J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996 Potts 517 28

8/12/2019 J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996 Potts 517 28

1/12

Journal of PediatricP sychology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1996, pp. 517-528

A Content Analysis of Safety Behaviors of TelevisionCharacters: Implications for Children's Safetyand Injury1Richard Potts,2 Duane Runyan, Anne Zerger, and Kenneth MarchettiOklahoma State UniversityReceived September 7. 1994; accepted May 1, 1995

Exam ined frequency and characteristics of safety behaviors in television programspopularwithchild aud iences. A sam ple of52programsw as coded forsafetyevent loca-tion,demographic characteristics of safetymodels,social and physical contextsofsafety events, and successful or unsuccessfuloutcomesof safety behaviors. Resultsindicate an overall rate of 13 safety behaviors perhour with over half of all safetybehaviors locatedincommercial ad vertisements. M ost safety behaviorswereper-formed by male adultcharacters,had limited relevance or children, andwerenot asso-ciatedwitheither positive or negative outcomes.Findings arediscussedintermsoftheir relevancefor observational learning of safety behaviors by child viewers.KEY WORDS: television content; safety; childhood injury.

Television is widely regarded by behavioral scientists as a significant agent ofsocialization in children's lives (cf. Huston et al., 1992; Pearl, Bouthilet, &Lazar, 1982). Children begin learning about the social and physical world fromtelevision several years before beginning formal education. The premise of thisstudy is that television viewing represents an underinvestigated social influenceon children's safety behaviors and injuries. The specific purpose was to describethe incidence and characteristics of safety behaviors of characters in television'A previous version of this study was presented at the meeting of the Southwestern PsychologicalAsso ciation, Co rpus Ch risti, Te xa s, April 1993. The research described in this article was supp ortedby a grant awarded to the first author by the National Institute for Child Health and HumanDevelopment (#R01-HD25426).2AII correspondence should be sent to Richard Potts, Department of Psychology, 215 North MurrayHaJl, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-0250.

5170146 -8693/96/08 00451 7 09.50/0 O 1996 Plenum Publishing Corpcnuon

byguestonJun

e7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


2/12

518 Potts, Run yan, Zerger, and Marcfaetti

programs popular with child audiences. This analysis focused particularly oncontent features that might provide child viewers with information about theutility of modeled safety behaviors in their own daily lives.Un intentional injury is the leading cause of death among c hildren and adoles-cents bey ond the first year of life (National Academ y of Sciences ,1985;Rod riguez,1990). Unfortunately, psychological m echanisms of unintentional injury in childrenare not well understood (Matheny, 1988; Spielberger & Frank, 1992), althoughseveral pediatric psychology sources have delineated frameworks that may guideresearch investigations of both injury ca uses and injury prevention ( e. g. , PetersonMori, 1985; Roberts & Brooks, 1987). For example, one conceptualization ofpsycho logical factors associated with injury includes antecedent conditions of boththe victim (e .g. , emotional state) and the environment (e .g ., darkness , weather),specific characteristics of the victim (e.g., learning history, personality, develop-mental level), the victim's immediate response to the injury, and so on (Peterson,

Farmer, & Mori, 1987). Unintentional injury, or prevention thereof may beinfluenced, either directly o r indirectly, by exposure to television co ntent at severalpoints within suchaconceptualization (cf.A tkin, 1989;Potts & Henderso n, 1991).Knowledge of the safety-relevant messages in commercial television content andhow those messages may influence children's safety behavior shouldbeof consider-able use by pediatric psychologists, child health specialists, and the like.Perhaps the primary mechanism by which television viewing may influencechildren's injury-relevant safety behaviors is obse rvational learning, which occurs

