORMANCE</p><p>A plethora of studies have examined the relationship</p><p>between children’s use of media and their academic</p><p>achievement. Most often, the focus is on whether television</p><p>viewing influences children’s time spent with more cogni-</p><p>tively challenging activities, such as reading. This hypoth-</p><p>esis has support. An examination of the television viewing</p><p>habits of over 10,000 sixth graders and their achievement</p><p>scores on a statewide-standardized test revealed a curvi-</p><p>linear relationship. Students who self-reported watching</p><p>‘‘moderate’’ amounts of television (1 to 2 hours per day)</p><p>had higher achievement scores than those who reported</p><p>watching very little or no television.70 The author spec-</p><p>ulates that, in moderate amounts, television can enhance</p><p>children’s curiosity and fund of knowledge. A closer look at</p><p>the data, however, indicates that the benefits of moderate</p><p>amounts of television viewing differ depending on the</p><p>child’s social class. Teenagers from affluent homes who</p><p>watched little or no television performed better on the tests</p><p>while teenagers from more impoverished homes performed</p><p>worse. Why? The answer lies in the microsystem. Fetler</p><p>writes:</p><p>The more time spent watching television in these homes, the less time</p><p>could be spent in activities that sharpen skills relevant to success in school.</p><p>Television would be a less academically stimulating activity than some of</p><p>the other options available in such homes. . .Thus, compared to what is</p><p>available, television would be relatively stimulating, providing new ideas,</p><p>vicarious experiences, and new vocabulary, and might translate into</p><p>academic improvement, at least when in moderation (p. 113).</p><p>While this research offers support for the notion that</p><p>television displaces more enriching activities for children</p><p>who have access to many educational resources, other</p><p>studies suggest that the relationship between TV viewing</p><p>and academic achievement is more likely the result of a</p><p>third factor, such as the intelligence of the child, parents’</p><p>education or the amount of time children spend with</p><p>homework.71,72 One longitudinal survey of 1745 children</p><p>(initially surveyed at age 6–11 years in 1963–1965 and</p><p>later surveyed at age 12–17 years in 1966–1970) found that</p><p>when variables such as prior test scores and parents’</p><p>socioeconomic status are taken into account, the relation-</p><p>ship between television viewing and academic achievement</p><p>becomes statistically insignificant.72</p><p>A recent large scale longitudinal survey examined not just</p><p>the amount of time children spent watching television during</p><p>the preschool years,</p><p>they also explored the type of television</p><p>watched prior to school entry.73 Researchers from the</p><p>University of Massachusetts and the University of Kansas</p><p>initially collected data on children’s characteristics, televi-</p><p>sion viewing, and academic ability from 5-year-old children,</p><p>their parents and their teachers. They then reconnected with</p><p>the children some 10 years later when they were 15 year olds.</p><p>The researchers looked at predictors of self-reported teen</p><p>television use, school achievement, self-image, creativity,</p><p>reading, and other health behaviors. What they found was</p><p>revealing: children, whose television diet consisted primarily</p><p>of educational shows in the preschool years, were signifi-</p><p>cantly more successful in school ten years later even when</p><p>critical contributors to the child’s environment were factored</p><p>in, including their home resources, their parents’ education,</p><p>and their prior intelligence scores. In the words of Anderson</p><p>et al, ‘‘The medium is not the message, the message is the</p><p>message’’ (p. 134).</p><p>One can ask why educational television viewing during</p><p>the preschool years is of consequence some 10 years later,</p><p>when the respondents are in high school. From an eco-</p><p>logical perspective, teachers, like families, are a significant</p><p>part of children’s microsystem. Children have skills that</p><p>make them ready to learn (the mesosystem) and have</p><p>teachers who respond favorably (the microsystem), and are</p><p>set on a trajectory that leads to greater success through-</p><p>out the school years.</p><p>Television and other media have also been explored for</p><p>their role in encouraging or stunting cognition outside the</p><p>realm of traditional academic skills, primarily imagination.