Prosocial Effects of Media Prosocial Media for Children

117

Prosocial Effects of Media

T hough the term prosocial is often bandied about by the media industry, fed-eral regulators, academics, and advocates, there is not necessarily a shareddefinition within or between groups. Most writers suggest that prosocial

media content is somehow socially helpful (such as that which promotes altruism,friendliness, acceptance of diversity, and cooperation). Others would include con-tent that is more personally helpful (calming fears, engaging in safer sex practices,eating healthfully). In this chapter, we use the definition provided in one of the firstcomprehensive reports of the positive effects of the media written in the 1970s,titled “Television and Behavior.” The author defines prosocial as that which is“socially desirable and which in some way benefits other persons or society at large”(quoted in Lowery & DeFleur, 1995, p. 354).

Any definition of prosocial involves some level of value judgment. Some mightargue that a program that emphasizes “looking out for #1” prepares a child betterfor a competitive world than one that instills values of “cooperation.” Despite thiscaveat, we examine studies that have explored the benefits of prosocial media in itstraditional sense. Most of the landmark studies were conducted in the 1970s, inresponse to increased federal funding to investigate the positive role of television inchildren’s lives (this, on the heels of the Surgeon General’s report outlining the neg-ative role of television—particularly the deleterious consequences of TV violence)(Lowery & DeFleur, 1995). The studies reviewed in this chapter are mainly focusedon television content, though by extension, many of the findings would hold truefor DVD and videotape viewing of the programs. Less clear is the impact of otherelectronic media—including computer and video games, Internet social Web sites(including networking sites), music, or magazines.

Many studies have found that children’s emotional and social skills are linked totheir early academic standing (e.g., Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Children who have dif-ficulty paying attention in class, getting along with their peers, and controlling theirown negative emotions of anger and distress do less well in school (Arnold et al.,1999; McLelland, Morrison, & Holmes, 2000). What’s more, longitudinal studies

CHAPTER 4

04-Strasburger-45563.qxd 6/5/2008 10:10 AM 17

suggest that this link may be causal: “For many children, academic achievement intheir first few years of schooling appears to be built on a firm foundation ofchildren’s emotional and social skills” (Raver, 2002, p. 3). Specifically, research onearly schooling suggests that the relationships that children build with peers andteachers are (a) based on children’s ability to regulate emotions in prosocial versusantisocial ways, and (b) a “source of provisions” that either help or hurt children’schances of doing well, academically, in school (Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999, p. 1375).

Developmental psychologists believe that children have a set of “emotional com-petencies” that determine how they think about and handle their own and others’emotions (Saarni, 1990). For example, a child’s ability to recognize and label different emotions gives him or her powerful social tools. Children’s emotionalstyles are thought to be influenced not only by their temperament but also by theirenvironments. Certainly, parents’ uses of warmth, control, and harshness in thehome matter (see Chapter 12). Media may matter too. As we shall see in a moment,media have been shown to be effective at developing skills such as altruism andcooperation in young viewers.

Prosocial Media for Children

In the early days of television, the limited offerings of the networks featured many“family-friendly” prosocial programs such as Lassie, Captain Kangaroo, and TheWaltons. Through the 1970s and early 1980s, content analyses revealed thatchildren’s favorite programs often featured portrayals of empathy, altruism, and anexploration of feelings (Palmer, 1988). Networks soon discovered, however, thatmore money could be made on so-called program-length commercials—cartoonsthat were mainly vehicles for selling toys such as action figures (Kunkel, 1988).As a consequence, prosocial television declined through the 1980s and mid-1990s(Calvert & Kotler, 2003). The Children’s Television Act of 1990 aimed to reversethat trend, but it really wasn’t until the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) processing guideline went into effect—explicitly stating a minimumrequirement of 3 hours per week of educational television—that the landscape ofchildren’s television began to include more prosocial television. Today, more thanthree quarters of the commercial broadcasters’ educational offerings are “proso-cial” shows (Jordan, 2004).

How Do Prosocial Media Affect Youth?

Researchers who study children’s prosocial learning from media typically workunder the assumption that characters who behave kindly, cooperatively, responsi-bly, and altruistically are providing models that children can learn from and subse-quently imitate. Much of this research is grounded in Bandura’s social cognitivetheory, which originally explored how televised aggression might be imitated under

118——CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS, AND THE MEDIA

04-Strasburger-45563.qxd 6/5/2008 10:10 AM Page 118

certain conditions (see Chapter 5), but has also looked at prosocial behavior thatmight result from media exposure. Generally speaking, the mechanism goes likethis: Children observe a character behave in a positive manner. That behavior ismore likely to be imitated if the character (a) is realistic, (b) is similar to the child(for example, in age or gender), (c) receives positive reinforcement, and (d) carriesout an action that is imitable by the child (Thomas, 2005).

Prosocial content may also be providing children with skills for dealing withtheir emotions and managing their moods. As noted at the beginning of the chap-ter, children are born with temperament but look to their environments to learnemotional competencies—for example, ways to feel better about themselves or getthrough a bad day. Sesame Street has, in its three decades on the air, taught childrenabout emotional coping in its curricular goals. It has addressed the scariness ofhurricanes, the jealousy that arrives with a new sibling, and even the uncertaintythat came after the 2001 terrorist attacks. However, we know very little about theefficacy of these storylines. Similarly, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood produced manyepisodes for children on topics that scared them or made them uncomfortable.(Indeed, there is a large body of research on children’s management of their frightreactions to media. See, for example, Cantor, 2001.)

A third potential mechanism underlying the relationship between media con-tent and prosocial behavior may be that prosocial content offers children “scripts”for dealing with unfamiliar situations. According to schema or script theory, aschema is an organized structure of knowledge about a topic or event that is storedin memory and helps a person assimilate new information (Mandler, 1984).Schema theory suggests that people possess schemas for emotions, which includeinformation about facial expressions, the cause of feelings, and the appropriateways of expressing feelings. Children use schemas to help them interpret what theyencounter in the media. In turn, media content can contribute to a child’s schemas.Cultivation theory, described in Chapter 5, has found that, over time, heavy TVviewers tend to adopt beliefs about the world that are consistent with television’sportrayal of the world. In other words, children who watch a lot of TV featuringcrime or hospitals may come to see the world as a mean and scary place (Gerbner,Gross, Signorielli, & Morgan, 1986).

The Research Evidence

Empathy

Social learning theory, emotional competency theory, and schema theory mightall be used to understand children’s development of empathy, or the ability ofchildren to understand and relate to another’s feelings by taking his or her perspec-tive. Many would argue that the ability of humans to empathize with others is bothhardwired and learned. Developmental psychologists who follow the Piagetian tra-dition would argue that it is not until children are 6 or 7 years old that they are“sociocentric” enough to understand that not everyone sees the world

Prosocial Effects of Media——119


or events as they do. In one famous experiment, children were put in front of a constructed three-dimensional mountain with different objects placed on it. Piagetasked the child to choose from four pictures which view the experimenter wouldsee (the experimenter was standing on the opposite side of the mountain). Youngerchildren selected the picture of the view that they themselves saw (Thomas, 2005).From this experiment and others, Piaget argued that children have difficulty under-standing others’ perspectives, including understanding how they might feel. By thetime children reach school age, they become more tuned into the feelings and needsof others.

