Lois J Baron Concordia University, Canada

Social class determinants of children’s television understanding and use

A substantial amount of research evidence now exists that supports the contention that, with few exceptions, increased age and cognitive development better equip children to understand the medium of television, its messages, and its form (e.g. Baron, 1980; Wackman & Wartella, 1.977; Dorr-Leifer et al., 1976; and Collins, 1978, 1979).

The concern of this report lies in how these perceptions are incorporated into the cognitive map of children from different backgrounds. The study is particularly concerned with the lower social class child who, because of a variety of limiting factors (e.g. cultural, educational and cognitive), may possess different perceptions of the functions and language of television. The problem is by definition circular - does television influence the behaviour of the lower socio-economic status (SES) child, or does the child perceive aspects of television which match his lifestyle and perceptions of reality? It is essential that constructions of TV reality be investigated before answers to these questions can be provided. Doing so would lead to better understanding of the cognitive processes at hand, and to the establishment of baseline levels for developing increased ‘media knowledge’ (Kelly, 1981).

It has been frequently reported that SES is a major factor in TV viewing. Lower SES families view more, are non-selective, more dependent and more influenced by television (Hedinsson, I981 ; Piepe’s study cited in Hedinsson, 1981). Hedinsson summarizes his and the general feelings about the effects of television on the lower classes by stating that the medium is truly the ‘opiate of the people’.

This study was jointly sponsored by the Government of Quebec, Canada (EQ-1793) and Concordia University. The author wishes to thank Dr Phil Abrami for his help in the analysis of data and Ms Nancy Tolchinsky for her assistance throughout the project.

International Review of Applied Psychology (SAGE, London, Beverly Hills and New Delhi), Vol. 34 (1985), 443-453

444 Baron

He examined social class differences in parental use and attitudes, and discovered that middle class parents are more restrictive in their view of and less favourable toward television. Unlike other findings on younger children (e.g. Greenberg, 1976; Himmelweit et al., 1958), Hedinsson did not find evidence that middle class parents restrict their adolescents’ television consumption more than do lower class parents. However, his research also demonstrates that with increasing age, social class differences in television use become more pronounced, creating a widening television-related ‘knowledge gap’ (Tichenor’s study cited in Hedinsson, 1981).

Despite possible negative influences, researchers have also highlighted the role of TV as serving as a positive source of processing strategies for children (Salomon, 1977, 1981). Such research points strongly toward the need to investigate individual differences in both television use and individual interpretation of signals transmitted by the medium. Social class has surfaced repeatedly as a factor to be accounted for in research findings. While the literature does uncover class differences at many levels of investigation, the present research concentrates on differential understanding and processing not only of elements related to the fantasyheality dimension of television, superhero reality and actors playing roles, but also to comprehension of the technical aspects of the medium. Since it has been demonstrated in previous research efforts that children from different social classes use and show different motivations for television use, and since there have already been some studies demonstrating that lower SES children are deficient in processing information about television, it was predicted that these deficiencies would be similarly reflected in children’s responses to questions designed to assess their understandings about actors playing roles, fantasy/reality on television, cartoon production, television production techniques, production source knowledge and the manipulation of time and space on television.

Method

Subjects

Three hundred and thirty English first-language children, between the ages of five and twelve years, participated in this study. One hundred and sixty subjects were from an inner city, lower SES school

Social class 445

in Montreal while 170 middle class children were chosen from a school in a middle class suburb of Montreal. Using their own criteria, the school board had designated the former as an inner city, lower SES school. Seventy-one boys and ninety-nine girls represented the middle class group while the lower class sample consisted of sixty-nine boys and ninety-one girls. The subjects were chosen from those children whose parents allowed them to participate in the project. They were stratified by age to ensure fairly equal numbers in the different age categories (at least between the SES groups).

Materials and procedure

The subjects were interviewed individually using a questionnaire prepared by the researcher to assess both knowledge of television concepts and television use. Sixteen questions were developed to examine understanding of such elements as actors playing roles, fantasyheality on television, cartoon production, television production techniques and production source knowledge. The items were open-ended in nature. However, using a semi-clinical approach, probing questions (e.g. ‘why do you say that?’, ‘how do you know?’, ‘how?’, and ‘tell me more’) designed to encourage children to answer openly and freely were inserted into the interview schedule.

