Home Uncategorized DB 7 Schools, Peers, and Media Influences on Childhood Behavior and Beliefs

Uncategorized

DB 7 Schools, Peers, and Media Influences on Childhood Behavior and Beliefs

Schools, peers, and the media can impact a child’s development. In schools, teachers play a role in encouraging academic success and student involvement. The characteristics of the school itself also can influence student involvement. For example, larger schools increase the sense of anonymity in students, and teachers are often hard-pressed to provide individualized instruction.

Peers aid in socialization, often through the act of play. Even young children begin to prefer to play with other children rather than play by themselves or with adults. Children often model their behaviors based on their peers. Peers can reinforce behaviors (which may be desirable or undesirable by caregivers or teachers), encourage socially appropriate behavior and attitudes, establish age-related values, and help children learn how to interact with others.

Although television and electronic media impact a child’s development, keep in mind that they only provide the medium for delivery of the message. The medium itself is neither inherently good nor bad. However, the harmful effects of television content (e.g., violence can increase aggressive behavior in viewers; stereotyped portrayals of ethnic and minority groups can leave viewers with inaccurate beliefs about these groups) are more readily recalled than the beneficial influences of some content (e.g., programs such as Sesame Street teach basic cognitive and pro-social skills to their young viewers).

For this Discussion, you will examine social-development theories as they relate to the impact of schools, peers, and media.

Post a brief description of the event or news item you selected. Then conceptualize and explain this event within the framework of social-emotional development theories. Be sure to include references to the impact of schools, peers, and/or media specific to the event or item. Provide a reference to the current event or news item and a link, if possible. Use proper APA format and citations.

Berk, L. E. (2018). Development through the lifespan (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Chapter 8, “Emotional and Social Development in Early Childhood” (pp. 256-288)
Chapter 10, “Emotional and Social Development in Middle Childhood” (pp. 336-362)

https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1718068767?accountid=14872

Do Australian children trust their parents more than peers when
seeking support for online activities?

Lelia Green* and Danielle Brady

School of Communications and Arts, Edith Cowan University, Mount Lawley, Australia

This paper considers the relative importance of parents and peers in supporting
Australian children’s use of the internet and whether those choices for support change
with age and gender. The paper reports findings from AU Kids Online, a satellite study
to EU Kids Online. Parents were found to be the primary support to Australian children
using the internet, with peer support increasingly important as children get older. The
potential of these two key socializing influences to minimize harm and build resilience
is considered in the light of other studies on Australian family internet use.

Introduction

This paper reports findings from AU Kids Online, an Australian study, to examine

critically the structured management of children’s online experiences taking into account

two key influences on children’s behaviour, their parents and their peers. This is not to

imply that parents and peers are the only influences on children’s online activities. Schools

and teachers are important, as are policy makers, legislators, internet service providers and

hardware and software industries. However, it is typically parents who make the

technology available to their children, and who most influence the conditions under which

it is used. Even so, as children become older and move into their teenage years at

secondary school, peers and peer pressure become critical motivators and potential key

influencers of their online behaviour. Further, as more children begin accessing the

internet using mobile and out-of-home technologies, the issues of responsible self-

regulation and the active seeking of support in the face of challenging experiences become

more important if children are to develop into confident, resilient, internet-using adults.

The following research questions are addressed in this paper: what is the relative

contribution, and importance, to young people of their parents and peers in providing

support for their internet use? Is there evidence that these two socializing influences

change in contribution or importance during the eight years in which a child ages from 9 to

16 (inclusive)? Are there differences between how children and parents report on their

internet use experiences? Is there variability in the extent and type of mediation for

different gendered and different aged children?

Trust is a critical element in a functioning society. According to Rotenberg (1995, 713):

The survival of a society depends on whether it can successfully foster trust among its
members. This goal is attained, in part, through the socialisation of trust, in which parents
instil in their children trust in parents as well as other members of society.

However, trust is reciprocal, children needing to trust their parents have to feel trusted by

them as well as. Explaining that many of their child interviewees resented parents

monitoring their online activities, Livingstone and Bober (2004, 46) note that the children

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: l.green@ecu.edu.au

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 2014

Vol. 28, No. 1, 112–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2013.854866

mailto:l.green@ecu.edu.au

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2013.854866

saw such oversight: ‘as an invasion of their privacy, expecting more trust and respect as

they get older [ . . . ] many children used metaphors such as having one’s pockets searched,

having one’s personal space invaded or being stalked’. For parents and children, trust is a

critical element in family life, particularly as a marker of parents’ respect for their

children’s growing maturity.

As the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMA) report, Media and

Communications in Australian Families (2007), notes ‘Trust plays an important part in how

families negotiate the use of electronic media and communications’ (ACMA 2007, 13).

Talking specifically about children’s online activities, the report comments that:

Most parents trust their child’s judgement about the internet and, at least some of the time,
leave it up to him/her to choose what is done on the internet (83%). This includes two-thirds
who trust their child’s judgement most of the time (66%). (ACMA 2007, 28)

What is underlined in this examination of ‘trust’ is that parents’ trust of their children’s

responsible internet use is part of their strategy for managing family use of digital

technologies. Further, there is some evidence that the online activities the child is trusted

with change over time reflecting, in particular, the age of the child.

The maturation of children between the ages of 9 and 16, from relative dependency in

primary school to relative autonomy in the upper years of high school, forms a major

element of adolescent and teen research, and of development psychology. Necessarily,

only the briefest outline of relevant research can be offered here. It should be noted that a

majority of the literature on parental influence with respect to peers relates to challenging

behaviours (e.g. Kobus 2003; Kiesner and Kerr 2004). Even so, it is clear that the influence

of peers serves a critical role in the natural and healthy maturation of the adolescent young

person. This important influence is strengthened by a two-way dynamic. First, young

people seek close friendships with peers who share their values and interests (Wentzel,

Barry, and Caldwell 2004) and, second, close friends’ attitudes and behaviours shape the

development of their peers (Ennett and Bauman 1994).

Adolescents often seek the chance to do something together. Thus, while online

activity in adult life is generally positioned as a solitary pursuit (given a single keyboard

and monitor), this need not be the case with young people: ‘Several friends may gather in

front of a screen in a bedroom’, note Livingstone and Bober (2004, 20), arguing that the

location of the computer does not necessarily dictate the context of its use. This sociability

of interaction is likely to increase as the internet is more frequently accessed through

location-independent smart hand-held devices.

Methods

This paper examines issues of trust arising between parents, children and peers primarily

by an analysis of the AU Kids Online study. Although conducted independently in

Australia, the methods modelled those of the EU Kids Online project as closely as possible

to facilitate comparisons. A stratified, random sample of 400 9–16 year olds who use the

internet, and one of their parents/carers, was interviewed between November 2010 and

February 2011. Samples were stratified by state and by metropolitan area/rest of state for

the larger states, with probability of selection proportionate to population. The primary

sampling units were drawn from all census collection districts in Australia. Addresses

were selected randomly from each randomly selected sample point using a Random Walk

procedure. At each address with a resident child aged 9–16, who met the criterion of

internet usage and agreed to interview, one child was randomly selected from all eligible

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 113

children in the household on the basis of whichever eligible child had the most recent

birthday. Of the children interviewed in the 400 families, 195 were boys and 205 were

girls, and 222 were aged 9–12 and 178 were aged 13–16. Results are presented as the

percentage of all children who used the internet. Each table is annotated with the relevant

question number(s) from the original EU Kids Online survey (www.eukidsonline.net). The

main methodological difference between AU Kids Online and EU Kids Online was the

smaller sample size. Consequently, in this paper, results are only discussed if they differ by

10 percentage points or more, to ensure that they fall outside the margin of error at the 0.05

probability level. The AU Kids Online data were also collected about six months after the

European data.

Although predominantly concerning Australian children, this paper considers these

children in the context of the 25,142 children, from 25 countries, who participated in the

wider EU Kids Online study. The AU Kids Online survey is contextualized with a 2003–

2004 qualitative study of 26 families, The Internet in Australian Family Life (e.g.

Holloway, Green, and Quin 2004), and a report into Media and Communications in

Australian Families (ACMA 2007). Many of the specific features of online activity

changed between 2003 and 2011, including factors such as whether the internet is accessed

via a dial-up service, or via broadband; and whether a fixed line device is used or a

smartphone or other hand-held device. While the technology changes comparatively

swiftly, the dynamics around parents and their children, and the move from dependence

towards autonomy prefigured in the 9–16 age group and their reliance upon same-aged

friends, is a constant of western family life over the past half century. It is these dynamics,

in part, that are explored in the consideration of trust relationships between members of

peer groups, and between parents and children. In drawing upon multiple sources, a

multifaceted perspective is adopted which constructs the child as being a member of his/

her family of origin, as well as belonging to one or more peer circles and influenced by a

range of other stakeholders including extended family; teachers and the education system;

software and hardware developers and retailers; internet service providers; policy and law

makers; law enforcement officers; the media, communications and entertainment

industries; and others. It is accepted that engagement with the internet is an increasingly

complex behaviour with location of online access potentially ubiquitous in the developed

world, permitting sometimes unsupervised online engagement. A critical realist stance has

been taken to negotiate these complexities of viewpoint and perspective. Critical realism

accords importance to both ‘the real’ and ‘the constructed’, and conceptualizes human

agency as complex, and at times unpredictable, providing a useful framework for both

quantitative and qualitative research (Clark 2008). In privileging ‘reality’, critical realism

chooses to avoid simplifying explanations, preferring instead to acknowledge the

complex.

