5 5 H] 5 5|! 1 r W 5 5 121 254' .THS. .3352 8535.5 7.5.558: 5P8 BETE‘JE EN TELEVIS? 0N VIEWKG 3Ef5"‘.’.@"5 ”5559 THE W: ER-PEESGNAL 552.55 MUEHCM'IULJ $3? uHILDBEN THESES FOR TS'EE DEGREE OF M. A. MlfiéflfiAN STATE UNIVERSE??? PARKER hEEMENJ 35589 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TELEVISION VIEWING BEHAVIOR AND THE INTER-PERSONAL COMMUNICATION OF CHILDREN BY Helen J. Parker A field study of 79 fifth grade children of Okemos, Michigan inVestigated the relationship between the hours spent watching television and the inter-personal communi— cation of the children. Four testing instruments were used: (1) a teachers' rating scale of the child's relative communicativeness, (2) a forced-choice questionnaire on the circumstances of the students' television watching, (5) a sociogram of each of the four classes, and (4) an aided recall list of television programs. Using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coeffi- 'cient formula, only two significant correlations were found. .The results of the teachers' ratings and the sociograms correlated .50 and the results of the students' Opinions and the hours watched correlated .22. The critical value for .05 significance was .18. Helen J. Parker An inverse relationship was predicted in the hypothesis and was not found, perhaps due to the small size of the sample and the fact that no weekend television viewing was included. These fifth grade children accept and enjoy television and their inter-personal communicating is not adversely effected by their watching on an average 4.39 hours a day. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TELEVISION VIEWING BEHAVIOR AND THE INTER-PERSONAL COMMUNICATION OF CHILDREN BY '00“) Helen J? Parker A THESIS Submitted to ‘Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Television and Radio 1969 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Television and Radio, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. gé??4 ,// p / I / 7/; . 5 LC/[t/XJ , AZJZZLéZ--u-~. -_.l\ Director of Thesis \fi ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Grateful appreciation is expressed to Donald Mac Fadyen, Principal of the Central Elementary School for permission to carry out the study. For their fine c00peration in the actual giv- ing of the tests, thanks are due to Mary Reed, Brenda Brian, Sally Tellman and Gunnard Johnson, fifth grade teachers. Sincere appreciation is eXpressed to Dr. Thomas Baldwin for his advice and guidance. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ' Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IV. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ”PENDIXC O O O O O" O O O O O O O O :0 O 0 O O O O O O 29 iv TABLE I. II. LIST OF TABLES Individual Class Correlations. . . . . . . . . Summarized Results of the Tests of the Survey. Page 20 29 —'v “’vwv- o-vara- r—w-. -- r'a‘ r- -wfi—wv-v-w-NN_ .. -.,.-.V-..v Uwv‘I' m-M'Y. ‘* "'"“ " "w"*fl‘rm‘w A” — . ‘ ‘...-. .. “'- N K. ‘1 WJ __ v V— V "—v -‘ - A CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As a general social ill, Sydney Harris feels "the breakdown of human communication" is far more serious than ‘crime as it attacks "the central nervous system of the social organism whereas crime only effects the peripheries" [1]. AS. I. Hayakawa has placed some of the blame for this breakdown on the number of hours children have been exposed to television. These hours have been taken from "time needed to learn to relate to siblings, playmates, parents, grandparents, or strangers" [2]. -If television viewing is a symptom of this social disease, some remedy must be found. This study of fifth grade children in the Okemos, Michigan school system will attempt to discover and define the relationship between the hours spent in viewing tele- vision and the inter-personal communication behavior of these seventy-nine fifth graders. In most studies the communicating child has been handled with less specific terms, such as: social relationships, social contacts, and social interaction. However, the basic Chg—n“ -fi... ‘ needs for the child in his endeavor to mature is recognized as communicating or socializing with his family members, his peers and other adults. He must test and re-test his limits and learn from others the social requirements to which he must adjust. The longitudinal effects of television viewing were hinted at in Joyce Marion Ridder's conclusions as "What would be the cumulative effect on children's television habits? May they have an impact on society?" She also asks, "What is happening to social interaction among children?" [5]. From many sources we can find evidence that children do watch television and enjoy it. In support of the pOpularity of television for children Florence N. Brumbough, Director of Hunter College Elementary School in New York, surveyed children ages 7 through 11. She asked, "If I could choose only one (books, comics, movies, radios, television) which one would I choose?" [4]. 