Research suggests that child audiences can recognize the feelings of media char-acters, though it appears that younger children are less likely to experience thecharacter’s feelings (that is, empathize with them) than older children. In onestudy, 3- to 5-year-olds and 9- to 11-year-olds watched a scary movie clip. For oneclip, a threatening “stimulus” was shown. For the other, a character’s fear inresponse to the threatening stimulus was shown. Older children were more fright-ened and physiologically aroused than the younger children, though all childrenrecognized the character as frightened (Wilson & Cantor, 1985).

Calvert and Kotler (2003) examined a more recent crop of prosocial programsfor elementary school-age youth airing on commercial broadcast, cable, and publictelevision. Their two-pronged study involved second to sixth graders in both a nat-uralistic reporting methodology (in which children logged onto a Web site andreported on what they were watching and what they learned) as well as an experi-mental methodology (in which children were shown programs in the classroom andasked about them afterwards). Their research suggests that school-age children learnfrom prosocial programs even more so than from traditional, school-related educa-tional shows. Moreover, much of what the children seemed to be learning is how toidentify the emotions of characters and apply what they learn to their own lives. Asthis sixth-grade girl in the experimental condition wrote about the program Anatole,“This program was about a little mouse who tried her hardest in singing but justcouldn’t do it. The mouse gave up and ripped her opera notes up because of herfrustration. When her dad (Papa) met an Opera singer named Renee, he knew thatif his daughter heard her singing, she would have kept her confidence. And she did.She learned that just because you are not good at something doesn’t mean you haveto give up. And that is the lesson that I will keep in mind when I get frustrated withsomething I am not good at” (quoted in Calvert & Kotler, 2003, p. 316).

Altruism/Helping

One of the first studies of the impact of prosocial television came with theprogram Lassie, which ran from 1954 to 1974 on commercial broadcast TV. Theshow featured an extraordinary collie, who was devoted to his family and, in par-ticular, the boy owner (Jeff). Because of his devotion and intelligence, Lassie oftenhelped them out of dangerous situations. In the Sprafkin, Liebert, and Poulos(1975) experiment, first-grade children saw one of three TV shows. In one condi-tion, they saw a prosocial episode of Lassie in which Jeff rescues a puppy. In the second, they viewed a “neutral” episode of Jeff trying to avoid taking violin lessons.



In the third, the children watched a “competitive” episode of the Brady Bunch. Afterviewing the television program, children were told to play a game to win points andprizes. They were also told that if they needed assistance, they could press a “help”button, though that would mean they would need to stop playing the game andpresumably be less likely to win a prize. Children could hear dogs barking withincreasing intensity and distress through the experimental period (the barking was,of course, prerecorded). Children who saw the prosocial episode of Lassie conditionwere nearly twice as likely to seek help as children in the neutral condition. Childrenin the competitive condition were the least likely to seek help.

Social Interaction

In a 1979 study of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Friedrich-Cofer, Huston-Stein,Kipnis, Susman, and Clewett explored the effects of daily exposure to differentkinds of television over a 2-month period on preschool children’s social interac-tions with one another. All of the children were enrolled in Head Start programs.In one classroom, children watched Mister Rogers, and teachers were trained andrelevant play material was provided. In a second classroom, children watchedMister Rogers, but teachers had no training. Relevant play material was provided. Inthe third, children viewed Mister Rogers, but there was neither teacher training norprogram-related play material. In the final condition, children watched “neutral”films, with irrelevant play material in the classroom. Researchers observedchildren’s natural social behaviors in the classroom and on the playground before


Figure 4.1 PBS’ Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood

SOURCE: ©2001 Family Communications, Inc. and PBS.


and after the 2 months’ worth of viewing. They found that positive interactionswith peers increased the most in the condition where children had exposure toprosocial programming, teachers were trained, and relevant play material was pro-vided. Prosocial television alone, however, led to few differences in children’sbehavior, at least in this early study.

A second program that has been extensively studied is Barney & Friends. Thisprogram, which features a big purple dinosaur and emphasizes kindness and goodmanners, has been found to have a positive effect on children from diverse regionsin the United States. Similar to the Mister Rogers study described above, day carecenters were assigned to either a viewing or a viewing plus lessons condition or ano-viewing control group. Even without the accompanying lessons, children whoviewed Barney were rated as more civil and having better manners.

Acceptance of Others/Acceptance of Diversity

A major goal of the program Sesame Street has been to highlight the diversity ofAmerican life and to model racial harmony. Program characters are AfricanAmericans, Latino Americans, White Americans, American Indians, and AsianAmericans. Even its Muppets are different colors! In 1989, in response to increas-ing racial unrest, the producers and researchers at Sesame Workshop (the nonprofitproduction company that makes the program) designed a curriculum to encour-age friendship among people of different races and cultures. Preschool viewerswere encouraged to perceive people who look different from themselves as possiblefriends and to bring a child who has been rejected because of physical and/or cul-tural differences into the group. Truglio, Lovelace, Segui, and Schneider (2001)write that initially, there was some doubt as to whether race relations was truly anissue for preschoolers. However, a review of the literature, along with meetings withexperts, revealed that preschoolers were aware of racial differences. Their formativeresearch suggested that ethnic minority children felt less good about themselvesand that White children were more likely to segregate African American children inan imaginary neighborhood they were asked to create. However, most of thechildren were open to the idea of being friends with children of different races.

One very interesting study analyzed two segments for Sesame Street that werecreated to address racial harmony and interaction. In one, “Visiting Ieshia,” a Whitegirl visits an African American girl in her home. The other, “Play Date,” shows asimilar family visit with an African American boy in his home and his White friend.Researchers at Sesame Workshop found that children liked the segments and iden-tified with and remembered them. Most of the children who viewed the episodesstated that the visiting White child felt positive about being at Ieshia’s home (70%)and Jamal’s home (58%). However, less than one half of the children who viewed“Play Date” felt that the African American mother in the film (48%) and the Whitemother of the visiting boy (39%) felt happy about the visit. Why? Preschoolers per-ceived their own mothers as not feeling positively about other-race friendships,even after viewing friendly and inviting images of parents in “Play Date.” Fromthese findings, the researchers recommended that in future segments, mothers and



fathers needed to have a more prominent role in expressing support about the childcharacter’s friendships with children of different races before, during, and afterthese visits. They also suggested that the segments show the parents of the differ-ent-race children interacting and expressing the positive value of making goodfriends (Truglio et al., 2001).

The Limitations of Research on Prosocial Content for Children

It is unfortunate that so few studies have investigated the potential benefits ofprosocial programming for children, particularly when there are so many programsnow being offered by commercial broadcasters to satisfy the 3-hour rule. As Maresand Woodard (2001) point out, there are still many unanswered questions abouthow best to design prosocial content for children. First, does children’s exposure tospecific prosocial models (such as donating money) translate into more “generalkindness” or “goodness”? They argue that such a link has been found in exposureto antisocial models (with, of course, the opposite effect) and that despite the factthat the research could be carried out fairly easily, it never has. The popular seriesAmerican Idol, for example, televised a double episode called “Idol Gives Back” inwhich the judges spotlighted the ravages of poverty, including the desperate plightof AIDS-afflicted mothers and children in Africa. By modeling charitable behavior(one of the episode’s hosts, Ellen DeGeneres, donated $100,000 and the program’shost, Ryan Seacrest, went to Africa and cared for dying women and children), theyraised a total of $60 million. Children watching the program asked their parents togive and pledged their own allowances. But is this generosity fleeting, or havechildren’s beliefs and behaviors been affected in the longer term?