</p><p>A substantial number of studies carried out when television</p><p>was first introduced in America found that children’s</p><p>television viewing cut into the amount of time they might</p><p>spend in creative play.74,75 In addition, some suggest that</p><p>television, with its readymade images, precludes children</p><p>from investing energy and individual thought in processing</p><p>the medium’s messages.76,77 There is also limited evidence</p><p>that an overabundance of TV character-based toys in</p><p>children’s environments may limit their creative imagina-</p><p>tion and encourage, instead, imitative play.77</p><p>202 JORDAN JDBP/June, Vol. 25, No. 3</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>Ethnographers observing children’s play around televi-</p><p>sion, however, argue that television offers a common ground</p><p>and/or a launching pad for children’s social play that is not</p><p>detrimental to their developing imaginations.78 Moreover,</p><p>experimental research with preschool programs designed to</p><p>involve children’s imaginations (including ‘‘Mister Rogers’</p><p>Neighborhood’’ and ‘‘Barney and Friends’’) has shown that</p><p>such programs can effectively engage preschool and</p><p>kindergarten age children’s creative capacities.73,79</p><p>Research by Gavriel Salomon suggests that the macro-</p><p>system shapes how children use television.76,80 He argues</p><p>that the amount of mental effort children put into viewing</p><p>television is socioculturally determined. Experiments with</p><p>American and Israeli children, carried out in the 1970s</p><p>when television in Israel was seen primarily as an</p><p>information source and in the US as an entertainment</p><p>source, revealed that Israeli children perceived television as</p><p>a medium requiring more attention and effort than did</p><p>American children. As a result, they invested more mental</p><p>energy or ‘‘mindful processing,’’ remembered more of what</p><p>they saw, and were better able to elaborate on the stories</p><p>than American children. From this research, one can argue</p><p>that the function of television in society is a macrosystem</p><p>variable influencing children’s psychological responses to</p><p>the medium.</p><p>Although new media (i.e., videogame systems and</p><p>computers) offer opportunities to be responsive to individ-</p><p>ual users, the value of ‘‘interactivity’’ for children’s</p><p>cognitive development has not yet been fully explored.</p><p>Beal and Arroyo describe how their computer game</p><p>AnimalWatch can be customized to respond to individual</p><p>users’ successes and failures in math, but provide only</p><p>anecdotal evidence for their ability to enhance learning.81</p><p>Some public elementary school systems are offering</p><p>students videogame consoles and cartridges to assist the</p><p>development of children’s math skills at home; but as yet no</p><p>published studies document their effectiveness. Certainly,</p><p>there is inherent potential for these efforts to succeed, but it</p><p>is also clear that research must be carried out that looks</p><p>across contexts to understand how the mesosystem—the</p><p>bridge between the home and the school—supports or</p><p>undermines this potential.</p><p>THE CHILD VIEWER IN CONTEXT</p><p>The ecological perspective, when applied to understand-</p><p>ing children’s behavior with media and media’s influence</p><p>on behavior, encourages one to move from the microsys-</p><p>tem to the exosystem in order to capture a full picture of</p><p>how media shape (and are shaped by) the contexts of</p><p>childhood. Several independent lines of inquiry can il-</p><p>lustrate how the ecological perspective can help researchers</p><p>‘‘connect the dots.’’</p><p>In the 1970s, experimental psychologist Daniel Anderson</p><p>found that children who pay more attention to television are</p><p>more likely to learn the lessons of the educational programs</p><p>theywatch.82,83 Driving children’s attention, he argued, is the</p><p>perceived comprehensibility of the program. Researchers</p><p>interested in children’s attention to television subsequently</p><p>tested manipulated bits of ‘‘Sesame Street’’ (dubbed in</p><p>Greek; reedited so as not to follow a narrative) and found that</p><p>the least comprehensible bits received less attention from</p><p>preschool viewers.84 Such studies negated the theory that</p><p>children are passive viewers who are hypnotized by</p><p>the screen regardless of content.85 Rather, children’s atten-</p><p>tion to television is now understood to be maintained by</p><p>cognitive