'Television won and books came in second. Walter Clarke, Cincinnati, Ohio found that the 12-13 year old spends 5-7 hours every day before the television screen. Over a week's time, he Spends 50 hours, 5 more hours than he spends in school [5]. A. C. Nielsen was the source used by "TV Basics" No. 11 and they reported the average viewing time of children was 23.6 hours a week in 1967 [6]. Television has become "a normal part of their lives," says Erna L. Christensen. "We now have a generation of young peOple who have spent a good share of their lives be- fore a television screen" [7]. But, what is happening to the inter-personal communica- tion of the child? Does he talk while watching the screen? Has his play time been cut down? Does he watch television alone? Eleanor Maccoby asked 322 mothers of children aged 14-17 of Cambridge, Massachusetts, "When members of the family are looking at a program, how much talking is there during the program?" Fifty-eight percent said, None or very little, 20%, None except at certain times, 5%, Only_if guests are present, and 11%, Only during certain programs. .She concludes "in general, the amount of inter-personal communi- cation which occurs when peOple are watching television is very small" [8]. Her view is supported by Charles A.'Siepmann in his book, Radio, Television and Society. "There are those who question whether a family grouped in silence around a tele- vision receiver is in any true sense favorably affected in terms of family relationships" [9]. Mrs. Maccoby further defines the child's viewing habits. He usually watches alone, at his own home and the more frustrated the child is, the more time he will spend in front of the television set. The highly restricted middle-class child, if he is not warmly treated, watches a good deal of television. Playtime, both indoors and out, has been cut into by one and a half hours a day. An interesting report was made in 1964 by United States Air Force physicians concerning thirty children suffering from the same complaints: nervousness, continuous fatigue, headaches, loss of sleep, bellyaches, and sometimes vomiting. No virus could be found to be the cause and only after intensive questioning of the parents did the fact that these children were television 'addicts' become clear. They were watching 3-6 hours daily and 6-10 hours on Saturday and Sunday. The doctors recommended total abstinence from tele- vision and in the 12 cases that complied, the symptoms dis- appeared in 2-3 weeks. Dr. Narkewicz talked about the vicious cycle. Television viewing leaves the child too tired to do anything else, but sprawl out to do more viewing [10]. Similar words, 'vicious circle' were used by Himmelweit et al. in a study done in Great Britain in 1958. The circle was made of symptom and effect. Emotional insecurity leads to heavy viewing and the heavy viewer is doing little com- 'municating to help him solve his problem of insecurity [11]. .This British study agreed with Maccoby's findings, but added some description of the child who is an addict to tele-‘ vision. Some of these descriptive words are: 'shy', 'retiring', 'indifferent to school', and 'difficulties in making friends'. All of the terms suggest that the addict is non-communicative. I The British study also found that the early teenage heavy viewer showed some loss in reading skills and some delay in widening social contact outside the circle of his home and family. Matilda Riley and John Riley, Jr. concluded in "A Sociological Approach To Communication Research" that "children with unsatisfactory social relationships tend to retain longer, daydream longer about the fantasy they get from the mass media" [12]. Their conclusion would seem to indicate that once a child leaves the television set, he is still immersed in fantasy limiting his awareness of and communication with those about him. An American study, Television in thgggives of Our 'Children, by Wilbur Schramm, Jack Lyle and Edwin Parker was comparable to the British study in its conclusion on the effects of television viewing on the social relationships of the child. They found that a child tends to go to the tele- vision set to escape pressing problems; "to drain off his discontents" [13]. They concluded that a child with a rela- tively low level of aggression may find it easier to use fantasy to blow off steam and