when a child viewer ob serves a TV ch aracter's beh avior and attempts to reproducethe behavior either immediately or at some future time (e.g., Bandura, 1986;Murray,1980;Stein AFriedrich , 1972).Of particular relevancehere aredemonstra-tionsthat televised mod els can increase or decrease childre n's self-control behaviorssuch as rule following (e .g ., Bandura & M ischel,1965; Stein & Friedrich, 1972;Wolf 1973), although self-control of injurious behaviors has not been studiedspecifically. Also relevant are recent findings that exposure to risk-taking TVmodels increased children's self-reported physical risk taking in hypotheticalsituations (Potts, Doppler, & Hernandez, 1994).Am ong the m ost important determinants of behavior change via observationallearning are the rewarding or punishing consequences of a model's behavior(Bandura, 1965). Thus, for child viewers to learn the utility of modeled safetybehaviors, the successful results, that is, injury prevention outcomes, must beappare nt. It is conceiva ble that typical TV content could either facilitate or hinderchildren's observational learning of appropriate safety messages. Television pro-grams m ay present use ful, accurate displays of safety b ehavior, such as charactersbuckling seat belts prior to driving, but may also depict improbable, risky ap-proach es to safetyaswe ll, suchasleaping fromaspeeding carjust priortocollision.Ano ther likely influence of television v iewingonsafety and injury processes isthe gradua l shaping of viewe rs' knowledge and beliefs abou tthesocial and physicalworld, conceptualized variously as the "cultivation of reality" (e.g., Gerbner,

byguestonJune

7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


3/12

Safety Beh aviors In Television Program s 519

Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980; Signorielli, 1990; Signorielli, Gross, &M organ, 1982) and the construction of cognitive "scripts" (e. g., H ue sm an n, 1988;Potts & Masters, 1986, 1991; Potts, Masters, & Henderson, 1989). Many studieshave reported that exposure to recurring TV themes, such as violent conflictresolution or gender-stereotyped behaviors, is associated with similar beliefs infrequent TV viewers (e.g., Freuh &M cG hee, 1975;Greenberg , 1982; Signorielli,1990;Signo rielli etal. , 1982;Tan,1979).A pparently,anytheme thatisconsistentlyportrayed on TV, realistically or not, comes to be regarded by frequent viewers asrepresentative of the real world. Frequent TV portrayals of risky behavior, danger-ous situations, and injury without consequences may influence young viewers toaccept such con tent as valid messages about physical injury and the nee d, or lackthereof for safety and precautionary behaviors.

The above mentioned considerations suggest that television portrayals ofphysical injuries and safety behaviors can influence children's knowledge andovert behavior that may facilitate injury prevention. Thus, it is important todocument the "television reality" of safety behaviors as an initial step in the studyof the role of television in childhood safety and injury. To date, only a smallnumber of studies have addressed this topic. In a content analysis of injuryoutcomes to fictional TV characters, Potts and Henderson (1991) found thatinjuries occurred relatively frequently in children's programs, were likely toresult from intentional assault from other characters, and were not likely to beserious injuries; most victims recovered by the next scene. Atkin (1989) andGreenberg and Atkin (1983) examined patterns of motor vehicle driving in TVprograms, and found that, although a dramatic increase in seat belt usage oc-curred between the 1970s and the late 1980s (from 1% of drivers to 23% ), theoverall majority could not be observed using seat belts. Findings of these studiessuggest that safety-relevant behaviors of characters may not be presented consis-tently or in a manner conducive to social learning of adaptive modeled behavior.

To describe safety-relevant media content available to most children, thepresent study included measurement of psychologically relevant characteristicsof safety behav iors of television cha racters. A content analysis was performed ona sample of Fictional television programs in which all safety behaviors wereidentified. Characteristics and contexts of these behaviors were coded, includingtype of behavior, consequences of the behaviors, relevance of the behaviors forchildren, and demographics of those modeling the behaviors.

METHODProgram Sample

The goal of the television program selection process was a sample that washighly representative of the fictional programs frequently watched by children,

byguestonJun

e7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom


4/12

520 Potts, Run yan, Zerger, and Marchrtti

which, based on recent child viewership research (St. Peters, Fitch, Huston,Wright, & Eakins, 1991), includes situation comedies, action/adventure/drama,and weekday afternoon and Saturday moming cartoons. These programs weresampled from broadcasts by the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, andFox/Independ ent) during 1 week in November 1991.3 Programs were sampledfrom each day of the week; within categories, programs were selected randomly.Selection was also restricted to time periods when the majority of children'sviewing occurs. The sample consisted of programs broadcast between 3:00 -5:00PM (CST) Monday-Friday, 7:00-9:00 PM Monday-Sunday, and 7:00-11:00AM Saturday. Also, because the focus of the study concerned fictional entertain-ment fare, other program types were excluded, such as game shows, newscasts,and talk shows.

