Public Communication and Behavior. Volume 2

370 Pages·1989·6.85 MB·English

by  George Comstock (Eds.)

Public
Communication
and Behavior
VOLUME 2
Edited by
GEORGE COMSTOCK
School of Public Communications
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers
San Diego New York Berkeley Boston
London Sydney Tokyo Toronto
COPYRIGHT © 1989 BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR
ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
San Diego, California 92101
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS LIMITED
24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
ISBN 0-12-543202-X (alk. paper)
ISSN 0887-932X
This publication is not a periodical and is not
subject to copying under CONTU guidelines.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
89 90 91 92 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contributors
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin.
BRANDON S. CENTERWALL (1), Departments of Epidemiology and Psychiatry,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
DENNIS K. DAVIS (59), Department of Speech Communication, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901
ALETHA C. HUSTON (103), Center for Research on the Influence of Television on
Children (CRITC), Department of Human Development, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
NEIL M. MALAMUTH (159), Communications Studies, University of California,
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024
W RUSSELL NEUMAN (205), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139
STUART OSKAMP (291), Faculty in Psychology, Claremont Graduate School,
Claremont, California 91711
JOHN P. ROBINSON (59), Survey Research Center, Department of Sociology,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
JOHN C. WRIGHT (103), Center for Research on the Influence of Television on
Children (CRITC), Department of Human Development, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Preface
In the first volume of this series, the editor made explicit his debt to Leonard
Berkowitz's Advances in Experimental Social Psychology as a model for the
present undertaking. That series, begun almost three decades ago, has now
reached Volume 22; its contributions to theory and empirical inquiry, by
stating what can be said currently about a shifting array of topics, have been
an important part of the continuing education of its readers. The present series
has the same ambition, but because this is only Volume 2, we offer it as a
goal and a hope, with achievement very much yet in the future. As did
Berkowitz in his Volume 2 (in 1965), however, it is the proper time to com
ment on what the contents so far tell us about the field purportedly covered.
That field was defined in Volume 1 as "the study of communicatory
behavior that has a public or social character." More concretely, it encom
passes research and theory designated as "within a range of disciplines and
fields—advertising, child development, education, journalism, political
science, sociology, and wherever else such scholarly activity occurs including,
of course, social psychology." The contents of the first two volumes attest
to the appropriateness of (or at least to the ability of the editor to search
out) such a varied representation. So, too, do the contributions underway for
inclusion in future volumes. This is a vigorous, lively field, if one that life
often seems to outpace in its orderly cataloguing and precise distinctions. It
will be interesting to see how much help in this latter respect comes from
the forthcoming four-volume The International Encyclopedia of Communica
tions, edited by Erik Barnouw; certainly it will attest to the liveliness that
makes such niceties a problem. It is absolutely amazing that only three decades
ago there appeared in Public Opinion (Quarterly a set of essays which, on the
whole (with the notable exception of a contribution by the late Wilbur
Schramm), saw "communications research," the predecessor of much current
activity, as withering away, depending on the point of view, from having done
all that could be done or from not having done enough to establish itself
as a worthwhile endeavor. If this be so, the present series, the Encyclopedia,
xi
Xll Preface
and the work they describe should not exist. Obviously, something was
overlooked—perhaps everything: the ability of scholars to reformulate theories
to revivify failures, the readiness of social scientists to reexamine questions
using new methods or concepts, the ability of old questions to lure newcomers
into seeking new answers, and, above all, the enormous and rapid communica­
tions technology changes that have refused to allow most questions to ap­
pear settled for long. Thus, "null effects," "only reinforcement," and the
"obstinate audience" have become transformed into important outcomes
amenable to—arguably demanding—continuing research.
In his Volume 2, Berkowitz made similar comments about the diversity and
health of social psychology. He saw it as having strong roots in psychology
in general, with experimentation (hence his title) as its preferred means of
investigation. The study of communicatory behavior, public or social in
character, has roots in both psychology in general and social psychology in
particular. In the present volume, the former is represented by the work of
Huston and Wright and the latter by that of Malamuth. However, it also has
a much wider and more mixed parentage. These are exemplified by the
synthesis of earlier trends in sociological inquiry with the current agenda for
communications research by Neuman and the application of empirical data
to the construction of theory in behalf of more effective news reporting—a
communications topic if there ever was one—by Davis and Robinson. The
experiment similarly has no status as a preferred means of investigation, and
this is made clear here by the contributions of Oskamp and Centerwall. The
former draws together a large number of studies of a singular media event,
the made-for-TV film The Day After, and attempts to draw from this array
an empirically based picture of what transpired when this controversial broad­
cast occurred. It could be thought of as a literature review; but because many
of these studies would be lost to attention without the intensive search in
advance of any publication, it should be thought of as one of those innova­
tion efforts to create a literature, a form of activity which this series hopes
to encourage. The latter forcefully attests to the readiness to use methods other
than the experiment. Topically, Centerwall thinks "the unthinkable" in giving
serious consideration to the possibility that on a widespread basis the mass
media have increased violent behavior. The most intriguing aspect, however,
is his application of an epidemiological model to a communications issue;
that is the kind of boundary crossing for which this series stands.