television could provide the outlet. However, the authors admitted-later that television fantasies probably build aggression and frustration as often as they reduce them. Lawrence Zelic Freedman, psychiatrist, believes "those having the poorest relationships with their families and peers would be most likely to immerse themselves in tele- vision as escape and stimulus". He says "the child's task of developing into an adult human being is psychologically far too complex to make it likely that any single stimulus pattern will predictably produce a particular pattern" [14]. It is the purpose of this study to investigate and to learn about the symptom of heavy viewing. Will we be able to conclude that the child who watches a lot of television has a more serious ailment of non-communicativeness, which would indicate that his social adjustment is a poor one? CHAPTER II DESIGN OF THE STUDY Problem: Are the hours spent watching television inversely related to the face-to-tace communica- tion of fifth grade children in a middle class school? To Operationalize the variables in the problem, four testing instruments were used. A complete list of the available programs on the television channels 6, 8, 10 and 12 was prepared. The 'available programs' include those that started at 3 p.m. (the child may view the end of that program) and those that started at 10 p.m. to catch the late watchers. Monday and Tuesday's programs were listed and the testing instrument was given on Wednesday, March 26, 1969. (Huntley-Brinkley News is presented at two dif- ferent times, but was listed just once to avoid confusing the children.) The program lists given to the students follow. (Child's Number) Please check the television programs you watched on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Monday Edge of Night YOu Don't Say One Life to Live Linkletter Show Dark Shadows Al E. Khatt a____ Match Game Mike Douglas Bozo's Big TOp Perry Mason News Password Truth or Consequences .Walter Cronkite Huntley, Brinkley What's My Line I love Lucy Zoorama Spartan Sportlite Gunsmoke I Dream of Jeannie Avengers Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In Here's Lucy Peyton Place Mayberry R.F.D. _ The Outcasts Movie ,Family Affair Carol Burnett Big”Valley Tuesday Edge of Night You Don't Say One Life to Live Linkletter Show Dark Shadows Al E. Khatt Match Game Mike Douglas Bozo's Big TOp Perry Mason News Password Truth or Consequences walter Cronkite Huntley, Brinkley What‘s My Line I Love Lucy ____;_ Assignment Lancer Mod Squad Red Skelton Julia It Takes a Thief Movie ,Doris Day Show N.Y.P.D. That's Life 10 To operationalize the second half of the problem, the face-to-face communication of the fifth grade child, three .testing instruments were planned. They were: an adult's view of the child‘s communicativeness, the teacher, the child's own description of his social contacts and the cir- cumstances of his television watching, and last, a sociogram of the fifth grade child's class. As the opinions of the teachers of these fifth grade children were desired, a rating scale was devised. The teachers were limited by the following definition of face-to- face communication. Communication for the purposes of this study is defined as: one child talking with another child where the second child listens and/or talks back. A rating scale of communicativeness was given to the teachers. The scale is relative and includes just three indexes with the instruction‘that the teacher place approxi- mately 1/3 of the class in each group. The communication level each child maintains was rated as: (1) the child communicates less than average, (2) average (in relation to the rest of the class members), and (3) more than average amount of communication. .A card was given the teachers for each student and the teacher simply circled one of the three categories. -An open-ended and forced-choice questionnaire was used .to probe the child's opinions of his social contacts and 11 the circumstances of his television watching. This type of questionnaire led to unanticipated responses and was aimed directly at the problem. Each child was given a numbered sheet; he received the same number each time and the teacher could assure the children as to their anonimity. The test was planned to appeal to the fifth grade student, short and interesting to take. Because of the importance of the time element within the school system, this testing time was limited to fifteen minutes. Below are the questions asked. 1. How often do you watch television alone? (never, sometimes, often) 2. Do you talk with someone while watching television? (often, never, sometimes) 3. Is it (disturbing, very disturbing, not disturbing) when television interfers with a conversation you're having? 