Figure 4.2 PBS’ Sesame Street

SOURCE: ©2005 Sesame Workshop.


There is also a question about what kind of prosocial portrayal is most effectivefor different ages. For example, Mares and Woodard (2001) argue that “the combi-nation of aggression and a prosocial theme is particularly pernicious. That is,showing violence and mayhem in the cause of social justice or followed by a rapidconclusion in which the villains are punished for their aggression may be moredeleterious to children’s prosocial interactions than showing violence unadulter-ated by any prosocial theme” (p. 195). One study by Krcmar and Valkenberg (1999)found that 6- to 12-year-olds could easily reason that “unjustified violence” iswrong in an abstract, hypothetical situation. However, those children who wereheavy viewers of the fantasy violence program Power Rangers were more likely tojudge “justified” aggression in the hypothetical scenarios as morally correct, whilethose who seldom watched the program did not. One might argue that childrenwho see the world in this way (that is, that justified violence is morally right) aredrawn to superhero-type shows such as Power Rangers. Krcmar and Curtis (2003)conducted an experiment in which 5- to 14-year-olds were randomly assigned toone of three conditions: One watched an action cartoon that featured charactersarguing and eventually engaging in violence, another watched a similar clip involv-ing an argument but the characters walked away instead of fighting, and a controlgroup did not watch television. Afterward, the subjects listened to and judged fourhypothetical stories involving violence. Children who had watched the violentprogram were subsequently more likely than those in the control group to judgethe violence as morally acceptable. They also exhibited less sophisticated moral rea-soning in their responses (for example, they relied on punishment as rationale—“don’t hit or you’ll get in trouble”).

Not only is much of children’s superhero programming portrayed with conflict-ing pro- and antisocial messages, so too is the adult programming that is popularwith young audiences. The Fox program 24 has been roundly criticized for havingits hero, Jack Bauer, use torture against his enemies (including his bad-guy brother)to save the world from disaster (Moritz, 2007). Similarly, if one aim is to havechildren imitate constructive, prosocial behavior, what is the best way to promotethat? Should the reward be intrinsic or extrinsic? Should children be shown how tocarry this behavior over into their own lives? The program Captain Planet high-lighted the ecological problems facing the world—problems that were solved bysuperheroes called “planeteers.” At the end of the program, however, children wereshown exactly what they could do in their own homes and communities to be a“planeteer” too. Behaviors included recycling newspapers, making birdhouses, andpicking up litter.

One of the few studies to examine the impact of production values on the take-away value of a prosocial program tracked elementary school children’s reaction toa popular family sitcom, Full House, in which a young character was trying to copewith anxiety about earthquakes or taking a fall while trying to learn how to ride abicycle. In addition, half of the children were exposed to a humorous subplot thatwas interspersed with the main plot (the other half saw no subplot). The studyrevealed that while the subplot reduced the younger children’s (5- to 7-year-olds)comprehension of the emotional event in the storyline, it had no impact on olderchildren’s comprehension. Thus, it is clear that research needs to account for the



developmental differences of audiences when examining the potential benefits ofprosocial content. As described earlier, Georgetown researchers Calvert and Kotler(2003) argued that at least for school-age children, prosocial program content iseven more “educational” than academic-oriented shows that feature science, litera-ture, or math. As Jordan (2003) points out, however, it is difficult to know whetherthe children remember the lessons better because they have been ingrained in themsince they were toddlers (share, be nice, etc.) or whether it is because the narrativestructure is more entertaining and engaging.

Prosocial Media for Adolescents

The great majority of research on prosocial effects of media has involvedchildren, especially very young children (Hogan & Strasburger, 2008). Only a hand-ful of studies and experiments have specifically examined the possibility of proso-cial effects of media on adolescents (Mares & Woodard, 2001, 2005). A recentmeta-analysis of 35 prosocial studies found that the impact of prosocial contentseems to peak at age 7 and fall off rapidly after that (Mares & Woodard, 2005), sothat teenagers may be relatively “immune” to such influences or simply too egocen-tric to be affected. One of the earliest and classic experiments involved assigning 60young people, ages 9, 13, and 16, to view one of two versions of The Mod Squad. Inthe violent version, a police captain who is framed for bribery gets even with thevillain. In the prosocial version, everything is worked out through negotiation. Thesubjects were then placed in front of a “help/hurt” machine in a mock experimen-tal situation. Those who had viewed the prosocial version spent more time press-ing the help button and less time pressing the hurt button (Collins & Getz, 1976).In an intriguing use of prosocial TV, Elias (1983) used a 5-week series of 10 proso-cial videos about dealing with teasing, bullying, and peer pressure to help treat agroup of 109 boys, ages 7 to 15 years, who had serious emotional disturbances.Compared with control subjects, the boys were rated as less isolated and less trou-bled, and this effect lasted as long as 2 months after the videos were seen. Mediapopular with teens can also be used to teach them about important subjects. Forexample, Singer and Singer (1994) developed and tested an effective adolescenthealth education mini-curriculum using five episodes of Degrassi Junior High withteens and preteens in Grades 5 to 8.

Content analyses have also found that prosocial content is relatively rare. Ananalysis of the top 20 shows for children and teens ages 2 to 17 found that only twocontained themes of altruism, antiviolence, or friendliness in the episodes analyzed(Mares & Woodard, 2005). An older analysis of the most popular shows amongfourth, sixth, and eighth graders found that there were as many antisocial acts asprosocial acts depicted (Greenberg, Atkin, Edison, & Korzenny, 1980). However, themost recent analysis of 2,227 programs on 18 different channels found that 73% ofthe programs featured altruistic acts, with a rate of 2.92 incidents per hour (Smithet al., 2006).

Both video games and the Internet have been used recently and creatively to try toreach teens and young adults (Baranowski, Buday, Thompson, & Baranowski, 2008).



Recently, a 16-week online intervention succeeded in producing weight loss and areduction in binge eating for a small group of adolescents (Jones et al., 2008). A newvideo game titled Re-Mission (HopeLab, Palo Alto, CA) has been developed for can-cer patients and features a “nanobot” named Roxxi, an attractive brunette who trav-els through the body blasting away at cancer cells. In a study of 375 cancer patients,ages 13 to 29 years, at 34 different medical centers, those who played the game weremore compliant with chemotherapy and antibiotic treatments (Beale, Kato, Marin-Bowling, Guthrie, & Cole, 2007). Dance Dance Revolution is a popular video gamethat encourages exercise at home and can double energy expenditure (Lanningham-Foster et al., 2006). However, a 6-month follow-up of 30 children who used it at least150 minutes a week found no reduction in body mass index (Madsen, Yen, Wlasiuk,Newman, & Lustig, 2007). Another new video game, Body Mechanics, tries to teachchildren to avoid becoming obese by allying themselves with a team of superheroesto battle villains such as Col Estorol and Betes II (Ellis, 2007). TV has also been usedsuccessfully to distract children having blood drawn (Bellieni et al., 2006). Finally, acomputer-delivered HIV/AIDS program resulted in increased condom use in a recentrandomized trial with 157 college students (Kiene & Barta, 2006).