Nine questions were added to the questionnaire to assess uses and gratifications associated with televiewing. Although the data gathered on the latter items will be described, the results collected on the former set of questions have particular relevance to the underlying cognitive processes that structure children’s thinking about the television world. For this reason, they will be emphasized here.

Using a technique utilized by Phelps (in Dorr-Leifer et al., 1976), judges assessed the levels of understanding of the subjects’ responses on the sixteen semi-structured questions. Responses were rated on a six-point scale from no understanding to full understanding. Due to the open-ended nature of these ‘probe’ questions, extreme care was taken in establishing the criteria for judgment of responses before the raters actually coded each subject’s questionnaire. Inter-rater reliabilities on a sample of four questions ranged from 0.68 to 0.96.

446 Baron

Results

A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to measure the effects of age, SES, and sex on the children’s understanding of television concepts. The ages were grouped into three levels - five to seven years, eight to ten years and eleven to twelve years. These groupings generally coincide with developmental theory as to when changes in cognitive processing of information may occur in children. Due to the large sample size, a fairly conservative alpha level (0.01) was chosen as the criterion test of the power of significance.

The reader is referred to Table 1 for a breakdown of the means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for each of the SES groups at a particular age level. Table 2 presents the results of the ANOVA for the effects of age and SES. The squared correlations ($) or effect size estimates are also presented in Table 2. The effect of age was significant on all sixteen questions and always at p < 0.001. The squared correlation ratios for age ranged from 0.06 to 0.30.

Inspection of Table 2 reveals that significant social class differences occurred in twelve of the sixteen questions. The squared correlation ratios for SES on results achieving significance ranged from 0.02 to 0.07.

Age x School interactions were found in three questions. Generally, the middle class children achieved steeper increases in levels of understanding earlier than did the lower SES children. The greatest increase in scores for the former occurred between the first and second age levels while results on the lower SES group showed a sharper increase between the second and third age levels.

Only two questions resulted in sex differences. When asked ‘when your mother or father buys a TV set, are the TV shows in the TV set when they buy it?’, boys consistently scored higher than girls, R1,328) = 23.13, p < 0.001, across the three age levels. Similar sex differences were found for the question, ‘If you see a bird up close on the TV screen, does that mean a person climbed the tree and took the picture?’, F(1,329) = 8.71,p<0.005.

Results revealed an Age x Sex interaction on the question ‘does somebody tell the actors on TV what to say on a programme? When?’, F(2,328) = 4.78, 6 0 . 0 1 . To age ten, girls score higher than boys. Results on age level of eleven and over reveal a shift where boys not only score higher than the girls, but the older girls score lower than the age level group preceding them.

Social class 447

TABLE 1 Means and standard deviations by social class and age level for all ‘level of

understanding’ questions

Question Socio-economic slatus

Middle clssr Lower class 5-1 8.10 I I + 5-1 8-10 I 1 +

Carioon produrrront How are cartoons made?

Fanrasy/realtiy (carroon produrrron): Is Big Bird a real-lifc bird?

Could the Flintstones move next door 10 you?

If Bcrt or Ernie on ‘Sesamc Street’ accidentally cut thcir finger would they blced?

I f you wcnt for a ride in a car or took an airplane, could you go and visit Ihc Flintslonc family in Bedrock? Is Bedrock a rcal town?

I s Bugs Bunny a ical rabbit?

Produrrion source knowledge: When your mother or father buys a TV sct. are the TV shows in the TV set when they buy it? How d o the TV shows get to your TV set?

How d o the Friendly Giant. Mr Rogcrs. Slevc Austin, or Henry Winkler know what 10 say on thcir TV shows?

Docs somebody tell the actors on TV what 10 say on their TV shows?

Does Ritchie on ‘Happy Days’ or the little girls on ‘Little House on the Prairie‘ have another family to go to when you turn off your TV set?

What happens 10 Diana Prince’% clothes when she spins into Wonder Woman?

Aclors playing roles:

Produrrion iecliniques:

I f Wonder Woman visiird your hou\e. could she jump over your refrigerator or pick up your stove?

l r you see a bird up closc on the TV screcn docs that mcan a person climbed the trec and look the picture?

