Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Television exposure and children’s aggressive behaviour Joy, Lesley Ann 1978

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1978_A8 J69.pdf [ 6.12MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0094376.json
JSON-LD: 1.0094376+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0094376.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0094376+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0094376+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0094376+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0094376 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0094376.txt
Citation
1.0094376.ris

Full Text

TELEVISION EXPOSURE AND CHILDREN'S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR by LESLEY ANN JOY B.Sc.  (Hons), Southampton U n i v e r s i t y , 1975  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department, o f Psychology  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1978 ©  L e s l e y Joy, 1978  In presenting this thesis in partial  fulfilment of the requirements foi  an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.  It  is understood that copying or publication  of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  PSYCHOLOGY  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V 6 T 1W5  . uate n  FEBRUARY 1*+ th 1978  i i  ABSTRACT  The  impact o f t e l e v i s i o n on c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e  studied longitudinally  behaviour  i n the context o f a n a t u r a l experiment.  was The  s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d i n t h r e e s m a l l t o w n s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a , first  i n 1 9 7 3 , when o n e t o w n , N o t e l , d i d n o t y e t h a v e t e l e v i s i o n r e -  c e p t i o n , and a g a i n channel,  CBC.  In both  CBC, a n d t h e t h i r d networks  i n 1 9 7 5 , two y e a r s  on  ( A B C , CBC, a n d N B C ) .  T h e m a j o r f o c u s o f t h e s t u d y was o n t h e  d i s p l a y e d by e l e m e n t a r y  1 a n d 120 c h i l d r e n a t t i m e  a d d i t i o n , teacher  cantly in  school c h i l d r e n at play  aggressive  behaviour  behaviours  h a b i t s were  behaviour  of children i n Notel increased  U n i t e l and M u l t i t e l d i d n o t change s i g n i f i c a n t l y over The i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i v e  behaviour  observed  was n o t r e s t r i c t e d m e r e l y t o c h i l d r e n i n i t i a l l y previous  r e s e a r c h e r s have suggested  signifiof c h i l d r e n  t h e same  i n Notel children  high i n aggression, as  (Stein & Friedrich,  On t h e w h o l e , t h e p e e r a n d t e a c h e r  and i n -  obtained.  f r o m 1973 t o 1 9 7 5 , w h e r e a s , t h e a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r  period.  o f 120  2 were coded by o b s e r v e r s .  and p e e r r a t i n g s o f a g g r e s s i v e  f o r m a t i o n about t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g The  received  r e c e i v e d CBC a n d t h e t h r e e m a j o r U.S.  t h e s c h o o l grounds; p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i v e  c h i l d r e n a t time In  1973 a n d 1975 t h e s e c o n d t o w n , U n i t e l ,  town, M u l t i t e l ,  aggressive behaviour  a f t e r N o t e l r e c e i v e d one C a n a d i a n  r a t i n g s supported  1975). the findings  from t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures o f a g g r e s s i o n , and c o n s i s t e n t s e x d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . more p h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e The  than  information collected  That i s , males were  females. a b o u t c h i l d r e n ' s f a v o u r i t e shows r e v e a l e d  i i i  no  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e a g g r e s s i v e and  addition,  t h e r e was  no  less aggressive children.  d i f f e r e n c e among t h e t h r e e t o w n s i n t h e  t o i r e s of aggressive behaviour  displayed.  The  most p r o b a b l e  o f t h e i n c r e a s e d a g g r e s s i o n i n N o t e l c h i l d r e n was resulting Heightened  heightened  from N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h a r o u s a l would r e s u l t  being e l i c i t e d .  Furthermore,  i n a greater likelihood  i n aggressive behaviour  w o u l d l i k e l y be  of  effective,  maintained.  reper-  explanation arousal,  television.  because c h i l d r e n l e a r n from  t h a t a g g r e s s i o n i s a c c e p t a b l e , a p p r o p r i a t e , and  In  aggression television the  increase  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page ABSTRACT  i  i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  . i v  L I S T OF TABLES  v i  L I S T OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  viii i x  INTRODUCTION  1  Hypotheses  17  METHOD  21  RESULTS  26  Longitudinal Analyses of Variance 1. P h y s i c a l A g g r e s s i o n 2. V e r b a l A g g r e s s i o n Cross-Sectional Analyses of Variance 1. P h y s i c a l A g g r e s s i o n 2. V e r b a l A g g r e s s i o n Repertoire of Aggressive Behaviour C h i l d r e n H i g h a n d Low i n A g g r e s s i v e B e h a v i o u r C o r r e l a t i o n s among M e a s u r e s o f A g g r e s s i o n  27 27 29 33 34 37 41 47 68  DISCUSSION  73  FOOTNOTES  84  REFERENCES  86  A P P E N D I X A:  Peer Ratings  93  APPENDIX B:  Teacher's Ratings  99  A P P E N D I X C:  C h i l d r e n ' s TV I n t e r v i e w ( N o t e l & U n i t e l )  100  A P P E N D I X D:  C h i l d r e n ' s Media I n t e r v i e w ( M u l t i t e l )  108  A P P E N D I X E:  Aggression Categories  121  Table  of Contents  continued  Page  A P P E N D I X F:  Coding Sheets  A P P E N D I X G:  Repertoire of Aggressive  A P P E N D I X H:  Key: A b b r e v i a t i o n s Employed i n t h e C o r r e l a t i o n Tables  130  C o r r e l a t i o n Tables f o r Teacher Ratings, Beer R a t i n g s , and O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures of Aggression  131  Viewing  139  APPENDIX I :  APPENDIX J :  H o u r s P e r Week  123' Behaviour  127  vi  L I S T OF TABLES  Page Table  Table  Table  Table  1.  2.  3.  4.  T a b l e 5.  Table  Table  Table  Table  6.  7.  8.  9.  Demographic Data f o r N o t e l , U n i t e l , and Multitel  18  C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e Number o f Shows ( i n C a t e g o r i e s ) A v a i l a b l e i n N o t e l / U n i t e l v e r s u s Those A v a i l a b l e in Multitel  20  Number o f S u b j e c t s i n E a c h S u b g r o u p a t T i m e 1 a n d Time 2  22  Analysis of Variance f o rPhysical (Longitudinal)  30  Analysis of Variance f o rVerbal (Longitudinal)  Aggression 32  Analysis of Variance f o rPhysical (Cross-sectional) Analysis of Variance f o rVerbal (Cross-sectional)  Aggression  Aggression  Aggression  Summary T a b l e o f P o s t Hoc T e s t s C o n d u c t e d o n t h e S i g n i f i c a n t Town x T i m e I n t e r a c t i o n s f o r t h e O b s e r v a t i o n a l Data A f t e r the A n a l y s i s of Variance  45 48  Median-' V a l u e s o f A g g r e s s i o n  Table  11.  Physical Aggression - Notel:  12.  B e l o w M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s p e r Week a t T i m e 2 V e r b a l A g g r e s s i o n - N o t e l : C h i l d r e n Above/Below M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s p e r Week a t T i m e 2  13.  43  V e r b a l A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n s e s a t Time 1 a n d Time 2 10.  Table  42  R e p e r t o i r e o f t h e Three H i g h e s t P h y s i c a l and  Table  Table ..  38  C h i l d r e n Above/  Physical Aggression - Unitel: C h i l d r e n Above/ B e l o w M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s p e r Week a t T i m e 2  50  52  57  vii  List  of Tables continued Page  T a b l e 14.  Table  Table  15.  16  Verbal Aggression - Unitel: C h i l d r e n Above/ B e l o w M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s a t Time 2  59  Physical Aggression - M u l t i t e l : C h i l d r e n Above/ B e l o w M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g Hours a t Time 2  63  Verbal Aggression - M u l t i t e l : C h i l d r e n Above/ B e l o w M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r I n c r e a s e / D e c r e a s e i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t T i m e 2, a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s a t Time 2  65  viii  LIST OF FIGURES  Page Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  Town by Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r P h y s i c a l Aggression (Longitudinal Analysis)  28  Town by Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r V e r b a l sion (Longitudinal Analysis)  31  Aggres-  Town by Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r P h y s i c a l Aggression (Cross-sectional Analysis)  35  Town by Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r V e r b a l sion (Cross-sectional Analysis)  39  Sex by Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r V e r b a l (Cross-sectional Analysis)  Aggres-  Aggression  R e p e r t o i r e o f the Three H i g h e s t P h y s i c a l and V e r b a l A g g r e s s i o n Scores a t Time 1 and Time 2  40  44  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  First  and foremost,. I am i n d e b t e d t o my S u p e r v i s o r , Dr. M e r l e  whose f r i e n d s h i p and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m l e d me t o the completion project.  D r . Tannis MacBeth W i l l i a m s and Dr. Don Dutton,  of t h i s  the o t h e r two members  of my committee, a l s o o f f e r e d i n v a l u a b l e a d v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e . fortunate i n having  Zabrack,  I was  extremely  such a g r e a t committee t o guide me through my M a s t e r ' s  education. T h i s work was p a r t o f a l a r g e r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d "The Impact of T e l e v i s i o n : A N a t u r a l Experiment I n v o l v i n g Three Communities", s u p e r v i s e d by Dr. Tannis MacBeth W i l l i a m s and funded  by Canada C o u n c i l .  Consequently,  many  people were i n v o l v e d i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and c o d i n g , some of whom worked w i t h me on my r e s e a r c h .  I n p a r t i c u l a r , I would l i k e t o thank .T  Joanne McFadden Hordo, P a t r i c i a Crawford  and E l s i e E c c l e s f o r c o l l e c t i n g time 1  d a t a ; Susan Lee P a i n t e r and Sue F i s k e f o r h e l p i n g me c o l l e c t time 2 d a t a ;  Virginia  Green and Georgio P a s t o r e f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e d u r i n g a n a l y s e s o f t h e s e d a t a ; and Judy Hawkins f o r t y p i n g t h i s Needless  thesis.  t o s a y , thanks a r e extended t o the s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s and  t e a c h e r s i n the t h r e e towns who p e r m i t t e d t h e i n v a s i o n by so many " c l i p - b o a r d carrying"  observers.' L a s t l y b u t i n no way the l e a s t , thanks go t o W i l f N i c h o l l s f o r "being  t h e r e when I needed him.  1  INTRODUCTION  The  effects of viewing  f i l m e d a g g r e s s i o n on behaviour  w e l l documented i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y s i n c e t h e e a r l y recent research i n the f i e l d tory experiments. techniques  1960's.  Furthermore,  has v a l i d a t e d t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e l a b o r a -  Specifically,  t h i s r e s e a r c h shows t h a t  aggressive  seen i n f i l m s a r e a p p a r e n t l y l e a r n e d and r e t a i n e d .  of the l a b o r a t o r y experiments of e f f e c t s :  have been  h a s b e e n p r i m a r i l y o n two d i f f e r e n t  i m i t a t i o n and i n s t i g a t i o n .  been seen i s c o p i e d .  focus kinds  I m i t a t i o n o c c u r s when w h a t h a s  I n s t i g a t i o n o c c u r s when i n c r e a s e d  f o l l o w s what has been  The  aggressiveness  seen.  In a s e r i e s of experiments  Bandura and h i s a s s o c i a t e s  (e.g.,  B a n d u r a , R o s s , & R o s s , 1963a; B a n d u r a , R o s s , & R o s s , 1963b; B a n d u r a , 1965)  i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t o f v i e w i n g a model on c h i l d r e n ' s subse-  quent i m i t a t i v e person,  responding.  E a c h c h i l d was e x p o s e d t o a n a d u l t m o d e l i n  an' a d u l t model on f i l m ,  whom a g g r e s s e d  o r a c a r t o o n model on f i l m ,  against a p l a s t i c ,  t o Bobo t h e c l o w n .  life-sized doll,  similar  each of  i n appearance  The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s w e r e e i t h e r e x p o s e d t o a n o n -  a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l o r t o no m o d e l a t a l l . m a n i p u l a t i o n , t h e c h i l d was l e f t w h i c h t h e model had p l a y e d .  Following the experimental  i n a room c o n t a i n i n g t h e same t o y s w i t h  Coders observed  the c h i l d ' s behaviour studies  and  scored i tf o r i m i t a t i v e responses.  The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e  indi-  cated that the aggressive behaviour  of the c h i l d r e n increased a f t e r ex-  p o s u r e t o an a g g r e s s i v e model. To  e x p l a i n these r e s u l t s ,  theory that an observer w i l l  Bandura p o s t u l a t e d i n h i s s o c i a l l e a r n i n g  l e a r n the behaviour  o f a model  contingent  2  on  four processes:  t h e o b s e r v e r m u s t be a t t e n d i n g t o t h e m o d e l , be a b l e  t o r e t a i n what he o r s h e h a s s e e n , be c a p a b l e o f r e p r o d u c i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r ( t h a t i s , have developed motivated in  to learn.  t h e a p p r o p r i a t e motor c a p a b i l i t i e s ) ,  Through exposure  a n d be  t o an a g g r e s s i v e model,  inhibitions  t h e o b s e r v e r a g a i n s t a c t i n g i n a v i o l e n t , a g g r e s s i v e manner a r e r e -  duced.  The e x p e r i e n c e a l s o h e l p s t o shape t h e s t y l e o f t h e a g g r e s s i v e  behaviour tion,  through  a c q u i s i t i o n of novel aggressive behaviours.  In addi-  a t h e o r e t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n i s made b e t w e e n a c q u i s i t i o n a n d p e r f o r -  mance o f b e h a v i o u r .  Although  o b s e r v a t i o n o f a n a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l may l e a d  to the l e a r n i n g o f aggressive behaviour, perform  t h i s behaviour  immediately.  However, i f provoked  f u t u r e o c c a s i o n h e o r s h e may r e p r o d u c e were  t h e o b s e r v e r may n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e n o u g h o n some  the aggressive behaviours  that  observed. I n s t i g a t i o n t o behave a g g r e s s i v e l y has been s t u d i e d e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h  a d u l t s by Berkowitz  (e.g., Berkowitz,  1965, 1966, 1967):  employs t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm: working  a t a task, a confederate  who  typically  while the subject i s  i n d u c e s anger by i n s u l t i n g  or s h o c k i n g him ( a l l s u b j e c t s were male) f o r poor t a s k  the subject  performance.  A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g a 'mood' q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e s u b j e c t w a t c h e s a n e x c e r p t of a f i g h t  scene from  the f i l m  "Champion" o r " R e b e l w i t h o u t a Cause"  (experimental c o n d i t i o n ) , o r an ' e x c i t i n g b u t nonaggressive' scene.  Finally,  the s u b j e c t shocks  the confederate, either  of an e v a l u a t i o n o f the confederate o r as a t e a c h i n g task. of t h i s  t r a c k race i n the guise Variations  design involve the manipulation of a g g r e s s i o n - e l i c i t i n g  f o r example, t h e s h o c k i n g procedure the confederate  occurs i n the presence  i s i n t r o d u c e d a s a> b o x e r  cues;  o f weapons,  ( i n c o n t r a s t t o an E n g l i s h  3  major), the  or the  film.  being  confederate  Angering the  i s given  the  same name a s  s u b j e c t , e x p o s i n g him  the aggressor  in  to f i l m e d aggression,  i n the presence of a g g r e s s i o n - e l i c i t i n gcues r e s u l t s i n the  m i n i s t r a t i o n of higher aggressive  l e v e l s of  towards the v i c t i m .  a classical  shock; t h a t i s , the  These r e s u l t s l e d Berkowitz  c o n d i t i o n i n g model of a g g r e s s i o n .  s t a t e s t h a t an  individual w i l l react  " i m p u l s i v e l y " or  t h a t the  ad-  i s more to  Specifically,  to environmental s t i m u l i a s s o c i a t e d w i t h aggression provided  subject  and  postulate  the  model  "automatically"  (e.g.,  weapons),  i n d i v i d u a l i s 'set' or ready to act a g g r e s s i v e l y  (as  when a n g e r e d o r i n s u l t e d ) . Although the observation  f i n d i n g s from l a b o r a t o r y experiments r e l a t i n g  of aggression  with  s i s t e n t f o r b o t h c h i l d r e n and Berkowitz, 1965;  1967;  increased adults  ( B a n d u r a , 1965;  Geen & S t o n n e r , 1972;  Gelfand  invalid  conclusions  from these s t u d i e s .  to extrapolate  the  t e l e v i s i o n viewer.  of  the  laboratory findings.  viewing  of  realistic.  employed  (Berkowitz,  context  for very  1971; Hicks,  r e l u c t a n t to  draw  argue t h a t i t i s world  available tele-  e m p l o y e d i n some e x p e r i m e n t s  Bandura, 1965).  One  could argue that i f  l a b o r a t o r y experiments i s to g e n e r a l i z e to  o f v i o l e n c e on  l e a s t , be  critics  For example, commercially  ( B a n d u r a , R o s s , & R o s s , 1963; goals  are  con-  These arguments stem from c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s  v i s i o n programmes o r f i l m s were n o t  the  Baron,  from these l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s to the r e a l  of  of  The  have been  & H a r t m a n n , 1969;  W a t t e r s & B r o w n , 1 9 6 3 ) , some p s y c h o l o g i s t s  definite  one  aggressiveness  the  television,  the  stimulus m a t e r i a l should,  the at  F u r t h e r , when t e l e v i s i o n p r o g r a m m e s o r f i l m s w e r e 1975,  limited  1966,  etc.),  time periods  the e x c e r p t s  (e.g.,  w e r e shown o u t  5 minutes, 7  minutes).  of  4  T h i s k i n d of s i t u a t i o n , then, i s not analogous to one programmes are shown, and  i n which complete  i t i s l i k e l y t h a t the impact of v i e w i n g  an  i s o l a t e d v i o l e n t f i l m sequence i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the e f f e c t s of viewing  an e n t i r e f i l m .  For example, r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r a d u l t s  exposure to j u s t i f i e d v i o l e n c e r e s u l t s i n i n c r e a s e d a g g r e s s i v e i n c o n t r a s t to v i o l e n c e which i s p o r t r a y e d 1965).  i m i t a t i v e responding be e v i d e n t  i s punished or not) (Bandura, 1965).  are important determinants of  T h i s type of i n f o r m a t i o n ,  On  the o t h e r hand, f o r v e r y  c h i l d r e n , the presence or absence of n e g a t i v e to reduce the impact of t e l e v i s e d v i o l e n c e L e i f e r & R o b e r t s , 1972;  once so o n l y s h o r t - t e r m  1975).  aggression  exposure, a cumulative h y p o t h e s i s  i n aggression.  g r e s s i o n could occur, s i o n of a g g r e s s i o n  r e s u l t i n g i n a lessened 1967).  example,  would p r e d i c t an i n -  l i k e l i h o o d of the  ag-  expres-  Furthermore, t h e r e i s evidence to  d i s p l a y s ; t h a t i s , d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n to  ( C l i n e , C r o f t , & C o u r r i e r , 1973), as does i n c r e a s e d  t o l e r a n c e of a g g r e s s i o n 1973).  Yet  exposure to f i l m e d v i o l e n c e r e s u l t s i n l e s s emo-  t i o n a l r e a c t i v i t y to a g g r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e occurs  For  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , s a t i a t i o n or h a b i t u a t i o n to  (Gewirtz,  suggest t h a t repeated  occurs  are t e s t e d .  the l o n g - t e r m e f f e c t s o f exposure to v i o l e n c e might d i f f e r .  crease  little  ( C o l l i n s , Berndt, & Hess,  Stein & Friedrich,  e f f e c t s of viewing  young  consequences does  Another problem i s t h a t exposure to the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l  a f t e r repeated  which  i n f u l l - l e n g t h f i l m s o r t e l e v i s i o n programmes, i s o f t e n  missing i n the s h o r t f i l m e x c e r p t s .  1974;  (Berkowitz,  S i m i l a r l y , f o r s c h o o l aged c h i l d r e n the consequences of v i o l e n c e  (whether the aggressor  may  as u n j u s t i f i e d  behaviour  i n one's ' r e a l ' environment  (Drabman & Thomas,  5  F u r t h e r problems a r i s e because s u b j e c t s a r e t e s t e d  immediately  a f t e r exposure t o the a g g r e s s i v e model o r f i l m , and thus o f r e t e n t i o n becomes a n i s s u e . mediately  perform  behaviour  be r e t a i n e d ?  behaviours  the observed Hicks  then,  That i s , i f t h e s u b j e c t does n o t i m aggressive behaviour,  how l o n g w i l l  However, a s e a c h  a f t e r exposure and performed t h e behaviour  r e t e n t i o n c o u l d b e due a s much t o t h e p r a c t i c e d u r i n g t h i s  t e s t i n g as t o the o r i g i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f the behaviour. experimental the  situations,  I n some c a s e s  1965).  factors against aggressing,  Y e t t h e f e e d b a c k o f p a i n h a s b e e n shown t o b e a n  insulting  be r e p r o d u c e d  inhibitors  responding  (Milgram,  i n the r e a l world,  measure o f a g g r e s s i o n  shocks),  might  paradigms l i m i t i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n employed.  Is the physical  o b j e c t s u c h a s t h e Bobo d o l l a  (Tedeschi,  Smith,  realistic  & Brown, 1974; K l a p p e r ,  1968)?  i t i s a r g u e d , t h i s m e a s u r e i s p l a y a c t i v i t y w h i c h may  o r no r e l a t i o n s h i p  research indicating  personal  aggression  i n the laboratory.  a t t a c k a g a i n s t an inanimate  little  1971b).  due t o t h e a b s e n c e o f v a r i o u s  t h e dependent measure o f a g g r e s s i o n  Typically,  (Berkowitz,  1965; B a r o n , 1971a,  the subject or administering e l e c t r i c  A further feature of experimental  is  such as  important  c o n c l u s i o n , i t has been argued t h a t l a b o r a t o r y induced  (through  is  Also, i n  the v i c t i m i s not even seen o r heard  i n h i b i t o r of aggressive  not  inhibiting  first  s a l i e n c e o f s o c i a l norms, and r i s k o f r e t a l i a t i o n a r e t y p i c a l l y  absent.  In  that  (1965) found t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s i m i t a t i v e  were r e t a i n e d f o r a s l o n g as s i x months.  c h i l d was t e s t e d i m m e d i a t e l y  the question  situations  to interpersonal aggression.  t h a t Bobo d o l l  (Walters  bear  However,  there  t r a i n i n g does t r a n s f e r t o i n t e r -  & Brown, 1963; S t e u e r , A p p l e f i e l d ,  &  Smith,  6  1971), o r t o s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e t h e t a r g e t o f a g g r e s s i o n i s a human dressed as a clown  (Hanratty, L i e b e r t , M o r r i s , & Fernandez,  Furthermore, there are r e a l l i f e  examples  i n which behaviour i s acquired i n  ' p l a y c o n t e x t s ' and t h e n performed, t h r o u g h t r a n s f e r , contexts stuffed and  ( f o r example,  i n interpersonal  s o l d i e r s l e a r n t o use bayonets by a t t a c k i n g  s a c k s ; boxers l e a r n and p r a c t i c e  sparring  1969).  their  skills  on punching  bags  partners).  Finally,  another i n d e x o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r used e x t e n s i v e l y i n  the l a b o r a t o r y i s t h e Buss  (1966) a g g r e s s i o n m a c h i n e ,  v i d u a l has the o p p o r t u n i t y o f d e l i v e r i n g e l e c t r i c i n t e n s i t y t o another person.  demonstrated.  indi-  shocks o f v a r y i n g  A l t h o u g h t h e i n d e x has been c r i t i c i z e d  not b e i n g an i n d i c a t i o n o f a g g r e s s i o n because against shocking the 'victim',  whereby an  as  of the lack of sanctions  t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s procedure has been  B e r k o w i t z , P a r k e , L e y e n s , a n d W e s t (1975) f o u n d a p o s i -  t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o u n s e l o r r a t i n g s o f a d o l e s c e n t boys' a g g r e s s i o n and t h e i n t e n s i t y o f e l e c t r i c situation.  Similiarly,  p e e r s w e r e more l i k e l y experimental task  shocks d e l i v e r e d by t h e boys  i n t h e Buss  c h i l d r e n who w e r e r a t e d a g g r e s s i v e .by. t h e i r t o d e l i v e r noxious n o i s e s t o t h e i r peers i n an  ( W i l l i a m s , Meyerson,  Eron, & Semler,  1967).  I n sum, t h e l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s o n v i e w i n g f i l m e d o r m o d e l e d a g g r e s s i o n and an o b s e r v e r ' s subsequent following:  v i o l e n c e d e p i c t e d o n t e l e v i s i o n c a n be m i m i c k e d  either immediately or shortly a f t e r conditions  ( f o r example,  or anger a r o u s a l ) , aggressive  a g g r e s s i v e behaviour suggest the  acts.  by o b s e r v e r s  i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n ; and, under  i n the presence of a g g r e s s i o n - e l i c i t i n g  certain cues  t e l e v i s e d v i o l e n c e can i n s t i g a t e an i n c r e a s e i n  7  Due t o t h e n a t u r e  of these  l a b o r a t o r y f i n d i n g s and t h e problems  i n h e r e n t i n l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h , t h e r e has been i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t i n demonstrating behaviour into  the e f f e c t s o f exposure t o media v i o l e n c e on i n t e r p e r s o n a l  i n naturalistic  contexts.  two b a s i c m e t h o d o l o g i e s .  The f i e l d  I n c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , no  t i o n occurs, but i n s t e a d surveys  separated  manipula-  or o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e conducted  m i n e i f two ( o r m o r e ) v a r i a b l e s a r e r e l a t e d . studies, naturalistic  a p p r o a c h c a n be  to deter-  In experimental  field  o b s e r v a t i o n i s combined w i t h e x p e r i m e n t a l  manipula-  tion. Feshba/ck a n d S i n g e r  (1971) c o n d u c t e d  a field  the e f f e c t s o f s u s t a i n e d exposure t o predominantly aggressive t e l e v i s i o n content in and  three p r i v a t e schools b o y s i n f o u r homes  ( c o n s i s t i n g o f upper middle  (predominantly  lower  class  peers  youngsters),  television diet f o r s i x including rating  scale,  f o r each boy by h i s t e a c h e r , s u p e r v i s o r , o r house  Aggressive  each day.  Boys  c l a s s ) were exposed t o an  p r o j e c t i v e t e s t s , a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and a b e h a v i o u r  parent.  determine  a g g r e s s i v e o r non-  A number o f m e a s u r e s o f a g g r e s s i o n w e r e e m p l o y e d ,  completed d a i l y  to  on a g g r e s s i v e v a l u e s and b e h a v i o u r .  aggressive t e l e v i s i o n d i e t or a nonaggressive weeks.  