4. Do you ever discuss television programs when the program is over? (sometimes, never, often) 5. Would you rather have a conversation Q£_watch tele- vision? The first four questions were rated according to the amount of communication involved. .Never in question 1, often in question 2, not disturbing in question 3 and often in ques- tion 4 all received three points. Sometimes in questions 1, 2, and 4 plus disturbing in question 3 received two points. One point was given to often in question 1 and to 12 very disturbing in question 3} Ngyg£_in questions 2 and 4 received one point. The score for each child was the sum of these numbers. The last testing instrument was a sociogram of each fifth grade classroom. This soCiogram gives a picture of the child in relation to his peers, as seen by his peers. The test consists of asking each member of the class to name fellow class members with whom he would like to associate in various real-life situations. .According to Mary L. Northway of the University of Toronto, three categories or types of situations and three choices for each category is the best‘ design for the sociogram. Fewer categories or choices pro- duces little differences between children and with more categories than three, the children tend to repeat the same names [15]. Therefore, this sociogram had three categories and they are: (1) Who do you like to play with on the playground? (2) Who would you choose to have a "heart to heart" talk with? and (3) Who would you prefer as a partner on a bus? The child was instructed to fill in the blanks provided with three choices or names of three children from his class he prefers to be with in each situation. Each child makes nine choices; he or she may repeat the name of a friend in each category if he wishes. The results of the sociogram were tabulated and the sociometric scores were arrived at by counting how many 13 choices a child received for each category. By totalling the three categories, you determine the overall sociometric score. These scores are called status scores and will range from O to as high as 20. The data can be interpreted quite easily from a formal data sheet which shows all of the following: number of children who chose each child, number of choices made by each child, number of different children each child chose, reciprocal choices, intensity of choice and sub-groups and cliques. Below is an example of the sociogram sheet-given to each student. .1. Who do you like to play with on the playground? (1) (2) (5) 2. Who would you choose to haVe a "heart to heart" talk with? (1) (2) (3) 3. Who would you prefer as a partner on a bus trip? (1) (2).. (3) CHAPTER III FINDINGS This study was mainly concerned with a possible rela- tionship between the amount of television viewing a child does and his inter-personal communication. .The childrens' own opinions were investigated concerning certain aspects of this relationship. Their answers were interesting, but not conclusive. In response to the first question, "Do you ever watch television alone?" 71% of the 79 children sometimes watched television alone, 20% said they gftgg_watched alone and the remaining 9% ge_v_e_1_:_ watched alone. Since fifth graders are ten and eleven years of age, they are allowed more freedom _in choice of activity. Watching television is one of the preferred activities of these children. .Seventy percent said they would rather watch television than carry on a conversation. Parents would not be likely to object in that they know what the child is doing and where he is. Also, the fifth grade student is not given much homework and his school work does not suffer if he watches several hours of television each day. 14 15 The second question was, "Do you talk with someone while watching television?“ Seventy percent answered sometimes, 24% said often they talked with someone, and 6% replied that they ssyss talked while watching television. Conversation and television seem to go together with these fifth graders. The climate in watching television is not similar to watching a movie. In a movie theatre there is only slight whispering, whereas during a television program in one's home, talking is met with considerably more approval. Following the above train of thought, came the third question, "Is it disturbing, not disturbing, very disturbing when television interfers with a conversation?" The negative extreme was again rejected and only 5% found conversation yssy disturbing. Fifty-one percent‘chose not disturbing and 44% chose disturbing. The breakdown in this case is not all one way, but almost half and half. -Conversation seems to hold its own in this question. The last question was "Do you ever discuss television programs when the program is over?" While 60% of the children said sometimes in response to the question, 32% responded that they often discussed the programs and 8% said they never did. With the last opinion question came a posi- tive direction in relation to using television effectively. Because television plays a major time role in these children's lives, discussion about what they are viewing is important. Paul Witt has said, "Taste and discrimination are learned. 