Do you really have to go to outer ipacc 10 tahe pictum of all the planets. stars, and galayies you w e on programmes5 like ‘Battlrctar Gala~~ica”!

When somcone get\ %hot on TV do thcy rcally die?

Time mid space: Recently the ‘Sesamc Street’ gang flew to Hawaii. Onc show ended as the plane wa\ flying ovcr thc ocean lo Hawaii. Doc& the plane keep flying until the ncxt \how?

M 2.21 4.16 4.35 SD 1.51 1.34 I 1 6 N 64 61 45

M 5.13 5.65 5.91 SD 1.44 1 . 1 1 1.42 N 63 61 44

M 4.14 5.36 5.38 SD 1.79 1.07 0.91

N 63 61 45 M 4.07 5.44 5.84 SD 2.11 1.37 0.77 N 63 61 45

M 4.45 5.66 5.84 SD 1.87 0.95 0.52 N 60 61 45

M 3.69 5.38 5.76 SD 1.67 1 . 1 1 0.48 N 64 61 45

M 2.69 3.14 4.27 SD 1.05 1.28 1.19 N M 6 1 4 4

M 4.02 5.62 J.86 SD 1.74 1.00 0.34 N 64 61 45

M 3.29 4.61 4.91 SD 1.37 0.78 0.63 N 63 61 45

M 3.61 5.82 5.91 SD 1.90 0.81 0.60 N 61 61 45

M 2.61 4.18 4.95 SD 1.51 1.88 1.70 N 41 55 41

M 2.40 4.30 4.44 SD 1.36 1.03 1.10 N 63 56 43

M 2.73 4.51 3.44 SD 1.20 1.82 1.32 N 64 61 45

M 3.17 4.60 4.42 SD 1.68 1.48 I.2Y N 59 60 45

M 4.44 5.60 5.51 SD 1.85 I.OY 1.80 N 63 60 45

M 2.77 3.18 3.82 SD 1.54 1.58 1.44 N 6 4 6 l 4 4

2.03 3.08 3.60 1.15 1.36 1.39

60 60 40

4.41 5.13 4.97 1.77 0.98 1.18

59 60 39

4.02 4.38 4.43 1.60 1.56 1.38

60 60 40 4.47 5.37 5.43 1.81 1.29 1.39

60 60 40

4.44 5.12 5.75 1.89 1.62 0.78

59 60 40

3.43 4.60 4.88 1.65 1.60 1.64

60 60 40

2.78 3.38 4.23 1.04 1.04 1.07

60 60 40

3.05 4.93 5.50 1.75 1.54 1 . 1 1

60 60 40

2.60 4.03 4.18 1.24 0.92 1.15 60 60 40

3.72 4.58 5.58 2.03 1.95 1.30

60 60 40

2.22 3.05 3.53 0.96 1.57 1.86

60 60 40

2.62 3.37 3.78 1.12 1.16 1.17

60 60 40

2.48 3.10 4.25 1.19 1.45 1.63

60 60 40

2.77 3.40 3.60 1.16 1.26 153

60 MI 40

4.17 5.4R 5 . W 2.04 1.23 0.9Y

60 60 40

2.15 2.88 3.30 U.Y4 1.37 I 4Y

60 60 40

448 Baron

TABLE 2 Effect of age and school on children's levels of understanding

Question Age School AgeXschool Effect

Carfwn producfion: How are cartoons made?

Fanfasy/rwlify (carloon producfron). Is Big Bud a real-life bird?

Could the Rintslona move next door 10 you?

I f Ben or Ernie on 'Sesame Strm' accidentally cut their finger would they b l e d ? If you went for a ride in a car or took an airplane, could you go and visit the Ritstonc family in Bedrock? Is Bedrock a real town? Is Bugs Bunny a real rabbit?

Producfron source knowledge: When your mother or father buys a TV sn, arc the TV shows in the TV YI when they buy it? How d o the TV shows get to your TV set? Acrorsploying roles: How do the Friendly Giant. Mr Rogers. Steve Austin, or Hmry Winkla know what to say on their TV shows?

Does somebody teU the actors on TV what to say on their TV shows?

