MEDIATED AND UNMEDIATED SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON, MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MICHAEL E. ROLOFF 1975 " HEi‘iIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled Ix'ediated and Unmediated Social Influences On Llodes of Conflict Resolution presented by Liichael E . Roloff has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Communication MM C Major [profesépl 0-7639 ‘ t EIBRARY Echigan Sula University IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1293 01066 0714 MEDIATED AND UNMEDIATED SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION By Michael E. Roloff This dissertation focused on two questions: (1) What are pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution? (2) What are the social influences on a person's decision to use a mode of conflict resolution? Pro-social behavior was conceptualized as acts facilitating cooperation and individual and relational growth. Anti-social acts impede cooperation and indi- vidual and relational growth. Conflict resolution was defined as an attempt by one or more people in a rela- tionship to achieve some solution to perceived contra- dictory attitudes or behaviors. Three pro-social modes of conflict resolution were hypothesized to exist: reasoned discourse, for- giveness and seeking help. Four anti-social modes of conflict resolution were hypothesized to exist: verbal aggression, physical aggression, internalization and withdrawal. Using social learning theory, mediated, unmedi- ated and contextual influences were hypothesized. Three Michael E. Roloff television program.types were hypothesized to affect the choice of modes of conflict resolution: action/adventure, family and situation comedy programs. Three unmediated influences were hypothesized to exist: perceived parental discipline, perceived peer mode usage and per- ceived parental media intervention. Sex differences of mode usage were also hypothe- sized. Two contextual variables were hypothesized to affect the mode usage: conflict with a stranger and conflict with a friend. Data were collected at two points in time from two groups of high school students. ‘At time one, 175 high school juniors responded to an instrument develop- ment questionnaire. At time two, 333 high school sophomores participated in the actual survey adminis- tration. The results indicated one pro-social mode of conflict resolution (pro-social) and four anti-social modes (verbal aggression, physical aggression, regres- sion and revenge). These modes were significantly influenced by how the adolescent perceived favorite television characters, peer modes of conflict resolution and parental discipline. Four TV viewing patters (ABC Action/Adventure, CBS Action/Adventure, Family Pro-Social and Situation Comedy) were weaky related to ego's modes Michael E. Roloff of conflict resolution. Perceived parental media inter- vention slightly influenced adoption of TV modes of conflict resolution. A multiple regression indicated social influences predicted pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution equally well. Sex and contextual differences were also observed for the use of modes of conflict resolution. MEDIATED AND UNMEDIATED SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION By C2 Q C, Michael 13‘. R0 loff A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1975 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. MICQAW. , Director bf’Dgssertaf on Guidance Committee: 11$:meaiN;:gE;$1fimlflugK//, Chairman To Karen ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people, four in particular, who have been instrumental in my entire doctoral program and in this dissertation; I shall always be in their debt: Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg has been a great influ- ence in terms of his contributions to my academic endeavors. Dr. Greenberg's own broad research interests and talents served to expand my abilities and interests and afford me many valuable experiences and opportunities. His guidance, support, advice, assistance and friendship throughout my studies at Michigan State have been invaluable. Dr. Gerald R. Miller has also been very influ- ential in my academic development. He has provided several opportunities for additional work in interpersonal communication which have been enriching and rewarding experiences. His support and criticism have been of great value. Moreover, assisting Dr. Miller in the classroom broadened my teaching methodology and furthered our friendship. Dr. Joseph Woelfel has contributed to my knowledge and understanding of methodology. His insightful sugges- tions helped to refine this and other research projects. iii Dr. Frederick Waisanen's perspective from the Sociology Department has been of inestimable assistance in developing and writing this dissertation. These men were all members of my doctoral guidance committee. They and their colleagues contributed much to provide me with a well-rounded educational experience. I consider myself very fortunate to have studied with and learned from each of them and I count them as my friends. Several other people were very helpful during the actual data collection. Mr. Carl Riddle, Principal of Terre Haute North Vigo High School was instrumental in seeing that the students were assembled at agreed upon times and places so that administration of the question- naire could proceed smoothly. The teachers and staff of Terre Haute North were also very helpful. Three friends helped with the data collection and they deserve a note of thanks; without the assistance of Donita Hadley, Karen Dunnagan and Robert Jerry, the data collection would have been a much more difficult task. I owe special thanks to my parents and family who have been supportive financially and morally throughout my education. My father even saved the day for the second wave of data collection when the "Farewell to Seniors" assembly seemed to take precedence. Finally, my wife, Karen, deserves a great deal of recognition and appreciation. She endured the strains iv of data collection, coding, writing, editing and.rewrit- ing. She deciphered my scrawl, tolerated my literary inconsistencies and corrected my erratic spelling. She was a constant source of encouragement and inspiration. I owe her much. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Rationale . . Modes of Interpersonal Conflict Resolution . . . Social Learning Theory II. METHODOLOGY . Description of Respondents Design . . . . . III. RESULTS Television Influence Perceived Parental Discipline Perceived Parental Intervention in Media Behavior . . Perceived Peer Influence . Combined Social Learning Influence. Sex Differences Contextual Differences IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Theoretical Issues Future Research Issues Practical Issues APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY vi Page vii xi xii 103 105 112 123 130 130 159 164 170 211 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES .Instrument Development Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived TV Character and Ego Use of Conflict Resolution Items Instrument Development Varimax Factors for Perceived TV Character's Use of Conflict Resolution Items Instrument Development Varimax Factors for Ego Use of Conflict Resolution Items Instrument Development Reliability for Three- and Four-Item Modes of Conflict Resolution . Instrument Development t-Test, ANOVA for Repeated Measures, Scheffé Method of Selected Comparisons and Discriminant Analysis for Comparison of Action/ Adventure Characters and Situation Comedy Characters Instrument Development Canonical Correla- tions Between Perceived TV Characterfs and Ego's Use of Conflict Resolution Items, Pearson and Canonical Correla- tions Between Perceived TV Character's and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution Survey Administration Means and Standard Deviations for Viewing of TV Programs Survey Administration Varimax Factors for Television Viewing Patterns Survey Administration t-Tests Between Respondents With Cable Television and Respondents Without Cable Television for All TV Programs . . . . Survey Administration Reliability for Reduced TV Program Viewing Patterns vii Page 42 45 49 54 58 63 68 69 73 75 Table 11. 12. 13A. 13B. 14. 15. 16A. 163. 16C. 17. 18A. Survey Administration Reliability for Ego's Medea of Conflict Resolution With Stranger . . . . . . Survey Administration Reliability for Per- ceived Peer Modes of Conflict Resolution . . . . . Survey Administration Means, Modes and Standard Deviaions for Perceived Parental Media Intervention Items Survey Administration Inter-Item Correla- tions Among Perceived Parental Media Intervention Items . . . . Survey Administration Reliability for Perceived Parental Modes of Discipline Survey Administration Reliability for Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution With Friend . . . . . Pearson Correlations Between Ego's Program Viewing Clusters and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Action/Adventure Programs Pearson Correlations Between Ego's Program Viewing Clusters and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Family Pro-Social Programs 7 Pearson Correlations Between Ego's Program Viewing Clusters and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution with Stranger and Friend for Situation Comedy Programs Pearson Correlations Between Perceived Parental Modes of Discipline and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution With Strangers and Friends and t-Test Between Correlations Partial Correlations Between Viewing Pat- terns and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution With Strangers, Controlling for Perceived Parental Intervention viii Page 76 78 80 81 82 83 87 89 91 94 98 Table Page 183. Partial Correlations Between Viewing Pat- terns and Ego's Modes of Conflict Reso- lution With Friend, Controlling for Perceived Parental Intervention . . . . 99 180. Frequency of Best Control Combination for Perceived Parental Intervention Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 19. Pearson Correlations Between Perceived Peer Use of Modes of Conflict Resolution and Ego's use of Modes of Conflict Reso- lution With Stranger and Friend and t-Test Between Correlations . . . . . 104 20. Multiple Ris for Combined Social Learning Influences for All Modes of Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 106 21A. Multiple R's for Combined Social Learning Influences for Verbal Aggression With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . 107 213.. Multiple R's for Combined Social Learning Influences for Pro-Social With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . 108 21C. Multiple R' s for Combined Social Learning Influences for Physical Aggression With Stranger and Friend . . . . 109 21D. Multiple Ris for Combined Social Learning Influences for Regression With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . 110 21E. Multiple R's for Combined Social Learning Influences for Revenge With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . 111 22. t-Test, Discriminant Analysis, ANOVA for Repeated Measures and Scheffé Method of Selected Comparisons for Sex Differences . . . . . . . . . . 114 23. t-Test, ANOVA for Repeated Measures and Scheffé Method of Selected Comparisons for Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . 124 ix Table Page 24A. Significance of Difference Between Correla- tions of ABC Action/Adventure Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV . . . . . . . . . . . 143 24B. Significance of Difference Between Correla- tions of CBS Action/Adventure Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV . . . . . . . 144 24C. Significance of Difference Between Correla- tions of Family Pro-Social Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV . . . . . . . . 147 24D. Significance of Difference Between Correla- tions of Situation Comedy Programs and Mbdes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV . . . . . . . . 149 25. Correlations Between Number of High School Group Affiliations and Modes of Con- flict Resolution With Stranger and Friend . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Newcomb's A-B-X Model 2. Modes of Conflict Resolution and Social Learning Influences 3. Modes of Conflict Resolution and Their Items . . . . . . . . 4. Instrument Development Reduced Three- and Four-Item Modes of Conflict Resolution . 5. Predicted and Obtained Modes of Conflict Resolution . . . . . . . 6. Instrument Development Reduced Program Clusters . xi Page 11 34 48 53 56 74 Appendix A. Instrument Development Questionnaire B. Instrument Development Correlation Matrix for TV Character's Modes of Conflict Resolution . . . . . . C. Instrument Development Correlation Matrix for Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution . D. Survey Administration Questionnaire E. Survey Administration Correlation Matrix LIST OF APPENDICES for TV Viewing Patterns xii Page 171 182 187 192 205 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Crime is increasing. The increase in violent crime in the last five years is particularly disturbing: murder has increased 42 percent; rape is up 62 percent; aggravated assaults are up 47 percent.1 These startling increases in crime have prompted a great deal of concern about how people resolve their conflicts. Much research has focused on the causes of aggression and the decision to use aggression as a mode of conflict resolution (Berkowitz, 1962). Considerable research has also focused on other modes of conflict resolution such as cooperation (Marwell and Schmitt, 1975). This dissertation investigates the available modes of conflict resolution and what influences their use. The modes of conflict resolution are examined as communication behaviors with others as well as inter- action with self. The sources of influence on the modes of conflict resolution deal with mediated (television) and unmediated (familial and peer) communication sources. 1FBI Uniform Crime Statistics: 1973 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974). The modes of conflict resolution are examined in light of their social desirability and a model of the influences on their use is empirically tested. This chapter deals with three issues: the rationale for studying the social desirability of the modes of conflict resolution, the available modes of conflict resolution and a model of influences on the use of modes of conflict resolution. Rationale Much research has been conducted on the roots of aggression. The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer and Sears, 1939; Berko- witz, 1962; Berkowitz, 1969) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1962; Bandura, 1971; Bandura, 1973) have been used extensively to predict aggression. Further, a group of psychologists combined their thinking and research in The Control of Aggression (Knutson, 1973) which focused on methods for the curtailment of aggression. While this interest in understanding and control- ling aggression is of great importance (the crime statis- tics underscore its importance), it deals with only part of the problem" It is also important to investigate ways in which pro-social behaviors may be facilitated. When we think of social behavior or interaction between people, we can discriminate between two types of behavior:- pro-social and anti-social. Pro- social behavior encompasses those acts which facilitate cooperation and individual and relational growth; pro- social acts can be characterized as friendly, coopera- tive, non-violent and open. Anti—social behavior impedes cooperation and individual and relational growth; such acts may be characterized as aggressive, or on the other extreme, very withdrawn. Mead (1934) draws a sflmilar distinction between social and anti-social: The fundamental socio-physiological impulses or behavior tendencies which are common to all human individuals, which lead those individuals collectively to enter or form.themselves into .organized societies or social communities, and which constitute the ultimate basis of those ,.societies or social communities, fall, from.the social point of view, into two main classes: those which lead to social cooperation, and those which lead to social antagonism.among individuals; those which give rise to friendly attitudes and relations, and those which give rise to hostile attitudes and relations, among the human individuals implicated in the social situations. We have used the term "social" in its broadest and strictest sense; but in that quite common narrower sense, in which it bears an ethical connotation, only the fundamental physiological human impulses or behavior tenden- cies of the former class (those which are friendly, or which make for friendliness and cooperation among the individuals motivated by them) are "social" or lead to "social" conduct; whereas those impulses or behavior tendencies of the latter class (those which are hostile, or which make for hostility and antagonism among the individuals motivated by them) ara "anti-social" or lead to "anti-social' conduct. 2G. H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 303? It should be noted that both pro-social and anti- social behaviors are social to the extent that they involve interaction between people. They represent alternative ways of handling a problem, For example, two peOple may resolve a conflict through discussion, or through physical aggression. Either or both strategies may effectively resolve the disagreement; however, only discussion would have the effect of facilitating coopera- tion and individual and relational growth. Even though physical aggression effectively resolves the conflict for one person, it tends to be destructive to one or both individuals as well as stifling future relational growth. There are three reasons for studying both pro- social and anti-social behaviors. First, if aggression serves an important function in our society, its control certainly leaves a vacuum. For example, aggression is used as a means to resolve conflicts; when people per- ceive that they disagree with others, they often resort to violence in order to resolve the disagreement. Parents spank children; teenagers get into fistfights; adults brawl. Indeed, all age groups seem to rely on aggression as one means to resolve conflicts. If we wish to control aggression it is necessary to offer alterna- tive modes to replace it. Furthermore, if we can show that other forms of conflict resolution are more effec- tive, we have a more tenable position to argue for the control of aggression. By substituting alternative modes of conflict resolution, we can limit the consequences of aggression and also prevent pe0p1e from being uncertain about how to resolve their conflicts. Second, by examining both aggressive and non— aggressive behavior, we can build social programs to control aggression and increase pro-social behavior. At present, based on research on the acquisition of violent behavior from.television (Baker and Ball, 1969), we can call for the television networks to reduce the violent models presented on television. However, we have only a limited basis upon which to suggest alternative models to provide examples of pro-social behavior. We have seen that programs such as "Sesame Street" and "Mr. Rogers" have a positive impact on children (Bogatz and Ball, 1970). However, we do not know if programs designed to have a pro-social impact, such as ”The Waltons" and "Little House on the Prairie," have any impact at all. The same argument can be made regarding sugges- tions about how parents should behave toward their children. If a parent tries to provide a pro-social example for the child, will it have any impact? Research indicates that parental anti-social behavior can be copied by the child (Bandura and Walters, 1959) but the research on pro-social behavior is not as conclusive. Whiting (cited in Bandura and Walters, 1959), argues that love-oriented disciplinary methods facilitate inter- nal control of aggression and anti-social behavior. How- ever, the research does not indicate that such discipline will result in pro-social actions such as cooperation. Identifying models likely to have a pro-social impact could help facilitate their use. Finally, from a social science perspective, it would be useful to see the range of the theories that have been developed to predict the socialization of individuals. For example, will Bandura's social learning theory predict the adoption of both pro-social behaviors and anti-social behaviors? Kaufman (1970) indicates that basic differ- ences exist between the socialization of pro- and anti- social behavior: Throughout . . . we have emphasized our posi- tion that altruistic values and behaviors are subject to similar learning processes as are aggressive values and behaviors. However, it was also noted . . . that the specific cultural cir- cumstances produce practical differences between these two classes in the sense that aggressive values are rarely taught overtly but often implied in behavior; whereas, ideals of cooperation, altruism, and social responsibility form the sta- ple core of religious and secular teachings, but are often contradicted by behaviors which allow the inference of a parallel set of attitudes, translatable as "It is appropriate to say that one should go out of one '8 way for one 's fellowman, independent of (or even in contrast with) what one does." Also, we noted that the sheer opportunity for practicing altruistic acts arises perhaps less frequgntly than that for its counterpart, aggres- sion. 3H. Kaufmann, _gg_ession and Altruism (New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970?) P 132. Thus, Kaufmann argues that the same models may exist for both pro- and anti-social behavior but that the adherence to values indicating that we should favor pro-social behavior, even if we don't practice it, may circumvent the learning of pro—social behavior. Furthermore, he argues that opportunities to practice socially desirable behaviors are limited. Obviously, these limitations should affect the predictive power of our models. Research is needed to investigate Kaufmann's arguments. The specific focus of this study is the means, both pro-social and anti-social, by which people resolve conflict and what influences the choice of those means. It should be noted that this position does not argue that all conflict is anti-social. Rather, this paper argues that certain modes of conflict resolution may be viewed as more pro-social or more anti-social. Further, it should be noted that this disserta- tion takes the position that a person's attempts to resolve conflict necessarily involve communication; both communication to others and interaction with self. When conflict emerges, a person may attempt to resolve it by confronting the other person or persons and dis- cussing the problem or perhaps even by being verbally aggressive. The person might also choose to resolve the conflict through physical aggression or through internalization of the conflict. All of these forms of conflict resolution involve some interaction in which the person tries to resolve the conflict through the manipulation of symbols (whether they be fists, words or thoughts). A broad conceptualization of communication encompasses these modes of conflict resolution. Mbdes of Interpersonal COnflict Resolution Before examining modes of conflict resolution, it is necessary to define the parameters of conflict and what implications they hold for investigating its resolu- tion. Conflict stems largely from the perception by one or more people in a relationship that they possess dif- ferent attitudes or behaviors toward some object. This conceptualization provides four important implications for the study of conflict resolution. First, this approach deals with conflict between people involved in some relationship. We choose to ignore. problems dealing with intrapersonal phenomena, natural disasters or the difficulties between man and the envi- ronment. The primary focus of this approach is in disagreements of attitude and behavior between people. Second, this approach assumes that peOple may perceive conflict when it actually does not exist. In other words, a person may inaccurately perceive another's position and, as a result, feel that they are in a state of conflict. Miller and Steinberg (1975) refer to a form of conflict termed pseudo-conflict in which peOple dis- agree because of some misperception. While the conflict may be based on false perceptions, it is likely to be felt as intensely as conflict based on accurate percep- tions. A Third, conflict may exist largely because of one person's perception of an inconsistency. Sometimes, a person will withhold information from another; in these cases, it is possible for only one person to realize that conflict exists. Finally, some relationships may require that certain modes of conflict resolution be used. For example, Miller and Steinberg (1975) argue that rela- tionships can be categorized in two ways: interpersonal or noninterpersonal. Interpersonal relationships are those where most of the predictions about another person are based upon psychological data (data allowing a person to see how another is different from other people). Interpersonal relationships tend to be rare and valued. We might expect that conflicts occurring in interpersonal relationships are very intense and require resolution in such a way as to maintain the relationship in the future. Noninterpersonal relationships are those rela- tionships where most of the predictions are based on group or cultural information. For example, a person's relationship with a salesclerk may be such that he cannot 10 distinguish the salesclerk from other salesclerks. Con- sequently, the person is likely to generalize one set of attributes to all salesclerks. Noninterpersonal rela- tionships may not be very valued and the mode of resolu- tion of their conflict may not be designed to further the relationship. Because of the differences in these two types of relationships, we might expect that different modes of conflict resolution will be used. People may resolve their conflicts in noninterpersonal relationships by ignoring the conflict or internalizing it. People in interpersonal relationships may be likely to verbalize their conflicts either by reasonably discussing them or by shouting at each other. . Newcomb's (1961) A-B-X model provides an excel- lent pictorial representation of conflict. Newcomb's model argues for three orientations within an individual's system: A's orientation toward B; A's orientation toward a third person or object, X; and A's perception of B's orientation toward A. By adding two individual systems together we can see a collective system of two people in a relationship. The problem in a collective system is to find stability in the relationship among orientations. For example, if A has a positive attitude toward B and toward X, and A perceives a.negative attitude by B toward X, A will feel strain or conflict (see Figure l). The 11 X X Balanced ’ Imbalanced No Strain Strain (conflict) Figure l.--Newcomb's A-B—X Model. force of the strain caused by the imbalance or conflict varies with the relevance of X and will demand resolu- tion depending upon the relevance. The resolution of conflict refers to the attempt by one or more people involved in a relationship to achieve some solution to the contradictory attitudes or behaviors. This conceptualization also has several implications. First, the attempt to resolve conflicts may be observable or unobservable. Some people attempt to resolve conflicts by addressing the issue Openly, while 12 other people may choose to internalize the conflict or ignore it. Second, the attempts may or may not be successful. We often attempt to resolve conflict without success. Thus, no assumption is made about the likelihood of success. Third, the approach assumes that people may rely on other people to help resolve the conflict. We often seek help from others when we are in a conflict. Finally, conflict resolution has both pro-social and anti-social dimensions. If we think of something as being pro-social if it facilitates the resolution of conflict and is nondestructive to the persons in the relationship, we can categorize modes of conflict resolution by their pro- or anti-social aspects. Aggres- sion tends to be destructive to the extent that it may harm one of the individuals in the relationship. Physical aggression produces physical harm and verbal aggression may lead to worry and other psychological stress. By reasonably discussing the conflict, however, people may achieve a pro-social solution. It is important to determine exactly what modes of conflict resolution are available to the individual. Few taxonomies have been developed to deal with modes of conflict resolution. 