Ten things wrong with the ‘effects
model’
David Gauntlett
This article is published in Roger Dickinson, Ramaswani Harindranath &
Olga Linné, eds (1998), Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, published
by Arnold, London. It is a different version of an article which first
appeared as 'Introduction: Why no clear answers on media effects?', in
Tony Charlton & Kenneth David, eds (1997), Elusive Links: Television,
Video Games, Cinema and Children's Behaviour, Park Published
Papers, London.
The article is copyright © David Gauntlett, 1998. Not to be republished
without permission. May be used for educational purposes, provided that
the author and source are acknowledged.
About this article: This essay provides an overview and
restatement of what I was trying to say in Moving Experiences.
The book examines all of the studies in detail, and generally
concludes that the research has failed to show that the media has
any kind of direct or predictable effects on people. This essay
takes a slightly different approach, setting out ten reasons why
'effects research' as we have seen it so far seems to be
fundamentally flawed and is often surprisingly poor. This leads to
a slightly different (implicit) conclusion, that media influences are
something that we still know very little about, because the
research hasn't been very good or imaginative... and so,
therefore, it's still an open question. At the same time, it remains
true that no research is going to find direct or predictable effects.
Viewers wondering what other approaches to media influences
there might be, may want to look at Video Critical, which
demonstrates a new audience research method using video
production, and discusses other alternative approaches.
It has become something of a cliché to observe that despite many decades of research
and hundreds of studies, the connections between people's consumption of the mass
media and their subsequent behaviour have remained persistently elusive. Indeed,
researchers have enjoyed an unusual degree of patience from both their scholarly and
more public audiences. But the time comes when we must take a step back from this
murky lack of consensus and ask - why? Why are there no clear answers on media
effects?
There is, as I see it, a choice of two conclusions which can be drawn from any detailed
analysis of the research. The first is that if, after over sixty years of a considerable
amount of research effort, direct effects of media upon behaviour have not been clearly
identified, then we should conclude that they are simply not there to be found. Since I
have argued this case, broadly speaking, elsewhere (Gauntlett, 1995a), I will here explore
the second possibility: that the media effects research has quite consistently taken the
wrong approach to the mass media, its audiences, and society in general. This
misdirection has taken a number of forms; for the purposes of this chapter, I will impose
an unwarranted coherence upon the claims of all those who argue or purport to have
found that the mass media will commonly have direct and reasonably predictable effects
upon the behaviour of their fellow human beings, calling this body of thought, simply, the
'effects model'. Rather than taking apart each study individually, I will consider the
mountain of studies - and the associated claims about media effects made by
commentators - as a whole, and outline ten fundamental flaws in their approach.
1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards'
To explain the problem of violence in society, researchers should begin with that social
violence and seek to explain it with reference, quite obviously, to those who engage in it:
their identity, background, character and so on. The 'media effects' approach, in this
sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to
lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around.
This is an important distinction. Criminologists, in their professional attempts to explain
crime and violence, consistently turn for explanations not to the mass media but to social
factors such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers.
In a study which did start at what I would recognise as the correct end - by interviewing
78 violent teenage offenders and then tracing their behaviour back towards media usage,
in comparison with a group of over 500 'ordinary' school pupils of the same age - Hagell
& Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders watched less television and video
than their counterparts, had less access to the technology in the first place, had no
particular interest in specifically violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same
material as non-offending teenagers or were simply uninterested. This point was
demonstrated very clearly when the offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be
someone who appears on television, who would you choose to be?':
'The offenders felt particularly uncomfortable with this question and appeared to have
difficulty in understanding why one might want to be such a person... In several
interviews, the offenders had already stated that they watched little television, could not
remember their favourite programmes and, consequently, could not think of anyone to be.
In these cases, their obvious failure to identify with any television characters seemed to
be part of a general lack of engagement with television' (p. 30).
Thus we can see that studies which take the perpetrators of actual violence as their first
point of reference, rather than the media, come to rather different conclusions (and there
is certainly a need for more such research). The point that effects studies take the media
as their starting point, however, should not be taken to suggest that they involve sensitive
examinations of the mass media. As will be noted below, the studies have typically taken
a stereotyped, almost parodic view of media content.