Doa Ritchic on 'Happy Days' or the little girls on 'Little House on the Prairie' have another family to go to when you turn off your TV set?

Producrion rechniqua: what happens to Diana Prince's clothes when she spins into Wonder Woman?

If Wonder Woman visited your house, could she jump over your refrigerator or pick up your stove?

If you sce a bud up close on the T V screen does that mean a person climbed the tree and took the picture? Do you really have to go t o outer spae to take pinura of all the planets, stars. and galaxies you see on programma like 'Battlestar Galactica'? When someone g n s shot on TV d o they really die?

Time and space: Rmcntly the 'Sanmc Sum' gang flew to Hawaii. One show mded as the plane was f l ~ g over the ocean to Hawaii. Doe the plane keep flying until the next show?

Nore: 2. is the squared correlation ratio (SS /SS and denotes the cffm size estimate. B TOT) * p < 0 . 0 0 5 . * * p < 0 . 0 0 1 . * * * p < 0 . 0 1 .

df F ?2

df F

df F

df F

df F

12

4

4

4

df F + df F 4

df F

df F

df F

12

12

df F

df F

4

$

?2

12

df F

df F

df F 4 df F +

2 59.78.. 0.25

2 10.32" 0.06

2 12.05'. 0.07

2 24.50" 0.13

2 24.50- 0.13

2 47.34.' 0.23

2 52.98.. 0.24

2 74.23 * 0.30

2 77.42.' 0.29 2

49.95.' 0.22

2 29.28.' 0.15

2 58.50.. 0.26

2 66.01*' 0.26

2 20.81'. 0.1 I

2 27.94.. 0.15

2 15.98" 0.09

1 21.45.' 0.04

1 25.52" 0.07

I ** 16.61'- 0.05

I 0.004 0.00

I 2.08 0.006

I 14.54" 0.03

I 0.90 0.002

I 21.55'* 0.04 1

32.77.. 0.06 I 8.38. 0.02

I 27.14'' 0.07

I 10.57** 0.02 1

34.47.. 0.07

1 27.07.. 0.07

I 0.38 O.Oo0

I 9.41' 0.03

2 2.6 0.01

2 0.76 0.004 2 2.94 0.02

2 1.65 0.009 2 0.83 0.004

2 1.47 0.007

2 1.19 0.005

2 1.15 0.005

2 0.34 0.001 2 6.25. 0.03

2 2.76 0.01

2 7.39- 0.03

2 5.23*** 0.02 2 2.25 0.01

2 0.54 0.003

2 0.42 0.002

Social class 449

TABLE 3 Results of the chi-square analysis for the two SES groups on the

uses and gratifications questions

2 Questions df N 1.

2. 4. 3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Do one or both of your parents watch TV

Whom d o you learn the most from? Can you also learn from television? Since you have been watching television, d o you

think it has taught you anything? If all the T V sets in the world were taken away,

what would you d o instead of watching TV? Would you rather watch TV than read (or look

through) a book? Would you rather watch TV than be with (or

talk to) your mother or father? Would you rather watch T V than play with your

friends?

with you? 324 325 330

318

330

318

316

326

16.39** 13.30* 15.73**

6.62***

25.64**

0.84

14.00**

11.02**

Note: * p < 0.005.

* * p < 0.001. *** p < 0.01.

Chi-square ($) analyses comparing the two SES groups were performed on the uses and gratifications questions with the exception of one question in which a T-test was employed.

Results on the uses and gratifications associated with televiewing revealed that lower class children watch significantly more television (A4 = 5.17) than do middle class children (M = 4.94), f (317.87) =

As shown in Table 3, significant Chi-squares were found in every question with the exception of the one related to a preference for television over a book.

Generally, more lower class children watch television with their parents. While the majority of both groups feel they learn the most from their teachers, a higher percentage of lower class children (25.2 versus 10.0) feel they learn the most from television. This latter finding is also reinforced in the two questions related to being able to learn from and be taught by television.

When asked what they feel they have learned from television, middle class children responded that they learned about the world (26.5 percent), educational instruction (20 percent), and how to

- 2.58, p < 0.01.