To obtain a highly representative sample, a large number of programs fromeach time slot and category were selected. The resulting sample contained 52nonduplicated programs. This represented 66% of the total number of relevantprogram s (n = 77) available during that we ek. The sam ple consisted of8week-day afternoon cartoons (from series that were broadcast every weekday), 32prime-time situation comedies, 6 prime-time dramatic programs, and 12 Satur-day morning programs (10 animated, 2 nonan im ated). Forty-six programs werehalf-hour long, and 6 were 1-hour long; for the I-hour programs, only the firstand third 15-minute segments were coded.

Coding SystemAcoding system was developed to identify safety messages and behaviors andthe contexts of those events. Initially, certain conceptual boundaries were estab-lished in order to facilitate manageable data coding procedures. Specifically, itcould be argued that many behaviorsare,bydefinition, safe, bec ause they representan omission of alternate unsafe behaviors. For example, a character walking on asidewalk m ay be display ing safety behavior becau se she or he isnotwalking in thestreet with traffic. However,thisargum ent would requirethenearly im possible taskof identifying all pos sible alternatives toaspecific behavior, and in fact, virtually allbehaviors have potentially unsafe alternatives. Therefore, the present operationaldefinition of safety events included only behaviors of com mission, where discrete,observab le actions were taken for the specific purpose of preventing personal harm.

Safety content categories included:'Because of the passage of time between the recording of the sample of programs in 1991 and thepublication of these results, it was considered to b e of interest to readers to present information aboutthe continued appearance of the original programs. Examination of current broadcast and cable TVofferings from the same region revealed that approximately 75 % of the original sample was still onthe air, either as a continuing series or rerun programming. Sixty-three percent of the child audienceprograms were still broadcast, while 8 1 % of the general audience programs were still broadcast atthe time this manuscript was accepted for publication.

byguestonJune

7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


5/12

Safety Behaviors in Television Programs 521

Safety Event Location. Safety content was first coded according to the typeof program in which it appeared. A logical and natural basis for grouping pro-grams was the intended audience (cf. Center for Research on the Influences ofTelevision on Children, 1983); weekday afternoon cartoons and Saturday mom-ing programs were clearly intended for child-only audiences, while eveningprime-time programs were intended for family or general audiences. Safetyevents were classified as occurring in either child programs or general audienceprograms. All broadcast material within each half-hour program segment wascoded, including both program story plot as well as commercial advertisementsor other nonprogram material. Safety events were coded as occurring withineither program plot or commercial locations.

Safety EventType.Any safety-relevant behav iors or statemen ts of characterswere coded. Events were coded as either verbal statements ( e. g. , "D on 't try thisat hom e"; "Watch ou t, it's dangerous "), or behavioral enac tmen ts of injuryprevention , such as charac ters buckling seat belts, or jum ping from the path of anoncoming object.Character Demo graphics. Characters visible on screen who modeled safetybehaviors were identified according to demographic attributes. These included(a) species (human, animal, unrealistic/fantasy character); (b) gender (male,female, mixed group); and (c) age (child, teen, adult).Safety Event Context. The surrounding situation in which a safety behavioroccurred was coded for several attributes. Included were (a) harm imminence, orwhether the safety behavior was in response to an immediate threat of harm orwas a precaution against potential future harm; (b) harm agent, or whether thethreat of harm resulted from natural/fortuitous causes or was caused by intention-al interpersonal threat; and (c) relevance to children, or whether or not the safetybehavior and situation would be realistically applicable to the everyday life of atypical child.