13 Newcomb's A-B-X model suggests that strain might be reduced five ways. Using the situation in Figure l where A has a positive attitude toward B and toward X but perceives that B has a negative attitude toward X, the possible resolutions are (1) A changes attitude toward X; (2) A changes perception of B's attitude toward X; (3) reduction of the importance assigned to X; (4) reduction in the positive attraction of A for B; or (5) reduction of the common relevance assigned to X for A.and B. These five changes fit logically into the A-B-X model. However, these changes do not provide information about the means that produced them" In terms of a change in A's perception of B's attitude toward X, we might find a number of different influences producing this change: A may physically beat B so that the victim is actually forced to change his verbal expression toward X, or A may threaten to beat B if he does not change. On the other hand, A may talk reasonably with B and convince him to change. All of this information is implied but not explicitly stated in the model. ' Keltner (1970) argues that there are seven strate- gies for resolving interpersonal conflict: Joint Deliberation Negotiation Bargaining Mediation Arbitration Propaganda Warfare 14 These categories are largely developed from labor relations. The first three all involve discussion between the people involved in the conflict unmediated by out- siders. Joint deliberation involves the discussion of mutually shared goals. Negotiation is similar except that the goals and the parties involved are not as close in terms of agreement about the goals. Bargaining refers to persuasion or when the parties do not have mutually shared goals and each person is seeking to persuade the others to his point of view. Mediation and arbitration refer to strategies which seek to solve conflict by bringing in a third party. Mediation means that the third party only makes sugges- tions; whereas, arbitration refers to a binding decision by the third party. Propaganda refers to psychological pressure brought to bear on the individual to conform to another's point of view in the conflict. Warfare refers to physical coercion in order to gain a person's preferred solution to the conflict. These categories fail to accommodate a number of relevant issues. First, they seem to ignore the idea that people sometimes rely on strategies that are not successful at resolving conflicts. Some people ignore the problem and withdraw from it. While the person's 15 attitudes or behaviors are not more consistent with each other, a person may choose to ignore the inconsistency or reduce the importance of the object of disagreement. Second, the strategies are largely prescriptive. Keltner argues that certain strategies should be used in given situations. It might be more interesting to determine the strategies people actually use or would prefer to use in given situations. A third limitation is that the strategies are largely oriented to labor relations and assume that processes are open. They assume that people are meeting in open sessions and disclosing their positions. In most conflicts, we may find neither formal structure nor relatively open deliberation. In response to these limitations, the list below is an attempt at a more extensive and inclusive list of the modes of conflict resolution which people may use. These modes of conflict resolution were derived from two sources: informal observation of conflict resolution on television and reflection about interpersonal conflict resolution. The researchers viewed television conflicts and jointly agreed upon modes of conflict resolution observed. The list was then added to by others on the basis of their own observation of strategies of conflict resolution. The list of strategies was clustered by 16 looking for common attributes. The strategies and their postulated dimensions are: Physical Aggression (hit, kick, shove, shoot, stab, punish, take something from other person, destroy something of the other person's, make other person go away) VerbalAggression (shout, argue, threaten, trick, cheat, insult, lie) Reasoned Discourse (talk, persuade, plead, be truthful, make person feel guilty, offer reward) Internalization (cry, pout, think, not know what to do, worry, hate, pray, feel guilty) ‘Withdrawal (ignore, run away, give in to other, have a drink, take a pill, joke) Forgiveness (forgive, sympathy, help other person) Seek Help (tell someone what happened, seek advice, seek help, turn others against person) These categories are similar to some of those discussed by Keltner. Physical aggression can be likened to warfare and includes such items as hitting, shooting, kicking, etc. Verbal aggression is similar to propaganda and includes such items as arguing, and shouting. Reasoned discourse might be likened to the joint deliberation, negotiation and bargaining that Keltner discusses. This dimension involves talking with the other person and offering to reward the other person. Internalization involves internal feelings that a person 17 may use to resolve a problem such as thinking about the problem or worrying about the problem. Withdrawal refers to ignoring the problem or failing to do anything about the conflict. Withdrawal is very much like internaliza- tion except that internalization involves reflection about the problem which may or may not lead to overt action to resolve the conflict. Withdrawal tends to be a decision to give up, leading to no further action to resolve the conflict. Forgiveness refers to giving in to the other person or feeling good about the other person. Seeking help is similar to arbitration and mediation in the Keltner system; it includes asking others for advice or assistance in handling the conflict. These dimensions can also be grouped into pro- social and anti-social categories. Physical agggession can be thought of as anti-social. Generally, physical aggression is destructive to one or more of the people involved in the conflict. Even when one party is suc- cessful through physical aggression, the overall impact is destructive for another party in the relationship. Verbal aggreSsion has a similar destructive effect even though it may be less visible. The threats and shouting may impair a person's self concept. Insults may be as damaging as physical violence. Internalization, as defined by this cluster, is neutral to anti-social because it generally means that the conflict is never aired 18 openly. Certainly, keeping the frustration and anger that often accompany conflict inside oneself can be thought of as anti—social since it can be destructive to the indi- vidual and to the relationship. Withdrawal is similar to internalization and it, too, can be thought of as being neutral to anti-social. In withdrawal situations, the person generally avoids the conflict by never con- fronting it or he may tend to give in to the other person's perceived demands. Withdrawal may be neutral to the extent that a good solution results with no harm to anyone. However, it is likely to be anti-social because the person is always losing, which means not only loss of material goods but also loss of self-esteem. Thus, physical aggression, verbal aggression,internaliza- tion and withdrawal have at least a potential of being anti-social. Three dimensions are pro-social in that they are not destructive to the people in the relationship. Reasoned discourse involves communication about the problem with the other person or persons. By airing the problem with the others, an equitable solution can be obtained without threats of actual violence. This does not preclude the solution from involving some loss because it is possible that one person in the conflict may be wrong. It does mean that no loss will occur as a result of the attempt to resolve the conflict. l9 Forgiveness is pro-social even though it may mean that the person tends to give in. In these cases, though, the person gives in to others in an effort to help them. Seeking help is pro-social in that the person seeks opinions in order to solve the problem. This may be to seek better solutions or it may be used for consensual support when confronting the person involved in the con- flict. Thus, the first part of this study involves verifying the major modes of conflict resolution. A cluster analysis of the likelihood of use for the indi- vidual strategies will provide verification or modifi- cations of the postulated dimensions of conflict resolution. The next section of this chapter is a discussion of the socialization influences derived from social learning theory. Social Learning Theory Mead (1934) argues that a person is socialized through his interactions with others in his environment. Each person tends to adopt the attitudes and behaviors exhibited by his significant others. Following Mead's perspective, several other theories have been developed to describe the acquisition of attitudes and behavior (Bandura, 1962; Woelfel, 1972). 20 One of the most important models for predicting the acquisition of aggressive behavior has been Bandura's social learning theory. In his model, Bandura argues that a great deal of a person's behavior is learned rather than inherited. An important part of this learning process occurs through observational learning: Most of the behaviors that people display are learned observationally, either deliberately or inadvertently, through the influence of example. By observing the actions of others, one acquires an idea of how the behavior can be performed, and on later occasionz the representation serves as a guide for action. Several experiments provide support for the notion that children can learn new aggressive actions from models (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1963a; Bandura, 1965a; Hicks, 1965; Nelson, Gelfand and Hartmann, 1969). How- ever, Bandura's theory distinguishes between the aggressive behaviors provided by the model and the fac- tors that determine whether a person will perform what he has learned. Bandura indicates that peOple will tend to use what they have learned when they have been provided positive incentives for behaving in that way (Bandura, 1965b; and Madsen, 1968). Thus, Bandura's model of social learning theory identifies at least two processes that operate to 4A. Bandura, "Social Learning Theory of Aggres- sion," in The Control of Aggression, ed. by J. Knutson (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973). 21 influence a person's behavior repertoire: the oppor- tunities to observe modeled behavior and situational or contextual factors. Observational Influences Bandura cites three observational influences: symbolic, familial and subcultural. Symbolic influences operate through mediated example. Their styles of behavior are conveyed through pictures and words. Indeed, filmed models can be learned almost as effectively as live models (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1963a; Bandura and Mischel, 1965). An important symbolic influence is television. The Surgeon General's report (1972) indicated that Americans watch a great deal of television. About 96 percent of all homes in the United States have one or more television sets. Most children view at least two hours of television per day and, by the age of six, the majority of children express attraction for certain pro- grams and characters. Younger children enjoy situation comedies and cartoons while older children express a preference for action/adventure shows and variety pro- grams. Frequent exposure to television generally begins at age three, increases until adolescence and then steadily declines. Television content provides several kinds of models that might be adopted. One such model is the 22 kind presented on action/adventure shows; this category encompasses detective and police dramas and, to a lesser extent, westerns and fantasy shows (e.g., "Six Million Dollar Man" and "Star Trek"). These shows have been observed to be the most violent (Baker and Ball, 1969). We might expect these shows to have a fairly important impact on the modeling of aggressive behavior; research tends to support this. Atkin, Murray and Nayman (1971) write: More than 20 published experiments show that children are capable of imitating filmed violence, although a variety of situational and personal factors combine with exposure to determine actual imitation. Another 30 published experiments indicate the violence viewing increases the like- lihood of subsequent aggressive behavior, at least in the laboratory context. However, field studies have not shown the same degree of success in predicting aggressive tendencies from viewing patterns. Correlations in the predicted direction are obtained but they tend to be low (.30 or less). In the research published in the Surgeon General's report (1972), the field studies provided limited support for viewing patterns and aggressive behavior. McLeod, Atkin and Chaffee (1972a,b) found poSitive correlations between the viewing of violent shows and aggression among junior 5C. Atkin, J. Murray, and O. Nayman, "The Surgeon General's Research Program on Television and Social Behavior: A Review of Empirical Findings," Journal of Broadcasting (Winter, 1971-72): 23. 23 and senior high school students in two separate samples (overall self-report correlation of .31 and other- report correlation of .17). Dominick and Greenberg (1972a,b) found that high exposure to television violence was associated with high levels of approval of aggres- sion, perceived effectiveness of violence and willingness to use aggression. Robinson and Bachman (1972) examined adolescent behavior on eight measures of delinquent behavior and found a small positive relationship between viewing of violent television and all eight measures. ThoSe who preferred shows with little violence engaged in significantly less violent behavior than those whose favorite shows were violent. McIntyre and Teevan (1972) found weak but significant positive correlations between preference for television violence and indices of petty delinquency, fighting with parents, aggressive deviance such as getting into fights (r = .11) and serious delin- quency (.16). Thus, the correlations were in the predicted directions and often significant, but rela- tively small (largest r = .31). On the other hand are television shows that pur- port to show pro-social kinds of behavior. The family programs (e.g., "The Waltons" and "Little House on the Prairie") stress values such as cooperation, family unity and support. We might expect that these programs 24 would have a great impact on pro-social kinds of conflict resolution. There are also those television programs that are classified as situation comedies. While these shows have less violence than action/adventure shows, a 1968 study indicated that two-thirds of all comedy-oriented shows possessed some violence (Baker and Ball, 1969). (we might expect that these shows will be influential in both pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Certainly, some situation comedy characters attempt to resolve conflicts through reasoned discourse, forgiveness or seeking help from others. This mixture of pro—social and anti-social modes of conflict resolu- tion may have a dual effect on the viewers. Within the same program they can learn pro-social forms of conflict resolution and anti-social forms of conflict resolution. Indeed, it may be that the viewer learns to be verbally aggressive or to internalize feelings but also learns . that other people care about his problems and that by seeking their help he might resolve his problems. This does not mean that the situation comedy viewer will have more conflicts to resolve, but the situation comedy viewer will be influenced to use both pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Thus, we make the following predictions: 25 Hypothesis 1: As viewing of action/adventure shows increases, adolescent use of pro-social modes of conflict resolution decreases (reasoned discourse, forgiveness, seeking help) and adolescent use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution increases (physical aggression, verbal aggression, internalization, withdrawal). Hypothesis 2: As viewing of family shows increases, adolescent use of pro-social modes of conflict resolution increases (reasoned discourse, forgiveness, seeking help) and adolescent use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution decreases (physical aggression, verbal aggression, internali- zation, withdrawal). Hypothesis 3: As viewing of situation comedies increases, adolescent use of both pro-social and anti-social modes of conflict resolution increases. The second important determinant within the social learning theory is familial influences. Research on violence tends to indicate that parental influence can be a great factor in the development of aggressive tendencies. A greater amount of familial aggressive modeling has been found among delinquent boys than among nondelinquent boys (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; McCord, McCord and Zola, 1959). Some of the modeling of parental aggression is not blatant. Two studies of aggressive children found that their parents favored aggressive solutions for problems (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Bandura, 1960). Allinsmith (cited in Miller and Swanson, 1960) found that boys with few controls against aggression 26 tended to have parents who were in favor of corporal punishment while boys showing strong inhibitions against aggression were likely to have parents who used psycho- logical punishment (e.g., making them feel guilty). Bandura and Walters (1959) found that boys high in aggression had parents who were more likely to resort to physical punishment and deprivation of privileges and less likely to use reasoning. Bandura (1960) found that parents of aggressive boys were perceived by their boys to be more punitive and less likely to use reasoning than the parents of inhibited boys. After reviwing the research on familial influ- ences, Berkowitz (1962) concludes: The studies reviewed here agree in noting that punitive parental disciplinary methods (such as physical unishment and depriving chil- dren of privileges tend to be associated with a high degree of aggression and other forms of anti-social behavior by the children. Love- oriented disciplinary methods on the other hand, evidently facilitate the development of con- science and internalized restraints against socially disapproved behavior. Thus, we make the following prediction: Hypothesis 4: As perceived parental use of certain modes of conflict resolution increases, adoles- cent use of the same modes of conflict resolution increases. Another familial variable that also interacts with the symbolic influence of television is the degree 6L. Berkowitz, A ression: A Social Psycho- logical Analysis (New or : McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 291. 27 to which the parents of adolescents are perceived to like or agree with media use of modes of conflict resolution. we might expect that a parental favorite on television might be viewed by an adolescent as being an acceptable model. Dominick and Greenberg (1972a,b) found that students who perceived that their parents clearly disap- proved of violence were less likely to approve of aggression or to believe that violence was an effective ‘means of solving problems and they expressed less will- ingness to use violence. Further, the most positive attitudes toward aggression and violence were found among heavy violence viewers who perceived no definite parental stand on aggressive behavior. Perhaps these same values were inferred from parental viewing behavior. Thus, we make the following prediction: Hypothesis 5: As perceived parental agreement with a TV character's modes of conflict resolution increases, the likelihood of adolescent use of that character's modes of conflict resolution increases. The third influence in the social learning theory is subcultural influence. The social network in which a person is involved has an impact on the person's behavior. We might expect this to be true also for modes of con- flict resolution. Two studies found that highest rates of aggressive behavior occur in environments where there were many aggressive models, and where aggressiveness 28 'was highly valued (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967; Short, 1968). One set of subcultural influences might be a person's friends. To the extent that our friends behave in a certain manner, so will we. Thus, we make the fol- lowing prediction: Hypothesis 6: As perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution increases, adolescent use of the same modes of conflict resolution increases. Thus, a number of observational learning vari- ables exist (symbolic, familial and subcultural) that represent our socialization in conflict resolution. Another influence that is not part of the social learning theory but reflects a person's socialization is his or her sex. There is currently an ongoing debate about the social effects of sex differences. Indeed, many sex differences are being attributed to differing social- ization standards. A large number of studies have found that boys exhibit more anti-social aggression than girls (Jersild and Markey, 1935; Yarrow, 1948; Sears, 1951; Levin and Sears, 1956; Sears et al., 1957; Sears, 1961; Lansky, Crandall, Kagan and Baker, 1961; Gordon and Cohn, 1961). After reviwing these studies, Berkowitz (1962) concludes: Cultural training through which the child receives reinforcements for engaging in behaviors appropriate to his sex, or punishments for 29 carrying out disapproved actions, unquestion- ably is the most important source of sex dif- ferences in human aggressiveness.7 Given the media coverage of recent feminist activities, it would be useful to determine if sex differences persist in chosen modes of conflict resolu- tion. Furthermore, we might see if modes of conflict resolution are used differently when we view women and men separately. The predictions are: Hypothesis 7: Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than female adolescents. Hypothesis 8: Female adolescents are more likely to use pro-social modes of conflict reso- lution than male adolescents. Hypothesis 9: Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than pro-social modes of conflict reso- lution. Hypothesis U): Female adolescents are more likely to use pro-social modes of conflict resolution than antiésocial modes of conflict reso- lution. Situational Influences Bandura also indicates that certain factors exist to prompt us to use what we have learned from models; these are situational or contextual influences. An important situational characteristic is the person with whom we are in conflict and the kinds of relationships we have with that person. Kaufmann and 7Berkowitz, Aggression, p. 274. 30 Marcus (1965) found that people were generally less likely to aggress against a fictitious person whom they perceived as similar to themselves than against dissimilar peOple. Further, they found that people were more aggressive if they tended to perceive dissimilarity in important rather than unimportant characteristics even though the degree of overall perceived similarity was unrelated to the amount of expressed aggression. If we assume that our friends tend to be like us, we might find that we will be more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict reso- lution with strangers than friends. Here it is appropriate to recall the Miller and Steinberg (1975) distinction between interpersonal and noninterpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relation- ships tend to be highly valued friendships and intimate relationships. These interpersonal relationships may be composed of people who are basically alike; we might expect them to use more pro-social modes of conflict resolution while in noninterpersonal relationships we might expect anti-social modes of conflict resolution to be more often used. Consequently, we make the following predictions: Hypothesis ll: Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved by pro-social modes of conflict resolution than con- flicts with adolescent strangers. Hypothesis 12: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by 31 anti-social modes of conflict resolution than conflicts with adolescent friends. Hypothesis l3: Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved by pro-social modes of conflict resolution than anti- social modes of conflict resolution. Hypothesis 14: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by anti-social modes of conflict resolution than pro- social modes of conflict resolution. In summary, then, this dissertation investigates modes of conflict resolution along the lines of two cen- tral questions: 1. What are some critical pro- and anti- social dimensions of modes of conflict resolution? 2. What influences the use of pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution? Responding to the deficiencies in existing taxonomies of modes of conflict resolution, a more exten- sive and inclusive list of mmdes of conflict resolution was formulated in order to identify the major dimensions of conflict resolution. Using social learning theory, the following hypotheses are derived regarding the influ- ences on the selection of modes of conflict resolution: Hypothesis 1: As viewingof action/adventure shows increases, adolescent use of pro-social modes of conflict resolution decreases (reasoned discourse, forgiveness, seeking help) and adolescent use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution increases (physical aggression, verbal aggression, internalization, withdrawal). Hypothesis 2: As viewing of family shows increases, adolescent use of pro-social modes of Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 10: ll: 32 conflict resolution increases (reasoned discourse, forgiveness, seeking help) and adolescent use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution decreases (physical aggression, verbal aggression, internalization, withdrawal). As viewing of situation comedies increases, adolescent use of both pro- social and anti-social modes of conflict resolution increases. As perceived parental use of certain modes of conflict resolution increases, adolescent use of the same modes of con- flict resolution increases. As perceived parental agreement with a TV character's modes of conflict resolu- tion increases, the likelihood of adoles- cent use of that character's modes of conflict resolution increases. As perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution increases, adolescent use of the same modes of conflict resolution increases. Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than female adolescents. Female adolescents are more likely to use pro-social modes of conflict resolution than male adolescents. Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than pro-social modes of conflict reso- lution. Female adolescents are more likely to use pro-social modes of conflict reso- lution than anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved by pro-social modes of conflict resolution than con— flicts with adolescent strangers. 33 Hypothesis 12: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by anti- social modes of conflict resolution than conflicts with adolescent friends. Hypothesis l3: Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved by pro-social modes of conflict resolution than anti- social modes of conflict resolution. Hypothesis l4: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by anti- social modes of conflict resolution than pro-social modes of conflict resolution. Figure 2 represents a pictorial layout of the variables in this system. The next chapter describes the methods used to test the hypotheses. 34 MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Pro-Social l. Forgiveness 2. Reasoned Discourse 3. Seeking Help Anti-Social 1. Physical Aggression 2. Verbal Attression 3. Internalization 4. Withdrawal SOCIAL LEARNING INFLUENCES Observational l. Symbolic Influences (TV) a. Action/adventure programs b. Family programs c. Situation comedy programs 2. Familial Influences a. Parental discipline b. Parental intervention in media use 3. Peer Influence 4. Sex Differences Contextual 1. Conflict with Stranger 2. Conflict with Friend Figure 2.—-Modes of Conflict Resoution and Social Learning Influences. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY This chapter is divided into two sections: description of respondents and design. The description of respondents provides information regarding the area from which the study participants were obtained. The section on design will discuss the instrument development and survey administration and provides the sample charac- teristics in each phase of data collection. Description of Respondents Although modes of conflict resolution are issues that are important to all age groups, this study inves- tigated the modes of conflict resolution used by adoles- cents. Adolescents have long been considered an important age group to investigate. Studies of delin- quency and street gangs have been conducted and their aggressive behaviors examined (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Jenkins, 1957) but little emphasis has been placed on comparing modes of conflict resolution among adolescents. We limited our focus to high school sophomores and juniors. These groups were selected because they represented people who would likely remain together with 35 36 both their parents and current set of friends for the next few years. We expected that the pressure felt by the students from parents and peers would be high since they could anticipate a high degree of contact over the next few years. Seniors were likely to be leaving for jobs and/or college; thus, their groups might not be as stable. Freshmen were likely to have just arrived from other schools and their groups not as solidified. Permission was sought from the Vigo County School Corporation in Terre Haute, Indiana, to gather data on two occasions from sophomores and juniors at a local high school. Permission was granted by the principal of the high school and a school corporation administrator to collect data on April 21, 1975, from approximately 200 juniors and to collect data on May 22, 1975, from approxi- mately 350 sophomores. Terre Haute is a city of 70,286 (1970 census). The surrounding county includes 44,242 people. The city is situated on the far western border of central Indiana. The economy includes both industry within the city and a strong farming influence from the surrounding county. The high school used was Terre Haute North Vigo. The total enrollment in May of 1975 was 1,800; sophomore enrollment was 696 and the junior enrollment was 605. Of the total enrollment, 7.2 percent was black (130 of 37 1,800) with 7.6 percent of the sophomores being black (53 of 696) and 7.4 percent of the juniors being black (45 of 605) . The May, 1975 enrollment showed 930 males and 870 females. The sophomore class consisted of 353 males and 343 females; the junior class was composed of 315 males and 290 females. No information was available from the school about average grade point, nor about the urban/rural mix. It can be noted that the student body at Terre Haute North Vigo is composed of students from the sur- rounding farms and small towns as well as from the city of Terre Haute. Resist; The design of this study involved two waves of data collection. The purpose of the first was to develop the instrument to be used in the final survey adminis- tration. Wave 1: Instrument Development Data were collected from 175 juniors at Terre Haute North Vigo High School on April 21, 1975. Of 175 completed questionnaires, 106 of the respondents were males and 68 were females; the mean age was 16.8. The mean number of brothers and sisters was three; four of the respondents were only children and two had the 38 largest number of brothers and sisters, nine. Fifty percent of the respondents had two or less brothers and sisters. In terms of activities at the school, the mean number of group affiliations was 1.7. Procedurally, the participants were assembled in a large auditorium in the school in mid-morning. The participants were drawn from their home room period by the school principal. After assembling in the auditorium, an introduction to the questionnaire was provided by the researcher. The explanation took approximately ten min- utes. Participants were given examples and were told if they had any problems to raise their hand and one of the assistants would answer their question. Three persons besides the researcher were answering the students' ques- tions: two were graduate assistants in Speech Communica- tion at Indiana State University and the other has doctoral training in Speech Communication. The teachers remained in the auditorium.but were not given any role in the testing. The allocated test period was 45 minutes. Most participants had finished the questionnaire in approxi- mately 20 minutes and were encouraged to go back and make sure that they had answered every item and had not recorded more than one response for any one item. The questionnaire consisted of 100 items (see Appendix A). Three interest areas were being developed: 39 the television programs likely to be viewed which may have an effect on modes of conflict resolution; the modes of conflict resolution used by television characters on those programs; and the respondent's use of modes of conflict resolution. The questionnaire began by asking the partici- pants to think of the television they watched: 1. What are your favorite television shows? 