experiment  behaviour  The r a t e r n o t e d  was r a t e d r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y a t t h e e n d o f  w h e t h e r t h e a g g r e s s i o n was d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t  o r a u t h o r i t y , w h e t h e r t h e a g g r e s s i o n was p r o v o k e d o r u n p r o v o k e d ,  a n d w h e t h e r i t was m i l d o r m o d e r a t e l y The  results indicated  t h a t boys exposed t o nonaggressive  c o n t e n t w e r e more a g g r e s s i v e content, both figures.  strong.  than boys exposed t o a g g r e s s i v e  i n terms o f a g g r e s s i o n towards peers  When t h e d a t a w e r e r e a n a l y z e d ,  television television  and a u t h o r i t y  t a k i n g i n t o account  the  8  institutions homes, n o t  i n v o l v e d , the above d i f f e r e n c e o n l y h e l d f o r boys i n t h e  f o r those  i n the p r i v a t e schools.  Furthermore,  m e n t a l r e s u l t s w e r e more p r o n o u n c e d f o r b o y s i n i t i a l l y sive behaviour F e s h b a c h and  or those  initially  Singer concluded  low  that:  i n TAT  fantasy  the e x p e r i -  high i n  aggres-  aggression.  i ) exposure to aggressive  content  on t e l e v i s i o n d o e s n o t l e a d t o a n i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r ; ii)  exposure to aggressive content  on  television  seems t o r e d u c e  and  or  c o n t r o l the e x p r e s s i o n of a g g r e s s i o n i n boys from r e l a t i v e l y low s o c i o e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d s , who express  fantasy  a r e a l r e a d y a g g r e s s i v e , o r t h o s e who  Singer's  (1971) f i n d i n g s and  c o n c l u s i o n s appear  c o n t r a d i c t those obtained from the l a b o r a t o r y experiments. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e r e s u l t s has Davidson  not  aggression.  F e s h b a c h and  and  do  been c h a l l e n g e d .  However,  Liebert,  (1971) p r o p o s e d f o u r m a j o r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  to  Sobol,  drawbacks to  the  study: 1.  The  reliability  rating 2.  The  of the primary  s c a l e ) was  dependent measure  behaviour  not e s t a b l i s h e d .  a g g r e s s i v e programmes were l i k e d  the nonaggressive  (the  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  than  programmes ( C h a f f e e & McLeod, 1 9 7 2 ) , i m p l y i n g  an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s .  Boys i n the  control  g r o u p c o u l d have b e e n more a g g r e s s i v e a f t e r s i x weeks b e c a u s e they  resented being r e s t r i c t e d  they l i k e d  l e s s , and  to nonaggressive  t h i s r e s e n t m e n t was  programmes w h i c h  expressed  i n an  increase i n aggressiveness. 3.  The  r a t e r s were not  and  recorded  blind  t o the c o n d i t i o n s , were u n t r a i n e d  the behaviours  retrospectively.  The  possibility  9  of response 4.  The on  b i a s c a n n o t be e l i m i n a t e d .  e x p e r i m e n t a l and dimensions  variable.  other than the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the  For example, the experimenters  s u b j e c t s i n two after  r i v a l hypothesis  they  expressed  from watching  c o n t r o l over  independent  permitted  control  o f t h e b o y s ' homes t o s e e a n a g g r e s s i v e  t h e b o y s had  prevented  c o n t r o l groups were t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y  very strong objections to  their  f a v o u r i t e show.  c o u l d be p o s t u l a t e d :  having  Thus, gained  t h e i r own  way  by  complaining,  being  another some  t h e s i t u a t i o n by o b j e c t i n g , t h e b o y s t h e n  c o u l d get  show  realized  grumbling,  b r e a k i n g t h e r u l e s , e t c . , a l l o f w h i c h were measures on behaviour  rating  scale.  F u r t h e r i n a r e p l i c a t i o n of the F e s h b a c h and (1971) f a i l e d  to f i n d  supporting evidence.  watched o n l y nonaggressive t h a n t h o s e who  Wells  Singer study, found  t e l e v i s i o n w e r e more v e r b a l l y  watched o n l y aggressive  d i s p l a y e d more p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n .  shows, and  Wells  p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l  t h a t the  i n turn, increased  s u b j e c t s stemmed f r o m t h e  s i o n from the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s r e f l e c t e d  S t e i n and p r o s o c i a l and behaviour  in a naturalistic  shows o n  in a field  experiment.  During  aggressive,  children's interpersonal  s i t u a t i o n supported  a p e r i o d of n i n e weeks, n i n e t y - s e v e n  aggres-  shows.  (1971) s t u d y o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f  neutral television  stimu-  t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n not  to watch the "action-adventure" Friedrich's  who  aggressive  the l a t t e r ,  suggested  Wells  t h a t boys  l a t i o n o f " a c t i o n - a d v e n t u r e " shows, whereas t h e i n c r e a s e d v e r b a l  being allowed  the  nursery  Wells' conclusions.  school children  For  participated  the f i r s t t h r e e weeks, the c h i l d r e n were  10  observed and  i n free play to ascertain baseline rates of their  p r o s o c i a l behaviour.  were exposed t o e i t h e r  aggressive  F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r weeks, t h e c h i l d r e n  a g g r e s s i v e t e l e v i s i o n programmes (Batman and  Superman c a r t o o n s ) , p r o s o c i a l t e l e v i s i o n programmes ( M i s t e r R o g e r ' s Neighbourhood) o r n e u t r a l c h i l d r e n ' s f i l m s .  During  p e r i o d a n d t h e two p o s t v i e w i n g w e e k s , c o d e r s  observed  free play.  Children i n i t i a l l y  this  f o u r week  the children i n  h i g h i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l a g g r e s s i o n who w e r e  e x p o s e d t o a g g r e s s i v e programmes s u b s e q u e n t l y  displayed greater  sion than  c h i l d r e n e x p o s e d t o n e u t r a l o r p r o s o c i a l shows.  initially  low i n aggression d i d not respond  treatment  conditions.  Children  differentially  T h e r e was a l s o e v i d e n c e  to the three  that television  a p o s i t i v e r o l e i n c h i l d r e n ' s s o c i a l development:  those  aggres-  can play  children ex-  p o s e d t o t h e p r o s o c i a l p r o g r a m m e s showed h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g behaviour aggressive  and t a s k p e r s i s t e n c e than c h i l d r e n exposed t o n e u t r a l o r shows.  S t e u e r , A p p l e f i e l d , and Smith that viewing aggression  (1971) o b t a i n e d f u r t h e r v a l i d a t i o n  increases aggressive behaviour  They s t u d i e d t e n p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , e c o n o m i c a l l y mixed group. on  First,  t h e b a s i s o f t h e amount o f t i m e  i n children.  comprising a r a c i a l l y  and s o c i o -  t h e c h i l d r e n were matched i n t o they  spent  pairs  v i e w i n g t e l e v i s i o n a t home.  Then t h e c h i l d r e n were o b s e r v e d  i n f r e e p l a y f o r t e n days t o e s t a b l i s h  a baseline rate of aggression.  During  t h e f o l l o w i n g e l e v e n d a y s , one  member o f t h e p a i r v i e w e d a n a g g r e s s i v e t e l e v i s i o n programme w h i l e t h e o t h e r member v i e w e d a n o n a g g r e s s i v e day  daily,  t e l e v i s i o n programme.  o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n f r e e p l a y p r o v i d e d measures o f  interpersonal physical aggression.  By t h e e n d o f t h e e l e v e n  days,  Each  11  c h i l d r e n i n the a g g r e s s i v e treatment  g r o u p w e r e more a g g r e s s i v e  c h i l d r e n i n the matched c o n t r o l group, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the  than  television  treatment  had  a n e f f e c t on t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r p e r s o n a l a g g r e s s i v e  be-  haviour.  The  results also indicated  of  two  particular  t h a t the a g g r e s s i v e behaviour  c h i l d r e n i n the experimental  g r o u p was  t h a t i t i n c r e a s e d more s l o w l y t h a n t h e b e h a v i o u r e x p o s e d t o t h e a g g r e s s i v e programmes. p o s e d two  alternative interpretations  c h i l d r e n were r e s p o n d i n g same way  and  for this  hostility response  t h e r e was  d i s c r e p a n t c h i l d r e n may  i m i t a t e w h a t he  a latency effect.  o r she has  c h i l d .who  the e x p e r i m e n t a l  exposure e f f e c t  s e e n on  1975).  mani-  has . been a f f e c t e d by  A c h i l d may  gressive  itself  sive responding. s e r i e s , of f i e l d  Parke  in  directly  instead, imitate In  aggressive a c t i o n s or  increased a f t e r watching may  (Parke,  not have e l i c i t e d  an  agaggres-  e t a l . ' s (1975) c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn f r o m a  experiments.  more a g g r e s s i v e t h a n b o y s who o l d boys  film  not  the t e l e v i s e d v i o l e n c e .  be  even though the  i s peer modelling  t e l e v i s i o n b u t may,  r e t a l i a t i n g a g a i n s t a n a t t a c k e r may  year  Alterna-  h a v e b e e n d i s p l a y i n g more  a d d i t i o n , the l i k e l i h o o d of i m i t a t i n g a peer's  14-18  two  film.  B e r k o w i t z , Leyens, West, & S e b a s t i a n ,  film,  e i t h e r the  to the other c h i l d r e n ' s aggression r a t h e r than  Another p o s s i b l e secondary  another  pro-  e x p o s u r e e f f e c t might have been o p e r a t i n g ; t h a t i s ,  i n response to the  children  his colleagues  finding:  whereas most o f t h e c h i l d r e n were i n f l u e n c e d by p u l a t i o n , t h e two  of other  t o t h e a g g r e s s i v e t e l e v i s i o n programmes i n t h e  as t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n but  t i v e l y a secondary  Steuer  discrepant i n  B o y s who  watched v i o l e n t movies - were  viewed n e u t r a l f i l m s .  f r o m d e l i n q u e n t homes.  The  The  s t u d y was  s u b j e c t s were conducted  in  12  four phases over  a s e v e n week p e r i o d .  Observations  of the boys'  be-  h a v i o u r d u r i n g f r e e p l a y i n t h e f i r s t t h r e e weeks c o n s t i t u t e d t h e line  l e v e l of aggression.  shown; b o y s i n one  During  cottage  which housed a p p r o x i m a t e l y  t h e f o l l o w i n g week, f i v e  (the b a s i c u n i t  f i l m s were  i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l  t h i r t y boys) viewed a commercially  a g g r e s s i v e movie each n i g h t , w h i l e boys i n the second c o t t a g e a n e u t r a l nonaggressive b e f o r e and  after  the f i l m .  t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l week..) from both  film.  Coders observed  t h e day  cottages participated  (amount o f e l e c t r i c  long-term  the f i n a l  During  the  final  r e s u l t s supported  t h e h i g h l y a g g r e s s i v e b o y s who  data i n the  f i e l d has  H i m m e l w e i t , Oppenheim, and have t e l e v i s i o n and  Vince  the  boys  aggression either the be-  i n the  ex-  viewers,  were most a f f e c t e d . approach  to  been the c o r r e l a t i o n a l survey ( 1 9 5 8 ) c o m p a r e d c h i l d r e n who  study. did  not  d i d on a number o f m e a s u r e s .  The  measures  of a g g r e s s i o n c o n s i s t e d of teacher r a t i n g s f o r each c h i l d .  The  results  i n d i c a t e d t h a t no nonviewers. Canada and w h i c h had  t h o s e who  during  the p r o p o s i t i o n that  As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , a s e c o n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l collecting  film,  e f f e c t s o f t h e f i l m s on t h e b o y s ' a g g r e s s i v e The  both  t h r e e weeks o f  posure to f i l m e d v i o l e n c e increased aggressive behaviour a g a i n , i t was  watched  shock a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a c o n f e d e r a t e ) , under  h a v i o u r s were a s s e s s e d .  and  available  not p e r m i t t e d  i n a l a b o r a t o r y assessment of  angered or nonangered c o n d i t i o n s . s t u d y , any  following  centre  the boys' behaviour  ( V i e w i n g t e l e v i s i o n was  On  base-  d i f f e r e n c e i n a g g r e s s i o n e x i s t e d between viewers  Schramm, L y l e , a n d the United S t a t e s . television reception.  Parker  (1961) c o l l e c t e d s i m i l a r  T h e y s t u d i e d two The  r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n which the  data  C a n a d i a n t o w n s one  m e a s u r e o f a g g r e s s i o n was  subjects indicated  their  and  a  in  of self-  agreement  13  or disagreement w i t h twenty-four  statements  ( f o r example, " I don't  a n y t h i n g e s p e c i a l l y w r o n g a b o u t a f i g h t b e t w e e n two it's  t h e i r b u s i n e s s , and  adults should  g r a d e c h i l d r e n i n C a n a d a who sive than  s u b j e c t s who  t w e e n t h e two  watching  The  sixth  d i d n o t h a v e t e l e v i s i o n w e r e more  d i d have t e l e v i s i o n .  In the American p a r t of the g r o u p s who  were h i g h o r low  t e l e v i s i o n and  they read.  of i t " ) .  teenagers;  T h e r e was  no  aggres-  d i f f e r e n c e be-  t o w n s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e t e n t h g r a d e on t h e  s i o n measure. divided into  s t a y out  groups of  h i g h o r low  Children classified  study,  some t e l e v i s i o n  that:  i s harmful.  aggres-  the c h i l d r e n were  i n t h e number o f h o u r s  spent  i n t h e amount o f p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l  as h i g h t e l e v i s i o n / l o w p r i n t were  i n a g g r e s s i o n t h a n c h i l d r e n c l a s s i f i e d as low Schramm e t a l . c o n c l u d e d  see  "For  television/high  higher  print.  some c h i l d r e n , u n d e r some c o n d i t i o n s ,  F o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e same c o n d i t i o n s ,  o r f o r t h e same c h i l d r e n u n d e r o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , i t may  be  beneficial.  F o r most c h i l d r e n , u n d e r most c o n d i t i o n s , most t e l e v i s i o n i s p r o b a b l y n e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r l y harmful nor p a r t i c u l a r l y b e n e f i c i a l " The (Liebert,  two  preceding  1973).  First  s t u d i e s c o n t a i n two  the t e a c h e r s were asked  aggressive or not,  they were not  other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d to aggresion, loudness, t h e 24 The  etc.  major methodological  problems  the measures of a g g r e s s i o n were inadequate.  the Himmelweit et a l . study w h e t h e r a c h i l d was  (p.l).  In the second study  second m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  p r o b l e m was  the e x i s t e n c e of a t e l e v i s i o n  to report  1961), o n l y 4 of  with aggressive  t h a t a g g r e s s i o n was  i n t h e home a n d  a c t u a l l y watched or r e p o r t e d watching.  asked  only  f o r example, b o s s i n e s s ,  (Schramm e t a l . ,  s e l f - r e p o r t measures were concerned  to i n d i c a t e  In  not  I t i s not  behaviour. related  t o what t h e  to  children  the e x i s t e n c e of  14  t e l e v i s i o n per s i o n , but  se w h i c h has  o f t h e few  first  t e l e v i s i o n and,  more p o s s i b l y ,  television.  l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s conducted  the premise that watching haviour  i n i n c r e a s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s aggres-  r a t h e r , the a c t of watching  t h e e x p o s u r e t o v i o l e n c e on One  an e f f e c t  supported  t e l e v i s i o n violence increases aggressive  ( E r o n , Huesmann, L e f k o w i t z , & W a l d e r , 1 9 7 2 ) .  c o l l e c t e d on m e a s u r e s o f a g g r e s s i o n a n d  a g g r e s s i o n when c h i l d r e n w e r e i n t h e t h i r d  Information  grade.  The  main measure  that i s , each c h i l d  any  describing aggression.  classmates  on t e n i t e m s  mothers were i n t e r v i e w e d to o b t a i n the c h i l d r e n ' s t e l e v i s i o n Preferences  for violent  t e l e v i s i o n and  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h peer nominations r e s e a r c h e r s conducted 18-19  but  sidered  t o be  ferences. ference  A highly significant television  t h a t the  partial correlations,  s i n g l e most p l a u s i b l e h y p o t h e s i s  preference  f o r watching  violent  Then,  preferences.  years  later,  teenagers who  were  o b t a i n e d between  i n t h e t h i r d g r a d e and ten years  nominated  later.  conprepre-  aggressive habits,  Using  cross  the r e s e a r c h e r s  lagged  concluded  f o r t h e i r r e s u l t s was  that  t e l e v i s i o n i n the t h i r d grade c o n t r i b u t e d  to the development of a g g r e s s i v e behaviour.  E r o n e t a l . do n o t  argue  t h a t t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e i s the o n l y cause of a g g r e s i v e behaviours, t h e y do  the (now  t e l e v i s i o n programming  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  as i n d i c a t e d b y p e e r n o m i n a t i o n s , p a n e l c o r r e l a t i o n s and  The  among t h e i r p e e r s  g a v e t h e i r own  of  positively  Ten  the second phase of the study.  a g g r e s s i v e and  for violent  a g g r e s s i o n were  f o r boys o n l y .  years old) again nominated those  was  p o t e n t i a l p r e d i c t o r s of  a g g r e s s i o n c o n s i s t e d of peer nominations; of h i s or her  be-  but  argue t h a t t e l e v i s i o n v i o l e n c e e x p l a i n s a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of  t h e v a r i a n c e t h a n any  other single factor studied.  15  A few  of the problems w i t h t h i s  c o l l e c t i o n of l o n g i t u d i n a l data. l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a t o be  study are those inherent i n the  Chaffee  (1972) argued  r e s t r i c t e d w i t h i n a homogeneous l i f e  period,  that i s , e i t h e r childhood or adolescence  other.  A d d i t i o n a l l y , how  affect  if  any,  but not  do c h a n g e s i n s o c i e t y o v e r  the r e s u l t s i n a l o n g i t u d i n a l study?  c o l l e c t i o n s i s reduced  the need f o r  ( f o r e x a m p l e , two  i n s o c i e t y w o u l d l i k e l y be  cycle  f r o m one  to three y e a r s ) , the Chaffee  Ericson,  can v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y  & Vlahos,  self-reported.  also discusses  restricted  to classmates  The  from a c h i l d ' s  at time  were asked  t o n o m i n a t e any  t e n y e a r s , whom t h e y p e r c e i v e d t o be  m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s reviewed  Schramm e t a l . ,  limiting Singer,  1961)  generalizability 1971),  (Greenberg,  to warrant  and  2 were and nomina-  at that  of t h e i r  class-  aggressive.  i n d i c a t e t h a t v i e w i n g v i o l e n c e on There i s , however, enough  inconclusive evidence, methodological c r i t i c i s m s t u d i e s o f F e s h b a c h & S i n g e r , 1971;  2, p e e r  to the classmates  t e l e v i s i o n does a f f e c t a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r .  1958;  self-report  1 were f o r the p r e s e n t  not r e s t r i c t e d  That i s , the teenagers  mates i n the l a s t  1 were o b t a i n e d by p a r e n t a l r e -  a t t h a t time, whereas a t time  t i o n s w e r e r e t r o s p e c t i v e and time.  For  1 9 7 1 ) , w h e r e a s programme p r e f e r e n c e s a t t i m e  Peer nominations  data  changes,  some o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s o f t h e E r o n e t a l . s t u d y .  p o r t , which  Eron  t h e use  et a l . ,  ( f o r example, i n the 1972;  Himmelweit e t a l . ,  of s p e c i a l s u b j e c t s , thus  (as i n B e r k o w i t z  et a l . ,  1975;  Feshbach  &  further research, especially i n naturalistic  settings. The  present  the  a ten year p e r i o d  I f the p e r i o d between  less, r a d i c a l .  e x a m p l e , programme p r e f e r e n c e s a t t i m e  to  l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y was  b a s e d on a n a t u r a l  experiment  16  in  t h r e e s m a l l towns i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Canada.  study into  some o f t h e p r o b l e m s m e n t i o n e d i n p r e v i o u s account  were c o l l e c t e d and  h a b i t s were r e c o r d e d ) . (1973  to 1975).  The  s t u d y was  children's television  conducted over  taken  very  limited  some o f t h e c h i l d r e n may  f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s ,  r e c e p t i o n and  two  were exposed t o d i f f e r i n g amounts o f  town c a l l e d N o t e l had  that i s , although  viewing  a p e r i o d of  S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n the i n i t i a l phase of the study  ren i n the  visiting  r e s e a r c h were  C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e made b e t w e e n  t h r e e g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n who vision.  the  ( f o r example, m u l t i p l e measures of a g g r e s s i o n , i n c l u d i n g  free play behaviours,  years  In designing  the  (1973),  exposure to  child-  television;  have seen t e l e v i s i o n  town i t s e l f  d i d not  tele-  have  while  television  c h i l d r e n c o u l d not watch i t r e g u l a r l y i n t h e i r  homes.  (See A p p e n d i x J f o r c h i l d r e n ' s t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g h o u r s p e r week i n Notel, Unitel,  and  c h i l d r e n at time  M u l t i t e l a t time  1 i n d i c a t e t h a t 70%  second phase of data i n N o t e l f o r two  collection  years.  During  population received television r e c e i v e d two different  2.  The  w e r e on  Those people  The  data  (.1975) , t e l e v i s i o n h a d t h i s time  approximately  i n t h e i r homes.  The  NBC)  90%  the Canadian channel  second town, ( b o t h CBC,  on  but  (CBC)  c a b l e r e c e i v e d o n l y CBS.  c o m p a r a b l e on v a r i o u s d e m o g r a p h i c d i m e n s i o n s ,  85%  A l l three  of the  The  the  town's  Unitel, from  varied and  American  were a v a i l a b l e o n l y t o t h o s e  cable t e l e v i s i o n , approximately not  of the  of each channel  s t a t i o n s at both phases.  At  been a v a i l a b l e  t h i r d town, M u l t i t e l , r e c e i v e d Canadian CBS,  for Notel  d i d not watch t e l e v i s i o n . )  Canadian s t a t i o n s d u r i n g both phases  (ABC,  n e t w o r k s and who  time  t r a n s m i t t e r s , t h e r e f o r e , the content  slightly). American  1 and  people  population.  t h r e e towns were  s u c h as  size,  climate,  17  distance  from the nearest urban centre,  relevant  demographic data a r e i l l u s t r a t e d  are  small  differences  the  towns were c o n s i d e r e d g e n e r a l l y  free play  there  comparable.  1  M u l t i p l e measures o f  of observing children's  behaviour  and peer and t e a c h e r r a t i n g s o f a g g r e s s i o n .  The f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s e s w e r e Hypothesis  1:  tested:  B a s e d on s o c i a l l e a r n i n g  aggressive behaviour of c h i l d r e n i n Notel t i m e 1 t o t i m e 2. television,  i n T a b l e 1 and a l t h o u g h  The  among t h e t o w n s , t h e s e w e r e j u d g e d t o be m i n o r a n d  a g g r e s s i o n were c o l l e c t e d and c o n s i s t e d in  socioeconomic l e v e l s , e t c .  theory  (Bandura, 1963), the  was e x p e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e  from  That i s , t h r o u g h exposure t o a g g r e s s i v e models on  children's  m i g h t be r e d u c e d .  i n h i b i t i o n s against  acting  i n an a g g r e s s i v e manner  To t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , t h e same c h i l d r e n w e r e o b -  s e r v e d two y e a r s a f t e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n  of t e l e v i s i o n .  c o n f o u n d i n g e f f e c t s due t o a g e d i f f e r e n c e s ,  To a s s e s s a n y  d a t a were c o l l e c t e d a t time  2 f r o m c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s 1 a n d 2, who w e r e t h e same a g e a s t h e c h i l d r e n initially affect  studied.  S i n c e t h e v i e w i n g o f t e l e v i s i o n was h y p o t h e s i z e d t o  the children's  aggressiveness, information  television viewing habits H y p o t h e s i s 2: implies  was a l s o  about the  children's  obtained.  Since the s o c i a l learning/modelling  approach  also  a n a c q u i s i t i o n o f new f o r m s o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r , t h e a g g r e s -  sive repertoires 1 t o t i m e 2.  of children i n Notel  In addition,  were e x p e c t e d t o change from  the repertoires  of Notel  c h i l d r e n a t time 1  w e r e e x p e c t e d t o be q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s t o i r e s i n U n i t e l and M u l t i t e l , in Notel.  time  reper-  because o f the l a c k of t e l e v i s e d models  H o w e v e r , a t t i m e 2, t h e a g g r e s s i v e r e p e r t o i r e s  g r o u p s o f c h i l d r e n w e r e e x p e c t e d t o be more h o m o g e n e o u s .  i n a l l three  18  Table 1 Demographic Data f o r N o t e l , U n i t e l , and M u l t i t e l (Listing  1971  1971 Census Data)  Population  Notel  Unitel  Multitel  658  693  872 a v a i l a b l e 375 a c r e s  354  P r i n c i p l e source o f income  logging railroad farming  logging railroad  logging mining  Mean income  $7377  $6854  $8055  Family heads w i t h E n g l i s h as o f f i c i a l language  88%  93%  95%  Family heads w i t h Mother tongue E n g l i s h  74%  81%  83%  Proportion of experienced labour force i n blue c o l l a r jobs  62%  72%  77%  Family heads educated high school  37%  23%  24%  B i r t h p l a c e Canada  77%  90%  77%  I f born i n Canada, b i r t h p l a c e B.C.  64%  34%  71%  Female p o p u l a t i o n  51%  57%  52%  P r o p o r t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n over 15 y e a r s  63%  65%  71%  (head)  acres  Not  Town Area  beyond  19  Hypothesis  3:  I f the e f f e c t s of viewing aggression modelled  t e l e v i s i o n are cumulative Multitel  f o r c h i l d r e n , aggression i n both U n i t e l  should i n c r e a s e from time  1 to time  2, a s t h e s e  been c o n t i n u a l l y exposed t o t e l e v i s i o n d u r i n g t h i s is  also the p o s s i b i l i t y  of a c e i l i n g  time.  effect occurring.  a t t a i n e d a t time aggressiveness  no l o n g e r be e v i d e n t . 1, c h i l d r e n i n M u l t i t e l  than U n i t e l c h i l d r e n ,  b e e n shown t o c o n t a i n more v i o l e n t vision  I f this  Gerbner and G r o s s  However, Therefore,  ceiling  content  had n o t been  than Canadian produced  & J o y , 1977). content  i s given i n Table  date  and J o y  tele-  o n U.S.  a v a i l a b l e i n N o t e l , U n i t e l , and M u l t i t e l  f o r aggression from the content  has  In addition,  The c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n  by W i l l i a m s , Z a b r a c k ,  once  the e f f e c t  v i s i o n h a s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 1967 t o 1976.  v i s i o n conducted  there  produced t e l e v i s i o n  ( 1 9 7 6 ) h a v e shown t h a t v i o l e n t  r a n k o r d e r i n g o f shows  have  s h o u l d i n c r e a s e more i n t h e i r  s i n c e U.S.  ( S i n g e r , 1970; W i l l i a m s , Z a b r a c k ,  and  children  a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f a g g r e s s i o n , o r a c e r t a i n age i s r e a c h e d , o f t e l e v i s i o n may  on  teleshows  2, a n d t h e  a n a l y s i s of  tele-  (1977).  