Outcome of Safety Behavior. Safety behavior outcomes were coded as(a) successful, if the behavior successfully and clearly prevented harm; (b) un-successful, if the character was harmed despite enacting the safety behavior, or(c) not tested, if the safety behavior was enacted yet no injury agent was presentor no immediate danger ever occurred.Coder Reliability. Two coders were trained on the scoring system using asubsample of the programs and adjacent nonprogram material until they reacheda reliability criterion of 85% agreement on the occurrence of a safety behavior,using the reliability formula of 100 (No. of agreements between two raters x2)/(total events coded by first rater + total events coded by second rater) = %agreement. The first reliability check revealed that the coders were in agreementon 90% of the occurrences, so they proceeded with the final coding effort. Bothcoders independently viewed and measured the entire sample of programs. Onlya few discrepancies (< 10) were noted regarding the occurrence of safety events,and those discrepancies were resolved through joint discussion by the coders.

byguestonJune7,2014

http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom


6/12

522 Potts, Runyan, Zerger, and March ettl

With all safety behavior occurrences thus established, reliabilities for individualcontent categories (e.g., event type, character demographics) were examinedusing the formula described above. These reliabilities ranged from 91-99%,indicating a very high level of agreement of the coders on specific values of eachcontent category.

RESULTSSafety Event Rate and Location. A total of 338 safety events were coded in

the week-long sample. Five programs did not contain any safety content, whilethe remaining 47 contained at least some safety content in either the story line orin adjacent nonprogram locations. The overall rate, across the entire sample, was13.0 safety events per hour. When safety events were grouped as appearing ineither child (n = 20 programs) or general audience (n = 32) program typ es, rateswere somewhat higher in children's programs, at 16.7 per hour, than in generalaudience programs, at 10.7 per hour. Safety behaviors were slightly more fre-quent in comm ercial/nonprogram locations (n = 187, or 55 % of total) than inprogram plot locations (n = 151, or 45% ). Because of the fundamental differ-ences between fictional programs and comm ercial advertisements (persuasiveintent, plot, etc.), separate nonparametric analyse s of each content variable wereperformed for safety events occurring in program plots and those occurring incommercials. Safety event attributes, as distributed across program type (childvs . general audience) and location (program plot vs. commercial), appear inTable I.

Safety Event Type.Th e distribution of verbalversus behavioral safety eventswithin program plots did not differ significantly across program type, althoughslightly more verbal messages appeared in child-oriented programs than in gener-al audience programs. When safety events in commercials were examined, mostwere overt behaviors, and their distribution did not differ according to the pro-gram type in which they were located.

Character Demographics. Because of low frequen cies, fantasy/un realisticcharacters were categorized together with animals. Children's program plotscontained proportionally more safety behaviors by animals/nonhumans than gen-eral audience programs (see Table 1). A similar pattern was observed for safetyevents in commercials. Within program plots, the majority of safety behaviorswere performed by males, and children's programs portrayed more male actorsof safety behav iors than did general audienc e program s (see Table I). In comm er-cials, more males performed safety behaviors than females, but this pattern didnot differ according to intended audience. The majority of characters enactingsafety behaviors in program plots were adults (see Table I). General audienceprogram plots contained more teenage safety actors than children's program

byguestonJune

7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


7/12

Safety Behaviors in Television Programs 52 3

Table I. Distribution of Safety Event Characteristics

Content categoryEvent typeVerbalBehaviorCharacter speciesHumanNonhumanCharacter gender

MaleFemaleMixed groupCharacter ageChildTeenAdultHarm imminenceImmediatePotentialHarm agentNatural/fortuitousHostileRelevance to childrenRelevantNot relevantOutcome of behaviorSuccessfulUnsuccessfulNot tested

1Child(%)

5545

Program plotGeneral( * )

3961X^l) = 3.36, ns3466xH\)81154xH2)12979xH2)4060xHi)6238

xHl) 1882

X 2(D =211663XH2)

982= 58.56,p < .00161309= 8 14,p < .05

93061= 11.84,p < .0021684

= 9.41,p < .018416= 8.02,p < .0056634= 35.59,p < .00116282= 8.78,p < .01

CommercialsChild(%)

2179X2*

8515xH D =741016XH352145XH2)1486

xH8218x ^ C ) =4852

General(%)

2179[I) = 0.00, ns973= 10.26,p < .0017316111) = 2.11, ns

4591= 47.95,p< .001793

1) = 2.44, ns991-- 18.88,p < .0015446X^l) = 0.49, ns

00100XH2)