In more general terms, the 'backwards' approach involves the mistake of looking at
individuals, rather than society, in relation to the mass media. The narrowly individualistic
approach of some psychologists leads them to argue that, because of their belief that
particular individuals at certain times in specific circumstances may be negatively
affected by one bit of media, the removal of such media from society would be a positive
step. This approach is rather like arguing that the solution to the number of road traffic
accidents in Britain would be to lock away one famously poor driver from Cornwall; that
is, a blinkered approach which tackles a real problem from the wrong end, involves
cosmetic rather than relevant changes, and fails to look in any way at the 'bigger picture'.
2. The effects model treats children as inadequate
The individualism of the psychological discipline has also had a significant impact on the
way in which children are regarded in effects research. Whilst sociology in recent
decades has typically regarded childhood as a social construction, demarcated by
attitudes, traditions and rituals which vary between different societies and different time
periods (Ariés, 1962; Jenks, 1982, 1996), the psychology of childhood - developmental
psychology - has remained more tied to the idea of a universal individual who must
develop through particular stages before reaching adult maturity, as established by Piaget
(e.g. 1926, 1929). The developmental stages are arranged as a hierarchy, from
incompetent childhood through to rational, logical adulthood, and progression through
these stages is characterised by an 'achievement ethic' (Jenks, 1996, p. 24).
In psychology, then, children are often considered not so much in terms of what they can
do, as what they (apparently) cannot. Negatively defined as non-adults, the research
subjects are regarded as the 'other', a strange breed whose failure to match generally
middle-class adult norms must be charted and discussed. Most laboratory studies of
children and the media presume, for example, that their findings apply only to children, but
fail to run parallel studies with adult groups to confirm this. We might speculate that this
is because if adults were found to respond to laboratory pressures in the same way as
children, the 'common sense' validity of the experiments would be undermined.
In her valuable examination of the way in which academic studies have constructed and
maintained a particular perspective on childhood, Christine Griffin (1993) has recorded
the ways in which studies produced by psychologists, in particular, have tended to 'blame
the victim', to represent social problems as the consequence of the deficiencies or
inadequacies of young people, and to 'psychologize inequalities, obscuring structural
relations of domination behind a focus on individual "deficient" working-class young
people and/or young people of colour, their families or cultural backgrounds' (p. 199).
Problems such as unemployment and the failure of education systems are thereby traced
to individual psychology traits. The same kinds of approach are readily observed in media
effects studies, the production of which has undoubtedly been dominated by
psychologically-oriented researchers, who - whilst, one imagines, having nothing other
than benevolent intentions - have carefully exposed the full range of ways in which young
media users can be seen as the inept victims of products which, whilst obviously puerile
and transparent to adults, can trick children into all kinds of ill-advised behaviour.
This situation is clearly exposed by research which seeks to establish what children can
and do understand about and from the mass media. Such projects have shown that
children can talk intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham,
1993, 1996), and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical and 'media
literate' video productions themselves (Gauntlett, 1997).
3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by
barely-concealed conservative ideology
The systematic derision of children's resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader
conservative project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the
mass media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability today.
American effects studies, in particular, tend to assume a level of television violence
which - as Barrie Gunter shows in this volume - is simply not applicable in other countries
such as Britain. George Gerbner's view, for example, that 'We are awash in a tide of
violent representations unlike any the world has ever seen... drenching every home with
graphic scenes of expertly choreographed brutality' (1994, p. 133), both reflects his
hyperbolic view of the media in America and the extent to which findings cannot be
simplistically transferred across the Atlantic. Whilst it is certainly possible that gratuitous
depictions of violence might reach a level in American screen media which could be seen
as unpleasant and unnecessary, it cannot always be assumed that violence is shown for
'bad' reasons or in an uncritical light. Even the most obviously 'gratuitous' acts of
violence, such as those committed by Beavis and Butt-Head in their eponymous MTV
series, can be interpreted as rationally resistant reactions to an oppressive world which
has little to offer them (see Gauntlett, 1997).
The condemnation of generalised screen 'violence' by conservative critics, supported by
the 'findings' of the effects studies - if we disregard their precarious foundations - can
often be traced to concerns such as 'disrespect for authority' and 'anti-patriotic
sentiments' (most conspicuously in Michael Medved's well-received Hollywood vs.