In short, this volume proceeds with the original ambition of the series intact.
Along with Volume 1, it amounts to some evidence that it may be achievable.
In any case, none of it has been boring for the editor, and he hopes the same
can be said for the contributors and (and here he obviously speaks for them
as well) for the readers.
George Comstock
Contents of Previous Volume
Volume 1
An Evaluation of the Models Used to Evaluate Television Series
Thomas D Cook and Thomas R. Curtin
A Synthesis of 1043 Effects of Television on Social Behavior
Susan Hearold
More Than Meets the Eye: TV News, Priming, and Public Evaluations of the President
Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder
The Myth of Massive Media Impact: Savagings and Salvagings
William J. McGuire
The Found Experiment: A New Technique for Assessing the Impact of Mass Media
Violence on Real-World Aggressive Behavior
David P. Phillips
Index
Exposure to Television as a Cause of Violence
BRANDON S. CENTERWALL
Departments of Epidemiology and Psychiatry
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
I. Television and Homicide in South Africa, Canada,
and the United States, 1945-1974 1
A. Introduction 1
B. Methods 3
C. Results 5
D. Discussion 15
II. Testing Falsifiable Hypotheses 24
A. Introduction 24
B. Methods 25
C. Results 29
D. Discussion 44
III. Natural Exposure to Television as a Cause
of Aggression: A Review of the Literature 48
References 53
I. TELEVISION AND HOMICIDE IN SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA,
AND THE UNITED STATES, 1945-1974
A. Introduction
Whether exposing children to television increases their physical
aggressiveness has been a source of ongoing concern to physicians and public
health practitioners (Feinbloom, 1976; Feingold & Johnson, 1977; Holroyd,
1985; Ingelfinger, 1976; Liebert, 1986; Rothenberg, 1975; Singer, 1985; Somers,
1976a,b; Zuckerman & Zuckerman, 1985). Rothenberg (1975) first brought
the issue of television violence, and its effect on children's behavior and mental
well-being, to the attention of the medical community. Somers (1976a,b) and
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND BEHAVIOR Copyright © 1989 by Academic Press, Inc.
Volume 2 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2 Brandon S. Centerwall
Ingelfinger (1976) soon raised the possibility that the imprint of television
violence may not be limited to childhood—that it may lead to increased rates
of later violence such as assault, rape, robbery, and homicide.
The effect of natural exposure to television upon children's physical
aggressiveness, as compared to no exposure, has been recently elucidated by
Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack (1986). In 1973, a small Canadian town ("Notel")
acquired television for the first time. The acquisition of television at such
a late date was due to problems with signal reception rather than any hostility
toward television. Joy, Kimball, and Zabrack studied the effect o fthe introduc
tion of television into this virgin community upon rates of physical aggres
sion among Notel children. The control groups were two otherwise similar
communities that already had television ("Unitel" and "Multitel").
Prior to the introduction of television into Notel, 60 first and second graders
(20 in Notel; 40 in Unitel and Multitel) were observed at random intervals
in the school playgrounds for rates of predetermined measures of noxious
physical aggression (e.g., hitting, shoving, and biting). Two years after the
introduction of television into Notel, 45 of the original cohort (16 in Notel;
29 in Unitel and Multitel) were followed up and observed again for rates of
physical aggression, using the same definitions as before. A new set of first
and second graders was also observed. Children and observers were blind to
the hypothesis being tested, and a new set of observers was used in the
follow-up.
Rates of physical aggression did not change significantly over the 2-year
span for children followed longitudinally in Unitel and Multitel. Rates of
physical aggression among children followed longitudinally in Notel increased
160% (p < .001). At the time of follow-up, first and second graders in Unitel
and Multitel did not differ significantly in rates of physical aggression from
first and second graders 2 years previously. In contrast, at the time of follow-
up, first and second graders in Notel had rates of physical aggression 51%
greater than first and second graders 2 years previously (p < .05).
Unable to randomize Notel children to television exposure versus non-
exposure, the researchers used two external control groups (the children of
Unitel and Multitel) to assess whether exposure to television increases physical
aggression in children. Although the possibility of a confounding third variable
cannot be absolutely excluded, the double-blind, prospective study design
permits a strong inference of causality (Bailar, Louis, Lavori, & Polansky,
1984). The present study uses a similar research design to assess whether
exposure of populations to television increases rates of homicide in adults.