2. Who are your favorite television charac- ters? 3. Who is your most favorite television char- acter who appears on a dramatic or comedy series? 4. What series does your most favorite tele- vision character appear on? 5. How often do you watch the program your favorite character appears on? Every week Almost_every week Once or twice a month Less than once a month The questions about favorite television charac- ters were troublesome for some of the respondents. They were often uncertain about whether to record the actor's name or the character's name. Fortunately, they recorded the program the character appeared on which allowed us to categorize them correctly. Many participants also had difficulty distinguishing between comedy and dramatic series and other types of shows; most of them asked about the programs so the problem was reduced. The most favorite character was coded according to the program.type on which the character appeared. 40 Three categories were used: action/adventure, family drama and situation comedy. One hundred seven of the most favorite television characters appeared on situation comedies, 56 on action/adventure shows and 12 appeared on family dramas. The most frequently named action/adventure char- acter was Kojak (14 respondents). The most frequently named situation comedy character was JJ from "Good Times" (23 respondents) and the most frequently named family drama character was Snapper Foster from "The Young and the Restless" (3 respondents). The participants were then asked: Imagine that you are watching your favorite television character. On this show someone takes something very important from your favorite char- acter without his or her permission. How likely would your favorite television character do each of the following? This situation was followed by 44 items which represented how the character might respond to the person who took the object. The 44 items of conflict resolution were generated by the researchers from informal observations of television content and interpersonal relationships. The items were expected to cluster into the seven dimen- sions of conflict resolution presented in Chapter 1: physical aggression, verbal aggression, reasoned dis- curse, internalization, withdrawal, forgiveness and seeking help. Each item had a six-point Likert scale 41 ranging from ”very likely” to ”very unlikely.‘ "Very likely" was coded as a 6 and "very unlikely" was coded as a 1. Next, the participants were told to forget about their favorite television character and to indicate how Ehgy would respond in a similar situation: It is after school and you are at your locker. You walk away from your locker and you see someone take something that is very important to you from the locker. The person puts it under a coat and walks rapidly away with it. How likely would you do the following things to handle the person who took the object? The strategies of conflict resolution were the same as those used for the favorite television character. The means and standard deviations for the 175 participants' responses are presented in Table l. The items appear in the same order they appeared on the questionnaire. Two things should be noted: the means and standard deviations do not represent all 175 partici- pants, but only those who filled out the item, and the possible range for each item was 1 to 6 and the actual range for each item was 1 to 6. Very little missing data was obtained; the greatest amount of missing data found on a variable was 5 (N = 170). Four analyses were performed on the data col- lected in this wave: (1) items for strategies of conflict resolution for most favorite television character and ego were cluster analyzed into modes of conflict resolution; TABLE l.--Instrument Development Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived TV Character and Ego Use of Conflict Resolution Items. TV Character Ego Conflict Resolution Items __ _, X sd X sd Shout at person 4.58 1.63 5.11 1.38 Talk to person 4.48 1.52 4.13 1.54 Hit person 3.08 1.78 3.88 1.82 Cry 1.65 1.24 1.79 1.43 Ignore missing object 1.98 1.54 1.64 1.15 Forgive person 3.12 1.76 2.97 1.66 Tell someone 3.94 1.56 3.90 1.72 Kick person 2.58 1.77 2.78 1.86 Argue with person 4.62 1.47 4.76 1.54 Try to persuade person 4.77 1.41 4.51 1.58 Pout 2.01 1.56 1.77 1.40 Run away 1.61 1.18 1.53 .95 Feel sorry 2.99 1.69 2.45 1.67 Shove person 3.09 1.76 3.46 1.90 Ask what to do 2.93 1.71 3.28 1.76 Threaten person 3.48 2.01 3.75 1.95 Plead with person 2.82 1.61 2.67 1.59 Think 4.48 1.57 4.47 1.63 Let person alone 2.24 1.41 1.81 1.27 Help person reform 3.75 1.72 2.97 1.76 Ask others' help 3.17 1.61 3.32 1.63 Shoot person 1.97 1.63 1.75 1.48 Trick person 3.92 1.76 3.22 1.74 Be honest with person 4.58 1.49 4.26 1.63 Not know what to do 2.74 1.63 2.87 1.64 Get drunk 2.26 1.80 2.00 1.72 Turn others against person 2.39 1.58 2.88 1.64 Take.something from person 2.43 1.71 2.41 1.68 Take object back 4.39 1.63 4.78 1.54 Cheat person 2.80 1.80 2.73 1.79 Make person feel guilty 4.05 1.61 4.00 1.71 Worry 2.79 1.58 2.81 1.78 Take a pill 1.62 1.33 1.88 1.64 Destroy something 2.08 1.53 2.39 1.74 Insult person 3.73 1.88 3.97 1.91 Give person something for returning object 2.68 1.59 1.75 1.26 Hate person 2.80 1.69 3.25 1.78 Chase person away 2.80 1.71 2.84 1.80 Lie to person 2.78 1.83 2.37 1.67 Pray for return of object 2.26 1.54 2.76 1.84 Feel guilty about loss 2.64 1.73 2.43 1.64 Stab person 1.72 1.49 1.73 1.48 Punish person 3.17 1.93 3.19 2.03 Joke 3.11 1.90 2.60 1.79 43 (2) the large clusters were reduced to smaller modes of conflict resolution and reliabilities computed; (3) dif- ferences between television character types for the use of modes of conflict resolution were examined; and (4) the relationship between most favorite television character's perceived modes of conflict resolution and ego's modes of conflict resolution was examined. Cluster analysis.--This technique is very simi- lar to factor analysis; it identifies clusters of vari- ables that are highly intercorrelated but do not highly correlate with other variables. For small numbers of variables, it can be done quite easily by grouping the variables that have their highest correlations with one another and then revisingthe clusters on the basis of their correlations with other clusters. However, this technique is difficult when dealing with more than 20 variables. As a result, cluster analysis is often done in conjunction with factor analysis (Nunnally, 1967). The cluster analysis routine used in this study follows this procedure: 1. A principal components factor analysis is done using each variable's largest correlation as its communality and Kaiser's criterion of eigenvalue being greater than 1.00 for determining the number of factors. 44 2. A varimax factor analysis is done and the items recorded on each factor by their highest factor loading on all factors and.within each factor in descending order by factor loading. 3. A correlation matrix is printed using as clusters the variables with their highest factor load- ings on a given factor. 4. The correlations are examined for inter- correlations among cluster items, correlations between cluster items and cluster true scores (highest correla- tion corrected for attenuation) and correlations between cluster items and other cluster true scores. The varimax factor analysis produced five fac- tors for the most favorite television character's perceived modes of conflict resolution. Table 2 indi- cates reordered factor analysis. The total amount of variance accounted for was 43 percent. Standard score coefficient alphas were computed for the clusters. Coefficient alpha is a measure of reliability. Nunnally (1967) indicates that coefficient alpha . . represents the expected correlation of one test with an alternative form containing the same number of items. The square root of coefficient is the estimated correlation of a test with error- 1ess true scores. It is so pregnant with meaning that ig should routinely be applied to all new tests. 8J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1967). P. 196. 45 TABLE 2.—-Instrunent Development Varimax Factors for Perceived TV Character's Use of Con- flict Resolution Items. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Conflict Resolution Items Revenge Regression Verbal Pro-Social Physical Aggression Aggression Hate person .66* .05 .21 —.15 .06 Destroy something .64* .14 .19 -.23 .33 Cheat person .62* .16 .36 -.24 .13 Get drunk .60* .13 .13 -.05 .24 Take a pill .59* .28 -.02 -.14 .18 Take something from person .58* .12 .32 -.26 .16 Turn others against person .57* .13 .32 -.26 .02 Chase person away .56* .07 .23 -.13 .27 Lie to person .52* .08 .39 -.19 .18 Give person something for returning object .32* .26 .23 .27 -.01 Ignore missing object .28* .22 -.13 .13 -.20 Joke .27* .14 .24 .05 -.26 As what to do -.02 .63* .19 .29 -.07 Cry - 01 .61* -.06 .09 .09 Plead with person .05 .55* .22 .21 .05 Pray for return of object .04 .54* -.16 .02 .07 Worry .04 .53* .09 .17 -.19 Pout .16 .53* .13 -.05 -.04 Feel guilty about loss .24 .52* .07 -.05 .22 Not know what to do .16 .48* .12 .04 -.28 Run away 13 .41* .01 -.03 .03 Argue with person .12 .04 .71* -.12 .09 Trick person .26 .03 .59* .07 .21 Shout at person .16 .02 .55* -.32 .17 Insult person .47 -.04 .54* -.17 -.01 Take object back .25 -.10 .53* -.14 .23 Threaten person .22 .03 .50* -.28 .34 Tell someone .09 .30 .49* .10 —.19 Make person feel guilty .17 .10 .46* .15 .00 Ask other's help .04 .40 .43* 12 -.01 Help person reform -.12 .11 -.14 .66* -.16 Feel sorry -.04 .14 -.09 62* -.06 Forgive person -.01 .14 -.ll .59* -.19 Talk to person - 19 -.04 -.16 58* -.09 Be honest with person - 29 .13 .10 .57* -.13 Think - 16 .07 .07 .54* -.05 Try to persuade person -.23 -.00 .29 .39* -.06 Let person alone .02 .28 -.21 .32* -.24 Shoot person .29 -.04 -.07 -.16 .68* Hit person .11 -.08 .32 -.20 .65* Stab person .41 .11 -.13 -.26 .62* Kick person .21 .27 .22 -.25 .59* Punish person .21 -.17 .25 -.02 .56* Shove person .17 .18 .45 -.24 .47* Proportion of variance .11 .08 .09 .08 .07 Standard score coefficient .86 .78 .82 .79 .83 alpha * 8 Highest factor loading. 46 The standard score coefficient alphas are presented and all seem quite high (all greater than .77). We attempted to label the clusters. Cluster one seems to be a revenge cluster. The items imply some kind of retribution against the person who took the object. The form.of the revenge generally deals with something internal as opposed to confronting the indi- vidual. The victim will hate or turn others against but will not necessarily be open with the person or, with the exception of chasing the person, resort to violence. The second cluster was named regression largely because it seemed to represent strategies that might be used by a small child. A small child might ask what to do, cry, plead or pout. The third cluster was labeled verbal aggression; this cluster consisted of shouting, insulting or arguing with the person. The fourth cluster was named pro-social because it contained the strategies which we might hOpe people would use to resolve conflict; they would not involve the destruction of either person in the conflict. The cluster contained forgiveness items, sympathy, talking to the person and other pro- social items. The last cluster was labeled physical aggression and included items such as shooting and stabbing the person. After analyzing the correlation matrix (see Appendix B), the clusters were reduced so as to keep high 47 correlations. The items to be left in the cluster were selected on the basis of two criteria: having fewer correlations with other cluster items less than .25 and having an itemetotal correlation greater than .40. The clusters and their items are presented in Figure 3. The last three items were dropped from the revenge cluster (ignore missing object, give person something for returning object and joke). The last item in the regres- sion and verbal aggression clusters was dropped (run away and ask others' help). The last two items were dropped from the pro-social cluster (try to persuade per- son and let person alone). The physical aggression cluster remained the same. When ego's strategies were cluster analyzed using the same techniques, four clusters were found. Table 3 presents the results of the varimax factor analysis. The four factors explain 43 percent of the variance. The coefficient alphas for the clusters are relatively high (.92, .84, .74, .73). What is encouraging is the correspondence between the TV character's and ego's modes of conflict resolu- tion. Therefore, the clusters receive the same labels on the basis of their content. The TV character clusters of revenge and physical aggression seem to combine for ego; with the exception of five items, the ego cluster is composed totally of physical aggression and revenge items. 48 Revenge Hate person Destroy something Cheat person Get drunk Take a pill Take something from person Turn others against person Chase person away Lie to person *Give person something for returning object *Ignore missing object *Joke Regression Ask what to do Cry Plead with person Pray for return of object Worry Pout Pro-Social Help person reform Feel sorry Forgive person Talk to person Be honest with person Think *Try to persuade person Feel guilty about what to do *Let person alone Not know what to do *Run away Verbal Aggression Argue with person Trick person Shout at person Insult person Take object back Threaten person Tell someone Make person feel guilty *Ask others' help Physical Aggression Shoot person Hit person Stab person Kick person Punish person Shove person Figure 3.--Modes of Conflict Resolution and Their Items. * = Dropped for statistical reasons. 49 TABLE 3.--Instrument Development Varimax Factors for Ego Use of Conflict Resolution Items. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Physical Conflict Resolution Items Aggression/ Regression Pro-Social Verbal Revenge Aggression Stab person .80* -.12 -.08 -.19 Shoot person .78* -.06 -.09 -.21 Destroy something .75* -.05 -.08 .14 Cheat person .73* .02 -.11 .08 Take something from person .69* .03 -.04 .21 Take a pill .67* .10 .19 -.07 Get drunk .67* .12 .03 .01 Kick person .59* .00 -.36 .11 Lie to person .58* .05 .05 .17 Shove person .58* -.23 -.40 .25 Threaten person .56* -.36 -.29 .35 Chase person away .54* .01 -.09 .32 Punish person .53* -.18 -.25 .27 Hate person .52* .05 -.10 .27 Hit person .49* —.32 -.44 .37 Turn others against person .46* .12 -.16 .38 Think -.38* .29 .34 .24 Worry -.O7 .77* .12 .00 Not know what to do -.09 .66* .06 -.09 Cry -.04 .64* .10 —.11 Ask what to do -.16 .60* .29 .10 Run away .19 .58* .18 -.06 Pout .11 .55* .05 -.06 Ask others' help -.05 .51* .01 .42 Pray for return of object -.10 .48* .20 .04 Ignore missing object .15 .45* .12 -.21 Feel guilty about loss .04 .41* .03 .10 Tell someone -.16 .40* .17 .35 Plead with person -.05 .38* .33 .28 Help person reform -.21 .18 .66* -.13 Feel sorry for person -.09 .31 .58* -.14 Be honest with person -.38 .16 .54* .16 Talk to person -.25 .06 .53* .19 Forgive person -.22 .17 .48* -.15 Let person alone .09 .42 .45* -.17 Give person something for .15 .14 .40* _.05 returning object Joke ' .09 .01 .22* .13 Argue with person .15 -.16 -.09 .60* Shout at person .11 -.07 -.18 .58* Make person feel guilty .ll .25 .ll .50* Insult person .40 -.08 -.17 .50* Try to persuade person -.22 .07 .36 .47* Take object back .28 -.16 .02 .45* Trick person .38 .08 .17 .44* Proportion of Variance .17 .10 .08 .08 Standard score .92 .84 .74 .73 coefficient alpha * - Highest factor loading. 50 Regression exists in almost the same form for the two sets of data; with the exception of one item, the ego's regression cluster is identical to the TV character's. The pro?social cluster is also similar; all but four of the items are the same for both ego and television char- acter. Finally, the verbal aggression clusters are almost identical; only four items deviate. 0n the basis of the intercorrelations (see Appendix C), several items were dropped from the clus- ters. The same two criteria were used for rejection from a cluster: a large number of correlations less than .25 and item-total correlations of less than .45. The last item was dropped from the physical aggression/revenge cluster (think). The last four items were dropped from the regression cluster (ignore missing object, tell someone, plead with person, feel guilty about the loss). The last two items were dropped from the pro-social cluster (give person something for returning object, joke) and the fifth item was dropped from the verbal aggression cluster (try to persuade person). Thus, it appears that we can reduce the strate- gies to five clusters: revenge, regression, verbal aggression, pro-social and physical aggression. We chose to use the five TV character modes of conflict resolution as opposed to the four ego modes of conflict resolution. This decision was made to obtain greater 51 clarity: ego's physical aggression/revenge cluster became the physical aggression cluster and the revenge cluster. Item reduction and reliability.--This phase of the analysis focused on reducing the number of items in the five clusters in order to shorten the questionnaire. We made the decision to reduce the items on the basis of their factor loadings. For the TV character clusters, we used the items with the four highest factor loadings in each cluster. This cut allowed us to have factor loadings of no less than .54. For the ego factors, it allowed us to have factor loadings no less than .38. We chose the TV character's clusters to reduce the items because of the reduction of the one large cluster into two smaller ones. This would give us a more precise estimate of what modes are available. However, one change was necessary. we decided to use only three of the items instead of four for a sub- sequent scale dealing with parental discipline. This meant that each of the modes of conflict resolution was formed from only three items. This decision was made largely because of the physical aggression cluster. Two of the four items were judged to be less than adequate for parental discipline (shoot the person and stab the person). Thus, those two items were dropped and a third 52 was added: punish the person. The other modes of con- flict resolution for parents were reduced to three by dropping the item with the lowest factor loading. Figure 4 presents the reduced clusters and their items. The reliabilities for the three- and four-item clusters are presented in Table 4. The scale means represent the mean of the item sums. For scales of 4 items, the range was 4 to 24, with 4 indicating a "very unlikely" use of the mode and 24 representing a ”very likely" use of the mode; 13 represents a "somewhat unlikely" use and 14 represents a "somewhat likely" use of the mode. For scales of 3 items, the range was 3 to 18, with 3 indicating a "very unlikely" use of the mode and 18 representing a "very likely" use of the mode; 10 represents a "somewhat unlikely" use and 11 indicates a "somewhat likely" use of the mode. Only one of the scales shows a coefficient alpha less than .60 (verbal aggression for ego = .57). We made the decision that the alphas were sufficient because if one treats the alpha as a correlation, a significance test can be done; the results are that they are all sig- nificant at the .05 level. Given the new clusters, it is now necessary to discuss how they conform to the ones postulated in Chapter I where we predicted that seven clusters would be found: physical aggression, verbal aggression, 53 Verbal Aggression Shout at person Argue with person Trick person Insult person* Pro-Social Forgive person Feel sorry for person Help person reform Talk to person* Physical Aggression Hit person Kick person Stab person* Shoot person* Punish person** Regression Cry Ask what to do Plead* Pray* Beg** Revenge Cheat person Destroy something Hate person Get Drunk* Figure 4.--Instrument Development Reduced Three- and Four- Item Modes of Conflict Resolution. .* = As used in four-item scale. ** = As used in "parental discipline" scale. 54 TABLE 4.--Instrument Development Reliability for Three- and Four- Item Modes of Conflict Resolution. No. of Scale Inter-Item Scale Items __ __ Alpha X sd X r max r min r (1) Revenge 4 9.97 5.43 .50 .65 .42 .80 Regression 4 9.68 4.31 .33 .48 .18 .67 Verbal aggression 4 16.88 5.22 .48 .54 .39 .78 Pro-social 4 14.39 5.04 .42 .47 .31 .74 Physical aggression 4 9.36 5.26 .50 .67 .36 .80 (2) Revenge 4 10.35 5.38 .45 .56 .30 .77 Regression 4 10.45 4.80 .36 .44 .28 .69 Verbal aggression 4 17.04 4.66 .33 .53 .18 .66 Pro-social 4 12.51 4.90 .39 .54 .23 .72 Physical aggression 4 10.08 5.35 .54 .88 .35 .83 (3) Revenge 7.63 4.21 .56 .64 .50 .79 Regression 7.44 3.56 .42 .49 .37 .68 . .46 .51 .40 .72 9.92 4.12 .46 .48 .44 .72 8.82 4.33 .44 .53 .33 .70 Verbal aggression Pro-social Physical aggression wwwww [—5 w 3.: (.0 90 CD 0‘ (4) Revenge 3 8.35 4.27 .48 .56 .43 .74 Regression 3 7.70 3.62 .35 .39 .28 .62 Verbal aggression 3 13.08 3.44 .31 .53 .18 .57 Pro-social 3 8.39 4.12 .48 .54 .44 .74 Physical aggression 3 9.79 4.70 .52 .58 .42 .77 (1) = TV character. (2) 8 Ego. (3) TV character. (4) Ego. 55 reasoned discourse, internalization, withdrawal, forgive- ness and seeking help. These clusters roughly conform to the ones found in the analysis. Physical aggression and verbal aggression were predicted accurately. Reasoned discourse and forgiveness items combined to form a pro- social cluster. Internalization, seeking help and with- drawal combined to form both the revenge and regression clusters. When viewing the new clusters from a pro-social or anti-social dimension, we can see that the number of pro-social options have been reduced. The revenge clus- ter largely consists of what was predicted to be anti- social behavior. The major thrust of the dimension is not to confront the problem directly and openly but to lie, hate and get others to hate the person. Physical and verbal aggression were also predicted to be anti-social. Regression is difficult to judge; it represents a move to seek help from others in the form of advice but strangely includes some internalization like praying and not knowing what to do. Regression is certainly neutral at best. Pro-social is, by definition, pro-social; the cluster includes honesty, talking about the problem and trying to help the person reform. Figure 5 presents the predicted clusters, the new clusters and their classification as pro- or anti- social. 56 Predicted Pro-Social Obtained Pro-Social Reasoned discourse Pro-social Forgiveness Seeking help Predicted Anti-Social Obtained Anti-Social Physical aggression Physical aggression Verbal aggression Verbal aggression Internalization Revenge Withdrawal Regression Figure 5.--Predicted and Obtained Modes of Conflict Resolution. Differences between TV characters.--This phase of the instrument development dealt with identifying the differences between the various character types on the modes of conflict resolution. Several analyses were performed on part of the data; only situation comedy characters and action/adventure characters are used in this analysis since so few family-type characters were mentioned (N = 12). Three analyses were performed to determine what differences existed between situation comedy characters and action/adventure characters on the five modes of con- flict resolution. First, t-tests were computed between the two character types in order to determine which was most likely to use a given technique. Second, a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures was conducted 57 for each character separately in order to see which of the modes of conflict resolution a certain character was most likely to use. Finally, a discriminant analysis was done to see how accurately we could predict a character type on the basis of the five modes of con- flict resolution. Table 5 presents the results of these three analyses. The means represent the mean of the item sums. They range from 4 to 24 with 4 representing a "very unlikely" use of the mode and 24 indicating a "very likely" use of a mode; 13 represents a somewhat unlikely" use and 14 indicates a "somewhat likely" use of a mode. The t-tests indicate that significant differences exist for four of the five modes of conflict resolution. Situation comedy characters were significantly more likely to use verbal aggression, revenge and regression as modes of conflict resolution than action/adventure char- - acters. On the other hand, action/adventure characters were significantly more likely to use physical aggression as a mode of conflict resolution than situation comedy characters. There was no significant difference between situation comedy characters and action/adventure char- acters on the pro-social dimension. The ANOVA indicates that a significant difference exists among the five modes of conflict resolution for the situation comedy characters. By rank ordering the 58 TABLE 5.--Instrument Development t-Test, ANOVA for Repeated Measures, Scheffe Method of Selected Comparisons and Discriminant Analysis for Comparison of Action/Adventure Characters and Situation Comedy Characters. t-Test Action/Adventure Situation Comedy t Revenge 8.59 11.29 3.19 .002 Verbal aggression 15.39 18.60 4.06 .001 Pro-social 13.94 14.19 .31 .758 Physical aggression 11.38 8.54 -3.38 .001 Regression 8.23 10.78 3.95 .001 ANOVA for Repeated Measures Action/Adventure Situation Comedy Character Character Y: sd Ii sd Verbal Aggression 15.39 5.24 18.60 4.45 Pro-social 13.92 5.21 14.19 4.88 Physical aggression 11.38 5.54 8.54 4.81 Revenge 8.59 5.15 11.29 5.49 Regression 8.23 3.65 10.78 4.51 F value 28.69 68.86 Significance .0001 .0001 Scheffé Method for Action/Adventure Verbal ‘ Physical Aggress. Pro-Social Aggress. Revenge Regress. T = 1.48 T = 4.03 T=6.83 T - 7.19 Verbal aggression p > .01 P < .01 p‘< .01 p < .01 Pro—social T = 2.55 T==5.35 T = 5.71 p > .01 p< .0]. p < .0]. T=2.80 T = 3.16 Physical aggression p3> .01 p > .01 Reven e T a 3'62 8 p > .01 Regression 59 Scheffé Method for Situation Comedy Verbal Pro-Social Revenge Regress. Physical Aggress. Aggress. T = 5.11 T==8.46 T = 9.06 T =1l.65 Verbal aggression p < .01 p‘< .01 p < .01 p < .01 Pro-social T: 3.35 T = 3.95 T = 6.55 13> ~01 p < .01 p < .01 Re en T = .60 T . 3.20 v ge p > .01 p > .01 T = 2.59 Regression p > .01 Physical aggression g Discriminant Analysis Canonical 2 Eigenvalue Correlation X D.F. Sig. .64 .62 77 5 .001 Orthogonal Discriminant Function Coefficients Revenge .11474 Verbal aggression .11511 Pro-social -.03369 Physical aggression -.21491 Regression .13024 Number Correctly Predicted by Discriminant Function (N3163) Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Situation Comedy Action/Adventure Situation Comedy 71 24 ActiOn/Adventure 19 49 Total number predicted accurately . . . . . . 120 Total percent predicted accurately . . . . . 74% 60 modes according to their likelihood of use, we find that situation comedy characters are most likely to use verbal aggression, then pro-social, revenge,regression and lastly physical aggression as modes of conflict resolu- tion. Scheffé's test for selected comparisons indicates that of the ten possible comparisons, six are significant at the .01 level. In terms of the rank ordering, verbal aggression is significantly more likely to be used than pro-social, which is more likely to be used than revenge, but not significantly. The last two comparisons are not significantly different (revenge with regression and regression with physical aggression). When examining the action/adventure characters, we find again that a significant difference is found among the modes of conflict resolution. When looking at the Scheffé test, we find that five of the ten comparisons are significant at the .01 level but none of the rank orderings are significant (p < .01). In terms of the rank order, we find that verbal aggression is more likely to be used than pro-social, followed by physical aggression, revenge and regression. The discriminant analysis provides further insight into the differences between the character types. Discriminant analysis is a technique whereby we can see how well a set of variables allows us to place subjects in their appropriate groups. Discriminant 61 analysis provides us with several important statistics. First, it gives us a canonical correlation between the set.of predictor variables and the two dummy coded groups. Second, an eigenvalue is printed which repre- sents the relative importance of the discriminant func- tion in predicting the groups. Third, orthogonal dis- criminant function coefficients are printed which are interpretable as beta weights; that is, they represent the importance of the variable to the discriminant func- tion. Finally, the number of correct and incorrect classifications by the discriminant function is printed. The results of the discriminant functions are also pre— sented in Table 5. The canonical correlation is .62 which is sig- nificant at the .001 level. Thus, an important rela- tionship exists between the predictor variables and the groups. The eigenvalue is .64 which is fair. The orthogonal discriminant function coefficients indicate that the variable that shows the greatest discriminating power is physical aggression. This is predictable from the previous analysis. Indeed, the variable with the least discriminating power is pro-social which showed no significant difference between the two groups. The per- centage of overall correct prediction into the two groups was 74 percent. ‘1' ego A" :01.