16 Helping children select their television programs thought- fully is one place to begin" [16]. With discussion the child is learning to discriminate not only which programs to watch, but which behaviors in the program itself are acceptable to his parents and peers. Wilbur Schramm et al. found in their study that sixth grade children are still high users, but that the girls are starting to be more reality oriented, seeking newsprint over the fantasy offered on the television set [17]. This sexual difference was evident in this study also. The average number of hours watched each day by the girls was 3.83 hours compared to 4.62 hours watched by the boys. One interesting fact appeared in the target sociograms-- not one line intercepted the dividing line between the boys and the girls. At this age, boys like boys and girls like girls. Himmelweit, Oppenheim and Vince found that heavy viewers were more likely to include children who felt re- jected by their peer group [18]. This study did not provide evidence of their conclusion. Only one isolate (Sociometric Score of 0) watched 7.25 hours which was over the average of 4.39 hours for the group. The five other isolates watched under that average. 'A comparison was made between the average number of hours watched by the five isolates and the five children ‘with the highest sociometric scores of 17 to 19. The finding 17 was that the most popular children watched an average of 5 hours and the least pOpular children watched 3.45 hours. Carrying this comparison idea to the next two groups, semi-isolates (Sociometric Scores of 1, 2, and 3) and the children with medium high sociometric scores (16, 15, 14 and 13), the results shifted. The more pOpular children watched 3.9 hours a day on an average and the semi-isolates watched 4.7 hours a day. No generalization can be made as to a definite relationship between a child's pOpularity with his peers and the amount of television watching that child does. ' The major thrust of this field study was an attempt to discover if there was a correlation between the tests run to define the childrens' inter-personal communicativeness and the average number of hours of viewing over two days. A negative correlation was predicted in conjunction with S. I. Hayakawa's statement that an excess of television viewing was to blame for the teen-agers dropping out of society (see Table II in the Appendix). Each variable was quantified and the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was computed. The correla- tion permits the testing of a hypothesis concerning the relationship between two variables. Five correlations were computed: (1) the teachers' rating score and the students' opinions, coded and scored 18 (2) the teachers' rating scores and the sociometric scores (3) the teachers' rating scores and the hours watched (4) the students' opinions and the hours watched, and (5) the sociometric scores and the hours watched. The hours watched was the average number of hours in two days spent watching television by the 79 fifth graders. Only two correlations were above the critical value of the correlation coefficiefit for 80 degrees of freedom which was the nearest figure to the obtained degree of free- dom available in the table. That critical value is .18 for a two-tailed test, in order to be significant at the .05 level [19]. One of the significant correlations was found between the teachers' rating of the children's communicativeness and the children's sociometric scores. .The correlation was .30 which suggests that the sociableness of a child is recognized by his teachers and appreciated by his peers. A higher correlation would be desirable between these two variables because it would indicate the teachers had a good understanding of the personalities of the students. The low correlation can be_exPlained by the fact that the teachers were unable to divorce themselves from the rating. Children read; differently toward adults and the teacher would quite naturally have a less favorable attitude toward some popu- lar children who are