The p e e r a n d t e a c h e r r a t i n g s o f a g g r e s s i o n w e r e c o l l e c t e d  to v a l i -  the o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures employed i n t e s t i n g  hypotheses.  t h e above  The c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e m u l t i p l e m e a s u r e s o f a g g r e s s i o n w e r e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t .  In addition,  s e x d i f f e r e n c e s was t a k e n females.  the issue of aggressive behaviour  i n t o account,  P a s t r e s e a r c h has i n d i c a t e d  t e l e v i s i o n on a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r  may  females  and  by o b s e r v i n g b o t h m a l e s and  that the e f f e c t s of viewing h o l d o n l y f o r males  1972), and o t h e r r e s e a r c h has c o n s i s t e n t l y p h y s i c a l l y aggressive than  expected  (Eron e t a l . ,  shown m a l e s t o be more  (Feshbach,  1970).  violent  20  Table Comparison between the  Number o f  2  Shows ( i n C a t e g o r i e s )  i n N o t e l / U n i t e l v e r s u s Those A v a i l a b l e i n Also  Shown i n t h e  for Aggression  Rank O r d e r o f  (Williams,  Multitel.  Categories  Zabrack, & Joy,  Rank O r d e r for Aggression  Available  1977)  Number o f Shows i n T h e s e Categories Available i n Notel/Unitel ( A c t u a l number)  Multitel  1,  Crime  2  21  2.  Documentaries  3  6  3.  Animated  0  16  4.  Situation  12  26  5.  Adventure  3  6  6.  Children's  8  17  7.  Music/Variety/Talk  5  12  8.  Instruction/Religion  4  3  9.  Drama/Medical  7  12  Game  2  8  News/Public A f f a i r s  5  17  Sports  4  3  10.  Comedies  Non-Animated  The a b o v e 2 c a t e g o r i e s w e r e n o t a n a l y z e d by W i l l i a m s , Z a b r a c k , & Joy. S i n g e r & Gordon (1977) f o u n d : "News and s p o r t s c o v e r a g e i n t h e n e w s p a p e r s and on t e l e v i s i o n n e w s c a s t s s a m p l e d i s r e l a t i v e l y violent. O v e r a l l , 40% o f t h e s e l e c t e d i t e m s f e l l i n t o t h e v i o l e n c e and c o n f l i c t - r e l a t e d c a t e g o r i e s . . . "  21  METHOD  Subjects O b s e r v a t i o n a l Study:  A t o t a l o f 240 c h i l d r e n  (Notel,. U n i t e l , and M u l t i t e l ) p a r t i c i p a t e d Those c h i l d r e n were grouped male and f i v e  from t h e three  towns  i n the observational study.  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner:  A t t i m e 1, f i v e  f e m a l e s u b j e c t s i n e a c h o f g r a d e s 1, 2, 4, a n d 5 w e r e o b -  s e r v e d i n each town.  A t t i m e 2, f i v e m a l e s a n d f i v e  females i n each o f  g r a d e s 1 a n d 2 w e r e o b s e r v e d i n e a c h t o w n ( t h i s was t o p r o v i d e  cross-  s e c t i o n a l data f o r comparison w i t h t h e grades 1 and 2 c h i l d r e n a t time 1);  i naddition  f i v e males and f i v e  were o b s e r v e d i n each town, date f o r c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l subsample  of children  females i n each o f grades 3 and 4  (the grade 4 c h i l d r e n  a t time 2 a l s o  comparison w i t h t h e time 1 grade 4 d a t a ) .  i n g r a d e s 3 a n d 4, a t t i m e 2, p r o v i d e d  d i n a l d a t a f o r c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d o n t h e same i n g r a d e s 1 a n d 2 a t t i m e 1. children  initially  longituchildren  i n g r a d e s 1 a n d 2 w o u l d be o b s e r v e d a t t i m e 2.  (16 i n N o t e l ,  A  I t was o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d t h a t a l l 60  e v e r , o n l y 44 ( 7 3 % ) o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n w e r e s t i l l later  provided  available  15 i n U n i t e l , a n d 13 i n M u l t i t e l ) .  How-  two y e a r s  T h e r e f o r e , 16  a d d i t i o n a l g r a d e 3 a n d 4 c h i l d r e n w e r e o b s e r v e d a t t i m e 2, a s w e l l a s the  60 new g r a d e  group, whether The  1 and 2 c h i l d r e n .  longitudinal or cross-sectional  criteria  ability  (that  sub-  i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e 3.  employed f o r i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d  s t u d y were t h e f o l l o w i n g : in ability  T h e number o f s u b j e c t s i n e a c h  i n the observational  t h e c h i l d was n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e l o w  average  i s , the teacher d i d not consider the child's l e v e l of  t o be r e m e d i a l ) ;  t h e c h i l d had n o t repeated a s c h o o l grade; t h e  22  Table 3 Number o f S u b j e c t s i n E a c h S u b g r o u p a t T i m e 1 a n d T i m e 2  Longitudinal  Sample  N = 44  Time 2 (1975)  ( G r a d e s 1 & 2)  ( G r a d e s 3 & 4)  Males  Females  Males  Females  10 8 6  6 7 7  10 8 6  6 7 7  Notel Unitel Multitel  Cross-Sectional  Time 1 (1973)  Sample  N =  240  Time 1 (1973)  Notel Unitel Multitel  GR 1 M F  GR 2 M F  5 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 5 5 5 5  5  Time 2 (1975)  GR 4 M F  GR 5 M F  5 5 5 5 5  5 5 5 5 5 5  .  GR 1 M F  GR 2 M F  GR 3 M F  5 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 5 5 5 5  5 5 5 5 5 5  GR 4 M F  5 5 5 5 5 5  23  c h i l d h a d l i v e d more t h a n t h r e e y e a r s selected  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study.  t a n t b e c a u s e s i b l i n g s may b e s i m i l a r similarities  r e l e v a n t a t time  which,  variable.  i n such  impor-  due t o  a s m a l l sample  T h i s c r i t e r i o n was  2 when new s u b j e c t s w e r e b e i n g  Peer and Teacher R a t i n g s : time  The l a t t e r c r i t e r i o n was i n aggressive behaviour  i n t h e i r environments,  could introduce a counfounding  and  i n t h e t o w n ; no s i b l i n g h a d b e e n  size,  especially  chosen.  A l l c h i l d r e n i n the four grades a t time  2 were i n v o l v e d i n t h e peer and t e a c h e r  1  ratings of aggression.  Procedure Peer Ratings of Aggression.  Each c h i l d nominated t h e t h r e e  class-  m a t e s whom he p e r c e i v e d a s t h e b o s s i e s t , f i g h t i n g t h e m o s t , t a l k i n g to the teacher shoving,  t h e most, a r g u i n g and d i s a g r e e i n g t h e most, and  and p o k i n g  t h e most.  Due t o d i f f i c u l t y  ponses and/or r e a d i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  2 were i n t e r v i e w e d i n d i v i d u a l l y .  forms themselves  i n writing  the forms,  back  pushing,  their  res-  c h i l d r e n i n grades 1  The o l d e r c h i l d r e n c o m p l e t e d t h e  i n a group s e t t i n g , w i t h a s s i s t a n c e i f r e q u i r e d (see  Appendix A ) . Teacher Ratings  of Aggression.  t e a c h e r on t e n s e v e n - p o i n t indicated  the extent  s c a l e s o f a g g r e s s i o n and a c t i v i t y .  to which the teacher  a c t i v e , aggressive, argumentative, honest,  h o s t i l e , and loud  T e l e v i s i o n Viewing viewed about t h e i r  E a c h c h i l d was r a t e d b y h i s o r h e r  bossy,  These  considered each c h i l d c o m p e t i t i v e , dominant,  t o be friendly,  (see Appendix B).  Habits.  The c h i l d r e n were i n d i v i d u a l l y  television viewing habits.  was c o m p l e t e d w h i c h p r o v i d e d  inter-  An e x t e n s i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e number o f h o u r s  24  spent viewing  ( w i t h weekday and  f a v o u r i t e shows, the p r e v i o u s  weekend v i e w i n g  day's v i e w i n g ,  separated),  the  child's  programmes u s u a l l y w a t c h e d ,  the e x i s t e n c e of p a r e n t a l guidance, reading  habits, etc.  C  Appendix D f o r M u l t i t e l ;  f o r N o t e l and  the was  latter  U n i t e l ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and  t o w n r e c e i v e d more s t a t i o n s , a more e x t e n s i v e  m a l e s and  Procedure.  as  questionnaire  a t l u n c h , and  free play periods  after one  two  minutes.  consecutive  one  For  The  (that i s , before  no  reliability  two  school, at weeks.  c h i l d was  Each c h i l d  observed f o r  p u r p o s e s , two  s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s of both p h y s i c a l  of the a g g r e s s i o n The  2  c a t e g o r i e s c o u l d be  physical aggression  These c a t e g o r i e s were f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d  teen p h y s i c a l aggression  —  t a r g e t ; PT4  t a r g e t w i t h any  subject pushes, p u l l s , —  and  subject chases the  holds,  coded  and  i n t o a t o t a l of —  subject  p a r t of the body above grabs, drags, or  chokes  target with a held object, etc. t h r e e were n i n e  for  subject disparages  t a r g e t , m o c k s , e t c . ; VT  subject  threatens  to hurt  purposes w i t h t a r g e t , e t c .  t a r g e t ; VC  four-  hits,  For v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n ,  —  of  physical  (see Appendix E ) . e x a m p l e , VD  any  categories consisted  c a t e g o r i e s ; f o r e x a m p l e , PA  s l a p s , punches or s t r i k e s the t h e w a i s t ; PP  was  -independent  behaviours l a b e l l e d p h y s i c a l assault, p h y s i c a l prevention, threat.  recess,  c a t e g o r i e s were n o n - h i e r a r c h i c a l ; t h a t i s , i n  m i n u t e p e r i o d , any  o n c e o r more t h a n o n c e .  (5  f o u r g r a d e s i n e a c h town) were  m i n u t e . i n t e r v a l s and  watched each c h i l d ,  verbal aggression.  the  s c h o o l ) , over a p e r i o d of  o b s e r v e d f o r 21  observers  C h i l d r e n i n the o b s e r v a t i o n a l sample  5 females from each of  observed during  the  Appendix  required.) Observation  any  (See  the —  (see Appendix  subcategories;  subject argues or i s at E).  —  cross  25  During the f r e e p l a y p e r i o d s , the observers walked playground, The  s c o r i n g t h e s u b j e c t ' s behaviour as u n o b t r u s i v e l y as p o s s i b l e .  c h i l d r e n had been f u r n i s h e d w i t h a c o v e r s t o r y w h i c h  i n f o r m a l q u e s t i o n i n g , t o have been a c c e p t e d . b e g i n n i n g o f t h e week i n e a c h introduced themselves be  sitting  around  the playground  no m e n t i o n  and e x p l a i n e d t h e i r presence.  at the class,  d u r i n g r e c e s s and  s c h o o l , s e e i n g how c h i l d r e n p l a y t o g e t h e r .  of television or aggression.  t h e n moved o n t o t h e n e x t  h i s or her behaviour  subject scheduled  reliability  sample o f s c h o o l a g e d  T h e r e was  W h i l e on t h e p l a y g r o u n d , t h e f o r one m i n u t e  f o r observation.  coding sheets  two o b s e r v e r s w e r e t r a i n e d p r i o r t o a r r i v a l  on a d i f f e r e n t  The  (see Appendix F ) .  i n t h e t h r e e towns  c h i l d r e n than those i n the study.  a t t a i n e d d u r i n g t r a i n i n g was .85.  coded t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r i n each s t a n t l y during the observation period. was 0.86  on  They s a i d t h e y w o u l d  before s c h o o l i n the morning,  b e h a v i o u r s were r e c o r d e d on t h e l a b e l l e d  The  Specifically,  town, b o t h o b s e r v e r s went i n t o e a c h  observer l o c a t e d a s u b j e c t , observed  The  appeared,  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s , i n t e r v e i w i n g t h e c h i l d r e n , and w a l k i n g  l u n c h , and a f t e r  and  around the  S i n c e two o b s e r v e r s  town, r e l i a b i l i t y  was t e s t e d  The mean r e l i a b i l i t y  con-  a t time 1  ( b a s e d o n 40 s c o r e s ) a n d .80 a t t i m e 2 ( b a s e d o n 51 s c o r e s ) . * 1  3  26  RESULTS  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w e r e d i v i d e d First,  into several sections.  the r e s u l t s of the o b s e r v a t i o n a l study w i l l  r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e most i m p o r t a n t  be p r e s e n t e d .  These  since the data c o l l e c t e d  were  o b s e r v a t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n i n n a t u r a l f r e e p l a y , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e somewhat r e t r o s p e c t i v e p a p e r and p e n c i l d a t a c o l l e c t e d peers.  f r o m t h e t e a c h e r s and  However, t h e t e a c h e r and p e e r measures o f a g g r e s s i o n a r e impor-  t a n t as v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d  through  observations.  The  sec-  t i o n o n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d y w i l l be s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a n a l y s e s o f variance f o r the l o n g i t u d i n a l data, analyses of variance f o r the crosss e c t i o n a l data, the r e p e r t o i r e of aggressive behaviours time 2 i n a l l t h r e e towns, and f i n a l l y  examination  f o r time  1 and  i n more d e t a i l o f t h e  l o n g i t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n who w e r e e i t h e r h i g h o r l o w i n a g g r e s s i o n a t t i m e 1 and t h e i r a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s a t t i m e of these l a t t e r  2.  The t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g h a b i t s  c h i l d r e n were a l s o s t u d i e d .  The f i n a l  section  will  i n c l u d e t h e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e m u l t i p l e m e a s u r e s o f a g g r e s s i o n ; t h a t i s , the o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures, the peer r a t i n g s , and the t e a c h e r ratings.  Observational  Study  O b s e r v a t i o n a l measures o f b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n were employed a t time  1 and time  o f v a r i a n c e were conducted.  2.  T h e r e f o r e a number o f d i f f e r e n t  First,  a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e were conducted at time  1 who w e r e a g a i n o b s e r v e d  longitudinal  (repeated measures)  on t h e d a t a o f c h i l d r e n  a t time  2.  analyses  Further,  observed  cross-sectional  27  analyses and  o f v a r i a n c e were conducted  on t h e c h i l d r e n o b s e r v e d  on s i m i l a r l y aged c h i l d r e n o b s e r v e d  a t time  a t time  1  2.  The two d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s i n a l l t h e a n a l y s e s  of variance of the  o b s e r v a t i o n a l d a t a w e r e t h e two means o f ( a ) t h e f o u r t e e n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s , and 1.  (b) t h e n i n e v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n  scores.  L o n g i t u d i n a l Analyses Data c o l l e c t e d on c h i l d r e n o b s e r v e d  were a n a l y z e d  i n two 3 x 2  repeated  a t time  1 and a g a i n a t time  measures a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e .  2 The  i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were town and s e x and t h e dependent measures were t h e p h y s i c a l a n d v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n means. s c o r e s o f 44 c h i l d r e n The f o c u s o n t h i s  important  v a r i e d over  s t u d y was  t o e x a m i n e how  time.  the e f f e c t of t e l e v i s i o n exposure  Therefore,  i n e a c h town o v e r  t h e town x t i m e  time  one, as i t demonstrates  In the repeated  what  measures a n a l y s i s of  6  &  (see F i g u r e 1).  r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among  t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e s c o r e s i n t h e t h r e e towns a t time 2, t h e c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  significantly.  town  on t h e p h y s i c a l measures o f a g g r e s s i o n , a town by  Tukey A p o s t hoc a n a l y s e s  (p_ < .01) t h a n  conducted  i n t e r a c t i o n i n the analyses  i n t e r a c t i o n was o b t a i n e d , 1/(2,38) = 3.082, p_ < . 0 6  at time  on  time.  i). P h y s i c a l A g g r e s s i o n . v a r i a n c e conducted  From t h e a n a l y s e s  the c h i l d r e n ' s scores i n each  of v a r i a n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d an i m p o r t a n t occurred  involved the  (16 i n N o t e l , 15 i n U n i t e l , a n d 13 i n M u l t i t e l ) .  c h i l d r e n ' s p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n . i t was  These a n a l y s e s  t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s , who Furthermore,  the aggressive behaviour  in Notel increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y  from time  1 t o time  1.  However,  aggressive d i d not  differ  of the c h i l d r e n 2 (p_ < . 0 1 ) ,  Time 1  Time 2  219  w h e r e a s t h e i n c r e a s e s i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s w e r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . In addition,  t h e main e f f e c t  f o r t i m e was s i g n i f i c a n t , _F(1,38) =  14.406, £ < .001, showing a n o v e r a l l i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n from time  1 t o time  2, w h i c h was m o s t l i k e l y  N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s aggression over •> a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t  due t o t h e i n c r e a s e i n  time, as d i s c u s s e d above.  T h e r e was  f o r s e x , ,F(1,38) =/. 1 7 . 1 0 1 , £ < . 0 0 1 ,  s p e c i f y i n g t h a t m a l e s w e r e more p h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e t h a n f e m a l e s , result  found  (Feshbach,  consistently  1970).  See T a b l e  the p h y s i c a l aggression ii)  i n r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e  behaviour  4 f o rthe analysis of variance results f o r  scores.  Verbal Aggression.  A town by t i m e  for v e r b a l aggression as w e l l , Post hoc a n a l y s e s  a  i n t e r a c t i o n was o b t a i n e d  1/(2,38) = 2 . 6 7 4 , £ < .08 ( s e e F i g u r e 2 ) .  r e v e a l e d t h a t a t time  1, t h e c h i l d r e n i n M u l t i t e l  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a g g r e s s i v e t h a n c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l  were  (£ < . 0 5 ) , b u t  n o t more a g g r e s s i v e t h a n t h e c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l , who, i n t u r n , d i d n o t differ  significantly  from the c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l .  c h i l d r e n ' s s c o r e s had i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y these  (£ < . 0 1 ) , who d i d n o t d i f f e r  Additionally,  f o r towns,  Tukey A p o s t hoc a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t  (Scheffe post hoc t e s t ) ,  f o r N o t e l and M u l t i t e l  (£ < .01) a n d  significantly.  w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t p a i r - w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . complex comparisons  i nUnitel  t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t  J£(2,38) = 3 , 8 4 3 , £ < .04.  2, N o t e l  (£ < . 0 5 ) , r e s u l t i n g i n  c h i l d r e n b e i n g more a g g r e s s i v e t h a n t h o s e  Multitel  A t time  there  However, an a n a l y s i s o f showed t h a t t h e mean  scores  combined were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h e  mean a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e o f c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l the a n a l y s i s o f variance r e s u l t s  (£ < . 0 5 ) .  See T a b l e  f o rthe verbal aggression  scores.  5f o r It  30  Table 4 Analysis  of Variance f o r Physical (Longitudinal  Degrees o f Freedom  Source  Aggression  Data)  Mean S q u a r e s  F Ratio  Probability  0.063  Town  2  0.650  2.981  Sex  1  3.730  17.101  Town x S e x  2  0.246  1.126  38  0.218  Time  1  2.780  14.406  Town x T i m e  2  0.595  3.082  0.06  Sex  1  0.194  1.008  0.32  2  0.003  0.014  0.99  38  0.193  S-within  x Time  Town x S e x x T i m e Time-s-within  indicates a significant  result  0.001* 0.34  0.001*  31  Figure  2.  Town b y  Time I n t e r a c t i o n f o r V e r b a l  Longitudinal  Analysis  Aggression.  32  Table 5 Analysis  of Variance  f o rVerbal  (Longitudinal  Degrees o f Freedom  Source  Aggression  Data)  Mean S q u a r e s  F Ratio  Probability  Town  2  0.176  3.483  0.04*  Sex  1  0.040  0.798  0.38  Town x S e x  2  0.116  2.287  0.12  S-within  0.051  38  Time  1  0.094  2.173  0.15  Town x T i m e  2  0.115  2.674  0.08  Sex x Time  1  0.109  2.534  0.12  Town x S e x x T i m e  2  0.023  0.540  0.59  38  0.043  Time-s-within  indicates a significant  result  33  is  interesting  sex.  t o note  t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t f o r  S i n c e t h e r e s e a r c h on s e x d i f f e r e n c e f o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n i s  v e r y i n c o n c l u s i v e (Feshbach,  1970), these  r e s u l t s a r e an i n t e r e s t i n g  a d d i t i o n to the l i t e r a t u r e . I n sum, t h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s a n a l y s e s  of variance f o r both  p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y t h e a g g r e s s i o n scores of c h i l d r e n i n Notel increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y to time  2, r e s u l t i n g i n N o t e l c h i l d r e n b e i n g  s i v e than  c h i l d r e n i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s .  d i s p l a y e d more p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n t h a n f e r e n c e s were o b t a i n e d 2.  . from time 1  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more The m a l e s i n t h i s  the females  f o r the verbal aggression  aggres-  sample  a n d no s e x d i f -  scores.  Cross-sectional Analyses. The  c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e were conducted  children's aggression scores obtained at both t o t a l o f 240 c h i l d r e n , f o u r l e v e l s were grades  times.  i n f o u r d i f f e r e n t age l e v e l s . 1, 2, 4, a n d 5.  w e r e g r a d e s 1, 2, 3, a n d 4.  A t time  on t h e  This involved a A t time  2, t h e f o u r  1, t h e levels  The c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s e s e n a b l e d t h e  a s s e s s m e n t o f a n y p o s s i b l e c o n f o u n d s due t o d e v e l o p m e n t a l  trends  which  c o u l d have p r o v i d e d an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e o b t a i n e d  longi-  tudinal results.  That i s , as the l o n g i t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n a t time  2 were  y e a r s o l d e r , t h e i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i o n c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d  to the  two  c h i l d r e n b e i n g o l d e r and n o t t o t h e e f f e c t o f t e l e v i s i o n exposure time. any,  By m a k i n g c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l c o m p a r i s o n s , c o u l d be a s s e s s e d .  town by t i m e important.  over  the e f f e c t s o f age, i f  Thus, i n t h e c r o s s — s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s e s b o t h t h e  i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e g r a d e e f f e c t were c o n s i d e r e d t o be  34 Two verbal and  4-way a n a l y s e s  of v a r i a n c e were conducted  a g g r e s s i o n means.  The  independent f a c t o r s were town, sex,  for physical  f o r g r a d e i t was ascertain  The  cross-sectional  important  ( s e e F i g u r e 3).  When d i f f e r e n c e s  among age  As  to i n v e s t i g a t e  i f the younger or o l d e r  1 children  i n M u l t i t e l who  levels  f e r e n c e s among t h e  levels  (p_ <  (p_ < . 0 5 ) .  four levels i n Unitel.  the grade 1 c h i l d r e n differ  The  t h i r d age  less aggressive  than  level children  t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n r e v e a l e d no  children  -01)  p o s t hoc  analyses 3  2, a n d  Unitel  a n d  at  aggres-  (p_ <  .01),  (p_ < . 0 1 ) , who  were  i n U n i t e l were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  level children  2) i n a l l t h r e e t o w n s d i d n o t  (grade  differ  consistent  N o t e l i n c r e a s e d i n a g g r e s s i o n w i t h age; display  K  at  the c h i l d r e n  l e v e l s 1,  M u l t i t e l grade 2 c h i l d r e n  t h i r d age  children  i n M u l t i t e l w e r e more  (p_  grade  G r a d e 2 N o t e l c h i l d r e n w e r e more  Finally, level 4 children  U n i t e l d i d not  to  significant dif-  In addition,  f o r age  i n Notel  significantly.  a g g r e s s i v e t h a n U n i t e l and  effect  the grade 2  T h e r e w e r e no  7  S p e c i f i c a l l y , grade 1 c h i l d r e n  and  no m a i n  this interaction further  . 0 1 ) , w h e r e a s i t was  (p_ < . 0 5 ) .  (p_ < . 0 1 ) .  t h e r e was  l e v e l s were examined f o r each town, the  t h e r e were town d i f f e r e n c e s  d i d not  variance  c h i l d r e n w e r e b e i n g more a g g r e s s i v e .  showed t h a t  time  time,  grade i n t e r a c t i o n ,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s a g g r e s s i v e than  t h e o t h e r t h r e e age  similar.  of  i n N o t e l were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s a g g r e s s i v e than  t h e t h r e e o t h e r age  than  analysis  a g g r e s s i o n r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t town by  1/(6,192) = 2.668, p_ < .02  who  and  grade. i) Physical Aggression.  sive  f o r the p h y s i c a l  i n t h e o t h e r two 5 at time  1, g r a d e 4  significantly.  patterns.  The  towns  Examination  children  however, c h i l d r e n  t h i s g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e w i t h age.  at of  in  i n both M u l t i t e l Although  35 Figure  3.  Town b y G r a d e x T i m e I n t e r a c t i o n f o r P h y s i c a l A g g r e s s i o n . Cross-Sectional  ...'9 . PI  o  •H CO CO CD H bO 60 <  Data. Time 1  •8 \ .7  Multitel  .6  o o c  cu  .3"  tjnitel •Notel  .4  i-l  .3 .2  1.1  Notel  1.0 Multitel  .9 o  •H CO CO CU  .8  n  60 60  <J  o  .7 Unitel  .6  o a  a)  .5  CU  u  .4 .3  2  3 Age  N.B.  Though t h i s  Level  i n t e r a c t i o n was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , i t shows i n more d e t a i l ,  i . e . , separating time intPTeaption.  1 a n d t i m e 2, t h e s i g n i f i c a n t  town by g r a d e  36  there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y  t h a t a t r e n d was d e v e l o p i n g  t o w n s , t h e r e was a n i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r l e v e l 4, o b s e r v i n g  and  from l e v e l 3 t o  c h i l d r e n i n h i g h e r g r a d e s w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y  c o n c l u s i o n s c o u l d be d r a w n . interactions  since i n a l l three  A d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f more  before complicated  ( e . g . , t o w n x t i m e x g r a d e ) r e v e a l e d no c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n s  furthermore,  no m a i n e f f e c t  f o r g r a d e was o b t a i n e d .  Therefore i t  appears t h a t age and p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n were n o t r e l a t e d i n t h i s The  sample.  t i m e b y t o w n i n t e r a c t i o n f o r p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n was n o t s i g n i -  f i c a n t a t l e s s than  t h e .10 l e v e l .  However, v i s u a l  inspection of the  t o w n means a c r o s s t i m e r e v e a l e d a t r e n d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s obtained  f o r t h e d a t a on t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n .  Specifically,  w e r e no s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t o w n s a t t i m e c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l , a t time  1, w h e r e a s t h e  2, w e r e m o r e p h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e t h a n t h e  c h i l d r e n i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s .  