‘-' n“... .;l A.) , h: 111‘. “I n u '5' .. 62 Thus, the various analyses suggest that the two character types (situation comedy and action/adventure) show significant differences between them on the five modes of conflict resolution. The key difference seems to be that the action/adventure characters are perceived as more likely to use physical aggression. No difference was perceived between their likelihood to use pro-social techniques. Relationship between egg and favorite character.-- This phase of the analysis focused on the relationship between the perceived TV character's modes of conflict resolution and ego's modes. Three analyses were con- ducted. First, canonical correlations were done between the items of both the TV character and ego. This would give us some indication of the relationships among all the strategies. Second, zero-order correlations were computed between the clusters of modes of conflict reso- lution and, finally, canonical correlations were done between the clusters for both the TV character and ego. The results are presented in Table 6. The results of the canonical correlations between the items indicate that eight significant canonical vari- ates exist between the perceived TV character's modes of conflict resolution and ego's. Of the eight significant canonical variates, none of them accounts for less than 63 TABLE 6.-—Instrument Development Canonical Correlations Between Per- ceived TV Character's and Ego's Use of Conflict Resolution Items, Pearson and Canonical Correlations Between Perceived TV Character's and Ego's Modes of Conflict Resolution. Canonical Canonical 2 Variate Items Eigenvalue Correlation D'F° Sig. 1 .80 .90 9999 1936 .001 2 .79 .89 9999 1849 .001 3 .78 .88 2298 1764 .001 4 .75 .87 2106 1681 .001 5 .72 .85 1931 1600 .001 6 .69 .83 1769 1521 .001 7 .66 .81 1620 1444 .001 8 .64 .80 1482 1369 .016 Ego Ego Verb . Ego Ego Phys. Ego TV Character Revenge Aggress. Pro-Social Aggress. Regress. r=.54 Revenge p<.001 r=.47 verbal aggression p<.001 r=.50 Pro-social p<.001 r-.60 Physical aggression p<.001 r-.49 Regression p<.001 Canonical Canonical 2 Variate Scales Eigenvalue Correlation X D'F' 818' 1 .43 .66 253 25 .001 2 .40 .63 159 16 .001 3 .19 .43 74 9 .001 . 4 .18 .43 40 4 .001 5 .04 .20 6 1 .010 64 64 percent of the variance in the corresponding variates. In other words, when examining the unclustered strategies of conflict resolution, we find that eight significant linear combinations of TV character strategies of con- flict resolution exist that can predict ego's use of strategies of conflict resolution. The results of the zero-order correlations between the scales indicate that no correlation exists between like scales less than .47 and all are significant at the .001 level. When doing canonical correlations between these scales, we find five significant canonical variates. The last three appear to be less important because the highest accounts for only 19 percent of the variance in the dependent canonical variate. In other words, when TV character's clusters of conflict resolution are used to predict ego's clusters of conflict resolu- tion, we find five significant linear combinations. We might expect a reduction of canonical variates when using clusters as Opposed to strategies since the number of variables used in the analysis is reduced. We find sig- nificant canonical variates in each case which indicates a significant relationship between TV character's use and ego's use of modes of conflict resolution. Thus, the results of these three analyses tend to indicate that a significant relationship exists between 65 the perceived TV character's modes of conflict resolution and ego's modes of conflict resolution. The pretest or instrument deve10pment allowed us to-accomplish four things. First, we were able to deter- udne what clusters of conflict resolution exist for adolescents at the high school level to be used for the later testing. Second, we were able to reduce the number of items in the clusters while maintaining reliability. Third, we were able to see differences between TV char- acters and their modes of conflict resolution, as per- ceived by the respondents. Finally, we were able to see the relationship between the perceived TV character's modes of conflict resolution and ego's modes of conflict resolution. Wave 2: Survey Administration Data were collected for the test of the hypothe- ses from 333 sophomores at Terre Haute North Vigo High School on May 22, 1975. Of the 333, 170 were males and 160 were females; the mean age was 15.9. The mean number of brothers and sisters was three; 15 partici- pants had no brothers or sisters; five had nine. In terms of extra-curricular activities at the school, the mean number of group affiliations was 2.4. We asked the students to indicate what grades they generally received; the mean grade they reported receiving was C+/B-. 66 The procedures used in this data collection were much the same as in the instrument development data col- lection. Students were brought to the auditorium by their teachers. They found the questionnaires on their desks and heard a ten-minute introduction to the ques- tionnaire. Their questions were answered by the researcher and two assistants. The teachers were present but were not given a role in the data collection. The testing took place in the early afternoon. An hour had been allocated for the testing but most students required only a half-hour to complete the questionnaire. Those who finished early were urged to go back over their ques- tionnaires to look for errors. The questionnaire consisted of 152 items (see Appendix D). The format was as follows: Viewing pattern of TV comedies and dramas Ego use of modes of conflict resolution with stranger Perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution Perceived parental intervention in media behavior Perceived parental discipline Ego use of modes of conflict resolution with friend Demographics Two sets of analyses were conducted with these data which resulted in TV viewing scale formation and reliabilities were computed for the five sets of scales (excluding perceived parental intervention in media behavior and demographics). 67 Viewigg pattern items.--These items consisted of 59 programs which were selected from a local television guide for the Terre Haute area. All the programs were situation comedies, action/adventure shows or family dramas (excluding soap operas). A five-point Likert scale was used to measure frequency of viewing. The positions on the scale were: Every time it's on Most of the time it's on Some of the time it's on Not very often Not at all "Every time it's on" was coded as 5 and "Not at all" was coded as l. The means and standard deviaions for the 59 programs are presented in Table 7. The items were then cluster analyzed; Table 8 indicates the results of the varimax factor analysis. Seven dimensions emerged. By examining the correlations among items and clusters (see Appendix E), some small modifications were made in the clusters. Six shows were dropped from the first cluster because of low intercor- relations with other items in the cluster and low corre— lations with the cluster total ("Star Trek," "Kolchak the Night Stalker," "That's My Mama," "HotI.Baltimore." "Karen" and "The Name of the Game"). Again, the criteria for selection were few intercorrelations less than .25 and item-total correlations greater than .45. One pro- gram.was dropped from the second cluster because of 68 «a. Hm.H =aaume= N¢.H am.~ =em=sm was: ”Q. NmoH :gmu 0:“ NO 052: NMoH Om.- N 30‘5“;- wm. om.H =o spams: on.H He.~ :HHHmoouumm: No.H an.a zumaaez smegma: me.H me.~ =eamHmH m.ameHH«o= OH.H Ho.H =ouoaauamm a son: e~.H me.~ =mmaoa sanctum: oH.H no.H =msaaueuaoua: any: AN.H so.~ =aogqmo= HH.H me.a :Huao uses: He.a oo.~ zmafiemasmz mH.H «N.H =mnnumo: me.H Ha.~ =mmHHm vuomxuoez H¢.H ak.s =Hmm may: -.H mk.~ =xsasmz: k~.H ow.H zosmuo non: mq.H ma.~ =uumsamz pom: 0H.H mm.a zmefimaouH= om.H o~.~ zumaama amuse: sH.H om.H znamz a: m.umna= mm.H om.~ =maomummmmn may: Hm.H Hm.H =muumumm= a~.H kk.~ =umuamo Hmosuuz= ~H.H N¢.H =mesaoo woo: mm.H om.~ =suoum mosses: sN.H ~o.~ =emeousamm= em.H ow.~ =mxmn seams: HN.H ~H.N :oomwosmum dam mo muoouum: N¢.H nw.~ :muooz peaks mums: sm.H ka.~ ==m mass: o~.H om.~ =xmfloe= oe.H ma.~ zsm use HH.~3= «N.H os.~ :NH anus: «m . H mH. N :HQHQfiSfiME 9.5.... MN . H Hm. N :mflou HNZ wrap: Hm.H o~.~ :snauz magnum: Hm.a Nm.N zamaoamuaflomz ms.s -.~ =ase sesame: as.a om.~ =smeoeoe= H¢.H «m.~ =meosm= N¢.H km.~ zmsusmum was no amaom masses: se.s so.m ==o .aH>oz: 84 SJ .3835? 3. H 35 ...85mumam.. mm»a Ne.N =mmsxoom was: sm.a 0H.m =ams we“ ecu oases: ms.H ee.~ zmmoumm m.amwoe= sm.H wH.n =sasamm was as HH<= o~.H ks.~ zaaz “mason ceases: New: mm.H mm.m =aom was anomamm= H¢.H Hm.~ znufimmeuo suea<= mm.H sm.m =muafia woos: kq.a mn.~ =emua “mum: ~m.H oo.m :mm9 om .M. asuwoum >9 .wawumoum >9 mo wcfizow> you msowuow>mn oumosmum was mass: coaumuumflafiao< mo>uamll.n mamHHamh .u mnu :H HH<: oxHH ozone mo o>ounom mundane usom xaHnu no» on none 363 .m Nzuonooy mmooH: No. .me one :.mHuHmum one no mmoom oHuuHH: HH. u :.mo0uHm3 mew: oxHH maonm mo o>oudom mucoume usom stnu no» on zone 30: .w . . . 9.6-6.5 use? as .322: Ho. Ho. wwm :.stcmz: oxHH msonm mo o>ouonm mN 0N monsoon u50% onnu oo» oo zone so: .5 Ho. om. HH. .me ~>H so nouns no» eons Ho>o mac: wH.I mo.l no.| - u usoe sH muonu one moHnu zoos 3cm .0 NH. ON. on. Hm. .me N>H so nouns 30% uses co. no. no.1 mo.l u Hm>o o>mn 30% on Houusoo Sosa 30m .m S. R. B. 8. NH. .me 25.1 £3 5 Ho. No. mo. mH. Ne. H noose meu monsoon pooh om Sosa 30m .q Ho. mm. on. Ho. wH. mo. .me Nmaonm oaom waHsoumsfiaoum NH.I No. No. He. mo.l mo. u 90% noun mucoumn Moo» on some 30: .m Ho. mm. co. Ho. He. NH. Ho. .me N>H so nouoz 50% uses MH.I No. mo.| om. Ho.l co. mm. u oNHoHuHHo mundane Hook on tons so: .N 8. mo. 8. S. 3. S. 8. S. .36 :5 so :39. .5.A 623 6:2... NH.I mo. oo. Nm. NC. NH. Ne. Ne. H hem ou o>e£ mucoume H=o% on none Bow .H m m N o m e m N .maouH aOHu IcePHMuoH mHvuz Hmuamumm vo>Hoonm wooa< msoHuMHeuuoo amuHIuouaH GOHumuuoHnHBu< ho>uomll.mMH MHm u «Home. u H osmHuw :uHB swam>om «swam. u H enmaut sues cosmmmuwmm «moon. u u onoHum :uHs conmonwwm Hmonhem «ooem. u u oooHum :uHs HMHoomloum «oqwm. u H osoHum :uHB oOHmmouwwm Hmnum> «owem. u u nowomuum euHa owom>om «HmmN. n u nowomuuw :uH3 GOHmmouwom «wmnm. n u newsmuuw auHs sonmonwo Hmonenm eNqNN. u n Howsmuum tuHs HMHoomloum eqmmN. u u Homespun nuHB aonmouwwm Hmnuo> swamem aOHmmouwmm GOHmmmmwwm HoHoomloum :OHmmonw4 Housoumm Houseman HMUHm em Houaouom Hsnuo> Hmuomumm Hmuooumm .meHusHouuoo monsoon umoHIu one moaoHum one muowomuum :uHa oOHuoHomom uoHHmaoo mo mono: m.owm one maHHnHomHn mo moon: Hsuoouom oo>Hoouom soosuom maoHumHouuoo oomumomll.nH mqm0unes unsound use» steu so» on case no: I a Fleeces amuse: one :.sHuHsum one so meson oHuuHm: :.n:0uHs3 ens: uxHH usage mo o>0ueos museuen uso» xcwsu so» on nose :0: I a ~:o:o>Hm HHsamz: one =.xsnox: :.stcsz: exHH mecca we o>ouoae museusn uso» stsu so» so nose so: I N ~>h so nous: so» use: asses use: uso» sH some» one soHsu »cse so: I o N>H no nous: so» yes) uo>o o>ec so» on Heuusou nose :6: I m ~>H usoos :0» zqu stu museums uso» so nose :0: I c Nuance meow wcHnousz seem so» damn museums use» on nose :0: I m ~>H so some: so» use: euHuHuHuu moneyed use» on cuss so: I N ~>H so some: so» use) usons »sm cu o>ss succeed uso» om nose so: I H 5.0.N “ammo. +moH. «MMH. ono. +ooH. +HHH. +¢HH. +NoH. +ooH. +cHH. +NHH. unsuso>sm\coHuom wmu a.e.~ “450.- moo.a oNo. moo.- soo. soo. was. one. moo. moo. Hoo. Houses conuwausm o.m.e "HNO. omo.- Nee. Nmo.u mmo.u wmo.n «no.u oeo.a mso.u Hmo.u mmo.- Hmauomuota Haaamm n.m.N u1.0:. ammH. emeH. mNH. eqMH. «oMH. {NeH. +0NH. +mNH. INQH. ancH. susucu>os\coHuus om< emcee/om w.¢.n “+MNH. «mnH. eoMH. «weH. soQH. eweH. «wMH. quH. «qu. smeH. cemH. oususu>vs\coHuos wmu m.e.~ mamas. «can. «CAN. «eNN. «omm. IHNN. «mom. .oHN. «MNN. «ANN. sONN. nausea coasmasem o.m.n name. +soH. .mao. +30e. +ese. +eoH. +Hoe. +Hoo. +eoH. +nao. +aoa. smauomuota sesame a.~.H “coo. Hoo.- koo.u noo.u neo.- Hoo.- coo.- m~o.u Noo.u moo.u moo.u unsuc6>v6\cosuum om< sonooumom m.n.N noHo. moo. oceo. NNo. meo. moo. moo. one. mqo. one. moo. sususs>os\coHuus mmu m.e.n "eno.- +-H.u .smo.u +oes.u +moH.n +qu.- .kmo.- +NOH.- +koe.u +moH.- +mo~.- sea-66 coasasuam w.o.c mNmo. Nmo.a mNO. Hno.u mmo.l mmo.n mNo.I meo.n mmo.c Nno.u cmo.n HsHoosIoue »HHaem «.m.n ueHmH. INNH. «HoH. smoH. emNH. anH. «cmH. emcH. «HRH. ewNH. eomH. oususo>os\coHuus om< sonmoumws Heonazm m.n.o neNno. +HHH. +Hmo. eoNH. +ooH. +m0H. .Nwo. +m0H. +NOH. +nOH. +on. unsuco>ss\coHuos mmu m.e.e u.62. Icon. «Noe. ease. Ices. .Naa. «and. «see. INNH. «Nae. «HRH. xeuaou consasuam o.m.e "aeo. .awo. soc. +~o~. .Hoo. .Hoo. .mko. .smo. .owo. .Hoo. .Hmo. Haauoanota Nassau n.c.m uooo. mNo. oNo. mmo. HNo. «No. nHo. «Ho. oNo. «No. nNo. oususs>oexcoHuoe om< HsHuomnoum N.¢.N nonfio. .Nwo. +NoH. +nmo. ammo. oswo. ammo. come. ammo. ammo. come. oususu>os\coHuus mac s.¢.~ "mmo.- “so.. one. «00. Mao. moo. moo. aoo. coo. moo. ooo. season contestsm a.w.o uNoHof ammo.u Hmo.l oomo.u ammo.u .mno.l cowo.l ammo.u cowc.l onmc.| omno.t HsHoosuoud »HHasm n.~.a “one. one. coo. «so. moo. Hmo. moo. one. nee. Nae. omo. «usuau>oa\aoeuua one :OHeoou e Henuo> neuesHu noun a m n o n e n N H nevus usHIuH> asuuonh token one soHusHosnu you msHHHouusoo nevus usuHm uuwHunoo mo eve: .nouunseuounu Hsunsusm vepHeuuem uou msHHHouusou .eueuseuum new: soHusHosem uuHHusou as some: s.ouu was snusuusm unassub assess: ssOHusHeuuoo HsHuusmII.4aH mandw 99 ‘08: ‘5 poocom ‘5 ‘HOU—Ham-p ouexHfiamh “SH SH HH<: one :.oHuHsum we» so mesa: eHuuHs: :.mc0uHs3 spa: e=o.u>et usazmxz as» =.xsnoe= =.xs==mz= N>h so nous) oxHH shoes as s>ounee museums uso» scusu so» so nose )0: I oqu muons mo e>0uoes unsound uso» steu so» so nose :0: exHH msbzm mo o>ounae museums uso» xcuzu so» oo cuss Jo: sou so» use: usoes «so: uso» cH muonu ous usHsu »=ma so: N>H so nous: so» yes: uo>o e>ec so» so HouucOU nose :0: N>H usons so» ;UH3 stu Neaozm meow meanness aouu so» doom museums use» oo case so: N>H co nous) so» use: oNHoHuHuu unsound uso» oo nose :0: N>h so some: so» use: usons »sm cu o>sn unsound uso» oo nose so: on. v a I 0 mo. v n I + Ho. v a I e p:suaue o N:uecssh mouse: I w I N I o I n museums use» so ness :6: I c I n I N I H ~.s.m “NNQ. meg. oto. use. ago. see. «no. sec. ago. ~no. oso. ouasco>sa\cousum mmo ¢.a.~ name. mmo. owe. Nso. use. «no. use. mno. use. see. nee. xuuaou cosumsssm “.m.~ “moo. .mmo. «ses. .nko. .mmo. .sao. .mmo. .eeo. .oko. +noo. .emo. assoom-ota sesame a.n.~ ”INAN. .ek~. cooN. «HAN. «new. «ONN. IowN. .msN. .meN. «mmN. «ANN. stascopus\=oau66 one , ouco>ux m.¢.s “.oos. .ams. Imam. «one. Isms. Inos. Ices. «ems. .Nms. .sms. .Nma. 6t=u=6>ua\cossua was m.n.q ”Inmw. IGQN. «OON. «NON. «omm. «mom. .ssm. Iqhw. .mem. .NkN. ImoN. sesaou aossmausm m.s.a mono. +ooo. .owo. +aoo. +NOH. +mos. .Hoo. +moo. +mos. .mmo. +ooo. sanuomnota Nassau o.n.~ “Ado. moo.u loo.- Boo. NHo.- soo. Nae. «so. «co. ooo.- Noo.- unsucw>om\cossum on< conmeuuux a.n.~ ammo. +moH. +oss. woo. +mOe. +oao. +oas. +nos. +moe. +mos. +eos. utasco>va\=osuuu mmo m.o.s amwo.u sao.u eso.- .awo. oko.- “so. ago. moo. .sno. .seo.- .smo.- Nassau cosumausm a.n.~ usoc. ego. «NH. m~o. ago. see. Nno. mmo. smo. ago. “so. Hauuom-ota sesame a.n.~ “.mmos. IQQN. .qom. .mNN. «new. IoHN. amen. «emu. «wNN. IHQN. «sqN. 6t=s=u>v6\=aas6m om< connouuds HeanmmM 0.».3 i+moo. +o~s. +mss. some. Inns. Isms. +mo~. «ems. .NMH. +ona. tens. ut=u=o>vm\=6ssua mmo o.o.s “tans. .eos. «ems. IHON. .mos. teas. Ines. «mos. «sou. «com. IMHN. xuuaou coauqausm m.o.c um8. .mmo. wee. .soo. .mmo. .emo. ago. .nmo. .kmo. .Hmo. +qoo. Hmauomuota sesame a.m.~ unmo.n smo.- amo.- sec. aeo.- mqo. Noe. Hmo. «so. «no.. Nqo.u ouauco>va\cosuua on< HmHuomIOum a.6.~ “Noe. .Nao. .moo. “so. .sao. .eao. .mmo. .sho. .meo. .mao. .smo. 6t9u=o>ua\cosuuq moo o.~.s “moo.- Moo. sec. moo. one. fine. ~mo. see. one. See. omo. xeuaou coauuausm ~.m.~ "~No. ”so. mod. RNO. see. ”so. ago. mac. «no. see. one. Hasuomuoua Nassau a.~.s a+ooH. Inns. .mss. +qms. «one. same. Idea. «Nae. +-H. Inns. «use. uu=u=6>va\=osu6o on< conmouuue Henuo> uoussHo seem a m N e n e N N H uoouo msHaoH> asuuoum neueN one sOHusHoeeu uou wsHHHouusoo uoouo uouum uUHHunoo no son: .sOHuss>uuusu Hsueous» oesauuuou uou usHHHouusou .osuHum emu: soHusHomum uoHHucou we soon: e.ouu one asuouusm unassu> soosuon sooHusHsuuoo HsHuusmII.nuH Hausa 100 correlations. Every correlation is included in Tables 18A and 188 but only six of the more dramatic reductions will be discussed. Many of the first-order partials showed some degree of reduction and some even changed sign. The most dramatic reductions were in the third- order partials. The correlation between viewing of situation comedies and the pro-social mode of conflict resolutibn when dealing with a stranger is relatively large (.175). When controlling for how much the parent has to say about what the adolescent watches on TV, how much the parent talks to the adolescent about TV and parental approval of pro-social programs, the correlation fell to .120. Thus, when parents are perceived to impose standards, the correlation increased. The correlation between the pro-social mode of conflict resolution with friends and the viewing of situation comedies was relatively high (.213). When controlling for how much the parents talk to the adoles- cent about TV and perceived parental approval of situation comedies and pro-social programs, the correlation fell to .155. The correlation between regression with strangers and pro-social viewing was also relatively high (.107). When controlling for how much the parents stop the ado- lescent from watching some shows and parental approval 101 of situation comedies and pro-social programs, the cor- relation fell to .051. The correlation between revenge with strangers and CBS action/adventure programs was fairly high (.112). When controlling for parental criticism, rules about watching TV and parental approval of action/adventure shows, the correlation fell to .085. The correlation between physical aggression with friends and the viewing of ABC action/adventure program was high (.244). When controlling for parental criticism, adolescent control over TV watching and parental approval of action/adventure shows, the correlation dropped to .1995. These are the more dramatic examples of the changes in the correlations; most were smaller in their reduction. Overall, two of the 40 series of first-order partials showed a decrease in all nine control variables. Eight more showed a reduction in all but one of the nine control variables and ten more showed a reduction in all but two of the first-order partials. Twenty of the 40 first-order partial correlation series showed a reduc- tion in at least seven of the nine first-order partials. Table 18C indicates the frequency with which a control variable appeared in the best third-order partial. A group of four variables appears to be in the best third- order partial most frequently: parental criticism 102 TABLE 18C.--Frequency of Best Control Combination for Perceived Parental Intervention Items. Perceived Parental Intervention Item Stranger Friend 1. How much do your parents have to say 3 4 about what you watch on TV? 2. How much do your parents criticize 9 12 what you watch on TV? 3. How much do your parents stop you 6 2 from watching some shows? 4. How much do your parents talk about 11 7 TV with you? 5. How much control do you have over what 3 7 you watch on TV? 6. How many rules are there in your home 3 4 about what you can watch on TV? 7. How much do you think your parents approve of shows like "Mannix," "Kojak," 8 11 and "Hawaii Five-O"? 8. How much do you think your parents approve of shows like "The Waltons," 10 8 "Little House on the Prairie," and "Lucas Tanner"? 9. How much do you think your parents approve of shows like "All in the 7 5 Family," "Sanford and Son," and "Good Times"? 103 (variable 2); parental discussion with adolescent (variable 4); perceived parental approval of action/ adventure shows (variable 7); and perceived parental approval of pro-social familyyshows (variable 8). Thus, some support is found for the hypothesis although it is very limited in that most of the initial correlations were small and many of the increments of reduction were also small. Perceived Peer Influence One hypothesis was developed about the relation- ship between peer use of modes of conflict resolution and adolescent use: Hypothesis 6: As perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution increases, adolescent use of the same modes of conflict resolution increases. To test this hypothesis, Pearson correlations were computed between the way a friend would handle a con- flict with the way the participant would handle it. The prediction is that high positive correlations would be found between the friend's use of a given mode of conflict resolution and the adolescent's. Table 19 indicates the results; each of the correlations is significant and very high, indicating that the positive relationship exists. Comparisons were made between the correlations to see if they differed in magnitude. No significance test was available for the within situation correlations. The 104 Ho. v n u + Hoe. v n u s NN. H». wN.H +No.m m¢.H osHs> u «snow. u u onMHuw nuHs owno>om emNHo. u u onoHum nqu nOHmmouwmm «mmmc. u u onoHum nuHs nonmouwwm Hoon»nm «mHHm. u u onoHuw nuHB HNHoomIoum swoon. u u onoHuw nuHs nonmouwmo Hsnuo> «qmmm. n u umwnouuo nuHB owno>om «Nmmo. n u uownmuum nuHB nonmouwom smNNo. u u uownouum nqu nOmeouwwm Hmon»nm encNo. u u Homnsuum nuHs HsHoomloum emNoe. u u umwneuum nuHa nonmouwwm Hmnuo> owno>mm nOHmwouwom nmwmmwmwwn HsHoomIoum nOWMmMMMwn umom uoom uoom A uomm umom .mnOHusHouuou neosuom uwoslu one onoHum one umwnwuum nuH3 noHusHomem uoHHmnoo mo woos: mo on: m.owm one nOHusHomom uOHHmnoo mo moooz no on: uoom oo>Hoouom noosuom mnoHuMHouuou nomusmmll.mH manna 105 highest correlation between peer and ego's modes of con- flict resolution with a stranger is for physical aggres- sion, followed by regression, pro-social, verbal aggres- sion and revenge. The highest correlation between peer and ego's modes of conflict resolution with a friend is with physical aggression, followed by regression, revenge, verbal aggression and pro-social. It appears that peers have agreater impact on anti-social modes of conflict resolution with both strangers and friends than the pro-social mode of conflict resolution. A significance test was computed between the cor- relations in the two situations. The verbal aggression correlation is higher for strangers than friends (n.s.), as are the correlations for pro-social (p < .01), physical aggression (n.s.), regressiOn (n.s.) and revenge (n.s.). Thus, it appears that peer influence is greater when the adolescent deals with strangers than with friends. The hypothesis is supported and perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution is a significant determinant of the adolescent's use of the same modes of conflict resolution. Combined Social Learnipg Influence To evaluate the combined predictive power in the symbolic, familial and peer influence groups, ten multi- ple regression equations were tested. Each consisted of 106 the dependent variable (a given mode of conflict reso- lution used for either stranger or friend) and six predictor variables (the same mode as used by the parents and peers and the four viewing pattern clusters). Per- ceived parental intervention was not included in the regressions since it was thought to interact rather than have a direct influence on the modes of conflict reso- lution. An overview of the multiple R's indicates that they are very close in size; the largest is .692 and the smallest is .579 (see Table 20). All the multiple regression equation results are presented in Tables 21A- 21E. In terms of the betas, the largest predictor vari- ables consistently are perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution and perceived parental discipline. TABLE 20.--Mu1tip1e R's for Combined Social Learning Influences for All Modes of Conflict Resolution. Mode of Conflict Mode of Conflict Resolution R Resolution R With Stranger With Friend Verbal aggression .618* verbal aggression .5999* Pro—social .632* Pro-social .579* Physical aggression .692* Physical aggression .665* Regression .651* Regression .648* Revenge .619* Revenge .659* * = p < .001. 107 £8. ZN. ~58? H2686: Nmoo.I aoo. I wnHaoH> »oeaou nOHussuHm wNNo.I How. I ousuno>om\noHuom mmu onoo. ONH. ousuno>ooxnoHuos om< moNN. Hoo. nOHmmouwws Hmoum> Hounoumm come. Hoo. nOHmmouwwm Honum> m.oanuh Hoo. mmmm. moon. onoHuw nuHa nonmouwwm Hsnuo> memo.l qu. I wanoH> HsHoomIoum Hmoo. omm. mafia? .3686 8383mm Nmoo. me. ousuno>os\noHuom mmo mmoo. mom. ousunm>om\n0Huom om< mHHH. mHo. nOHmmouwws Hmnuo> Hounousm Nmmm. Hoo. nOHmmouwws Hmnuo> m.onoHum Hoo. aHmm. och. mmwmmuum nuHB nonmouwww Hsnuo> M\.me NM m suom m\.me moasz oHnsHus> .onoHum one uownmuum nuHs nOHmmouwm<.Hmnuo> uow moonusHmnH wanummq HsHoom ooanaou uom m.m mHnHuHSZII. Haooomuouo mono. kko. oooo. oco36o> »omaou nonsmouoo HoHo. ooo. Nooo. muooam>om\aoouum moo NmOH.I omo. ONHH.I ousuno>om\n0Huom om< mono. Hoo. mono. Hmooomnouo Hmoamuom “moo. Hoo. Nose. Hmouomuouo m.oamoum Hoo. Nmmm. ommm. onoHuw nuHB HsHoomIoum Homo. oom. oomo. oaH36o> Hmouomnoum Homo. moo. nomo.u woosmfi> »omaou sonomauom MMNo.I moo. ooNo.I ousuno>om\noHuom mmu mheo.u one. noHo.I muouom>om\coouoo one omoo. moo. ooNH. HmooomI6uo Hooamumo moon. Hoo. Homo. Hmouomuouo m.oameum Hoo. moon. Homo. nomamuum eons Hmooomuoum m\.ofim «m a memo o\.oom o msmz «Hooouo> .oauoum one Hownsuum nuHB HmHoomIoum uow moonousnH wanuooH HmHoom ooanEou uow m.“ MHQHuHSZII.mHN mHm noncomuouo onoo.u non. oomo.u wanaon> »ouaoo nonsmoonm NHoo. mom. Nooo. ousoso>oo\soHoos moo ammo. Hoo. onmo. ousunu>os\noHoos can waeH. Hoo. mmON. nOHmmouwws Hson»nn Hounoumm anon. noo. soon. aoommmuoom sausages m.oaonoo Hoo. omoo. oooo. oooooo eons coommomwwo nmoom»mm ~o~o.u moo. momo.- monsoo> Hmooomuooo oooo.u omo. momo.n maesmo> sooaoo nonsmoonm mono. non. nono. stooc6>om\aonoom moo oooo. on. nooo. mu=6a6>oo\sonuom oo< HNmH. Hoo. «HmN. nonmouwws Hson»nn Hounmumm onoo. noo. oooo. aonmmmuwom noonm»oo m.oaonuu Hoo. None. mHmo. uownmuum nuH3 nOHmmouwwo Hsonmnm o\.mno e o moon. o\.ooo o osmz anomnnm> .onoHum one uownsuum nuHa nOHmmouwm< Hson»nm uom moonosHmnH wanumoH HsHoom oonHonoo uow a.“ oHnHanZII.oHN mqm nonooonoum quH. Hmo. None. wanoH> »oeaoo nOHunsuHm noso. has. ooso. monoo6>om\aosooo moo somo.n sow. ;.-~oso.u ousoampoo\aonoom oo< oson. noo. oooo. cosmoouooo sensuous Noso. Hoo. memo. oosmmouomo o.oaoouo Hoo. quq. once. onoHum nuHB nOmeonum ooso. oom. osmo. .oassms> Hmouoououo oomo.u mom. oaoo.u wassmn> souaoo nosooaoom oNoo. Nos. oooo. moooao>om\aooo6o moo oomo.u oom. ssoo.u moooao>oo\aoooom oo< Noon. ooo. sosn. cosmooomou nauseous omom. Hoo. nksm. nonsmouwmu m.oomnoo soo. omNs. osoo. mmwaoouo eons sonmooomum o\.oso on o memo o\.msm o osmz anomnuo> one uownsuum nuHB nonmouwem uow moonosHmnH .oanum wanusoH HsHoom ooanfioo uom m.m oHnHoHnZII.QHN mamom\oosooo moo moon. ooo. noon. moooampoo\aosooa oo< nooo. ooo. moss. moao>mo Hmoaoomo woes. ooo. oooo. moa6>mo o.oamooo ooo. osms. oooo. oamsoo eons «momsoo oooo.- moo. sooo.u wasamo> nonooouooo oooo.u oso. Nooo.- moosmo> oooaoo aooumooso oooo. ooo. oooo. muooam>om\s6oo6o moo mHNo. omo. mmHo. ousunm>om\noHoos om< oooo. Hoo. noso. mo=6>oo sooaoomo Noam. noo. moos. .ooao>mu m.oaoooo Hoo. mmmm. mmHo. mmmmouom noHakmmmw>om o\.ono oo o memo o\.ooo o uaoz «noooum> ons uomnsuum nuHB omnm>om uom moonosHmnH wanuooA HoHoom oonHAaoo .onoHum poo o.o moonoHsznu.oH~ oooou 112 For all ten equations, the perceived peer use of modes of conflict resolution is a significant positive predictor at p < .001. Perceived parental discipline is a significant predictor at p < .001 for eight equations and at p < .019 and p < .063 for two equations. ABC action/adventure is a positive significant predictor at p < .001 for revenge with a friend, at p < .041 for physical aggression with a friend and a negative predic- tor at p < .030 for pro-social with a friend (B = -.1087). CBS action/adventure is a positive significant predictor at p < .056 for revenge with a stranger. Situation comedies are a significant predictor at p < .031 for regression with a friend. Pro-social is a significant negative predictor at p < .073 for revenge with a stranger. - The results tend to indicate that the social learning model can predict to the same extent for the learning of both pro-social and anti-social modes of con- flict resolution. The amount of variance explained ranges from 34 percent to 48 percent. Sex Differences Four hypotheses were developed regarding the relationship of sex differences and modes of conflict resolution. Two of these hypotheses focused on between- sex differences: 113 Hypothesis 7: Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than female adolescents. Hypothesis 8: Female adolescents are more likely to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than male adolescents. Two analyses were conducted to investigate these two hypotheses. First, a t-test was computed between men and women for each of the five modes of conflict resolu- tion. Second, a discriminant analysis was performed using the five modes of conflict resolution as predictors of sex. The discriminant analysis used the same method as in the analysis of TV character types described in Chapter II. The modes of conflict resolution were used as predictor variables to place the respondent into sex categories. A canonical correlation is computed which indicates the correlation between the modes of conflict resolution and the two sexes. Orthogonal discriminant function coefficients indicate which of the five modes best discriminate between males and females. Finally, the percent of correctly placed respondents is indicated. The results of these tests are presented in Table 22. Student t-tests were computed for the five modes of conflict resolution when dealing with a stranger and a friend. The results indicate that significant differ— ences exist between males and females for all ten. The same significant differences exist for males when dealing with a stranger or friend: ‘males are more likely to use 114 TABLE 22.