unable to approach and talk easily 19 with him. Conversely, some children do not have many friends ‘their own age, but are comfortable talking with adults. The second significant correlation concerned the stu- dents' Opinions and the number of hours Spent watching tele- vision. The correlation was .22. .Along with this correlation belongs the vote of these fifth graders for television over conversation. When asked which they preferred, 70% chose television and 30% chose conversation. Their reSponses to the voting and the .22 correlation indicate that the 79 fifth grade children enjoy television and match what they say with what they do. The remaining correlations were not high enough to be significant. The crucial correlation score was only .03 showing a non-significant relationship between the socio-' metric scores and the television hours watched. The lowest correlation was between teachers' ratings and the students' opinions, -.006. An interesting result appeared, however, when this sample, small already, was broken down into the separate classes. The sociometric scores, in three classes out of four, correlated negatively with the number of hours spent watching television. The correlations were not significant. Since the groups were small (18, 22, 21, and 18) and the 1 critical values were not achieved, no conclusions can be drawn. .These results with their corresponding critical 20 values for .05 significance are listed below simply because the negative values did appear in three of the four classes. TABLE I INDIVIDUAL CLASS CORRELATIONS Pearson Product Population ' Moment Correlation Critical in class Coefficient Values 22 -.20 .344 21 -.13 .352 18 i .30 .378 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS This field study produced no remarkable results for several probable reasons: the small size of the sample, imperfect testing device and high variance found in the viewing behavior. Any trend with this sample would have to produce a high correlation to suggest the possibility of generaliza- tion to the whole community. Another reason has to do with the testing device. In order to check the viewing habits of these children, a two day aided recall list of programs was administered. One must suggest that a list does not allow for a fully repre- sentative expression of the child's viewing pattern. Had weekend watching been provided for, one might conjecture that the average number of hours would have been higher. Ideally, one would have a longer record of viewing--such as the child's lifetime viewing pattern. The variance in watching was high. One child watched an average of 9 hours in the two day period and two children did not watch any television. This suggests that an .21 22 unnatural viewing period for some of the children may have been recorded in this study. Supervised diaries are an ideal method if prOperly kept over a long period of time. Schramm et al. stated that the unsupervised diary could not be recommended. Aided recall was rated well by Schramm et al. especially if made the day following. Their evidence suggested that the child's own estimate of hours watched tends to be'high, but that this estimate can be trusted [20].‘ ~With these limitations of the study given, did the results still give evidence that the hypothesis was valid? were the number of hours spent watching television inversely related to the inter-personal communicativeness of the fifth grade child? The answer is that no evidence of a significant level was found to support this hypothesis. .Nor do the results point to the Opposite side of the hypothesis either, i.e., if a child watches a lot of television, he is more popular or takes an active role in inter-personal communica- tion. No statistically'valid relationship was found between the two variables tested. Therefore, television does not appear to adversely effect the fifth grader in relation to his communicating, at least, insofar as this particular study indicates. He watches television 4.39 hours a day and enjoys it. He prefers watching television to having a conversation. He sometimes watches television alone. He sometimes talks 23 with someone while watching television. He sometimes dis- cusses the program when it is over. Half of these fifth grade children found it disturbing when television interfers with conversation and the other half were not disturbed. Girls watched about one hour a day less than the boys. The facts that have come out of the study do not support S. I. Hayakawa's allegation that television is to blame for adolescents dropping out of society. Hayakawa maintained that television was a “powerful sorcerer" that bewitches the children into