Political Implications of Heavy Television Viewing

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 124,917 CS 202 807

AUTHOR Jackscn-Beeck, Marilyn. TITLE Political Implications of Heavy TeleVision Viewing. PUB DATE 76 NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting Of the Association for Education in Journali.m (College Park, Maryland, August 1976)

Tr PRICE "/' .MF-$0.8.3 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.- RIBTORS Behavioral Sdience Research; *Cdnformity; Educational Background; *Mass Media; National Surveys; *PolitiCal Attitudes; *Public Opinion; Racial Factors; Social Change; *Television Viewing ABSTRACT This,,paper empirically evaluates the propositionthat pcl ical conformisml specifically structural, passive, I logical, and defensive conforMiss, isa function of exposure to mass media. Secondry analysis of data from the National Opinion Research Center's 1975 General SociAl Survey revealeda significant relationship between TV viewing and.conlormiSm.The 484 heavy viewers were less active and interested in political affairs and hadgreater apprehension in regard to' interpersonal and. nationalrelations than did the 650 light viewers. However, education weakenedthe correlation between viewing and passive andpsychological co' ormity, .and in the small nonwhite samplenone of the four aspects were related to television viewing. Therewas no support'for the 'hypothesis that heavy viewers generallyapprove existing-politica policies. In fact, the heavy viewers favoredmore government action to change social structure than did light.viewers.Researchers suggest lore,attention to routine television vi- Ias a variable in political attic . (Author /RS)

- ********************************************************************* * : DOcuments acquired by ERIC include many inforial unpublished * materials not available from othersources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, its-Jesof marginal * reproducibility-areoften e=ountered and this affects thequality * ,* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC ,makes available * * via the -ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EMS).EDRS is not * responsible for the quality of the original document.Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe original.' * **********************************************************,*************

f uS OE PARTMENT-OF HEALTH EDUCATIONIWELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOUCATION 1"'S DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED ExACitv AS RECEIVED ;ROY- 1,4E,.PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OR Cori T Nc. 11 POyTS vEW OR OPINIONS .STATED DO NO iecessR,Ly REPRE- SENT Or raCIA, NAT ONl. ,NST,TVTE (); EDLrs0,0'4 POS,i4ON OR POL.CY

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HEAVY TELEVISION VIEWING

Marilyn Jackson-Beeck <

Annenberg School of Communications

University of Pennsylvania.

Paper presented to thaTheory and Methodology Division of .the Association for-Education in Journalism, College Park,' Maryland, August

N ."C

V1 L IMPLICATIONS OFHEAii.TEIXVISI41 VIEWING

Theory and content analysis would'suggest that political-conformism is

apr ime resultof individuals' exposure to mass communications.'Yet there

is very little research treating any type of politicalstance as if it were

a consequence of mass ,media use. More often,.-dia consumption is taken as

the dependent Variable'-- as the mark of good citizenship or an aid in

political activism. The result has been ra er narrow and unproductive

research in a topic nevertheless inspiring ained interes.t,throughout the

social sciences.

Current efforts are to broaden pers ectii.veon rLlationships between

\politids,'ind-Niiduals,and mass media ffee, l975;2Seymour*Ure,..1974).

In parallel, this papen therefore exore the merits of tre ink television 3 exposure as an independent variable elevant to individuals,' oliticAl interests,

preferences, beliefs, and behavior

Beginning with early mass c nicatioa theory, Lazarsfeld andMerton. (1949)

present an extended argument tht mass media typically, enforce the statusquo

through impict on individuals. They miss 'concern about harmful effects of

propaganda. More important, he suggest, is a Second peril, namely that

7, consumption of mass media c teht rendersthe public conformative to the social

. , ( order. Inasmuch as mass la:are stipported by businesses geared into social

,,, and:economic systems, Laza sf ld and Mertonreason there is no logical alterna tive

but for them to exert con ry tizing social force. They doubt that even minor

, change comes of mass c ILnic tions; instead, they speculate thatmass media have

cemented social structure 1 Bogart44,62reiterates LAzarsfeld and Merton's argument that

individual-level conservatism follows from commercial controlof mass media.