—-t-Test, Discriminant Analysis, ANOVA for Repeated Measures and Scheffé Method of Selected Comparisons for Sex Differences. t-Test Male X. Female X t 81 (N = 170) (N = 159) Value 3' Stranger Verbal aggression 15.55 14.22 2.33 p<.020 Pro-social 10.09 13.59 -6.34 p<.001 Physical aggression 10.76 7.08 6.09 p<.001 Regression 8.27 11.93 -7.41 p<.001 Revenge 10.28 8.49 3.34 p<.001 Friend Verbal aggression 14.53 11.88 4.46 p<.001 Pro-social 13.39 17.02 -6.07 p<.001 Physical aggression 8.89 5.82 5.65 p<.001 Regression 8.59 11.56 -5.24 p<.001 Revenge 8.69 6.40 4.70 p<.001 Discriminant Analysis for Strangers Canonical 2 Eigenvalue Correlation X D.F. Sig. .2985 .4795 84- 5 .001 Orthogonal Discriminant Function Coefficients Verbal aggression .01135 Pro-social -.05112 Physical aggression .09582 Regression -.14798 Revenge .00334 Number Correctly Predicted by Discriminant Function (N-330) Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Male Female Male 115 55 Female 44 116 Total number predicted accurately . . . . 231 Total percent predicted accurately . . . . 70% 115 TABLE 22.--Continued. Discriminant Analysis for Friends Canonical 2 Eigenvalue Correlation X D.F. Sig. .2357 .4367 68 5 .001 Orthogonal Discriminant Function Coefficients Verbal aggression .05540 Pro-social -.04824 Physical aggression .07830 Regression -.11159 Revenge .03170 Number Correctly Predicted by Discriminant Function (N=330) Predicted Group Membership Actual Group Male Female Male 126 44 Female 42 118 Total number predicted accurately . 244 Total percent predicted accurately 74% ANOVA for Repeated Measures Male (N=165) Female (N=158). IX sd X? sd Stranger Verbal aggression 15.52 5.50 14.21 4.83 Pro-social 10.04 4.86 13.57 5.13 Physical aggression 10.72 6.04 7.06 4.88 Regression 8.14 3.95 11.93 4.81 Revenge 10.19 5.03 8.49 4.63 F 54.45 80.03 Significance p<.0001 p<.0001 Friend Verbal aggression 14.59 5.63 11.89 5.08 Pro-social 13.41 5.69 17.01 5.11 Physical aggression 8.92 5.48 5.84 4.10 Regression 8.62 4.66 11.57 5.51 Revenge 8.72 4.84 6.39 3.90 F 66.93 166.52 Significance p<.0001 p<.0001 TABLE 22.--Continued. ll6 Scheffé Method for Males with Strangers Verbal Physical Revenge Pro-Social Regress. Aggress. Aggress. Verbal a ression T = 7'96 T3850 T 3 9°08 T312523 88 p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 p< .01 Ta .88 T = 1.13 T- 4.28 Physical aggression p > .01 p > .01 p < .01 T= 3.15 Pro-social p > .01 Regression Scheffé Method for Males with Friends Verbal Physical Aggress. Pro Social Aggress. Revenge RBgress. Verbal a ression T a 1'99 T a 9'58 T"9-92 T '10-03 88 p > .01 p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 Pro-social T = 7.58 T- 7.92 T c 8.09 p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 T- .34 T = .51 Physical aggression I>> .01 p > .01 Re T - .17 venge p > .01 Regression 117 TABLE 22.--Continued. Scheffé Method for Females with Strangers AZ:::::° Pro-Social Regress. Revenge i::::::f Verbal aggression : 1.3: g : 3.3: $29.3: : 2113(1) Pro-social : : 2.3? ::832 5 2:10.01 Regression $25.81 : Z 83: Revenge : : 2:31 Physical aggression Scheffé Method for Females with Friends R... Pro-Social : : 7:;i g : 7:3: $734:31 : :ISZSZ Verbal aggression : : :3i 37(7ISZ : 2 8:3: Regression : : 7:3i : 2 7:31 Revenge : ; :01 Physical aggression 118 verbal aggression, physical aggression and revenge than females. 0n the other hand, females are more likely to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution and regression than males with both stranger and friend. The between-sex differences hypotheses find some support. Males are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than females with the exception of regression. Females are more likely to use regression than males. Females are also more likely to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than males. The results are consistent for the stranger and friend situ- ation for both males and females. The discriminant analysis was equally successful in predicting sex differences on the basis of modes of conflict resolution with strangers. The canonical cor- relation is .4795 and significant at the .001 level. In terms of predictive power, the strongest orthogonal discriminant function coefficient is the regression mode followed by physical aggression. 0n the basis of the five variables, 70 percent of the respondents could be placed into their sex category correctly. When dealing with a conflict with a friend, the discriminating power remained stable. The canonical correlation is .4367 and is significant at the..001 level. Again, the regression mode is the most significant pre- dictor followed by physical aggression. On the basis of 119 the five modes of conflict resolution, 74 percent of the respondents could be classified correctly according to sex. Thus, the discriminant analysis indicates that males and females differ on the modes of conflict reso- lution. The best discriminators are physical aggression and regression. The t-tests indicate the same kinds of results: with the exception of regression, males tend to rely more on anti-social modes of conflict resolution than females and females tend to rely more on the pro- social mode of conflict resolution than males. Two additional hypotheses focused on within-sex differences: hypothesis 9: Male adolescents are more likely to use anti-social modes of conflict resolution than the pro-social mode of conflict resolution. Hypothesis 10: Female adolescents are more likely to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than anti-social modes of conflict resolution. These two hypotheses were tested using a one- way analysis of variance for repeated measures computed separately for males and females; we used the five modes of conflict resolution as the dependent measures. The Scheffé test for selected comparisons was also employed. The results of these tests are also presented in Table 22. The one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures indicates that significant differences exist 120 among the modes of conflict resolution (p < .0001). The rank ordering for males (by mean likelihood) indicates that the most likely mode of conflict resolution to be employed when dealing with strangers is verbal aggres- sion, followed by physical aggression, revenge, pro- social and regression. The Scheffé method for selected comparisons indicates five of the ten possible comparisons are significant (p < .01). In terms of the rank order- ing, the verbal aggression mode is more likely to be used than the physical aggression mode (p < .01); the physical aggression mode is more likely to be used than the revenge mode (n.s.); the revenge mode is more likely to be used than the pro-social mode (n.s.); and the pro-social mode is more likely to be used than the regression mode (n.s.). When looking at males in a situation where they are dealing with a friend, the results change. A sig- nificant F also exists (.0001). The rank ordering changes; the most frequent mode of conflict resolution (based on mean likelihood) is still verbal aggression, but the rest of the ordering changes. The second most frequent mode of conflict resolution is pro-social, fol- lowed by physical aggression, revenge and regression. The Scheffé test indicates six of the ten differences are significant (p < .01). In terms of the rank ordering, the only significant difference is between the second 121 most used mode (pro-social) and the third most used mode (physical aggression). These results do not support Hypothesis 9. When males are dealing with strangers, they use three anti-social modes of conflict resolution (verbal aggres- sion, physical aggression and revenge) more than the pro-social mode. However, only verbal aggression is used significantly more (p < .01) than the pro-social mode. When males are dealing with friends, they use only one anti-social mode of conflict resolution (verbal aggression) more than the pro-social mode, but it is not used significantly more often. The females show a significant F between the modes of conflict resolution when dealing with a stranger (.0001). The most frequently used mode is verbal aggression, followed by pro—social, regression, revenge and physical aggression. The Scheffé test for selected comparisons indicates that seven of the ten comparisons are significant (p < .01). In terms of the rank ordering, only one of the differences is signifi- cant: the difference between the third and fourth modes (regression and revenge). When females are involved in a conflict with a friend, the same significant F exists (.0001). The first and second ranks change positions. The most likely mode to be used is pro-social, followed by verbal 122 aggression, regression, revenge and physical aggression. The Scheffé test indicates eight of the ten differences are significant (p < .01). Only two of the rank order- ings are significant: the difference between the first and second ranks (pro-social and verbal aggression) and between the third and fourth ranks (regression and revenge). Hypothesis lO finds some support. When females are in conflict with strangers, the most likely response is verbal aggression, followed by the pro-social mode. The difference between the two is not significant. The difference between the pro-social mode and the other anti-social modes of conflict resolution is significant in two of the three comparisons (pro-social is not sig- nificantly different from regression). When females are in conflict with a friend, the most likely used mode of conflict resolution is the pro- social mode and it is significantly more likely to be used than all the anti-social modes. Summary of the Sex Differences The hypotheses dealing with between-sex differ- ences and within-sex differences received mixed support. Males were more likely to use anti-social modes of con- flict resolution than females. Females were more likely 123 to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution and regression than males. Within the sexes, males tended to use verbal aggression more than the pro-social mode of conflict resolution; other anti-social modes were used more often than pro-social but not significantly. Females were more likely to use the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than anti-social modes, with the exception of verbal aggression with a stranger. Contextual Differences Four hypotheses were developed to deal with the contextual influences. Two of these hypotheses focused on between-context differences: Hypothesis ll: Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved through the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than conflicts with adolescent strangers. Hypothesis 12: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by anti- social modes of conflict resolution than conflicts with adolescent friends. A t-test between the friend conflict and the stranger conflict was computed to analyze these two hypotheses. The results are in Table 23. The correlated t-test indicates four of the five modes of conflict resolution showed significant differ- ences between the conflict with a stranger and conflict with a friend. Verbal aggression is significantly more likely to be used in a conflict with a stranger than a 124 TABLE 23.--t-Test, ANOVA for Repeated Measures and Scheffé Method of Selected Comparisons for Medes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend. t-Test Stranger 3' Friend i. r t Sig. verbal aggression 14.87 13.24 .60 6.11 .001 Pro-social 11.74 15.15 .62 -12.73 .001 Physical aggression 8.93 7.14 .73 6.67 .001 Regression 9.98 10.25 .68 -.20 .838 Revenge 9.36 7.58 .62 7.76 .001 ANOVA for Repeated Measures Stranger Friend ‘i sd if sd Verbal aggression 14.88 5.22 13.27 5.53 Pro-social 11.77 5.29 15.17 5.70 Physical aggression 8.93 5.79 7.41 5.08 Regression 9.99 4.78 10.06 5.30 Revenge 9.36 4.90 7.58 4.55 F 79.50 166.55 Significance p < .0001 p < .0001 125 TABLE 23.--Continued. Scheffé Method for Strangers Verbal Physical Aggress. Pro-Social Regress. Revenge Aggress. Verbal a ression T = 7'35 T =11'56 T=13-04 T '14-06 88 P < ~01 P < 01 p< .01 p < .01 Pro—social T = 4.21 T: 5.70 T a 6.71 p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 T= 1.49 T - 2.51 Regression p> .01 p > .01 T a 1.02 Revenge p > .01 Physical aggression Scheffé Method for Friends Pro-Social Verbal Regress. Revenge Physical Aggress. Aggress. Pro-social T = 4.15 T =11.67 T=l6.59 T -l6.96 p < .01 p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 Verbal a ression T = 7.02 T=12.43 T =12.81 gg p < .01 p< .01 p < .01 Re ression = 5-42 T ' 5.79 3 p< .01 p < .01 T = .37 Revenge p > .01 Physical aggression 126 conflict with a friend. The pro-social mode is signifi- cantly more likely to be used in a conflict with a stranger than with a friend. Regression is more likely to be used in a conflict with a friend than in a conflict with a stranger (but not significantly). Revenge is sig- nificantly more likely to be used in a conflict with a stranger than with a friend. Hypothesis 11 is supported. Conflicts with friends are significantly more likely to be resolved through the pro-social mode of conflict resolution than conflicts with strangers. Hypothesis 12 is supported. Three of the four anti-social modes of conflict resolution are significantly more likely to be used when dealing with a stranger than with a friend. Only the regression mode is more likely to be used when dealing with a friend (but not signifi- cantly). Two additional hypotheses focused on within- context differences: Hypothesis 13: Conflicts between adolescent friends are more likely to be resolved by the pro- social mode of conflict resolution than anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Hypothesis l4: Conflicts between adolescent strangers are more likely to be resolved by anti- social modes of conflict resolution than the pro-social mode of conflict resolu- tion. 127 Two analyses were performed on these two hypotheses. First, a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures was done separately for the stranger ‘conflict and the friend conflict. A Scheffé test for selected comparisons was also done. These results are also found in Table 23. The one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures for the conflict with a friend showed a sig- nificant difference among the five modes of conflict resolution (.0001). The rank ordering is the same except for the first two modes. The most frequent mode of con- flict resolution is pro-social, followed by verbal aggression, regression, revenge and physical aggression. Nine of the Scheffé selected comparisons are significant (p < .01). All of the rank orders are significant except between the fourth and fifth (revenge and physical aggression). Thus, conflicts between friends are significantly more likely to be resolved through the pro-social mode than all of the anti-social modes. Hypothesis 13 is supported. The one-way analysis of variance for the conflict with a stranger showed a significant difference among the five modes of conflict resolution (.0001). The rank ordering (based on mean likelihood) for the conflict with stranger is verbal aggression, followed by pro-social, 128 regression, revenge and physical aggression. The Scheffé test indicated that seven of the ten comparisons are significant (p < .01). In terms of the rank ordering, two of the comparisons are significant: the difference between the first and second (verbal aggression and pro- social) and between the second and third (pro-social and regression). Thus, conflicts with a stranger are most likely to be resolved through only one of the anti-social modes of conflict resolution (verbal aggression); the second most likely used mode of conflict resolution is the pro- social mode. Verbal aggression is significantly more likely to be used than pro-social and pro-social is sig- nificantly more likely to be used than regression (the third rank). Hypothesis 14 is supported by one of the anti-social modes. Summaryof Contextual Differences In terms of the predictions regarding contextual influences, Hypotheses 11 and 12 are supported: conflicts with friends are more likely to be resolved through the pro-social mode than conflicts with strangers and anti- social modes of conflict resolution are more likely to be used between strangers. Hypotheses 13 and 14 are also supported. Conflicts between friends are more likely 129 to be resolved through the pro-social mode of conflict resolution, but conflicts between strangers also have a chance of being resolved through the pro-social mode (it ranks second on mean likelihood of use). CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This chapter will discuss three sets of issues resulting from.this investigation: theoretical issues, future research issues and practical issues. The the- oretical issues will consider the impact of the results on our thinking about modes of conflict resolution and their prediction from social learning theory. The future research issues will focus on potential research genera- ted from this study and the practical issues will indicate the utility of the research to everyday application. Theoretical Issues This section will focus on the data which devel- oped the five modes of conflict resolution and the results of the field survey. Modes of Conflict Resolution At the outset of this research seven modes of conflict resolution were hypothesized to exist: physical aggression, verbal aggression, reasoned discourse, internalization, withdrawal, forgiveness and seeking help. 130 131 These seven modes of conflict resolution were categorized into pro-social modes of conflict resolution (reasoned discourse, seeking help and forgiveness) and anti-social modes of conflict resolution (physical aggression, verbal aggression, internalization, and withdrawal) based upon whether they were likely to facilitate or impede coopera- tion and individual and relational growth. The results of the cluster analysis in the pre- test indicated that two of the seven hypothesized modes of conflict resolution were found and the other five hypothesized modes of conflict resolution combined into three clusters. The five obtained modes of conflict resolution were regression, revenge, pro-social, physical aggression and verbal aggression. In terms of the hypothesized clusters, we found that physical aggression and verbal aggression were observed in the instrument development stage. Reasoned discourse and forgiveness combined to form pro-social; internalization, withdrawal and seeking help combined to form revenge and regression. These five clusters were then categorized into pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Only one cluster seemed to be pro—social; it was named the pro- social mode. The other four (verbal aggression, physical aggression, revenge and regression) were all categorized as anti-social. 132 These five modes of conflict resolution raise an important methodological issue and two important concep- tual issues. We were able to determine methodologically the five modes of conflict resolution for both ego and favorite television character with little revision of content. When dealing with the favorite television char- acter, five modes of conflict resolution arose from the cluster analysis: physical aggression, verbal aggres- sion, regression, revenge and pro-social. The cluster analysis of ego's use of the strategies produced four clusters: regression, verbal aggression, pro-social and physical aggression/revenge. In terms of content, the clusters were almost identical. This similarity in clusters provides some support for the notion that the identified modes of conflict resolution are stable, at least for one sample. The stability of the clusters may be due in part to a response set or learning, and replicative testing for stability is necessary. Conceptually, the obtained modes of conflict resolution raise an interesting issue: if people see more anti-social modes of conflict resolution than pro- social modes, this may provide an indication of the preponderance of anti-social behavior. Kaufmann (1970) argues that the situations in which socially desirable behaviors may be performed are few. It may be that this 133 has stifled the awareness of people that certain pro- social modes of conflict resolution can be used. Initially, we argued that there would be three pro-social modes of conflict resolution: seeking help, forgiveness and reasoned discourse. The cluster analy- sis indicated that parts of the three modes collapsed into a mode of conflict resolution which we called pro- social. We also predicted that there would be four anti- social modes of.conflict resolution: physical aggression, verbal aggression, withdrawal and internalization; these four showed greater stability than the pro-social modes of conflict resolution. we found verbal aggression and physical aggression to exist in the pretest but also found revenge and regression (regression was very much like withdrawal and internalization). Perhaps the limited pro-social alternatives found from the cluster analysis provides us with an understanding of why people often display anti-social behavior in situations which would seemingly permit pro-social behavior. It should be noted, however, that even though we found a preponderance of anti-social modes of conflict resolution, the one pro-social mode was consistently used a great deal with strangers and friends. Indeed, the only anti-social mode of conflict resolution that was significantly more likely to be used than the pro-social mode was verbal aggression. Thus, we have a greater 134 number of anti-social modes of conflict resolution but the pro-social mode is more likely to be used than most of them. A second conceptual issue that is raised by these modes of conflict resolution is that the modes may be ranked along a pro- and anti-social continuum. In other words, we can array the modes along a continuum depend- ing upon how likely the mode of conflict resolution would facilitate or impede cooperation or individual or rela- tional growth. Only one mode of conflict resolution was pro-social so it would anchor one end of the continuum. The least anti-social mode of conflict resolution seems to be regression. Regression tends to be harmful to individual growth but by internalizing the conflict, the relationship may grow for some time. Indeed, if the conflict is not repeated, the harm of internalizing may dissipate. Further, regression contains a number of items that suggest the person would seek help from others. It was originally hypothesized that seeking advice would be pro-social. While we would not argue that regression is pro-social, it seems to be the least harmful of the anti- social modes of conflict resolution. The next least harmful anti-social mode of con- flict resolution is revenge. This mode suggested that the conflict would not be brought out into the open but would be resolved through internalization or group 135 pressure. The person who resolves conflict through revenge may hate the other person but not express it openly. Further, the person would rely on others for help and pressure to resolve the conflict. While these outside group pressures tend to be negative in their emphasis, they certainly create bonds between the person and other members in the group. One of the most harmful modes of conflict reso- lution is verbal aggression. Verbal aggression is a reliance on insult, trickery and threats. Miller and Steinberg (1975) speak of conflicts which become ego- centered instead of issue-centered. Verbal aggression tends to be ego-centered. The conflict resolution can impair the other person's self-concept. Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967) indicate the harms of attack- ing another person's self-conception, particularly the harm of denying the other person's self-conception. Mortensen (1972) argues that communication is irreversible in that each message has an impact and that any further message should be considered in light of the previous one. A person who relies on verbal aggression may impair a relationship by being too quick to attack a person's self-concept. He may attempt to modify his original statement but may not be successful in negating its impact on later relational affairs. 136 The most harmful mode of conflict resolution is physical aggression. The reliance on this mode of con- flict resolution is likely to stifle the growth of other people around the aggressive person. He may be successful in obtaining his favored outcome, but the success may be due to fear rather than understanding. ,The chance may exist in the future that when the aggres- sive person is at a point of weakness, the victims of is aggression will seek revenge. Thus, we might place the modes of conflict resolution on the following continuum: O:flru P4P32=>’ dr— r'>.h4c>c>aa Pro-Social- Regression- Revenge“ Verbal Aggression Physical Aggression r'>»hac:c>aa Social Learning Theory Social learning theory provides some important insights into how pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution are developed. The basic generalization is that the same models are influential for learning both pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Fur- ther, they appear to be equally effective for both. 137 The most powerful model for adolescents is their perception of their peers. This is true whether the conflict is with a stranger or a friend and whether the mode of conflict resolution is pro- or anti-social. This strong relationship may be a function of studying adolescents. We may find that adolescents are more influenced by peers than by their parents or tele- vision; we make that statement on the basis of larger correlations. The sample consisted of sOphomores in high school who may be experiencing more freedom to do as they want than ever before. They are probably reach- ing the driving age which increases their mobility and to some degree their status with their peers. Certainly, further research on younger age groups is necessary to test these ideas. Further research should also be conducted on adults as well; we may find that peer influence remains the strongest determinant. Further, we may find that the modes of conflict resolution may change in their likelihood of use. The physical aggression and regres- sion modes may reduce in their impact. Pro-social, revenge and verbal aggression may be the most likely used modes of conflict resolution with adults. The second most powerful influence on adoles- cent use of modes of conflict resolution is perceived parental discipline. This was true whether the mode of 138 conflict resolution was pro- or anti-social and whether the conflict was with a friend or stranger. Again, these results may be a function of deal- ing with adolescents. Adolescents may be disciplined less than other age groups and the influence of this discipline may be waning. This also suggests the need for.further research with younger age groups. The influence of the parents' intervention in the adolescents' media behavior was only weakly, albeit steadily,related to an increase in television program impact on modes of conflict resolution. Again, the influence of the parents' intervention, or even the amount of parental intervention, may be so little that it is not likely to have any impact on television influ- ence. Younger children may be subject to a greater amount of parental intervention and may be more influenced. The symbolic or television influence was the least influential. Most of the correlations were low (less than .10), although a few were relatively high (.28). The pretest had indicated that we might expect differential impact of television characters on modes of conflict resolution. We were able to discriminate suc- cessfully between action/adventure and situation comedy characters on the basis of the five modes of conflict 139 resolution. Situation comedy characters were perceived by adolescents to be more likely to resolve conflict through verbal aggression, revenge and regression while action/adventure characters were perceived to be more likely to resolve conflicts through physical aggression. No significant difference was found between their use of pro-social modes. Unfortunately, the number of people in the pretest who indicated a pro-social character as their favorite was so low, no meaningful comparisons could be made. When looking at the relationships between the favorite television character's use of modes of conflict resolution and ego's use of modes of conflict resolu- tion, we find significant canonical variates when deal- ing with both the items and the clusters. The zero- order correlations between the television character scales and ego scales were positive and significant. Thus, a significant relationship was found in the pretest. In terms of the survey administration, instead of favorite character's modes of conflict resolution we used participant viewing patterns. A cluster analysis of the viewing patterns of 59 dramatic and situation comedy shows produced four usable clusters: ABC action/adventure, CBS action/adventure, situation comedy and pro-social. The zero-order correlations 140 between viewing patterns and the modes of conflict resolution provided mixed support for the hypotheses. The two action/adventure clusters showed dif- ferential impact on the various modes of conflict resolution. Neither action/adventure viewing cluster was significantly negatively correlated.with the pro- social mode of conflict resolution. The ABC action/ adventure cluster was significantly and positively cor- related with physical aggression and revenge with a stranger, and physical aggression, verbal aggression and revenge with a friend. This partially supports the hypothesis of a positive relationship between viewing these shows and the use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution. The CBS action/adventure viewing cluster correlates significantly and positively with verbal aggression, regression and revenge when the conflict is with a stranger and correlates significantly and posi- tively with physical aggression and regression when deal- ing with a friend. Thus, differences appear in the correlations between the two action/adventure clus- ters and the modes of conflict resolution. The ABC action/adventure cluster appears to be more supportive of the hypothesis that action/adventure shows are posi- tively related to the use of anti-social modes of conflict resolution (particularly physical aggression). 