America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (1992)). Programmes
which do not necessarily contain any greater quantity of violent, sexual or other
controversial depictions than others, can be seen to be objected to because they take a
more challenging socio-political stance (Barker, 1984, 1989, 1993). This was illustrated by
a study of over 2,200 complaints about British TV and radio which were sent to the
Broadcasting Standards Council over an 18 month period from July 1993 to December
1994 (Gauntlett, 1995c). This showed that a relatively narrow range of most
complained-of programmes were taken by complainants to characterise a much broader
decline in the morals of both broadcasting in particular and the nation in general.
This view of a section of the public is clearly reflected in a large number of the effects
studies which presume that 'antisocial' behaviour is an objective category which can be
observed in numerous programmes and which will negatively affect those children who
see it portrayed. This dark view is constructed with the support of content analysis
studies which appear almost designed to incriminate the media. Even today, expensive
and avowedly 'scientific' content analyses such as the well-publicised US National
Television Violence Study (Mediascope, 1996; run by the Universities of California,
North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin), for example, include odd tests such as whether
violent acts are punished within the same scene - a strange requirement for dramas -
making it easier to support views such as that 'there are substantial risks of harmful
effects from viewing violence throughout the television environment' (p. ix). [Footnote:
Examination of programmes in full, sensibly also included in this study, found that
‘punishments occur by the end of the program (62%) more often than not for bad
characters’, however (Mediascope, 1996, p. 15). Despite this finding, and the likelihood
that a number of the remaining 38% would be punished in subsequent programmes, much
is made of the finding that ‘violence goes unpunished (73%) in almost three out of four
scenes’ (point repeated on p. x, p. 15, p. 25; my emphasis)]. This study also reflects the
continuing willingness of researchers to impute effects from a count-up of content.
4. The effects model inadequately defines its own objects of study
The flaws numbered four to six in this list are more straightforwardly methodological,
although they are connected to the previous and subsequent points. The first of these is
that effects studies have generally taken for granted the definitions of media material,
such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' programming, as well as characterisations of behaviour
in the real world, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' action. The point has already been
made that these can be ideological value judgements; throwing down a book in disgust,
smashing a nuclear missile, or - to use a Beavis and Butt-Head example - sabotaging
activities at one's burger bar workplace, will always be interpreted in effects studies as
'antisocial', not 'prosocial'.
Furthermore, actions such as verbal aggression or hitting an inanimate object are
recorded as acts of violence, just as TV murders are, leading to terrifically (and
irretrievably) murky data. It is usually impossible to discern whether very minor or
extremely serious acts of 'violence' depicted in the media are being said to have led to
quite severe or merely trivial acts in the real world. More significant, perhaps, is the fact
that this is rarely seen as a problem: in the media effects field, dodgy 'findings' are
accepted with an uncommon hospitality.
5. The effects model is often based on artificial studies
Since careful sociological studies of media effects require amounts of time and money
which limit their abundance, they are heavily outnumbered by simpler studies which are
usually characterised by elements of artificiality. Such studies typically take place in a
laboratory, or in a 'natural' setting such as a classroom but where a researcher has
conspicuously shown up and instigated activities, neither of which are typical
environments. Instead of a full and naturally-viewed television diet, research subjects are
likely to be shown selected or specially-recorded clips which lack the narrative meaning
inherent in everyday TV productions. They may then be observed in simulations of real
life presented to them as a game, in relation to inanimate objects such as Bandura's
famous 'bobo' doll, or as they respond to questionnaires, all of which are unlike
interpersonal interaction, cannot be equated with it, and are likely to be associated with
the previous viewing experience in the mind of the subject, rendering the study invalid.
Such studies also rely on the idea that subjects will not alter their behaviour or stated
attitudes as a response to being observed or questioned. This naive belief has been shown
to be false by researchers such as Borden (1975) who have demonstrated that the
presence, appearance and gender of an observer can radically affect children's
behaviour.