involvement and active comprehension of content</p><p>and less so by salient noncontent features.86</p><p>Beyond content features, are there aspects of a child’s</p><p>environment that influence whether a program is worth</p><p>paying attention to? There are characteristics of the child</p><p>that may make content more or less well understood, such</p><p>as a child’s age, intelligence, or temperament.86 But there</p><p>are also characteristics of the home environment that will</p><p>influence attention. A lab experiment conducted during the</p><p>early years of ‘‘Sesame Street’s’’ airings found that children</p><p>learned more from the program when watching with their</p><p>mothers than when they were watching alone.87 Signifi-</p><p>cantly, gains in learning were present even in the expe-</p><p>rimental group where mothers were instructed not to talk</p><p>to their children about the content during viewing. The</p><p>researchers hypothesize that children may believe the</p><p>program to be more interesting or important if their mother</p><p>takes the time to watch it with them, underscoring the</p><p>notion that children use external cues to determine whether</p><p>television deserves their attention.</p><p>Outside of the laboratory, there is evidence that other</p><p>elements of the family system shape children’s approach to</p><p>the media. In the previously mentioned ethnographic study,</p><p>I found that exosystem variables do indeed influence the</p><p>messages children receive from their parents about how to</p><p>watch television.10,11 This investigation, conducted with</p><p>families with school age children, revealed that parents’</p><p>experiences in school and work shaped their conceptions</p><p>of time (as a valuable commodity or as something to be</p><p>filled). Such conceptions infused their interactions around</p><p>media in the home and shaped children’s habits with books</p><p>and television.</p><p>Finally, it is clear that the cultural context—the</p><p>exosystem—provides children and families with a set of</p><p>expectations about the media (in Salomon’s words, ‘‘tele-</p><p>vision is easy, print is hard’’89), as</p><p>well as a set of com-</p><p>peting, converging, or complementary messages (e.g., one</p><p>must be thin to be valued but eat candy to be happy).</p><p>RECOMMENDATIONS</p><p>Numerous organizations, including the American Asso-</p><p>ciation of Pediatrics, and the Surgeon General have</p><p>recommended that children limit their time with television</p><p>to two hours a day.89,90 They work from the assumption</p><p>that excessive time spent with media and heavy exposure</p><p>to potentially deleterious content has negative consequen-</p><p>ces for children’s healthy development. Yet for many</p><p>parents whose homes are infused with media and whose</p><p>children’s time is absorbed with media consumption, re-</p><p>ducing TV time to 2 hours may seem an impossible task. In</p><p>the section that follows, I present a set of guidelines that</p><p>may be used to guide children’s media use in a way that is</p><p>beneficial for their development.</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective 203</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>Recommendations for Parents and Caregivers</p><p>Always be aware of the content of children’s media</p><p>choices and the time children spend looking at a screen.</p><p>Research shows that parents do not always have a clear</p><p>picture of their children’s media use.1</p><p>Help young children find educational television pro-</p><p>grams. Programs designed to be enriching for children</p><p>really are beneficial to their development,67,73,79 while</p><p>programs that contain violence may negatively impact their</p><p>attitudes and behaviors.50,52,54</p><p>Take the television, internet-accessible computer, and</p><p>videogame system out of the child’s bedroom. Studies have</p><p>found that children with bedroom media spend more overall</p><p>time with media.1</p><p>Limit children’s television viewing time, ideally to 2</p><p>hours a day. Children who spend less time with television</p><p>are more likely to maintain a healthy weight and are more</p><p>likely to do well in school when compared to their heavy</p><p>viewing counterparts.31,70</p><p>Model good practices. Research shows that parents who</p><p>are heavy television viewers have children who are heavy</p><p>television viewers.1</p><p>Make a point of watching age-appropriate programs,</p><p>surfing the internet or playing videogames together with</p><p>children. This offers an opportunity to reinforce the positive</p><p>messages of the media, which research suggests increases</p><p>the potential for children to benefit from the media.67,68 It</p><p>also offers an opportunity to discuss negative messages that</p><p>may conflict with the families’ values.