8488= 9.47,p < .01

plots. In commercials, more children and teens performed safety actions duringchild-only programs than during general audience programs.Harm Imminence. Most safety behaviors in program plots were in responseto potential future danger, although children's programs were more likely than

general audience programs to feature safety in response to immediate danger (seeTable I). In commercials, most harm was potential/future and did not differaccording to intended audience.Harm Agent. The majority of safety behaviors in program plots were re-

byguestonJune7,2014


Downloadedfrom


8/12

524 Potts, Rnnyan, Zerger, and Marcbetti

sponses to natural or fortuitous harm, although children's programs were morelikely to contain safety actions in response to interpersonal hostility than generalaudience programs (see Table I). A similar pattern was observed for safetybehaviors in commercials.Relevance to Children. Children's program plots featured more safety be-haviors that w ere jud ge d irrelevant to children than general audience progra ms(see Table I). The majority of safety behaviors in children's programs were notrelevant for children, while the majority in general audience programs wererelevant to children. In commercials, child-relevant and -irrelevant behaviorswere distributed about equally.

Outcome of Behavior. The majority of safety behaviors were "not tested"and no conseq uences followed, either in program plots or comm ercials (see TableI). Children's program plots were more likely to present both successful andunsuccessful safety behaviors than general audience programs. Unsuccessfulsafety behaviors were presented eight times as often in children's programs as ingeneral audience programs.

DISCUSSIONFrom these findings, we can conclude that commercially broadcast televi-sion programming popular with children does not present optimal portrayals of

safety behavior. Based on social learning principles pertaining to observationallearning, the models in this sample of programs, especially programs designedspecifically for children, do not demonstrate consistently successful behaviors orbehaviors with relevance to child viewers. Perhap s the most important variable inmodeling processes concerns the consequences of a model's behavior (Bandura,1965). The safety behaviors that occurred in this sample of programs were rarely"tested." Because most behaviors were performed as precautions, rather than inresponse to immediate danger, few of those behaviors were followed by eitherpositive or negative consequences. Thus, the utility of the modeled safety behav-iors may no t be apparen t to young view ers. Another factor w hich could influencethe benefits of safe television models is relevance for the observer (Bandura,1986). In the present sam ple, roughly half of all safety behav iors were jud ged tobe irrelevant for child viewers, due to improbable situations, adult occupationalsettings, and so on. Interestingly, the largest proportion of child-irrelevant safetybehaviors occurred in programs intended for child audiences. This is probablydue to the story lines of cartoons, which often featured fantastic characters,bizarre settings, and other improbable events that do not represent typical child-hood experiences. Similarly, many safety models were not human, which mayalso reduce the perceived applicability of their behaviors for young viewers.

Most safety behaviors occurred in response to random or naturally occurring

byguestonJune

7,2014


Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


9/12

Safety Behaviors in Television Program s 525

danger. This pattern is consistent with at least one network 's recent policy, whichencouraged producers of children's programs to substitute natural catastrophesituations for interpersonal aggression (Stipp, Hill-Scott, & Dorr, 1987). Nev-ertheless, many safety behaviors observed in this study were responses to hostilethreat, and most of these occurred in child-oriented programs, which have beenfound repeatedly to contain the most violence of any type of television program-ming (Signorielli, 1990).