becoming alienated. He stated that television steals time the child needs to learn to relate to his family and friends [21]. These statements are grandiose and perhaps made his speech to the American Psychological Association interesting for that audience. However, the attempt in this study to find evidence to support his allegations proved futile. The study indicates that the child raised with tele- vision as a natural part of his environment has accepted it. Television fits in and does not seem to be shoving aside any basically important element, such as, communicating. Several instances can be found in the test results which illustrate this point. Some of the heavy viewers were 'pOpular with their peers and rated above average in communi- cativeness by their teachers. And yet, some of the heavy viewers were isolates, not popular with their peers and rated less than average in communicativeness by their 24 teachers. Furthermore, some of the popular students and some of the isolates watched little television. The amount of television watching does not appear to be a barometer of a child's success in his inter-personal communication. -Television, according to these findings, is not the scapegoat that S. I. Hayakawa would have us believe. Himmelweit et al. have provided some limitations to the problem. They have said that television ;_.a "barometer to indicate in what way the child's life is satisfactory-- provided it is considered in relation to the child's age, intellectual calibre and background" [22]. Television view- ing may be one aspect of a child's life, which when taken together with all the other aspects, can indicate a child's adjustment. Television viewing is one aspect and may be a healthy one. Schramm et al. substantiate this view with, "It is seldom that the causes of any complex behavior in human beings are simple or single causes" [23]. With 60% of the children saying they discussed tele- vision programs sometimes, and 32% responding that they 2;; s discussed programs, the evidence is there that tele- viSion is a regularly used subject of their conversations. Any activity that takes 4.39 hours a day would get discussed, but the availability of television and the fact that prac- tically all of these fifth graders watch television, makes it the one activity, other.than school and the weather, 25 that has a commonality. Television provides escape from problems, but also provides fodder for the real life activ- ity of engaging in a conversation. At the same time, television interfers with conversa- tion when the child is watching. The group split on this question and so we have a balanced result. Half of the sample prefer not to be interrupted when viewing and half would like to be allowed to converse. Here is evidence for conflict that probably exists to some degree in families' television viewing. Not all members of a family wish to watch television at the same time with the same attentive- ness. Sharing and peaceful family living are practically synonymous and the television set is probably another test of that give and take. Further research in television and its effects on children is desirable. This study has provided some limits. We know there is some doubt as to an inverse relationship between the amount of television watched and the child's communicativeness. .Television viewing cannot be a measure for this activity of children. Other activities, emotional and physical, of children in relation to television need to be investigated. Is there a healthy limit to the number of hours spent in front of the television set? 'Does television provide outlets for the frustrated child? (Schramm et al. hinted at this [24].) 26 Does fantasy on television give the child a needed rest from face-to-face communication? Television cannot be used as a measure of a child's communicativeness, but perhaps in other areas, it can be. Does a child's television viewing match his emotional temperature? When the child is depressed, does he watch more television? Could such an idea be expanded to include whole families? When there are unusual conflicts or stres— ses placed on a family, do the members of that family watch more television? Finally, in learning that 79 fifth grade children spend an average 4.39 hours each day watching television gives plenty of motivation for discovering the why, how, where and when of that watching. .No other single activity consistently takes that much time and perhaps, energy. Further enlighten- ment in that valuable time is most important for parents and teachers. Admittedly difficult to probe, the outcome of such investigation can provide valuable insights. Social research depends on continuity for its value in affecting a deeper understanding of each problem. This study of Okemos, Michigan fifth grade children provided some limits to the unknown, and therefore, has its place. REFERENCES 1. Harris, Sydney. Column in Detroit gree Press, January 25' 1969. ' 2. Hayakawa, S. I. "Kids Turning On," Audience. Time, September 13, 1968, p. 96. 