National and International Prosocial Efforts

Evidence is increasing that well-conceived health campaigns involving massmedia can have a demonstrable impact (Noar, 2006). One of the earliest proso-cial experiments was conducted in Mexico by Miguel Sabido. His telenovela,Acompaname (Accompany Me), featured a young woman with two children whodecided that she didn’t want any more pregnancies and therefore needed contra-ception. The show was immensely popular, and sales of contraceptives increased23% in the first year the show aired, compared with 7% the year before the showbegan (Brink, 2006). Subsequently, the use of soap operas to convey public healthmessages spread to India, China, and Africa, where radio characters would discussthe problems of dealing with the risk of AIDS (Singhal & Rogers, 1999). InZambia, a media campaign to reduce the risk of HIV resulted in a doubling ofcondom use among those teenagers who viewed at least three TV ads from thecampaign (Underwood, Hachonda, Serlemitsos, & Bharath-Kumar, 2006). In2006, the African Broadcast Media Partnership Against HIV/AIDS began a 3- to5-year campaign involving a series of public service announcements (PSAs) onradio and TV in 25 African countries (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006). The goalof the “An HIV-Free Generation. . . . It Begins With You” campaign is to educatepeople in Africa about what they can do to stop the spread of HIV. And in China,students have been successfully taught sex education via the Internet (Lou, Zhao,Gao, & Shah, 2006).

In the United States, the Kaiser Family Foundation began partnering with MTVin 1997 and has produced a total of 62 different PSAs and 19 full-length shows thatdeal with HIV/AIDS (Rideout, 2003). In 2003, Kaiser joined with Viacom to getHIV/AIDS storylines incorporated into shows such as Becker, Touched by an Angel,



and Queer as Folk (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). A RAND study of 506 regularviewers of the hit sitcom Friends found that more than one fourth could recall seeing one particular episode in which Rachel became pregnant despite the use ofcondoms. Of those, 40% watched the episode with an adult, and 10% talked withan adult about condom use as a direct result of the show (Collins, Elliott, Berry,Kanouse, & Hunter, 2003). Similarly, a Kaiser survey of more than five hundred 15-to 17-year-olds found that one third had a conversation with a parent about a sex-ual matter because of something they saw on television (Figure 4.3). In the samesurvey, 60% of teens said that they learned how to say no to sex by seeing some-thing on TV, and nearly half said that TV helped them talk to a partner about safesex (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002). Two Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) surveys in the past 7 years have found that half of regular view-ers of daytime soap operas in the United States say that they have learned impor-tant health information, and one fourth of prime-time viewers say that TV is oneof their top three sources of health information (Brink, 2006). And an innovativecampaign in North Carolina used TV and radio PSAs and billboards to encourageparents to talk to their teenagers about sex. “Talk to your kids about sex. Everyoneelse is,” was the primary message, and a subsequent survey of 1,132 parents foundthat the campaign had indeed been effective (DuRant, Wolfson, LaFrance,


0

10

20

30

40

50

70

Total Boys

Yes

33%

67% 68%66%

33% 32%

No

Girls Total Boys Girls

60

Figure 4.3

SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation (2002). This information was reprinted with permission fromthe Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Kaiser Family Foundation, based in Menlo Park,California, is a nonprofit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issuesfacing the nation and is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

Have you ever had a conversation with one of your parentsabout a sexual issue because of something you saw on TV?


Balkrishnan, & Altman, 2006). Both the National Campaign to Prevent Teen andUnplanned Pregnancy and Advocates for Youth have run similar campaigns (seeFigure 4.4). In San Francisco, the Department of Public Health has become the firstin the country to begin sending safer sex text messages to young people whorequest them (Allday, 2006).

Ratings

One of the most important noncontroversial possibilities for improving the qual-ity of children’s media experiences would be to create a uniform rating system forall media. This would end the current confusion of the “alphabet soup” of differentratings for different media and would yield a system that is far more “user-friendly”and content based (Gentile, Humphrey, & Walsh, 2005; Greenberg & Rampoldi-Hnilo, 2001). Every available study shows that parents and public health organiza-tions are overwhelmingly in favor of a content-based ratings system,not an age-based one (Cantor, 1998a, 1998b; Gentile et al., 2005; Greenberg


Figure 4.4 Advocates for Youth Ad

SOURCE: Advocates for Youth (www. advocatesforyouth.org). Reprinted with permission.

04-Strasburger-45563.qxd 6/5/2008 10:10 AM 8

& Rampoldi-Hnilo, 2001; Hogan, 2001). Yet, to date, every media industry hasresisted such a change.

The first ratings system, of movies, was created in 1968 as a joint venturebetween the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the NationalAssociation of Theatre Owners (see Figure 4.5). Interestingly, it quickly followedtwo Supreme Court decisions that upheld the power of states to regulate children’saccess to media otherwise protected by the First Amendment (Ginsberg v. NewYork, 1968; Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 1968). Although the system is voluntary,most films are rated. Ninety percent of parents are aware of the ratings system, andmore than half approve of it (Federman, 1996). However, a significant percentageof parents disagree with the ratings for particular movies (Walsh & Gentile, 2001),and a recent survey of more than 1,000 parents found that only 53% find the rat-ings “very” useful (see Figures 4.6 and 4.7) (Rideout, 2007). The current movieratings are as follows (see also Figure 4.8) (Federman, 1996; FTC, 2000):


Figure 4.5 MPAA Movie Ratings

SOURCE: From Kaiser Family Foundation (2000b). Reprinted with permission.



0

20

40

60

80

100

58%

43% 45%

55% 53%56%

42%

49%

TVMoviesVideo games Music

1998 2006

Figure 4.7 Percentage of Parents Who Have Used Each Rating or AdvisorySystem and Found Them “Very” Useful

SOURCE: Rideout (2007). Used with permission.

0

20

40

60

80

100

77%

86%

54% 54% 53%56%

41%

52%

Movie ratings Video gameratings

TV ratings Musicadvisories

1998 2006

Figure 4.6 Percentage of Parents Who Say They Have Ever Used Movie Ratings,Video Game Ratings, and Music Advisories

SOURCE: Rideout (2007). Used with permission.


G: General audiences—all ages admitted.

• Signifies that the film contains nothing that most parentswill consider offensive, even for their youngest children. Nonudity, sex scenes, or scenes depicting drug use.

• Recent examples: Finding Nemo, Wallace & Gromit—TheCurse of the Were-Rabbit, Garfield, Cars, Ratatouille.

PG: Parental guidance suggested—some material may notbe suitable for children.

• May contain some material that parents might not liketheir young children exposed to, but explicit sex scenes or scenesof drug use are absent. However, nudity may be briefly seen, andhorror and violence may be present at “moderate levels.”

• Recent examples: The Chronicles of Narnia, Charlie andthe Chocolate Factory, Nanny McPhee, Dreamer: Inspired by aTrue Story, Alvin and the Chipmunks.

PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned—some material may beinappropriate for children under 13.