'rhe CBS action/adventure cluster indicates that the 141 hypothesis is not supported in terms of pro-social modes of conflict resolution (positive correlation is found); however, it does correlate in the predicted direction when dealing with some of the anti-social modes of conflict resolution, but with different ones than the ABC action/adventure cluster. The situation comedy viewing cluster appears to be one of the better socialization influences. It correlates significantly and negatively with the use of physical aggression with a stranger and negatively (but not significantly) with the use of physical aggression with a friend. It correlates significantly and posi- tively with the pro-social mode with both stranger and friend. The only anti-social mode it correlates with significantly and positively is regression with stranger and friend. The pro-social viewing cluster has the weakest correlations with the modes of conflict resolution. It has a weak negative correlation with the use of physical aggression with a stranger and a weak positive correla- tion with the pro-social mode of conflict resolution with a stranger. It correlates significantly and positively with regression with a stranger and with pro-social and regression with a friend. The impact of television on modes of conflict resolution may be affected by three influences: the 142 access the adolescent has to TV programming, mixed view- ing patterns, and different indicants of TV influence. The t-test results indicated that significant differences existed between the frequency of viewing TV shows (par- ticularly ABC) and adolescents who had cable TV at home and those who didn't. We might expect that the impact of television would be different for those who had cable and those who didn't due to the expanded program offerings. In order to examine this relationship, separate correlations were done between the viewing clusters and modes of conflict resolution for cable and non-cable participants. Significance tests were com- puted between the two correlations in order to see if the relationship is the same. Table 24A indicates that the relationships between the ABC action/adventure cluster and modes of conflict resolution are slightly stronger for cable participants than non-cable participants in seven of the ten correla- tions although none are significant at p < .05. Of the ten correlations for the cable participants, five are significant at p < .05; of the ten correlations for non-cable participants, five were also significant at p < .05. In terms of the hypothesis, studying the cable and non-cable participants separately yields similar results as the entire sample: a positive relationship 143 TABLE 24A.--Significance of Difference Between Correlations of ABC Action/Adventure Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolu- tion With Stranger and Friend for Respondents with Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV. Respondents Respondents “Ode 0‘ C°nfli°t With Cable TV Without Cable TV 2 Resolution r r Verbal aggression with stranger '0880 .0357 .4685 Pro-social with .0702 -.O695 1.2485 stranger Physical aggression 2351* 1425+ 8563 with stranger ' ° . ° Regression with .0722 -.1336+ l.8446° stranger Revenge with .2186* .0836 1.2331 stranger Verbal aggression with friend .1587+ .1506? .0737 Pro-social with .0173 _.1201° 1,2236 friend Physical aggression * ° with friend .3443 .1607? 1.7459 RegrBBSion With .0610 _.O753 1.2128 friend Revenge with .3314* .2539* .7522 friend Mean 14.5 13.3 Standard Deviation 5.8 5.3 * = p < .01 + = p < .05 ° = p < .10 144 with physical aggression and revenge with stranger (a stronger relationship for cable participants) and a nega- tive relationship with regression with stranger (a stronger relationship for non-cable participants). Positive relationships were found with verbal aggres- sion, physical aggression and revenge with friend (a stronger relationship for cable participants). For the CBS action/adventure cluster correla- tions with modes of conflict resolution, nine of ten correlations are greater for cable participants than non-cable participants (see Table 243). Only two of the ten correlations are significantly different. The CBS action/adventure correlations with regression and revenge with stranger are significantly greater for cable participants than non-cable participants. Seven of the ten correlations for cable participants were significant at p < .05; none of the non-cable correla- tions reached this level. The correlations between the CBS action/ adventure cluster and modes of conflict resolution for cable and non-cable participants are fairly consistent with the correlations for the total sample: a positive correlation with verbal aggression, regression, revenge and pro-social with stranger (a stronger relationship is found for cable participants). The CBS action/adventure cluster is also positively correlated with pro-social, 145 TABLE 24B.—-Significance of Difference Between Correlations of CBS Action/Adventure Programs and Medes of Conflict Resolu- tion With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV. Respondents Respondents M°de °f c°nfli°t With Cable TV Without Cable TV 2 Resolution r r Verbal aggression with stranger .l316+ .0375 .8463 Pro-social with stranger .1599? .0803 .7211 Physical aggression o with stranger .1037 .0118 1.0324 Regressm" With .2640* .0296 2.14871‘ stranger Revenge ”1th .2251* -.0190 2.2100+ stranger Verbal aggression with friend .0505 .0985 .4289 Pr°‘S°Cial With 1678'!“ 1073° 5471 friend ' ° ' Physical aggression with friend .1326T .0746 .5202 Regress'” “1"" 2787* 0892 1 7486" friend ‘ ' ° Revenge "1'“ .0527 .0364 .1449 friend Mean 13.7 14.0 Standard Deviation 4.9 4.6 * - p < .01 f I p < .05 ° .. p < .10 146 physical aggression and regression with friend (a stronger correlation is found for cable participants). The non-cable participants have a stronger relatinship between CBS action/adventure programs and verbal aggression with friends than do the cable participants. For the pro-social viewing cluster and the modes of conflict resolution, five of the ten correlations are greater for cable participants than non-cable partici- pants (see Table 24C); though none of the differences are significant at p < .05. For the cable participants none of the correlations are significant at p < .05. Three of the non-cable correlations are significant at p < .05. Pro-social show correlations for cable and non- cable participants are fairly consistent with the total sample. They are negatively correlated with verbal aggression with stranger (a stronger relationship for cable participants) and negatively correlated with revenge with stranger (a stronger relationship for non- cable participants). They are positively correlated with regression with stranger (a stronger relationship for non—cable participants) and pro-social with stranger (both cable and non-cable participants show nearly the same degree of correlation). Pro-social TV viewing is positively correlated with the pro-social mode of con- flict resolution and revenge with a friend (a stronger 147 TABLE 24C.--Significance of Difference Between Correlations of Family Pro—Social Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents with Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV. Respondents Respondents “Ode 0“- C°nf11°t With Cable TV Without Cable TV 2 Resolution r r Verbal aggression _ 10950 _ 0544 4950 with stranger ° . . Pro-social with .0926 .0379 .0423 stranger Physical aggression _ 0008 _ 0654 5764 with stranger ° . . Regression with 0653 .1613+ .8684 stranger . Revenge with .0540 -.1316+ 1.6609 stranger Verbal aggression _ 0 with friend .0097 .1029 1.0035 Pro-social with 12220 0682 4334 friend ' ' ° Physical aggression with friend .0465 .0461 .0035 Regression with 0631 1361+ 6554 friend ' . . Revenge with .1221° .0432 .7050 friend Mean 16.5 16.7 Standard Deviation 6.3 6.3 * a p < .01 1' = p < .05 ° _. p < .10 148 relationship for cable participants). Pro-social view- ing is also positively correlated with regression with a friend (a stronger relationship with non-cable participants). For situation comedies, six of the ten correla- tions are greater for cable than non-cable participants (see Table 24D). One significant difference is found but it is in the opposite direction; the correlation between situation comedy viewing and physical aggression with a stranger is significantly (p < .05) stronger for non-cable participants than cable participants. Four of the cable correlations are significant at p < .05; five of the non—cable correlations are significant at p < .05. The cable/non-cable breakdown for the situation comedy cluster is pretty much the same as the total sample: there is a positive correlation with pro- social and regression with stranger (correlations fairly similar for cable and non-cable participants). Situation comedy viewing is negatively correlated with physical aggression with stranger (a stronger relationship for non-cable participants). This cluster is positively correlated with pro-social and regression with a friend (correlations are nearly the same for cable and non- cable participants). Situation comedy viewing is nega- tively correlated with physical aggression with a friend (a stronger relationship for non-cable participants). 149 TABLE 24D.--Significance of Difference Between Correlations of Situ- ation Comedy Programs and Modes of Conflict Resolution With Stranger and Friend for Respondents With Cable TV and Respondents Without Cable TV. r Respondents Respondents "we °f “um“ With Cable TV Without Cable TV 2 Resolution r r Verbal aggression with stranger .0625 .0368 .8869 Pr°‘°°°ial “'1'" .1909* .1635+ .2525 stranger Physical aggression _ * with stranger .0184 .2211 2.1669? Regression with 2187* 2343* 1467 stranger ' ' ° Revenge “’1'" .1041° -.0967 1.7951° stranger Verbal aggression with friend .0620 -.OO49 .5950 Pr°'8°°ial “1th .2136* .2111* .0232 friend Physical aggression _ _ o with friend .0398 .1040 .5725 Regressm" “1"" .2586* .2809* .2137 friend Revenge with o _ friend .1280 .0180 1.3010 Mean 21.0 20.5 Standard Deviation 7.1 7.3 * = p < .01 T . p < .05 ° - p < .10 150 Cable TV affects the relationship between TV program viewing clusters and the modes of conflict resolution significantly in three cases; four other comparisons approach significance (p < .10). Although few comparisons of the 40 are significant, many show different, but not significantly different, relationships for the two groups. Therefore, cable TV affects the relationship, but not significantly. A second influence on the television cluster correlation with modes of conflict resolution deals with mixed viewing patterns. It is possible that people who are high viewers of one of the clusters are also high viewers of the other clusters. This mixed viewing may provide a leveling affect of the television content. People who are high viewers of media may not discrimi- nate among the various contents and their differential impact. Thus, by testing all viewers, ignoring whether they are high viewers or low viewers, may provide us with mixed results and low correlations. Many of the viewing clusters were significantly correlated. The ABC action/adventure cluster was cor- related with the pro-social viewing cluster at .34 (p < .001), with situation comedy at .06 (p < .135) and with CBS action/adventure at .28 (p < .001). The pro- social cluster was correlated with situation comedy cluster at .32 (p < .001) and with CBS action/adventure 151 cluster at .39 (p < .001). The situation comedy cluster was correlated with the CBS action/adventure cluster at .35 (p < .001). Since the clusters are correlated to some degree, we might expect that the mixed viewing hypothesis is supported. A later analysis will investigate the view- ing patterns separately. The third influence that may have lessened the apparent impact of television programs on modes of con- flict resolution is the particular indicant of media impact used. We asked pe0ple how often they viewed certain programs and then clustered their responses. This clustering process assumes that people see certain content in all of the programs. In other words, we assumed that viewing of the programs would increase or decrease the impact of program content we observed informally in the program types. This inference may not be a valid one. In the pretest we found that the action/adventure characters and the situation comedy characters used different modes of conflict resolution but not in the exact direction we predicted. Situation comedy char- acters were significantly more likely to use such anti- social modes of conflict resolution such as verbal aggression, revenge and regression than action/adventure characters. There was no difference in their use of 152 pro-social. Action/adventure characters were signifi- cantly more likely to use physical aggression than situ- ation comedy characters. In the pretest, when we correlated the favorite television characters's perceived use of the modes of conflict resolution with ego's use of modes of conflict resolution, we got Pearson correlations in the same degree of magnitude as parental discipline and peer use (.47 to .60). Thus, when we asked specifically how the person's favorite character would behave we found higher correlations with ego's modes of conflict reso— lution than when we used the viewing clusters. Thus, the different operationalizations of media impact pro- vided very different results. It would seem that the more general operationalization introduces an unwar- ranted assumption that all of the characters in a cluster of programs are viewed entirely the same and that each would contribute equally to the overall influences. The combined social learning theory observa- tional influences produced significant multiple R's for both pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. This indicates that these same social learning influ- ences operate for both. Sex differences.--We also investigated to see if different modes of conflict resolution would exist 153 between the sexes. Differences were found; we could successfully discriminate between the sexes on the basis of their choice of modes of conflict resolution. Males were consistently more likely to use physical aggression, verbal aggression and revenge than females who were consistently more likely to use regression and pro-social behaviors than males. When comparing males and females dealing with strangers, we found that males were most likely to use verbal aggression, physical aggression and revenge than females; however, females were more likely to use pro-social behavior and regres- sion than males. When comparing males and females dealing with friends, we found that males were more likely to use verbal aggression, physical aggression and revenge than females. Again, we found that females were more likely to use pro-social and regression than males. When males were dealing with strangers, they were most likely to use verbal aggression, then physical aggression, revenge, pro-social and regression. Females dealing with strangers were most likely to use verbal aggression, then pro-social, regression, revenge and physical aggression. When males were dealing with friends they were most likely to use verbal aggression, then pro-social, physical aggression, revenge and regression. When females 154 were dealing with friends they were most likely to use pro-social, then verbal aggression, regression, revenge and physical aggression. In terms of socialization, sex differences still appear to be an important determinant of modes of con- flict resolution. It might be interesting to see how this relationship holds for younger age groups; we could then determine the first differences that occur, and when they occur. Further, we might examine the differences between adult males and females. It would be interesting to see if males become less aggressive as they age and women become more aggressive. Perhaps at some age, the point is reached at which males and females are not signifi- cantly different on the modes of conflict resolution. These sex differences raise an important point about socialization: Is it possible that sex differ- ences are due primarily to differential socialization? It is possible that due to different forms of discipline and peer behavior, boys are likely to be more aggres- sive than females. Research by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) found that identification with parent, chief punisher parent and form of punishment produced aggres- sion in children. Girls showing the greatest proportion of aggression with doll-playing were ones who strongly identified with punitive mothers and who lived in .3? in A3! .9" .I. T, ‘ ~ \ '\ aw-J'Wr _ $- 155 households where the mother was the usual punisher. For boys, high identification with the father when the father was the usual punisher produced the strongest aggressive doll-play. In other words, a combination of factors may interact to produce aggression in males and females. Certainly, these variables should be investigated further. Contextual differences.--The final social learn- ing theory variable investigated was context. Using Miller and Steinberg (1975) as a basis we differenti- ated between conflicts between strangers (noninterper- sonal) and conflicts between friends (interpersonal). The results were interesting. When dealing with a stranger the most frequently used mode of conflict reso- lution was verbal aggression, then pro-social, regres- sion, revenge and physical aggression. We had expected that pro-social would have been used later. When deal- ing with a friend the most frequently used mode of conflict resolution was pro-social, then verbal aggres- sion, regression, revenge and physical aggression. Thus, the order of use of the modes was not sub- stantively different between conflicts with friends or strangers. (Verbal aggression ranked first with stranger and pro-social ranked second; that order was reversed for conflicts with a friend.) .1 I _ —-———_an-_ ecu—u It; -_. i. - ~._ . ' a -. .4 4‘. he... .. 1 156 When comparing the use of the modes of conflict resolution between the two types of conflicts we did find some predicted differences. Conflicts between strangers were more likely to be resolved by verbal aggression, revenge and physical aggression than con- flicts between friends. Conflicts between friends were more likely to be resolved through pro-social and regres- sion than conflicts between strangers. Indeed, the rationale of the importance of the interpersonal relationships seems to have some support. However, the stranger conflict also merits some discus- sion. We may find no significant differences in the rank ordering for two different reasons. Conflict with a stranger may require caution; the person does not know the stranger or what the stranger is trying to do. This situation may require caution in order to avoid falsely accusing or to protect oneself frmm harm. Thus, the pro-social mode of conflict resolution is relatively high in the rank ordering and physical aggression last. When dealing with a friend we can more accurately pre- dict behavior; we know what he is capable of doing and would be more likely to talk with him about what he is doing. Thus, similar rank orderings are found but they may exist for different reasons. Now that we have evidence that social learning theory can predict both pro- and anti-social modes of 157 conflict resolution, we must address another important theoretical issue: what explains the remaining variance? The multiple R's using the observational influ- ences as predictor variables explained between 34 per- cent to 49 percent of the variance in the modes of con- flict resolution. Obviously, a good deal of variance is left unaccounted for. The amount of variance unexplained could result from several sources. First, measurement error may account for part of the loss. Reliabilities were computed for the reduced clusters and most were high (alpha greater than .70). While these alphas were accepted as adequate, they might be improved through further development of the instrument. Second, this study focused on the perceived use of modes of conflict resolution by peers, parents and television characters. This choice may have introduced ‘more error into the system. A person's perceptions may not totally incoporate the actual behavior of the sig- nificant others. Thus, the impact of the significant other may not be fully assessed. Third, the study ignored an area of importance in determining habit formation: reinforcement for the behavior. To the extent that a person feels he has been rewarded for using a given mode of conflict resolution, he will tend to use that mode of conflict resolution. a '- ., ”Aluflh—fm-‘Kf u I. 158 Children who are praised for physical aggression tend to be more aggressive than children who receive no rein- forcement (Patterson, Ludwig and Sonoda, 1961). Adults commended for punitive actions against another become progressively more aggressive, whereas nonreinforced adults show a low level of aggression (Staples and Walters, 1964; Geen and Stonner, 1971). Furthermore, reinforced aggression can enhance other forms of aggression as well (Loew, 1967; Geen and Pigg, 1970). Perhaps a measure of perceived success or reinforcement from others in using a mode of conflict resolution in the past would have increased the amount of variance explained in both pro— and anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Finally, this study chose to look at social learning influences and ignore physiological explanations. Research on physiological causes of aggression is very interesting (see Moyer, 1973). Brain activity has been correlated with aggressive behavior (Sem-Jacobsen and Torkildsen, 1960; Sem-Jacobsen, 1966; Ervin, Mark and Stevens, 1969; and Mark and Ervin, 1970). One of the more dramatic studies was conducted by King (1961): a mild-mannered woman became verbally aggressive and threatened physical aggression when stimulated elec- trically in the amygdala. When the electronic stimula- tion stopped, she returned to her nonaggressive state. 159 The aggression could be produced or reduced through the electronic stimulation. While such studies are not a common focus in communication, they may be an important area from Which aggressive behavior or perhaps pro-social behavior may be studied. Theoretically, the study produced some inter- esting issues. The applicability of the modes of conflict resolution to pro- and anti-social categoriza- tion is demonstrated. Both the pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution could be predicted by the social learning theory. Sex differences also seemed to be an important influence. Future Research Issues Six important research questions are generated from this study. The first question is: Can the paper and pencil test for modes of conflict resolution be tied to other behavioral indications of pro- and anti-social modes of conflict resolution? One of the limitations of this research is the use of a paper and pencil test for aggression or nonaggression. Kaufmann (1970) argues that we suffer from an ethic which requires us to pay lip service to pro-social forms of conflict resolution while behaving anti-socially. If this is true, we may 160 not have a completely accurate picture of modes of con- flict resolution in this study. One way to attempt to see how accurate we are is to do a known groups analysis. By seeking out two groups generally thought to differ in their modes of conflict resolution and getting their responses on the questionnaire, we can attempt to see how well the instrument will discriminate between them. For example, we might choose to collect data from reform school adolescents and those about to enter the ministry. By performing a discriminant analysis on their responses we could find important differences on the use of physical and verbal aggression, pro-social, regression and revenge. A less blatant discrimination might be done by discriminating between communication majors and physical education majors. The second research question is: Is there a time sequence or pattern involved in the use of modes of con- flict resolution? This research asked subjects to indicate how likely they would use each of the 20 strategies; this type of question ignored whether a time structure existed. For example, a person's first response to a conflict may be to use physical aggression to resolve it, whereas the second response may be to use a pro-social strategy. We all know people who tend to "fly off the handle," others who "keep their cool" and still others who just "simmer." Each of these types of T i 161 people differ only to the extent that they tend to use one strategy first and later resort to another. It would be useful to sequence the use of modes of conflict resolution over time in an interaction and also in a relationship. People who have been in a relationship for a long time may use a different sequence of modes than people who are just starting a relationship. The third research question is: Is there a dif- ference between the influence of perceived use of modes of conflict resolution by significant others and the real use of modes of conflict resolution by significant others? This question arises for several of the signifi- cant others. Sometimes children perceive that their parents use harsh modes of discipline with them when they don't. People in youth gangs often perceive that their gang is tough or aggressive when it isn't. Tele- vision programs which contain limited violence may be categorized as violent because of the show type. If a significant other is perceived to be violent because of cultural or group expectations, the influence of the significant other should be violent regardless of the significant other's actual behavior. This raises a number of practical issues. If a television program is perceived to be violent and correlates highly with violent modes of conflict resolution even though it actually is not violent, what do we do to curb its influence? Can 162 we justifiably require the program to decrease the violence when it may contain very little? The same could be true of parents or peers. Such questions are diffi- cult but interesting and should be pursued. The fourth question is: What socialization influences affect the sex differences in the modes of conflict resolution? This study found sex differences in choice and use of modes of conflict resolution. It might be interesting, using the social learning model, to find what influences are different for males and females. We might predict that males receive different modes of discipline and belong to different kinds of groups and watch different television shows. Each of these could contribute to sex differences. The discriminant analysis would indicate on a per subject basis which subjects were correctly placed into their sex group on the basis of mode of conflict resolution. By identifying the person incorrectly placed into their sex group, we could perform a deviant case analysis to determine what makes them different in terms of socialization. The fifth research question is: Will the social learning process for pro- and anti-social modes of con- flict resolution remain the same across age groups? If we assume that people develop their moral systems through stages (Piaget, 1932), we might expect that moral 163 affinities toward modes of conflict resolution will also develop through stages. The decision to use a mode of conflict resolution may differ depending upon the stage the person is in. Furthermore, the degree of control placed upon the person may differ. Small children may be given stringent warnings by their parents about using certain modes of conflict resolution. While they realize that it may be wrong to use a given mode of conflict resolution they may find the warning contradicted by their parents' use of the same mode of conflict resolu- tion. Thus, we may find different influences operating on a person throughout his stages of cognitive develop- ment. A comparative study across several age groups is needed. A final research question is: What other con- textual influences affect a person's use of modes of conflict resolution? This study looked at the relation- ships with the person in the conflict. We left the missing object undifferentiated. The object may be an important determinant of what modes of conflict resolu- tion will be used. Tangible objects (as implied in this study) may require different forms of conflict resolution than more abstract objects (such as love or trust). Furthermore, we might differentiate between relational objects (love, trust) and individual objects (privacy). 