450 Baron

make things (17.5 percent). Lower SES children said they learned how to make things (18.1 percent), how to do correct or sensible things (e.g. don’t fight, smoke, or play with matches) (16.2 percent), and educational instruction (1 3.1 percent).

If all the TV sets in the world were taken away, almost one-half of both groups of children would play. Short of this, 30 percent of middle class children would read, 14.7 percent would be involved in various and sundry activities, and 7.6 percent would listen to the radio or records, or see movies. On the other hand, 19.4 percent of lower class children would be involved in miscellaneous activities, 17.5 percent would listen to the radio or records, or see movies, while only 9.4 percent would turn to reading.

Both groups preferred their parents and friends to television. However the preferences were more pronounced for the middle class children of whom 72.0 percent (versus 51.6 percent for the low SES group) would rather be with their parents and 92.3 percent (as opposed to 79.6 percent) preferred their friends to watching television.

Discussion

On the surface, the results of this study generally confirm previous research findings that point toward the effects of age and with it, cognitive development, on a child’s growing understanding of the medium of television. Socioeconomic status also appears to be a contributing factor. However, unlike Hedinsson’s findings, rather than there being a widening TV knowledge gap with age, the lower SES children develop in their understanding of television at a slower pace. This is a finding more in line with Jean Piaget’s thinking regarding age/stage theory and individual differences. The sex difference results are very few - a trend generally supported by other studies in this area.

The author remains cautious in making definitive conclusions vis- ci-vis the effects of both age and particularly SES in children’s understanding of the concepts examined in this study. Only 50 percent of the squared correlation ratios for age reach a level of 0.20 while the highest correlation for SES is only 0.07. Contrary to Williams’ (1969) findings, lower SES children in this study do not appear to possess any ‘language deficits’ that put them at a disadvantage in revealing their thoughts about the television world.

Social class 45 1

What is of importance is the large amount of unexplained variance contributing to the dependent variable. This is a similar finding to that of Greenberg (1974) who suggests that we investigate such variables as lifestyle, nature of interpersonal interaction, other cognitive abilities, and the psychological, cultural, and social phenomena related to different viewing groups.

The results related to the uses and gratifications associated with television are more clear cut. This study once again demonstrates that lower class children are heavier viewers than their middle class counterparts. Television appears to be a ‘window to the world’ for the lower class child who feels he has something to learn by watching television. As Hedinsson (1981) found, lower SES children appear to be more dependent on television.

More lower than middle SES children report watching TV with their parents. Data collected by Baron (1984) indicates that this is not due to a greater availability of television sets in the middle class home (approximately 50 percent of both examples have two sets). Lower SES parents being heavier televiewers (as evidenced in past research) increases the chances of the parents and children viewing television together. Interestingly, however, the lower class children are fairly evenly split as to whether they would prefer watching TV or being with their parents. They show a preference towards their friends, a finding even more pronounced in the middle class group who, while acknowledging television’s capacity to teach, do not assign as much weight to television’s role in their lives.

It must be emphasized that whenever questions such as those used in this study are posed of children, the honesty of their responses in a one-to-one interview situation may be questionable. Are their answers a reliable indication of how they really think, or do children respond as they feel they should do to an adult stranger? Can one social class play this game better than another? It can only be hoped that through the probing of responses and the establishment of an honest and friendly interview situation that the latter did not occur.

Another possible limitation of this study is the utilization of school board norms rather than standardized survey results in delineating the groups into lower and middle class samples. A more stringent application of standards may have led to more pronounced effect size estimations for SES. Lack of random sampling and controlling for intellectual differences may have also had effects on the results.

In conclusion, the results point toward different motivations and

452 Baron

uses related to the televiewing habits of middle and lower SES children. The socio-economic factor has significant effects on, yet a very small correlation with, children’s understanding of the television-related concepts examined in this study. A large proportion of the variance is unaccounted for. Researchers in the field must continue their research efforts aimed at ‘teasing out’ those variables that contribute to children’s understanding of the TV world.

References

Baron, L. (1984). ‘Parental Factors in Children’s Televiewing’. Paper in Preparation. Baron, L. (1980). Whaf do Children Really See on Television? Montreal, Canada:

Concordia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 188 784). Collins, W.A. (1978). ‘Temporal lntegration and Children’s Understanding of Social

Information on Television’. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 198-204. Collins, W.A. (1979). ‘Children’s Comprehension of Television Content’. In

E. Wartella (ed.), Children Communicating: Media and Developmenr of Though!, Speech, and Understanding. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.