• “Rough or persistent violence” is absent, as is sexually oriented nudity. Theremay be some scenes of drug use but one use (only) of a common sexually derivedexpletive.

• Recent examples: Mission Impossible 3, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,Star Wars III—The Revenge of the Sith, Flags of Our Fathers, Pirates of the Caribbean:Dead Man’s Chest, I Am Legend, Juno.

R: Restricted, under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

• May contain some adult material. May contain “hard” language, “tough vio-lence,” sex or nudity, or drug use. Consequently, parents are urged to learn moreabout the film before taking their children to see it.

• Recent examples: Saw III, The Wedding Crashers, Snakes on a Plane, Crash,Brokeback Mountain, Hostel: Part II, Knocked-Up, Super-Bad, American Gangster.

NC-17: No one under 17 admitted.

• May contain material that the ratings board feels is “patently adult,” and there-fore children 17 and younger should not be viewing it. May contain explicit sexscenes, considerable sexually oriented language, and/or scenes of excessive violence.

• Recent examples: Where the Truth Lies; This Film Is Not Yet Rated; Lust,Caution. (Older examples: Showgirls, Kids)


Figure 4.8

SOURCE: Copyright Sidney Harris.Reprinted with permission.


There are several problems with the MPAA system. Initially, the ratings wereevaluative only, not descriptive (see Table 4.1). Parents would be given only the“PG” or “PG-13” symbol without being told exactly what content was problematic(Harris, 2007).

For certain parents, offensive language could be more of an issue than sceneswith brief nudity, for example. Recently, however, and with very little public fan-fare, the MPAA added descriptive information below the symbols (e.g., the 2007film Hostel: Part II is rated R for “sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence, ter-ror, nudity, sexual content, language, and some drug content”). But the descrip-tions do not always accompany the rating, nor is the print always large enough tobe deciphered by the average parent with average eyesight.

Sometimes, decisions by the ratings board defy explanation. The movie BillyElliot was a fine film for children and teenagers, except for repeated use of the “f”word. Despite the fact that the word was spoken in a northern English accent sothick that it was barely decipherable, the film received an R rating, putting it out ofreach of many teens who would have enjoyed seeing it. Hannibal, a gory sequel toSilence of the Lambs, was rated R, not NC-17. As critic Roger Ebert noted in hisreview, “If it proves nothing else, it proves that if a man cutting off his face andfeeding it to the dogs doesn’t get the NC-17 rating for violence, nothing ever will”(Ebert, 2001, p. 4). Similarly, Hostel: Part II shows grisly scenes of blood and tor-ture, “which means it’s perfectly okay to take a 5-year-old to see it if you can’t get asitter” (Harris, 2007, p. 76). The board is also notoriously susceptible to negotiationwith the industry (Dick, 2006). Thus, the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncutreceived an R rating only after it was rated five times as NC-17. “God’s the biggestbitch of them all” qualified the film for an R rating, whereas “God f—ing me up thea—” would have merited an NC-17 (Hochman, 1999). Even the makers of the filmwere surprised that their film escaped with just an R rating (Hochman, 1999).

Many observers have felt that the MPAA rates more harshly for sex than for vio-lence, which is the exact reverse of what European countries do (see Figure 4.9)(Federman, 1996). Any depiction of sexual activity is likely to earn a picture an R


Table 4.1 Examples of Descriptive and Evaluative Ratings

Descriptive Evaluative

Contains some violence Parental discretion advised

Nudity/sex level 3 Teen: ages 13+

Violence: blood and gore R: restricted

Language: mild expletives Adults only

Contains extreme violence Mature: ages 17+

BN: brief nudity PG: parental guidance

SOURCE: Federman (1996). Reprinted with permission.


rating, whereas a PG-13 movie can contain an appreciable amount of violence.Films that were extremely violent, such as Natural Born Killers and Pulp Fiction,received R ratings, whereas Showgirls, which had graphic sexuality and some nuditybut only brief violence, received an NC-17 rating (Federman, 1996). Even formermembers of the MPAA ratings board have serious problems with how this isdecided (Waxman, 2001a).

Other problems with the MPAA system are that, through the years, the industry hastolerated significant drug and violent content in G- and PG-rated movies, despite itsown guidelines (see Figure 4.10) (Associated Press, 2005). Of all the animated featurefilms produced in the United States between 1937 and 1999, 100% contained violence,and the portrayal of intentional violence increased during this 60-year period (Yokota& Thompson, 2000). Two studies of G-rated children’s films released between 1937and 1997 have found that nearly half displayed at least one scene of tobacco or alcoholuse (Goldstein, Sobel, & Newman, 1999; Thompson & Yokota, 2001).


Figure 4.9

SOURCE: Reprinted with permission from King Features.

Figure 4.10

SOURCE: Reprinted with special permission of King Features Syndicate.


Another significant problem is what has been labeled “ratings creep.” Between1992 and 2003, for example, the PG rating seemed to be turning into a G rating, thePG-13 rating into a PG rating, and the R rating into a PG-13 rating for many films(Thompson & Yokota, 2004). In particular, the amount of violence (PG and PG-13films), sex (PG, PG-13, and R films), and profanity (PG-13 and R films) seems tobe ratcheted up in the past decade. As always, the MPAA rates more severely for sexor nudity than it does for violence, despite what the research says.

Several studies have noticed that the age-based ratings simply encouragechildren, especially boys, to seek “older” fare (see Figure 4.11) (Cantor, 1998b).When ratings are based on age rather than content, the “forbidden fruit theory”seems to become operational (Bushman & Stack, 1996).

There is also the problem of “enforcing” the ratings system. Half of movie the-ater operators surveyed confessed that they admit teens younger than 17 to R-ratedmovies without an accompanying parent or guardian (FTC, 2000). Even if theaterowners were more conscientious, today’s multiplex theaters allow children andteens to pay for a PG movie and switch to an R movie with minimal chances ofbeing caught. There is some evidence that this trend may be changing, however. A2001 study by an industry research firm found that films may lose as much as 40%of their potential opening-weekend earnings if they are rated R (Waxman, 2001b).Researchers who polled 1,500 people per week found that increasingly teens werebeing turned away at R-rated movies (Waxman, 2001b). In addition, of the top 20films in 2002, 13 were rated PG-13 and none were R rated (Weinraub, 2003).

The television industry has lagged far behind the motion picture industry indeveloping a ratings system. Nearly 30 years after the MPAA system was intro-duced, the networks began rating their shows but only after considerable pressurefrom parents, advocacy groups, and the federal government (Broder, 1997; Hogan,


“Like to see it”

Lev

el o

f in

tere

st

“Don’t want to see it”

4

3.5

3

2.5

2None G PG PG-13 R

Figure 4.11 Effect of MPAA Ratings on Older Children’s Interest in a Movie

SOURCE: Cantor (1998b, p. 64). Used with permission.


2001). In fact, it took congressional legislation to accomplish it.In 1996, the Telecommunications Act mandated that new televi-sion sets be manufactured with a V-chip and that televisionprograms be rated so that the chip could be programmedaccordingly (see Figure 4.12). Like the MPAA ratings, the TVratings system also has many flaws (see Figure 4.13). News andsports programs are not rated. Initial age-based ratings had to besupplemented with content descriptors (see Table 4.2). Manypublic health groups suggested that the system should have beenmodeled after the premium cable channels’ practice of indicat-ing the level of sex, violence, and coarse language in eachprogram (Cantor, 1998b; Mediascope, 2000).