164 These objects may be very important in the context and further research should investigate such influences. Practical Issues The practical applications from this study are derived from the observational influences on adolescent use of modes of conflict resolution. The results suggest that the television view- ing patterns are the weakest of the observational influences on adolescent use of modes of conflict reso- lution. Perhaps TV is more important at earlier stages of development, but it appears to be of little concern when dealing with adolescents. Of all the television programs, the ABC action/adventure shows seem to produce the most consistent anti-social responses. Viewing these shows correlates significantly with such anti- social modes of conflict resolution as verbal aggression, physical aggression and revenge. The CBS action/ adventure shows correlate with some anti-social modes of conflict resolution as well; however, they seem to be less harmful than the ABC action/adventure cluster. The CBS cluster correlates with pro-social forms of conflict resolution and with one of the less anti-social forms of conflict resolution (regression). These data would indicate that if one wishes the adolescents to watch action/adventure shows, the CBS action/adventure 165 shows are least harmful and have some beneficial influ- ence at least for cable viewers. The situation comedies appear to be beneficial; they are positively correlated with the pro-social mode of conflict resolution and negatively correlated with physical aggression. They do, however, correlate posi- tively with regression which is slightly less anti-social than other forms of conflict resolution. The pro-social programs have very little impact. They do correlate with the pro—social mode of conflict resolution but not as strongly as CBS action/adventure shows or situation comedies. The pro-social shows are also correlated with regression. The overall suggestion is that the adolescent seems to be better off watching situation comedies, pro-social programs or at least CBS action/adventure shows. The viewing patterns seem to have little impact on the modes of conflict resolution based on their correlations. A parent should not be concerned about the total viewing of the show types but might be more concerned about the favorite television character. The favorite television character's perceived modes of conflict resolution was a strong influence on the adolescent's use of the mode of conflict resolution. The action/adventure characters were perceived to use 166 physical aggression more than situation comedy charac- ters. Given this difference one might be concerned as to who the adolescent's favorite character is, or set of TV characters. From these data we cannot say which type of favorite character had the greatest impact on the modes, but we can say in general that the favorite character was related to each mode of conflict resolu- tion used by ego. It should be noted that perceived parental reinforcement of certain television shows seems to have a weak but steady impact on the adolescent's acceptance of the program's content. This variable did not signifi- cantly increase the impact of a program, although some increase could be attributed to it. Parental interven- tion is likely to be more important for younger age groups. In terms of perceived parental discipline, the study suggests that parents should attempt to use pro- social modes of discipline with the adolescent. While their influence is not as great as the peers, it still can be an important determinant of behavior. Discussion of problems and empathy still appear to be more desirable than physical or verbal aggression. However, the most important practical applica- tion issue deals with peers; the results of the study indicate that perceived peer use of modes of conflict 167 resolution is the most important influence. Furthermore, when the adolescent is in a conflict with a friend he is more likely to use pro-social forms of conflict resolu- tion than when he is in a conflict with a stranger. Peer groups appear to be a very important means of instilling pro-social modes of conflict resolution and often anti-social modes of conflict resolution. Short (1968) found that skills in fighting and aggres- siveness were a road to social status and recognition in juvenile groups. The question remains: Will skills in pro-social modes of conflict resolution also be rewarded. The results of this study suggest that people with friends who use pro-social forms of conflict resolution will themselves use pro-social forms of conflict resolution. Furthermore, we correlated the number of high school group affiliations and the modes of conflict resolution and found some interesting results. Table 25 presents the correlations. The number of group affili- ations correlated positively with the pro-social mode of conflict resolution and regression with a stranger. The number of group affiliations correlated negatively with physical aggression and revenge with a stranger. The number of group affiliations correlated positively with pro-social and regression with a friend and 16E! moo. v o woo. v o moo. v a flea. v o OOH. v o maofiumwawmmm osouw mqma.| u u mmmH. u u oomH.l u u Hmmm. u u «Hmo.| n u Hoonom owe: mo Honasz psowum moo. v o Hoo. v a doc. v o «co. v a med. v o msowumfiawmmm macaw Hmeo.- u u fined. u u HNBH.- u u «Nee. u u mooo. u a Hooeoe ewe: mo uoesoz ummswuum w sowmmouww< I sofimmouww< o sm>om aonmouwoM Hmowmhnm Hmfioom oum Hmnuo> .vsmHum was Howomuum sues sofiusaomom uofiamsoo mo move: one maowuswawmm< osouu Hoonom swam mo umnfiaz cmosuom wooeumamuuooll.mu mam2 a =.snosnne= ounaoe euooeuooea cEsHoo on» 6H N as use somnoo can an: ou :hHoxHHss ouwso= mH nouomnmno osn stau 50% NH .somnoo can uHs pHsoB nonomnmso ounno>MN m: x :.%Hoxng manna: summonses: cEsHoo man sH x as non domnoo man an: on :mmeHH muHsu: on nouomnmnu MSu xawnu 50% NH .comnom can uHs pHaoa nouomnmno oano>mN h: N :.%HoxHHaD mne>= summonses: can IHoo can :H x as use somnoo nosuo one an ou :hHoMHHss mno>z mH nouomnmno on» xaHnu so» NH .somnGNVTou.ufl£.oa:03.nouodndso ounno>mN h: N :.%Hoan mnm>z summonses: sBSHoo stHn one an x cm oomHo coon downed one un: on :hHoxHH mno>z on vasos nouounmno one stnu :oh NH snosnnup swosnnee enoeanoe anoxnn snoenn anosn kno> manna nussoaom umzsmaom ouflso hnm> .sownoo umnu wanuunn he oncomon unwfia nmuomnmso onu .nouomnmno conH>oHou ounno>mN noon aonN wonnuoaom xoon ocomaow NH .oHoamxo nom .hms some on: pHsos nouounmso sonH>oHou oano>mN nso% mHoxHH Bo: ms HHou On 30% oxHH pHsos o3 .oHoooo nosuo oHpcm: op oHoooo umau was: No nonass owan m psHN HHH3.som momma axon can so .oHoooo nonuo wsHHpcm: No mans :Hmunoo on: ou on pHsoz nouomnmno nonmn>oHou ounno>mN noo> hHoxHH so: wansonx cH poems InwusH one o3 .wsnnuuaom 06 cu mnonuo now on om: maomnoo mnma No nonfibn owan m one ononH wsownoo nun» umonu nouomnmso sonmn>oHou ounno>mN nook vHsos so: .msonm can No oso so nouomnmno sOHmH>oHou ounno>mN noon EonN unsunoman anoeimmwnuuaom xoou msomaom umsu ocnmwsH mepaoHnan no hHocoHnN hchHaoom nouounmso aome>oHou oano>mN nsom mH wuaoHonb no HsNoosoo some nouosnmno sowmn> ImHou oano>mN noon moon .mo>m:oo nouomnmno conH>oHou oano>mN nook so: usoow Manon Boz 175 .somnon can onM .w .uuomeo onu xoou sownoo man umau oaooaow HHoH .n .uoonno man wsHMMu nON somnwo can o>Hwnom .o .uomnno men xoou :omnoo one umnu uUMN onu onoawH .m .40—U .q .somnoo mnu unm .m .uuomeo one xoou o:m\o£ >n3 usonm oomnoo ecu ou meH .N .comnmo use us usofim .H enosnFc: sateenc: enoxnnea snoene Huang anoens a ano> ouHso umnaoaom umzsoaom ounso mno> nouomnmco oano>mN n30 pHnos wHoxHH 30m 3:63 33:: see luaom moJMu msouaom Beam mnnu do «w:HBOHH0N onu No some on nwuomnmso aOHmH>uHou mano>mN n50h .aowmmflanoo no: no an uponuHs nouomnmno uano>mN nso% EonN namunooan hnm> waHau .nuuomnmso soan>mHou oano>MN n50» wafinoums one 30% neon oonmBH .domnu onu an wH=o3 nuuumnmoo oano>mN :.>HoxHH umnsmaom: summonses: oasHoo can :H N as use somnoo man an: on :hHoxflH umnsuaom: mH nmuosnmno osu xannu so» NH HNMHHdD hno> NHUJHHGD Snag umnsoaom NwaHHGD NHUJHH udnsmaom NHUJHH 39o .cowno man an: stoB nouusnmso oano>mN :.>HoxHHaD umnsoaom: summonses: casHou onu GH x so use somnuo ozu an cu :hHoxHHs: umnsoaom: mw nouusnmnu wen xcfinu so» NH in hno> 176 .uuonno one xoou on: somnmo one unanmwm maomnoo nusuo ansfi .NN .eeauo bow .on .op on umaa Bosx uoz .mN .xomn uH wGH>Hw usonm somnom Tau Sufi? umoaon om .qN .xomn uH waH>Hw ouan Gounod man onnH .mm .comnoo Tau noonm .NN .xomn noonno unu now onn on oHoomo nonuo xm< .HN .anONon Gounod wan oHo: ou any .ou .uomnno ocu w>mn sownoo wan uoH .aH .op on “was usoom Howey .wH .xomn uH w>Hw ou aomnoo one :uH3 vmmHm .mH .xomn uH mo>Hw mam \un wmuHap somnwo one ans: ou soumonny .oH .06 cu uses oaooaom xm< .mH .cownmo man m>oam .qH .somnoo ecu nON ennom Hush .MH .SmHnono one EonN %m3m cum .NH doom .3 .xomn an o>Hw on somnoo one unmanned ou an .OH . .aomnoo one nuns oawn¢ .m Hmwwwnp HMHM“WD ammuwwwm umwwwwmm MMMHWH MWHMH Hnouumnmno oano>mN noon UHsoa hHoxHH Bow 177 .uounno onu wawxmu nomnoo wan usonm TMOh .qq .aomnoo can :mncsm .mw .oomnmn won swam .Nq .%m3m nowhno man axon ou oHnm mus oooofiom umou hanpw Hook .Hq .ooanauon on HHH3 uomnno man umnu %mnm .oq .somnmo Tau on mHH .mm .hm3m somnoo ueu ommso .wm .nomnmm onu one: .nm .xomn uH mm>Hm o£m\o: NH wannumaow comnoo sou o>Hw ou noNNo .om .somnoo onu uHsmsH .mm .mm: downed unu umnu wsHauoaom honumon .qm .nnna o oxen .mm .ov on own: usonm znnoB .Nm .uooflno ecu wanxmu asepm >uHH=w HooN Gounod onu oxma on hnH .Hm .uoonno one xoou 0:3 somnoo «an umono .om .aomnum one EonN xomn noumoo onu oxen .mN .uouheo oeu scan 0:3 conned onu EonN wownuoaom ome .wN NHoxHHaD HoxHHsa HoxHHGD HoxHH NHuMHH anxHH nuuumnmso munno>mN n50» oHsos hHoxHH so: mno> ounsc umnzoaom .umnauaom oufiso >no> 178 .comnoo ocu nON annom Hoom .MH .EoHnono onu aonN head dam .NH .usom .HH . oon NH o>aw on coonom onu omoswnoo on Any .oH .comnoo own cues odwnH .m .somnoo ozu onM .w .uuomno onu Moon comnoo one noon oaooaom HHoH o l\ .uoomno ozu wsnxou nON somnoo oou o>nwnom .o .uoomno ocu xoou comnoa one nose nooN oau onosmH .m .euo .e .comnom onu uHm .m .uoowmo oeu xoou o:m\o: h53 usono cownoo ocu on meH .N somnoo onu um usosm .H Nnoenne: >noennce anoennee snoene Nausea anoxnn "son onaoa snoean aom mno> ouHso nonsoaom nonzoaom ounzo >no> nuoofloo one soou 0:3 connoo onu oHpaos ou mwaHnu waHSOHHON onu 0o 50% VHsoB hHoxHH 3cm .uH SuHa hose meHmon mxHo3 was uooo o nous: uH muse somnoo onH .noHUOH onu EonN so» ou unounooBH %no> mH nonu wsfizuofioo oxou ocooaoo oom 30> woo noMUOH n50» EonN hose meB 30% .noxUOH n30» no ono 30% was Hoonum nouNo mH uH .GOHuosuHm mansoHHON onu oHocon oHsoB 30% Mchu sch Bo: o: HHoH .nouoonono sonon>oHou oano>oN n=o% usono uownom .sonuoaunm onu wGHHoso: sH who? omozu No sumo on: on on oHsoB.mmN hHoMHH so: sodx cu udos o3 moonuosuHo one wafiHvoon upono cm 30% vH503 sow .aoxou soon no: msnnuoaom Eons aonN somnoo onu ono MMN uosu osnwoaH .owcficu owaono m.uoH Boz 179 .uoofieo one wenxou usono Mquw HooN somnoo onu oxoa on any .3 .uoonno on» xoou 0:3 noonoo onu uoono .om .soonoo ozu aonN xoon noonno onu oxoe .mN .uuonno onu xoou 033 coonoo onu SonN wannuoaom oMoH .wm .uooflno onu xoou 0:3 connoo osu umsnowo msomnoo nonuo ansa .nw .saaue uoo .em. .op on uons 300x uoz .mN .xomp un w=H>Hw ozone somnoo one nuns umodo: on .om .Moon on w0H>Hw onGH somnoo osu Manna .MN .somnoo onu uoonm .NN .xoon uuofloo ozu uow oHo: 0n oHoooo nonuo xw< .HN .anONon somnoo onu oHon on hnH .ON .uoonno onu o>on aomnoo osu nod .mH .op on noes usono xawnw .wH .Momn uH o>Hw on connoo onu nuns poon .mH .xuon uH wo>Hw o£m\o£ mooHns somnoo onu anon on aouoonnh .oH .op ou uo£3 ooooaoo xw< .mH .aoonoo osu o>0£m .oH “nosnne: Nnoennae Nnosnnee Nnosnn Nnoene noses "00% uHsoa hHoxHH 30m ano> oufiao uonsoaom uoaaoaom ouHao ano> 180 .uomnno mnu wafixmu domuwn mnu unopm wxoa .qq .aomuwa mnu smacsm .mq .aomuwa mnu ANum .Nq .mmzm uumflno wnu mxmu Cu mem mms maomfiom uwnu zuHflaw mem .Hw .vmcuaumu up HHHS uuwmno mnu umnu %mum .oq .aomumm wnu on «HA .mm .%m3m comumn wfiu mmmno .wm .nomumm mnu mumm .mm .xomn uw mw>Hm w£m\m£ ma wdwnumaom somuwa wnu w>Hw ou Humwo .om .comumm wfiu uHSmGH .nm .mms aomuma ozu umSu wafinuuaom houumwn .qm .Haaa m mxma .mm .ov cu awn: udonm >Huo3 qNfi Namxfiaan NmeHHaD NaoxHHaD Namxfiq mawxfiq hamxfi “50% cases hflwxfia 30m mum> wufiso umaBaaom uwnkmfiom wufiso >Hw> 181 We would like to know a few things about you . Sex: Male Female Age: Year in school: Sophomore Junior Senior How many brothers and sisters do you have? How many brothers and sisters are older? How many are younger? What clubs or oganizations do you belong to at North? APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT CORRELATION MATRIX FOR Tv CHARACTER'S MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION ' 182 Variable APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT CORRELATION MATRIX FOR TV CHARACTER'S MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 1&1 Shout at the person. Talk to the person about why he/she took the object. ~ Hit the person. Cry. Ignore the fact that the person took the object. Forgive the person for taking the object. Tell someone that the person took the object. Kick the person. Argue with the person. Try to persuade the person to give it back. Pout. Run away from the problem. Feel sorry for the person. Shove the person. Ask someone what to do. Threaten to hurt the person unless he/she gives it back. Plead with the person to give it back. Think about what to do. Let the person have the object. Try to help the person reform. Ask other people to help get the object back. Shoot the person. Trick the person into giving it back. Be honest with the person about giving it back. Not know what to do. Get drunk. Turn other persons against the person who took the object. Take something from the person who took the object. 183 Variable 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 501 502 503 504 505 Note: 1. 2. 184 Take the object back from the person. Cheat the person who took the object. Try to make the person feel guilty about taking the object. Worry about what to do. Take a pill. Destroy something that the person has. Insult the person. Offer to give the person something if he/she gives it back. Hate the person. Chase the person away. Lie to the person. Pray that the object will be returned. Feel guilty that someone was able to take the object away. Stab the person. Punish the person. Joke about the person taking the object. ,Revenge cluster sums Regression cluster sum. Verbal aggression cluster sumw Pro-social cluster sums Physical aggression cluster sum. Computer program does not print decimal points. Interpret 22 as .22 and 2 as .02. Communality in the diagonals. 185 ON .ON N- NO NO ON uO NO ON ON O.- OO O ON- O O O N- O- NN- O OO OO ON NO OO NO NO OO OO OOO ON O NN OO- NO- OO- OO- O- ON- O N. O- O ON NN ON ON OO N ON NN OO- ON- NO- OO- ON- NN- OO- NO- OO- OOO OO OO OO NO NO OO NO OO ON NN ON Ne ON NN O- ON O- ON NO N- Op On NO OO NO ON on OO OO NO OOO OO ON OO O N- NN ON ON ON OO OO OO OO O OO «O Nu NN ON ON OO ON NN ON ON ON NN ON NN ON NOO ON NO NN OO NO NO Or N. OO NN ON OO OO ON NN ON ON ON ON ON OO NO OO OO O» OO NO ON NN OO Nsv NN ON ON NO OO OO OO Op NO NN O- ON ON N O ON NN O O N O O. O: O. NO ON NO OO NO ON .ON O NN O- OO ON ON NO ON ON O ON- ON O- NN- NN- N O- NN- NN- ON- N NO OO -N Or ON ON OO OO O. OO ON NN N OO Or ON NO NO ON NN N- NO ON O- NN ON Oo O N O- ON NO OO OO OO OO OO OO NO ON O N- O- N- ON ON ON NO ON O NN O- O. O NN- ON O O O- N- O O N- ON NO NO OO NO OO OO NO NO O NN N- OO OO O« NO ON N. O- ON- NN O- ON- O- O- N- O- - O- O OO ON Oe NN NN ON ON OO NN O O- O- NN- ON NN ON ON ON ON O NN- NN O ON- N- N- O- NN- NN- NN- O NO Or ON ON NO ON ON NO ON NN. O N- O- NN- ON- ON- ON- ON- ON- O ON O NN ON ON NN ON NN ON ON NN ON- ON- ON- ON- NN- O- NN- ON- O- O. NN ON ON N- N O- O- O ON O- O- N- O- ON O- ON O ON N- O- ON ON- NN- NN- O- ON- O- NN- NN- ON- ON ON O O ON- ON- ON- ON- O O- N- O N- O- ON N ON O ON O- N ON O- ON- ON- NN- NN- ON- ON- ON- ON- ON NN NN NN NN- ON- ON- ON- O- O- NN O O- O ON O NN ON NN O N O ON- ON- ON- ON- OO- ON- ON- NO- ON- ON N O N- NO- ON- OO- OO- ON- ON- ON- O- NN- N- ON O O O ON N O- O- ON- Oe- pN- NN- NN- ON- NO- OO- ON- N O- O- ON NN- ON- NN- Ne- O- O- ON ON O- O ON O ON ON ON O NO ON NN- ON- ON- ON- oN- O- ON- ON- O.- O O O O ON- ON- NN- NN- N- O- O NN O N- NN NN NN O OO O ON NN ON- ON- ON- ON- NN- O- ON- ON- ON- ON ON O OO- OO- .o- ON- .N- ON- O O O- N- No m ON NN NN NN ON NN NO- NN- ON- OO- ON- ON- ON- OO- ON- ON ON OO OO ON ON O ON ON no NN ON ON ON ON ON OO ON OO ON O ON NN ON ON ON ON ON ON ON NN ON OO NN ON ON ON ON ON NO OO O O ON ON N O ON N NN NN N ON No ON OO ON NN ON NO ON ON NO OO ON ON ON ON «N NN ON NO ON ON ON ON ON ON NO ON OO NN N. ON Ne ON ON NN O O ON NN ON N ON ON ON NO OO «O OO Ow NO N N- ON ON N- O- O O- O- NN O O OO OO NO OO ON ON NO NO ON ON ON ON ON OO NO NO OO NO NO r N NN N- O- NN- N- ON- O N O- NN OO ON ON Op ON ON OO OO NN ON O ON NN NO NO NO Ou NO Ou O O NN ON O O- O O- a OO O NN NO O NO NO NN OO OO NO NO OO ON ON NN OO OO OO OO NO NO ON N ON ON . N- ON ON- N NN NN- O OO Np NN ON ON ON NO ON OO N ON OO ON ON OO NO OO OO OO N O NN ON O N- ON N NN ON O OO OO ON ON NO NN up OO ON ON ON N OO NO NO NO Ou NO OO NO O ON NN ON O O- ON O- ON NN O- ON O: ue NO O O ON OO ON ON a NN O ON N O O ON N O ON NN ON NO ON ON ON No ON O- N. O ON O ON ON ON NN NN ON ON .NN. ON O OO N- ON O N O ON NN ON ON NN NO ON ON ON ON ON ON NO NN ON ON NN ON ON ON N ON ON ON ON ON ON NN NN ON NN NN ON ON ON ON NO NO ON ON NO NN NN NN ON NO ON ON NN ON NN ON N. NO ON ON ON ON N- ON ON ON ON NO NO On ON ON NN OO OO NN ON NN NN ON O NO ON NO ON ON ON O NN ON O ON N- O- O O O O ON NO NO OO O. ON O ON OO ON ON NN O O NN O- NN N O N- ON NO ON O ON O- NN- O- O- N- O- ON ON OO NN ON ON ON ON NO N NN ON N O O O ON N N ON NN oO OO ON NO O N- O NO O ON ON Oo ON ON NO ON NO NO OO O ON Or ON «N O O. ON ON NN NN O NN ON N ON O- ON- O- ON- N O- No O« .N OO ON ON NO NO OO NN ON ON N N- O NN NN NN O O O- O OO NN OO O- O O N NN ON ON ON NO NN NO NO OO Op Om NN N NN N N- O O ON NN O O O ww: ON NN NN NN N OO NN ON NN O- ON NN ON ON N O NN ON O ON ON NN NN -N ON ON ON NN NN ON ON: O N NN O O- O NN- O O- NN ON NN No ON NN ON ON N ON N O N O ON N NN O ON ON O O ON ON ON O NN NN O NO ON O NO NO NN NN ON Or ON ON O» O NN ON No O NN ON NN NN ON ON ON NN NN NN OO Op NO OO OO OO ON NN ON ON O N ON N N NN N ON OO «O NO OO Or NO nu ma Nu Ow ON ON ON OO ON NO NO ON ON O O. NO O N O NN N- N- NN O NN OO NO NO NO OO OO NO Om Om OO NN OO ON NO ON NO NO ON NN NN NN ON NN NN O O O O NN ON O NO OO OO ON ON NO NO Ou OO NN ON ON NN OO OO NO OF NO NO ON NN O. ON O- N ON NN O ON N NN .O NO on OO Op OO NO OO OO ON ON NN O ON ON NN ON NN O ON ON NN Np NN ON ON NN ON ON N. Oo Op OO my ON O, OO OO NO OO NO ON ON O ON ON Or ON O ON NN ON ON ON N N ON NN NN ON O NN NO OO NO OO Ou OO OO NO OO ON ON NO ON OO Op OO NO O- «O NN ON NO ON O N NN O O NN ON NN OO NO NO NO Op O: NO OO NO O. ON ON NN NO OO NO ON ON ON ON N O. ON N- ON NN O O NN ON ON OO OO OO OO NO NO OO OO Om OO NN ON ON ON NO NO OO ON ON ON ON NN O NN NN O O- O ON O ON NO OO OO OO OO OO Om OO OO NO NN NO N ON ON Op N ON O NN Oo NO NN NO NO NN O ON OO O OO ON OO No ON OO ON ON OO -N ornahn? QZOCNON r74 wonhdqunwonwmt‘H ethodu Jayccanc ax... 2b >OMA¢ZDIIOU 186 Pr" le 0.” ru fir t... 9&- N... wN-l )ml mO-l Ill Jml rhl thl POI m. m. OOI NON O.. O.“- c»: «O- on- ».NI N.- ON N... O.. {U 17.. n5 ON ONO. mu «ml u- in pa ON r: r“ wrl NN OI ONI Owl «ml «NI mrl rum m On “I pwl vm a. kl MI F6 k MO a. an. an JN Lo. A.” m. NO Uffl NO or n1 r: 0m 3» NI NHI «NI NOI -ml cal Owl r I «Om 90 mrl r\ r “u V4 :u um Owl wl NOI Val )nl uwl PNI rel Oh rml mp kn mm vr m: m; Mml NI ol wal Nl rml nal th n5 cpl ~O. Pr an m- ”... m... FOl ONwl ,u-NI rml Owl :MI («I Own... mJl mv r... at .O..-. N): (N rwl rrl kll .url «Pl «ml Owl anl mml co m: rm w: my nu eel OI JOI abl oml UNI Owl owl nJl ma L: at «c mu m: rOl ”kW C.l er «WW mwl val sol N» pr oml NNI c—l mml vwl an N :n pr ma 0m m «m r: m. N nal "I :I mql nrl kl nl fi 3. Mo kn PA «a nu ma N-L rl ma Owl Nuvl Cl Nuwl KOI :Ol mvl 3r no r.- Ouo. Na. Nb 4». 3' ANI NJ nwl «a «ml val cal mrl «NI «bl er ha NO u: #3 «w uJ rm «4 owl an n I “I wrl owl Ml hrl mul fml nal rw O: Nr rv or or in (A rwl 9L «ml hm mwl u—l Maul nal "bl NI-R-l mrl «an at N..- r4 v? 6.: do. 0.. bnl .-N. 0a.- 0.- Pal Ncl nal r-.I Owl Oal unl 4N m4 ..M NM :n. 9.... an .3 :I O» mc- ON an: ran N.... X- OrI ...--. .-.. «r Or. 2» .. a... N... O: N.- O. ON HO .4 OK No a an r- m NI - M. O. ... a an O ON mN O ma n0 or m. PM Or pl w" Ll bl U" N N" m .l m u" OI «a m: cm NH mu pl 9 pl «I nal OI w" x N" «I UH O 3 am rvl Nu m nu NN MN on «r Mm fin aNI “I «OI onl Mml NNI Onl vvl NO arl N6 NI N; «V am On mm m: tr mrl m Mul le :Ml mfil :«l .wl rN nrl om an mu m3 mm «O :N (m 4H JOI NI nal «NI wml nal Hal hnl m. onl Nm nu Um r: «K Na «r «a 6O UNI ml MNI JOI uwl NNI mal rol N. ml mw «a 5: ON «N on UN «w E“ mul r m JI :al OI ml rNI o.» vul m Mn Gr «J Do. m0 0 «- m« owl ,uw cl ml NMI OI Ol dbl n. 3 Na o: Nm kw h NO NO UI r 4 ml cl .mO JHI NM 3 3 mNI Mr mu m: UN nl rwl «- GI ¢Ol kul mm 3| L q «I «M NH u m» ml sm rm or vm 0w 0» ch om «n « OI «I ml lHl Ql : Al O m «N NU NO. OO O... ON O mu .u NN c- MI O N.- m «I e- wul on NO m :« n Hal ml «ml wfll Mal ms mm a“ m“ -« pa 9N «n K Na ml «4 «a m Nal m" ON cl «I «a ml H m r 4 Nu m n ma rm mm 3n rd a aw r ml NI bu mm ma Fa « :H mm ma O OO nI Nu O; «a rI r-w m «I rI UN m O ON O OH 0 AN OI n4 um .«N ”a m mwl m MI «I Mal mm :a :N mm 3“ mm mm mm mu k av RN «N m hul n «I KI Nul ma NI UI m a m M «w «NI nu NI mo ma a Jml ml : wl nal mr ml 5 w ml or ma :N n n 3 am Mm r N a“ y r t Pa Ma Ma r wl no ad N“ mo 9vl nu ma mm my NV «3 «n w» wm mwl pal ml xml mml «NI «ml «pl mv mml N: Na 3¢ u: :M as mt mm mm nal dnl cal mHl mml nfil cal sml 0r «ml u MN c¢ my 5N mm «h ON ON owl «ml udl CHI swl ONI MNI nml «m Gml pm r« 3N c: MM .9 Ah so am Mal Fl nal Jul LRl Owl owl cml mm mml mn mm V‘ «w m— MM mr NH an «al «HI an url wdl Ndl «wl :vl Kn mml rr mm N¢ an ON my m: mm cm (I «I Owl mml rfil cl cl («I v ¢MI am sN vs m: UK rr or 0N mm «wl Nul Jul Mml NMl ch le cal :w dJl r3 mN As 9: Wm 53 t: Or N: owl NNI oml NHl :Ml ch Mdl owl mp owl s: an #00 gnu mN ma «n am am (I nal cal cml er ONl owl rul ONO ONO OOO NOO NOO_ON OO O NO O NN ON ON ON ON N O ON ON APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT CORRELATION MATRIX FOR EGO'S MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 187 Variable APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT CORRELATION MATRIX FOR EGO'S MODES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 1&1 Shout at the person. Talk to the person about why he/she took the object. Hit the person. Cry. Ignore the fact that the person took the object. Forgive the person for taking the object. Tell someone that the person took the object. Kick the person. Argue with the person. Try to persuade the person to give it back. Pout. Run away from the problem. Feel sorry for the person. Shove the person. Ask someone what to do. Threaten to hurt the person unless he/she gives it back. Plead with the person to give it back. Think about what to do. Let the person have the object. Try to help the person reform. Ask other people to help get the object back. Shoot the person. Trick the person into giving it back. Be honest with the person about giving it back. Not know what to do. Get drunk. Turn other persons against the person who took the object. Take something from the person who took the object. Take the object back from the person. 188 Variable 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 501 502 503 504 Note: 1. 2. 189 Cheat the person who took the object. Try to make the person feel guilty about taking the object. Worry about what to do. Take a pill. Destroy something that the person has. Insult the person. Offer to give the person something if he/she gives it back. Hate the person. Chase the person away. Lie to the person. Pray that the object will be returned. Feel guilty that someone was able to take the object away. Stab the person. Punish the person. Joke about the person taking the object. Physical aggression/revenge cluster sum. Regression cluster sum. Pro-social cluster sum. Verbal aggression cluster sum. Computer program does not print decimal points. Interpret 22 as .22 and 2 as .02. Communality in the diagonals. 190 33. .N 3N 33 33. N 3. 3 3 N 3- 33- N- 33. 33 cm 33 .m .3 33 .. u. u. 3N .3 3 33 m. a N3 333 33 33 33 3N 3N 33 .3 3N 3. .3 3. 3. m .3- 3N- me- .N- «.- 3N- 33- 33. 33- 33- 33- u 3.- 3N- NN- 3N- m.- 3.3 mm .3 33 33 N3 Nm 3c 33 «m 33 33 3 N. 33. 3 33- 3- NN- 3- 3.- .3- 3 o- 3 33 3 3- o- N3- .3- N33 a». N3- 33- a- 3 33- 3- N m 3.- m3- «3- .3- 33 Nm .3 3 3o 33 3. 3. 33 33 on 33 a; 3. 3. 3. 3. 333 3- oN m3 3 o 3- 3N 3 3 3 3 3 3 N- «n 3N 3N 3» 3. 3N 33 3N c3 3. .3 3. an 3. NN c. .. n3- 3 3- o c- 3- 3 3 a- N3- 33- 33- 33- 3- 3N 3. m. 33 33 33 «N 33 .3 3. m3 N. 3 NN «3 «3 oN 3N oN cN 33 33- 3 3N 33 a NN N3 3- 33 33. N- 33. 3- 33- 3- 3- .N- N- 33- 3- .- N3- 33. .3- oN- mN- 33 an- m0 mo : cat 00 s3 3 s r0 can «at k0 mu m: h: m: «r cw «a «a no u so @- rr mm ha ha ha or N 3N oN 3N 3 a. 3. 3 33 33 33 3 3- .3- 3N 33 3. m3 33 3 3 3 . a 3 33 . 33 N N 3. 3N- 33 n3 .- 3.. 3 N3 3- 3- 3- a- .- m- 3 3N 3» MN 3N 33 3- m. NN 3N . N .3 N3 n3 3 3 3 oN- 33 3 N a3- .- a 33- m- .- N.- 33- 3N- 3 3N 33 .N 3N 3. .. 3. .N n. .3 3- 33 33 NN N- 3- a n3 AN3 3- 33 n 3 3 a 33 33 3- 3. 3- 33- 3 N- 3 3 N3 3 N . N- 3 33 N3 3 3 o- 3 '3 .N an 33 33 3N w m3 3 3N a o 33 N3 .- 3 N3- 3- 3- .- 3- m- 33 3 3 33 . 3 n .3 .3 33 a3 33 33 3N mm 3. m .3 .m 3N N. 33 .N 33- N- 3.- 3 33- .- 3.. 33- . N3- 3 m3 3- N- n- n- .- a3 .3 33 33 3 MN 3. 3 c 3 .N 33 3. m3 3.- .N- 3.- ..- 3.- 3.- 3.. mm- 33- .N- 33- 3- .3- 3N- 3.- 03- .3- 3 33 NN m3 3 33- .3 N3 . . .N 3 33 3N 3.. .3- 3.- N3- .3- 33- ..- 33. a- 33- 33- m- .3- 3N- m3- 3N- 33- N 33 3N on 3 n- 3. 3. m 33 33 .3 33 3N 33- 3N- 33- 33- o.- 33- 3.- 33- 3N- 33- .N- 33- 3.- .3- .3- .3- N.- 3N 3m 3N 3. N3 3N .3 3 3. 3. 3. 3. 33 3n 3.- 33- 3.- 33- oN- 33- 3.- 3.- 3- a3- . . 33- 3N- 33- .3- «3- 33 mo uN 33 33 n3 3N 3 33 33 N3 33 33 a. 3.. 33- 33- 33- «N. c3- N3- 33- 33- 3.- 33- N- 3.- NN- Nn- NN- .3- 3N 3N 3N m. 33 3N 3. 3. 33 3. on 3. 3. .3 33- 3 3N- m- .3. 3 33. 33- N3 .3. u- 3 o 3 3- 33- m3- .. o3 m3 33 33 N3 3N cm 33 33 33 33 NN 3. 33. .3 m3- 3- 3- N- 33- 33- 3- .- .- 3- 3 .3- o- a3- 33- . 33 33 33 33 33 33 «N 33 3m 3N 33 3 3. 33. 33 N- 3- . 3 3- 3- 3- . . s m o 33- N- 3- 33 33 on 33 33 33 3 .3 3. 3. MN N. 33 3. .3. 33 33- 3 33- 3 33- 33. m .3- u .3 33 a 33 3 3 3 3N 3N 3N 33 w .. o. N. 33 3. 3. 33 3. 33- N3- 3N- 33- 3N- 3- 3.- .3- m- u- 3- N .- 3- 33- 33- 3.- 33 3 33 am mN .3 3N oN m3 NN 33 3N .3 33 NN- 3N 3- 3 3 3- .- 3- 3 3 3- .- 33 N- 3 .3- 33- 3. 33 n3 m3 o3 3N .N 33 n. c3 3. 33 33 33 33. 3 33- .3 3- 3 33- o- 3 m N. .N 3- 33 3- 3 3- 33 33 ON 33 3n 0. 3. NN 33 33 N3 3. 33 33 33- 3 N.- 33 o- 3 3.- 33- .3 3 33 NN 33 33 N3 3 3 N3 Nn on 33 nN ”N 33 33 3N .3 33 a. N3 33 ..- 3- N3- N- «N- 3- 33- «N- 3- .3- m 3 .- 33- 33- o3- N3- 33 33 3N 33 o3 NN 3. m. 3 o. a. 3m .. 33 3N. 3- 3.. 3- 3.- 3- N.- m.- 3 3 33 N3 3- .- m3- 3- m. 3 0“ «N NN mw mr cm um my rm N3 v. r. em aw- a am- on 00- to so- om- :- m3- 3- 3- « ~«- 0- r- 33- we ON on 3N 3n 3. m. 33 33 33 33 33L... 3. 3.- 3 33- 3 3N» 3- 3.- 3.- N 33- . . .- 3- o- o- 33- N. own an! an! an! 03- can mot «~- Hal Nm- nut :Nt rr- n3 0 MM ca mm mu w« an 6“ ar o3 ta uw 0r up we rs rd v o3- 3 .3 63 «3 N3- 3N 3 3 3- o- o . 3 N. or an on pr m. 3. a. or Nm N3 N3 33 33 (N 3N .N m3- 3N- m3- N- 03- 3N- m- 33- Nm- N3- rN- n.- mn- 33 N 33 3. .u 33 o. 3. a3 33 oN N. «m «n ma um mm m 33- o- n- n- m v3- n N3 33 N- 3- m- 3 33 an 3N 3. 3p 33 33 .r 33 or or u. 63 n3 o3 NM 3. .3 oN- 03- 3- s 33- an- 3 3- w- wN- 3.- ap- mN- 3. 3» .c 3. 33 m. b 3n .3 N3 .. NN .m .3 N3 N3 33 n3 @3- 3 N- 3 n o- 3- 3 a u- n- n- 3- 33 my 33 3» m3 m3 .m m3 N3 m3 .. 0: 3m 3m .3 .N mm on ~3- o3- 33- o- O3- ar- »- .3- 33- o3- .n- N.- 3m- 3. an o. 3. mm .3 .: N. MN cm 3» .. m3 m3 «w 33 33 03 n30 out @3- m- m«- .u- m- w- cau mm- who om- :N- «w an as up mm r3 N» «w mo «c or an a: a: ¢3 0: m3 4" :3- N3 c- 3- m m- w u .3 3- 3 3- N 33 cm o3 «3 am N3 mm um «N u. «N N3 33 .m 3n .n an or or- cal s- n 93- m- m m m N«- 3 m3- .3- on mm mm my N: mm m «u up «3 m. mu m: N: on «m mm c 03- m- .- m m 3- m- N. r3 m m3 3- 3 «3 Nu oN a» .N .. on a. m. o. u. mu «3 3m m3 ua u3 3N so a o- a N« m m- ww rw 3 N3 3- r .3 m3 wm mN NN a. Na ma N. «N r“ ON .3 m: an m4 .3 mm uN- a 3 u ow .- o3 .- 33 N- r- 3 N- 3N N3 03 a: .m cm a» 3: 33 r3 33 3 33 mm mm c: m3 cN NN- n N3- o o w- N- 33 33 m3- .- p3- 3- m» 33 c. m3 «3 3. M3 33 .u .3 3n u3 nu 3m mm 33 wm an Nm- o- o- o3- 93 33- r 3- N3 33- w3- n- w- m. .3 m3 m3 N3 .3 3a 33 3a or «3 3n « um ac 3n mu 3» NN- 33- o3- .- o 33- O3- 3 3 03- o- c- o- N3 3N mp N. N3 .N 33 m3 .3 3a o3 m3 33 a: am am 33 N. ca- 03- cu- :- n a3- n3- n- n mm- m- :3- :H- m: 3N or wu n: my :3 r: or mu m3 N? m3 H mm co :m N: am Lu 5 «a m a: «e «a Na ma 3 w. Np cw kw m up m: mm w v- 3, v-O mm 3 mm nm «N 3m 3m N~ N. 343cc<~c wry 2H >3H3¢23ttou .r~o»U¢u 191 n.,— LI 0 m4 «3. 4.3 ml cl rt 13... yr“ 7.. nl c-3l «ml 6.. .3 wul 4...”... pl nun su cal m nal Na w-l m3 a:l Lul tn \. 9» PN Ur Cr 73 Mun n ‘H- rad NH- m3 «nl at (- mw Jl Cvl 3. or .n. .9 an. N... #3" wrm NJ fijl Kr. 3MP“ D... m:- mhl "l lbw um «I v. 3. fl ml m.~.l htl on! «(A-u 33 3 .33 3.3 3. 33. 3.. 3.. .3 3. S. .3 .3 H 33- N3 3. . an 3- mu- «ul my «w wo M3 r3 am an 63 93 pl 63- 33- m- al r.l co mr pp mm le n» ww N3 m. nm at rt w“ n“ w on «J nN “r U3 ra nr- ml mL mm «W 3” 33 LL 5. J m NI rl ~.l :l mal :-l u. n m" m» m« m7 up wt Mn rm 03 a: u a n a u 3n r up .3 3n- a- so 1. 3A 3- N. 03 F» pr r- 43- L3- 33- n- 3- cr- 3 r-.-. m3-,n.3l «I -.. Ar «.- ¢9 “.3... V.- V: a ul rl “HI :l Cl h3l im- 33 .3 4: m «3 ww m" m w o- M3 m f 3 3 4 u on 7 rl - mm m m3 r- 33 wl n mnl c- r 33 a» a“ :3 un up on hul ov a; Cl . le n Fl w m3l pl « N3 nr 3. m3 mm a. c3 nrl m- «N mrl -3l val n3 yrl « «fil «ml ¢ m3 Hp 3" no 3m y» 3 w. my 3m NMl r3 rl «3 :- aw NI. :l 1 a" 03 pm Ho 04 .3 n r nu .M N:- «l 4- m. uml a“ .l Cl : u. rt 3m a: u~ UN 4- .nwl mu v.4 fin“- - le an 5.... C Pfl Fdl Nu ur 33.. 3.: )n Dr N3 ~..v nul 3. pr arl Ml nu- mN :Ml x HNl :Nl 3 ha av -k¢ U. u: n- kRV sn #3 ha ha. at 6 mo Ul :n :v 33 no“ up «w «w 00 am hr 1M4! 3m 3. a: :3! mw :- «r u- no Nu H 3- uu .H u“ u— «r “r h m“ an U: «I C m my 3 «c NI 0 13 w. Jr 1 w H N3 3: mwl or. r: .— « rul 6.30 le 1.. url Pol - a? .l- Hr HHI ~..l (u, U n n: mu ral #0 cl 3 6- n3 « .l 3 c -r «m 33 «a r. 03 :w «a :m wl 40 v «r nu JV N« N 4 mm d w «a “M a me ~ 3m Lu n r L “3 w c :l u l a u N“ v N u aw "n m 3r «m a r an n 3 :3 nal Kl a" «r 53 w h 3“ :3 ha 0 NJ «m an 3 N3- n. 3- M3 w- r- .u m (N no um Mr 3. u3 ¢l «A an U3l « «ml N“ m3l «« nl «- wl n hm a“ a N« “N 4 Val rm «0 val H cal ml val 0 Fl M3l ul $3 Wm nu ma Ga 4a L0 Ml A.» km hwl- n Mwl DH mil Us J-l 33.x- Dl x..3 «3. 043 ~N no .— RN.-- wal Nn- wnl n: Nl wl Qn- Nd nal w G wwl Al awn .m- mwl nw- nnl up 3: "Cl 0 mm Fr 60 ml .3 Th mm A... f M. O... POI le «ml cpl p3. au m.- rVI «w NM tm «HI An O3 0» 34 m- Nul ob- uml :wl wal cpl h 34 moo al mm we «m «I No an wt mo m «I a le mHl ral uul hm kw m-l le 30 h» m“ owl 9. ma mm mm « al «wl 3ml nal Uml unl Nd m: an- n- um nu «a 3- m. 03 33 u. «3 N- 3- 3m- 33- «3- ~3- m. 33 33- 3m- ac 3a 33 3- mu m 3. N., o r- an- «N- NN- 33- u.