I t appears a l s o t h a t the c h i l d r e n i n  M u l t i t e l w e r e more p h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e a t t i m e  2 than  those  i n Unitel.  C h i l d r e n i n e a c h town i n c r e a s e d i n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n f r o m time time  there  2, w i t h t h e N o t e l c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y i n g t h e l a r g e s t  although  t h e r e was no : s t a t i s t i c a l  significance  mirrored  that of longitudinal subjects.  There were s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s  1 to  increase.  Thus,  the pattern of results  f o r t o w n , J ? ( 2 , 1 9 2 ) = 4.0,  p < . 0 2 ; s e x , F ( l , 1 9 2 ) = 6 0 . 1 1 , p_ < . 0 0 1 ; a n d t i m e , F ( l , 1 9 2 ) = 3 0 . 7 2 4 , p_ < . 0 0 1 .  Specifically,  children i n Notel displayed significantly  p h y s i c a l aggression than U n i t e l c h i l d r e n were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  different  (p_ < . 0 5 ) . M u l t i t e l  from e i t h e r N o t e l o r U n i t e l  C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s i s , m a l e s w e r e more aggressive than females,  more  children children.  physically  a n d t h e r e was a n i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i o n  from  37  t i m e 1 t o t i m e 2. the  See T a b l e 6 f o r t h e a n a l y s i s  cross-sectional ii)  physical  aggression  Verbal Aggression.  sion revealed that  scores.  The a n a l y s i s  of variance f o r verbal  t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t t o w n b y t i m e  F ( 2 , 1 9 2 ) = 6.92, £ < .001 ( s e e F i g u r e 4 ) . following: aggressive differ  ( 1 ) a t t i m e 1, c h i l d r e n (p_ < .05) t h a n c h i l d r e n  and  aggression  t u r n , w e r e more v e r b a l l y  i n N o t e l a n d U n i t e l , who  d i d not  i n Notel displayed  signi-  (p < .05) t h a n M u l t i t e l c h i l d r e n ,  aggressive than those i n U n i t e l  t i m e 2 t h a n a t t i m e 1 (p_ < . 0 1 ) , b u t t h e c h i l d r e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y over  No a g e d i f f e r e n c e s  interaction,  i n M u l t i t e l w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  ( 3 ) N o t e l c h i l d r e n w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more v e r b a l l y  did not increase  aggres-  P o s t h o c a n a l y s e s showed t h e  s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; ( 2 ) a t t i m e 2, c h i l d r e n  f i c a n t l y more v e r b a l in  of variance r e s u l t s f o r  who  (p_ < . 0 5 ) ;  aggressive at  i n U n i t e l and M u l t i t e l  time.  were o b t a i n e d , t h a t  i s neither  t h e town by  grade i n t e r a c t i o n n o r t h e main . e f f e c t f o r grade were s i g n i f i c a n t , implying verbal  that  the differences  aggression could  found i n the l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s i s f o r  n o t be a t t r i b u t e d  T h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t raain e f f e c t s £  t o developmental changes.  f o r t o w n , ;F(2,192) = 1 0 . 1 5 2 ,  < . 0 0 1 ; s e x , F ( l , 1 9 2 ) = 5 . 4 9 , p_ < . 0 1 ; a n d t i m e , F ( l , 1 9 2 ) = 8 . 2 4 9 ,  p_. < . 0 0 5 .  Namely, c h i l d r e n  than the c h i l d r e n  i n U n i t e l were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s  i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s (p_ < . 0 1 ) , who  aggressive  d i d not  differ  significantly. The s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t f o r s e x i n d i c a t e d verbally  aggressive than females.  This result also  t h a t m a l e s w e r e more emerged i n t h e  significant  s e x x t i m e i n t e r a c t i o n , _F (.1,192) = 5.037, p_ < .03 ( s e e  Figure 5).  P o s t hoc a n a l y s i s  revealed  that males increased  i n verbal  38  Table 6 Analysis of Variance f o rPhysical Aggression (Cross-Sectional)  Degrees o f Freedom  Source  Mean Squares  F Ratio  P  0.02*  Town  2  0.680  3.999  Sex  1  10.220  60.111  Town x S e x  2  0.027  0.161  Time  1  5.224  30.724  Town x T i m e  2  0.281  1.655  0.19  Sex  1  0.394  2.319  0.13  Town x S e x x T i m e  2  0.-073  0,428  0.65  Grade  3  0.272  1.598  0.19  Town x G r a d e  6  0.454  2.668  0.02*  Sex x Town  3  0.356  2.095  0.102  Town x S e x x G r a d e  6  0.180  1.059  0.39  Time x Grade  3  0.326  1.916  0.13  Town x T i m e x G r a d e  6  0.226  1.328  0.25  Sex x T i m e x G r a d e  3  0.309  1.818  0.15  Town x S e x x T i m e x G r a d e  6  0.547  3.215  0.005*  192  0.17p  x Time  S-within  * indicates a significant  result  0.001* 0.85 0.001*  39  F i g u r e 4.  Town b y T i m e I n t e r a c t i o n Cross-sectional  Time 1  f o r Verbal  Data  Time 2  Aggression.  F i g u r e 5.  Sex b y Time I n t e r a c t i o n Cross-sectional  f o r Verbal  Data  •4 ,  0  i  Time 1  Time 2  Aggression  41  aggression  from time  significantly.  1 t o time  2 (p_ < . 0 5 ) , b u t f e m a l e s d i d n o t i n c r e a s e  Furthermore, a t time  f e r e n c e between males and females. verbal aggression probably  1, t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t This  i n N o t e l between time  due t o t h e b e h a v i o u r  suggests  that the increase i n  1 and time  2 ( s e e a b o v e ) , was  of the males.  Previous  r e s e a r c h has  d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t m a l e s c a n b e more v e r b a l l y a g g r e s s i v e (Gordon & Smith, no  1965).  However, t h i s  s e x d i f f e r e n c e was o b t a i n e d  analysis.  See T a b l e  verbal aggression results obtained  indicated  f o r the c h i l d r e n i n the l o n g i t u d i n a l  from the o b s e r v a t i o n a l data i n diagramatic  f o r t h e t h r e e town x form i n Table  i n hypothesis  c a t e g o r y . were r e c o r d e d ,  o f each p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l  f o r males and f e m a l e s ,  2, f o r e a c h t o w n ( s e e A p p e n d i x I ) .  A t time  a t time  1  1, t h e r e p e r t o i r e s  f o r males and f e m a l e s i n a l l t h r e e towns were s i m i l a r ,  especially for  t h r e e h i g h e s t p h y s i c a l m e a s u r e s a n d t h e t h r e e h i g h e s t v e r b a l mea-  sures  (see Figure 6 ) .  highest  See T a b l e  responses a t time  aggression, and  8.  2, t h e s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r a l r e s p o n s e s w e r e  aggressive  the  time  p o t e n t i a l q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t o w n s , a s  The f r e q u e n c i e s o f o c c u r r e n c e  time  The p o s t h o c  Behaviours.  examined.  and  females  i s n o t a c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g and  scores, for.the c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l data.  Repertoire of Aggressive To a s s e s s  than  7 f o r the a n a l y s i s of variance r e s u l t s f o rthe  i n t e r a c t i o n s are represented 3.  dif-  aggression,  1 and time  c h i l d r e n pushed  interfered  9 f o r the a c t u a l scores 2.  Specifically,  f o rphysical  (PP) , h i t e a c h o t h e r a b o v e t h e w a i s t  i n the a c t i v i t y  of another  (PA1),  (PI); i n addition, for verbal  c h i l d r e n made d i s p a r a g i n g r e m a r k s  commanded e a c h o t h e r  f o r the three  i n l o u d and a n g r y v o i c e s  (VD), argued  ( V C ) , and  (VS). A d d i t i o n a l l y , a t  42  Table 7 Analysis of Variance f o rVerbal  Aggression  (Cross-Sectional)  Degrees o f Freedom  Source  Mean Squares  F Ratio  Probability  0.001*  Town  2  0.351  10.152  Sex  1  0.190  5.490  0.02*  Town x S e x  1  0.061  1.774  0.17  Time  1  0.285  8.249  0.005*  Town x T i m e  2  0.239  6.919  0.001*  Sex x Time  1  0.175  5.057  0.03*  Town x S e x x T i m e  2  0.011  0.312  0.732  Grade  3  0.050  1.435  0.23  Town x G r a d e  6  0.032  0.938  0.47  Sex x Grade  3  0.019  0.543  0.65  Town x S e x x G r a d e  6  0.031  0.904  0.49  Time x Grade  3  0.048  1.384  0.25  Town x T i m e x G r a d e  6  0.016  0.459  0.84  Sex  3  0.025  0.737  0.531  6  0.044  1.280  0.27  192  0.035  x Time x Grade  Town x S e x x T i m e x G r a d e S-within  indicates a significant  result  43  Table Summary T a b l e  8  ( D i a g r a m a t i c F o r m ) o f P o s t Hoc T e s t s  Conducted  o n t h e S i g n i f i c a n t Town x T i m e I n t e r a c t i o n s f o r t h e Observational Data A f t e r  Longitudinal Physical  the Analyses  of Variance  Sample  Aggression Time 1 0.498  Notel Unitel  ns' v  Multitel  Verbal  Time 2 Notel  N  Unitel  0.429< ns 0.415' n S  N  Multitel  p<.01  0.582< ns 0.657'  \  Aggression Time 1  Notel  s  Unitel  n s '  Multitel  V  Cross-Sectional Verbal  0.191%  Time 2 Notel  ns  0.124< .  ^,0.396^, , £_<• 01 p<.01 0.18K — v ns \ 0.215' /  n  c  0.279'  Unitel Multitel  Sample  Aggression Time 1  Notel  0.163 /  Unitel Multitel  N.B.  p<.05  Time 2 Notel  >  ns 0.116< , 0.244/  , 0.354n _ P_<. 05 p<.05 0.152< ^ p<.05 \ 0.224'' n  y  Unitel A  c  Multitel  n  c  Town x T i m e i n t e r a c t i o n f o r p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n i n c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  F i g u r e 6.  R e p e r t o i r e o f the Three Highest Aggressive 1  400  P h y s i c a l and  44  Verbal  S c o r e s a t Time 1 and Time 2  1  •H 4-1  I—I  I  Time 1 •-I  Time 2  cu  u  o  300  o  ti  CU  3 •  cr u  F*4  200  •H  o  cu  S3  100  o 11—1  rH  te  aj  i 'H 1 4-1 1 rH 1  I  rH CD 4J t—1 o CU 4J  g i  4-1 •rH 4-1 rH  3 s  a  p  ii  1  1  1  'rH  •  14J (U •rH  3 p  4-1 •H 4-> rH  cu  I  rH  4-1  n  cu  o a  4J •rl 4-1 rH  i  1  '  13  cu  I 4-> 3  CU 4-) •rl  CU 4J O  t  3  id l-rl  j i j m  Pushes, holds, etc.  Hits, slaps, punches  Chases, throws objects, Kicks  Teases, annoys  Commands, D i s p a r a g e s demands c e n s u r e s  Argues disagrees  45  Table  9  R e p e r t o i r e o f t h e T h r e e H i g h e s t P h y s i c a l and a t Time 1 and (N = 240)  Verbal Aggressive  Time 2  T o t a l C o u n t o f B e h a v i o u r s O v e r 840 M i n u t e s  Time 1  Physical  Hits;  of  Observation  Aggression Notel  Pushes;  Responses  Unitel  Multitel  holds; grabs, etc.  144  140  186  s l a p s ; punches, e t c .  86  58  51  50  39  48  Teases;  annoys; i n t e r f e r e s ,  etc.  Verbal  Aggression Notel  Unitel  Multitel  Commands; demands, e t c .  67  48  74  Disparages; censures, etc.  30  30  48  Argues;  15  14  38  disagrees, etc.  Time 2  Physical  Aggression Notel  Pushes;  holds; grabs, etc.  Chases Hits;  311 78  s l a p s ; punches, e t c .  Unitel  72  Multitel  214 Throws an Object  100 42  405 kicks  47 45  continued  :  46  Table 9  continued  Verbal  Aggression Notel  Unitel  Multitel  Commands; demands, e t c .  97  36  69  Disparages;  77  29  29  53  29  29  censures,  etc.  Argues; d i s a g r e e s , e t c .  47  time  2,  the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n of a g g r e s s i v e behaviours  was  again  among t h e t h r e e t o w n s , t h o u g h t h e a c t u a l number o f r e s p o n s e s i n c r e a s e d i n the m a j o r i t y of cases  (see Appendix I ) .  d i f f e r e n c e among t h e t h r e e t o w n s was fering  i n the a c t i v i t y  1), at time throwing other  of another  The  (see F i g u r e 6 ) .  those  had  one  (the t h i r d highest response  tripping  each  i n M u l t i t e l were k i c k i n g and  These r e s u l t s then, i m p l y t h a t a l t h o u g h  t o i r e across time  Furthermore,  4.  f o r e a c h town d i d n o t  change.  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e t o w n s , a t l e a s t observed  C h i l d r e n High  the media, basis,  i n terms of the  there  the  repert h e r e were  specific  i n c h i l d r e n ' s f r e e p l a y i n the s c h o o l grounds.  and  Low  i n Aggressive  Other r e s e a r c h e r s have found aggression tend  time were  observed,  behaviours  at  inter-  in Unitel  were i n c r e a s e s i n a g g r e s s i o n , f o r the b e h a v i o u r s  no  main  t h a t i n s t e a d of the c h i l d r e n  2 the c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l were c h a s i n g , those  o b j e c t s , and  similar  Behaviour.  that children i n i t i a l l y  high i n  t o be m o s t a f f e c t e d b y e x p o s u r e t o a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s i n  (e.g., S t e i n & F r i e d r i c h ,  1972;  Parke  the h i g h l y aggressive c h i l d r e n at time  aggressive at time  2.  To  children studied i n this b o t h p h y s i c a l and  et a l . ,  1975).  On  1 m i g h t a l s o be h i g h l y  i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r t h i s was  the case  for  sample, t h e median v a l u e s were c a l c u l a t e d  verbal aggression.  s e p a r a t e l y f o r e a c h t o w n , b a s e d on  The  this  medians were  the data of time  the for  determined  1 subjects.  Then,  the subsample o f l o n g i t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n ' s s c o r e s were examined i n r e l a t i o n to these median v a l u e s . each town a r e  shown i n T a b l e  These median v a l u e s f o r the c h i l d r e n i n 10.  O n l y t h e 44  longitudinal  children  c o u l d be  s t u d i e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s as a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s were r e q u i r e d  for  1 and  time  time  2 t o c a l c u l a t e any  i n c r e a s e or decrease  i n aggressive  Table  10  Median Values of Aggression ( U n i t s - Number o f A g g r e s s i v e  Incidents per Minute)  Notel Time 4  Time 2  Physical Aggression  .38  .75  Verbal Aggression  .14  ,29  Unitel Time 1  Time 2  Physical Aggression  .29  .43  Verbal Aggression  .10  .14  Multitel Time 1  Time 2  Physical Aggression  .48  .58  Verbal Aggression  .24  .14  49  responding.  E a c h c h i l d h a d two a g g r e s s i v e s c o r e s , one f o r p h y s i c a l  a g g r e s s i o n and one f o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n . scores f o r time  1 w e r e e x a m i n e d , a s w e r e 44 v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n  The c h i l d r e n w e r e t h e n categories:  T h u s 44 p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n  s u b d i v i d e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r  scores.  s c o r e s i n t o two  t h o s e whose s c o r e s w e r e a b o v e t h e m e d i a n o f t h e e n t i r e  sample a t time  1 f o r p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n , a n d t h o s e whose s c o r e s  below t h e median.  Similarly,  t h e c h i l d r e n were s u b d i v i d e d i n t o  two c a t e g o r i e s f o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n , o n t h e b a s i s o f w h e t h e r s c o r e s were above o r b e l o w t h e median. aggression aggressive  s c o r e s were examined t o determine  1.  their 2  any i n c r e a s e o r decrease i n  I n Notel, ten of the sixteen longitudinal  had p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n  From t i m e  these  t h e same  responding.  i) Notel. observed  Then, each c h i l d ' s time  were  1 t o time  children  s c o r e s above t h e sample median a t time  2, t h e mean i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n f o r  t e n c h i l d r e n was 0.64; t h a t i s , t h e mean number o f p h y s i c a l a g g r e s -  s i o n i n c i d e n t s p e r m i n u t e i n c r e a s e d b y 0.64.  The r e m a i n i n g  s i x children  i n N o t e l , whose p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s were b e l o w t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e 1, a l s o i n c r e a s e d i n a g g r e s s i o n . c h i l d r e n was 0.86. at time  Therefore,  The mean i n c r e a s e f o r t h e s e s i x  f o r both  those  c h i l d r e n above t h e median  1 a n d t h o s e b e l o w t h e m e d i a n , t h e r e was a mean i n c r e a s e i n  p h y s i c a l aggression over responding  time.  The i n c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e s  i n aggressive  f o r b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n  N o t e l a r e shown i n T a b l e s  11 a n d 1 2 , a l s o i n d i c a t e d a r e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s  t e l e v i s i o n viewing hours a t time  2.  F o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n , t h e p a t t e r n was s i m i l a r , i n c r e a s e s a c r o s s time were s m a l l e r .  t h o u g h t h e mean  F o r t h e t e n c h i l d r e n whose  scores  50  Table  11  Physical Aggression - Notel C h i l d r e n A b o v e / B e l o w t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r  Increase/Decrease  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 and T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n  Viewing  H o u r s P e r Week a t T i m e 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  M  0.592  M  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  -  sick  1.714  -  37.5  M  0.334  -  20  M  0.286  -  27  M M M  0.762  -  3  0.620  0.238  M  0.572  -  M  2.952  -  F  0.000  0.000  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.64  27 28 48 27 3.5 13.5  Mean number o f h o u r s = 25.72  ... c o n t i n u e d  Table  11  continued  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  M  1.524  -  28  F  0.655  -  25  F  0.381  -  0.0  F  0,552  -  6.5  F  0.810  -  30.5  F  1.238  -  33  Sex  Mean i n c r e a s e = 0.86  U n i t s f o r the i n c r e a s e or decrease t h e number o f a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n s e s  Mean number o f h o u r s = 2 0 .  of aggressive per minute.  responding  52  Table  12  Verbal Aggression - Notel C h i l d r e n A b o v e / B e l o w t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r  Increase/Decrease  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 and T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n  Viewing  H o u r s p e r Week a t T i m e 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  M  0.300  -  sick  M  0.048  -  20  F  0.095  -  0  M  -  0.095  27  M  -  0.190  28  M  0.095  -  48  M  0.333  -  27  F  -  0.428  30.5  F  0.190  -  13.5  F  0.714  -  33  3  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.1062  Mean number o f H o u r s = 25.56  continued  53  Table  12 c o n t i n u e d  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  M  0.191  -  28  M  0.715  -  37.5  M  0.381  -  27  F  0.302  -  25  F  0.200  -  6.5  M  0.429  -  3.5  Mean I n c r e a s e  = 0.37  Mean Number o f H o u r s  Units f o r the increase/decrease of aggressive responding number o f a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n s e s p e r m i n u t e .  are the  54  were above t h e median a t time  1, t h e mean i n c r e a s e a t t i m e  2 was  0.106,  w h e r e a s t h e mean i n c r e a s e f o r c h i l d r e n w h o s e s c o r e s w e r e b e l o w t h e median a t time  1, was  0.37.  I t i s important  t o note  that the ten  c h i l d r e n above t h e median f o r p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n a t time  1, n e e d n o t  n e c e s s a r i l y be t h e same t e n c h i l d r e n w h o s e s c o r e s w e r e a b o v e t h e m e d i a n f o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n a t time  1; t h a t i s , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p h y s i c a l a n d  v e r b a l s c o r e s were examined s e p a r a t e l y . ' O v e r a l l , o f t h e 32 s c o r e s c o n s i d e r e d i n N o t e l f o r b o t h p h y s i c a l a n d v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n , 26 a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s i n c r e a s e d This d e t a i l e d examination the s i g n i f i c a n t  time.  of the l o n g i t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n i n Notel  supports  r e s u l t s of the l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s i s of variance  p r e v i o u s l y , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e r e was  a significant  ( b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l ) from time Before  (81.3%) over  1 to time  discussed  increase i n aggression  2.  d i s c u s s i n g a s i m i l a r breakdown o f t h e data f o r the l o n g i -  t u d i n a l c h i l d r e n i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s , i t w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e t o discuss the t e l e v i s i o n viewing data c o l l e c t e d Notel. not  Examination  o f t h e t o t a l number o f v i e w i n g h o u r s p e r w e e k d o e s  indicate anything  the p o s s i b i l i t y aggression,  f o r t h e above c h i l d r e n i n  conclusive, although  i t i s interesting  o f a t r e n d ; t h a t i s , f o r b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l  t h e mean number o f v i e w i n g h o u r s a t t i m e  2 for children  whose a g g r e s s i o n s c o r e s were above t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e t h a n t h e mean number o f v i e w i n g h o u r s f o r c h i l d r e n who median a t time only study  1.  This finding  1, w e r e  higher  were below t h e  i s worth n o t i n g because t h i s  i n which observations of aggressive behaviour  obtained p r i o r  to note  to c h i l d r e n ' s regular t e l e v i s i o n viewing.  have  i s the been  The d a t a  b e a r o n t h e " c h i c k e n a n d e g g " q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r c h i l d r e n , who  are  thus  55  more o r l e s s a g g r e s s i v e i n d e p e n d e n t l y  of t e l e v i s i o n ' s e f f e c t s ,  more o r l e s s t e l e v i s i o n when i t b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e . h o w e v e r , t h a t more d a t a a r e n e e d e d b e f o r e a n y Similarly,  It is  1 d i d not  f a v o u r i t e s than those former  s e l e c t more a g g r e s s i v e shows a s  c h i l d r e n who  R o s i e , and  the l a t t e r  For  and  received i n this  shown t h a t CBC m a j o r U.S.  has  Forest Rangers.  t o w n i s CBC.  less aggressive  networks  groups of c h i l d r e n c o u l d  content  t h a n CTV  & Joy,  categories which contain high aggressive 2).  i n N o t e l as t h e  Content a n a l y s i s research  ( W i l l i a m s , Zabrack,  (see Table  and/or the  o n l y two  content  crime  (Gerbner,  approximately  be  only has  three  1977); f o r example,  T h e r e f o r e , a g g r e s s i v e and  c h i l d r e n i n Notel are watching  Waltons,  A possible explanation for  a n i m a t e d programmes ( c a r t o o n s ) and  e t a l . , 1977)  example,  group p i c k e d P a r t r i d g e F a m i l y , A l l i n the  t h a t l e s s h i g h l y a g g r e s s i v e shows w e r e a v a i l a b l e  shows no  their  were not v e r y a g g r e s s i v e .  l a c k o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two  channel  were h i g h l y  g r o u p c h o s e F o r e s t R a n g e r s , P a r t r i d g e F a m i l y , The  Family, Walt Disney, this  drawn.  i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s emerged from i n s p e c t i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s  aggressive at time  C o m i n g Up  apparent,  c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be  r e p o r t s o f t h e i r f a v o u r i t e s h o w s ; t h a t i s , c h i l d r e n who  the  watch  CBC  programmes, 1975;  less  Williams  aggressive  t h e same k i n d o f  television,  t h o u g h t h e a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n a p p e a r t o s p e n d s l i g h t l y more t i m e  watching  television. ii) and  Unitel.  time  2.  Of  In U n i t e l , these  f o r the  1 to time  c h i l d r e n were observed  c h i l d r e n , e i g h t had  above the median a t time from time  fifteen  1.  The  2 f o r these  at time  physical aggression  1  scores  mean i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n c h i l d r e n was  0.12.  The  mean i n c r e a s e  s e v e n c h i l d r e n whose s c o r e s w e r e b e l o w t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e  1  was  56  0.19.  Similarly,  f o r v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n , t h e mean i n c r e a s e f o r t h e  e i g h t c h i l d r e n whose s c o r e s w e r e a b o v e t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e w h e r e a s t h e mean i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i o n f o r t h e s e v e n s c o r e s were below the median a t time I n sum,  1 was  0.115,  o f t h e 30 s c o r e s c o n s i d e r e d i n U n i t e l ,  from time  1 t o t i m e 2.  Two  f o r both  scores remained  is,  from time  11  physical  scores  t h e same.  f i g u r e s e x p l a i n i n more d e t a i l t h e l a c k o f a s i g n i f i c a n t Unitel  0.007,  c h i l d r e n whose  a n d v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n , 17 s c o r e s i n c r e a s e d ( 5 6 . 7 % ) , a n d decreased  1 was  These  increase i n  1 t o time 2 as found i n the a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e ; t h a t  the c h i l d r e n d i d not a l l remain  stable w i t h respect to t h e i r  s i v e b e h a v i o u r , a s c o u l d be p o s t u l a t e d f r o m t h e ANOVA r e s u l t s ,  aggres-  but  i n s t e a d some c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e d i n a g g r e s s i v e n e s s a n d o t h e i s d e c r e a s e d . T h o s e c h i l d r e n who  decreased i n a g g r e s s i v e responding from time  time 2 were not n e c e s s a r i l y w a t c h i n g l e s s t e l e v i s i o n a t time 2 t h e i r p e e r s who  increased.  In f a c t ,  t h e number o f h o u r s  t e l e v i s i o n e a c h week w e r e v e r y s i m i l a r 37 h o u r s , w i t h one  exception —  for a l lchildren  1 to than  spent v i e w i n g (range of  20-  t h i s c h i l d d i d not watch t e l e v i s i o n  at  all) . The Tables The  v i e w i n g h o u r s p e r week o f t h e c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l a r e shown i n  13 a n d  tenuous  14 a s a r e t h e i n c r e a s e s a n d  trend proposed  decreases i n aggression scores.  f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l , t h a t c h i l d r e n whose  s c o r e s w e r e a b o v e t h e a g g r e s s i o n m e d i a n s a t t i m e 1 w e r e w a t c h i n g more t e l e v i s i o n a t t i m e 2, was was  true —  not upheld.  In fact,  i n Unitel,  the opposite  t h e c h i l d r e n whose s c o r e s were b e l o w t h e m e d i a n were  s p e n d i n g more t i m e w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n p o s s i b l y r e n d e r i n g t h e t r e n d e v e n more t e n u o u s !  I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a g a i n appeared  proposed  regarding  57  T a b l e 13 Physical Aggression - U n i t e l C h i l d r e n A b o v e / B e l o w t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r  Increases/Decreases  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 a n d T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s P e r Week a t T i m e 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  -  31  -  0.428  20  M  0.103  -  0  M  0.952  -  23  M  0.000  0.000  M  0.476  -  37  M  -  0.143  35  F  -  0.143  31  M  0.143  F  a  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.12  20.5  Mean number o f H o u r s = 24.67  ... c o n t i n u e d  58  Table  13 c o n t i n u e d  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  M  0.143  -  23.5  M  0.429  -  25.5  F  0.286  -  27.5  F  -  0.047  F  0.048  -  27.5  F  0.285  -  30.5  F  0.191  -  27  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.191  31  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 27.5  Units f o r the increase/decrease of aggressive responding of aggressive responses p e r minute.  