3. Ridder, Joyce Marion. ”Pupil Opinions and The Relation- ship of Television Viewing to Academic Achievement," The Journal o§_§ducation Research, 57 (December 1963), pp. 204-207. 4. Brumbough, Florence N. Hunter College Elementary School Study, Hunter College, New York (1950), p. 20. 5. Clarke, Walter. "Now It's Television," The Journalgof Education, VOl. 133 (May, 1950), p. 155. 6. TV Basics No. 11.” Television Bureau of Advertizing, Inc. New York, 1968. ‘ 7. Christensen, Erna L. Association for Childhood Ed. International: 1954, Bulletin No. 93, Washington, D. C., p. 1. 8. Maccoby, Eleanor E. "Television, Its Impact on School Children," Public Opinion Quartefly, 15 (1951), p. 421. _________ "Why Do Children Watch TV?" Public Opinion Quarterly [1954], pp. 223-234. 9. Siepmann, Charles-A. Radio, Television and Society. ‘ New York: Oxford Press, 1950. 10. Air Force Study. Time Magazine, November 6, 1964, p. 76. 11. Himmelweit, Hilde; Oppenheim, A. N.; and Vince, Pamela. Television and The Child. London: Oxford, 1958. 12. Riley, M. W. and Riley, J. W. Jr. "A Sociological Ap- proach to Communications Research," The Process and Effects of Mass Communications, Ed. Schramm, Urbana: University of Illinois, 1954. 27 wwz- __,. - _- _ —.1_._____ (fir At_." -_ w_———‘—_~'-—v - - 28 13. Schramm, Wilbur; Lyle, Jack; and Parker, Edwin. Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford University Press (1961). 14. Freedman, Lawrence Zelic. "The Effects of Television on Children and Adolescents.“ Unesco, No. 43, Inter- national Association Mass Communication Research, Amsterdam. 15. Northway, Mary L. §_Primer of Sociometry. University of Toronto: 1952. - 16. Witt, Paul. "TV—Let's Make the Most of It," Children and :11, Washington, D. C., ACE (1954), p. 38. a . 17. Schramm, Wilbur; Lyle, Jack; and Parker, Edwin. Television in thg Lives of Our Children. Stanford University Press (1961),Appendix III, p. 214. 18. Himmelweit, Hilde; Oppenheim, A. N.; and Vince, Pamela. Television and the Child. London: Oxford (1958), Chapter 4, p. 388. 19. Meredith, William Melbourne. Basic Mathematical and StatisticalpTables for Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 20. Schramm, Wilbur; Lyle, Jack; and Parker, Edwin. Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford University Press 71961), Appendix III, p. 215. 21. Hayakawa, S. I. "Kids Turning On," Audience. Time, September 15, 1968, p. 96. 22. Himmelweit, Hilde; Oppenheim, A. N.; and Vince, Pamela. Television and the Child. London: Oxford (1958). Chapter.35, p. 396. 23. Schramm, Wilbur; Lyle, Jack; and Parker, Edwin. Television ,1 in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford University ,Press (1961), Chapter 8, p. 146. 24. . Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford University Press (1961), Chapter 7, p. 153. APPENDIX TABLE II SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF THE TESTS OF THE SURVEY .Teachers' Sociogram Students' TV Children Rating Score Opinions ,Hours 1 3 2 9 4.75 2 3 14 8 3.25 3 3 -18 8 5.25 4 3 3 9 5.25 5 3 3 7 5.50 6 3 19 .10 7.75 7 2 .12 7 3.50 8 2 8 8 4.50 9 2 7 7 2.50 10 2 4 9 4.50 11 2 3 8 3.00 12 ,2 15 8 .75 13 1 12 7 .00 14 1 0 8 3.00 15 .1 6 7 5.00 16 1 2 7 2.50 17 .1 2 8 4.25 18 1 14 8 3.00 19 3 14 6 5.25 20 3 16 6 3.25 21 3 8 8 .50 22 3 0 6 3.50 23 3 6 8 2.50 24 3 2 7 6.00 25 3 9 9 1.25 26 3 9 7 4.25 27 3 9 9 1.75 28 2 .17 9 2.75 29 2 4 6 5.25 30 2 10 7 6.75 '31 2 ' 9 7 5.25 32 2 5 6 2.00 33 2 4 9 5.50 34 2 9 9 5.00 35 .1 5 8 2.50 36 1 3 9 5.75 37 2 7 6 9.00 38 1 2 9 4.75 39 .1 6 7 5.75 40 -1 5 8 3.00 continued 29 30 TABLE II (cont'd) Teachers' Sociogram .Students' TV Children Rating Score Opinions Hours 41 2 8 5 5.25 42 1 13 10 7.25 43 2 8 .6 6.50 44 3 9 10 6.50 45 .1 2 7 4.25 46 3 11 7 5.50 47 3 9 6 6.00 48 3 4 9 .50 49 1 12 8 3.25 50 3 11 9 5.25 51 2 10 9 8.50 52 3 4 8 6.75 53 2 14 7 3.25 54 1 12 8 8.00 55 2 9 9 4.25 56 3 17 8 5.00 57 3 15 9 5.00 58 3 5 7 .00 59 2 7 8 4.00 60 1 5 7 3.25 61 1 0 9 1.00 62 .2 14 8 6.25 63 3 18 7 4.25 64 2 9 7 5.75 65 .1 1 8 4.25 66 2 .11 9 2.25 67 2 10 6 4.00 68 2 .13 7 4.50 69 3 6 8 3.75 70 1 13 8 5.25 71 . 2 .11 7 7.75 72 .1 1 7 8.50 73 3 0 8 2.50 74 1 O 6 6.00 75 2 4 6 3.75 76 .1 4 6 5.75 77 1 0 8 7.25 78 1 4 10 .75 79 .1 5 10 7.25 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 31293102320722