In particular, he notes that television "entertainment" isimportant for its

political implications:

The problem which television'poses, both to the student and to the policy maker, is not that it .has broughtabout ' any major qualitative transfor ion in the mores, values, or cultural standards of the public' It is, rather, that television content expresses e prevailing standards and delivers them with eno s impact within the home for more hours of the, day than'any media has ever done before (p.64).

.-Like Bogart, Breed (1958) and\Gerbner (1973) advance theproposition that

media exposure contributes to the maintenance of social'order. Breed argues

that manifest media content reinforces traditionas it repeatedly expresses

and dral6atizes accepicapatterns of behavior.Additionally, through "reverse"

content analysis, he suggests that mass media support thestatus quo by omission. " - Among items not publis (or judged not likely to'be published),many he analyzed

dealt with politics and religion, matters ofcontroversy. Gerbner refers to a

"cultural politics" of mass communiation. A particular consequence of viewing

prime-time television drama,, he suggests, is that existingpower is conserved

'`and maintained.

. In..support of a more limited proposition, that specific aspects of

_television content affirm existing power structures, theeis an abundance of

content analytii research.Dating from the early 50's'to the present, this

research consistently implies the conclusion that televisionencourages conformity.

cf. Wright, 1975). .Overall, network programmingseems to fit the need for

ocial order, judging by its pervast4, systematic distortiCnsof reality.As 3 a

. a familiar example of this distortion, TV ,crime never pays. Somchasing

may be required, blit criminal characters atways are apprehended b the -sure

hand of the law or the private eye. Prisoners are t.rought to trial with

speed. And.at the close of court proceedings, punishmentsare pru ently

administered, usually with remorse on both sides. If there isno remorse,

transgreisors most often are portrayed as insaneor inhuman.

Obviously TV programs do not describe crime and punishmentas it occurs

in real life. .Rather, as Head 954) observes, TVlsdistortions represent

, social values, wishes, an needs. Indicating the sreniih of the-morality

enforcement theme in television, characteristics ofTV.heroes might be

"considered. In Smythe's (1953) analysis of a week's programs broadcastin

New York City, semantic differentiation revealed t et heroes embodya k\

magnificent array of normally Onattainab social "els. They are clean,

brave, kind, fair, loyal`, honest, and attractive not only are .opposing

villains beaten in attempting to wr t power, theyiare depicted as ugly, dirty,

and plainly undesirable. -

According to recent content'analys s of televilion drama, the bent is the

'same today as in the 50's. The focus of ttentionI remains on the preservation

of moral, social, and/or global order by nreal Flroes who represent loci of

i - social power. This is quite apparent in w sternS and action-adventure series,

as well as' in crime shows (Gerbner, 1972). 'Mor.subtly, it is likewise the

point of most comedy snd variety shows, whos '.imOr dependson mozkery of the

-deviant;,and of soap operas, "family" progr ana dOctor-lawyer shows, which

enact conventional stfategies/for coping withphysical, familial, legal, and 4

moral stress (Goodlad, 1971).Not surprisingly, a wave of current research

on television draws parallels between the real-life politicalpowerledsness

of women And minority groups, and TV prcilfamming (Segiar:and Wheeler, 1974;

Higton, Seggar, Northcott, and Fontes, f974; Turaw,:74;Tedesco, 1974;

Seggar, 1975; McNeil, 1975).