a r e t h e number  59  Table  14  Verbal Aggression - Unitel C h i l d r e n A b o v e / B e l o w t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r  Increase/Decrease  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 and T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s a t Time 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  M  0.096  25.5  F  0.095  20  F  0.095  31  M  0.090  0  M  23  0.667  M  0.048  35  F  0.143  30.5  F  0.048  31  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.0065  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 24.5  continued  60  Table  14 c o n t i n u e d  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  M  0.238  -  31  M  0.095  -  23.5  F  0.095  -  27.5  F  0.095  -  27.5  M  0.142  -  20.5  M  0.000  0.000  37  F  0.143  -  27  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.115  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 27.71  61  c h i l d r e n ' s f a v o u r i t e t e l e v i s i o n programmes. r e n were n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y  s e l e c t i n g t h e more a g g r e s s i v e  parison to t h e i r non-aggressive o f t h e programmes CBC  channels  available  from separate  peers.  ( U n i t e l r e c e i v e d two  transmitters.) 1 a n d who  artifact  different  F o r e x a m p l e , one c h i l d  30 h o u r s o f t e l e v i s i o n p e r week a t t i m e  shows i n c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h h a v e b e e n f o u n d A c h i l d who  who  increased i n physical aggression 2 and h e r  t h r e e f a v o u r i t e shows w e r e The W a l t o n s , B e a c h c o m b e r s , a n d W a l t  sive content.  child-  shows i n com-  T h i s c o u l d a g a i n be a n  i n Unitel.  was b e l o w t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e watched approximately  The more a g g r e s s i v e  t o have r e l a t i v e l y  was a b o v e t h e m e d i a n a t t i m e  i n p h y s i c a l aggression watched approximately  Disney,  low  1 and  aggres-  decreased  31 h o u r s p e r week a t  time  2 a n d h e r f a v o u r i t e shows w e r e L i t t l e H o u s e o n t h e P r a i r i e , A b b o t a n d C o s t e l l o , and Bonanza! been found iii) available  (The l a s t  two shows a r e i n c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h h a v e  t o have r e l a t i v e l y h i g h a g g r e s s i v e Multitel.  In Multitel,  f o r observation at both  t h e r e w e r e t h i r t e e n c h i l d r e n who times.  s c o r e s were above t h e median a t time a g g r e s s i o n was  content.)  F o r t h e 5 c h i l d r e n whose  1, t h e mean i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c a l  0.17, w h e r e a s t h e mean i n c r e a s e i n p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n  f o r c h i l d r e n b e l o w t h e m e d i a n was  0.29.  The 8 c h i l d r e n who  above t h e median i n v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n a t time i n a g g r e s s i o n by t i m e unexpected f i n d i n g ,  2.  (The mean d e c r e a s e  s i n c e i n t h e o t h e r towns  aggression i n c r e a s e d from time  1 t o time  2.  1 generally was  0.11)  time  two y e a r s .  The f i v e r e m a i n i n g  scored decreased  T h i s was  an  b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l Those e i g h t c h i l d r e n  the o n l y ones t o demonstrate a c o n s i s t e n t decrease the  were  i n aggression  were over  c h i l d r e n who w e r e b e l o w t h e m e d i a n a t  1, h a d a mean i n c r e a s e o f 0.0004,  essentionally indicating  that  they  62  remained s t a b l e . illustrate  stability  a g g r e s s i o n and s c o r e s and Multitel  However, i n s p e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l f o r these  3 decreased.  five children —  The  i n c r e a s e s and  two  scores d i d  increased i n verbal  decreases  i n aggressive  mean v i e w i n g h o u r s p e r week a r e shown f o r c h i l d r e n i n  i n Tables  In M u l t i t e l ,  15 a n d 26  of these  time  2.  1 to time  One  the U n i t e l c h i l d r e n , significant  16.  s c o r e s were c o n s i d e r e d  a g g r e s s i o n and  s c o r e s , 13 i n c r e a s e d d i d not vary.  these  f o r b o t h p h y s i c a l and (50%)  and  S i m i l a r to the data obtained  r e s u l t s e x p l a i n i n more d e t a i l  others  r a t h e r than a l l the c h i l d r e n remaining  level.  again inconclusive.  The  from the  h i g h o r low  h o u r s w a t c h e d , n o r was ren's  decreased,  television questionnaires  2 (approximately  i n aggression d i d not t h e r e any  relate  40)  was  but whether  c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h respect to the  f a v o u r i t e t e l e v i s i o n programmes.  P a r t r i d g e F a m i l y , H a p p y D a y s , and among t h e c h i l d r e n i n M u l t i t e l  For example, the  aggressive Man,  cartoons,  the e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d f o r  Unitel children  ( t h a t t h e r e was  enough c h o i c e i n t h e s e  latter  c h i l d r e n were w a t c h i n g  a g g r e s s i v e shows), as i n M u l t i t e l  v a r i e t y o f programmes.  child-  Hogan's H e r o e s . T h i s l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e  dispells  l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e i n N o t e l and  the  t o t h e number o f  Happy D a y s , w h e r e a s l e s s a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n p i c k e d  wider  a  of v a r i a n c e ;  children picked Partridge Family, cartoons, Six M i l l i o n Dollar and  from  c h i l d r e n i n M u l t i t e l r e p o r t e d a g r e a t e r number  o f v i e w i n g h o u r s p e r week a t t i m e c h i l d was  a t t h e same  from  the l a c k of  i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i o n o b t a i n e d from the analyses  information obtained  verbal  12 d e c r e a s e d  t h a t i s , some c h i l d r e n i n c r e a s e d i n a g g r e s s i o n a n d  The  not  towns t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e  the  not  aggressive  t h e r e was  a  63  Table  15  Physical Aggression - M u l t i t e l C h i l d r e n Above/Below t h e M e d i a n a t Time 1, T h e i r  Increase/Decrease  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 and T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g Hours a t Time 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  -  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  M  0.238  F  -  M  0.096  -  25.5  M  0.857  -  43  F  0.286  -  34.5  0.619  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.172  38 4  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 29.00  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e m e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  F  0.047  40.5  F  0.179  29.5  F  0.000  F  0.107  0.000  16 22 ... c o n t i n u e d  64  T a b l e 15 c o n t i n u e d  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  M  -  0.239  M  1.000  -  67  M  0.048  -  22  F  1.143  -  54  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.286  sick  Mean Number o f H o u r s  = 35.86  65  Table  16  Verbal Aggression - M u l t i t e l C h i l d r e n A b o v e / B e l o w t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1, T h e i r  Increase/Decrease  i n A g g r e s s i v e R e s p o n d i n g a t Time 2 and T h e i r T e l e v i s i o n V i e w i n g H o u r s a t Time 2  C h i l d r e n ABOVE t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  F  -  0.143  4  F  -  0.238  40.5  F  -  0.060  29.5  F  -  0.571  16  F  -  0.208  22  M  -  0.476  sick  M  -  0.143  67  M  1.000  _  43  Mean I n c r e a s e = - 0 . 1 0 5 i.e.,  t h e r e was a n o v e r a l l  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 31.71 DECREASE  continued  66  Table  16 c o n t i n u e d  C h i l d r e n BELOW t h e M e d i a n a t T i m e 1  Decrease a t Time 2  T.V. Viewing Hours a t Time 2  Sex  Increase a t Time 2  M  0.096  -  38  M  0.048  -  22.5  M  -  0.047  22  F  -  0.048  54  F  -  0.047  34.5  Mean I n c r e a s e = 0.0004  Mean Number o f H o u r s = 34.8  67  However, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g  to note  that only i n Notel did  children  a b o v e t h e m e d i a n i n a g g r e s s i o n s p e n d more t i m e v i e w i n g t e l e v i s i o n  than  c h i l d r e n below the median.  re-  versed. had to  Furthermore,  been a v a i l a b l e television,  - their  one  In the other  i n N o t e l , where t h e c h i l d r e n had  p r e v i o u s e x p o s u r e who  shows.  ( I t s h o u l d be  still  CBS,  ABC,  noted  previous  o r NBC  to a v a r i e t y of  t h a t t h o u g h CBC  had  ( W i l l i a m s , Zabrack, Therefore  w e r e e x p o s e d t o some a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s o n sum,  no  the data reviewed  in this  f i n d i n g s o f some p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h  exposure  children  aggressive  less aggressive & Joy,  content  1977), there i s  N o t e l and  Unitel  children  s e c t i o n do n o t  (Stein & Friedrich,  support 1972;  the Parke  the a g g r e s s i v e behaviour  o f b o t h a g g r e s s i v e and  aggressive c h i l d r e n g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e d over of M u l t i t e l  children i n i t i a l l y  time, w i t h the  high i n verbal aggression.  In  p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h may  Specifically,  be  i n the present  p l a y p e r i o d s a t s c h o o l , and television just prior  c h i l d r e n were observed  i n addition,  t h e y had  to the o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d s .  (e.g., S t e i n & F r i e d r i c h ,  1972)  observed  A possible study  collection.  during free  not been  watching  Previous  c h i l d r e n immediately  exposure to a g g r e s s i v e models i n the schoolroom.  the  exception  a d i f f e r e n c e i n methods of d a t a study  to  less  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the d i s c r e p a n c y between the r e s u l t s of the p r e s e n t and  et  high i n aggression tend  be m o s t a f f e c t e d b y e x p o s u r e t o a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s i n t h e m e d i a . study,  as  television.)  a l . , 1975); t h a t i s , t h a t c h i l d r e n i n i t i a l l y  present  shows  h a v e s e l e c t e d a g g r e s s i v e shows  have a c c e s s  a g g r e s s i o n d i s p l a y e d on CBC.  In  t r e n d was  H o w e v e r , more i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e e d e d a b o u t  without  t h a n CTV,  towns t h i s  c o u l d p o s t u l a t e t h a t i f more a g g r e s s i v e  a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n may  favourites.  two  S t e i n and  researchers after Friedrich's  68  (.1972) f i n d i n g s t h a t l e s s a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n do n o t i n aggressive responding not  may  have o c c u r r e d because t h e s e  u s e d t o a c t i n g a g g r e s s i v e l y , and  immediately h a v e no  t h u s , m i g h t be  copy a model's b e h a v i o u r .  h e s i t a t i o n about behaving  time  that behaving  c h i l d r e n may reasons.  years  i n the present  are l i k e l y  know e a c h o t h e r .  peers.  In addition,  Finally,  c h i l d r e n may  s i o n i s e f f e c t i v e and  o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s and  see  a g g r e s s i v e and  a l s o a c t as  aggressive  aggressive  less aggressive  C o r r e l a t i o n s among M e a s u r e s o f advantage of t h i s  the  l e a r n from o b s e r v i n g models t h a t  a c c e p t a b i l i t y may  Therefore,  and  on  to the a g g r e s s i v e behaviour  that i t i s acceptable  to the non-aggressive  f o r them.  aggression  least  film, children  t h e l e s s a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n may  use of  their  aggres-  (this i s especially  & Joy,  n o t be  1977).  immediately  The  true  messages  apparent  or  n o t be  very  c h i l d r e n a s a g g r e s s i o n may i f c h i l d r e n are not observed  a f t e r e x p o s u r e t o a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s , any  An  conse-  Over a p e r i o d of  t h e same a g e ,  f o r t e l e v i s e d a g g r e s s i o n , W i l l i a m s , Zabrack,  salient  or at  t o be more s a l i e n t m o d e l s t h a n t h o s e  aggression i n r e t a l i a t i o n  important  sooner,  may  a l s o d i s p l a y i n c r e a s e d a g g r e s s i o n f o r a number o f p o s s i b l e  s i n c e the peer groups are approximately  observed  reluctant to  s t u d y ) , some l e s s  For example, t h e i r a g g r e s s i v e peers  m o d e l s , and  c h i l d r e n were  i n an a g g r e s s i v e manner, and  aggressively i s acceptable.  ( f o r e x a m p l e , two  increase  However, a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n  q u e n t l y , they might copy the model's b e h a v i o u r realise  d i s p l a y an  immediately  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between h i g h l y  c h i l d r e n may  be  diffused.  Aggression  s t u d y was  the use  of m u l t i p l e measures  ( t h a t i s , o b s e r v a t i o n s , t e a c h e r r a t i n g s and  peer  of  ratings).  69  Most p r e v i o u s for  researchers  example, o b s e r v a t i o n s  have employed o n l y one measure o f a g g r e s s i o n , (Stein & Friedrich,  Schramm e t a l . , 1 9 6 1 ) o r s u r v e y s t i n g data  (Himmelweit e t a l . , 1959).  f r o m more t h a n one s o u r c e ,  v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s c o u l d be a s s e s s e d , placed  i n the v a l i d i t y  Pearson product data.  1972), o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  t h a t i s , more c o n f i d e n c e  o f t h e measures employed.  moment c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e c o m p u t e d o n t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l  S e p a r a t e c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed f o r e a c h town a t t i m e 1 and  c o r r e l a t e d were:  ( a ) t h e two a g g r e s s i o n  four teacher  aggressive,  rating  sums ( i . e . ,  bossy, and h o s t i l e  The  items  means ( P h y s i c a l a n d V e r b a l ) ;  SSI, the teacher  rating  sum : f o r  s c a l e s ; S S 2 , t h e sum o f t e a c h e r  t h e a c t i v e and l o u d s c a l e s ; SS3, t h e t e a c h e r  competitive the  c o u l d be  To t h i s a i m , s e v e r a l  i n a t o t a l of 6 correlation matrices.  for  collec-  c r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n among t h e  t i m e 2, r e s u l t i n g  (b)  By  rating  sum f o r t h e  a n d d o m i n a n t s c a l e s ; a n d S S 4 , t h e sum o f t e a c h e r  f r i e n d l y and honest s c a l e s ) ; and ( c ) t h e f i v e peer r a t i n g  (i.e.,  peer r a t i n g  f o rbossy; f i g h t s ;  d i s a g r e e s ; and pushes, shoves, and T i m e 1.  ratings  t a l k s back t o teacher;  ratings f o r measures argues and  pokes).  O v e r a l l , a t time 1 ( c o l l a p s e d across  a l l three  towns, see  A p p e n d i x J ) , o f t h e 55 p o s s i b l e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e v a r i o u s scores,  45 o r 8 1 . 8 % o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05  l e v e l or b e t t e r . were s i g n i f i c a n t .  8  Specifically,  i n N o t e l , 40 o f t h e 55 c o r r e l a t i o n s  The m a j o r i t y o f m e a s u r e s c o r r e l a t e d w e l l among t h e m -  s e l v e s and w i t h t h e o t h e r measures, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t i o n s of the peer r a t i n g It  c o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e  d a t a were c o n s i d e r e d  of the correla-  s c o r e s w i t h t h e v e r b a l measure o f a g g r e s s i o n . at this point  to reiterate  t o be t h e most v a l i d  that the observational  of t h e v a r i o u s measures, f o r  70  a v a r i e t y of reasons. it  N a m e l y , s i n c e two o b s e r v e r s  was p o s s i b l e t o c a l c u l a t e i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y .  s c o r e s w e r e .89 a t t i m e  1 a n d .80 a t t i m e  coded t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r and  coded t h e b e h a v i o u r ,  2.  These  In addition,  reliability the observers  as i t o c c u r r e d , whereas both  the children  t h e t e a c h e r s were r e q u i r e d t o g i v e o v e r a l l r e t r o s p e c t i v e i m p r e s s i o n s .  Furthermore,  a s t h e t e a c h e r s a n d c h i l d r e n know e a c h o t h e r t h e y  have p r e c o n c e i v e d  i d e a s a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f who t h e y  thought  was  s i v e w h i c h might i n f l u e n c e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s and judgements. s e r v e r s would n o t have any e x p e c t a t i o n s a t l e a s t lating  reliability  prevented  initially,  might aggres-  The o b and c a l c u -  i n d i v i d u a l perceptions from b i a s i n g the  data. In  sum, f o r N o t e l , t h e p e e r a n d t e a c h e r  ratings correlated with  the p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n measure, whereas o n l y t e a c h e r w i t h t h e v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n measure. c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e p e e r r a t i n g  ratings correlated  A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the poor s c o r e s and t h e v e r b a l  aggression  measure m i g h t be t h a t c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s h o l d d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s and perceptions of verbal aggression, but not f o r p h y s i c a l aggression, a d m i t t e d l y a more b l a t a n t f o r m o f a g g r e s s i o n . In cant.  U n i t e l , a t time  T h e p e e r r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d among  themselves  w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n m e a s u r e , b u t , a g a i n , n o t w i t h t h e mea-  sure o f v e r b a l aggression. not  signifi-  Namely, t h e t e a c h e r r a t i n g s were p o o r l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e o t h e r  measures o f a g g r e s s i o n . and  1, o n l y 21 o f t h e 55 c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e  I t appeared t h a t i n U n i t e l  agree w i t h the p e r c e p t i o n of aggression o f e i t h e r  the observers aggression.  the teachers d i d the children or  and t h e c h i l d r e n d i d n o t base t h e i r judgements on v e r b a l  71  An  examination  of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s  i n M u l t i t e l a t time  1  i n d i c a t e d a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n to that obtained  f o r N o t e l ; t h a t i s , 36  the p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t .  On  measures were w e l l  the whole, the  of  various  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the e x c e p t i o n , a g a i n , of the  correla-  t i o n s of the peer r a t i n g s w i t h the v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n measure. I n sum, t e a c h e r s and  f o r time  1, i n N o t e l and  c h i l d r e n were b o t h  Multitel,  sensitive  i t appeared t h a t  to p h y s i c a l aggression,  t h e c h i l d r e n seemed t o o v e r l o o k v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n . w h i c h was  The  a l s o t r u e f o r t h e U n i t e l c h i l d r e n , m i g h t be  definitions  f o r c h i l d r e n and  the  latter  due  but  result,  to the  different  a d u l t s , as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s a g g r e s s i o n .  P e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e r a t i n g s c a l e s g i v e n t o t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e mostly who  concerned  with physical aggression  pushes, shoves,  physical  and  pokes the most?) thus  At  time  2,  the  most?;  f o c u s i n g the c h i l d r e n  on  38 o f t h e 55 p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s ( c o l l a p s e d  a c r o s s a l l t h r e e towns) were s i g n i f i c a n t i n N o t e l , 26  related well  (see Appendix J ) .  Specifically,  c o r r e l a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t , a r e d u c t i o n i n the  of s i g n i f i c a n t  c o r r e l a t i o n s from time  1.  P e e r and  number  teacher r a t i n g s cor-  i n most c a s e s , whereas b o t h o f t h e s e measures c o r r e l a t e d  p o o r l y w i t h the o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures of In U n i t e l ,  aggression.  28 o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t .  c o r r e l a t i o n s o b t a i n e d was 1;  fights  behaviours.  T i m e 2.  time  ( e . g . , who  very  similar  to that obtained  The  p a t t e r n of  for Unitel  t h a t i s , the teacher r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d p o o r l y w i t h the  at  other  m e a s u r e s o f a g g r e s s i o n , and  the peer r a t i n g s d i d not  v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n measure.  I t a p p e a r e d , a g a i n , t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n may  sensitive  to p h y s i c a l aggression but not  correlate with  to v e r b a l aggression.  the be  72  In M u l t i t e l , significant.  a t time  2, 37 o f t h e p o s s i b l e 55 c o r r e l a t i o n s  were  The p e e r r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n  measure and m o d e r a t e l y  w e l l w i t h t h e v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n measure .  Similar  i n Unitel,  to the finding  physical aggression.  t h e c h i l d r e n seemed s e n s i t i v e t o  However, i n M u l t i t e l ,  t h e c h i l d r e n seemed  t o be  more a w a r e o f v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n . I n sum, a t t i m e  2, t h e t e a c h e r r a t i n g s i n N o t e l d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e  w i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures o f a g g r e s s i o n , and i n a l l t h r e e  towns  t h e p e e r r a t i n g s d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e w e l l w i t h t h e v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n measure  (though  i n Multitel,  i n t h e o t h e r two t o w n s ) .  these  c o r r e l a t i o n s were s l i g h t l y b e t t e r  The two f a c t s ,  that the teacher  than  ratings i n  N o t e l d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e w i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures of a g g r e s s i o n and  t h a t t h e peer r a t i n g s i n N o t e l d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e w i t h t h e measure  o f p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n , w e r e t h e o n l y m a j o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s among t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s from time  1 and time  2.  A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r these  d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n N o t e l c o u l d be t h a t b o t h  t h e t e a c h e r ' s and c h i l d r e n ' s  t o l e r a n c e o f aggression i n c r e a s e d from time the  1 t o time  Therefore,  t e a c h e r s and c h i l d r e n d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h e o b s e r v e r s , a t time  t o w h i c h c h i l d r e n were a g g r e s s i v e and w h i c h were n o t . u s e d t h e same a p r i o r i thus  2.  i t i s unlikely  definitions  The  a t both phases of data  t h e r e were changes i n t h e o b s e r v e r s '  2, a s  observers collection,  tolerance of  a g g r e s s i o n o r changes i n d e f i n i t i o n s o f what i s a g g r e s s i o n f r o m t i m e to time and  2.  T e l e v i s i o n was n o t new t o t h e p e o p l e  i n Unitel or M u l t i t e l  t h e r e f o r e . t h e i r t o l e r a n c e a n d d e f i n i t i o n s o f a g g r e s s i o n may n o t  have changed from time correlations  i n these  1 t o time  2, e x p l a i n i n g why  two t o w n s w e r e s i m i l a r  1  the patterns of  at both  times.  73  DISCUSSION  In previous  r e s e a r c h , b o t h i n the l a b o r a t o r y and i n the f i e l d ,  been found t h a t i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f cases,  c h i l d r e n exposed to  i t has  aggressive  models, e i t h e r l i v e  o r on f i l m ,  i m i t a t e the aggression  aggressive  increases.  The r e s u l t s o f b o t h t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a n d  behavior  cross-sectional analyses  i n this  study  d i s p l a y e d and  i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on t h e whole,  ren i n N o t e l i n c r e a s e d i n b o t h p h y s i c a l and v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t e l e v i s i o n t o t h e i r town. this  increased aggression  I t seems r e a s o n a b l e  to attribute  That i s , through exposure t o  models i n aggressive  models, the c h i l d r e n ' s i n h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t a c t i n g i n an a g g r e s s i v e have been r e d u c e d  (Bandura's theory  conclusion i s supported i n the analyses  analysis of variance only Notel  f o r physical aggression  f o r verbal aggression,  children increased  behaviour  aggression  of  time. i n this  that Notel c h i l d r e n ' s l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t e l e v i s i o n  the e f f e c t s o f observing  on c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e  study  enhanced behaviour.  T h a t i s , N o t e l c h i l d r e n may h a v e a b s o r b e d more o f w h a t t h e y w a t c h e d children i n the other aggressive It  than  two t o w n s , a n d t h u s b y t i m e 2 became e v e n more  than c h i l d r e n i n those  towns.  i s also l i k e l y that television,  energizing effect or disinhibiting Tannenbaum a n d Z i l l m a n  This  and t h e c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l  the aggressive  s i g n i f i c a n t l y over  may  of variance; that i s ,  Another p o s s i b l e explanation f o r the r e s u l t s obtained is  manner  o f o b s e r v a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g , 1969).  by t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s e s  of variance  child-  a f t e r the  t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new a g g r e s s i v e  N o t e l b e t w e e n t i m e 1 a n d t i m e 2.  their  i n g e n e r a l , had a n o n - s p e c i f i c  e f f e c t on t h e N o t e l c h i l d r e n .  (1975) have a r g u e d t h a t w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n  may  74  lead  t o a g e n e r a l s t a t e o f a r o u s a l w h i c h may  i n aggressive behaviour.  According  expressed  to Berlyne's  t h e i n f l u e n c e o f n o v e l t y on a r o u s a l l e v e l s , not  be  (1960) t h e o r y  towns and  w o u l d t h u s be  increased.  hibiting  m i g h t be  Multitel children.  e f f e c t of t e l e v i s i o n ,  w o u l d be u n l i k e l y  concerning were  the c h i l d r e n  in  aggression  the n o v e l t y of t e l e v i s i o n wears o f f N o t e l  children's aggressive responding l e v e l o f U n i t e l and  than  the p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e i r e x p r e s s i n g As  increase  t h e N o t e l c h i l d r e n who  f a m i l i a r w i t h t e l e v i s i o n w o u l d be more a r o u s e d  t h e o t h e r two  i n an  expected  to decrease  to  However, b e c a u s e o f the  the N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s l e v e l of  to r e t u r n to that e x h i b i t e d before  the  disin-  aggression  the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  television. No  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  v i e w i n g h a b i t s and  found  between c h i l d r e n ' s s p e c i f i c  t h e i r aggressive behaviour,  and  television  the h y p o t h e s i s  that  N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e r e p e r t o i r e s would change w i t h the i n c e p t i o n o f t e l e v i s i o n was If  not  the content  supported.  