Results and discussion

Parent support

In the general sphere of internet use, children may welcome parental involvement without

necessarily experiencing it as parental support. Parents’ involvement might include active,

general help such as talking, sitting together or carrying out online activities together

(Livingstone and Helsper 2008). They might help with a specific task such as doing

something or finding something, giving an explanation or judgement about whether a

particular site is good or bad, making suggestions about appropriate behaviour online or

providing advice on how to deal with troubling online experiences. Sometimes this kind of

114 L. Green and D. Brady

http://www.eukidsonline.net

assistance is termed as ‘positive mediation’, alongside restrictive strategies such as parents

setting rules about internet use. In the EU Kids Online survey, as replicated in AU Kids

Online, children and parents were asked purposely neutral questions about these different

areas of support for online use, beginning with: ‘Does your parent sometimes . . . [e.g. sit

with you while you use the internet]?’. The aim was to build up a picture of how parents

and children interacted while children used the internet.

More than 90% of Australian children who use the internet said their parents did one or

more of the mediation activities asked about, and 67% reported that their parents talk to

them about what they do online (Table 1). Younger children (9–12) were more likely to do

shared activities with their parents and more likely to have their parents stay nearby while

they were using the internet. According to the children who experienced it, having one or

more of their parents talking with them while they used the internet was an involvement

more likely to persist into their teens for boys than girls (Table 1).

The data suggest that maybe parents are a little more concerned about their younger

daughters’ online activities and, also, the online behaviour of their older sons. The ACMA

(2007, 131) study also found that parents were slightly more likely to give girls the

freedom to choose what they viewed on the internet (73% girls, 60% boys), and that

parents talk to their children about what they do on the internet, with 60% parents

reporting discussions around what their child did on the internet at other people’s houses,

at least some of the time (ACMA 2007, 29). In this study, it appeared that trust in a child’s

judgement increased with age, and was higher for girls (ACMA 2007, 29). Activities that

involved checking and restricting internet activity declined from 81% for parents of 8–15

year olds to 69% (16 year olds) and 51% (17 year olds).

While parents’ restriction of internet use declined as the child became older, the

parents said they felt managing their child’s online activities became more difficult. The

framing of the ACMA question as: ‘Would you say your child’s use of the internet is very

easy to manage, fairly easy, [etc] . . . ’ implied that a child’s internet use is something to be

managed. For 90% parents of younger children (8–12), this was felt to be very or fairly

easy, but the proportion saying this declined to 75% for 13–17 year olds (ACMA 2007,

105). It might be that the aspect of internet use of most ‘management’ concern to parents

relates to the amount of time spent online by their child:

Older teenagers spend almost five times as much time online than the younger children in the
study [ . . . ] More parents have rules about when young people can use television, games and
the internet than have rules about the content of those activities. (ACMA 2007, 7, 13)

Table 1. Australian parents’ active mediation of their child’s internet use, according to child.

% of children who say that
their parent does . . .

9–12 years 13–16 years

Boys Girls Boys Girls All

Talk to you about what you do on the internet 68 70 69 59 67
Stay nearby when you use the internet 73 74 54 52 63
Encourage you to explore and learn
things on the internet on your own

49 48 42 36 44

Sit with you while you use the internet 46 41 43 31 40
Do shared activities together with you
on the internet

45 47 31 31 38

One or more of these 89 96 94 86 91

Note: QC327 (QC, Question for child respondent).

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 115

However, parents do see the benefits of online engagement. Around one in three parents

felt that the internet allowed their child to ‘keep in touch with friends and what people are

talking about’ (ACMA 2007, 99).

Individual parents have different approaches to challenges around their children’s

internet use, depending upon a range of specific situational factors and circumstances.

In the Australian Research Council-funded qualitative research project, The Internet in

Australian Family Life (2002–2004), a single mother of a 17-year-old boy described his

earlier access to internet pornography and her contention that this was a transitory phase

unlikely to harm him:

It doesn’t bother me at all. If he wants to do that then he can do it because he’ll get sick of it
and I think initially it was ‘let’s see what we can do’. I remember once, he called me in and
says ‘Mum, come and look at her boobs’ and I looked at it and I said ‘it’s disgusting’ or
something and walked away and he laughed his head off. But I’ve never come in [lately] and
found him looking at that stuff . . . It’s just not something that I’m . . . really worried about.
It’s up to him. (Holloway, Green, and Quin 2004)

The child’s account of his early exploration was consistent with his mother’s, and when

asked specifically whether he had visited adult sites on the internet he responded:

Like porn and stuff? Not really. I probably did when I was a bit younger but it’s not really very
exciting. (Holloway, Green, and Quin 2004)

Valentine, Holloway, and Bingham (2000, 160) talk about the propensity of some adolescent

males to ‘negotiate their masculinity within the heterosexual economy of [their] peer group

social relations’. The situation is a fraught one for many parents. As Evans and Butkus

(1997, 68) note, ‘although parents still occupy the role of the initiated with regard to

sexuality, if they are uninitiated technologically then they lose the power base from which to

set the markers for progressive socialisation’. ACMA (2007, 14) found that:

Specific [internet] restrictions relating to adult or sexual content are more likely for those 13
and over, than for those under 13, and content-related arrangements of any sort about
internet use are more often in place with 10–14 year olds than with younger or older
children.

Comparing the accounts obtained in AU Kids Online survey, from the matched questions

to both parent and child, the answers from parents and children about parents’ active

mediation strategies did not always agree. There was 25–33% disagreement, depending

on the area (Table 2). Parents were more likely to take an overly positive view of their

influence (Table 2, column 3), for example in claiming shared activities (22%), than

their children (8%). It was significantly less likely that children would cite parental

mediation activities when their parents did not claim to use that mediation strategy

(Table 2, column 2).

Specific involvement by parents has the potential to keep children safe on the internet,

and this was acknowledged by their children. More than 90% parents did one or more of the

things asked about to actively mediate their child’s safety (Table 3). The most common

involvement was simply helping when something was difficult to do or find (75%), but

explaining why some websites are good or bad (74%) was also a favoured strategy.

According to their children, less than half of Australian parents suggested how they should

behave towards others online (44%), while 67% had helped them if something online

bothered them, and 64% had discussed ways they could respond to things that might bother

them online. Australian children apparently experience a similarly high level of parental

involvement as the children in EU Kids Online, where an average of 86% claim their parents

do one or more of the active mediation activities (Livingstone et al. 2011, 108).

116 L. Green and D. Brady

In the area of mediation with the aim of promoting internet safety, when children and

parents’ answers were compared, the apparent overestimation by parents (Table 4) was

much less marked than it was for their statements around shared involvement in internet

use more generally (Table 2). Both parents and children largely acknowledge the role

parents play in the area of safety.

Parents may choose to respond to the possible risks of online interaction in ways that

demonstrate and build trust. The Internet in Australian Family Life project included a

family with two teenage girls who had communicated with people online, who were not

known to the girls face-to-face, and who had suggested that the girls might want to meet up

with them. The mother explained her confidence in her daughters’ abilities to manage

online communication:

I suppose you just get a bit concerned about the chat lines and who they’re talking to
sometimes but really they usually tell me [ . . . to 17-year old daughter in the room] ‘Like on
the chat lines you, when, had that idiot [ . . . ] that one that was going to come over here’. Just
some idiots on there. A lot of the kids are teenagers. I know Shani’s [14] gotten on there a few
times on the chat line and there’s been obviously someone asking them lewd questions and
she’s usually blocked them and cut them off. (Holloway, Green, and Quin 2004)

Table 2. Australian parents’ active mediation of their child’s internet use, according to an
individual child and one of their parents/carers.

% of children who say that
their parents sometimes . . .

Child no
parent no

Child yes
parent no

Child no
parent yes

Child yes
parent yes

Talk to you about what you do on the
internet

4 5 29 62

Stay nearby when you use the internet 17 12 20 51
Encourage you to explore and learn
things on the internet on your own

25 9 31 35

Sit with you while you use the internet 37 11 23 29
Do shared activities together with you
on the internet

40 8 22 30

Note: QC327 and QP220 (QP, Question for parent respondent).

Table 3. Australian parents’ active mediation of their child’s internet safety, according to the child.

% of children who say that
their parent does . . .
9–12 years 13–16 years
Boys Girls Boys Girls All

Helped you when something is difficult
to do or find on the internet

83 88 75 71 79

Explained why some websites are good or bad 72 78 80 67 74
Suggested ways to use the internet safely 76 78 72 76 75

Suggested ways to behave towards other
people online

60 75 69 64 44

Helped you in the past when something has
bothered you on the internet

41 51 35 48 67

Talked to you about what to do if something
on the internet bothered you

57 72 61 67 64

One or more of these 94 99 95 90 94

Note: QC329.

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 117

Where an older child is able to appreciate that a communication option is risky, talks about

this and changes behaviour accordingly, parents may feel particularly able to trust them.

Parents have a complex and challenging job in attempting to mediate their children’s online

activities in ways which recognize the changing autonomy of the child as they move from

dependence into young adulthood. At least two-thirds of Australian parents choose to talk

with their children about their internet activities (Table 1), and or help when something has

bothered their child online (Table 3). Around three-quarters have suggested ways in which

to use the internet safely, explained why some websites are good or bad or helped when

something online was difficult to do or find (Table 3). These are strategies that build trust and

resilience, keeping channels of communication open and increasing the likelihood that the

child will continue to talk to the parent about their online activities. Such exchanges offer the

child a social context in which to place their internet experiences, even when such activities

occur well away from their parents’ oversight and remote from home, for example through

the use of a hand-held device or at a friend’s house. Education and informed decision-

making are key components of the fostering of children’s responsible decision-making

around internet activities. They are also implicated in, and the fruits of, relationships of trust.