Over and above evidence suggesting that television dramapreserves and fosters established sociopolitical practices,TV news §nd commercials seem equally prone tb glorify existing ,patterns ofpower and to denigrate minorities' through Misrepresentation, underrepresentation, and/orstereotyping. For example, commercials quite clearly assign trivialpower to women. Content analyses concur thatwomen, when portrayed, are most often young hitusewives gsing kitchen

. or bathroom products in the service of men (Courtney and Whipple, 1974;Dominick and Rauch,1972). As for TV news, its resemblance to TV drama is wellnoted

(Lang and Lang, 1953'Boarstin, 1961; Wolf, 1973; Larsoll,1974). Like drama, network news originates from a'quest for profit throughbroad-based appeal; infringements an individuals rarelyare covered (Clark, 1968). Conventionality is further implied by the fact that TV news is threatened by government'regulation, weak as it might really be (Philpot, 1973).

z 5

0 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM'

Despite' theory and clitent analysis implicating politicalconformism

as a major consequence of teleyiaion viewing, onp

media'a_contribution to continued colonialist thoughtin Great Britain.- In

an,analysis of the freViency grracialconflict themes used by secondary

sch6olchildren during Openended questioning,such themes were found significantly

mote often among children from areas with few---not many -- immigrants. As

a source of racial information, the children citedmass media more often than

those from areas with greater numbers ofimmigrants.

Weigel andtessor (1973) test the hypothesis thatheavy psychological

. involvementwith television is related to conventionalsocial values, attitudes,

. yi and behavior. Among two samples of high - school and of college students, they. ,4 r

found general support for the conventionalityprediction. Traditional values

were endorsed and deviant behavior was avoidedmore by those scoring hi& on an

involvel-Ositindex, than by low scorers. Some of the 'deviant" behaviorswere

lying, cheating, and marijuana use. Traditional-vues included religiosity

and desire for academic recognition. . )k The index'61 television-InvolveMent , . ir, combined exliosuresimportakce------of the dium1 for informatiOn and entertainment,-

.1.----- and contribution of TV to respondents view-s on four sociopolitical issues.

Finally, Robinson and ZUkin (1976) find primary dependenceon television

for information related' to favorable views of Wallaceand Nixon, and to less

'-qavorable,views of themore liberal, Humphrey..In their secondary analysis of

'1968 Survey ReSeai0 Center data, controls forage, education, income, and political party did not much affectthat relationship. The researchers . speculate that televisicIt caiientprovokes fedi and anxiety, and thus,

peOaps, conservative polftical preferences.

Notably, none of these existing studies deals withexposure to routine

television content.'In the case of Hartmann and Husband;exposure to mass

media really is not a variable. Weigel and Jessor build into theirinvolvement

index dependency on TV as a sourceof.political orientations.For Robinson

and Zukin, the measure is relianceon television just for information, relative

to other media. Secondly, these three studies deal withpolitical conformism:, 4 'indirectly, and only in specific)limited ways.

I By contrast, in this paper televisioncontent in itself and as a whole

is taken to encourage the politicalstatus quo. To test the proposition that

TV expose encourages political conformism,simple viewing therefore is the

independent variable, along with appropriatecontrols.

The dependent variable, politicalconformism, is defined as compliance

with existing power structures. But this might take privadeor public form, and it might bepracticed for a number ofreasons. Immediately, we think

of what might be called "structural" conformism, springingfrom a general view'

that social change, and thus political change;is unnecessary. But, as suggested

by Robinson and Zukin, conformis Of as wellarise from fear, as a defensive

measure. Consequently, f aspectsiof politicalconformism will be considered

in reIation_te,television viewing': (1)psychological conformism, (2) paSsive

conformism, (3) structural conformism,apd (4) defensive conformism. 7

METHOD - a

Measures appropriate to-test the relationshipbetween' political

' conformism and television viewing were found in existingsurvey data:.last. ., year's "General, Social Survey" by the National OpinionResearch Center. The sample includes-1490 noninstitutionaliied adults(18 years and older),

distributed throughout the nation. A combination of blockquota and full probability sampling techniques was' used, half and half, berthsubsamples representing the same. universe.

Data were elicited by trainedinterviewers; in respondents' homes. All but one quest onnaire item -- theone ascertaining television viewiag , had been asked in preVioussurveys. A wide variety of topicswas,covered such as politics, x, religion, child-raising,and personal fulfillment.

Interviews lasted aboutone hour.

Independent Variable

As a, measure of television viewing, respondents were-asked: "On the average day, about how many hours do you personally watchtelevision?" Most often, three hours of viewing was the reply. Fifty -seven respondents said

, their average was r0.1.