o f t e l e v i s i o n p r o g r a m m i n g was  s p e c i f i c aggressive behaviours, was  expected  to v a r y from time  the r e p e r t i o r e of a g g r e s s i o n d i s p l a y e d 1 to time  t i o n of the r e p e r t o i r e data i n d i c a t e d v i s i o n to N o t e l d i d not  alter  2 i n Notel.  from those  Furthermore,  However, i n s p e c -  t h a t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  the c h i l d r e n ' s r e p e r t o i r e .  the N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s aggressive r e p e r t o i r e s different  affecting children's  e x h i b i t e d by  were not  At  tele-  time  1,  significantly  t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e o t h e r two  towns.  t h e r e w e r e no m a j o r c h a n g e s i n t h e N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s r e p e r -  t o i r e s at time  2.  B a s e d on  t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s t h e r e was  evidence  t h a t c h i l d r e n w e r e l e a r n i n g s p e c i f i c new  vision.  However, i t i s i m p o r t a n t  to note  behaviours  no  from  t h a t the c h i l d r e n were  teleobserved  75  during free play periods at school. which s p e c i f i c behaviours h i b i t e d , although laboratory.  T h i s s i t u a t i o n i s n o t one i n  s e e n o n t e l e v i s i o n w o u l d be l i k e l y  i t i s c e r t a i n l y a more r e a l i s t i c  F o r example, content  analyses  setting  t o be e x -  than the  have r e v e a l e d t h a t p h y s i c a l  a g g r e s s i o n p o r t r a y e d on t e l e v i s i o n i s o f t e n i n t h e form o f b r a n d i s h i n g a weapon, o r u s i n g a n o b j e c t n o t i n t e n d e d furniture  ( W i l l i a m s e t a l . , 1977).  as a weapon, s u c h as h o u s e h o l d  Clearly,  r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n the school playground. these  s p e c i f i c behaviours  likely  from watching  that the behaviours  such o b j e c t s a r e not Even i f c h i l d r e n had l e a r n e d  t e l e v i s i o n programmes, i t i s un-  w o u l d be d i s p l a y e d on t h e p l a y g r o u n d .  A  d r a w b a c k t o t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o c c u r s when o n e c o n s i d e r s t h e u s e o f v e r b a l aggression, which i s not r e s t r i c t e d  t o any p a r t i c u l a r  Notel c h i l d r e n ' s r e p e r t o i r e s of v e r b a l aggression tially for  from those  this  displayed i n the other  towns.  setting.  The  d i d not d i f f e r  substan-  A possible explanation  l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e among t h e t h r e e t o w n s i n v e r b a l  aggression  d i s p l a y e d i s t h a t c h i l d r e n may be m o r e e x p o s e d t o v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n i n t h e i r own e n v i r o n m e n t s t h a n c h i l d r e n have observed  to p h y s i c a l aggression.  men " s h o o t i n g  b u t many c h i l d r e n h a v e w i t n e s s e d abusive.  i to u t " o r c a r chases i n r e a l  people  being  so t h e f r e q u e n c y  s i o n i n c r e a s e s even though t h e form does n o t v a r y . may a l s o o c c u r  negative  of verbal Of c o u r s e ,  f o r p h y s i c a l aggression, which i s portrayed as  (Larsen, Gray, & F o r t i s ,  aggresaggresthis  extremely  1968; W i l l i a m s e t a l . , 1977);  consequences f o r a g g r e s s i o n  television fiction.  life,  s a r c a s t i c and v e r b a l l y  What c h i l d r e n may l e a r n f r o m t h e m e d i a i s t h a t v e r b a l  s i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e and a c c e p t a b l e ,  effective  T h a t i s , n o t many  are v i r t u a l l y non-existent i n  T h u s t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e  i n the r e s u l t s of the  76  present  study  television. no  that c h i l d r e n l e a r n s p e c i f i c aggressive responses The  r e s u l t s do n o t p r e c l u d e  d i r e c t evidence The  failure  this possibility,  from  but  provide  to support i t .  to f i n d  t h a t h i g h l y a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n w e r e more a f -  f e c t e d t h a n l e s s a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n by e x p o s u r e t o a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s t e l e v i s i o n adds f u r t h e r support t o  the  suggestion that children learn  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a g g r e s s i o n from t e l e v i s i o n . a g g r e s s i v e c h i l d r e n , who behaviour, and  per  s e , may  T h a t i s , some  learn that this  to other c h i l d r e n ' s aggressiveness.  type of behaviour  The indicated cantly had  and  in retaliation  or  ( W i l l i a m s e t a l . , 1977) , c h i l d r e n i n i t i a l l y  portrayed  aggressive less  aggressive  so.  analyses  of v a r i a n c e  that M u l t i t e l  from time  ( b o t h l o n g i t u d i n a l and c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l )  c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i o n d i d not  1 to time  b e e n p o s t u l a t e d t o be  Multitel  i s acceptable  Perhaps i f t e l e v i s i o n  ways o f d e a l i n g w i t h a g g r e s s i o n o t h e r t h a n s u b m i s s i o n  might remain  less  might not n e c e s s a r i l y i m i t a t e a g g r e s s i v e  so i n c l u d e i t i n t h e i r p l a y r e p e r t o i r e s , e s p e c i a l l y  retaliation  on  2, a l t h o u g h  i n hypothesis  h i g h e r at time  2.  increase 3 their  I t m i g h t be  signifi-  aggression  that  the  c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t e d a maximum i n a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n d i n g  so f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e was  not p o s s i b l e a t time  2.  However, a t time  t h e c h i l d r e n i n N o t e l d i s p l a y e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a g g r e s s i o n Multitel  children,  d i n g was  possible.  sion following  indicating Given  an a r o u s a l e f f e c t  than  that a higher l e v e l of aggressive  1 2,  the  respon-  the marked i n c r e a s e i n N o t e l c h i l d r e n ' s aggres-  t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t e l e v i s i o n , and  increase i n M u l t i t e l  a t time  the- l a c k o f a  significant  c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i o n , i t seems m o s t l i k e l y  combined w i t h d i s i n h i b i t i o n o c c u r r e d  for Notel  that children  77  rather  than the hypothesized  to r e t u r n to Notel  i n the  cumulative e f f e c t .  f u t u r e when t h e  accustomed to having t e l e v i s i o n , r e s p o n d i n g decreased to the predicted  t o see  l e v e l of  from the h y p o t h e s i s  the  sex  the  l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s i s and  the  f i n d i n g s ; that  sically  than females  for verbal aggression a r e a has sex  i n the  difference at  time 1).  a trend,  consistent with  cross-sectional analysis — than females.  The  statistically  size involved analysis).  In t h i s  research  on  Previous  The  (44  research  The  sex  the  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  consis-  no  significant  verbal aggression  means  longitudinal analysis  sex  the  revealed  d i f f e r e n c e found i n  relatively 240  credibility  probably  smaller  i n the  the  aggressive  sample  cross-sectional  differences  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h most  p h y s i c a l aggression.  How-  significantly  ( t h e r e was  most i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g c o n c e r n i n g sex  t h i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d f i n d i n g lends  this  longitudinal analysis.  comparison w i t h  w h i c h was  obtained  significant  l o n g i t u d i n a l a n a l y s i s was  s i g n i f i c a n t because of  d i f f e r e n c e s and  in  no  t h a t m a l e s w e r e more v e r b a l l y  s u b j e c t s , by  i n both  results  s t u d y t h e r e was  i n the  significant  that for physical aggression,  of  (Feshbach, 1970).  females i n the  the  tele-  i s , m a l e s w e r e f o u n d t o be more p h y -  E x a m i n a t i o n of  f o r b o t h m a l e s and  be  familiarity with i t .  physical aggression  at time 2 than females  obtained  not  towns, as w o u l d  c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , males d i s p l a y e d  more v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n  aggressive  c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s were  difference i n verbal aggression  ever,  l a c k of  were i n c o n c l u s i v e .  a l s o been i n c o n s i s t e n t .  two  l e v e l of  c h i l d r e n ' s r e a c t i o n s to  f o r the  tent with previous aggressive  other  that Notel  differences obtained  c h i l d r e n h a v e become more  whether t h e i r  v i s i o n were h e i g h t e n e d because of t h e i r The  I t w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g  was  previous  The r e p l i c a t i o n to the  other  findings  78  obtained because i t i n d i c a t e s  t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d were n o t from  a  s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n than c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d i n other r e s e a r c h on a g g r e s s i o n . One a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s experimenter  bias.  t h e towns i n w h i c h  I t was n o t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e o b s e r v e r s they were o b s e r v i n g .  However,  f i n d i n g s argue s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t experimenter time  d i d n o t know t h a t U.S.  bias.  The two o b s e r v e r s a t  obtained at time the time  and Canadian t e l e v i s i o n d i f f e r  The o b s e r v e r s a t t i m e  t o be b l i n d t o  s e v e r a l aspects of the  1 were n a i v e c o n c e r n i n g t h e s p e c i f i c hypotheses  sion content.  study i s  b e i n g t e s t e d , and i n l e v e l of  aggres-  2, t h o u g h u n a w a r e o f t h e r e s u l t s  1, knew t h a t N o t e l h a d r e c e i v e d t e l e v i s i o n j u s t  after  1 o b s e r v a t i o n s h a d b e e n made, a n d a l s o knew t h a t N o t e l a n d  U n i t e l r e c e i v e d o n l y CBC w h e r e a s M u l t i t e l r e c e i v e d CBC a n d s e v e r a l US stations. found  H o w e v e r , n e i t h e r o b s e r v e r knew t h a t US n e t w o r k s h a d b e e n  t o c o n t a i n more a g g r e s s i v e c o n t e n t  1970; W i l l i a m s e t a l . , not expect M u l t i t e l (i.e.,  T h e r e f o r e , a t time  t i o n a l l a c k of support  1, t h e o b s e r v e r s d i d  And, i n d e e d , t h i s d i d n o t o c c u r , i n d i c a t i n g f o r p o t e n t i a l experimenter  bias.  That the  addaggres-  d i s p l a y e d i n a l l t h r e e towns a t b o t h phases o f d a t a  c o l l e c t i o n w e r e s i m i l a r was a n o t h e r hypothesized  (Singer,  c h i l d r e n to display the highest l e v e l of aggression  hypothesis 3).  sive behaviours  1977).  than Canadian t e l e v i s i o n  unexpected  finding;  i t had been  t h a t t h e a g g r e s s i v e r e p e r t o i r e i n N o t e l would change w i t h  t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a g g r e s s i v e m o d e l s on t e l e v i s i o n .  I f experimenter  b i a s had been o p e r a t i n g w h i l e t h e d a t a were b e i n g c o l l e c t e d , t h e o b s e r v e r s would have had t o m e n t a l l y r e g i s t e r , w h i l e c o d i n g , w h i c h responses  were t h e most  f r e q u e n t and remember t h e o r d e r f r o m  aggressive town t o  79  town.  Since experimenter  u n l i k e l y t h a t coders b e i n g aware of t h i s  b i a s often occurs without  r e g i s t e r e d and  a w a r e n e s s , i t seems  remembered t h e r e p e r t o i r e s w i t h o u t  process.  Another f i n d i n g  that argues against experimenter  the m a j o r i t y of cases,  teacher  bias i s that i n  r a t i n g s and/or peer r a t i n g s were  signifi-  c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the o b s e r v a t i o n a l aggression scores, p r o v i d i n g validation  f o r the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the data o b t a i n e d .  could not b i a s t h e i r the o b s e r v a t i o n s .  both  ability, ways on  time  In addition,  1 and  time  t h e t e a c h e r s and  Finally, 2) was  a b o v e 80%.  individual observations  To  time  c h i l d r e n d i d not  the r e l i a b i l i t y of the  t h e o b s e r v e r s w o u l d have had  throughout  observers  data to agree w i t h r a t i n g s obtained a t the  the purpose of the study. (at  The  of  know  observations  o b t a i n t h i s high, r e l i -  to b i a s t h e i r data i n s i m i l a r  ( r e l i a b i l i t y was  t h e o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d a s two  coders  calculated were p r e s e n t  intermitantly i n each  town). Since  some o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s w e r e n o t  between o b s e r v a t i o n s and  p e e r and  and  o b t a i n e d between o b s e r v e r s ,  h i g h r e l i a b i l i t y was  confident that experimenter results  teacher  confirmed  b i a s i s not  r a t i n g s were p o s i t i v e  a sufficient  overall,  t h i s author  feels  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the  obtained.  A f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the changes between time  1 and  time  m e n t a r y s c h o o l s a c q u i r e d new new  , correlations  s c h o o l r u l e s and  i t w o u l d most p r o b a b l y  2 i n school personnel.  principals,  attitudes  f i n d i n g s has  and  S t r i c t e r punishment f o r f i g h t i n g  Had  with  A l l three  t h e y m i g h t have  towards aggression.  have been r e s t r i c t e d  t o do  this  ele-  instituted occurred,  to p h y s i c a l aggression.  i n the playground  would reduce  the  80  amount o f p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n e x h i b i t e d , o r , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a more l e n i e n t a t t i t u d e m i g h t l e a d t o a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e amount o f displayed. time  The a t t i t u d e s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s  2) w e r e v e r y  t h a t someone was present  similar; going  to get hurt.  on t h e p l a y g r o u n d  sive behaviour  roughhousing  i n N o t e l and M u l t i t e l ( a t  was a l l o w e d u n l e s s i t a p p e a r e d  I n U n i t e l , when t h e p r i n c i p a l  ( t h i s was n o t o f t e n ) ,  was dampened.  However,  i n N o t e l , t h e r e was a  significant  T h i s w o u l d be  t o e x p l a i n by a change i n p r i n c i p a l s as t h e c o n c e r n  Furthermore,  s c h o o l s r e c e i v e d new p r i n c i p a l s b u t o n l y t h e a g g r e s s i o n  increased  s i g n i f i c a n t l y over  i n Notel  t i m e , and U n i t e l c h i l d r e n were n o t  aggressive than c h i l d r e n  in  on t h e b a s i s o f p r i n c i p a l ' s p o l i c i e s  a s w o u l d be p r e d i c t e d  i n Unitel.  Since the aggressive  o f c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l and M u l t i t e l d i d n o t change  from time  1 to time  2, a c h a n g e o f p r i n c i p a l s  significantly  i n N o t e l i s n o t a more  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the increase i n aggression d i s p l a y e d than  i n t r o d u c t i o n of Research  conducted  However,  i n the f i e l d often leads to i n c o n c l u s i v e findings, strictly  i f enough i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o l l e c t e d ,  be more c o n f i d e n t i n p r o p o s i n g  speaking,  the researcher  the d i r e c t i o n of c a u s a t i o n .  The  r e a l i z e s t h a t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h a t w o u l d have been v e r y in  interpreting  reasons  the r e s u l t s of t h i s  s t u d y , was n o t c o l l e c t e d  such as l a c k o f t i m e , l i m i t a t i o n s o f f i n a n c e , and  of personnel.  the  television.  f i n d i n g s f o r which c a u s a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s cannot, made.  less  Multitel,  behaviour  likely  dif-  i n the  schools r e v o l v e d o n l y around e x c e s s i v e p h y s i c a l aggression. all  was  the c h i l d r e n ' s aggres-  i n c r e a s e i n v e r b a l as w e l l as p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . ficult  aggression  be  can  author helpful  for practical  availability  For f u t u r e studies i n t h i s area, i t i s important  that  81  d a t a o n p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s be o b t a i n e d , a t t i t u d e s c o n c e r n i n g p u n i s h m e n t their  c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i o n , a t t i t u d e s towards t h e use  solving conflict  and  t i o n , more d e t a i l e d  attitudes  toward  the use  i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d be  children's activities  of t e l e v i s i o n .  collected  impractical  study  months. the  study.  Similarly,  read, while  observers,  which  c o l l e c t i o n o f more  s e a s o n s o f t h e y e a r w o u l d be  t h e d a t a were c o l l e c t e d  an  improvement.  i n t h e t h r e e towns d u r i n g t h e  Thus i n f o r m a t i o n about c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o u r  For  winter during  summer i s unknown. In addition,  ren's the  the  to aggression  advantageous t o have b l i n d  i n the p r e s e n t  data during d i f f e r e n t this  concerning  etc.  I t w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be was  in  In addi-  o u t s i d e s c h o o l , f o r example, comic books  s p o r t s p l a y e d , the a t t i t u d e of coaches w i t h regard playing,  of aggression  of  the author  f e e l s t h a t more a c c u r a t e d a t a on t h e  t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g h a b i t s are needed.  television questionnaire d i f f i c u l t ,  i n d i v i d u a l l y by  a  research assistant.  The  younger c h i l d r e n  e v e n t h o u g h i t was Often  child-  these  found  administered  children did  not  know t h e name o f t h e p r o g r a m m e s t h e y w a t c h e d , o r t h e number o f  hours  spent  researchers  viewing.  I t was  only through  extensive probing  t h a t the  a s c e r t a i n e d the t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g h a b i t s of the c h i l d r e n . was  made a d d i t i o n a l l y  what t h e y c o n s i d e r e d stressed  d i f f i c u l t because c h i l d r e n attempted t o be  t h a t t h e r e was  no  to ask  week p e r i o d , w h e r e i n  to  task  give  t h e " r i g h t " a n s w e r , even t h o u g h i t had r i g h t or wrong answer.  been  A p o s s i b l e approach  t o t a k e i n o v e r c o m i n g t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s when w o r k i n g c h i l d r e n m i g h t be  This  w i t h younger  them t o k e e p a " t e l e v i s i o n d i a r y " f o r a  t h e y c o u l d c h e c k o f f t h e p r o g r a m m e s as t h e y  two were  82  watching t e l e v i s i o n be  devised).  ( f o r the very  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the p a r e n t s  children's t e l e v i s i o n viewing from the  children.  i n f o r m a t i o n not indicated  replace  ren are watching  without research  found,  by  increased  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  observing  television This  the  has child-  two  years  t o N o t e l , a town p r e v i o u s l y  finding i s consistent with  1971).  The  E r o n e t a l . , 1972;  observed aggression  previous  appropriate,  aggression. aggressive  of aggressive i s portrayed  the  I t has  likelihood  responding  on  the n o v e l t y of increased.  television,  In a d d i t i o n ,  t e l e v i s i o n as a c c e p t a b l e ,  effective,  i s that c h i l d r e n would increase  once the n o v e l t y of  Evidence of l e a r n i n g s p e c i f i c behaviours H o w e v e r , t h i s may  h a v e b e e n due  that  the N o t e l c h i l d r e n  a l s o been suggested t h a t d i s i n h i b i t i o n w i l l  responding  and  I t i s proposed  d i s p l a y e d by  b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e a r o u s e d by  the p r o b a b i l i t y  Stein &  of c h i l d r e n i n U n i t e l  change s i g n i f i c a n t l y o v e r time.  substantial increase i n aggression  found.  parental  c h i l d r e n at free play,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y during  ( e . g . , P a r k e e t a l . , 1975;  because aggression and  however, t h a t the  obtained  (Greenberg e t a l . , 1971).  behaviour  M u l t i t e l d i d not  and  information  their  showing t h a t exposure to t e l e v i s i o n i n c r e a s e s c h i l d r e n ' s aggres-  Friedrich,  occurred  i n t e r v i e w e d about  a l w a y s good j u d g e s o f what t h e i r  television reception.  sive behaviour  the  important,  could  c h i l d r e n ' s i n f o r m a t i o n , as r e s e a r c h  are not  I n summary, i t was that aggressive  the  c o u l d be  h a b i t s to v a l i d a t e the  I t w o u l d be  that parents  f o l l o w i n g the  young c h i l d r e n a p i c t u r e code  t e l e v i s i o n has  in maintain  worn o f f .  f r o m t e l e v i s e d m o d e l s was to the  l i m i t a t i o n s of the  not testing  situation. The  f i n d i n g s of t h i s  study,  like  the  f i n d i n g s o f most  previous  83  r e s e a r c h , a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the c a u s a l statement  that exposure to  t e l e v i s i o n l e a d s t o an i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i v e behaviour. does n o t , o f c o u r s e , o c c u r undoubtedly  involved, including  a d u l t s toward peers  i n a vacuum.  This  effect  A constellation of factors i s  the a t t i t u d e s of parents  a g g r e s s i o n and t h e i n f l u e n c e o f p e e r s .  and o t h e r  And, a d u l t s and  a l s o l e a r n from t e l e v i s i o n t h a t a g g r e s s i o n i s an a p p r o p r i a t e and  e f f e c t i v e method o f r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t . behaviour  may be a f f e c t e d b o t h  p o r t r a y e d on  television.  Thus c h i l d r e n ' s a g g r e s s i v e  d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y by t h e a g g r e s s i o n  84  FOOTNOTES  The  procedure  for selecting  t h e t h r e e t o w n s was  was  t h e i n i t i a l c h o i c e as i t l a c k e d t e l e v i s i o n r e c e p t i o n ; U n i t e l  s e l e c t e d a s a c o m p a r a b l e t o w n b e c a u s e i t was geographic  chosen to enable  coding  exposure to Canadian  scheme e m p l o y e d was  McFadden, of W a l t e r s , Pearce observers  f o r e , no  ren,  and  Dahms  1957  1  coded w h i l e a l o n e .  v a l i d a t e d by  c o d i n g was  done) but  were b e i n g coded. being  A l s o the s a i d by  f o r the f i r s t  Interrater reliability  was  l e v e l o f p_ <  significant  Therethe  few  ob-  the  childThe  days and  t e a c h e r s and  wouldn't  stop  etc. c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g  t h e number o f a g r e e m e n t s w e r e d i v i d e d b y  tically  US  s o o n b e g a n t o i g n o r e t h e m , when  t h a t the o b s e r v e r s were not  them i f t h e y w e r e f i g h t i n g ,  A probability  was  seemed u n a w a r e t h a t  ( m a i n l y when t h e o b s e r v e r s w e r e l e a r n i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s names  they r e a l i z e d  Notel  Joanne  t o g i v e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f l o o k i n g t h e o t h e r way.  no  the  scheme.  the observers w a l k i n g around, they  c h i l d r e n seemed a w a r e o f t h e o b s e r v e r s  f a c e s , and  same  Multitel  T h i s meant t h a t t h o u g h  t h o u g h n e a r e n o u g h t o h e a r w h a t was  tried  the  television.  a m o d i f i e d form,  i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n or behaviours servers,  was  coded each c h i l d w h i l e p l a y i n g i n the p l a y g r o u n d .  c h i l d was  c h i l d r e n saw  t o t h e i r own.  and  Notel  a comparison between the e f f e c t s of exposure t o  t e l e v i s i o n versus  The  i n approximately  a r e a , o t h e r demographic v a r i a b l e s were s i m i l a r  r e s i d e n t s s e l e c t e d i t as a town s i m i l a r  The  the f o l l o w i n g :  .05  finding.  was  method:  t h e t o t a l number o f  considered  to r e f l e c t  However, i f a p r o b a b i l i t y  a  responses.  statis-  level  of  85  0.1  > p_ <  .05  e f f e c t s were 6  was  o b t a i n e d on  p o s t hoc  f o r s i g n i f i c a n t main  Simple Main E f f e c t s 7  The  age  levels  t i m e 1 and 8  For  the  £  .05.  <  tions  these  discussed.  Unless otherwise stated, Tukey A  t h e o r e t i c a l l y important e f f e c t s  1,  3,  and  g r a d e s 1,  2,  3,  In the  that  tables  s i g n i f i c a n t at £  effects  4 c o r r e s p o n d t o g r a d e s 1, and  are  of <  of:  for significant interactions.  2,  correlations  analyses consisted  .1  4 at  time  discussed  correlations are  also  2,  4,  and  5  at  2. the  significance level  shown i n A p p e n d i x J ,  shown.  was  correla-  86  REFERENCES  Bandura,  A.  I n f l u e n c e o f model's r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s on t h e  a c q u i s i t i o n o f i m i t a t i v e responses. S o c i a l Psychology,  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  1965 ., 1^, 5 8 9 - 5 9 5 .  Bandura,  A.  Bandura,  A., R o s s , D., & R o s s ,  /  P r i n c i p l e s of behavior modification.  s i v e models.  S.A.  New Y o r k :  H o l t , 1969.  I m i t a t i o n of film-mediated aggres-  J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963a, 66,  3-11. Bandura,  A., R o s s , D., & R o s s ,  S.A.  envy, s o c i a l power and secondary ficatory  learning.  A comparative  test of the status  reinforcement theories of i d e n t i -  J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology,  1963b,  67_, 5 2 7 - 5 3 4 . Baron,  R.A.  Magnitude  o f v i c t i m ' s p a i n cues  and l e v e l o f p r i o r  arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behaviour. Persona-lity and S o c i a l Psychology, Baron,  R.A.  Journal of  1 9 7 1 a , 1_7, 2 3 6 - 2 4 3 .  A g g r e s s i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f magnitude o f v i c t i m ' s  cues, l e v e l o f p r i o r anger  Some a s p e c t s o f o b s e r v e d a g g r e s s i o n .  s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, B e r k o w i t z , L. & Geen,R.  pain  a r o u s a l and a g g r e s s o r - v i c t i m s i m i l a r i t y .  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, B e r k o w i t z , L.  anger  1971b, 1 8 , 48-54. Journal of Per-  1 9 6 5 , 2, 3 5 9 - 3 6 9 .  F i l m v i o l e n c e and t h e cue p r o p e r t i e s o f  available targets.  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology,  1966, 3_, 525-530. B e r k o w i t z , L. & G e e n , R. A f u r t h e r study. 1967, 5, 364-368.  Stimulus q u a l i t i e s of the target of aggression:  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology,  87  /  B e r k o w i t z , L., justified  Parke, and  delinquents.  B e r l y n e , D.E. Hill,  J o u r n a l of Research  C o n f l i c t , a r o u s a l , and  i n C r i m e and  curiosity.  of p h y s i c a l aggression.  S o c i a l Psychology,  vol.  3  effects  of  Delinquency,  New  York:  U.S. S.H.  