However, even after descriptors were added, studies showthat the system is still not working properly. For several years,NBC refused to use the content descriptors in its ratings. Thecurrent categories are not specific enough regarding content,and the contextual impact of violent or sexual references is com-pletely ignored. For example, certain content becomes lost to thehighest rating: A TV-MA program with an “S” for sexual contentmay contain violence at a TV-14 level but is not given a “V” forviolent content. In addition, parents may be tempted to placeinappropriate faith in the rating “FV” for fantasy violence, eventhough research shows that this represents some of the mostpotentially detrimental programming for young children(Cantor, 1998a; Federman, 1998). In fact, in a recent study ofmore than 1,000 parents, only 11% knew what “FV” stands for,and 9% actually thought it meant “Family Viewing” (Rideout,2007). Finally, the ratings are completely voluntary, and twostudies reveal that producers are not always conscientious aboutrating their own programs (Greenberg, Rampoldi-Hnilo, &Mastro, 2000; Kunkel et al., 1998). Nearly 80% of shows withviolence and more than 90% of shows with sex do not receivethe V or S content descriptors (Kunkel et al., 1998) (see Figure4.14). For example, an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger featured the stabbing of twoguards on a bus, an assault on a church by escaped convicts threatening to rape anun, and a fight scene in which one escapee is shot and another is beaten uncon-scious. It did not receive a V descriptor. In addition, 80% of children’s programswith violence do not receive the FV descriptor (see Figure 4.15) (Kunkel et al., 1998).

To add to all of this confusion for parents, the gaming industry began by usingtwo different systems, one for video games and the other for computer games.The former won out, but it bears little resemblance to the movie and TV ratingssystems (Gentile et al., 2005): a new EC rating (ages 3 and older), E (everyone), anew E 10+ rating (everyone 10 and older), T (teen), M (mature), and AO (adultsonly) (see Figure 4.16). A recent study of the Entertainment Software RatingBoard (ESRB) ratings found that more than half of all games are rated as contain-ing violence, including more than 90% of games rated as appropriate for children


Figure 4.12 Current NationalTV Ratings System

SOURCE: From Kaiser Family Foundation(2000b). Reprinted with permission.

NOTE: These ratings are voluntary andself-administered. FV (for fantasy violence)is rarely used.



Figure 4.13

SOURCE: Reprinted with special permission of Universal Press Syndicate.

Table 4.2 Current TV Ratings System

TV-Y (appropriate for all children)TV Y7 (directed to older children)FV (fantasy violence—intense violence in children’s programming)TV-G (general audience)TV-PG (parental guidance suggested)

V (moderate violence)S (some sexual situations)L (infrequent coarse language)D (some suggestive dialogue)

TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned)V (intense violence)S (intense sexual situations)L (strong coarse language)D (intensely suggestive dialogue)

TV-MA (mature audiences only)V (graphic violence)S (explicit sexual activity)

SOURCE: Hogan (2001). Reprinted with permission.



0%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Sex(S)

Language(L) Dialogue

(D)Violence

(V)92%Average of2.1 scenesper show

Moderatelevel and

lowexplicitness

91%Average of4.8 scenesper show

Low level

83%Average of 3.9 scenesper show

Moderatelevel

79%Average of 3.9 scenesper show

Moderatelevel andintensity

Figure 4.14 Percentage of Shows With Sex, Violence, or Adult Language That DidNot Receive a Content Descriptor

SOURCE: Kunkel et al. (1998). Reprinted with permission.

60%40%

Violence

NoViolence

Percentage of children’sshows containing

violence . . .

Of children’s showscontaining violence, thepercentage that receive thecontent descriptor “FV”for “fantasy violence”. . .

81%

No “FV”Rating

19%“FV” Rating

Figure 4.15 Percentage of Children’s Shows Containing Violence

SOURCE: Kunkel et al. (1998). Reprinted with permission.

Figure 4.16 Original Video Game Ratings

SOURCE: ©2006 Entertainment Software Association. All rights reserved. The ESRB rating iconsare registered trademarks of the Entertainment Software Association.

NOTE: Now “E” (for “Everyone”) and “E10+” categories have been added.


10 years and older (Gentile, 2008). Finally, the music industry uses a single ratingsystem, “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.” It, too, is voluntary and does not distinguish among lyrics that are explicitly violent, sexual, or profane (Federman,1996).

All of these disparate systems rely on the integrity, honesty, and judgment of theproducers of the program, except for the MPAA system, which has an independentboard, composed of parents, that confers the rating. However, even then, the inde-pendence of the board is sometimes questionable, and the lack of expert member-ship is often apparent (Federman, 1996; Waxman, 2001a, 2001b). These separateand noncompatible systems have been developed with very little input from thepublic, the medical community, or the academic community (Gentile et al., 2005).One recent “test” of the ratings systems found that parents frequently disagree withthe industry about the ratings applied to different media, particularly when violentcontent is involved. Only half of parents surveyed agreed with the G rating given topopular movies, and more than a third disagreed with PG ratings (see Table 4.3)(Walsh & Gentile, 2001).

The solution here should be readily apparent: a single, uniform, content-basedratings system that could be applied to all media that children and teenagers use(Gentile et al., 2005; Greenberg & Rampoldi-Hnilo, 2001; Hogan, 2001). The cur-rent “alphabet soup” of ratings systems is too confusing for parents to learn andapply and is even difficult for researchers to study (Greenberg et al., 2000). In addi-tion, the voluntary nature of the current ratings systems is too easy for producersto exploit. The temptations are ever present to downcode a product to capture alarger audience (or, ironically, upcode it) or to depict increasingly edgy sexual,violent, or drug-taking behavior (Gentile et al., 2005). An external ratings board,with representation from the various industries, along with parents, health profes-sionals, and academics, would put the United States on par with many otherWestern countries (Federman, 1996). In addition, such a move would inevitablylead to a societal discussion of cultural values: What should we rate most heavilyagainst? How do we define quality and educational? That, in itself, would be useful.


Table 4.3 Should This Movie Have Been Rated PG? (no, according to manyparents)

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me

Charlie’s Angels

Little Nicky

Nutty Professor II: The Klumps

She’s All That

The Wedding Singer

SOURCE: Walsh and Gentile (2001).


Exercises

1. Where do you draw the line between prosocial messages and what GeorgeOrwell described as “mind control” in his novel, 1984? For example, most peopleagree that, in general, war is bad. Should primetime shows contain messages aboutthe recent war in Iraq, or would that be “crossing the line”? Should children’s showssuch as Sesame Street contain antiwar messages? Messages about terrorism? Wheredo you draw the line between public health and moralizing?

2. Imagine a version of Sesame Street designed and produced by (a) the Chinesegovernment, (b) Al-Jazeera TV, (c) the former Soviet Union, and (d) the state ofCalifornia. Who would the main characters be? What would some of the mainthemes be? Try watching The World According to Sesame Street, a documentarywhere co-productions from China, Israel/Palestine, and Russia are shown. Arethere differences between these shows and the American version?