</p><p>Recommendations for Future Research</p><p>As we look to the future of research in the field, ecological</p><p>theory may inspire a number of new approaches. First, the</p><p>proliferation of electronic media in the home is a new</p><p>component of the family system that may shape parents’</p><p>interactions with their children and children’s interactions</p><p>with one another. As noted previously, Singer suggests that a</p><p>new generation of parents, who themselves have grown up</p><p>with screen media, may not have the set of skills they may</p><p>need to simply play with their children. With an electronic</p><p>distraction at every turn, children may also be less insistent</p><p>that their parents play with them.13 Anderson has argued that</p><p>even the presence of ‘‘background TV’’ may reduce the</p><p>amount and quality of interaction between parents and their</p><p>young children.91 And while there has been a fair amount of</p><p>research on television and imaginative play, we actually</p><p>know very little about whether ‘‘new’’ media such as video</p><p>and computer games have a different impact on children in</p><p>this domain. Thus, the inclusion of imaginative play and</p><p>interactive communication within the microsystem of the</p><p>domestic environment is an important area for future re-</p><p>search, particularly as it likely has important implications for</p><p>children’s healthy development.</p><p>A second potential area of research that might benefit from</p><p>the ecological perspective is children’s socialization to media</p><p>use during the first 18 months of life. Preliminary research</p><p>reveals that children are exposed to media—both traditional</p><p>forms such as television and newmedia such as computers—</p><p>before they are out of diapers.91 Yet children do not spring</p><p>forth with well developed notions of how or under what</p><p>conditions to use the media available to them. We have seen</p><p>that properties of the media may shape children’s attention</p><p>and comprehension patterns,92 but it may be as important to</p><p>consider the impact of cultural expectations on children’s</p><p>processing are clearly important as well. Salomon, as noted</p><p>earlier, argues that children experience their environments in</p><p>a reciprocal rather than linear fashion—specifically, that</p><p>children’s expectations and worldviews shape the way they</p><p>experience media.80,88 Such a suggestion underscores the</p><p>importance of understanding the contribution of the child’s</p><p>nested environments to the constellation of behaviors and</p><p>beliefs that surround media use and ultimately shape the role</p><p>of media in the child’s life.</p><p>Finally, it is important to understand whether and how</p><p>research such as that reviewed in this article reaches</p><p>parents and shapes their parenting strategies around media</p><p>in the home. While I have presented a set of recom-</p><p>mendations for parents and caregivers, we know very little</p><p>about how these recommendations are received. Mothers</p><p>and fathers are deluged with ‘‘expert’’ advice on all</p><p>manners of childrearing—from health care to early reading</p><p>to media use. Is there a consistent stream of advice</p><p>that parents hear and heed? Or do they make judgments</p><p>about their child’s media use based on their individual</p><p>experiences?</p><p>These potentially fruitful areas of research illustrate the</p><p>ways in which researchers can understand the media’s role</p><p>in the life of the developing child along a variety of</p><p>dimensions—from the microsystem of the family social-</p><p>ization patterns to the macrosystem of culturally generated</p><p>and historically bound parenting advice. Such areas re-</p><p>main understudied in part because they are quite difficult</p><p>to understand in a parsimonious way. One limitation of the</p><p>ecological systems model is that it is challenging to iso-</p><p>late key forces while at the same time acknowledging and</p><p>connecting micro-, meso-, macro-, and exosystem varia-</p><p>bles. Nevertheless, examining the media’s impact on the</p><p>nature of childhood, and understanding the ways in which</p><p>children are socialized to think about and use media at</p><p>very early ages, demands that a researcher fully explore</p><p>the rich contexts of children’s everyday lives.