Another unexpected finding was the prevalence of safety behaviors in com-mercial advertisements. One interpretation of this is that advertisers may havemore liability concerns than producers of fictional programs. In entertainmentprograms, unsafe behaviors can be presented and claimed to be artistic, dramaticexpressions with no persuasive intent. Commercial advertisements, on the otherhand, are clearly persuasive, and advertisers may be necessarily vigilant for anypossible construal that behaviors in their commercials, whether related to thecentral product message or not, should be imitated.The present findings are limited to simple description ofpotential influencesof television on children's behavior, although TV-modeling effects have beendocumented previously for behaviors relevant to safety and injury (e.g., Potts etal. , 1994;Wolf 1973). Also, the present sample reflects only one season of TVfare; thus, seasonal or historical trends are unknown. However, content studiesthat have focused on interpersonal violence on TV have found strikingly stablelevels over two decades (e .g ., G erb ne ret al., 1980). Content such as violence ordangerous risk-taking, if perceived by the television industry to successfullyattract audiences, is likely to remain as popular fare. It should also be acknowl-edged that the sample does not reflect nonfictional portrayals of injury-relevantbehavior, such as that found in newscasts, documentaries, and the like. Futureresearch efforts should include experimen tal investigations of the impact of safe-ty models on children's injury-relevant behaviors. Also needed are studies of theprevalence of non-TV sources of safety information, such as the frequency ofsafety instruction and modeling by parents (e.g., Garling & Garling, 1995),teachers, or peers, for comparison with television safety messages.

These findings have implications for pediatric psychologists, safety educa-tors, and other child development specialists. At a level of health educationpolicy, safety curricula could incorporate information about media depictions ofsafety and injury, presumably as a contrast to desirable real-life safety practices.Health educators should be aware of the large number of hours that children areexposed to unsafe television models, compared with the small amount of timespent in safety education classes. A framework for this aspect of safety educationcan be found in media literacy curricula (e.g., Brown, 1986), which are designedto educate children about the fictitious and fabricated nature of entertainmenttelevision with the goal of tempering potential effects of undesirable TV modelson children's behavior. Parental coviewing and discussion about TV programs is

byguestonJune7,2014


Downloadedfrom


10/12

526 Potts, Runyan, Zerger, and Marcbetti

also part of media literacy training. The present findings suggest that child-oriented programs present many opportunities for parent-child discussion ofsafety issues. Clinicians should be also aware of safety- and injury-relevantmessages transmitted by television to children, with special attention to childpopulations already at risk for injury. For example, children from lower socio-economic groups have higher rates of injury than middle socioeconomic statuschildren (e.g., Matheny, 1988), and also are known to watch more hours oftelevision than middle-class children (Greenberg, 1986), thus creating additiverisk factors for injurious behaviors.

In summary, this study, along with results of previous content analyses ofinjury-relevant behaviors (Atkin, 1989; Potts & Henderson, 1991), suggests thatfrequency and utility of modeled safe behaviors do not keep pace with modelingof risky and injurious behaviors by television characters. Endangerment of pro-tagonists is a common dramatic device for keeping the interest of audiences(Zillmann, 1980). When those protagonists take risks, disregard safety concerns,yet consistently overcome all foes and obstacles, entertainment potential isheightened, while observational learning of safety behavior is diminished.

R E F E R E N C E SAtkin, C. K. (1989). Television socialization and risky d riving by teenagers. Alcohol, Drugs, andDriving, 5, 1-11.Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of model's reinforcement c ontingencies on the acquisition of im itativeresponses. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycho logy, I, 589-595.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and ac tion: A social cognitive theory.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A., & Mischel, W. (1965). Modification of self-imposed delay of reward through expo-sure to live and symbolic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2, 698-

7 0 5Brown, L. K. (1986). Ta king advantage o f media: A manu al for parents and teachers. Boston:Routledge and Kegan-Paul.Center for Research on the Effects of Television on Children. (1983). CRTTCprogram categorizationsystem coding manual. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.Freuh, T., & McGhee, P. (1975). Traditional sex role development and amount of time spentw i t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y II , 1 0 9Garling, A., & Garling, T. (1995). Mothers' anticipation and prevention of unintentional injury toyoung children in the home. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 20, 23-36.Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The "mainstrcaming" of America:Violence profile No. 11.Journal of Com munication, 30, 10-29.Greenberg, B. (1982). Television and role socialization: An overview. In D. Peart, L. Bouthilet,& J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Ten years o f scientific progress andimplications for the Eighties (pp. 179-190). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.Greenberg, B. (1986). Minorities and the mass media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspec-tives on media effects (pp. 165-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.