McGraw  s o c i a l behaviour  C r o f t , R.G.,  U.S.  27,  C o l l i n s , W.A.,  In  G.A.  social  behaviour  Washington,  1972.  t e l e v i s i o n use  adolescent  Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e ,  i n the f a m i l y and  aggressiveness. 1972.  D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n of  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  children  Social  Psychology,  360-365. Berndt, T.J.,  & H e s s , V.L.  motives  and  study.  C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1974,  D r a b m a n , R.S.  Personality  Rubinstein (Eds.), Television  & C o u r r i e r , S.  television violence.  1973,  Adolescent  v o l . 3, T e l e v i s i o n a n d  W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: C l i n e , V.B.,  ( E d s . ) , T e l e v i s i o n and  C o m s t o c k & E.A.  frustrations  153-162.  Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e ,  I n G.A.  J o u r n a l of  adolescent aggressiveness.  & M c L e o d , J.M.  context.  3,  and  adolescent aggressiveness.  Rubenstein  T e l e v i s i o n and  D.C.:  1966,  T e l e v i s i o n and  C o m s t o c k & E.A.  & Thomas, M.H.  418-421.  Observational learning  consequences f o r t e l e v i s i o n a g g r e s s i o n :  t o l e r a t i o n of r e a l l i f e 1_0",  The  I n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of a g g r e s s i o n , feedback,  C h a f f e e , S.H.  to  J . , & W e s t , S.  u n j u s t i f i e d m o v i e v i o l e n c e on a g g r e s s i o n i n j u v e n i l e  as d e t e r m i n a n t s  Chaffee,  Leyens,  1960.  B u s s , A.H.  and  R.D.,  45,  of  developmental  799-802.  Does m e d i a v i o l e n c e i n c r e a s e c h i l d r e n ' s aggression?  Developmental  Psychology,  1974,  88  E r o n , L.D.,  Huesmann, L.R.,  vision violence 27,  S.  Aggression.  S.  I n P.H.  & S i n g e r , R.D.  Jossey-Bass, G e e n , R.G.  Gerbner,  aggression?  p s y c h o l o g y , v o l u m e 2.  Feshbach,  of  cause  M,  & Walder,  American  L.  Does  Psychologist,  tele1972,  253-263.  Feshbach, of  L e f k o w i t z , M.  ( E d . ) , Carmichael's manual  York:  Wiley,  1970.  T e l e v i s i o n and a g g r e s s i o n .  San  Francisco:  1971.  & S t o n n e r , D.  P e r s o n a l i t y and G.  New  Mussen  & G r o s s , L.  Context e f f e c t s i n observed v i o l e n c e . S o c i a l Psychology. The  Journal  1972.  s c a r y w o r l d of t e l e v i s i o n ' s heavy v i e w e r .  P s y c h o l o g y T o d a y , 1976, j ^ , 4 1 - 4 5 . Gerbner,  G. & G r o s s , L.  Living with television:  J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n , 1976 Gewirtz, J.L. of  D e p r i v a t i o n and  G o r d o n , D.  Content  Toronto:  Greenberg,  B.,  Minneapolis:  University  of  Newspapers  O n t a r i o R o y a l Commission on V i o l e n c e i n 1977.  Children's aggression, parental attitudes,  t h e e f f e c t s o f an a f f i l i a t i o n s o n a l i t y and  (Ed.), Minnesota  a n a l y s i s o f t h e news m e d i a :  the Communications I n d u s t r y , G o r d o n , J . & S m i t h , E.  determinants  1967.  & S i n g e r , B.  television.  profile.  173-192.  In J.P. H i l l  on c h i l d p s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 1.  Minnesota Press,  violence  s a t i a t i o n o f s o c i a l s t i m u l i as  their reinforcing efficacy.  symposia  and  (Spring),  The  arousing story.  Social Psychology,  E r i c s o n , P.,  & V l a h o s , M.  as p e r c e i v e d by m o t h e r and ( E d s . ) , T e l e v i s i o n and  1965, _1,  child.  J o u r n a l of Per^  654-659.  Children's television I n G.A.  and  C o m s t o c k & E.A.  s o c i a l behaviour Bol. 4  behaviours Rubinstein  T e l e v i s i o n i n day  89  to day l i f e .  W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:  U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e ,  1972.  •  H a n r a t t y , M.A.,  L i e b e r t , R.M.,  Morris,  L.W.,  & Fernandez, L.E.  t a t i o n of film-mediated aggression against victims.  Association.  logical Association, D.J.  and  Imitation  adult  1965,  American Psycho-  1969, 457-458.  and r e t e n t i o n  models.  Journal  of film-mediated aggressive  of Personality  and S o c i a l  peer  Psychology,  2, 9 7 - 1 0 0 .  empirical  London:  The i m p a c t o f v i e w i n g  1958. 'aggression'.  of e x t r a p o l a t i o n .  I n O.N.  media.  H a r p e r Row, 1 9 6 8 .  L i e b e r t , R.  T e l e v i s i o n and t h e c h i l d :  s t u d y o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t e l e v i s i o n on t h e young.  Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press,  K l a p p e r , J.T.  New Y o r k :  Larsen  (Ed.),  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l l e a r n i n g .  viewing violence G.A.  l i v e and i n a n i m a t e  W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:  H i m m e l w e i t , H., O p p e n h e i m , A.N., & V i n c e , P. An  Imi-  Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American  Psychological  Hicks,  :-V.  behaviour Vol.  Violence  2.  (Eds.),  a n d t h e mass  Some r e l a t i o n s h i p s  and behaving a g g r e s s i v e l y .  C o m s t o c k & E.A. R u b i n s t e i n  S t u d i e s and problems  between  (An o v e r v i e w ) .  In  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l l e a r n i n g .  Washington,  D.C.:  U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 2 . L i e b e r t , R.M.,  S o b o l , M.D.,  & D a v i d s o n , E.S.  among i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d b o y s : & E.A. R u b i n s t e i n  (Eds.),  Television effects.  Catharsis  Fact or a r t i f a c t .  of aggression I n G.A.  Comstock  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r V o l .  Further explorations.  Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1972.  W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:  5. U.S.  90  L i e b e r t , R.M., N e a l e ,  J . , & Davidson,  E.S.  of t e l e v i s i o n on c h i l d r e n and youth. Inc.,  The e a r l y window. New Y o r k :  Effects  Pergamon  Press  1973.  L i e f e r , A.D. & R o b e r t s , D.F. lence.  I n J.P.  C h i l d r e n ' s responses  M u r r a y , E.A. R u b i n s t e i n , & G.A. C o m s t o c k  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l behaviour. learning.  to television  Washington, D.C:  V o l . 2.  vio-  (Eds.),  T e l e v i s i o n and s o c i a l  U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g  Office,  1972. Leyens, J . , Camino, L., P a r k e ,  R., & B e r k o w i t z , L.  movie v i o l e n c e on a g g r e s s i o n  i na field  group dominance and c o h e s i o n . Psychology, Milgram,  S.  The e f f e c t s o f  s e t t i n g as a f u n c t i o n o f  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  1975, _32, 346-360.  Some c o n d i t i o n s o f o b e d i e n c e a n d d i s o b e d i e n c e  toauthority.  Human R e l a t i o n s , 1965, JJ3, 57-76. Nelson,  J . D . , G e l f a n d , D.M.,  & H a r t m a n n , D.  Children's  aggression  f o l l o w i n g c o m p e t i t i o n and exposure t o an a g g r e s s i v e model.  Child  D e v e l o p m e n t , 1969, 40, 1085-1097. Parke,  R., B e r k o w i t z , L . , L e y e n s , J . , W e s t , S., & S e b a s t i a n , R.  v i o l e n c e and a g g r e s s i o n : published manuscript, S i n g e r , B.D. and  A field  experimental analysis.  Un-  1975.  V i o l e n c e , p r o t e s t and war i n t e l e v i s i o n news:  Canada compared.  Film  The.U.S.  P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1970-71, 34,  611-616. Schramm, W.,  L y l e , J . , & P a r k e r , E.B.  children.  Stanford, California:  S t e i n , A.H. & F r i e d r i c h , L.K.  Television i n the l i v e s of our S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961.  TV c o n t e n t  and young c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r .  91  I n G.A.  C o m s t o c k & E.A.  behaviour  V o l . 5.  Television effects:  W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: S t e i n , A.H.  U.S.  & Friedrich,  youth.  I n E.M.  R u b i n s t e i n ( E d s . ) , T e l e v i s i o n and  Further explorations.  Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e ,  L.K.  Hetherington,  Steuer,  F.B.,  Press,  1972.  Impact o f t e l e v i s i o n on c h i l d r e n J.W.  K e e n , R.  Kron,  R e v i e w o f c h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t r e s e a r c h , v o l . 5. of Chicago  & A.H.  Chicago:  J.M.,  & Smith,  R.  C h i l d Psychology, & Z i l l m a n n , D.  of aggression through  Tedeschi,  J . , Smith,  aggression.  1971,  11,  Emotional  communication.  Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l Academic P r e s s ,  University  and  J o u r n a l of  442-447.  a r o u s a l i n the I n L.  facilitation  Berkowitz  s o c i a l psychology,  V o l . 8.  (Ed.), New  York:  1975. R.,  & B r o w n , R.  A r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s e a r c h  Psychological Bulletin,  Walters, J . , Pearce,  Stein.  Televised aggression  the i n t e r p e r s o n a l aggression of preschool c h i l d r e n .  Tannenbaum, P.H.  and  1975.  Applefield,  Experimental  social  D.,  & Dahms, L.  haviour of p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n .  1974,  on  81_, 5 4 0 - 5 6 2 .  A f f e c t i o n a l and  aggressive  C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1957,  be-  28,  14-28. W a l t e r s , R.H.  & B r o w n , M.  T r a n s f e r of responses D e v e l o p m e n t , 1963, W e l l s , W.D. field  34,  T e l e v i s i o n and study.  W i l l i a m s , J.F.,  Studies of reinforcement t o an  aggression.  interpersonal situation.  Child  563-571. aggression:  Unpublished  Meyerson, J.L.,  a g g r e s s i o n and  of  R e p l i c a t i o n o f an  manuscript, Eron,  L.,  aggression responses  experimental  U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, & Semler, I . J .  elicited  i n an  1973.  Peer-rated experimental  situation. W i l l i a m s , T.M.,  C h i l d Development, Zabrack,  entertainment  M.L.,  1967, 38^  & J o y , L.A.  t e l e v i s i o n programming.  181-189.  A content  a n a l y s i s of  Toronto:  Ontario  Commission on V i o l e n c e i n the Communications I n d u s t r y ,  Royal  1977.  APPENDIX A Peer  Y o u r name  —-  Y o u r age  Your grade  Your  school  Ratings  "~  —  _  "  94  In the space below, name the three children in your class who are the bossiest  95  In the spaces below, name the three children i n your class who get into fights the most: 1. 2.  3.  96  In the spaces below, name the three children i n your class who talk back to the teacher the most: 1. 2.  3.  97  In the spaces below, name the three children in your class who argue and disagree with the other children the most: 1. 2.  3.  98  In the spaces below, name the three children in your class who push, shove and poke other children the most: 1. 2. 3.  99 APPENDIX B Teacher's  Ratings  Please rate each c h i l d i n your class on the following personality  traits  by c i r c l i n g the X which most c l o s e l y corresponds to your opinion about that child. NAME OF CHILD 1.  Active X Very  2.  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X  X  X Not at a l l  X  X Not at a l l  Aggressive X Very  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  Argumentative  Bossy  Competitive X Very  X  X  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  X Very  X  X  X  X  X  X Not at a l l  Dominant  Friendly X  X  Very 8.  9.  10.  Honest  Hostile  Loud  100 APPENDIX C CHILDREN'S TV  FORM M-V Card 1  INTERVIEW  NAME:  1  I.D. :  2-5  AGE:  6-7  SEX  (1) Do  (2) Female  Male  - o u h a v e a t e l e v i s i o n s e t a t home? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO  How  QUESTION  14]  many T.V. s e t s do y o u h a v e a t home? sets  10  Is i t (are they) working or broken? ( 1 ) a l l w o r k [ S K I P TO QUESTION 5 ] ( 2 ) a t l e a s t o n e w o r k s [ S K I P TO QUESTION (3) none work How  How (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)  l o n g has (1) (2) (3) (4)  i t (have they) b e e n broken? l e s s t h a n a week a week o r so a month o r so m o r e t h a n a mmoonntthh [ S K I P TO QUESTION  many h o u r s o f t e l e v i s i o n do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h weekdays b e f o r e s c h o o l ? x 5 = weekdays a f t e r s c h o o l ? x 5 = weekdays a f t e r supper? x 5 = Saturday? Sunday?  (a) Y e s t e r d a y a t l u n c h t i m e d i d y o u w a t c h _(1) Yes ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 7]  5] 11  14] on  (b)  13,14 15,16 17,18 19,20 21,22  T.V.? 23  ( b ) D i d y o u w a t c h t h e Bob M c L e a n Show, t h e Noon Show o r something e l s e y e s t e r d a y at lunch time? ( 1 ) The Bob M c L e a n Show ( 2 ) The Noon Show (3) O t h e r [SPECIFY]  (a) Y e s t e r d a y a f t e r s c h o o l d i d you watch (1) Yes ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 8]  12  24,25  T.V.?  [ I F Y E S , SELECT THE APPROPRIATE DAY THEN SAY] I'm g o i n g t o r e a d a l i s t o f shows t h a t w e r e on TV y e s t e r d a y a f t e r s c h o o l . T e l l me w h i c h ones you watched. D i d you watch:  26  101 Monday Abbott and C o s t e l l o ^Comin' Up R o s l e F o r e s t Rangers H i D i d d l e Day j P a r t r i d g e Family Other [SPECIFY]  Wednesday Abbott and C o s t e l l o Comin' Up R o s i e F o r e s t Rangers P a r t r i d g e Family World S e r i e s B a s e b a l l game Other [SPECIFY]  Tuesday 27 28 29 30 31 32  _Abbott and C o s t e l l o Animation P i e _ E l e c t r i c Company F o r e s t Rangers P a r t r i d g e Family World S e r i e s B a s e b a l l game Other [SPECIFY] Thursday _Abbott and C o s t e l l o _ F o r e s t Rangers _ P a r t r i d g e Family V i s i o n On JWhat's New Other [SPECIFY]  39 40 41 42 43 44  (a)  D i d you watch T.V. l a s t n i g h t a f t e r supper? (1) Yes (2) No [SKIP TO QUESTION 9]  (b)  [IF YES, SELECT THE APPROPRIATE DAY Did you watch:  Wednesday SPECIAL "Earthwatch" Hourglass L i t t l e House on the P r a i r i e Nature o f T h i n g s Nobel P r i z e L a u r e a t e Movie "Escape to Mindanao" "Other [SPECIFY]  45 46 47 48 49 50  51  THEN SAY] Which shows d i d you watch l a s t  Monday k l l i n the F a m i l y Barney M i l l e r a r e f r e e Cooking h i c o and the Man r o n t Page C h a l l e n g e Hourglass k e w s Magazine P e o p l e o f our Time "SPECIAL - "Your a Sport j C h a r l i e Brown" The N a t i o n a l News Movie "Fear no E v i l " Other [SPECIFY]  33 34 35 36 37 38  night?  Tuesday 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63,64  Col. Card 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13,14  Bob Newhart Celebration Doctor's H o s p i t a l F i f t h Estate Happy Days Hourglass Phyllis T h i s i s the Law The N a t i o n a l News Movie " B e l l i s s i m a " Other [SPECIFY]  65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75,76  Thursday _Cannon 15 Carole Burnett 16 _House o f P r i d e 17 _Hourglass 18 _King o f K e n s i n g t o n 19 _Movin' On 20 Some o f My Best F r i e n d s a r e Men 21 _Space 1999 22 Watson Report 23 _The N a t i o n a l 24 _Movie "The T i n S t a r " 25 Movie "The B r i d e s o f D r a c u l a " 26 Other  [SPECIFY]  27,28  102 9.  ( a ) D i d y o u w a t c h T.V. t h i s m o r n i n g b e f o r e _ ( 1 ) Yes _ ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 0 ] (b) What shows d i d y o u w a t c h t h i s  10.  1.  30 31 32  (b) How o f t e n w o u l d y o u s a y t h i s (1) o f t e n , (2) once i n a w h i l e , o r (3) h a r d l y e v e r ?  29  morning? Col.  2. 3. ( a ) Do y o u r p a r e n t s e v e r k e e p y o u t h a t you want t o watch? (1) Y e s (2) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 1 ]  school?  from watching  something  on  television  35 happens:  36  ( c ) What a r e t h e r e a s o n s y o u r p a r e n t s u s u a l l y h a v e f o r n o t (1) h a v e n ' t done homework ( 2 ) h a v e n ' t done c h o r e s (3) p a r e n t s d i s a p p r o v e o f c o n t e n t (4) p a r e n t s w a n t t o w a t c h s o m e t h i n g e l s e \ (5) o t h e r [ S P E C I F Y ]  l e t t i n g you  watch?  37 (d) Can y o u t h i n k o f any t i m e s i n t h e p a s t two w e e k s t h a t y o u r p a r e n t s l e t y o u w a t c h a show t h a t y o u w a n t e d t o s e e ? Name o f show  wouldn't  Reason  (1)  38  (2)  39  (3)  40  (4)  41  (5)  42  11.  Most e v e n i n g s (1)  do y o u w a t c h T.V.  alone  (2) w i t h o t h e r s 12.  alone or w i t h others?  [SPECIFY]  What c h a n n e l s do y o u g e t on y o u r T.V.? (1) c h a n n e l 2 o n l y (2) c h a n n e l 6 o n l y [ S K I P TO QUESTION ( 3 ) c h a n n e l s 2 and 6 (4) o t h e r [SPECIFY]  43  14] 44  103 I f t h e r e a r e two d i f f e r e n t shows o n a t t h e same t i m e , o n e o n C h a n n e l 2 a n d o n e o n C h a n n e l 6, who g e t s t o c h o o s e w h i c h o n e t o w a t c h ? (1) p a r e n t s d e c i d e . _(2) s u b j e c t c h o o s e s . (3) o l d e r s i b s choose ;—(4) p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n t a k e t u r n s c h o o s i n g shows some o f u s w a t c h o n a n o t h e r T.V. s e t (6) o t h e r [SPECIFY] [FOR THOSE WHO QUESTION 1 5 ]  DO NOT HAVE A WORKING T.V. AT HOME: A L L OTHERS S K I P  ( a ) I f y o u h a v e n ' t g o t a w o r k i n g t e l e v i s i o n a t home, do y o u w a t c h elsewhere? (1) Y e s _ ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 0 ]  L5.  45  TO  T.V.  46  ( b ) How o f t e n do y o u w a t c h T.V.? [PROBE TO A S C E R T A I N FREQUENCY, DURATION AND LOCATION, E.G. TWICE A WEEK FOR 2 HOURS AFTER SCHOOL AT MY FRIEND'S HOUSE] Frequency:  47  Durat i o n :  48  Location:  49  ( a ) What i s y o u r #1 f a v o r i t e T.V. show? 50,51 ( b ) When i s i t on? 52 ( c ) What a r e y o u r f o u r n e x t m o s t f a v o r i t e 1. 2. 3. 4.  shows?  ( a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. i n t h e m o r n i n g b e f o r e (1) Yes ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 7 ] ( b ) W h i c h o f t h e s e s h o w s do y o u u s u a l l y University of the A i r B.C. AM - M o r r i e r _Canada AM Romper Room Other [SPECIFY]  L7.  53,54 55,56 57.58 59,60 school? 61  watch?  ( a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. a f t e r S c h o o l ? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 8 ]  62 63 64 65 66  67  f  ( b ) W h i c h shows do y o u u s u a l l y A b b o t t and C o s t e l l o Animation P i e C o m i n ' Up R o s i e E l e c t r i c Company F l a x t o n Boys . F o r e s t Rangers H i D i d d l e Day Partridge Family V i s i o n On W h a t ' s New Other [SPECIFY] L8.  watch?  19.  ^  7  6  7  7  78,79  (b) W h i c h o f t h e s e shows do y o u u s u a l l y Card  3  4  7  ( a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. i n t h e e v e n i n g s (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 9 ]  A l l i n the Family Barney M i l l e r Bob N e w h a r t CFJC R e p o r t s CFL F o o t b a l l Cannon Carefree Cooking Carol Burnett Celebration C h i c o a n d t h e Man Doctor's H o s p i t a l Fifth Estate F r o n t Page C h a l l e n g e Happy D a y s Hockey N i g h t i n Canada Hourglass House o f P r i d e Howie Meeker's Hockey School I r i s h Rovers King of Kensington Klahanie L i t t l e House o n t h e Prairie Mary T y l e r Moore M.A.S.H. Mr. C h i p s Monty Python's Back M o v i n ' On  7  7  after  supper? O  A  80  watch?  3  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  Nature o f Things News M a g a z i n e Nobel P r i z e Laureate On t h e R o c k s Onedin L i n e P e o p l e o f Our T i m e Phyllis Police Story R e a c h f o r t h e Top Some o f My B e s t F r i e n d s A r e Men Tommy H u n t e r T h i s i s t h e Law Take Time Waltons Wonderful World o f Disney The N a t i o n a l News Monday N i g h t M o v i e Tuesday N i g h t Movie Wednesday N i g h t M o v i e Thursday Night Movie F r i d a y Night Movie Saturday Night Movie Sunday N i g h t M o v i e  23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  ( a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. o n S a t u r d a y (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 0 ]  33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  morning? 57  105  106  ( a ) Do y o u e v e r r e a d c o m i c b o o k s ? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 4 ] (b) What a r e y o u r f a v o r i t e 1. 2. 3. (c) About (1) (2) (3) (4)  comic  75 books? 76 77 78  how o f t e n do y o u r e a d a c o m i c o n c e a week o r more 2-3 t i m e s a m o n t h once a month a few t i m e s a y e a r  Do y o u e v e r r e a d : ( a ) [VALEMOUNT ONLY] The (1) Yes ( 2 ) No (b) [McBRIDE ONLY] The (1) Yes ( 2 ) No  book?  79 Card  Canoe M o u n t a i n  Robson V a l l e y  Echo?  Courier?  ( c ) What a b o u t o t h e r n e w s p a p e r s ? Do y o u e v e r r e a d a n e w s p a p e r f r o m Kamloops, P r i n c e George, e t c . ? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No (d) A b o u t (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) How  Vancouver,  how o f t e n w o u l d y o u s a y y o u r e a d a n e w s p a p e r o f a n y k i n d ? everyday a f e w t i m e s a week o n c e a week 1-3 t i m e s a m o n t h a few t i m e s a y e a r never  do y o u u s u a l l y f i n d o u t a b o u t (1) f r o m t h e r a d i o ( 2 ) f r o m T.V. (3) f r o m a newspaper (4) f r o m a magazine ( 5 ) f r o m my p a r e n t s (6) o t h e r [SPECIFY]  t h e news?  10  4  26.  27.  107  How o l d w e r e y o u when y o u r years [ I F BORN I N TOWN WRITE  f a m i l y moved t o [McBRIDE] [ V A L M O U N T ] ? 11  "ZERO"]  [McBRIDE O N L Y ] . M o s t p e o p l e i n M c B r i d e o n l y g o t T.V. D i d y o u w a t c h T.V. b e f o r e t h e new t r a n s m i t t e r came? (1) Yes (2) No [END]  two y e a r s a g o .  (b) Where d i d y o u w a t c h T.V. b e f o r e t h e new t r a n s m i t t e r  12 came? 13  108 APPENDIX D CHILDREN'S MEDIA INTERVIEW  FORM 3  NAME:  1  I.D.:  2-5  AGE:  6-7  SEX  (1) M a l e  (2) Female  8  Do y o u h a v e a t e l e v i s i o n s e t a t home?  9  (1) Y e s (2) No  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 4 ]  How many TV s e t s do y o u h a v e a t home?  10  sets Is i t ( a r e they) working o r broken? (1) a l l work  11  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 5 ]  (2) a t l e a s t one w o r k s  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 5 ]  (3) none work How l o n g h a s i t ( h a v e t h e y ) b e e n b r o k e n ? (1) l e s s  12  t h a n a week  ( 2 ) a week o r s o (3) a month o r s o ( 4 ) more t h a n a m o n t h  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 4 ]  How many h o u r s o f t e l e v i s i o n do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h o n (a) weekdays b e f o r e s c h o o l ?  x 5 =  13-16  (b) weekdays a f t e r  school?  x 5 =  17-20  (c) weekdays a f t e r  supper?  x 5 =  21-24  (d) S a t u r d a y ?  25-28  ( e ) Sunday?  29-32  (a) Y e s t e r d a y a t l u n c h t i m e d i d y o u w a t c h TV? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 7 ]  33  109  (b)  [ I f y e s , t h e n a s k ] w h i c h shows d i d y o u w a t c h at  lunch time? A l l my  yesterday  Did you watch  children  34  As t h e w o r l d t u r n s  35  Bob M c L e a n  36  CBC news  37  Days o f o u r l i v e s  38  Dialing for dollars  39  Edge o f n i g h t  40  Q6 K a l e i d o s c o p e  41  Other  42-44 45-47 48-50 51-53  7.  (a) Y e s t e r d a y a f t e r s c h o o l d i d you watch  (b)  (1)  Yes  (2)  No  [ I F YES,  TV?  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 8 ] SELECT THE  APPROPRIATE DAY  54 THEN  SAY]  I'm g o i n g t o r e a d a l i s t o f shows t h a t w e r e o n TV y e s t e r d a y school. T e l l me w h i c h o n e s y o u w a t c h e d . D i d you watch: Monday Somerset Guiding Light T a k e 30 General H o s p i t a l Bewitched B i g money m o v i e C e l e b r i t y cooks Happy days Merv G r i f f i n F o r e s t Rangers Family A f f a i r C o m i n ' Up R o s i e M i c k e y Mouse Hogan's Heroes H i D i d d l e Day Superman Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news News s c e n e Partridge family C h a n n e l 2 news Other  Col. 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75-77 78-80  after  Tuesday Somerset Guiding Light T a k e 30 General Hospital Bewitched B i g money m o v i e C e l e b r i t y cooks Happy Days Merv G r i f f i n F o r e s t Rangers Family A f f a i r E l e c t r i c Company M i c k e y Mouse Hogan's Heroes Just f o r fun Superman Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news News s c e n e Partridge family C h a n n e l 2 news Other  Col. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32-34 35-37  110  6-8 9-11 Wednesday Somerset Guiding Light Take 30 General H o s p i t a l Bewitched B i g money m o v i e C e l e b r i t y cooks Happy d a y s Merv G r i f f i n F o r e s t Rangers Family a f f a i r C o m i n ' Up R o s i e M i c k e y Mouse Hogan's H e r o e s Nic and P i c Superman Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news Newscene Partridge Family C h a n n e l 2 News Other  8.  Col.  (2) (b)  Thursday  44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64-66 67-69 70-72 73-75  ( a ) D i d y o u w a t c h TV l a s t n i g h t a f t e r _(1)  38-40 41-43  Somerset Guiding Light T a k e 30 General Hospital Bewitched B i g money m o v i e C e l e b r i t y cooks Happy days Merve G r i f f i n F o r e s t Rangers Family A f f a i r V i s i o n on M i c k e y Mouse Hogan's Heroes W h a t ' s new Superman Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news Newscene Partridge Family C h a n n e l 2 news Other  Col. 76 77 78 79 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32  supper  33  Yes No  [ I f y e s , s e l e c t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e day t h e n s a y ] w h i c h shows d i d y o u w a t c h night?  last  Did you watch: Monday  NBC News CBC news Klahanie NFL f o o t b a l l To t e l l t h e t r u t h Dinah Hourglass Truth o r consequences Don Adam's s c r e e n t e s t Good t i m e s Reach f o r t h e top  Col. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  Tuesday NBC News CBC News Barney M i l l e r ABC news To t e l l t h e t r u t h Dinah Hourglass Brady Bunch T r u t h o r consequences Adam 12 C a n d i d Camera  Col. 77 78 79 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  Ill -  NBC w h i t e p a p e r 45 Rhoda 46 F r o n t page c h a l l e n g e 47 Phyllis 48 A l l i n the family 49 O l y m p i c games p r e v i e w 50 C h i c o a n d t h e man 51 Maude 52 Canadian R e a l i s t s 53 54 The A m e r i c a n a s s a s s i n s 55 FBI 56 Man a l i v e 57 Q-6 e y e w i t n e s s news 58 Newscene 59 CBC news 60 C h a n n e l 2 news T o n i g h t s h o w - J o h n n y C a r s o n 61 CBS m o v i e , "Come f l y w i t h me" 62-63 L o c a l news " 64 Other 65-67 "68-70 "71-73 74-76 1  Wednesday NBC news CBS news Bob S w i t z e r ABC news To t e l l t h e t r u t h Dinah Hourglass Brady Bunch Truth o r consequences Adam 12 I r i s h Rovers Bob N e w h a r t Hollywood Squares L i t t l e house on t h e p r a i r i e Tony O r l a n d o a n d Dawn This land When t h i n g s w e r e r o t t e n Musicamera T h a t ' s my Mama Count o f Monte C r i s t o Cannon  Hee Haw 13 Celebration 14 L e t ' s make a d e a l 15 Movin' on 16 Happy days 17 Joe and sons 18 This i s the law 19 Welcome b a c k K o t t e r 20 P o l i c e woman 21 Mash 22 5th estate 23 The R o o k i e s 24 One d a y a t a t i m e 25 Family theatre 26 Joe F o r r e s t e r 27 Marcus Welby 28 Switch 29 30 Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news 31 Newscene 32 CBC news 33 C h a n n e l 2 news T o n i g h t s h o w - J o h n n y C a r s on 34 35-36 CBC m o v i e , " C r y P a n i c " 37 L o c a l news 38 Wide World o f M y s t e r y 39-41 Other "42-44 45-47 '48-50 Thursday  51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  NBC news CBS news Sportscene ABC news To t e l l t h e t r u t h Dinah Hourglass Brady Bunch T r u t h o f consequences Adam 12 M a t c h game Hockey Let's/make a d e a l S a n f o r d & Son Grady Waltons Barney M i l l e r The c o p a n d t h e k i d On t h e r o c k s Medical story H a w a i i 5-0  23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  112  Baretta The b l u e k n i g h t Upstairs Downstairs S t a r s k i & Hutch Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news Newscene The N a t i o n a l C h a n n e l 2 news T o n i g h t show CBC m o v i e " T r i b u t e t o a Bad Man"  72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  _ "7 9-10 11-13 6  Movie Other  S t r e e t s o f S a n F r a n c i s c o 44 Watson r e p o r t 45 Barnaby Jones 46 Harry 0 47 P e e p show 48 Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s news 49 Newscene 50 National 51 C h a n n e l 2 news 52 T o n i g h t show 53 CBS m o v i e " H e a v e n w i t h a gun" 54-55 L o c a l news 56 Mannix 57 Longstreet 58 Other 59-61 62-64 65-67 68-70  ( a ) D i d y o u w a t c h T.V. t h i s m o r n i n g b e f o r e s c h o o l ? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 0 ] (b)  71  [ I F Y E S , SELECT THE APPROPRIATE DAY THEN SAY] W h i c h shows d i d y o u w a t c h t h i s morning? D i dy ou watch Tuesday  Q-6 F a r m a n d Home R e p o r t Idea Thing Consultation Farm R e p o r t s N o t f o r Women O n l y S u n r i s e Semester Sacred Heart Intersect Today Show New Zoo Revue A g r i c u l t u r e Today CBS M o r n i n g News Cartoons C a p t a i n Kangaroo Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News Munsters Other  Col 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24  Wednesday  Col  Q-6 F a r m a n d Home R e p o r t 25 Idea Thing 26 Consultation 27 Farm R e p o r t s 28 N o t f o r Women O n l y 29 S u n r i s e Semester 30 8 Lively Arts 31 T o d a y Show 32 New Z o o R e v u e 33 A g r i c u l t u r e Today 34 CBS M o r n i n g News 35 Cartoons 36 C a p t a i n Kangaroo 37 Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News 38 Munsters 39 Other 40-42 43-45 46-48 49-51  113 Thursday Q-6 F a r m a n d Home R e p o r t Idea Thing Consultation Farm R e p o r t s N o t f o r Women O n l y S u n r i s e Semester Signs o f L i f e Intersect Today Show A g r i c u l t u r e Today CBS M o r n i n g News Cartoons C a p t a i n Kangaroo Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News Munsters Other  10.  Friday 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67-69 70-72 73-75 76-78  Q-6 F a r m a n d Home R e p o r t Idea Thing Consultation Farm R e p o r t s N o t f o r Women O n l y S u n r i s e Semester A g r i c u l t u r e Today T o d a y Show New Zoo R e v u e Cartoons CBS M o r n i n g News C a p t a i n Kangaroo Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News Munsters Other  79 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29  ( a ) Do y o u r p a r e n t s e v e r k e e p y o u f r o m w a t c h i n g s o m e t h i n g o n t e l e v i s i o n t h a t y o u want t o watch? _(1) Yes _ ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 1 ]  30  (b) How _(1) _(2) (3)  31  o f t e n would you say t h i s often once i n a w h i l e , o r hardly ever  happens:  ( c ) What a r e t h e r e a s o n s y o u r p a r e n t s u s u a l l y h a v e f o r n o t l e t i n g y o u watch? _ ( 1 ) h a v e n ' t d o n e homework _ ( 2 ) h a v e n ' t done c h o r e s (3) p a r e n t s d i s a p p r o v e o f c o n t e n t (4) p a r e n t s want t o w a t c h s o m e t h i n g e l s e _(5) o t h e r [SPECIFY]  32-33 (d) Can y o u t h i n k o f a n y t i m e s i n t h e p a s t two w e e k s t h a t y o u r p a r e n t s w o u l d n ' t l e t y o u w a t c h a show t h a t y o u w a n t e d t o s e e ? Name o f how 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Reason 34-36 39-41 44-46 49-51 54-56  37-38 42-43 47-48 52-53 57-58  ;114  11.  M o s t e v e n i n g s do y o u w a t c h T.V. a l o n e o r w i t h o t h e r s ? (1) a l o n e (2) w i t h o t h e r s [SPECIFY]  59 60-61  12.  ( a ) What c h a n n e l s do y o u g e t o n y o u r T.V.? ( 1 ) C h a n n e l 2 - ABC (KREM) ( 2 ) C h a n n e l 4 - CBS ( K X L Y ) ( 3 ) C h a n n e l 5 - CBC (CBUT) ( 4 ) C h a n n e l 6 - NBC (KHQ) (5) O t h e r [SPECIFY]  ( b ) How many c h a n n e l s do y o u g e t a l t o g e t h e r ? 63 13.  When t h e r e a r e two d i f f e r e n t shows o n a t t h e same t i m e , f o r e x a m p l e , one o n C h a n n e l 2 a n d o n e o n C h a n n e l 5, who g e t s t o c h o o s e w h i c h o n e t o w a t c h ? (1) p a r e n t s d e c i d e (2) s u b j e c t chooses (3) o l d e r s i b s choose ( 4 ) p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n t a k e t u r n s c h o o s i n g shows ( 5 ) some o f u s w a t c h o n a n o t h e r T.V. s e t (6) o t h e r [SPECIFY] 64-65 [FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A WORKING T.V. AT HOME; A L L OTHERS S K I P TO QUESTION 1 5 ] a) I f y o u h a v e n ' t g o t a w o r k i n g t e l e v i s i o n a t home, do y o u w a t c h T.V. elsewhere? (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 0 ] b ) How o f t e n do y o u w a t c h T.V.? [PROBE TO A S C E R T A I N FREQUENCY, DURATION AND LOCATION, E.G., TWICE A WEEK FOR 2 HOURS AFTER SCHOOL AT MY FRIEND'S HOUSE] Frequency: . Duration: Location:  15.  66  67-68 69-70 71-72  a ) What i s y o u r #1 f a v o r i t e T.V. show? 73-75 b ) When i s i t on? ( d a y , t i m e )  76-77  c ) What a r e y o u r f o u r n e x t m o s t f a v o r i t e 1. ; 2. 3. 4. 16.  78-79 shows? 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17  a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. i n t h e m o r n i n g b e f o r e s c h o o l ? (1) Yes ( 2 ) No  [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 7 ]  18  115  b ) W h i c h o f t h e s e shows do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h ? Q-6 F a r m a n d Home R e p o r t Idea Thing Consultation Farm R e p o r t s N o t f o r Women O n l y S u n r i s e Semester Sacred Heart 8 Lively Arts Intersect T o d a y Show New Z o o R e v i e w A g r i c u l t u r e Today CBS M o r n i n g News Cartoons C a p t a i n Kangaroo Munsters Signs of L i f e Other  a) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. a f t e r s c h o o l ? (1) Y e s _ ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 8 ] b ) W h i c h shows d o y o u u s u a l l y  ___  ___  Somerset Guiding Light T a k e 30 General H o s p i t a l Bewitched B i g Money M o v i e C e l e b r i t y Cooks Happy Days Merv G r i f f i n F o r e s t Rangers Family A f f a i r C o m i n ' Up R o s i e E l e c t r i c Company M i c k e y Mouse Hogans Heroes H i D i d d l e Day J u s t f o r Fun Superman Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News The S c e n e T o n i g h t Partridge Family C h a n n e l 2 News N i c and P i c V i s i o n On What's New Other  19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36-38 39-41 42-44 45-47  48  watch? 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74-76  L8.  116 77-79 6-8 9-11 a ) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. i n t h e e v e n i n g s a f t e r (1) Y e s (2) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 1 9 ] b ) W h i c h o f t h e s e shows do y o u u s u a l l y NBC News CBS News ABC News Klahanie NFL F o o t b a l l To T e l l t h e T r u t h Dinah Hourglass Brady Bunch T r u t h o r Consequences Don Adams S c r e e n T e s t Goodtimes R e a c h f o r t h e Top NBC W h i t e P a p e r Rhoda F r o n t Page C h a l l e n g e Phyllis A l l i n the Family O l y m p i c Games P r e v i e w C h i c o a n d t h e Man Maude Canadian R e a l i s t s M.A.S.H. F i f t h Estate Rookies One Day a t a T i m e Family Theatre Joe F o r r e s t e r Switch W i l d World o f Mystery Bob S w i t z e r I r i s h Rovers Bob N e w h a r t Hollywood Squares L i t t l e House on t h e Prairie T o n y O r l a n d o a n d Dawn T h i s Land When T h i n g s Were R o t t e n Musicamera T h a t s My Momma Count o f Monte C r i s t o Cannon Baretta 1  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  supper? 12  atch? Blue Knight Upstairs Downstairs S t a r s k y and H u t c h The N a t i o n a l Sportscene Matchgame Hockey S a n f o r d and Son Grady Medical Centre FBI Man A l i v e Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News Newscene CBC News C h a n n e l 2 News T o n i g h t Show CBS M o v i e ( l a t e ) L o c a l L a t e News Barney M i l l e r Adam 12 C a n d i d Camera Hee Haw Celebration L e t ' s Make a D e a l M o v i n On Happy Days J o e a n d Sons T h i s i s t h e Law Welcome B a c k K o t t e r P o l i c e Woman Waltons The Cop a n d t h e K i d On t h e R o c k s Medical Story Hawaii Five-0 S t r e e s o f San F r a n c i s c o Watson Report Barnaby Jones Harry-0 P e e p Show Mannis Longstreet Howard C o s e l l  56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  117 -  I.W.A.T. Matt Helm Jeffersons Doc Mary T y l e r Moore Carol Burnett Emergency NBC S a t u r d a y N i g h t M o v i e Swiss Family Robinson S i x M i l l i o n D o l l a r Man ABC S u n d a y N i g h t M o v i e Three f o r t h e Road Cher Kojak Walt Disney  19.  25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  a) Do y o u u s u a l l y w a t c h T.V. o n S a t u r d a y (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 0 ]  i  .:; F a m i l y Ho 1 v a k Columbo McCloud M c M i l l a n and Wife McCoy Barbary Coast Medical Centre K a t e Mc Shane Doctor's Hospital Petrocelli M o b i l e One Big Eddie Other  40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52-54 55-57 58-60 61-63  morning? 64  b ) W h i c h o f t h e s e shows do y o u w a t c h ? U.S. F a r m R e p o r t Davey a n d G o l i a t h Romper Room Hong Kong Phooey J o s i e and t h e P u s s y c a t s Sunday S c h o o l o f t h e A i r Tom a n d J e r r y / G r a p e A p e The S e c r e t L i f e o f W a l d o Kitty P e b b l e s a n d Bamm-Bamm Pink Panther Bugs Bunny Road Runner Hour L o s t Saucer L E 60 Land o f t h e L u s t Adventures o f G i l l i g a n Run J o e Run S c o o b y Doo 20.  65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 6  a ) Do y o u l i s t e n t o t h e r a d i o ? (1) o f t e n (2) sometimes, o r ( 3 ) a l m o s t n e v e r ? [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 1 ] b ) When (!) (2) (3) (4) (5)  Groovie Goolies Peanots and Popcorn Beyond t h e P l a n e t o f the Shazam/Isis Hour Speed Buggy Westwind Oddball Couple The J e t s o n s Uncle Croc's Harvey Cartoons American Bandstand Go U.S.A. Ghost B u s t e r s Other  7 8 Apes 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20-22 23-25 26-28 29-31  32  do y o u u s u a l l y l i s t e n t o t h e r a d i o ? i n the morning b e f o r e s c h o o l after school i n t h e evenings a f t e r supper o n S a t u r d a y o r Sunday o t h e r [SPECIFY] 33-34  118  c ) What k i n d s o f p r o g r a m s do y o u l i s t e n (1) m u s i c (.2) news (3) h o c k e y o r f o o t b a l l games (4) o t h e r [ S P E C I F Y ]  t o on t h e r a d i o ?  35-36 21.  a ) O u t s i d e o f s c h o o l , a b o u t how many b o o k s do y o u r e a d a month? 37-38  22.  b ) Do y o u e v e r c h e c k b o o k s o u t o f y o u r s c h o o l l i b r a r y o r t h e p u b l i c library? (1) Y e s (2) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 2 ]  39  c ) A b o u t how o f t e n do y o u c h e c k b o o k s o u t o f a (1) o n c e a w e e k (2) 2-3 t i m e s a w e e k (3) o n c e a m o n t h (4) a f e w t i m e s a y e a r  40  Do y o u e v e r r e a d m a g a z i n e s ? (1) Y e s (2) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 3 ]  library?  41  b ) What m a g a z i n e s do y o u r e a d ? 42-44 45-47 48-50 51-53 c ) A b o u t how o f t e n do y o u r e a d a m a g a z i n e ? (1) d a i l y (2) s e v e r a l t i m e s a w e e k ( 3 ) o n c e a week ( 4 ) 2-3 t i m e s a m o n t h (5) once a month (6) a f e w t i m e s a y e a r 23.  a ) Do y o u e v e r r e a d c o m i c b o o k s ? (1) Y e s (2) No [ S K I P TO QUESTION 2 4 ] b ) What a r e y o u r f a v o r i t e 1.  54-56  57  58  comic books? 59-61  2.  62-64  3.  65-67  119  c ) A b o u t how o f t e n do y o u r e a d a c o m i c CI) daily (2) s e v e r a l t i m e s a week (3) once a week ( 4 ) 2-3 t i m e s a m o n t h (5) once a month ( 6 ) a few t i m e s a y e a r 24.  a) D i d y o u u s e d (1) Yes ( 2 ) No  book?  68  t o r e a d t h e Salmo & D i s t r i c t  b) Do y o u e v e r r e a d t h e T r a i l (1) Yes ( 2 ) No  News? 69  Times?  c ) Do y o u e v e r r e a d t h e N e l s o n D a i l y (1) Y e s ( 2 ) No  70 News?  d) W h a t . a b o u t o t h e r n e w s p a p e r s ? Do y o u e v e r r e a d a n e w s p a p e r Vancouver, Spokane, C a l g a r y , e t c ? (1) Yes ( 2 ) No e) A b o u t how o f t e n w o u l d y o u s a y y o u r e a d a n e w s p a p e r o f any (1) e v e r y d a y .(.2) a few t i m e s a week (3) once a week ( 4 ) 1-3 t i m e s a m o n t h (5) a few t i m e s a y e a r (6) n e v e r 2 5 . a) How  do (1) (2) (3) (4) (.5) (6) (7)  you u s u a l l y f i n d out about from the radio f r o m T.V. from a newspaper from a magazine f r o m my p a r e n t s at school o t h e r [SPECIFY2  from  72 kind?  73  t h e news?  74-75 b)  [ I F WATCHES NEWS ON T.V. ASK] What T.V. News Shows do y o u u s u a l l y CBS M o r n i n g News T o d a y Show C h a n n e l 2- K r e m 5:30 News The S c e n e T o n i g h t a t 5:30 Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News - 5:30 ABC E v e n i n g N e w s / H a r r y R e a s o n e r , H o w a r d K. S m i t h CBS E v e n i n g N e w s / W a l t e r C r o n k i t e NBC E v e n i n g N e w s / J o h n C h a n c e l l o r  watch? 76 77 78 79 80 6 7 8  120 Hourglass C h a n n e l 2 News a t 1 1 : 0 0 The S c e n e T o n i g h t a t 1 1 : 0 0 Q-6 E y e w i t n e s s News a t 1 1 : 0 0 The N a t i o n a l News 26.  How o l d w e r e y o u when y o u r years  9 10 11 12 13  f a m i l y moved t o S a l m o ? 14-15  121  APPENDIX E Aggression  I.  II.  Physical  Categories  Aggression  PA^  - _ h i t s , s l a p s , p u n c h e s , o r s t r i k e s _I w i t h any above the w a i s t .  PA^  - _  PA^  - S_ k i c k s , s t e p s o n , s i t s o n , body p a r t below the w a i s t .  PA^  - _  b i t e s or s p i t s  PP  - _  pushes, holds, p u l l s ,  PS  - S_ s n a t c h e s t h e p r o p e r t y perty  PD  - S_ damages t h e p r o p e r t y  PI  - _S_ t r i e s t o c r e a t e a r e a c t i o n i n 1, i . e . , t e a s e s , a n n o y s , o r i n t e r f e r e s i n t h e a c t i v i t y o f _L ( e x c e p t w h e r e c h a s i n g i s i n v o l v e d when PT-j o r PT^ i s s c o r e d )  PT^  - j _ threatens  I w i t h some p a r t o f t h e  PT2  - _S t h r e a t e n s  1 with a held  PT  - _5 c h a s e s  3  hits,  s l a p s , punches, or s t r i k e s lies  body  I with a held  on,  or t r i p s  any  1 grabs, of 1  drags,  or chokes I  (without  damage t o t h a t  pro-  o f I_  body  object  I  - _3 c h a s e s 1 w i t h a h e l d  PF  - _S s c o w l s , g r i m a c e s , o r makes s o u n d s o f d i s l i k e t o w a r d s _I  PO  - _S t h r o w s o r k i c k s an o b j e c t a t 1, for ongoing p l a y a c t i v i t y  VD  object.  I with  PT^  Verbal  part  object  e x c e p t as  or  anger  i t i s required  Aggression - _S_ d i s p a r a g e s 1, m a k i n g r e m a r k s o f d i s l i k e f o r 1, f i n d s f a u l t w i t h o r c e n s u r e s 1, condemns I, h u m i l i a t e s _ , l a u g h s a t t h e m i s f o r t u n e o f I_, m o c k s , e x p r e s s e s t h e d e s i r e t h a t I be t h e v i c t i m o f i m p e r i o u s e v e n t s , a t t r i b u t e s b a d q u a l i t i e s t o I_, c u r s e s I_.  .122  VP  - _S t r i e d  t o c l a i m a p o s s e s s i o n o f I_  VR  - S_ r e j e c t s o r d e n i e s some a c t i v i t y , to I  VT  - S threatens to hurt I  VS  - J3 commands o r demands I_ t o do s o m e t h i n g o r n o t t o do something i n a loud, v i g o r o u s , o r angry tone of v o i c e .  VC  - _S a r g u e s w i t h o r i s a t c r o s s - p u r p o s e s w i t h I, w h e r e J3 makes more t h a n o n e s t a t e m e n t w h i c h i s s e p a r a t e d b y a rejoinder.  VF  - _S t e l l s a n a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e a b o u t _I' s b e h a v i o u r w h i c h apparently considers negative  VB  - S_ s h i f t s t h e b l a m e f o r some a c t i v i t y c o n s i d e r s n e g a t i v e , t o _I  VI  - _S t r i e s  privilege,  or object  w h i c h S_ a p p a r e n t l y  t o cause i n j u r y t o 1 v i a an agent.  123  APPENDIX F C o d i n g Sheet Time 1 Name  Aggression Categories  P A  Date Obses r v e r Time_ 2 1  3  Date_ ObseBrver Time_ 1 2  , No.  3  Date Obsei r v e r Time 1 2  3  Date Obsei r v e i Time 1 2  1  PA  2  PA  3  P A  Description  4  PP PS PD PI PT  X  PT PT  3  PT, 4 PF VD VP VR VT VS  -  continued  ...  3  124  Appendix F  Aggression Categories  VC VF VB VI  Comments:  continued  Date Observer Time 1 2  3  Dat e Obs >erver T i n le 1 2  3  Dat e Obs >ervei T i n le 1 2  3  Dat e Obs e r v e i T i n le 1 2  3  Appendix F continued Coding  Sheet Time 2  Name:  Sex:  Description:  Grade:  PA1  Hit/punch  PA2  H i t w/obj.  PA3  Kick/sit  /  Time:.  -  /  SF  Date:  LJ  Time:  /  /  SF LJ  on  PA4  Bite/spit  PP  Push/hold  PS  Snatch  PD  Damage p r o p .  PI  Date:-  prop.  Tease/Interfere  PT1  T h r e a t PA 1  PT2  Threat/obj.  PT3  Chase  PT4  Chase/obj.  P F  Scowl/sounds  Pp  Throw o b j .  VD  Disparage  VP  Claim poss.  VR  Reject/deny  VT  Threat hurt  VS  L o u d Command c o n t i n u e d ...  126  Appendix F  continued  Date: Time:  vc  Argue  VF  Tattling  VB  Shift  VI  Injury/agent  Blame  /  /  SF  Date:  LJ  Time:  /  /  SF LJ  127  APPENDIX G Repertoire  of Aggressive  Behaviour  Notel  Time 1  Time 2  Male  Female  Sum  Male  60 3 14 2 113 4 0 43 5 0 25 0 6 5  26 6 14 5 31 1 0 7 2 0 3 0 2 2  36 9 28 7 144 5 0 50 7 0 28 0 8 7  49 3 54 3 175 2 2 29 31 9 40 0 8 54  23 3 17 2 136 0 0 10 16 2 38 1 .1 11  72 6 71 5 311 2 2 39 47 11 78 1 9 65  16 0 7 3 30 7 0 0 1  14 0 6 2 37 8 5 0 0  50 0 17 10 49 21 8 0 2  27 5 12 3 48 32 5 0 0  77 5 29 13 97 53 13 0 2  Female  Sum  Physical PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PP PS PD. PI. PT1 PT2 PT3 PT4 PF PO Verbal VD VP VR VT VS VC VF VB VI  30 0 13 5 67 15 5 0 1  128  Appendix G  continued Repertoire of Aggressive  Behaviour  Unitel  Time 1 Male  Female  25 2 12 0 104 3 0 28 0 1 16 0 7 20  19 0 0 0 17 8 1 0 0  Time 2 Sum  Male  Female  Sum  33 3 4 1 36 1 0 11 1 0 11 0 5 8  58 5 16 1 140 4 0 39 1 1 27 0 12 28  26 2 27 1 170 1 1 11 8 0 16 1 6 87  16 3 6 0 44 1 1 17 1 1 14 2 3 13  42 5 33 1 214 2 2 28 9 1 30 3 9 100  11 0 1 2 31 6 0 0 1  30 0 1 2 48 14 1 0 1  23 1 2 6 17 21 9 0 0  13 1 1 5 12 8 6 0 1  36 2 3 11 29 29 15 0 1  Physical PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PP PS PD PI PT1 PT2 PT3 PT4 PF PO Verbal VD VP VR VT VS VC VF VB VI  Appendix G continued Repertoire of Aggressive  Behaviour  Multitel  Time 1  Physical PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PP PS PD PI PT1 PT2 PT3 PT4 PF PO  Time 2  Male  Female  Sum  Male  'Female  Sum  32 4 9 0 101 13 1 35 13 6 25 0 2 32  16 10 4 1 85 3 0 16 2 1 8 0 7 1  48 14 13 1 186 16 1 51 15 7 33 0 9 33  36 5 30 1 273 4 0 15 16 4 16 3 3 5  9 2 17 0 132 1 0 5 2 2 18 0 1 2  45 7 47 1 405 5 0 20 18 6 34 3 4 7  35 0 7 9 29 22 0 0 5  39 0 7 9 19 16 1 0 5  74 0 14 18 48 38 1 0 10  21 1 8 7 50 21 5 0 5  8 0 4 5 19 8 0 0 1  29 1 12 12 69 29 5 0 6  Verbal VD VP VR VT VS VC VF VB VI  130  APPENDIX H Key:  551  :  Sum  A b b r e v i a t i o n s Employed i n the C o r r e l a t i o n  of teacher  Bossy;  r a t i n g measures A g g r e s s i v e ;  Tables  Argumentative;  Hostile  552  :  Sum  of teacher r a t i n g measures A c t i v e ;  Loud  553  :  Sum  of teacher  554  :  Sum  o f t e a c h e r r a t i n g measures F r i e n d l y ;  PR1  :  Peer r a t i n g  f o r Bossy  PR2  :  Peer r a t i n g  for Fights  PR3  :  Peer r a t i n g  for Talks  PR4  :  Peer r a t i n g  f o r Argues;  PR5  :  Peer r a t i n g  f o r Push; Shove; Poke  r a t i n g measures C o m p e t i t i v e ;  Dominant  Honest  back Disagrees  AVSS6 :  O b s e r v a t i o n a l measure f o r P h y s i c a l  AVSS7 :  O b s e r v a t i o n a l measure f o r V e r b a l  Aggression Aggression  APPENDIX I T i m e 1 C o r r e l a t i o n s among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r R a t i n g s , a n d O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures of A g g r e s s i o n ,  SSI  SS2  SS3  SS4  PR1  Collapsed across  PR2  PR3  PR4  Towns  PR5  SSI  1.00  SS2  .78  1.00  SS3  .59  .65  SS4  -.27  -. 16  .27  PR1  .41  .47  .28  PR2  .26  .36  PR3  .43  .46  .19  .74  .60 .  PR4  .38  .47  .24  .85  .69  .74  1.00  PR5  .39  .46  .18  .66  .63  .61  .63  1.00  AVSS6  .37  .36  .27  .28  .49  .36  .41  .38  AVSS7  .22  .31  .28  .17  AVSS6  AVSS7  1.00 1.00 1.00 (-.14)  -.23  .59  Correlation coefficients  significant  Correlation coefficients  i n parentheses  1.00 1.00  .17  a t .05 l e v e l significant  a t .10 l e v e l  1.00 .19  1.00  Appendix I continued C o r r e l a t i o n s among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r  Time 1 N o t e l :  R a t i n g s , and  O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SSI  SS3  SS4  PR2  PR1  PR3  PR4  PR5  AVSS6  AVSS7  1.00.  SS2  .78 ..  SS3  .58  SS4  SS2  1.00 .78  1.00 1.00  -.31  PR1  .62  .63  .53  1.00  PR2  .39  .47  (.22)  .55  1.00  PR3  .60  .55  .36  .76  .63  1.00  PR4  .57  .61  .46  .91  .73  .80  1.00  PR5  .68  .62  .55  (-.25)  .73  .61  .70  .71  1.00  AVSS6  .39  .37  .16  -.35  .36  .75  .41  .54  .50  AVSS7  (.26)  .46  .50  1.00  .27  Correlation coefficients  significant  Correlation coefficients  i n parentheses  a t .05 l e v e l significant  1.00  a t .10 l e v e l  Appendix I  continued Time 1 U n i t e l :  C o r r e l a t i o n s Among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r  R a t i n g s , and  O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SS2  551  1.00  552  .75  1.00  553  .68  .72  554  SS3  PR1  PR2  PR3  PR4  (.24)  1.00  .49  .44  1.00  PR4  .59  .66  .47  1.00  PR5  .42  .64  .46  .51  .40  .42  .33  .26  .35  (.22)  C.25)  .40  AVSS7  AVSS7  1.00  .71  AVSS6  AVSS6  1.00  PR2 PR3  PR5  1.00 .49  PR1  SS4  Correlation  coefficients  s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l  Correlation  coefficients  i n parentheses  'l.OO (.27)  1.00 1.00  s i g n i f i c a n t a t .10 l e v e l  Co  Appendix I  continued Time 1 M u l t i t e l :  C o r r e l a t i o n s among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s ,  Peer R a t i n g s , and  O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SSI  1.00  SS2  .82  SS3  .55  SS2  SS4  SS3  . PR2  PR1  PR3  PR4  PR5  AVSS6  AVSS7  1.00 .54  1.00 1.00  SS4  -.45  -.41  PR1  .33  .28  (.24)  PR2  .31  .46  (,25)  PR3  .54  .52  PR4  .40  .41  PR5  (.21)  .39  AVSS6  .32  .35  AVSS7  .42.  .36  1.00 -.31  .53  1.00  -.32  .53  .46  .60  .34  .42  1.00  .64  .74  .42  .36  1.00  .38  .42  .52  (.26)  .36  (,24) -.43 (,24)  1.00  .33  significant  Correlation  coefficients  Correlation  coefficients in  at  .05  1.00 1.00  level  parentheses s i g n i f i c a n t  at  .10 l e v e l  4>  Appendix I  continued  T i m e 2: C o r r e l a t i o n s among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r R a t i n g s , A n d Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n ,  SSI  SSI  1.00  SS2  .62  SS3  .49  SS4  -.66  SS2  SS3  SS4  Collapsed Across  PR2  PR1  PR3  PR4  Observational  Towns  PR5  AVSS6  1.00 .22 -.41  1.00 (-.14)  1.00  PR1  .27  .31  1.00  PR2  .25  .35  .74  1.00  PR3  .38  .40  (.15)  .72  .62  1.00  PR4  .32  .27  (.13)  .71  .63  .65  1.00  PR5  .28  .43  .74  .78  .72  .65  1.00  .32  .39  .32  .37  .41  -.20  -. 17  AVSS6  .21  AVSS7  -.23  .21  Correlation  coefficients significant  at  Correlation  c o e f f i c i e n t s i n parentheses  .21  .05  level  :s i g n i f i c a n t  at  . 10 l e v e l  .20  1.00 .38  1.00  Appendix I  continued Time 2 N o t e l :  C o r r e l a t i o n s Among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r  R a t i n g s , and  Ob s e r v a t i o n a l M e a s u r e s o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SSI  SS2  SS4  PR2  PR1  PR3  PR4  ER5  AVSS6  AVSS7  1.00  SS2  . 70  1.00  SS3  .46  (.24)  SS4  -.45  PR1  SS3  .40  PR2  1.00 1.00  -.45 .34  1.00  .44  .58  1.00  -.38  .63  .29  1.00  -.36  .80  .56  .75  1.00  .72  .72  .66  .75  PR3  .68  .46  PR4  .51  .41  PR5  (.26)  .42  .23  (-.24)  1.00 (.25)  AVSS6 (.23)  AVSS7  s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 05  Correlation  coefficients  Correlation  c o e f f i c i a n t s i n parentheses  1.00 .28  1.00  level  si g n i f i c a n t  a t .10 l e v e l  to ON  Appendix I continued Time 2 U n i t e l :  C o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e T e a c h e r R a t i n g s , P e e r  R a t i n g s , and  O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SSI  1.00  SS2  .48  SS2  SS3  SS4  PR3  PR4  PR5  AVSS6  1.00  SS4  -.45  PR1  .39  PR2  (.25)  PR3  .44  .36  027)  1.00 -.41 (-.28)  .47  -.35  PR4 .51  .43  -.39  0 26)  AVSS6 AVSS7  PR2  1.00  SS3  PR5  PR1  1.00 .98  1.00  .89  .86  1.00  .65  .63  .53  1.00  .84  .85  .85  .64  1.00  .49  .53  .45  .49  .49  1.00 .38  .36  Correlation coefficients  significant  at  Correlation coefficients  i n parentheses  .05 l e v e l significant  a t .10  level  1.00  Appendix I  continued Time 2 M u l t i t e l :  C o r r e l a t i o n s among T e a c h e r R a t i n g s ,  Peer R a t i n g s , and  O b s e r v a t i o n a l Measures o f A g g r e s s i o n  SSI  SS2  SS3  SS4  PR1  PR2  PR3  PR4  PR5  AVSS6  SSI  1.00  SS2  .77  .1.00  SS3  .47  .39  SS4  -.70  -.61  PR1  .34  .32  .34  1.00  PR2  .37  .38  .44  .76  1.00  PR3  .28  .29  .33  .66  .79  1.00  PR4  .39  (.26)  .33  .66  .74  .61  1.00  PR5  .36  .43  .64  .80  .64  .55  1.00  .49  .55  .45  .56  .56  1.00  .27  .39  AVSS6 AVSS7  (.24)  AVSS7  1.00 1.00  (.22) .39  .31  (.26)  Correlational coefficients  s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05 l e v e l  Correlational coefficients  i n parentheses  1.00  s i g n i f i c a n t a t .10 l e v e l  Co 00  139  APPENDIX J V i e w i n g H o u r s P e r Week T i m e 1  Hours/Week  No. o f Subjects  21  0  Multitel (N=39)  Unitel (N=34)  Notel (N=30)  %  70  No": o f " Subjects  4  %  %  •  11.8  -  1  2.6  1  2.6  11.8  5  12.8  1-5  1  3.3  6-10  2  6.7  3  8.8  11-15  1  3.3  3  8.8  16-20  1  3.3  4  11.8  4  21-25  No. o f Subjects  26-30  1  3.3  2  5.9  5  12.8  31-35  1  3.3  4  11.8  7  17.9  36-40  3  7.7  41-45  4  10.3  46-50  1  2.9  3  7.7  51-55  1  2.9  2  5.1  1  2.6  56-60  * Little  4  11.8  Sometimes  1  3.3  1  2.9  4  10.3  Lots  1  3.3  3  8.8  3  7.7  'These c h i l d r e n d i d n o t know how many h o u r s t h e y w a t c h e d o f TV p e r week, so t h e y w e r e a s k e d w h e t h e r i t w a s : "a l i t t l e ; l o t s ; o r j u s t sometimes".  140  Appendix J  continued V i e w i n g H o u r s P e r Week T i m e 2  Hours/Week  Multitel (N=37)  Unitel (N=39)  Notel (N=38)  No. o f Subj e c t s  No. o f Subjects  No. o f Subjects  5.13  4  10.81  1  2.70  0  5  13.16  I- 5  1  2.63  6-10  1  2.63  I I - 15  4  10.53  16-20  4  10.53  2  5.13  10.81  21-25  5  13.16  9  23.08  21.62  26-30  10.  26.32  9  23.08  6  16.22  31-35  4  10.53  9  23.08  3  8.11  36-40  3  7.89  6  15.38  1  2.70  2  5.13  5  13.52  1  2.70  51-55  2  5.40  56-60  1  2.70  60+  1  2.70  41-45 2.63  46-50  Mean n o . h o u r s / w e e k  21.72  28.21  28.71  Median no. hours/week  25  27.5  25.5  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United Kingdom 11 0
China 9 1
United States 5 7
France 3 0
Ireland 1 0
Republic of Korea 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 13 91
Beijing 9 1
Ashburn 4 0
Exeter 2 0
Mountain View 1 3
Dublin 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094376/manifest

Comment

Related Items