</p><p>Acknowledgements. The author wishes to acknowledge Emory Woodard</p><p>for his stewardship of the APPC Media in the Home 2000 survey during</p><p>his postdoctoral fellowship at the Annenberg Public Policy Center and</p><p>thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.</p><p>REFERENCES</p><p>1. Woodard E. Media in the Home. Survey no. 7. Philadelphia, PA: The</p><p>Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania; 2000.</p><p>2. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris P. The ecology of developmental</p><p>processes. In: Damon W, ed. & Eisenberg N, volume ed. Handbook</p><p>204 JORDAN JDBP/June, Vol. 25, No. 3</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>of Child Psychology. Vol 1, ch 17. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley,</p><p>1998:993–1028.</p><p>3. Garbarino J. Children and Families in the Social Environment. New</p><p>York: Aldine de Gruytr; 1982.</p><p>4. Baumrind D. The influence of parenting style on adolescent</p><p>competence and substance abuse. J Early Adol. 1991;11:56–95.</p><p>5. Steinberg L, Darling N, Fletcher A, Brown B, Dornbusch S.</p><p>Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment: An ecological</p><p>journey. In: Moen P, Elder G, Luscher K, Quick H, eds. Examining</p><p>Lives in Context: Perspectives on</p><p>the Ecology of Human Develop-</p><p>ment. ch 13. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;</p><p>1995:423–466.</p><p>6. Bronfenbrenner U. The bioecological model from a life course per-</p><p>spective: Reflections of a participant observer. In: Moen P, Elder G,</p><p>Luscher K, Quick H, eds. Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives</p><p>on the Ecology of Human Development. ch 17. Washington, DC: the</p><p>American Psychological Association; 1995:599–618.</p><p>7. Lindlof T, Shatzer M, Wilkinson D. Accommodation of video and</p><p>television in the American family. In: Lull J, ed. World Families</p><p>Watch TV. ch 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988:158–192.</p><p>8. Leichter H, Ahmed D, Barrios L, Bryce J, Larsen E, Moe L. Family</p><p>contexts of television. Ed Comm Tech J. 1985;33:26–40.</p><p>9. Lull J. The social uses of television. Human Comm Res. 1980;6:</p><p>197–209.</p><p>10. Jordan AB. The role of the mass media in the family system.</p><p>Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg</p><p>School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania; 1990.</p><p>11. Jordan AB: Social class, temporal orientation, and mass media use</p><p>within the family system. Crit Stud in Mass Comm. 1992;9:374–386.</p><p>12. Kohn M: Social structure and personality through time and space.</p><p>In: Moen P, Elder G, Luscher J, Quick H, eds. Examining Lives in Con-</p><p>text: Perspectives on the Ecology of HumanDevelopment. ch. 5.Wash-</p><p>ington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995:141–168.</p><p>13. Jordan A, Schmitt K, Woodard E. Developmental implications of</p><p>commercial broadcasters’ educational offerings. J of App Dev Psych.</p><p>2001;22:87–101.</p><p>14. Lin C, Atkin C. Parental mediation and rulemaking for adolescent</p><p>use of television and VCRs. JOBEM. 1989;33:53–67.</p><p>15. Valkenburg P, KrcmarM, Peeters A,Marseille H. Developing a scale to</p><p>assess three styles of mediation: ‘‘Instructive mediation,’’ ‘‘restrictive</p><p>mediation,’’ and ‘‘social coviewing.’’ JOBEM. 1999;Winter:52–66.</p><p>16. Hart PD. Children/parents: Television in the home. Survey no 1.</p><p>Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public Policy Center, University</p><p>of Pennsylvania; 1996.</p><p>17. Kunkel D, Biely E, Eyal K, Cope-Farrar K, Donnerstein E, Fandrich</p><p>R. Sex on TV 3. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2003.</p><p>18. The National Television Violence Study: Vol 3. Santa Barbara,</p><p>California: Center for Communication and Social Policy; 1993.</p><p>19. Woodard E. Do parents use the V-Chip?: Findings from a</p><p>longitudinal field study. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of</p><p>the National Communication Association; November 19–22, 2002;</p><p>New Orleans, LA.</p><p>20. Turow J. The internet and the family: The view from parents/The</p><p>view from kids. Report no 27. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg</p><p>Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania; 1999.</p><p>21. Scantlin RM. The social and structural contexts of families’ V-Chip</p><p>experiences. Paper presented at: The annual meeting of the Natio-</p><p>nal Communication Association; November 19–22, 2002; New</p><p>Orleans, LA.