6. The effects model is often based on studies with misapplied
methodology
Many of the studies which do not rely on an experimental method, and so may evade the
flaws mentioned in the previous section, fall down instead by applying a methodological
procedure wrongly, or by drawing inappropriate conclusions from particular methods. The
widely-cited longitudinal panel study by Huesmann, Eron and colleagues (Lefkowitz,
Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1972, 1977), for example, has been less famously slated for
failing to keep to the procedures, such as assessing aggressivity or TV viewing with the
same measures at different points in time, which are necessary for their statistical
findings to have any validity (Chaffee, 1972; Kenny, 1972). [Footnote: A longitudinal
panel study is one in which the same group of people (the panel) are surveyed and/or
observed at a number of points over a period of time]. The same researchers have also
failed to adequately account for why the findings of this study and those of another of
their own studies (Huesmann, Lagerspetz & Eron, 1984) absolutely contradict each other,
with the former concluding that the media has a marginal effect on boys but no effect on
girls, and the latter arguing the exact opposite (no effect on boys, but a small effect for
girls). They also seem to ignore that fact that their own follow-up of their original set of
subjects 22 years later suggested that a number of biological, developmental and
environmental factors contributed to levels of aggression, whilst the mass media was not
even given a mention (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984). These astounding
inconsistencies, unapologetically presented by perhaps the best-known researchers in this
area, must be cause for considerable unease about the effects model. More careful use
of the same methods, such as in the three-year panel study involving over 3,000 young
people conducted by Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp & Rubens (1982a, 1982b), has only
indicated that significant media effects are not to be found.
Another misuse of method occurs when studies which are simply unable to show that one
thing causes another are treated as if they have done so. Correlation studies are typically
used for this purpose. Their finding that a particular personality type is also the kind of
person who enjoys a certain kind of media, is quite unable to show that the latter causes
the former, although psychologists such as Van Evra (1990) have casually assumed that
this is probably the case. There is a logical coherence to the idea that children whose
behaviour is antisocial and disruptional will also have a greater interest in the more violent
and noisy television programmes, whereas the idea that the behaviour is a product of
these programmes lacks both this rational consistency, and the support of the studies.
7. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions
of violence
In addition to the point that 'antisocial' acts are ideologically defined in effects studies (as
noted in section three above), we can also note that the media depictions of 'violence'
which the effects model typically condemns are limited to fictional productions. The acts
of violence which appear on a daily basis on news and serious factual programmes are
seen as somehow exempt. The point here is not that depictions of violence in the news
should necessarily be condemned in just the same, blinkered way, but rather to draw
attention to another philosophical inconsistency which the model cannot account for. If
the antisocial acts shown in drama series and films are expected to have an effect on the
behaviour of viewers, even though such acts are almost always ultimately punished or
have other negative consequences for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the
antisocial activities which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such
apparent consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects.
8. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses
Surveys typically show that whilst a certain proportion of the public feel that the media
may cause other people to engage in antisocial behaviour, almost no-one ever says that
they have been affected in that way themselves. This view is taken to extremes by
researchers and campaigners whose work brings them into regular contact with the
supposedly corrupting material, but who are unconcerned for their own well-being as they
implicitly 'know' that the effects will only be on 'other people'. Insofar as these others are
defined as children or 'unstable' individuals, their approach may seem not unreasonable; it
is fair enough that such questions should be explored. Nonetheless, the idea that it is
unruly 'others' who will be affected - the uneducated? the working class? - remains at the
heart of the effects paradigm, and is reflected in its texts (as well, presumably, as in the
researchers' overenthusiastic interpretation of weak or flawed data, as discussed above).
George Gerbner and his colleagues, for example, write about 'heavy' television viewers
as if this media consumption has necessarily had the opposite effect on the weightiness of
their brains. Such people are assumed to have no selectivity or critical skills, and their
habits are explicitly contrasted with preferred activities: 'Most viewers watch by the
clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or follow
established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose a book, a
movie or an article' (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986, p.19). This view, which
knowingly makes inappropriate comparisons by ignoring the serial nature of many TV
programmes, and which is unable to account for the widespread use of TV guides and
VCRs with which audiences plan and arrange their viewing, reveals the kind of elitism
and snobbishness which often seems to underpin such research. The point here is not that
the content of the mass media must not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience
themselves are not well served by studies which are willing to treat them as potential
savages or actual fools.
9. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of
the media
A further fundamental flaw, hinted at in points three and four above, is that the effects
model necessarily rests on a base of reductive assumptions and unjustified stereotypes
regarding media content. To assert that, say, 'media violence' will bring negative
consequences is not only to presume that depictions of violence in the media will always
be promoting antisocial behaviour, and that such a category exists and makes sense, as
noted above, but also assumes that the medium holds a singular message which will be
carried unproblematically to the audience. The effects model therefore performs the
double deception of presuming (a) that the media presents a singular and clear-cut
'message', and (b) that the proponents of the effects model are in a position to identify
what that message is.