Dorr-Leifer, A., Graves, S.B., Forte, M., Phelps, A. and Leman, J . (1976). Children’s Critical Evaluation of Television Conrent. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington.

Greenberg, B. (1974). ‘Gratifications of Television Viewing and their Correlates for British Children’. In J.G. Blumler and E. Katz (eds), The Uses of Mass Communications (pp. 71-92). Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.

Greenberg, B. (1976). ‘Viewing and Listening Parameters among British Youngsters’. In R. Brown (ed.), Children and Television. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.

Hedinsson, E. (1981). TV. Family, and Society - The Social Origin and Effecrs of Adolescents’ TV Use. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.

Himmelweit, H., Oppenheim, A. and Vince, P. (1958). Television and rhe Child: A n Empirical Study of rhe Effecr of Television on the Young. London: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, H. (1981). ‘Reasoning about Realities: Children’s Evaluation of Television and Books’. In H. Kelly and H. Gardner (eds), Viewing Children Through Television - New Directions for Child Developmeni. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Salomon, G . (1977). ‘Effects of Encouraging lsraeli Mothers to Co-Observe ‘Sesame Street’ with their Five Year Olds’, Child Developmenr, 48 (3). 1146-51.

Salomon, G . (1981). ‘Introducing AIME: The Assessment of Children’s Mental Involvement with TV’. In H. Kelly and H. Gardner (eds), Viewing Children Through Television - New Directions for Child Developmenr. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Wackman, D.B. and Wartella, E. (1977). ‘A Review of Cognitive Development Theory and Research and the lmplication for Research on Children’s Responses to Television’. Communicarion Research, 4 (2), 203-24.

Social class 453

Williams, F. (1%9). ‘Social Class Differences in how Children Talk About Television’. Journal of Broadcasting, 13 (4), 34-51 .

Facteurs de classe sociale determinants pour la comprehension et l’usage de la television par les

enfants

La comprkhension des tmissions tklkviskes et t t t ktudike suprts de deux echantillons d’enfants de groupes socio-tconomiques diffkrents (classes moyenne et modeste). On s’ktait dkja apercu que des enfants de diverses origines sociales ne prksentaient pas les mEmes motivations au regard de la tkltvision. Selon des recherches antkrieures, les enfants des milieux populaires peuvent kprouver des difficult& pour apprkhender les informations fournies par la tkltvision. On en a dkduit que ces lacunes se refltteraient dans leurs rkponses a un questionnaire concu pour kvaluer leur perception du jeu des acteurs, la diffkrenciation qu’ils font de l’imaginaire et du rkel, leur connaissance des techniques de production des kmissions et de rkalisation des dessins animks, leur apprehension du temps et de I’espace A la tklkvision.

Trois cent trente enfants, Bgts de cinq a douze ans, ont kte examinks individuellement. Cent soixante-cinq d’entre eux provenaient d’une kcole urbaine acceuillant des enfants de familles modestes. Les rkponses ont tte kvalukes a partir d’une tchelle en six points allant d’une absence de comprkhension a une comprkhension parfaite. Un test ANOVA en trois parties a ktk administrt pour mesurer I’incidence de I’Bge, de I’tcole et du sexe sur la cornprkhension des enfants. Ces derniers ont ktk regroupks en trois niveaux d’Bge: cinq a sept ans, huit a dix ans et onze A douze ans.

Le sexe ne joue, semble-t-il, aucun r61e. L’Bge et le dtveloppement cognitif ont une influence significative sur tousles items. Pour douze des seize questions, la classe sociale differencie fortement les sujets. Pour trois questions, il y a interaction entre l’Bge et I’tcole.

L’auteur conseille d’user de prudence en interprktant les rksultats car I’action de chaque variable est gkntralement faible. Certaines donntes restent a approfondir et a analyser. On s’est kgalement inttresst a I’impact de I’origine sociale sur I’usage de la television et sur la satisfaction qu’il engendre. Dans l’ensemble, les deux groupes d’enfants diffkrent sensiblement.