</p><p>22. Roberts D, Foehr U, Rideout V, Brodie M. Kids and media @ the</p><p>new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: The Kaiser Family Foundation;</p><p>1999.</p><p>23. Gortmaker SL, Must A, Sobol AM, Peterson K, Colditz G, Dietz</p><p>W. Television viewing as a cause of increasing obesity among</p><p>children in the United States, 1986–1990. Arch Ped Adol Med.</p><p>1996;15:356–362.</p><p>24. McLeod D, Eveland W, Nathanson A. Support for censorship of</p><p>violent and misogynic rap lyrics. Comm Res. 1997;24:153–174.</p><p>25. Gunther A. Overrating the X-rating: The third person perception and</p><p>support for censorship of pornography. J Comm. 1995;45:27–38.</p><p>26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for</p><p>Health Statistics. Prevalence of overweight in children and ado-</p><p>lescents: United States, 1999. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/</p><p>products. Accessed 2/29/03.</p><p>27. Dowda M, Ainsworth B, Addy C, Sanders R, Riner W. Environ-</p><p>mental influences, physical activity, and weight status in 8- to 16-</p><p>year-olds. Arch Ped Adol Med. 2001;155:711–717.</p><p>28. Mossberg H. 40-year follow-up of overweight children. Lancet ii.</p><p>1989:491–493.</p><p>29. Strauss RS, Pollack HA. Epidemic increase in childhood overweight:</p><p>1986–1998. JAMA 2001. 286:2845–2848.</p><p>30. Andersen R, Crespo C, Bartlett S, Cheskin L, Pratt M. Relationship</p><p>of physical activity and television watching with body weight and</p><p>level of fatness among children: Results from the Third National</p><p>Health and Nutrition Survey. JAMA. 1998;279:938–942.</p><p>31. Robinson T. Reducing children’s television viewing to prevent</p><p>obesity: a randomized, controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;282:1561–1567.</p><p>32. Crespo C, Smit E, Toriano R, Bartlett S, Macera C, Andersen R.</p><p>Television watching, energy intake, and obesity in US children:</p><p>Results from the third national health and nutrition examination</p><p>survey, 1988–1994. Arch Ped Adol Med. 2001;155:360–365.</p><p>33. Signorielli N, Staples J. Television and children’s conceptions of</p><p>nutrition. Health Comm. 1997;9:289–301.</p><p>34. Pritts S, Susman J. Diagnosis of eating disorders in primary care.</p><p>Am Fam Phys. 2003;67:297–304.</p><p>35. Mehler PS. Diagnosis and care of patients with anorexia nervosa in</p><p>primary care settings. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:1048–59.</p><p>36. Hsu LK. Epidemiology of the eating disorders. Psychiatr Clin</p><p>North Am. 1996;19:681–700.</p><p>37. Kriepe RE, Birndorf SA. Eating disorders in adolescents and young</p><p>adults. Med Clinics of N America. 2000;84:1027–49.</p><p>38. Harrison K. The body electric: Thin-ideal media and eating disorders</p><p>in adolescents. J Comm. 2000;50:119–59.</p><p>39. Wiseman CV, Gray JJ, Mosimann JD, Athens AH. Cultural expec</p><p>tations of thinness in women: An update. Intl J Eating Disorders.</p><p>1992;11:85–89.</p><p>40. Silverstein B, Perdue L, Peterson B, Kelly E. The role of the mass</p><p>media in promoting a thin standard of attractiveness for women.</p><p>Sex Roles. 1986;14:519–532.</p><p>41. Harrison K. Does interpersonal attraction to thin media personalities</p><p>promote eating disorders? JOBEM. 1997;41:478–500.</p><p>42. Harrison K, Cantor J. The relationship between media consumption</p><p>and eating disorders. J Comm. 1997;47:40–67.</p><p>43. Martin M, Gentry J. Stuck in the model trap: The effects of beautiful</p><p>models in ads on female pre-adolescents and adolescents. J Adver-</p><p>tising. 1997;26:19–33.</p><p>44. Stice E, Schupak-Neuberg E, Shaw HE, Stein R. Relation of media</p><p>exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of</p><p>mediating mechanisms. J Ab Psych. 1994;103:836–840.</p><p>45. Stice E, Shaw HE. Adverse effects of the media portrayed thin-ideal</p><p>on women and linkages to bulimic symptomatology. J Soc Clinical</p><p>Psych. 1994;13:288–308.</p><p>46. Meyers P, Biocca F. The elastic body image: The effect of television</p><p>programming on body image distortions in young women. J Comm.</p><p>1992;43:108–133.</p><p>47. Botta R. Television images and adolescent girls’ body image</p><p>disturbances. J Comm. 1999;49:22–41.</p><p>48. Epstein LH, Valoski A. Ten-year follow-up of behavioral, family-</p><p>based treatment for obese children. JAMA. 1990;264:764–770.</p><p>49. Bushman BJ, Heusmann LR. Effects of televised violence on</p><p>aggression. In: Singer D and Singer J eds. Handbook of Children and</p><p>the Media. ch 11. Newbury Park, California: Sage; 2001:223–254.