The meanings of media content are ignored in the simple sense that assumptions are
made based on the appearance of elements removed from their context (for example,
woman hitting man equals violence equals bad), and in the more sophisticated sense that
even in context the meanings may be different for different viewers (woman hitting man
equals an unpleasant act of aggression, or appropriate self-defence, or a triumphant act
of revenge, or a refreshing change, or is simply uninteresting, or any of many further
alternative readings). In-depth qualitative studies have unsurprisingly given support to the
view that media audiences routinely arrive at their own, often heterogeneous,
interpretations of everyday media texts (e.g. Buckingham, 1993, 1996; Hill, 1997;
Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash & Weaver, 1992; Gray, 1992; Palmer, 1986). Since the
effects model rides roughshod over both the meanings that actions have for characters in
dramas and the meanings which those depicted acts may have for the audience
members, it can retain little credibility with those who consider popular entertainment to
be more than just a set of very basic propaganda messages flashed at the audience in the
simplest possible terms.
10. The effects model is not grounded in theory
Finally, and underlying many of the points made above, is the fundamental problem that
the entire argument of the 'effects model' is substantiated with no theoretical reasoning
beyond the bald assertions that particular kinds of effects will be produced by the media.
The basic question of why the media should induce people to imitate its content has never
been adequately tackled, beyond the simple idea that particular actions are 'glamorised'.
(Obviously, antisocial actions are shown really positively so infrequently that this is an
inadequate explanation). Similarly, the question of how merely seeing an activity in the
media would be translated into an actual motive which would prompt an individual to
behave in a particular way is just as unresolved. The lack of firm theory has led to the
effects model being based in the variety of assumptions outlined above - that the media
(rather than people) is the unproblematic starting-point for research; that children will be
unable to 'cope' with the media; that the categories of 'violence' or 'antisocial behaviour'
are clear and self-evident; that the model's predictions can be verified by scientific
research; that screen fictions are of concern, whilst news pictures are not; that
researchers have the unique capacity to observe and classify social behaviour and its
meanings, but that those researchers need not attend to the various possible meanings
which media content may have for the audience. Each of these very substantial problems
has its roots in the failure of media effects commentators to found their model in any
coherent theory.
So what future for research on media influences?
The effects model, we have seen, has remarkably little going for it as an explanation of
human behaviour, or of the media in society. Whilst any challenging or apparently illogical
theory or model reserves the right to demonstrate its validity through empirical data, the
effects model has failed also in that respect. Its continued survival is indefensible and
unfortunate. However, the failure of this particular model does not mean that the impact
of the mass media can no longer be considered or investigated.
The studies by Greg Philo and Glasgow University Media Group colleagues, for example,
have used often imaginative methods to explore the influence of media presentations
upon perceptions and interpretations of factual matters (e.g. Philo, 1990; Philo, ed., 1996).
I have realised rather late that my own study (Gauntlett, 1997) in which children made
videos about the environment, which were used as a way of understanding the discourses
and perspectives on environmentalism which the children had acquired from the media,
can be seen as falling broadly within this tradition. The strength of this work is that it
operates on a terrain different from that occupied by the effects model; even at the most
obvious level, it is about influences and perceptions, rather than effects and behaviour.
However, whilst such studies may provide valuable reflections on the relationship
between mass media and audiences, they cannot - for the same reason - directly
challenge claims made from within the 'effects model' paradigm (as Miller & Philo (1996)
have misguidedly supposed). This is not a weakness of these studies, of course; the
effects paradigm should be left to bury itself whilst prudent media researchers move on
to explore these other areas.
Any paradigm which is able to avoid the flaws and assumptions which have inevitably
and quite rightly ruined the effects model is likely to have some advantages. With the rise
of qualitative studies which actually listen to media audiences, we are seeing the
advancement of a more forward-thinking, sensible and compassionate view of those who
enjoy the mass media. After decades of stunted and rather irresponsible talk about media
'effects', the emphasis is hopefully changing towards a more sensitive but rational
approach to media scholarship.
References
Ariés, Phillippe (1962), Centuries of Childhood, translated by Robert Baldick, Jonathan Cape,
London.
Barker, Martin, ed. (1984), The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media, Pluto,
London.
Barker, Martin (1989), Comics: Ideology, Power and the Critics, Manchester University Press,
Manchester.
Barker, Martin (1993), 'Sex Violence and Videotape', in Sight and Sound, vol. 3, no. 5 (New series;
May 1993), pp. 10-12.