The South African government did not permit television broadcasting prior
to 1975, even though South African whites were a prosperous, industrialized
Western society (Tartter, 1981). Amidst the hostile tensions between the
Afrikaner and English white communities, it was generally conceded that any
South African television broadcasting industry would have to rely on British
Exposure to Television as a Cause of Violence 3
and American imports to fill out its programming schedule. Afrikaner leaders
felt this would provide an unacceptable cultural advantage to the English-
speaking South Africans. Rather than negotiate a complicated compromise,
the Afrikaner-controlled government chose to finesse the issue by forbidding
television broadcasting entirely. Thus, an entire population of two million
whites—rich and poor, urban and rural, educated and uneducated—was
nonselectively and absolutely excluded from exposure to television for a
quarter century after the medium was introduced into other Western nations.
The South African government sought to prevent any social changes that
might occur secondary to the introduction of television (Tartter, 1981).
Whether the intervention was (inadvertently) successful with respect to
homicide rates is assessed in a case-control study of white homicide rates in
South Africa prior to 1975, with the white population of the United States
and the entire population of Canada [97% white in 1951 (Leacy, 1983)] serving
as external control groups. Other potentially causal variables are also
examined.
B. Methods
/. Study Design
The population intervention study design compares a case population with
external control groups to determine the effect of interventions upon the real
world (Morgenstern, 1982). The design requires comparable case and control
populations, a reliable index of effect, baseline rates for both case and control
populations, and empirical data gathered prospectively, independent of the
hypothesis in question.
As with population intervention studies in general, issues of aggregation
bias and ecological fallacy are rendered moot (Centerwall, 1989; Morgenstern,
1982). What are desired are not inferences about individuals but about
groups—in this case, the effect of collective television ownership, and its pro
hibition, upon collective homicide rates.
2. Data Sources
a. Changes in Homicide Rates. Data on homicide victimization rates are
from the vital statistics registries of South Africa [Bureau of Census and
Statistics (BCS), 1960; Bureau of Statistics (BS), 1964, 1965, 1968; Depart
ment of Statistics (DS), 1970, 1972, 1974, 1976], Canada [Dominion Bureau
of Statistics (DBS), annual volumes; World Health Organization (WHO),
annual volumes], and the United States [Grove & Hetzel, 1968; National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), annual volumes]. The data are for
homicide deaths among whites in South Africa and the United States, and
for total homicide deaths in Canada. To smooth out the data, the temporal
4 Brandon S. Centerwall
trends in annual homicide rates are graphed as a 3-year moving average from
1945 to 1973. Data on white homicide rates in South Africa for 1943-1948
are presented as a 6-year average because this is how the data are presented
in the vital statistics tables (BCS, 1960). Annual rates of court convictions
for murder among South African whites are from the South African police
statistics (BCS, 1960; BS, 1964, 1965, 1968; DS, 1970).
b. Changes in Television Ownership, Data on the percentage of Canadian
households owning television sets in 1951, 1961, and 1971 are from the Domin
ion Bureau of Statistics (DBS, 1953, 1963); Industry and Merchandising Divi
sion (IMD, 1953) and Statistics Canada (SC, 1973). Data on the percentage
of U.S. households owning television sets, 1945-1974, are from the Television
Bureau of Advertising (TBA, 1982) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC,
annual volumes). Television broadcasting was not permitted in South Africa
prior to 1975 (Tartter, 1981).
c. Changes in Age Distribution, Data on changes in age distribution of
the white populations of South Africa (BS, 1964; DS, 1974) and the United
States (USBC, 1975), and of the entire population of Canada (Leacy, 1983),
are from the respective national censuses.
d. Changes in Urbanization. Data on changes in urbanization of the white
populations of South Africa (BS, 1964; DS, 1974) and the United States
(USBC, 1975), and of the entire population of Canada (Leacy, 1983) are from
the respective national censuses. To assess the direct effect of urbanization
upon rates of homicide in the United States between 1960 and 1970, city-
population-specific rates of criminal homicide from 1975 [U.S. Federal Bureau
of Investigation (USFBI), annual volumes] are applied to the observed
distributions of the U.S. population by city population in the 1960 and 1970
censuses (USBC, 1975). Because the same city-population-specific rates are
applied to both census years, any change in the projected rate of criminal
homicide between 1960 and 1970 is solely due to the effect of urbanization
per se. This method permits a quantitative measure of the effect of urbaniza
tion independent of other factors; it replicates a statistical approach devel
oped for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence
to investigate the effect of urbanization upon homicide rates in the United
States between the years 1950 and 1965 (Mulvihill, Tumin, & Curtis, 1969).
Criminal homicides are a subset of all homicides, excluding legally justifiable
homicides (USFBI, annual volumes).
e. Changes in Economic Conditions. Data on changes in annual real per
capita product in South Africa (DS, 1976), Canada (Leacy, 1983), and the
United States (USBC, annual volumes) are from the respective statistical sum
maries. These are expressed as real per capita gross domestic product (1963
Rands) for South Africa, real per capita gross national product (1971 Cana
dian dollars) for Canada, and real per capita gross national product (1958
U.S. dollars) for the United States. Data on changes in real per capita product