Peer support

Peers are an important source of support for children and young people. In AU Kids Online

survey, 82% of children said their friends had helped or supported them in using the

internet (Table 5). Again, the question to children was not framed in terms of help or

support, only whether their friends had ‘ever done any of these things’ (from a specified

list). Of the forms of help considered, peers were most likely to assist other children to do

something or find something on the internet (75%). While this response to their friend’s

activity is similar to the number of parents providing the same kind of support, it is

coupled with comparatively lower levels of advice-giving. It seems that peers are more

likely to provide a practical and value-free form of support.

Interestingly, while there are slight differences between the genders in terms of

parental mediation, there are suggestions of similar slight differences with peer mediation

but in the opposite direction (Table 5). Australian girls are much more likely than

Australian boys to say that they receive support from their friends when something online

Table 4. Australian parents’ active mediation of their child’s internet safety, according to the child
and one of their parents/carers.

% of children who say that
their parents sometimes . . .
Child no
parent no
Child yes
parent no
Child no
parent yes
Child yes
parent yes
Helped you when something is difficult
to do or find on the internet

9 12 11 67

Explained why some websites are good
or bad

7 7 19 67

Suggested ways to use the internet safely 8 14 16 61
Suggested ways to behave towards other
people online

15 13 18 54

Helped you in the past when something
has bothered you on the internet

39 16 16 29

Talked to you about what to do if something
on the internet bothered you

16 13 19 52

Note: QC329 and QP222.

118 L. Green and D. Brady

has bothered them. This is particularly true of older children with 56% of the girls in the

13–16 year old age range, but only 29% of the boys reporting such support (Table 5). This

gendered difference was not apparent in the pooled EU Kids Online data (Livingstone

et al. 2011, 123). In that case, the boys in the European study report similar results to their

Australian counterparts with 28% saying they have received help from their friends. Girls

in the EU Kids Online cohort are much more like their male peers than they are like

Australian girls: 33% of EU Kids Online girls aged 13–16 years say they have received

help from their friends when something has bothered them online compared to 56% of

AU Kids Online girls aged 13–16.

Across the AU Kids Online age groups, there was no difference between girls and boys

in terms of receiving one or more forms of peer support. However, peer support tends to

increase with age. This is in line with the role of peers as social supports during the time in

which young adults progressively disengage from their families of origin. Allison and

Sabatelli (1988, 5) note that ‘Parental encouragement of autonomy and individuality

relieves adolescents of implicit emotional demands to sacrifice their individuality’. The

movement from parents as primary support, to shared support between parents and peers,

can be an ‘and also’ dynamic, rather than ‘either or’. According to Allison and Sabatelli

(1988, 5), families that ‘promote a comfortable interdependence among generations

[through encouraging autonomy provide] opportunities for emotional support without

guilt or anxiety’. Many children receive support from both their parents and their peers.

Overall, 82% of Australian children in the study reported that their peers had supported or

helped them in one or more of the ways asked about (Table 5). This was higher than the EU

Kids Online average of 73% and put Australia in the top-seven countries for peer support

(Livingstone et al. 2011, 124).

Parent versus peer support

Comparing the giving of safety advice by parents or peers in the AU Kids Online study,

parents are clearly the first source of information for children seeking internet-related

support across both genders and all age groups (Table 6). Peers become slightly more

important, and parents slightly less so, only in the oldest age group. Generally, peers (33%)

were less likely than parents (44%) to provide advice on appropriate behaviour online.

Parents (74%) were more likely to make judgements about the relative merits of websites

Table 5. Australian peer mediation of child’s internet use, according to the child.

% of children who say friends
at their school have ever . . .

9–12 years 13–16 years
Boys Girls Boys Girls All
Helped you when something is difficult
to do or find on the internet

69 72 80 79 75

Explained why some websites are good
or bad

40 32 40 47 39

Helped you in the past when something
has bothered you on the internet

25 37 29 56 37

Suggested ways to behave towards other
people online

26 27 38 43 33

Suggested ways to use the internet safely 29 29 34 36 32
One or more of all of the above 80 76 83 88 82

Note: QC336.

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 119

than peers (39%). Australian children are more likely to say they provided safety guidance

to their peers (52%) than that they received it (32%) (Table 6). Whereas the average

situation in the 25 European countries was that 35% of children said they provided safety

advice to their friends, while 44% said they received it, there was considerable variability

between countries in the relative giving and receiving of advice (Livingstone et al. 2011,

125 [Figure 98]). In both Europe and Australia, help given and received appears to

increase with age. One exception in Australia is the dip in help given at age 13–14,

perhaps reflecting the move from primary school to high school and the need to

re-establish friendships in a new social circle.

While information is shared between peers, the domain of safety advice appears to be

centred on the parents. When children are bothered by something on the internet, it seems

they are more likely to seek and receive help from their parents (67%, Table 3) than their

peers (37%, Table 5). Mediation by peers in the variety of activities carried out on the

internet was higher (82%, Table 5) than mediation specifically in the realm of safety

advice (32%, Table 6).

The ACMA (2007, 73) study, with a sample of 1003 child respondents, aged 8–17,

measured children’s internet use via a personal diary system. For 72% of their internet

time the children were alone, while 28% of online time was spent in the company of

others, most often with other young people. At that time, children also reported using the

internet primarily at home (76% of their internet time), a situation that is rapidly changing

due to the uptake of smartphones and hand-held devices with internet access. The ACMA

study reported messaging and chatting as the most popular activities during 2007, in terms

of children’s use of their internet time (ACMA 2007, 61). Taken together, this data show

that children seek the company of their peers and opportunities to communicate with them.

European research demonstrates that this is a cross-cultural characteristic: ‘Children

mainly care about keeping in touch’ (Kohnstamm 2010, 8).

Compared to children surveyed in the wider EU Kids Online study, 82% of Australian

children reporting peer-mediated support (Table 5) is in line with the European average of

73% (Livingstone et al. 2011, 124 [Figure 96]). Overall, Australian peer support is at a higher

level than in most other European countries, and the Australian average of children offering

safety advice to peers (52%) is higher than in any other country. This finding across countries

reflects the importance of the peer group in early adolescence and the transition from parental

influence to adulthood (Simons-Morton and Hartos 2002; Simons-Morton and Chen 2009).

Parents and peers are both important when it comes to issues of resilience, and

resilience is a personal attribute which operates in a range of circumstances of special

relevance to adolescents. A person’s resilience is situation- and circumstance-specific,

Table 6. Summary of Australian peer and parent mediation of the child’s safe internet use,
according to the child.

Child suggested
ways to friends

Friends suggested
ways to child

Parent suggested
ways to child

Girls 55 33 77
Boys 48 31 74
9–10 years 51 26 76
11–12 years 55 31 78
13–14 years 44 31 79
15–16 years 56 38 70
All children 52 32 75

Note: QC329c, QC337 and QC336c.

120 L. Green and D. Brady

however. Rutter (1987, 345) argues that ‘Resilience cannot be seen as a fixed attribute of

the individual. If circumstances change, the risk [to be countered by resilience] alters’.

Summarizing Rutter’s perspective, Brackenreed (2010, 115) argues that there are four

protective processes supporting the development of resilience in an individual: ‘Firstly are

those that reduce a person’s exposure to risk, secondly, those that reduce negative

reactions to bad experiences, thirdly, those that promote self-esteem through achievement

and finally, positive relationships that provide opportunities through life’. In terms of

young people developing resilience in the face of troubling online content, parental

interventions might be most associated with the first of these aspects of resilience while

positive peer relationships are likely to join parental influence in impacting upon the final

three. Relationships of trust are important here, as between children and their parents.

Conclusion

Considering the research questions: in terms of relative support by parents and peers,

parents are clearly the primary source of support for Australian male and female children

over the age range examined. Parental support is particularly important when children

have experienced something on the internet that bothers them. The agreement between

parents and children on the amount and kind of support offered is quite close, even though

both were asked separately in the study. Peer support, while generally lower than parental

support in a relative sense, is still necessary and apparently of greater importance in

Australia than in Europe. Why this is so remains to be discovered by further analysis of the

AU Kids Online data. Excepting some specific activities, peer support appears to be similar

between Australian boys and girls. Like their European counterparts, peer support

becomes more important for Australian children as they grow older.

Strong, positive, relationships with parents and peers, coupled with strategies to cope

with any unsettling experiences (such as talking about these, and taking action such as

blocking and reporting inappropriate content), offer the possibility of building future

resilience. Parents and peers have a critical role to play in promoting the development of

competent, confident, internet-using young people, and the trust that characterizes these

relationships is an important part of their effectiveness. Trusting parents, and trusting

peers, combined with continued public education and support, may yet prove to be the best

strategy for developing positive skills and experiences online.

Acknowledgements

This paper and AU Kids Online survey draw on the work of the EU Kids Online network funded by
the EC (DG Information Society) Safer Internet Plus Programme [project code SIP-KEP-321803];
see www.eukidsonline.net. The authors are grateful to the EU Kids Online network for their support.