3. As regular viewers of The Simpsons know, The Itchy & Scratchy Show is a par-ody of violent children’s cartoons. Like Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, Itchyand Scratchy do little more than pummel each other constantly. After Marge writes aletter to the producer of the show, however, the tone becomes much more prosocial—and dull. Kids began turning off their TV sets and heading outdoors. Can prosocialprogramming be entertaining as well as educational? Or do most prosocial showscome off sounding like they’ve been directed and produced by a consortium of reli-gious organizations?

4. Should shows and entertainment acts that are antisocial be banned? In 2006,an infamous videophone clip posted on the Internet showed Michael Richards, ofKramer and Seinfeld fame, in Los Angeles’ Comedy Club repeatedly using the “n”word (Heffernan, 2006). Does he have the right to use whatever language he wantsin his act? Richard Pryor repeatedly used the “n” word in his stand-up routines, tovery powerful effect. Can only African Americans use the word? Conversely, shouldthe White supremacist teenage twins, Prussian Blue, be censored? They call non-Whites “muds,” play a video game called Ethnic Cleansing, and sing songs that glorify the Third Reich. A feature story about Prussian Blue in the magazine TeenPeople was recently killed by parent company Time Inc. (Hammond & Dillon, 2005).If you are in favor of censorship—for whatever reason—who decides what should becensored? Should prosocial media explicitly deal with issues of diversity and racism?

5. The MPAA recently announced that it would allow filmmakers to appeal rat-ings based on what other films had been rated in the past (Halbfinger, 2007). Thismove came after the success of the movie, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which isextremely critical of the MPAA. Should the MPAA ratings members be kept secretfrom the public? Should ratings be a negotiation between the MPAA and the film-maker? What about the recent MPAA decision to consider scenes of smoking inmovies in determining the rating (MPAA, 2007, May 10)? Do you think the MPAAwill follow through on its decision? What improvements could be made to the current ratings system?



6. Public health campaigns can be “pro” or “con” on certain issues, such asfirearms. Look at the two opposing ads in Figure 4.17. Which ad do you think ismore effective? What emotions are the ads trying to elicit? A 2008 study found thatTV stations donate an average of 17 seconds an hour to PSAs, usually broadcastingthem between midnight and 6 a.m. (Gantz, Schwartz, Angelini, & Rideout, 2008).Is this acceptable? If not, how could stations be encouraged to show more PSAs atpopular viewing times?

7. Why do you think parents take young children to see violent movies that arerated PG-13 or R and are clearly inappropriate for them? Is it because they cannotafford a babysitter? Or is it because they think such movies are harmless or will notaffect their children? Should movie theaters bar young children from seeing suchmovies, even if their parents are accompanying them, or is that too Big-Brotherish?

References

Allday, E. (2006, April 26). Safer sex info goes high-tech. San Francisco Chronicle, p. B-1.

Arnold, D. H., Ortiz, C., Curry, J. C., Stowe, R. M., Goldstein, N. E., Fisher, P. H., et al. (1999).

Promoting academic success and preventing disruptive behavior disorders through

community partnership. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 589–598.

Associated Press. (2005, November 22). Are G-rated films going too far? Retrieved January

7, 2008, from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/news/press-coverage.php?id=83

Baranowski, T., Buday, R., Thompson, D. I., & Baranowski, J. (2008). Playing for real: Video

games and stories for health-related behavior change. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 34, 74–82.


Figure 4.17 Examples of Two Opposing Public Health-Related Media Campaigns

SOURCE: ©2008 The National Rifle Association and Ceasefire, School of Public Health.


Beale, I. L., Kato, P. M., Marin-Bowling, V. M., Guthrie, N., & Cole, S. W. (2007). Improvement

in cancer-related knowledge following use of a psychoeducational video game for ado-

lescents and young adults with cancer. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 263–270.

Bellieni, C. V., Cordelli, D. M., Raffaelli, M., Ricci, B., Morgese, G., & Buonocore, G. (2006).

Analgesic effect of watching TV during venipuncture. Archives of Disease in Childhood,

91, 1015–1017.

Brink, S. (2006, November 13). Prime time to learn. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January

10, 2007, from http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-media13nov13,1,5874234

.story

Broder, J. M. (1997, February 28). Broadcast industry defends TV ratings system. New York

Times, p. A1.

Calvert, S., & Kotler, J. (2003). Lessons from children’s television: The impact of the

Children’s Television Act on children’s learning. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24,

275–335.

Cantor, J. (1998a). “Mommy, I’m scared”: How TV and movies frighten children and what we

can do to protect them. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.

Cantor, J. (1998b). Ratings for program content: The role of research findings. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 54–69.

Cantor, J. (2001). The media and children’s fears, anxieties, and perceptions of danger. In

D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), The handbook of children & media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., & Hunter, S. B. (2003).

Entertainment television as a healthy sex educator: The impact of condom-efficacy

information in an episode of Friends. Pediatrics, 112, 1115–1121.

Collins, W. A., & Getz, S. K. (1976). Children’s social responses following modeled reactions to

provocation: Prosocial effects of a television drama. Journal of Personality, 44, 488–500.

Dick, K. (2006). America’s film rating system is a sham. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/print?id=2448557

DuRant, R. H., Wolfson, M., LaFrance, B., Balkrishnan, R., & Altman, D. (2006). An evalua-

tion of a mass media campaign to encourage parents of adolescents to talk to their

children about sex. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 298.e1–299.e9.

Ebert, R. (2001, February 9). A loose “Hannibal” loses power. Albuquerque Journal, p. 4.

Elias, M. J. (1983). Improving coping skills of emotionally disturbed boys through televi-

sion-based social problem solving. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 61–72.

Ellis, J. (2007, February 21). New DVD game battles childhood obesity. Retrieved February 21,

2007, from http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=2892244.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2000). Marketing violent entertainment to children:

A review of self-regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording,

and electronic game industries. (Available from FTC Consumer Reponse Center, Room

130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580)

Federman, J. (1996). Media ratings: Design, use and consequences. Studio City, CA:

Mediascope.

Federman, J. (Ed.). (1998). National television violence study (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Friedrich-Cofer, L. K., Huston-Stein, A., Kipnis, D. M., Susman, E. J., & Clewett, A. S. (1979).

Environmental enhancement of prosocial television content: Effect on interpersonal

behavior, imaginative play, and self-regulation in a natural setting. Developmental

Psychology, 15, 637–646.

Gantz, W., Schwartz, N., Angelini, J. R., & Rideout, V. (2008). Shouting to be heard (2): Public

service advertising in a changing television world. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family

Foundation.



Gentile, D. A. (2008). The rating systems for media products. In S. Calvert & B. Wilson

(Eds.), Handbook on children and media. Boston: Blackwell.

Gentile, D. A., Humphrey, J., & Walsh, D. A. (2005). Media ratings for movies, music, video

games, and television: A review of the research and recommendations for improve-

ments. Adolescent Medicine Clinics, 16, 427–446.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1986). Television’s mean world: Violence

profile no. 14–15. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of

Communications.

Ginsburg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968).

Goldstein, A. O., Sobel, R. A., & Newman, G. R. (1999). Tobacco and alcohol use in G-rated

children’s animated films. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1131–1136.