</p><p>The Role of Media in Children’s Development: An Ecological Perspective 205</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p><p>50. Johnson JG, Cohen P, Smailes E, Kasen S, Brook JS. Television</p><p>viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood.</p><p>Science. 2002;295:2468–2371.</p><p>51. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The effects of media violence on society.</p><p>Science. 2002;295:2377.</p><p>52. Bandura A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood</p><p>Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1973.</p><p>53. Lynn R, Hampson S, Agahi E. Television violence and aggression:</p><p>A genotype-environment, correlation and interaction theory. Soc Beh</p><p>and Personality. 1989;17:143–164.</p><p>54. Huesmann</p><p>LR. Psychological processes promoting the relation</p><p>between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by</p><p>the viewer. Journal Soc Iss. 1986;42:125–139.</p><p>55. Cantor J, Nathanson A. Predictors of children’s interest in violent</p><p>television programs. JOBEM. 1997;41:155–167.</p><p>56. Anderson CA. Violent videogames and aggressive thoughts, feelings</p><p>and behaviors. In: Calvert S, Jordan A, Cocking R, eds. Children in</p><p>the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on Development.</p><p>ch 6. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger; 2002:101–120.</p><p>57. Bandura A, Ross D, Ross S. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive</p><p>models. J Abnormal and Soc Psych. 1963;66:3–11.</p><p>58. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan, M, Signorielli NL. Living with</p><p>television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In: Bryant J,</p><p>Zillman D, eds. Perspectives on Media Effects, ch 2. Hillsdale, New</p><p>Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1986:17–40.</p><p>59. Anderson CA, Dill KE. Videogames and aggressive thoughts,</p><p>feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Personality</p><p>and Soc Psych. 2000;78:772–790.</p><p>60. Funk JB, Hagan J, Schimming J, Bullock WA, Buchman DD, Myers</p><p>M. Aggression and psychopathology in adolescents with preference</p><p>for violent electronic games. Agg Beh. 2002;28:134–144.</p><p>61. Berkowitz L. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.</p><p>New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993.</p><p>62. Mares ML, Woodard EH. Prosocial effects on children’s interactions.</p><p>In: Singer, D, Singer J, eds. Handbook of Children and the Media.</p><p>ch. 9. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001:183–206.</p><p>63. Jordan AB, Schmitt KL, Woodard EH. Developmental implications</p><p>of commercial broadcasters’ educational offerings. In: Calvert SL,</p><p>Jordan AB, Cocking R, eds. Children in the Digital Age: Influences</p><p>of Electronic Media on Development. ch 8. Westport, Connecticut:</p><p>Praeger; 2002:145–164.</p><p>64. Schmitt KL. Public policy, family rules and children’s media use in</p><p>the home. Report No 35. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public</p><p>Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania; 2002.</p><p>65. Calvert S, Kotler J, Murray W, Gonzales E, Savoye K, Hammack P,</p><p>Weigert S, Shockey E, Paces C, Friedman M, Hammar M. Children’s</p><p>online reports about educational and informational television pro-</p><p>grams. J App Dev Psych. 2001;22:103–117.</p><p>66. Friedrich L, Stein A. Aggressive and prosocial television programs</p><p>and the natural behavior of children. Monographs of the Society for</p><p>Research in Child Development. 38, Serial No 151;1973.</p><p>67. Friedrich L, Stein A. Prosocial television and young children: The</p><p>effects of verbal labeling and role playing on learning and behavior.</p><p>Child Development. 1975;46:27–38.</p><p>68. Singer JL, Singer DG. Can TV stimulate imaginative play? J Comm.</p><p>1976;26:74–80.</p><p>69. Truglio RT, Lovelace VO, Segui I, Scheiner, S. The varied role of</p><p>formative research: Case studies from 30 years. In: Fisch S, Truglio</p><p>R, eds. ‘‘G’’ is for Growing: Thirty Years of Research on Sesame</p><p>Street. ch 4. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;</p><p>2001:61–79.</p><p>70. Fetler M. Television viewing and school achievement. J Comm.</p><p>1984;34:104–118.</p><p>71. Gaddy GD. Television’s impact on high school achievement. Pub</p><p>Opin Quarterly. 1986;50:340–359.</p><p>72. Gortmaker S, Salter C, Walker D, Dietz W. The impact of television</p><p>viewing on mental aptitude and achievement: A longitudinal study.</p><p>Pub Opin Quarterly. 1990;54:594–604.</p><p>73. Anderson DR, Huston AC, Schmitt KL, Linebarger DL, Wright JC.