Funding

The Internet in Australian Family Life was an Australian Research Council Discovery Project
(DP0211751) funded from 2002 to 2004, with Lelia Green and Robyn Quin as chief investigators
and Donell Holloway and Jack Seddon as research associates. The ARC Centre of Excellence for
Creative Industries and Innovation funded the AU Kids Online research through their risk and
representation program.

Notes on contributors

Lelia Green is Professor of Communications at Edith Cowan University and is a co-Chief Investigator
of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative lndustries and lnnovation, funders of the AU Kids

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 121

http://www.eukidsonline.net

Online research. She is on the International Advisory Panel of the EU Kids Online project, and a
member of the 30 country network which is led by Professor Sonia Livingstone. Lelia’s research has
included a specific focus upon the internet in Australian family life since the early 2000s.

Danielle Brady is a Senior Lecturer in Media, Culture and Mass Communications and Co-ordinator
of Higher Degrees by Research in the School of Communications and Arts at Edith Cowan
University. Danielle is an associate researcher on the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative
lndustries and lnnovation funded AU Kids Online project and a chief investigator on an ARC
Linkage project investigating community use of satellite derived bush fire information.

References

ACMA. 2007. Media and Communication in Australian Families 2007: Report of the Media and
Society Research Project. Melbourne: Australian Communications and Media Authority. http://
www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib101058/media_and_society_report_2007

Allison, M., and R. Sabatelli. 1988. “Differentiation and Individuation as Mediators of Identity and
Intimacy in Adolescence.” Journal of Adolescent Research 3 (1): 1–16.

Brackenreed, D. 2010. “Resilience and Risk.” International Education Studies 3 (3): 111–121.
Clark, A. 2008. “Critical Realism.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods,

edited by L. Given, 168–171. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ennett, S., and K. Bauman. 1994. “The Contribution of Influence and Selection to Adolescent Peer-

Group Homogeneity: The Case of Adolescent Cigarette Smoking.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 67: 653–663.

Evans, M., and C. Butkus. 1997. “Regulating the Emergent: Cyberporn and the Traditional Media.”
Media International Australia 85: 62–69.

Holloway, D., L. Green, and R. Quin. 2004. “What Porn? Children and the Family Internet.” M/C
Journal 7 (4). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0410/02_children.php

Kiesner, J., and M. Kerr. 2004. “Families, Peers and Contexts as Multiple Determinants of
Adolescent Problem Behaviour.” Journal of Adolescence 27: 493–495.

Kobus, K. 2003. “Peers and Adolescent Smoking.” Addiction 98 (1): 37–55.
Kohnstamm, R. 2010. “Preface.” In Contact: Children and New Media, edited by J. De Haan, and

R. Pijpers, 7–9. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Livingstone, S., and M. Bober. 2004. UK Children Go Online: Surveying the Experiences of Young

People and Their Parents. London: LSE Research Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/395/1/
UKCGOsurveyreport

Livingstone, S., L. Haddon, A. Görzig, and K. Òlafsson. 2011. Risks and Safety on the Internet: The
Perspective of European Children: Full Findings. London: EU Kids Online, LSE. http://eprints.
lse.ac.uk/33731/

Livingstone, S., and E. Helsper. 2008. “Parental Mediation and Children’s Internet Use.” Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52 (4): 581–599.

Rotenberg, K. 1995. “The Socialisation of Trust: Parents’ and Children’s Interpersonal Trust.”
International Journal of Behavorial Development 18: 713–726.

Rutter, M. 1987. “Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms.” American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 57: 316–331.

Simons-Morton, B., and R. Chen. 2009. “Peer and Parent Influences on School Engagement Among
Early Adolescents.” Youth & Society 41 (1): 3–25.

Simons-Morton, B., and J. Hartos. 2002. “Application of the Authoritative Parenting Model to
Adolescent Health Behaviour.” In Emerging Theories and Models in Health Promotion
Research and Practice: Strategies for Improving Public Health, edited by R. DiClemente,
R. Crosby, and M. Kegler, 100–125. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Valentine, G., S. Holloway, and N. Bingham. 2000. “Transforming Cyberspace: Children’s
Interventions in the New Public Sphere.” In Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning,
edited by S. Holloway, and G. Valentine, 156–193. London: Routledge.

Wentzel, K., C. Barry, and K. Caldwell. 2004. “Friendships in Middle School: Influences on
Motivation and School Adjustment.” Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 195–203.

122 L. Green and D. Brady

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib101058/media_and_society_report_2007

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0410/02_children.php

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/395/1/UKCGOsurveyreport

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/

Copyright of Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Abstract

Introduction
Methods
Results and discussion
Parent support
Peer support
Parent versus peer support
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mean on the Screen: Social Aggression
in Programs Popular With Children
Nicole Martins1 & Barbara J. Wilson2

1 Department of Telecommunications, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
2 Department of Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

A content analysis was conducted to examine the portrayal of social aggression in the 50
most popular television programs among 2- to 11-year-old children. Results revealed that
92% of the programs in the sample contained some social aggression. On average, there were
14 different incidents of social aggression per hour in these shows, or one every 4 minutes.
Compared to the portrayals of physical aggression, social aggression was more likely to be
enacted by an attractive perpetrator, to be featured in a humorous context, and neither
rewarded or punished. In these ways, social aggression on television poses more of a risk for
imitation and learning than do portrayals of physical aggression. Findings are discussed in
terms of social cognitive theory.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01599.x

The popular movie Mean Girls grossed nearly $87 million at the box office in 2004,
making it one of the top 30 films of the year. The plot features a young girl, played
by actress Lindsey Lohan, who moves to a new high school and struggles to navigate
the social dynamics of female popularity. The film is rife with female cliques that
use covert tactics such as manipulation and gossip to bully other girls. One line in
the movie captures perfectly how the girls interact with each other: ‘‘This is a girl
world . . .all the fighting has to be sneaky.’’

Critics have argued that Mean Girls’ popularity is due to the fact that its themes
resonate with the everyday experiences of young people in this country (Bennet,
2006; Thompson, 2004). Indeed, a recent national survey of 1,001 adolescents
suggests that the behaviors featured in the movie are quite common in everyday
life (Galinsky & Salmond, 2002). According to the survey, 50% of the adolescents
engaged in gossiping about others on a monthly basis. Additionally, 66% of the
adolescents reported that they were the target of cruel gossip or teasing at least once
per month. In fact, when the teens were asked if they could make one change in their
school to help stop violence, the most frequent response was that they would put an
end to what the authors called ‘‘emotional violence,’’ or cruel gossip and putdowns.

Corresponding author: Nicole Martins; e-mail: nicomart@indiana.edu

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

Where do children learn these types of behaviors? The purpose of this study is to
explore the role of the media in children’s development of these nonphysical forms
of aggression. A content analysis was conducted to examine the amount and nature
of social aggression in the 50 most popular programs among children.

Social aggression
Although the harmful effects of overt physical aggression on child development
have been widely studied, little attention has been paid to aggressive behavior that
is more subtle and relational in nature. Social aggression is a type of aggression
that damages a target’s self-esteem or social standing (Galen & Underwood, 1997).
Examples of social aggression include gossiping, social exclusion, giving dirty looks,
and friendship manipulation. Social aggression includes both indirect (e.g., spreading
a rumor) and direct (e.g., ignoring another) acts of aggression. Furthermore, social
aggression may be delivered via verbal and nonverbal means, which distinguishes it
from other conceptually related overlapping constructs such as indirect (Buss, 1961)
or relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).

Research indicates that social aggression is more prevalent among girls. In one
study, Crick, Bigbee, and Howes (1996) surveyed 496 adolescents and asked them
‘‘What do most girls/boys do when they are mad at someone?’’ Social aggression
was the most frequently cited angry behavior for girls’ interactions, whereas physical
aggression was the most frequently cited angry behavior for boys’ interactions.
Scholars have argued that socially aggressive strategies are more often used in girls’
peer interactions because such tactics are particularly effective in harming social
goals (e.g., establishing close relationships) that are most important to girls (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995).

Because social aggression does not result in physical injury, it may be tempting
to conclude that it is less problematic than overt behavioral aggression. Yet the
consequences of social aggression can be quite serious. Victims of social aggression
typically are rejected by their peers and consequently experience sociopsychological
adjustment problems (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Victims also report poor self–self
concept and self-esteem (Paquette & Underwood, 1999). In extreme cases, social
aggression has even been implicated in suicide (Baumeister, 1990). As a result of some
of this evidence, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recently
identified ‘‘psychological bullying’’ (i.e., when a target is repeatedly the victim of
social aggression) as a serious public health issue (What adults can do, 2006).

What causes this nonphysical form of aggression? Scholars have speculated that
the same factors that instigate physical aggression in youth also promote social
aggression (Galinksky & Salmond, 2002; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001).
For example, family issues, such as exposure to marital conflict, have been linked
to both physical (Cummings & Davies, 1994) and social aggression (Crick, 2003).
Another environmental factor that may contribute to both social and physical
aggression is media violence. In the short term, laboratory studies show that viewing
televised aggressive models leads children to imitate aggressive behavior immediately

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

after exposure (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). In the long run, longitudinal studies
have found that exposure to television violence in childhood is associated with
subsequent increases in adult aggression (Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann, Moise-Titus,
Podolski, & Eron, 2003). In addition, several meta-analyses have found a medium-
sized effect for the relationship between watching TV and physical aggression in
children (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Paik & Comstock, 1994). Given that children
can learn physical aggression from the media, it seems reasonable to expect that they
can learn social aggression as well. However, the relationship between media violence
and social aggression remains relatively unexamined.