byguestonJune

7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/


11/12

Safety Behaviors in Television Programs 52 7

Greenberg, B ., & A tk in ,C . A . (1983). The portrayal of driving on television, 1975-1980.Journal ofComm unication, 33, 44-55.Huesmann, R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggres-sive Behavior, 14, 13-24.Huston, A., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshbach, N., Katz, P., Murray, J., Rubinstein, E.,W ilcox, B ., Zuckerman, D . (1992). Big world smalt screen: The role of television inAmerican society. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Matheny, A. (1988). Accidental injuries. In D. Routh (Ed.), Handbook of pediatric psychology(pp. 108-134). New York: Guilford.Murray, J. (1980).Televisionan dyouth:25 years ofresearcha nd controversy.BoysTown, NE: BoysTown Center for the Study of Youth Development.National Academy of Sciences. (1985). Injury to Am erica: A continuing public health problem.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Pearl, D., Bouthilet, L., & Lazar, J. (Eds.). (1982). T elevision and social be havior: Ten years ofscientific progre ss and im plications for theEighties.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

Peterson, L., Fanner, J., & Mori, L. (1987). Process analysis of injury situations: A complement toepidemiological methods. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 33-44.Peterson, L., & Mori, L. (1985). Prevention of child injury: An overview of targets, methods, andtactics for psychologists. Journal of onsulting and ClinicalPsychology,53 , 586-595.Potts, R., Doppler, M., & Hernandez, M. (1994). Effects of television content on physical nsk-takmg in children.Journal ofExperimentalChildPsychology, 58, 321-331.Potts, R., & Henderson, J. (1991). The dangerous world of television: A content analysis of physicalinjuries in children's television programming. Children s Environments, 8. 7-14.Potts, R., & Ma sters, J. C. (19 86, April).Mass media and children s social know ledge. Presented atthe biennial meeting of the Conference on Human Development, Nashville.Potts, R., Masters, J. (19 91 , April).Television viewing and children s social scripts for conflictand nonconflict situations. Presented at the biennial meeting ofthe Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Seattle, WA.Potts, R., Masters, J., & Henderson, J. (1989, April). Television viewing and children s socialscripts. Paper presented at me biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, Kansas City, MO.Rob erts, M. C , & Broo ks, P. H. (1987). Children's injuries: Issues in prevention and public policy.Journal of Social Issues, 43 ,1 - 1 2 .Rodriguez, J. G. (1990). Childhood injuries in the United States: A priority issue. American Journalof Diseases of Children. 144. 625-626.Signorielli, N. (1990). Television's mean and dangerous world: A continuation of the cultural indica-tor perspective. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New Directions inmedia effects research (pp. 85-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Signorielli, N., Gross, L., & Morgan, M. (1982). Violence in television programs: Ten years later. InD. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, J. Lazar (Ed s.),Televisionand social behavior:Teny ears of scientificprogress and implications for the Eighties (pp. 158-173). Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.Spielberger, C. D., & Frank, R. G. (1992). Injury control: A promising field for psychologists.American Psychologist, 47, 1029-1030.Stein, A., & Friedrich, L. (1972). Television content and young children's behavior. In J. Murray, E.Rubinstein, and G. Comstock (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Vol. 2: Television andsocial learning (pp. 202-317). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Slipp, H., Hill-Scott, K., & Dorr, A. (1987). Using social science to improve children's television:An NBC case study.Jou rnal ofBroadcasting 31 . 461-473.St. Peters, M., Fitch, M. Hu ston, A. C , Wright, J. C . & Eakins, D. J. (1991 ). Television andfamilies: What do children watch with their parents? Child Development. 62. 1409-1423.Tan, A. (1979). TV beauty ads and role expectations of adolescent female viewers. JournalismQuaneriy. 56. 283-288.

byguestonJun

e7,2014

http://jpepsy.o

xfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom


12/12

528 Pott s, Run yan, Zerger, and Marchetti

Wolf T. (1973). Effects of televised model verbalizations and behavior on resistance to deviation.Developmental Psychology, 8, 51-56.Zillroan, D . (1980). The anatomy ofsuspense.In P. Tannenbaum (E d.), The entertainment functionsof television (pp. 133-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

byguestonJune

7,2014


Downloadedfrom

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cristina-miertoiu
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

J. Pediatr. Psychol. 1996 Potts 517 28

Documents