</p><p>Early Childhood Television Viewing and Adolescent Behavior: The</p><p>Recontact Study. Monographs of the Society for Res Child Dev. 66,</p><p>1991.</p><p>74. Maccoby E. Why do children watch television? Pub Opin Quarterly.</p><p>1954;Fall:239–244.</p><p>75. Schramm W, Lyle J, Parker E. Television in the Lives of Our</p><p>Children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1961.</p><p>76. Salomon G: Introducing AIME: the assessment of children’s mental</p><p>involvement with television. In: Kelly H, Gardner, H, eds. Viewing</p><p>Children Through Television. ch 6. San Francisco: Jossey Bass;</p><p>1981:89–102.</p><p>77. Greenfield PM, Yu E, Chung M, Land D, Kreider H, Pantoja M,</p><p>Horsley K. The program-length commercial: A study of the effects of</p><p>television/toy tie-ins on imaginative play. In: Berry GL, Asamen JK,</p><p>eds. Children and Television: Images in a Changing Sociocultural</p><p>World. Newbury Park, California: Sage; 1993:53–72.</p><p>78. Palmer P: The Lively Audience. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1986.</p><p>79. Singer JL, Singer D. Barney & Friends as entertainment and</p><p>education: Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a television</p><p>series for preschool children. In: Asamen J, Berry G, eds. Research</p><p>Paradigms in the Study of Television and Social Behavior. ch 9.</p><p>Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1998:305–368.</p><p>80. Salomon G. Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San</p><p>Francisco, California: Jossey Bass; 1979.</p><p>81. Beal C, Arroyo I. The Animal Watch Project: Creating an intelligent</p><p>computer mathematics tutor. In: Calvert S, Jordan A, Cocking R, eds.</p><p>Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on</p><p>Development. ch 10. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger; 2002:183–198.</p><p>82. Anderson D, Lorch E. Looking at television: Action or reaction? In:</p><p>Bryant J, Anderson D, eds. Children’s Understanding of Television.</p><p>ch 1. New York: Academic Press; 1983:1–3.</p><p>83. Anderson D, Levin S. Young children’s attention to Sesame Street.</p><p>Child Dev. 1976;47:806–811.</p><p>84. Anderson D, Lorch E, Field D, Sanders J. The effects of TV pro-</p><p>gram comprehensibility on preschool children’s visual attention to</p><p>television. Child Dev. 1981;52:151–157.</p><p>85. Anderson D. Educational Television is not an oxymoron. Ann Amer</p><p>Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1998;557:24–38.</p><p>86. Bickham D, Wright J, Huston A. Attention, comprehension, and the</p><p>educational influences of television. In: Singer D, Singer J, eds.</p><p>Handbook of Children and the Media. ch 5. Newbury Park,</p><p>California: Sage; 2001:101–120.</p><p>87. Bogatz G, Ball S. The second year of Sesame Street: A continuing</p><p>evaluation. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service;</p><p>1971.</p><p>88. Salomon G. Television is ‘‘easy’’ and print is ‘‘tough’’: The</p><p>differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of</p><p>perceptions and attributions. J Ed Psych. 1984;76:647–658.</p><p>89. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Education.</p><p>Media education. Pediatrics. 1999;104:341–343.</p><p>90. Surgeon General. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Pre-</p><p>vent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. Available at: www.</p><p>surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_adolescents.htm.</p><p>Accessed February 26, 2003.</p><p>91. Jordan A, Fenichel E, eds. Babies, Toddlers and the Media. Special</p><p>issue of The Bulletin of Zero to Three: National Center for Infants,</p><p>Toddlers and Families. 2001;22:1–41.</p><p>92. Crawley A, Anderson D, Santomero A, Wilder A, Williams M, Evans</p><p>M, Bryant J. Do children learn how to watch television? The impact</p><p>of extensive experience with Blue’s Clues on preschool children’s</p><p>television viewing behavior. J of Comm. 2002;52:264–280.</p><p>206 JORDAN JDBP/June, Vol. 25, No. 3</p><p>D</p><p>ow</p><p>nloaded from</p><p>http://journals.lw</p><p>w</p><p>.com</p><p>/jrnldbp by B</p><p>hD</p><p>M</p><p>f5eP</p><p>H</p><p>K</p><p>av1zE</p><p>oum</p><p>1tQ</p><p>fN</p><p>4a+</p><p>kJLhE</p><p>Z</p><p>gbsIH</p><p>o4X</p><p>M</p><p>i0hC</p><p>yw</p><p>C</p><p>X</p><p>1A</p><p>W</p><p>nY</p><p>Q</p><p>p/IlQ</p><p>rH</p><p>D</p><p>3i3D</p><p>0O</p><p>dR</p><p>yi7T</p><p>vS</p><p>F</p><p>l4C</p><p>f3V</p><p>C</p><p>4/O</p><p>A</p><p>V</p><p>pD</p><p>D</p><p>a8K</p><p>K</p><p>G</p><p>K</p><p>V</p><p>0Y</p><p>m</p><p>y+</p><p>78=</p><p>on 05/02/2024</p>