Social aggression on television
To date, only two studies have examined the prevalence of social aggression on
television. Coyne and Archer (2004) content analyzed 29 programs that were
reported by British adolescents as their favorite. The researchers coded the programs
for physical aggression (e.g., hitting, punching, kicking) and indirect aggression.
The researchers defined indirect aggression as acts of social exclusion (e.g., ignoring
others), malicious humor (e.g., prank phone calls), and/or guilt induction (e.g.,
putting undue pressure on another character). They found that indirect aggression
was portrayed in 92% of the episodes. Furthermore, indirect aggression (92%) was
more common than physical aggression (55%) in the programs sampled. In terms
of characters, females were more likely to be perpetrators of indirect aggression
than were males. In contrast, male characters were more likely to be shown as
physically aggressive perpetrators. Lastly, indirect aggression was more likely to be
committed by an attractive perpetrator, whereas physical aggression was more likely
to be committed by an unattractive perpetrator.

In the second study, Feshbach (2005) analyzed 12 programs (6 half-hour sitcoms,
6 one-hour dramas) reported by high school seniors and college juniors as their
favorite. She coded the 12 programs for acts of physical and indirect aggression. In
this study, indirect aggression was defined as depictions of excluding, ignoring, or
rejecting another character. She found that 32% of the male characters and 50% of
the female characters displayed some form of indirect aggression in the dramas. In
the comedies, almost every female (93%) engaged in indirect aggression compared
to fewer than half of the males (40%). Feshbach concluded that the use of indirect
aggression is the norm for female comedians.

Although these two content analyses are an important first step in documenting
nonphysical forms of aggression on television, they are limited in several ways. First,
both studies analyzed small samples of programming. Feshbach’s sample consisted
only of 12 shows and Coyne and Archer’s analysis only contained 29 programs.
Furthermore, half of Coyne and Archer’s sample was comprised of programs that
were not from the United States, and therefore may not be generalizable to the kinds
of content that American children watch. The shows that were American in origin
were in syndication for several years, such as Tom and Jerry and Star Trek.

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

Second, both studies focused on programs that preteens and teens watch. Yet
research suggests that social learning from TV begins quite early in development
(Bandura, 1986). Indeed, some of the strongest effects of media violence on physical
aggression are found among preschoolers (Paik & Comstock, 1994). Moreover, social
aggression, especially nonverbal forms of it, seems to emerge as early as the preschool
years (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997). Thus, it is crucial to also examine socially
aggressive portrayals in programs viewed by younger children.

A final limitation is that the two studies looked primarily at the amount of
aggression on television rather than the way in which social aggression was portrayed.
Research shows that violent portrayals differ in how much risk they pose to viewers
depending upon the context of the aggressive behavior (for review, see Wilson et al.,
1998). Coyne and Archer acknowledged the importance of context when they looked
at whether the aggression was justified, and whether it was rewarded or punished.
However, there are a host of contextual variables that have been identified as factors
that encourage the learning of aggression (Wilson et al., 1998).

The present study
The present study was designed to address these limitations. We conducted a content
analysis of the portrayal of social aggression in the top 50 programs popular with
children. The analysis focused on the most watched programs by children ages 2
through 11 as reported by Nielsen Media Research (2005). We analyzed three episodes
of each program (150 programs total) to ensure that the sample was as representative
as possible. We also focused on a range of contextual variables so that we could fully
describe how social aggression on television is portrayed. Finally, we coded physical
aggression as well so that we could compare the two forms of aggression.

One of the first issues examined was how often social aggression was portrayed
on television. Coyne and Archer (2004) found that indirect aggression occurred in
92% of the episodes sampled. However, their sample size was limited and consisted
of programs that were popular with adolescents. Thus, the first research question
asked:

RQ1: How often is social aggression portrayed in programs popular with children?

If children can learn social aggression from television, what are they learning?
As suggested above, social aggression can come in a variety of different forms. For
example, it can be verbal or nonverbal in nature. Similarly, it can be perpetrated
directly at a target (e.g., insults, name calling) or it can be perpetrated indirectly or
behind a target’s back (e.g., spreading a rumor). Thus, the second research question
asked:

RQ2: What does social aggression look like in programs popular with children?

Research demonstrates that physical aggression is pervasive on television, par-
ticularly in programs targeted to children (Wilson et al., 1998). Coyne and Archer

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

(2004) and the Feshbach (2005) studies found that social aggression occurred more
frequently than physical aggression in programs popular with adolescents. On the
basis of these studies, the following hypothesis was posed:

H1: Social aggression will occur more frequently than physical aggression in programs
popular with children.

Several major reviews of the media violence literature have concluded that certain
depictions are more likely than others to pose risks to viewers (Comstock & Paik,
1991; Wilson et al., 1998). One contextual factor to consider is the nature of the
perpetrator. According to social cognitive theory, an attractive perpetrator can be a
potent role model, and thus increases the likelihood that viewers will learn aggression
(Bandura, 1986). One factor related to character attractiveness is the perpetrator’s
perceived similarity to the viewer (Eyal & Rubin, 2003). For example, children
report liking same-sex more than opposite-sex characters (Jose & Brewer, 1994),
and children seem to strongly identify with characters of a similar ethnicity or race
(Anderson & Williams, 1983). Children also respond favorably to characters who
are perceived as physically attractive. Evidence indicates that a character’s physical
appearance has considerable potential to affect impressions because it is generally the
first attribute that comes to the viewer’s attention (see Hoffner & Cantor, 1991 for
review). A final factor related to character attractiveness is the character’s behavior in
the storyline. Research shows that children assign more positive ratings to characters
who act benevolently than to characters who are cruel (Hoffner & Cantor, 1985).

A second contextual feature that may influence whether a child will learn social
aggression is the perpetrator’s motives or reasons for engaging in violence. Research
indicates that exposure to justified violence increases the probability of aggressive
behavior (Jo & Berkowitz, 1994). In contrast, violence that is unjustified or purely
malevolent decreases the risk subsequent aggressive behavior among viewers (Brown
& Tedeschi, 1976). Coyne and Archer (2004) measured justification in their content
analysis. The researchers found that indirect aggression was significantly more likely
to be justified than unjustified. Conversely, physical aggression was more likely to be
portrayed as unjustified.

A third contextual factor to consider is whether the televised violence is rewarded
or punished. Social learning theory predicts that violence that is rewarded or not
overtly punished fosters the learning of aggressive attitudes and behavior among
viewers (Bandura et al., 1963). In contrast, portrayals of punished violence can serve
to inhibit or reduce the learning of aggression (Bandura, 1986).

Humor may also facilitate children’s learning of social aggression. There is
evidence to support the idea that when humor is linked to physical violence,
inhibitions toward committing aggressive acts in viewers are lowered (Baron, 1978).
One reason why humor may foster the learning of aggression is because humor
increases viewer arousal and heightened arousal has been shown to increase viewer
aggression (Zillmann, 1979). Humor may also trivialize the seriousness of violence
and its consequences which can increase the probability of aggression.

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

A final contextual feature of media violence concerns the consequences of
aggression. Research demonstrates that when pain and harm to the victim of physical
violence are shown, children are less likely to imitate the aggressive act (Wotring &
Greenberg, 1973). The assumption is that pain cues inhibit aggression by eliciting
sympathy and reminding the viewer about social norms against violence. The absence
of physical harm or emotional suffering in an aggressive scene may fail to trigger such
inhibitory reactions and thus increase the learning of aggression.

This study incorporated these contextual variables into its content analysis. This
study also compared the amount and context of socially aggressive portrayals with
portrayals of physical aggression. Thus, the next two research question asked:

RQ3a: How are socially aggressive portrayals contextualized in programs popular with
children?

RQ3b: How does the context of socially aggressive portrayals compare with the context of
physically aggressive portrayals in programs popular with children?

Method

Sample
The 50 most popular programs among children 2–11 years of age according to
Nielsen Media Research (2005) data were selected for inclusion in this study. To
assure that subsequent findings were characteristic of the programs in general and
not typical of just one program in particular, three episodes of each show were
recorded resulting in a total sample of 150 shows. The 150 shows were recorded from
December 2006 through March of 2007. Programs aired during sweeps weeks were
not used.

Definitions of social aggression and physical aggression
On the basis of Galen and Underwood’s (1997) definition, we operationalized social
aggression as follows:

Actions directed at damaging another’s self-esteem, social status, or both, and
includes behaviors such as facial expressions of disdain, cruel gossiping, and the
manipulation of friendship patterns (p. 589).

Physical aggression was also coded so that comparisons between each form of
aggression could be made. The National Television Violence Study’s (Wilson et al.,
1998) definition of violence was used in this study and was operationalized as:

Any overt depiction of a credible threat of physical force or the actual use of such
force intended to physically harm an animate being or group of beings. Violence
will also include certain depictions of physically harmful consequences against an
animate being(s) that result from unseen violent means (p. 20).

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

Units of analysis
Social and physical aggression was measured at three units of analysis: the PAT, the
aggressive scene, and aggressive program (Wilson et al., 1998). An aggressive PAT
was defined as an interaction that occurs between a perpetrator (P) and a target
(T) using a particular type of aggressive act (A). Any time a perpetrator, target or
type of aggression changed, a new PAT is created. The second level of analysis is the
aggressive scene. A scene was defined as interrelated series of PATs that occurred
without a significant break in the flow of actual or impending violence (Wilson et al.,
1998). Finally, social and physical aggression were examined at the program level. By
examining aggression across these levels, features of aggression at different points in
the program could be assessed.