, For a comparati1.4, "pure case"analysis, two viewing grqups:lre delfinad

by breaks on each side of the television viewing median.This puts 6$0 j

respondents into.the "light-viewer" -r; category ( 1 or 2 hours of TVa day),

"Heavy viewers" (4 hours 1. or more daily) total 484. Eliminated frdm consileration , . were 291 median viewers, and the 57 nonviewers who lie outsidethe distriution.

of concern. 11 I

Dependent Variables

. Structliral conformism' ismanifested by reluctanceto approve government activity designed to ohnge social, political:andeconomic statuses. In the NORC data, this is indicated by respondents'.Views.on seven-policy questio , On a five point scale, respondents registered agreement (5 = strongest; 1 = weakest) with statements, suchas these:

Government should doeven more to sd/Veour country's problems.

Government ought to reduce theIncome difference between rich and poor'-- perhaps by raising taxes for the wealthy or by giving income assistanceto the poor. .

Government should see to it thatblack and white. 'children }o to thesate schools.

For each, such item, heavy television viewersare expected to registei less agreement than light viewers. Conyers ly, heavy viewers,more than lights

viewers,/areprediCted to say thatexist ng government policy 1 generally is 4 right. This should be reflected byadeecond measure ofstructural conformism, known as, politicalFust: tr

How much of the time doyou think you can;trust the government in Washington co do what. is right-- just about always "(4), ', most of the time .(3), onlysome a , ,/ the time. (2), ornone of the time (1)? , ' ti PassiVe conformism it a matter of pol tical inactivityin the public sphere. Whatever the individual's preferences, withoutsomesort of overtctivity, .". support inevitably is castto the existing situation. Feder h a TV viewers than light vieweirs thus are expected (1) 'to belong 'toa Club or organization

10. .t

(2) to report voting in the _1'574Congressional `election (3) to report voting .

in the -l972 ;Presidential election.

Psychological conformism is the cognitive elAvalentof passive ,conformism;,

it represents the absence of mental activityrelevant to politics. Specifically, this would beexpressed as law-lev political interest. In tile NORC survey,

such interestwas ascertained as_tofi&s:

\ ' , Some'people seem to,f011aw what's goingon -in govelement and public affairs, whether there 'isan election ping on or not. Others aren't that interested. -Wouldyou say you follow what1S going on in government and public affairs most of the time =(4), some of the time (3), onlynaw'and then (2 or-hardly at,all (l)?. ,

CoMOar li TV viewers, heavy viewers' political.interest'shouldbe lower.

Simil heavy viewe ion of perSonal political' views isexpected

to reflect lesser concern with political chant= They are predicted to bel / themselves politic "moderate" or "middle of the r e often than light / ., - .1.. : . viewers, given their choice of ath.array ofTaIitical prietations rom "very il

, . 'liberal" throUgh Pvery conservative."

, i. ' ,// 4 . / R'y Ofinitiondefensivetonformism invOlveS46rehenion abo\ut conflict, / , . 77-77- , or s , ira e fear .or anxiety In regard to so interntectio A three item summary"-

\ 1 Sex ("faith n people") is usedo measure this tncept at the interpersonal

Generally speang,'would you say that mast'people a. can be'ti sted (or thatyou can't be too car . b. try'to be helpful .(orthat they look o themselves1).? c. try to take advantage f.youor trY to b fair)? 0 , (------i"I' /Pessimis c responses tb two of three index items are taken e to indicate

, A "fear/Of being'taken edmittege of." i / > // , '

\ti, 10

At the nstiona1 level, two singleitems are taken to measure defensive'

conformisiir'

Do you expect the United States et, fightin another war within the next ten years?

Do you think it will be best for thefuturt of this country if we take an active part in worldaffairs, of if we stay'out of world affairS?'

More heaVy televisiqn viewersare predicted to expect war and international

,...... 1;06nflictthan light viewers.