Borden, Richard J. (1975), 'Witnessed Aggression: Influence of an Observer's Sex and Values on
Aggressive Responding', in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp.
567-573.
Buckingham, David (1993), Children Talking Television: The Making of Television Literacy, The
Falmer Press, London.
Buckingham, David (1996), Moving Images: Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to
Television, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Gauntlett, David (1995a), Moving Experiences: Understanding Television's Influences and Effects,
John Libbey, London.
Gauntlett, David (1995b), '"Full of very different people all mixed up together": Understanding
community and environment through the classroom video project', in Primary Teaching Studies,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 8-13.
Gauntlett, David (1995c), A Profile of Complainants and their Complaints, BSC Research
Working Paper No. 10, Broadcasting Standards Council, London.
Gauntlett, David (1997), Video Critical: Children, the Environment and Media Power, John
Libbey Media, Luton.
Gerbner, George; Gross, Larry; Morgan, Michael, & Signorielli, Nancy (1986), 'Living with
Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process', in Bryant, Jennings, & Zillmann, Dolf, eds,
Perspectives on Media Effects, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Gerbner, George (1994), 'The Politics of Media Violence: Some Reflections', in Linné, Olga, &
Hamelink, Cees J., eds, Mass Communication Research: On Problems and Policies: The Art of
Asking the Right Questions, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey.
Gray, Ann (1992), Video Playtime: The Gendering of a Leisure Technology, Routledge, London.
Griffin, Christine (1993), Representations of Youth: The Study of Youth and Adolescence in Britain
and America, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hagell, Ann, & Newburn, Tim (1994), Young Offenders and the Media: Viewing Habits and
Preferences, Policy Studies Institute, London.
Hill, Annette (1997), Shocking Entertainment: Viewer Response to Violent Movies, John Libbey
Media, Luton.
Huesmann, L. Rowell; Eron, Leonard D.; Lefkowitz, Monroe M., & Walder, Leopold O. (1984),
'Stability of Aggression Over Time and Generations', in Developmental Psychology, vol. 20, no. 6,
pp. 1120-1134.
Jenks, Chris (1982), 'Introduction: Constituting the Child', in Jenks, Chris, ed., The Sociology of
Childhood, Batsford, London.
Jenks, Chris (1996), Childhood, Routledge, London.
Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; Eron, Leonard D.; Walder, Leopold O., & Huesmann, L. Rowell (1972),
'Television Violence and Child Aggression: A Followup Study', in Comstock, George A., &
Rubinstein, Eli A., eds, Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, Volume III:
Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness, National Institute of Mental Health, Maryland.
Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; Eron, Leonard D.; Walder, Leopold O., & Huesmann, L. Rowell (1977),
Growing Up To Be Violent: A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Aggression, Pergamon
Press, New York.
Mediascope, Inc. (1996), National Television Violence Study Executive Summary 1994-95,
Mediascope, California.
Medved, Michael (1992), Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional
Values, HarperCollins, London.
Milavsky, J. Ronald; Kessler, Ronald C.; Stipp, Horst H., & Rubens, William S. (1982a), Television
and Aggression: A Panel Study, Academic Press, New York.
Milavsky, J. Ronald; Kessler, Ronald; Stipp, Horst, & Rubens, William S. (1982b), 'Television and
Aggression: Results of a Panel Study', in Pearl, David; Bouthilet, Lorraine, & Lazar, Joyce, eds,
Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties,
Volume 2: Technical Reviews, National Institute of Mental Health, Maryland.
Miller, David, & Philo, Greg (1996), 'The Media Do Influence Us' in Sight and Sound, vol. 6, no. 12
(December 1996), pp. 18-20.
Palmer, Patricia (1986), The Lively Audience: A Study of Children Around the TV Set, Allen &
Unwin, Sydney.
Philo, Greg (1990), Seeing and Believing: The Influence of Television, Routledge, London.
Philo, Greg, ed. (1996), Media and Mental Distress, Longman, London.
Piaget, Jean (1926), The Language and Thought of the Child, Harcourt Brace & Company, New
York.
Piaget, Jean (1929), The Child's Conception of the World, Routledge, London.
Schlesinger, Philip; Dobash, R. Emerson; Dobash, Russell P. , & Weaver, C. Kay (1992), Women
Viewing Violence, British Film Institute Publishing, London.
Van Evra, Judith (1990), Television and Child Development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, New Jersey.
