media uses and effects in stages of family life

Media Uses and Effects in Stages of Family Life: A Family Development Perspective John J. Davies

Douglas A. Gentile

Family Development Theory

MarriageChildbearing

Families Preschool Children

School Children

TeensLaunching

Young Adults

Middle-aged Parents

Aging Family Members

Family Development Theory

Preschoolers

2-6 years

School-age Children

7-12 years

Teens

13-17 years

Images: Tom Clare / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Measures

1. Media Use

2. Alternative Activities

3. Monitoring

4. Consistency

5. Media Knowledge

6. Media Effects

Higher scores = ‘healthier’ media habits

Higher scores = less influenced by media

• Social modeling – celebrities

• Social modeling – media characters

• Persuasion – product purchase

• Fright effects

Samples

National Random

• N = 527

• Mail & telephone

• 55% response rate

• 2.18 children

• 78% married

• 76% White/Caucasian

• All income & education levels

National Convenience

• N = 1257

• MediaWise training

• 2.17 children

• 88% married

• 84% White/Caucasian

• Income & education skewed high

H1: Decreasing Trend in Alternate Activities to Media

5456586062646668707274

Preschoolers School Age Teens

Alternate Activities to Media in Family Life Stages

Random SampleF = 67.48, p <.001

Convenience Sample F = 100.30, p < .001

H2: Decreasing Trend in Healthy Media Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Media Use in Family Life Stages



H3: Decreasing Trend in Parental Monitoring

6264666870727476788082


Parental Monitoring of Media Use in Family Life Stages



H4: Decreasing Trend in Consistency

6466687072747678808284


Consistency of Media Use Rules in Family Life Stages



H5: Increasing Trend in Knowledge of Media Effects

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75


Knowledge of Media Effects in Family Life Stages


Convenience Sample F = .25, p = .78

H6: Increasing Trend in Resistance to Media Effects

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62


Resistance to Media Effects in Family Life Stages



H7: Interaction between Family Stage and Presence of SiblingsIndex National Sample Convenience Sample

Alternative Activities Interaction Effect• Family Stage x Siblings

Main Effects• Family Type• Presence of Siblings

Consistency Interaction Effect• Family Stage x Siblings

Interaction Effect• Family Stage x Siblings

Knowledge ns Main Effect• Presence of Siblings

Monitoring Main Effects• Family Type• Presence of Siblings

Interaction Effect• Family Stage x Siblings

Media Use Main Effects• Family Type• Presence of Siblings


Media Effects Main Effects• Family Type• Presence of Siblings


H7: Interaction between Family Stage and Presence of Siblings

55

60

65

70

75

80

2-6 Years 2-12 Years 2-17 Years

Alt

ern

ate

Act

ivit

ies

Ind

ex

Figure 1. Mean Scores of Alternate Activities Index as a Function of Family Type and Presence of Siblings

Only Child (National Sample)

More Than One Child (National Sample)

Only Child (Convenience Sample)

More Than One Child (Convenience Sample)


55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90


Co

nsi

ste

ncy

Ind

ex

Figure 1. Mean Scores of Consistency Index as a Function of Family Type and Presence of Siblings






55

60

65

70

75

80


Par

en

tal M

on

ito

rin

g In

dex

Figure 3. Mean Scores of Parental Monitoring Index as a Function of Family Type and Presence of Siblings






55

60

65

70

75

80


Me

dia

Use

Ind

ex

Figure 4. Mean Scores of Media Use Index as a Function of Family Type and Presence of Siblings






50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64


Me

dia

Eff

ect

s In

dex

Figure 5. Mean Scores of Media Effects Index as a Function of Family Type and Presence of Siblings





RQ1: Will siblings affect relation between media use and school performance?

Variable

Only Child

β

Multi-child Family:

Youngestβ

Multi-child Family: Oldest

β

Step 1 Parent Education .19 .31*** .27***Race .10 .09 .01Income .19 .08 .00Child’s Gender .26** .16** .11Marital Status .15 .05 .01Incremental R2 .19** .16*** .09***

Step 2 Parent Education .19 .29*** .26***Race .10 .08 .00Income .18 .07 -.02Child’s Gender .26** .15** .10Marital Status .15 .05 .02TV Viewing -.03 -.06 -.08Incremental R2 .00 .00 .00

Total R2 .19** .16*** .09***

Table 1. Predictors of School Performance in Multiple and Only-Child Families (National Sample).

Note. *p < .05, **p. < 01, ***p < .001.

RQ1: Will siblings affect relation between media use and school performance?

Variable

Only Child

β

Multi-child Family:

Youngestβ

Multi-child Family: Oldest

β

Step 1 Parent Education .16* .10* .13**Race .03 .03 .02Income .13 .19*** .11*Child’s Gender .07 .10** .14***Marital Status -.15 .10** .03Incremental R2 .09** .07*** .05***

Step 2 Parent Education .18* .08* .11**Race .03 .03 .03Income .14 .17*** .09*Child’s Gender .06 .10** .13***Marital Status -.12 .05 .02TV Viewing .10 -.10** -.08*Incremental R2 .01 .01** .01*

Total R2 .10** .08*** .06***

Table 2. Predictors of School Performance in Multiple and Only-Child Families (Convenience Sample).

Note. *p < .05, **p. < 01, ***p < .001.

Implications

• Crucial transition: School-age children teens

• Multiple sibling families

• Healthier media habits

• Greater vulnerability to media effects

• Resolving the contradiction

• “What is the effect of media exposure?”

• “How do events and changes in family structures alter media effects experienced by families?”