Control Variables

Disregarding hours of television viewing per day, eOpondentsisex,

race, awe, and education provide independentbases_for predicting political

conformism. In cases of significant differencesbetween light and heavy

viewer groups on major dependent variables),these factors therefore will be

controlled. However, specific differences inpolitical conformism will-not' ,7 be considered as they3ccur within and across control g Insofar as -

this paper explores questions regardingany eneralelationship between -7- television viewing and politicalcoo ormism, up-restricted-Aenomenaare of minor interest. ) '11

RESULTS

44. Beginning anairsis with consideration of structural conformismamong the heavy and61,ighe viewers, Table I indicates that heavyTV.viewers are more likely to advocate social change through government action. Contrary to prediction, they favor government action to a significantlygreater extent than light viewers. Heavy viewers are more likelyto approve go4ernment reduction of the'income gap, vigorous efforts t school integration, assistance with health costs, improved standards of livi g for blacksand the poor, and overall increase in attempts to solve the country's problems.Also, they express g agreement with the idea c increased spending on domestic

problems cut& in the defense budget, but this difference doesnot reac onventionaj levels of significance.

Controlling -sex, race, age, and education for the six policyquestions

. reflecting statist tly significant differences between heavy and lightviewers, the relationship-0e' een TV viewing and struquxalnonconformism generally is maintained (Table 2)4. Except in the case of the ,nonwhitesubgroup (n = 126), all t-values in Table 2 are negative, indicating for thisanalysis consistently greater desire for government action among heavy viewer subgroups. With a few exceptions, these t-values also are statistically significant, at the.05 level of probability, or better.

Lack of evidence for structural Conf ism among heavy as opposedto light. TV viewers comes too from comparinglevelf politicaltrust across the two

40 viewer groups. The result: mean trust does Ma not differ perceptibly or significantly (t =

I )

4, 12

, However, from analysis of heavy and -light viewers' political activities

, (Table 3), -it appears that Jaeavy viewers tend to conform to existing,power

structures publicly if not privately. Significantly fewer hold membership in

any club"or organization, and significantly fewer report voting either in 1972

or in 1974. In each case, the difference in Act vitis at leaSt

in favor' of light viewers. Table 4 indicates that this relationship between

viewing and passive conformism holds for bothsexes and under 30/30 and over

age groups. 5urther, it holdsfor whites and the high school educated. However,

it fails for nonwhites and for those withsome college.

Support is gainedfor the prediction that heavy TVeWersconform k psychologically to the status quo. Mean political interest is significantly

lower for the heavy TV group (Table 5), a pattern of resposewhich,holds for, .

males, both age groups, and the white majority.For'nonwhit light and

heavy viewers do not differ significantlyon the measure of political conformism.

Neither do the college educated viewers. Among the'high school educated group ,

political interest is considerably-lower for heavy viewers,hat'the difference

is not quite significant.

..- ---- sychological confprmism also is suggested by the Labelsviewing--groups-

_ = attach tO\thetrpmiitiva-1orienta-t-io-69- As predicted, more..------heavy viewers call- \ . , Je . . . themselves politically '"moderate" or "middle of the road"than light' viewers

(447. vs. "379., b=2.33,

Tables,6 and 7 indicate'significanuly'greater defensiveconformism

among heavy TV viewers. Compared to light viewers, more'reportapparent fear

S. iA -V C .i3

of interpersonal interaction. On the national-level,- a greater,percentage expects war within ten years, and more say it would he better ifthe United'

States entirely avoided world affairs:Except for the nons4hite subgroup,.

is pattern of response holds generally-- for males and females, young and old, high school and college educatedvieweralike.

- ti 14 .e

A DISCUSSION

Support was lent to the proposition that television- viewing is an

rtantfactor in three of the four aspects of political conformisM under

consider Lion. Heavy television viewers showed significantly less political

activity, 1 psychological involvement, and more apprehension in rdtard to

interpersonal :1,d national relations than did light viewers. However, there

ti was negative supportor the idea that heavy viewers are committed intellectually

to the status'quo. The analysis indicated just the opposite, that they advocate

more social change,through goyernment#action than light viewers. Why might

this be'?