- 33 hr m:- nml «r on 00 cal @n m «0 my m ml val mml «Ml 43- wwl 4w mr 33- o :u aw ma m- hr r rt um a M“ n val Ol mm- 4- Up mt nnl ml rJ u ”a ««l m: n #0 pm Nl H ea- lml «Ml «Jl wfil x mm dun r mu an up m- m 0 b ca 1 a M cal Owl @ml 0 (A m3 m a“ :m a" Wa N- mu m m cl «a a" U“ ml Ml nal r rm «4 mn- m vw an Np nal rr w“ «a Ca ma M rl Mal aal uml val «N an en- ml wk mr «m w l .n c «a w« w w «l vml «Al on- wwl or mp mm- «I rh «w «m gal k: «a Mr mm v M «l le mal MEI m3l 3V n mn- mal an we ma mnl kw m m NI ml aw kl owl Jml MMI rwl NM n“ mnl »«l as an 0H “ml Mr N 3 a! a ma Nl nal owl hMl unl «3 Jam mcm New «am no ON a“ ur «r u 0 J: «h OH 0 N aw wa APPENDIX D' SURVEY ADMINI STRATION QUESTIONNAIRE 192 APPENDIX D SURVEY ADMINISTRATION QUESTIONNAIRE Introduction Did you know that 98 of every 100 homes in the United States have a television set? Did you know that 40 of every 100 homes have more than one television set? About two of every three homes have color television sets. It is not surprising that watching television is a major way we spend our waking hours. High school students average four hours of television every day. Because young people are watching television quite a bit, an interesting question is: What do young people think about television characters? This study will try to find out what television shows you watch. Think about the television you watch. What do you see on television? Who do you like to watch? How often do you watch TV? Think of your answers to these questions as you fill out this questionnaire. 193 194 «>0; mfiumfluso uoo .mH mam: >2 m.um:H .wH spoum wasaom .NH NH va< .oH mwaow Namaumm .mH oum>am Hanan: .qa Mm uoz \llL so w.uH mafia onu mo ufiom N am: HMHHOQ GOfiHHHZ wa .H so m.ufi mafia onu mo umoz no m.ufl Qawu %uw>m momma unu ca #0050 m uam "noum3 so» on coumo 3cm .3onm unu nouns 50% awuwo so: mudomuumuu anon umnu oncomwwu «no sundown .noamw>oaou no son who umsu maogm defima>maou mo Hones: w wouwwa mum sonm 195 amaosmuwflom .Hq amass vuomxoom .oq am: on» van cease .mm cow was vuowamm .mm mm sou HH.03 .Nm «tuapmm .om mflmscu qua -mm wuc2wuimm H so: .«m uuxamum unmaz «no saga—cs .mm scam manna non may .Nm ¢:.;«c=m .Hw cc .:m>az «cm mcouamz may .mu 0 muumm .wm oomwoamum com mo mummuum .mw noumM .oN HwHHHz smegma .nN wfiamucuumm .qN ngH 9354 .mN mwhwmum mfiu so wmaom mHuuHA .NN “opossum: och .HN :3 Han um uoz amumo huo> uoz do m.uH mafia TmMIMHMMINEHMI no m.uH "noum3 90% cu amumo 30m wnu mo mfiom mnu mo uwoz mafia muo>m 196 menu mnu mo uawz .mn anmS msoumz .wm owwmaouH .mm voguuasmm .om Hmm 0:H .mm emsmm we: .qn smug “mum .mn moanmnosounn may .Nm scam nuHHMHuo >ua< any qaw mwoumm m.:m om HHHu umnH .aq vcmHmH w.:dwwHHHu .wq 305m uumcsmz non mna .mq whooz “mama mum: .oq maomHmMMMH o:H .mq maflams onu as HH< .qq mwmmwmmmm .mq 5% MGSM .Nq HHN UN UOZ couwo >Hw> uoz no m.uw mawu msu mo maom so m.ufi mafia «no we owe: ao m.uH wawu huw>m "soums 90% on awumo 303 197 mnu mavamn ou mmaanu wafizoaaow m£u ow sch vaaoa hflmxfia Bow “muss ufi muaa comuma may mdomaom mmm no» can HmMUOH use» Eouw huzm add? new 30m .mzonm >9 so defiumsuwm unmacmum n ma mHnH ow ou awn: mcomaom xm< .ma vmcpaumu mp HHHB uomnpo mnu umnu zmum .«H Gomumn ms» How muuom Hmmm .MH :omnma mzu mums .NH comumm mnu uaawaH .HH mm; nomuma msu mcflzumaom houummn .OH :omuma mnu :uflz mswu< .m comummmauxoflm .w uomnno mam xoou 0:3 comumm mnu uNmno .m uommno mnu wcflxmu you comumm mcu m>kuom .o xasuv umo .m to .q domuma mSu uHm .m 8930 9: xoou m:m\m: has uaonm aomuma mnu on meH .N dowuma mnu um usonm .H rigging .333 .333 So» 353 .3me so: mum> muwso uszmEom umszmaom muwso hum> wuomhno mnu xoou 0:3 :omumn .uH an“? hmsw xavfimmu mmeB can umoo m .HmMUOH mnu Eoum no» em unnuuomaw zum> mH umnu waanumaom mxmu sons u.:ov sch .umeOH “30% um mum :0» van Hoozom Hmuum ma uH .aowumsuwm msu wawdvcmn aH who: mmmnu mo numm mm: ou mp vases soN hamxwa so: soax cu u=m3 m3 sneaumaufim mam wawfluamn uaonm cm :0» canoa .aom Eouw wawnumaom nmxmu mm: maomaom umnu mawwmaH 198 mwdwzoaaom mam mo 50mm ow vamwuw H305 UHDOB hamxwa 30m nomumm mnu adamaH .HH mm: nomum mnu canumaow monummn .OH :omuma mnu :ufia mswu< .m comumm mnu onM .w uomnno mnu Moou on? :owuma mzu ummno .5 uomfl£o mnu wcHMMu How comuma m£u m>HwHom .o Masuv umo .m zuo .q :owuma mcu u“: .m sounno mnu Moou m£w\m: >53 unonm somumm mam ou JHMH .N comuma msu um uDoSm .H flu... gum. ”mm” mam. mum .mw. a... .HQS HO Efid— EOHM unauuoaafi wafinumaom xoou maomfiom «a ow vaaoa wvamwuw use» mo mao um53 mcwmeH .mmafinu mwcmno m.umH 3oz auommu comnmm mnu damn ou Aha .om nomuma mnu mownfi .mH domumm mnu uoonm .wH sumo uw m>ww ou nomumm mzu Sufi? vmmam .NH sowumn mam swam .oH luqltllill I! Namxaaaa NamwaaD meHHaD Namxaq hamqu hHmMHA «so» vasoa hamxfia 30m knum> mouse umnsuaom unnamsom moose aum> 199 Snowmu Gomumm mnu mam: cu %HH .ON nomumm mcu onuH .mH aomumm mam uoonm .wH gown uH m>Hw ou cowumm mnu sues vmmam .nd comumm mam naum nmw ow ou umas maomaom xm< .mH wmaunumu ma HHHB uomnno mnu umnu mmum .qa aowumm mnu How muuow Hmmm .MH .mmmumn mSu mum: .NH NAwMfiq umn3maom hams“; manna mamxwg mum> wvamfium “50% uH=o3 hamxfia Bo: 200 How much do your parents have to say about what you watch on TV? a lot a little nothing at all How much do your parents criticize what you watch on TV? a lot a little nothing at all How much do your parents stop you from watching some shows? a lot a little nothing at all How much do your parents talk about TV with you? a lot a little nothing at all How much control do you have over what you watch on TV? a lot a little nothing at all How many rules are there in your home about what you can watch on TV? a lot a little nothing at all How much do you think your parents approve of Shows like Mannix, Kojak and Hawaii Five-O? Disapprove Disapprove quite a bit very much Approve Approve very much quite a bit Approve Disapprove How much do you think your parents approve of shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, and Lucas Tanner? Approve Approve very much quite a bit Disapprove Disapprove Approve Disapprove quite a bit very much How much do you think your parents approve of shows like All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and Good Times? Approve Approve very much quite a bit Disapprove Disapprove Approve Disapprove quite a bit very much 201 so» amaasm .mH Dom mum: .¢H munch mo wawnumaom xouummn .MH 30> ummno .NH Emcu nuHB cwmmu m ouaw so onHH .HH :omuma umuumn w ma 50% damn ou hMH .OH mwamau ou so» wmm . so» uaonm op ou umnz um£3maom xm< .30» How >Huom Hmmm no» suHB mswu< 30% onM map 30% owns How 50% m>kuom sue so» mas ou aha Ho 50% uflm HNMQ’WCNQO‘ .90% um udonm hamxafic: mum> hamxfifisp obese mauxflaaa hamxsa ums3maom umn3maom sfimxfla muflso mamxfia hum> .maOfiumsuHm mmosu aH muamum Mao was so so: nuws Hump msonm mnu mo umofi .uoww aH "mucmumm H50» wH503 %meHH 30m «wdHSOHHom mnu wcfiov ha so» nuas Hump umSumm Ho Hmnuoa Mach vase? NmeHH 3o; .wafiov mum3 30> moanumaom usonm udmfimmumeHv mcouum m can Aymaumm no umsuoav mumns macauMSuam muoa Ho moo unopm swash .umuvafinu uwmnu magma muamumn .wcoam umm amuvafinu can muamumm Bo: hmuuuom amuwo macaw >H 202 “film-2.5;. ‘ raging. vmausumu mn HHH3 uommno mnu umnu zmum .QH comuma mnu How >uuom Hmmm .MH comumn mnu mumm .NH aomuma mnu uaamcH .HH mm: aomumm mSu wnwaumaom houuwmn .oa Gowumm mnu nufik msmu< . somumm mnu xowM . uomflno mau Moou 0:3 domum msu ummno scape umu . zuo . m m m uommno mzu wcfixMu How somumm mnu m>fimuom .o n q m :omuma mnu mam . uommno mnu xoou mnm\mn %£B usonm aomummmnn Cu meH .N somuma mnu um u30£m .H Namxfiaap Huxfiaaa >meaaap mamas; mamas; mass“; hum> mufisd umnzmaom umsamaom muflno %um> "50% cases hamxwa 30m . Nuumnno was soou 033 domumm mnu mamas: ou mwnfinu wGHBOHHom mnu cm 50% casos mamxfia 30m .ufl :uH3 hash hapfimmu wMHmB paw umoo m amps: uH mush :omumm mny .umeOH m£u aouw 30% cu unmuuonaw mum> ma umzu mawnumaom mxmu vamfium ummn Mach mmm so» van umxoou “50% Sony hmsm gas? now .umMUOH hook um mum 50% can Hoonom Hmumm mu uH .:0Humsufim mnu wnfiflvamn GH whms mmmSu mo numm mma ou mp vase? now hamxwa so: Boax ou uamB m3 deHuMduHm mnu wawavamn unonw cm 30% vasoa 30m .50% scum mawzumaom Moou pamwuw ummn Mach umau msfiwmaH .udmummwav mafiaumfiom usonm wau m.umH soz 203 _ it? 11).! I” . .1 showmn domumm mnu mam: ou muH .ON comuma mnu xowuy .mH :omuma may uoonm .wH xomn uH m>Hw ou Gomumm mnu :uws vmmam .mH nomumm mnu swam .oH ov ou owns maomaom xm< .mH mefiaab >Hm> 313:5 mufivo mamsaaap unnamaom 39:5 umnsmaom mewu mufizd 39:; mum> “50% vHao3 hmeHH 30m 204 We would like to know a few things about you . Sex: Male Female Age: Year in school: Sophomore Junior Senior How many brothers and sisters do you have? How many brothers and sisters are older? How many are younger? How many clubs or oganizations do you belong to North? Generally, what grades do you get: Do you have cable TV in your home? B+, A- C+, B- D+, C- at D or less Yes No u -..- _ 13' $1,“. APPENDIX E SURVEY ADMINISTRATION CORRELATION MATRIX FOR TV VIEWING PATTERNS 205 Variable APPENDIX E SURVEY ADMINISTRATION CORRELATION MATRIX FOR TV VIEWING PATTERNS IE1 "Six.Million Dollar Man' "Koj akil "Mannix" "Rookies" "Gunsmoke" "Maude" "RI'IOda" "Medical Center" IISWATII "Caribe" "Happy Days" "Good Times" "MASH" "Hawaii Five-O" "Barnaby Jones" "Adam 12" "Police Story" "That's My Mama" "Get Christie Love" "Cannon" "The Manhunter" "little House on the Prairie" "Lucas Tanner" "Petrocelli" "Barney Miller" "Karen' "Streets of San Francisco" "Harry 0" "The Waltons” "Movin' On" "Sunshine" "The Bob Crane Show" "Kolchak the Night Stalker" "Hot L Baltimore" "Odd Couple" "Baretta' "We'll Get By" 206 207 "Sanford and Son" Variable 38 = 39 = "Chico and the Man" 40 = "Rockford Files" 41 = "Policewoman" 42 = "Kung Fu" 43 8 "Emergency" 44 = "All in the Family" 45 = "The Jeffersons" 46 = "Mary T ler Moore" 47 = "The Bo Newhart Show" 48 = "Gilligan's Island" 49 = "That Girl" 50 = "Hogan's Heroes" 51 = "The Andy Griffith Show" 52 = "The Untouchables" 53 = "Star Trek" 54 = "Mod Squad" 55 = "The FBI" 56 = "Bewitched” 57 = "Ironside” 58 = "Marcus Welby" 59 = "Name of the Game" 501 = ABC action/adventure cluster sum 502 = Pro-social cluster sum 503 = Situation comedy cluster sum 504 = CBS action/adventure cluster sum 505 = Syndicated situation comedy cluster sum 506 = Unknown clumster sum 507 = Minority situation comedy cluster sum 208 FICTOO INVFFC199rL1711uf :u‘ L“"‘vfi «nvayx, CO“"UN6LIY¥ YV Y“? WXlfi1VflL 1 1o ’4 1 ‘1 >5 6 ‘3 >1 s> v7 >7 .2 11 36 ’9 c1 21 ‘. 31 63 >> 11 12 61 6o 16 a 11 67 9 39 ‘9 29 9 " '6 «a ‘< ‘1 ‘3 1 1’ '1 ‘2 12 = 1a 1 1s 7 29 5 >. 15 21 26 so -6 16 -5 13 9° 73 7‘ 3. " 6: 33 7° 7' ’9 .‘ '1 ’6 ‘1 12 1~ ‘5 1] 1! 1 ’3 8 ’2 6 P? 20 26 -13 6 1 26 2h 25 2c 2. 11 >1 16 ’: >3 2 '1 17 16 >1 «0 '1 1s 1 a or . 6 2 12 17 11 16 -6 1o 15 1 .'1 3. ’6 31 ’9 16 '7 '6 33 .5 >7 7: 9: >9 16 >' >> 1. 1 ' 29 1? >1 6 20 ’3 29 o 20 -1s ’9 3' ‘3 19 2% 16 15 '1 1% ’3 11 ‘5 a7 ‘6 31 ’0 ‘1 16 17 ‘1 1s 2? 16 ’1 16 '1 31 15 20 26 11 ts 11 no 21 1. 15 >7 3. 13 11 >1 >6 13 21 1a 11 >3 21 13 ‘6 1. 16 11 11 20 17 17 13 9 26 16 6 .6 3o 16 37 39 3. '9 11 11 2: .1 39 ‘6 ‘1 13 1 ‘2 >2 16 >7 2? 19 '1 20 31 26 86 16 29 7 53 2‘ 3? 7C 1% 1‘ 1‘ 19 7? ‘6 PS ?§ 23 35 1% 26 1? '7 5 7 -3 16 3 11 6 7 12 29 -9 i 6 3' 21 23 2o 31 ’1 *1 19 '6 >3 >9 13 >1 '9 11 15 17 ’0 -1 '6 a 10 7 12 5 1% 16 10 o! 13 -11 . r7 29 25 20 2. H 23 >5 29 7:1 2:1 11 v 1.. 19 22 1a 17 1? :3 3 15 13 21 6 16 1s 19 -1 1o 1 g- 17 ‘9 6o 19 2‘ 26 >6 61 21 19 23 >7 so '9 >9 9 11 27 21 'a 21 39 22 a; 17 91 36 67 11 15 -3 - 27 3’ 31 17 1 67 1c ‘3 21 ’o '7 11 31 '2 13 12 21 11 12 >1 18 >5 21 13 16 21 26 26 16 23 16 i 67 33 26 16 6’ 36 21 ’6 tr ta 66 '1 12 *1 10 15 1’ ’6 1’ 1o . 17 l6 2. S 16 13 21 7 16 ~12 1 1’ 2 23 20 27 '3 :9 >1 1: :1 1) >1 1? '0 >3 '3 29 ’9 6 15 1 16 1 7 9 2o 16 16 9 7 1 I ‘6 1’ 12 60 1. ’C ’1 13 36 '9 “ 7 1? 16 ‘3 19 6’ 15 3 2 11 2 6 5 22 6 2 6 2 19 9 26 16 16 61 2‘ 39 ’9 19 1? l7 1! 11 2‘ 1’ ’9 92 21 22 19 17 72 10 16 15 23 23 16 20 17 17 22 59 16 25 15 27 ‘6 ‘1 ?? 7‘ 23 7% ’7 ‘1 76 ’9 1‘ 2? Z! 2? ’7 22 29 19 1! 26 26 ‘2 23 21 21 19 23* I 10 9 1:. 17 13 2: 1 -1 12 >11 12 12 6 3 n 12 - :2 31 37 Tr 69 ‘12 29 vs 27 13 21 26 g. 76 19 13 6 11 !0 ’6 36 7 -9 I! ‘6 79 10 16 17 27 67 6! 16 6! 60 35 to ‘9 36 32 I! 20 20 ii 11 7 1 -7 r 15 1. 2r -5 a a *1 1. 6 n 11 2> 22 .11 16 17 11 so 12 s. 36 27 26 36 as 23 S 6] 79 23 6 21 2? 16 29 16 10 15 39 7% 17 16 2 1C ’9 37 63 13 62 29 6? 2! 61 35 St 36 26 11 I? 22 a 6 6 12 16 11 13 1 7 11 >> >1 16 1 6 1a 19 67 .o «1 29 so 6) 22 21 22 29 31 21 19 " 10 26 22 2 23 80 15 11 11 1? 21 .3 19 ?6 7 5 15 19 6J '5 32 62 60 37 20 60 ‘1 63 2t 36 6 12 16 6 12 s 16 2o 2: A 9 6 17 1; 5 9 22 2! >5 ‘2 3o 9. 21 2’ 2o 26 29 so 26 26 22 36 61 29 22 17 23 11 17 11 7 1% 16 31 21 16 ‘9 6 21 26 >3 19 16 61 23 61 29 39 96 )6 26 16 16 6o 26 20 11 23 11 17 2A 12 11 1a '6 2. 13 19 2 1. 3’ 33 16 >7 35 22 11 30 55 31 37 26 16 16 16 3t 26 16 29 1' :3 36 :1 10 19 .7 ’2 21 19 S 27 23 27 ‘2 25 51 2% 6! 29 36 37 32 26 19 16 fl -6 -1‘ -6 0 21 9 16 -9 -6 -1 :1 15 7 9 ’ 17 21 1‘ 13 ‘5 15 31 21 20 26 20 26 22 16 33 11 16 6 1o 26 >6 ’0 2s 1 11 1a 15 23 16 7 19 17 ’1J 21 ‘0 ’5 25 21 30 22 16 16 I9 is ti _§%_ 67 -“ 1 1‘ '15 11 1‘ 7 6 -11 1 -3 13 ~12 1 9 2’ 11 -6 ’ ? 11 13 6 6 1 16 66 -11 -2 7 -12 12 1s A 9 -6 2 o 7 -9 11 12 ’c 11 21 13 25 16 19 1 26 15 17 11 17 16 76 65 .1 on 12 o’ 11 11 11 9 2 16 3 17 9 36 >1 26 21 9 11 22 -1 7 5 15 16 13 11 22 9 66 7 '20 -6 6 '3 12 10 12 -6 -% 2 9 9 -< 16 16 ?= 22 31 36 31 28 26 16 29 26 22 13 56 13 91 66 06 ~6 10 -) 1 1‘ I 10 6 10 13 11 10 31 21 16 16 6 7 16 5 4 6 11 Q 6 10 16 ll 66 6 -16 -6 l '12 1‘ 13 1 -¥ -3 11 7 13 O 7? 19 2! ’3 15 :9 13 ’0 17 ll 17 21 11 19 66 12 62 13 a 7 16 1 a a 1 >3 19 5 a 1 1 a 22 13 1. >9 :1 11 22 13 16 32 19 21 20 19 25 36 37 1 -1 1o -6 13 1c 9 -1 o 11 1 7 -1 16 11 ‘1 13 >1 :7 33 15 26 11 13 22 20 23 31 13 36 ‘8 11 5 36 6 1’ 16 6 1s 1% 27 13 17 ’1 11 31 '1 >9 1: 16 5 5 13 1! 21 7 6 19 16 2) 35 12 12 a I -1 1‘ ’0 16 9 9 9 ’7 3 '1 ‘1 17 17 10 2: ‘3 21 23 19 15 22 22 23 26 23 1! 29 1‘ 1’ 17 -1 11 “ 1. 11 7 3 1o :1 ‘1 :6 19 2 11 ’6 11 ‘6 15 37 27 2' 10 31 29 36 37 1o 20 13 9 6 1; >6 1 3 :3 9 11 1; 31 >2 1’ 9 11 ’9 13 15 11 3o 19 ’1 15 29 26 3! 36 9 20 3 19 2o 6 11 >2 12 1s 6 -> 12 >2 >7 10 ‘2 9 >7 2; 11 ‘3 15 3o 22 11 9 30 29 36 37 6 22 2 16 16 9 16 21 :2 . .1 9 11 ‘1 72 :> :1 9 16 16 1; :3 11 ’2 9 ’2 2 2! 17 25 26 1 19 16 21 2% 2 1’ ’9 17 11 1r 1 10 >6 23 16 s -1 7 ’3 2 ‘9 11 33 16 >7 16 79 16 36 27 I 19 21 27 ‘1 10 2. 11 >6 11 ’1 ’3 29 36 21 21 1a 11 ‘1 33 13 15 1. ’1 27 15 12 27 25 25 9. 1! 6 5 .6 -0 ~16 . 5 l -3 -1 4 12 1 11 1‘ h -1 5 1‘ 15 5 ‘9 3‘ 31 33 12 19 16 26 31 9 15 69 16 16 21 1 1’ '2 1‘ ‘ a ’1 16 ’1 ’6 16 '1 ’9 22 5 '1 a 13 1’ 1% 12 6 -3 16 7 17 22 91 1’ 9 16 1: 7 " 1’ ‘ . >6 1; 17 16 1> 11 " 1% 1a :3 11 1’ 11 13 11 11 7 22 16 21 31 so 27 29 17 >1 >3 :> 11 11 >1 1: ‘3 ‘1 '6 :7 1 11 ‘3 '7 '1 J :1 3 " 11 11 16 16 6 12 13 95 21 29 2c 21 'C 'n “a ‘1 16 => " ’1 " “ '1 f1 .1 11 ‘1 1? 36 ‘6 " J ’1 19 29 16 16 11 79 6 q -6 1 1G 1 :1 ~' 11 1> :1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘ b 1' '1 ‘a ‘1 >3 ‘1 .3 ‘1 3 17 17 27 39 1! 29 69 s 7 9 3 1‘ 1’ . . 1 1' 1. 17 :7 '1 11 1‘ '. " :I 23 1% '. 14 ’1 2) 19 1' 26 20 2! 1g 1; ,7 17 .. s1 '1 1. 11 ‘a 11 ~u -. 'c =3 ‘4 '> '1 ~. 1‘ 7' 2‘ ‘> 1‘ 1% 61 ’6 19 26 17 13 96 3 -6 1 1: ‘ Eh 1' ‘ 1 '1 1; '. 1: :1 1 “ '1 " ’~ '7 '3 1: " 1‘ ’3 16 19 69 ‘1 ’7 $5 16 15 pc 1. 1 “t A> {a 1. v1 ~, ’1 t) a, ’3 11 1 '1 ’5 11 35 1| ’1 ’3 21 1! 21 17 26 ‘7 11 ?? 1? 2‘ ‘1 29 Pa 19 1 ’1 ’9 '2 29 ‘2 1 ‘7 67 2) ’6 73 33 17 ’3 15 ’3 31 26 2! 6 11 '6 27 21 11 11 ‘1 11 '1 ’c 1 '1 '3 '1 ’7 ‘6 16 11 11 >7 ‘3 ‘7 32 ‘1 27 13 t 22 23 26 15 g 16 13 13 2: 11 ‘1 '2 26 1o 6 1 ‘3 ’2 14 '. ’0 ’s 13 19 >3 2, 2a ’0 ’7 22 '1 11 31 20 21 2 ‘ ,. .1 6 .1 .1 3 1c 3‘ 11 3:; 7:. 20 7', Pa !‘ ‘1 ’Q ‘7 2' 7‘ ‘2 ‘2 ‘6 3' 26 2’ 23 1q :7 16 1 .~ :9 - -1 - _ , , . . v 7 ’5 61 36 62 16 31 0 571 51 a7 65 a; as ~2 as 6’ as c. ..> s, 'r .1 6? t. 61 2. '1 J 39 '2 f . ' ‘ 3 502 29 ’1 11 >1 3a - .‘ 11 11 ’2 1. 13 23 12 12 ‘1 62 55 .3 a1 3v )5 s1 69 5: 55 S7 6 6 '6 503 «5 -2 19 -' :1 ‘3 1‘ 1: a 13 as 1% 6 :7 31 ’= ‘9 72 '7 37 22 ’6 1: 39 2 25 26 66 2: 2 506 2' r7 3 2. ta :4 1T :5 1’ 21 '2 17 71 >> 10 ’1 36 ’7 ‘1 7g 99 !‘ 3? 17 “ *9 “ “2 ‘~ 2 sec 2g 7. 2“ 3. ~» ac 1; 1: ‘1 so ‘6 66 12 >6 >6 ‘3 69 31 ’1 ’3 ‘9 91 1? 20 7‘ 22 ‘9 3? :: :g 596 3; 2; 7o 17 .1 71 ,; 17 ‘t 6! 01 65 29 66 ?6 39 £6 (6 Ll 65 66 61 3o 29 ‘2 36 35 6! ~r P“ 5:17 1:. 1c. 20 12 w. m :1 1> u 11 11 23 1a 16 22 ’3 2a ’9 ‘3 ‘0 36 26 36 ‘9 7 ‘3 3" ’9 ' -*L"”igfi r _h 1"... 209 6~ a: '7 66 A :1 77 19 13 1; 7o 3 2 16 21 6 69 Q 11 -7 -’t '3 ~16 9 1 11 1’ 17 13 15 :6 21 27 06 16 1: -‘ .9 -6 -u -9 7 -1 5 9 17 9 23 16 ’5 31 -0 16 ’5 ’ 1? 6 1‘ 1 :6 :J 36 9 -1 6 5 5 2 1o -16 21 1 3‘ -> -9 -T -12 a -. . -1 19 1; 19 16 12 26 6 5 ’I 3‘ :1 :2 a 1‘ ‘ 1‘ 1’ 15 25 ’5 2? 71 ’3 ‘1 6 15 ‘5 1‘ 1‘ 10 1 1‘ 4 13 16 ’2 1o 4 1? 12 17 ’6 3 12 6 11 1’ = 1 E 1 A 36 15 ‘ 13 6 11 15 -5 1’ " 3 ~6 12 -‘ “ -' 1‘ I 7 1‘ 5 11 '5 21 -1 20 '7 -. ’ -C 3 -a 1‘ 1 :6 9 3 1 -2 5 9 23 5 3 5? 7 16 2 1‘ :1 6 11 ’7 ‘ 10 ll 1’ 11 10 79 1‘ 2‘ 17 3 3 ° 1. ’ 9 1 1‘ 27 1‘ ’5 ’2 ‘1 ‘6 ‘6 9 16 >7 ’ :7 9 11 13 1 7 17 9 29 ’1 ’7 22 ‘1 2o 6’ " 3 ~5 13 E 1 -1 31 11 19 ‘2 10 1’ ‘6 29 1‘ 11 ‘5 16 21 ” 5 16 11 ‘1 19 17 ’3 16 5 16 ‘6 1’ 2H 15 31 14 22 1‘ ‘1 17 ’ 9 9 9 -3 19 2S " ’6 ’6 1. 7‘ 15 ’1 ‘1 17 19 11 ea 16 7 21 ‘9 14 ’1 22 1. ’1 16 13 25 10 26 ’9 >5 15 ’3 33 ’3 21 ' ‘1 fl 1‘ 9° 2; 15 26 19 1‘ 1‘ 15 ” 16 ‘6 1’ 13 2‘ ' 1‘ 1‘ 17 1h “ ’5 15 ?3 19 ’5 16 ‘1 2‘ ’2 ‘3 1% “ 11 ‘3 A 21 15 1‘ 15 10 1‘ 16 63 1‘ .1 2C ' ‘c ’2 1“ 5 " ‘7 ‘3 ‘0 7’ " 21 72 a. 7 >= 1 :7 :7. 7. 13 n 27 19 2’ 9 16 27 ‘C 1 5 16 5 :1 15 11 11 16 27 ’1 ‘0 22 ’7 35 ‘2 ’6 1‘ 7‘ 11 1’ 72 39 ’1 32 13 :5 9 2 16 12 61 1‘ 15 ’6 i ’1 1 22 7 ’2 31 25 11 23 ’5 27 6: 17 1‘ ’2 3 11 23 21 6 23 ’9 ’5 ’9 17 35 25 16 11 11 13 17 15 20 2‘ 1“ ‘5 36 '3 36 ’5 '6 25 9 '7 22 59 1‘ 66 19 31 16 ’3 37 I6 ‘7 26 ‘7 9 .112 1‘ 9 13 1) 12 ’5 13 2‘ 11 1o 9 9 1 ‘ 13 67 79 66 51 62 .3 79 Va 35 ’1 ’3 22 1‘ 19 6 66 5° “6 5! 5? 69 ‘6 ‘2 7‘ ‘1 19 1‘ ’9 19 19 -2 69 96 69 63 52 61 ’6 '6 ‘1 6’ 1o 15 ’5 ’2 5 3 7 59 63 69 ‘6 69 ‘3 69 19 ‘3 21 ’1 ‘3 ’0 17 6 66 5' F2 36 61 66 ‘1 ’6 '5 ’5 10 19 25 ’0 15 7 6 69 6‘ an 66 65 ’9 '7 " ‘5 19 ’7 2? ’5 17 5 1‘ ‘5 37 1‘ 11 29 ‘6 ‘3 29 6? 12 15 11 11 ‘1 11 I, I") “I“ 1“ M. 17 _"J f‘? 5: 7) 17 1' t7 ,2 a 7 ‘5 2‘ ‘1 19 35 “ ‘9 ’5 1‘ ’5 21 17 16 16 16 19 1? ‘1 62 “ 35 ‘5 62 ’9 25 ’5 21 19 ’5 19 ” 19 15 1" 1c 21 1‘ 154*1? :7 ’1 ‘1 57' -6 ~3 65 ‘3 2E 11 15 ’3 19 f7 '5 17 17 1‘ 66 53 ‘2 5‘ 62 66 3 ' 21 ’5 ‘1 ’3 ’5 11 1’ 16 ’9 59 52 56 (6 6? ‘2 3 2 1‘ 2’ 7c 2) ’u 1 12 16 19 65 .5 55 35 ‘5 23 16 1‘ 5 17 15 :7 '1 1 15 ‘3 5a 92 6’ ‘5 ‘6 ’9 ’1 -‘ ‘ 6 ’ 9 11 7 1‘ 13 19 .6 3’ ’3 ’9 25 I' 17 Q 1'} 19 ‘1’ :1 3‘ "1 17 U l, 3) ?S ’7 2 9' ?' " 12 2‘ :5 " 16 " 11 1‘ ’2 ‘1 16 9 1% it 51 3‘ ’5 19 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 11 3: ’6 ’5 ’3 25 17 5 21 “C ‘ ° 2 1} | ‘1 16 ‘1 17 ’5 ’6 19 ’2 25 ‘0 <= 1‘ 1! 1‘ 1. 1‘ '- 5 ‘7 11 >1 ’6 3' 1 26 32 ’0 3‘ 1? ’5 17 ‘a ’6 ’7 18 “ '7 " 27 2c ’2 25 69 33 ’2 ‘1 1. “ 12 ‘7 ’° 1‘ ’7 ’1 7? Q 10 9 go 7. 12 17 16 '2 9 11 '2 ‘3 ’9 '6 >5 7? 1? 12 5‘ " 3' ‘7 1’ ‘1 fl ’2 ’1 3’ " ’2 31 11 7 9 “fl 7’ 7" ‘1 ’. '1 16 ‘6 '2 '1 ’1 ’1 ’1 11 ' 15 7’ ‘- ’° 1‘ 3- 1‘ 3 1‘ 1‘ :1 17 13 33 ‘9 >2 ’1 =6 1 1‘ 3’ 1 " " 1' ”C ‘3 7’ " ‘3 ‘3 :5 19 79 ~ 6: >7 v‘ -- 7 "a ‘1 .3 >6 >6 '1 15 ‘1 19 ‘I ‘. '1 '4 ' I 1 . ’C '9 3: ‘7 YT :5 '3 P6 5 . ' " 1'. 2' '.' ‘ 1, '6 ‘6 >9 71 15 ‘9 >9 1.6 '71 1 7' ‘C 67 1' " ”- " “ "' I". '7 '9? ,‘ 0, 3‘) gr ,. ‘r 'r _. ,y 1 3 ., ,7 27 I) 19 :3 ‘9 13 ‘0 ‘6 q- 07 ‘( 11 g; '7 '3 f‘ ‘c " '9 7' 76 1 5’ 50 65 ’5 r, .. 9 73 1‘ 7 . ' 07 ’1 n1 7'. 66 9'6 4? 9‘ “J “a “1 "5 3r! ’. ‘9 6' ‘ 1‘ l, .. ‘1 6’ .1 62 ’l ’3 25 23 33 1"." I1 6': g? 3‘ It‘ 7: ‘q I! ;‘7 1'7 )1 1:. IQ 7! 5'1, :’7 1‘) ‘J' p 0'." ur- ’- 6‘ V161 IVVOU‘ .9191 ”N 1”. 6] 6'6 33 29 7|: 01 a) B7 65 V“ >2 60 25 51 57 70 36 ‘1 ‘3 7! ‘9 25 h, 55 ’6 ha}... .'_—‘V. 39 9C1 502 503 506 505 506 507 210 5.2 5.! 90b SIS SIB 507 29 -5 23 25 25 16 21 -2 27 26 26 16 11 19 3 26 20 20 29 -7 26 21 37 19 38 19 36 32 65 25 26 22 19 22 31 26 67 12 13 27 56 17 11 1o 16 35 27 12 13 6 12 21 23 6 22 15 21 50 62 11 56 15 32 36 61 31 39 16 37 66 66 23 23 6 26 62 36 19 19 27 22 26 66 36 31 1o 26 26 22 35 23 39 39 29 29 36 69 66 20 32 27 31 36 29 27 26 26 61 29 37 26 25 66 3o 22 66 36 66 36 26 33 61 61 26 16 62 39 36 36 39 17 23 29 30 27 36 29 66 62 65 25 6c 22 39 63 67 26 66 39 35 36 67 6a 65 32 66 26 36 23 13 31 26 25 Tc???" 27 6o 27 26 33 17 27 62 36 26 20 7o 20 31 39 6o 67 70 33 36 69 32 17 .66 26 36 26 35 35 57 36 36 65 36 35 151 23 33 16 33 39 52 23 29 3o 2 23 66' 25 51 36 23 36 ' 2 36 31 67 66‘ 2’ g5”’66 67 32 37 30 77 66 61 29 62 36 76 62 62 36 29 29 I60 23 29 13 61 26 59 33 23 31 36 13 -so 63 25 26 36 3o 5 61 26 27 19 36 L371? 35 19 27 6o 36 63 6o 29 25 25 35 56 61 22 36 21 37 521 63 21 66 36 67 65! 66 22 35 6o 25‘ 51- 67 20 6c 36 3o ‘TJT‘y—‘z. 29 51 36 25 67 56 26 35- 61 26 69 69 3o 39 22 66 65 61 26 67 26 36 56 62 3 63 69 37 36 3 259 66 61 35. 91 6 53 26 66 62. 71 33? 160- 52 59 55 70 56 52 106 66 59 53 52 59 66 166 61 52 66 55 59 61 100 66 60 7o 53 52 66 160 65 56 52 66 6o 65 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY Atkin, C.; Murray, J.; and Nayman, O. "The Surgeon General's Research Program on Television and Social Behavior: A Review of Empirical Findings,‘ Journal of Broadcasting (1971-72): 21-35. Baker, R., and Ball, S. Mass.Media and Violence: A Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. Bandura, A. Relationship of Fami1nyatterns to Child Behavior Disorders. Progress Report to National Institute of Mental Health on Grand M-1734. Stanford University, 1960. . "Social Learning through Imitation." Nebraska Symposium.on Motivation, 1962. Edited by . Jones. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962. "Influence of Mbdels' Reinforcement Contingen- cies on the Acquisition of Imitative Responses." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1965): 589-595. . "Vicarious Process: A Case of No-Trial Learn- ing." Advances in Experimental Social Psyghology. Edited By L. Berkbwitz. New York: Academic Press, 1965. . Social Learninngheory. New York: General Learning Press, 1971. . Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. . "Social Learning Theory of Aggression." In The Control of A ression. Edited by J. Knutson. Chicago: Aldine guEIisEing Co., 1973. Bandura, S., and Mischel, W. "Mbdification of Self- Imposed Delay of Reward Through Exposure to Live and Symbolic Mbdels." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1965?: 693470371 212 213 Bandura, A.; Ross, D.; and Ross, S. "Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology (1961): 575-582. . "Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models . " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1963): 3-11. "Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative Learn- ing." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1963): 601-607. Bandura, A., and Walters, R. Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Berkowitz, L. A ression: A Social Ps cholo ical Analysis. New York: MbGraw-Hi11,19§2. "The Concept of Aggressive Drive: Some Addi- tional Considerations." In Advances in Experi- mental Social Psychology. Editedfiby L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1965. . "The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Revisited." In Roots of Aggression. Edited by L. Berkowitz. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Bogatz, G., and Bell S. First Year Sesame Street and Evaluation. Princton, N.J.: Educational Test- {63 Service, 1970. Comstock, G., and Rubenstein, E., eds. Television and Social Behavior, Volume I: Content and Control. washington, D.C.: GovernmentPPrinting Office, 1972. Dollard, J.; Doob, L.; Miller, L.; Mbwrer, 0.; and Sears, R. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. Dominick, J., and Greenberg, B. "Girls' Attitudes Toward Violence as Related to TV Exposure, Family Attitudes and Social Class." Television and Social Behavior, Volume III: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Editedby G. Comstock and E. Rubinstein. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. 214 Dominick, J., and Greenberg, B. "Attitudes Toward Violence: The Interaction of TV Exposure, Family Attitudes and Social Class." Television and Social Behavior, Volume III: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Edited by G. Comstock and E. Rubinstein. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1972. Ervin, E.;.Mark, V.; and Stevens, J. "Behavioral and Affective Responses to Brain Stimulation in Man." Neurobiological Aspects of Psychopathology. Edited by J. Zubin and C. Shagass. New—York: Grune and Stratton, 1969. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics: 1973. Washington, D.C.: GOvernment Printing Office, 1974. Friedman, H., and Johnson, R. "Mass Media Use and Aggression: A Pilot Study." Television and Social Behavior, Volume III: TElevision add Ado1escent Aggressiveness. Edited-by G. Com- stock and E. Rubinstein. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. ‘ Geen, R., and Pigg, R. "Acquisition of an Aggressive Response and Its Generalization to Verbal Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1970): 165-170. Geen, R., and Stonner, D. "Effects of Aggressiveness Habit Strength on Behavior in the Presence of Aggression-Related Stimuli." Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology (1 : - Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile Delin- guency. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1950. Predictipg Delinquency and Crime. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press, 1959. Gordon, J., and Cohn, F. "The Effects of Affiliation Drive Arousal on Aggression in Doll Interviews." Manuscript, 1961. Hicks, D. "Imitation and Retention of FilmrMediated Aggressive Peer and Adult Models." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(19355: 97-100. Jenkins, R1 "Motivation and Frustration in Delinquency." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry(l957): 528- 537. 215 Jersild, A., and Markey, F. "Conflicts Between Pre- school Children." Child Development Monographs 21:(l935). Johnson, R.; Friedman, H.; and Gross, H. "Four Mascu- line Styles in Television Programming: A Study of the Viewing Preferences of Adolescent Males." In Television and Social Behaviory_Volume III: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Editedby G. Comstock and E. Rubinstein. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. Kaufmann, H. Aggression and Altruism. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Kaufmann, H., and Feshbach, S. "The Influence of Anti— Aggressive Communications Upon the Response to Provocation." Journal of Personality (1963): 428-444. Kaufmann, H., and Marcus, A. "Aggression as a Function of Similarity Between Aggressor and Victim." Perceptual and Motor Skills (1965): 1013-1020. Keltner, J. Elements of Interpersonal Communication. Belmont, Caiifornia: Wadsworth Pfiblishifig Com- pany, 1973. King, H. "Psychological Effects of Excitation in the Limbic System." Electrical Stimulation of the Brain. Edited by D. Sheer. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. Knutson, J. The Control of Aggression. Chicago: Aldine Pubiishing Co.,i1973. Lansky, L.; Crandall, V.; Kagan, J.; and Baker, C. "Sex Differences in Aggression and Its Correlates in Middle-Class Adolescents.” Child Development (1961): 45-58. Levin, H., and Sears, R. "Identification with Parents as a Determinant of Doll-Play Aggression." Child Development (1956): 135-153. Loew, C. "Acquisition of Hostile Attitude and Its Rela- tionship to Aggressive Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1957): 335- 351. 216 Marwell, G., and Schmitt, D. R. Cooperation. New York: Academic Press, 1975. McCord, W.; McCord, J.; and Zola, I. Origins of Crime. New York: Columbia University Press,—1959: Molntyre, J., and Teevan, J. ”Television and Deviant Behavior." In Television and Social Behaviory Volume III: Television and Adolescent A' res- siveness. Editedby G. Comstock and E. Ru in- stein. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. McLeod, J.; Atkin, C.; and Chaffee, S. "Adolescents, Parents and Television Use: Self-Report and Other-Report Measures from the Wisconsin Sample." In Television and Social Behavioryyyolume III: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Edited by G. ComstoCk and E. Rubinstein, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. "Adolescents, Parents and Television Use: Adolescent Self-Report Measures from Maryland and Wisconsin Samples." In Television and Social Behavior, Volume 111: Television and AdOlescent Aggressiveness. Edited by G. Comstock and E. Rubinstein. Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1972. Madsen, C., Jr. "Nurturance and Modeling in Pre-Schoolers.‘ Child Development (1968): 221-236. Mark, V., and Ervin, F. Violence and the Brain. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Mead, G. Mindy Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Miller, G., and Steinberg, M; Between People. Palo Alto, California: Science Research Associates, 1975. Meyer, K. "The Physiological Inhibition of Hostile - Behavior,” In The Control of Aggression. Edited by J. Knutson. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1973. Nelson, J.; Gelfand, D.; and Hartmann, D. "Children's Aggression Following Competition and Exposure to an Aggressive Model." Child Development (1969): 1085-1097. 217 Newcomb, T. "Individual Systems of Orientation." In Psychology: A Study of a Science. Edited by S. Koch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rindhart and Winston, 1961. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Patterson, C.; Ludwig, M.; and Sonoda, B. "Reinforce- ment of Aggression in Children." Manuscript, University of Oregon, 1961. Robinson, J., and Bachman, J. "Television Viewing Habits and Aggression." In Television and Social Behavior, Volume III: Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness. Edited by G. Comstock and E. Rubinstein. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. Sears, R. "Effects of Frustration and Anxiety on Fantasy Aggression." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (1951): 498-505. Sears, R.; Maccoby, E.; and Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson, Sem-Jacobsen, C. "Depth-Electrographic Observations Related to Parkinson's Disease." Journal of Neurosurgery (1966): 388-402. Sem-Jacobsen, C., and Torkildsen, A. "Depth Recording and Electrical Stimulation in the Human Brain." Electrical Studies on the Unanesthetized Brain. Edited by E. Ramey and D. O’Doherty. New York: Hoeber, 1960. Short, J., ed. Gang_De1inquency and Delinquent Subcul- tures. New York: Harper and Row, l968l Staples, F., and Walters, R. "Influence of Positive Reinforcement of Aggression on Subjects Differ- ing in Initial Aggression Level." Journal of Consulting Psychology (1964): 547-552. Woelfel, J. "A Theory of Linear Force Aggregation In Attitude Formation." Manuscript, University of Illinois, 1972. 218 Wo1fgang, M1, and Ferracuti, F. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock Publicatidns, Yarrow, L. "The Effect of Antecedent Frustration on Projective Play." Psychology Monographs 293 (1948). "11111111111611?