Three measures examined the amount of aggression in programs popular with
children: prevalence, concentration (i.e., density of aggression in a program), and rate
per hour. In addition to these variables, the context of aggression was also measured.
Each contextual variable is defined below according to the level at which it was coded.

PAT-level variables
Several character attributes, all of which have relevance to viewer identification, were
assessed at the incident or PAT level. Coders classified perpetrators according to
their type (human, supernatural creature, anthropomorphized character, or other),
and sex (male and female). Next, coders assessed the physical attractiveness of each
perpetrator. Perpetrators were coded as being very attractive, attractive, not attractive,
or neutral (i.e., neither attractive nor unattractive). Finally, the perpetrator’s behavior
was coded as good (i.e., benevolent), bad (i.e., malevolent), blended (i.e., good and
bad), or neutral (i.e., not featured long enough to assess nature of behavior).

Two variables dealing with the aggression itself were assessed at the PAT level:
(a) justification for the aggression—whether the aggression was portrayed as ‘‘morally
correct,’’ ‘‘right,’’ or ‘‘just’’ given the circumstances of the plot; and (b) consequences
of aggression. The consequences of aggression were assessed by coding the amount
of emotional or psychological pain the target experienced as a result of the socially
aggressive act. Pain was coded as no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or extreme pain.

Scene-level variables
Several variables were assessed after taking the entire aggressive scene into account.
First, the positive and negative reinforcements (i.e., verbal and/or nonverbal approval
of aggression) for aggression were coded. The presence or absence of four types of
rewards was coded at the scene level: self-praise, praise from others, praise from
the audience, or material rewards. In terms of negative reinforcements (i.e., verbal
and/or nonverbal disapproval of aggression), the presence or absence of four kinds
of punishments were assessed disapproval from the perpetrator, disapproval from
others, disapproval from the audience, or loss of material rewards. Finally, scenes
were coded for the presence or absence of humor. Humor was defined as the use
of speech, actions, and/or behavior that a character engaged in that was intended to
amuse the self, another character(s), and/or the viewer (Wilson et al., 1998).

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

Program-level variables
Coders ascertained the duration negative consequences. Coders assessed the extent
of pain depicted across the entire program, indicating whether such consequences
generally were: not shown at all, short-term in nature (limited to within a few
aggressive scenes), or long-term in nature (displayed throughout the entire program).

Training and reliability
Six female undergraduates at a large university in the Midwestern United States
performed the coding for this project. The coders received approximately 20 hours
of classroom training and 15 hours of laboratory practice to learn the coding scheme.
Once trained, the coders performed their work individually in a video laboratory. The
entire sample took roughly 10 weeks to code. Each coder was randomly assigned to
code 11% of the sample (approximately 16 cases each). Each coder was also assigned
a randomly determined overlap of 33% of the sample to allow for an assessment of
intercoder reliability. For these cases, any coding disagreements between the coders
were resolved by N.M. Intercoder reliability was assessed using Krippendorf’s alpha
(Krippendorf, 1980). The coefficients reported below are the median alpha’s for
the entire 10-week coding period, with social aggression coefficients listed first and
the physical aggression coefficients listed second: type of aggression (.99, 1.0), sex
of perpetrator (.99, .97), physical attractiveness (.76, .78), nature of behavior (.87,
.87), justification (.88, .89), consequences (.82, .74), self-praise (.88, .92), praise from
others (.87, .90), laughter from audience (1.0, 1.0), material reward (.88, .91), self-
condemnation (.88, .91), condemnation from others (.91, .91), condemnation from
audience (1.0, .90), humor (.86, .89), and duration of negative consequences (.78, .84).

Results

Analysis plan
To test our hypothesis and answer some of the research questions, portrayals of
social aggression were compared with those involving physical aggression. For these
comparisons, a series of chi-square tests (p < .05) were computed and post hoc comparisons were performed using the chi-square analog to the Scheffé procedure (Marascuilo & Busk, 1987). However, because the sample size in this study was unusually large, small differences between percentages (3–4%) were statistically significant but not very meaningful. Therefore, we stipulated that there be at least a 10% difference in magnitude between two percentages in order to establish practical significance (see Wilson et al., 2002). In all cases, then, percentages having no subscripts in common are both statistically (p < .05) and practically (10% difference) different.

Amount of social aggression in programs popular with children
Research question 1
The first research question concerns the amount of social aggression that appears in
programs popular with children. The amount of social aggression was assessed in

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

two ways. First, the proportion of programs that featured some social aggression was
examined. The analysis revealed that a full 92% of these shows contained some social
aggression. Second, the rate of socially aggressive interactions per hour was assessed.
To calculate the rate per hour, the number of aggressive interactions was divided by
the number of program hours. There was a total of 85.5 hours of programming in
the sample and we coded 1,234 separate PATs of social aggression. By this criterion,
there was an average of 14.4 incidents of social aggression per hour, or one incident
of social aggression every 4 minutes.

Research question 2
The second research question concerns what social aggression looks like in programs
popular with children. The vast majority of socially aggressive incidents (78%) were
verbal. In other words, perpetrators used words to hurt the self-esteem or social
standing of the target. The most common types of verbal social aggression were
insults and name calling (Table 1).

Only about 20% of socially aggressive incidents were nonverbal in nature. When
social aggression was nonverbal, perpetrators typically used a mean face or laughter
to hurt the self-esteem or social status of the target (Table 2). It was very uncommon
for social aggression to be both verbal and nonverbal in the same exchange (3%).

We also coded whether social aggression was directly perpetrated at the target (e.g.,
making a mean face) or indirectly perpetrated behind the target’s back (e.g., spreading

Table 1 Categories of Verbal Socially Aggressive Incidents

Category Percent

Insult 52
Name calling 25
Teasing 10
Sarcastic remark 9
Other 4

Table 2 Categories of Nonverbal Socially Aggressive Incidents

Category Percent

Mean/disgusted face 36
Laughing/giggling 31
Eyes rolling 8
Finger pointing 3
Ignoring 3
Sticking out tongue 2
Staring 2
Other 13

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

a rumor). The vast majority of socially aggressive incidents (86%) were enacted
directly at the target. Rarely were socially aggressive incidents (14%) perpetrated
behind the target’s back.

Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis predicted that social aggression would occur more frequently than
physical aggression in programs popular with children. To test this hypothesis, both
the prevalence and rate of physical aggression were calculated. The prevalence analysis
revealed that 81% of the programs in the sample contained some physical aggression.
A McNemar test revealed that these programs were significantly more likely to feature
social than physical aggression, McNemar’s χ2(1, N = 150) = 11.56, p = .001.

The frequency of physical aggression was examined by computing the rate within
the programs. In 81.5 hours of programming, 1,261 separate PATs of physical
aggression were coded. This computed to an average rate of 15.4 PATs of physical
aggression per hour, or one incident of physical aggression every 5 minutes. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Social aggression was more prevalent across
programs popular with children than was physical aggression, but the rates of the
two types of aggression within programs were nearly equal.

Context of aggression
Research questions 3a and b
The third research question concerned the (a) context of social aggression in programs
popular with children and (b) how the context of socially aggressive portrayals
compared to the context of physically aggressive portrayals. Table 3 shows the
comparisons of social and physical aggression as a function of the five contextual
features of violence. In terms of the perpetrators of aggression, the vast majority of
socially aggressive incidents (86%) were perpetrated by human characters. A much
smaller proportion of incidents (11%) were perpetrated by anthropomorphized
characters. Rarely were socially aggressive incidents (2%) enacted by supernatural
creatures. A chi-square analysis comparing social and physical aggression by form
of the perpetrator was statistically significant, χ2(2, N = 2,475) = 126.55, p < .001, V∗ = .22. Post hoc comparisons revealed that socially aggressive incidents were more likely to be perpetrated by humans than were physically aggressive incidents (Table 3).

We also coded the sex of the perpetrator. Results revealed that nearly two-thirds
of socially aggressive incidents (62%) were perpetrated by males, whereas only
one-third of such incidents (38%) were perpetrated by females. Although most
aggression was perpetrated by males, females were slightly more likely to perpetrate
socially aggressive incidents than physically aggressive incidents whereas males were
more likely to perpetrate physical aggression, χ2(1, N = 2,284) = 17.73, p < .001, V∗ = .29. However, this difference fell just short of practical significance.

Beyond demographics, we also examined two qualities of the perpetrator that
reflected how attractive they were in the program: physical appearance and behavior
in the storyline. In terms of appearance, results revealed that roughly one-fourth of

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

Table 3 Context of Social Aggression Versus Context of Physical Aggression

Contextual Variable Social Aggression Physical Aggression

Nature of the perpetrator
Human (PAT) 86%a 72%b
Female (PAT) 38 29
Physically attractive (PAT) 26b 17a
Blended characters (PAT) 36b 14a

Justified aggression 32b 13a
Rewards/punishments

Immediate rewards (Scene) 17 12
Immediate punishments (Scene) 4 6

Humor (Scene) 76b 61a
Consequences of social aggression

Victim shows no pain (PAT) 71 70
Depicts long-term suffering (Program) 19 5

Note: Within rows, percentages having no subscripts in common are both statistically (p < .05) and practically (10%) different.

socially aggressive incidents (27%) were enacted by physically attractive perpetrators.
Far fewer incidents (5%) were committed by unattractive perpetrators. By far, most of
the socially aggressive incidents (76%) in these programs were enacted by characters
who were coded as neutral in appearance. Although the majority of perpetrators were
neutral in appearance, social aggression was more likely than physical aggression
to be committed by a physically attractive perpetrator, χ2(2, N = 2,154) = 33.49,
p < .001, V∗ = .12.