Greenberg, B. S., Atkin, C. K., Edison, N. G., & Korzenny, F. (1980). Antisocial and prosocial

behaviors on television. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Life on television: Content analysis of

U.S. TV drama. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Greenberg, B. S., & Rampoldi-Hnilo, L. (2001). Child and parent responses to the age-based

and content-based television ratings. In D. G. Siner & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of

children and the media (pp. 621–634). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greenberg, B. S., Rampoldi-Hnilo, L., & Mastro, D. (2000). The alphabet soup of television

program ratings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Halbfinger, D. M. (2007, January 18). Hollywood rethinks its ratings process. New York

Times, p. E1.

Hammond, B., & Dillon, N. (2005, November 23). Mag tells ‘Nazi’ singers: Heil, no! New York

Daily News. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.nydailynews.com/front/

v-pfriendly/story/368373p-313337c.html

Harris, M. (2007, June 22). Hating the ratings. Entertainment Weekly, p. 76.

Heffernan, V. (2006, November 22). Television: Bewildering-sounding man and bewildering

words. The New York Times, p. E6.

Hochman, D. (1999, July 9). Putting the “R” in “Park.” Entertainment Weekly, pp. 15–16.

Hogan, M. (2001). Parents and older adults: Models and monitors of healthy media habits.

In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 663–680).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hogan, M. J., & Strasburger, V. C. (2008). Media and prosocial behavior in children and ado-

lescents. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of moral and character education.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968).

Jones, M., Luce, K. H., Osborne, M. I. et al. (2008). Randomized, controlled trial of an

Internet-facilitated intervention for reducing binge eating and overweight in adolescents.

Pediatrics, 121, 453–462.

Jordan, A. B. (2003). Children remember prosocial program lessons but how much are they

learning? Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 341–345.

Jordan, A. B. (2004). The three-hour rule and educational television for children. Popular

Communication, 2(2), 103–118.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2002). Teens, sex and TV. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). Entertainment education and health in the United States.

Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2006, November 30). African Broadcast Media Partnership

Against HIV/AIDS launches coordinated, multi-year media campaign in 25 countries

[News release]. Menlo Park, CA: Author.



Kiene, S. M., & Barta, W. D. (2006). A brief individualized computer-delivered sexual risk

reduction intervention increases HIV/AIDS preventive behavior. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 39, 404–410.

Krcmar, M., & Curtis, S. (2003). Mental models: Understanding the impact of fantasy

violence on children’s moral reasoning. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 460–478.

Krcmar, M., & Valkenberg, P. (1999). A scale to assess children’s moral interpretations of

justified and unjustified violence and its relationship to television viewing.

Communication Research, 26, 608–634.

Kunkel, D. (1988). From a raised eyebrow to a turned back: The FCC and children’s prod-

uct-related programming. Journal of Communication, 38(4), 90–108.

Kunkel, D., Farinola, W. J. M., Cope, K. M., Donnerstein, E., Biely, E., & Zwarun, L. (1998).

Rating the TV ratings: One year out. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kinder-

garten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.

Lanningham-Foster, L., Jensen, T. B., Foster, R. C., Redmond, A. B., Walker, B. A., Heinz, D.,

et al. (2006). Energy expenditure of sedentary screen time compared with active screen

time for children. Pediatrics, 118, e1831–e1835.

Lou, C.-H., Zhao, Q., Gao, E.-S., & Shah, I. H. (2006). Can the Internet be used effectively to pro-

vide sex education to young people in China? Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 720–728.

Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (1995). Milestones in mass communication research. White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Madsen, K. A., Yen, S., Wlasiuk, L., Newman, T. B., & Lustig, R. (2007). Feasibility of a dance

videogame to promote weight loss among overweight children and adolescents.

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 105–107.

Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mares, M.-L., & Woodard, E. (2001). Prosocial effects on children’s social interactions. In

D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 183–203).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mares, M.-L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children’s social inter-

actions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7, 301–322.

McLelland, M. M., Morrison, F. J., & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early acade-

mic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 15, 307–329.

Mediascope. (2000). Violence, women, and the media. Studio City, CA: Author.

Moritz, O. (2007, February 10). Defense bigs ask “24” to cool it on torture. New York Daily

News, Sports Final Edition, p. 3.

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). (2007, May 10). Film rating board to con-

sider smoking as a factor [Press release]. Washington, DC: Author.

Noar, S. M. (2006). A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns:

Where do we go from here? Journal of Communication, 11, 21–42.

Palmer, E. L. (1988). Television and America’s children: A crisis of neglect. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emo-

tional development for early school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16(3), 1–18.

Rideout, V. J. (2003). Reaching the MTV generation: Recent research on the impact of the Kaiser

Family Foundation/MTV Public Education Campaign on Sexual Health. Menlo Park,

CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.



Rideout, V. J. (2007). Parents, children & media. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships become inte-

grated. In R. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1988: Socioemotional

Development (pp. 115–182). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1994). Evaluating the classroom viewing of a television series,

“Degrassi Junior High.” In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, & A. C. Huston (Eds.), Media,

children, and the family: Social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives

(pp. 97–115). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for

social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Smith, S. W., Smith, S. L., Pieper, K. M., Yoo, J. H., Ferris, A. L., Downs, E., et al. (2006).

Altruism on American television: Examining the amount of, and context surrounding,

acts of helping and sharing. Journal of Communication, 56, 707–727.

Sprafkin, J. N., Liebert, R. M., & Poulos, R. W. (1975). Effects of a prosocial televised example

on children’s helping. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 119–126.

Thomas, R. M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson.

Thompson, K. M., & Yokota, F. (2001). Depiction of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances

in G-rated animated films. Pediatrics, 107, 1369–1374.

Thompson, K. M., & Yokota, F. (2004). Violence, sex, and profanity in films: Correlation of

movie ratings with content. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.medscape

.com/viewarticle/480900

Truglio, R. T., Lovelace, V. O., Segui, I., & Schneider, S. (2001). The varied role of formative

research: Case studies from 30 years. In R. Truglio & S. Fisch (Eds.), G is for growing.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Underwood, C., Hachonda, H., Serlemitsos, E., & Bharath-Kumar, U. (2006). Reducing the

risk of HIV transmission among adolescents in Zambia: Psychosocial and behavioral

correlates of viewing a risk-reduction media campaign. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38,

55e1–55e13.

Walsh, D. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2001). A validity test of movie, television, and video game rat-

ings. Pediatrics, 107, 1302–1308.

Waxman, S. (2001a, April 8). Rated S, for secret. Washington Post, p. G1.

Wasman, S. (2001b, May 31). Rating enforcement changes Hollywood’s picture. Washington

Post, p. C1.

Weinraub, B. (2003, August 17). This story is not rated R. Everybody please read it. New York

Times, p. WK5.

Wentzel, K. R., & Asher, S. R. (1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and

controversial children. Child Development, 66, 754–763.

Wilson, B. J., & Cantor, J. (1985). Developmental differences in empathy with a television

protagonist’s fear. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 284–299.

Yakota, F., & Thompson, K. M. (2000). Violence in G-rated animated films. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 283, 1504–1506.



Prosocial Effects of Media Prosocial Media for Children

Documents

Transcript of Prosocial Effects of Media Prosocial Media for Children