In terms of the perpetrators’ behavior in the story line, results revealed that only
20% of socially aggressive incidents were perpetrated by characters who behaved
benevolently. Roughly one-third of such incidents (32%) were perpetrated by char-
acters who behaved meanly and one-third (36%) were perpetrated by characters who
displayed both good and bad behaviors. A small proportion of socially aggressive inci-
dents (12%) were committed by neutral characters. A chi-square analysis comparing
type of aggression by nature of the perpetrators’ behavior was statistically significant,
χ2(3, N = 2,527) = 168.26, p < .001, V∗ = .25. Socially aggressive incidents were more likely than physically aggressive incidents to be committed by a character that displayed both good and bad behaviors (Table 3).

Another contextual feature concerned how often social aggression is portrayed as
morally justified in the plot. Results revealed that less than 20% of socially aggressive
incidents were portrayed as justified in the plot. Moreover, socially aggressive
incidents were less likely than physically aggressive incidents to be portrayed as
justified, χ2(1, N = 2,522) = 340.53, p < .001, V∗ = .36.

In terms of reinforcements, social aggression was neither rewarded nor punished
in the majority of scenes (78%). When reinforcements were portrayed, only a small

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

proportion of scenes (17%) presented social aggression as being rewarded. Far fewer
of the scenes (4%) presented social aggression as being punished. Virtually none
of the scenes (2%) featured social aggression as being both rewarded and punished
(Table 3).

Although rewards were rarely shown in socially aggressive scenes, the most
common rewards were self-praise. In particular, the perpetrator expressed personal
satisfaction for social aggression in 60% of rewarded scenes. A much smaller
percentage of rewarded scenes (28%) featured other characters who expressed
approval of the aggression. Far fewer of the scenes involving rewards (9%) portrayed
the perpetrator receiving material goods for social aggression. Only 3% of the
rewarded scenes portrayed the perpetrator receiving praise from the audience (i.e.,
audience laughter, cheers).

Just as with rewards, punishments did not occur very often in the immediate
context of social aggression. When scenes with punishments were featured, the
most common form involved condemnation expressed from characters other than
the perpetrator (74%). Some of the scenes involving punishment featured negative
audience reactions (e.g., ‘‘oohs’’) for social aggression (13%). Far fewer of the scenes
(10%) with punishment showed a perpetrator feeling remorse for social aggression.
Only 3% of the scenes with punishment featured the perpetrator losing material
rewards as a result of social aggression.

A chi-square analysis comparing type of aggression (social vs. physical) by
reinforcement (rewarded, punished, neither or both) was statistically significant, but
none of these differences was practically significant (Table 3).

Another contextual factor concerned the presence or absence of humor. The
findings revealed that three-fourths of socially aggressive scenes contained some
form of humor. In addition, socially aggressive scenes were significantly more
likely than physically aggressive scenes to be presented in a humorous context,
χ2(1, N = 1,394) = 67.66, p < .001, V∗ = .22.

The final contextual factor concerns whether negative consequences of social
aggression are portrayed on television. The findings revealed that the majority
of socially aggressive incidents (71%) portrayed the target experiencing no pain
whatsoever. A much smaller proportion of socially aggressive incidents (28%)
showed the target experiencing mild pain. Virtually none of the incidents featured
the target experiencing moderate pain (1%) or extreme pain (0%). Although a
chi-square analysis comparing social and physical aggression by the amount of pain
was statistically significant, these differences were not practically significant.

The consequences of social aggression were also coded at the program level.
The findings indicate that about one-third of the programs (31%) in the sample
showed virtually no negative consequences of social aggression. About one-half of
the programs (49%) portrayed the short-term consequences of social aggression. Far
fewer of the programs (19%) depicted the long-term negative consequences of social
aggression. No significant difference emerged between social and physical aggression
in long-term consequences (Table 3).

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that socially aggressive role models are prevalent
on programs popular with children. The findings also suggest that some of the
ways in which social aggression is contextualized make these depictions particularly
problematic for young viewers. In some cases, social aggression on television may
pose more of a risk than portrayals of physical aggression do.

In terms of specific findings, the first research question concerned how often
social aggression was portrayed in programs popular with children. We found that a
full 92% of the programs in the sample contained some social aggression. Moreover,
we also examined the rate, a variable not measured in the two prior studies of social
aggression on television. We found an average of 14 incidents of social aggression per
hour, or one incident every 4 minutes.

The second research question concerned what social aggression looks like in
children’s favorite shows. This study found that the vast majority of socially aggressive
incidents were verbal in nature, where the perpetrator used words to hurt the self-
esteem or social standing of the target. The most common forms of verbal social
aggression were insults and name calling. In addition, socially aggressive incidents
were nearly always enacted directly at the target. Rarely were socially aggressive
incidents indirectly perpetrated.

This form of televised social aggression is not consistent with what we know
about social aggression in real life. Research has demonstrated that gossip is one of
the most common forms of social aggression (e.g., Galinsky & Salmond, 2002). Yet in
this study, gossip was rarely portrayed on television. One possibility why gossip was
seldom portrayed is because television is made of conflict where main characters go
head-to-head in direct confrontations. Gossip, on the other hand, is an indirect act
that does not involve a direct exchange between a perpetrator and a target. Given that
young children are more likely to attend to conflict that is concrete and perceptually
salient (Van Evra, 2004), gossip may elude young audiences because it is too subtle
to capture their attention. Thus, gossip is seldom used in these shows as a way to
advance the plot. Future research should examine whether gossip is more common
among programs that older children watch.

In addition to examining the amount of social aggression in children’s favorite
shows, we also examined the way in which social aggression was portrayed (Research
Question 3). The results of this study suggest that the perpetrators of social aggression
can serve as potent role models for children. The fact that this study found that the
preponderance of socially aggressive incidents was perpetrated by humans suggests
that children are likely to attend to socially aggressive perpetrators. Human characters
are presumably easier to identify with because they are similar to the self (von Feilitzen
& Linne, 1975), thereby increasing the likelihood that the child viewer will attend to
these characters. In addition, socially aggressive incidents tended to be perpetrated
by females. Several studies have shown that viewers attend more closely to the actions
of same-sex characters and remember more content concerning those characters (see

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

Hofner & Cantor, 1991). This could result in young girls, in particular, attending to
these behaviors because female characters are modeling them. This finding seems to
reinforce the notion that such behaviors are typically perpetrated by girls in real life
(Crick et al., 1996).

In addition to demographics, we also examined two qualities of the perpetrator
that reflected how attractive they were in the program: physical appearance and
behavior in the storyline. In terms of appearance, we found that the majority of
aggressive incidents were perpetrated by characters who were coded as neutral
(e.g., neither attractive nor unattractive). Even so, socially aggressive incidents were
significantly more likely to be committed by an attractive perpetrator. Evidence
indicates that a character’s physical appearance, particularly attractiveness, has
considerable potential to affect impressions because it is generally the first attribute
that comes to the viewer’s attention (see Hoffner & Cantor, 1991 for review). Given
that this study found socially aggressive incidents were often committed by an
attractive character, it seems reasonable to assume that a child will attend to socially
aggressive perpetrators on TV.

When behavior in the storyline was examined, we found that socially aggressive
incidents were committed by blended characters that displayed both good and bad
qualities. This finding suggests that the socially aggressive perpetrators in this sample
are not the traditional ‘‘good’’ or heroic characters we are accustomed to seeing on
television. Research demonstrates that preschoolers, as well as older viewers, assign
more positive ratings to characters who engage in kind, helpful behavior than to those
who behave cruelly or unkindly to another character (Hoffner & Cantor, 1985). What
kind of rating, then, will children assign to characters who display both good and
bad behaviors? Unfortunately, there is no evidence available to answer this question.
Future research should examine children’s interpretation of characters who exhibit
both good and bad motives.

We also examined how often social aggression was portrayed as morally justified
in the plot. We found that fewer than 15% of socially aggressive incidents were
portrayed as justified. There is evidence to indicate that acts that appear to be justified
or morally defensible are likely to facilitate viewer aggression, whereas unjustified
violence can actually diminish the risk of subsequent aggression (Brown & Tedeschi,
1976; Jo & Berkowitz, 1994). Thus, the fact that the majority of socially aggressive
incidents were unjustified may actually inhibit children’s learning of such behaviors.

In terms of the reinforcements delivered for aggression, we found that in the
majority of aggressive scenes (78%), social aggression was neither rewarded nor
punished. When reinforcements were portrayed, only a small proportion of scenes
(17%) presented social aggression as being rewarded. Far fewer of the scenes (4%)
presented social aggression as being punished. Social learning theory predicts that
children will imitate a model if a reward is delivered for performing the behavior
(Bandura, 1965). Moreover, behaviors that are not overtly punished can also foster
imitation because the absence of punishment serves as a tacit reward or sanction for
such behavior (Bandura, 1965). In contrast, portrayals of punished violence can serve

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

to inhibit or reduce the learning of aggression (Bandura, 1986). Taken together, then,
95% of socially aggressive scenes in programs popular with children are portrayed
in such a way that fosters children’s imitation of social aggression. Only a small
percentage of socially aggressive scenes in children’s favorite shows serve to diminish
the learning of such behaviors.

This study found that humor is featured in conjunction with social aggression
in one in four socially aggressive scenes. Although humor is the least understood of
all contextual features, there is some evidence to suggest that humor can increase
viewer aggression (Baron, 1978). Thus, it appears that the serious nature of social
aggression is often trivialized and heightens the probability that children will learn
such behavior from viewing.

Finally, we also assessed whether the negative consequences of social aggression
were portrayed in programs that children watch. As noted earlier, research has
shown that the depiction of a victim’s pain can inhibit the learning of aggression
among viewers (Wotring & Greenberg, 1973). Yet, across two measures, the negative
consequences of social aggression were rarely portrayed.

There are at least two reasons why the consequences of social aggression may
be lacking in such programs. One possibility is that the forms of social aggression
in programs popular with children are simply less serious or benign. However, the
type of socially aggressive behaviors typically depicted in these programs—name
calling, insults, making mean faces—are known to cause serious psychological harm
to victims in the real world (Paquette & Underwood, 1999). Therefore, the sanitation
of social aggression is not due to a difference in the seriousness of the aggression. A
second possibility for the lack of consequences is that social aggression often occurs
in humorous scenes. Given that one in four socially aggressive scenes were couched
in humor, it would be difficult to introduce the consequences to the victim in these
scenes while still keeping the scene funny.

How do these findings compare with previous research? The only two prior
content analyses on social aggression have found, like this study, that social aggression
is prevalent on the programs that children watch. Yet, when this study is compared
to the Coyne and Archer (2004) study, it is somewhat surprising that the prevalence
figures for social aggression are identical (92%) given that we used the more expansive
definition of social aggression and a much larger sample. Nonetheless, this study
sets new benchmarks from which future content analyses of social aggression in
programs popular with children can be compared because of the expansive definition
of social aggression used, the size of the sample analyzed, and the examination of
some contextual features associated with socially aggressive portrayals.

In terms of what social aggression looks like, assessing how this study compares
to the other two studies on social aggression is more difficult. We cannot directly
compare this study to Feshbach’s content analysis because she did not report
what indirect aggression looked like in the programs in her sample. Coyne and
Archer, however, did report the frequency with which different forms of social
aggression occurred, and reported that gossiping accounted for nearly 17% of the

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

total aggressive acts in their analysis whereas name calling only accounted for 9%
of the total aggressive acts. Yet drawing comparisons is challenging because Coyne
and Archer examined social aggression in programs popular with adolescents. There
is evidence to support that older children have the cognitive capacity to understand
more nuanced behaviors such as gossip (Hill & Pillow, 2006); thus offering a possible
explanation as to why gossip was used more in the storylines in their sample.

An additional goal of this study was to compare social aggression to physical
aggression. Although we found social aggression (92%) was significantly more likely
to occur in programs that children watch than was physical aggression (81%), the
rate of physical aggression in these programs was very similar to the rate of social
aggression. Thus, children who watch a typical hour of their favorite programs are
likely to witness more programs that feature social than physical aggression. Within
each show, however, the rate of aggressive incidents is similar.

There were some other important differences in the way both types of aggression
were portrayed. In this study, we found that socially aggressive incidents were sig-
nificantly more likely to be perpetrated by humans than were physically aggressive
incidents. In contrast, physically aggressive incidents were more likely to be perpe-
trated by supernatural creatures than were socially aggressive incidents. This finding
suggests that children may be more likely to attend to socially aggressive perpetrators
than physically aggressive perpetrators because human characters are more similar
to the self and presumably easier to identify with, an important factor associated
with imitation (von Feilitzen & Linne, 1975). Another contextual feature examined
was the perpetrator’s physical appearance. We found that socially aggressive inci-
dents were more likely than physically aggressive incidents to be committed by an
attractive perpetrator. As mentioned earlier, a character’s physical attractiveness has
considerable potential to affect impressions (see Hoffner & Cantor, 1991 for review).
Thus, at least in terms of this one contextual feature, socially aggressive portrayals
that feature physically attractive human characters may pose more of a risk for the
child viewer than portrayals of physical aggression do.

Another important difference between social and physical aggression found in
this study concerns the contextual feature of humor. We found that socially aggressive
scenes were significantly more likely than physically aggressive scenes to be presented
in a humorous context. Here, too, is another example where portrayals of social
aggression may pose more of a risk to the child viewer than portrayals of physical
aggression would. Because there is evidence to suggest that humor may increase
viewer aggression (Baron, 1978), it seems reasonable to assume that viewers may be
more likely to learn socially aggressive behaviors than physically aggressive behaviors
if couched in humor.

To summarize, this study demonstrates that socially aggressive role models are
prevalent on programs popular with children. The findings also suggest that some
of the ways in which social aggression is contextualized poses more of a danger than
portrayals of physical aggression do. Given the large body of research that supports
that heavy exposure to media violence leads to increased physical aggression in

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

children (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Paik & Comstock, 1994), it seems plausible
that children may be at risk for learning socially aggressive behaviors; behaviors
that are more prevalent and just as concentrated as physical aggression in children’s
favorite shows.

Practically, these findings should help parents and educators recognize that there
are socially aggressive behaviors on programs children watch. Parents should not
assume that a program is okay for their child to watch simply because it does not
contain physical violence. Parents should be more aware of portrayals that may not
be explicitly violent in a physical sense but are nonetheless antisocial in nature. Such
content may be encouraging children to engage in behavior that is destructive and
cruel.

Of course, we cannot make firm claims about what types of effects exposure to
these portrayals may have on young viewers. The next step is to ascertain whether
viewing these types of acts is associated with an increase in aggression that is more
subtle and more relational in orientation.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant awarded to N.M. from the Fred Rogers
Scholarship Memorial Fund. We thank Brandi Cooke, Jill Dressen, Rebekah Pure,
and Amy Snyder for their help in program coding. We also thank Dale E. Brashers,
Kristen Harrison, David Tewksbury, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful
contributions.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial
behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12,
353–359.

Anderson, W. H., & Williams, B. M. (1983). TV and the Black child: What Black children say
about the shows that they watch. Journal of Black Psychology, 9, 27–42.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of
imitative responses. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 575–582.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11.

Baron, R. A. (1978). The influence of hostile and nonhostile humor upon physical
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 77–80.

Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as an escape from self. Psychological Review, 97, 90–113.
Bennet, K. (2006). Mean girls. Retrieved from

www.movies.go.com/parentpreviews/review?rid=1189.htm
Brown, R. C., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1976). Determinants of perceived aggression. Journal of

Social Psychology, 100, 77–87.

Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children N. Martins & B. J. Wilson

Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: Wiley.
Comstock, G., & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. New York, NY:

Academic Press.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: A content analysis of

British television programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254–271.
Crick, N. R. (2003). A gender-balanced approach to the study of childhood aggression and

reciprocal family influences. In: A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on
family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. (pp. 229–235). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Crick, N., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children’s normative
beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development,
67, 1003–1014.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 579–588.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family
dispute and resolution. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. (2003). Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and
parasocial relationships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 47, 77–98.

Feshbach, N. D. (2005). Gender and the portrayal of direct and indirect aggression on
television. In E. Cole & J. H. Daniel (Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media
(pp. 155–166). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression
among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589–600.

Galinsky, E., & Salmond, K. (2002). Youth & violence: Students speak out for a more civil
society, summary and discussion guide. Retrieved from http://www.familiesandwork.org

Hill, V., & Pillow, B. H. (2006). Children’s understanding of reputations. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 167, 137–157.

Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1985). Developmental differences in responses to a television
character’s appearance and behavior. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1065–1074.

Hoffner, C., & Cantor, J. (1991). Perceiving and responding to mass media characters. In
J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen (pp. 63–101). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure
to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42,
125–139.

Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal
relations between children’s television exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and
violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39,
201–221.

Jo, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1994). A priming effect analysis of media influences: An update. In
J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects (pp. 43–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. New York, NY:
Sage.

N. Martins & B. J. Wilson Social Aggression in Programs Popular With Children

Marascuilo, J. M., & Busk, P. L. (1987). Loglinear models: A way to study main effects and
interactions for multidimensional contingency tables with categorical data. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 26, 443–455.

Nielsen Media Research (2005). 2005 report on television. New York, NY: Author.
Paik, H. J., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior:

A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’

experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 242–266.

Thompson, G. (2004). Mean girls. Retrieved from www.philly.com/mld/dailynewsliving/
8555723.htm

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,
beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069.

Van Evra, J. (2004). Television and child development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
von Feilitzen, C., & Linne, O. (1975). The effects of television on children and adolescents

identifying with television characters. Journal of Communication, 4, 31–55.
What adults can do (2006). Retrieved from http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov
Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L., et al. (1998).

Violence in television programming overall: University of California, Santa Barbara
study. In National television violence study (Vol. 2, pp. 3–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Colvin, C. M., et al. (2002).
Violence in children’s television programming: Assessing the risks. Journal of
Communication, 52(1), 5–35.

Wotring, C. E., & Greenberg, B. S. (1973). Experiments in televised violence and verbal
aggression: Two exploratory studies. Journal of Communication, 23, 446–460.

Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ DB 7 Schools, Peers, and Media Influences on Childhood Behavior and Beliefs ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now