One likely explanation for heavy v;igwers' structural-nonconformismCOMBS

after, considering possible dynamics of the three suppottedaspects of political

conformism analyzed in this paper. The picture is one of timidity, ambiAglence,

and some fear of involvement% Ifthese terms accurately describe the heady

viewer, then the desire for government action-- in the form of-aid and assistance

to, society and its smaller members -- fits well. Heavy viewers might be seeking

protection for themselves and others. We know violence is a great part of

television.l.content; perhaps it is responsible for this pattern of response,as

Robinson and Zukin (1976) suggest.

Altepotively, structural conformism can be reconsidered definitionally.

To the extent that television functions to preserve and foster societyas an

entity, a disposition to aid weaker members of the pbblic might be takento be

the "conformist" response. For example, it can be argued that improving

A standards of life, and doing more to solve problems,ciplywould strengthen society.

16 15

Improvedkliving standards fc4 blacks and thepoor certainly would enhance

scK&folitical stability. Similarly, greater effort at solving the country's

problems ultimately would benefitpociety_t_jleavyyieweritpolitical response

to television thus could be considered socially "preservative,"in the long

run; but not fiscally conservative.

. A second major question raised by this a sis concerns nonwhites'

political response to television. Generally they are believed to be

extra-responsive to the medium, but in thiscase heavy and light viewsrt. , in

the nonwhite subgroup did not differ significantly in politicalconformism, I. .,

ceps on one itela. It may be that the population -based distinctiondrawn

between "heavyr vs. "light" viewing simplywas not appropriate for-this

subgroup. But at the same time it is quite likely that nonwhites'poor integriiion.

into mainstream Americairsociety precludes typicalresponsiveness to cues in mass

media. In future research, this question might be addressed throughdetailed

study of political conformism within andacross subgroups, in consideration ', of

the neglected issue of to ision's differential level'of effect dueto res ondentsl°

background. Additional c rol variables might usefully be consideredas 11,1, - .., N as part of a larger effort to determine the role of televisionas an agency of

political socializatiolkfor adults and children.

Ip conjunction wiiii,research assessing television's importanceas a

political serialization agency, the question of causationcould receiye he

attention it deserves. As a first consideration of a general relationshipbetween

TV'exposure and political conform se-effect was not an issue for this

paper. But,based on the outcome of the research,nowthere are grounds to

17 4 16 .,

seriously consider the problem. Heavy viewers may,wa40 a.lot of television

because they do not participate in the same amount or iype of interaction as

others. Feeling a threatened existence, they might watch televis,ioa as a

safe, "para7social" substitute for interaction.Another possibility is that

the strain of high-level sociopolitical conforthity would encourage submersion

in a medium offering pleasant diversion without much effort. In this regard, more information about heavy viewers' specific exposure patterns would be

-useful, plus some knowledge of motives in viewing.

Further attention should also be paid to the dependent variable, Political

conformism.Here, several of its aspects were explored, but there are of course others. In the same vein,, iehaviors reflecting conformism specific to selected aspects of television content could be studied:For examOle, we could ask whether heavy viewers would refuse.to vote"women _and minorities into political office,

given'these groups' TV portrayals as unimportant and weak.And would the heavy viewers endorse the same liberal inttrpretation of suspects' rights'as TV poliCe?

In conclusibn, a considerable number of questions surrounds these finding' fora relationship between IV .time,and political conformism. However, the

"basic point endures. Exposure to television is not a,trivial behavior unworthy

'of study. In the political realm,.in fact it may prove quite important.

O 18 r

17 ;

, REFERENCES )

Bogart, Leo, "American Television: A Brietf Survey of Findings," Journal of SOcial Issues, 18, 1962,pp# 36.42.

Boorstin, David J., The'Image: A Guide Pseudo' Events in Ameicar (New York:, ' Harper & Row, Publishers, 1961). ,

Breed, Warren, "Mass CommunicatiOn and Sociocultural Integration,"Social' Forces, 37, 1958, pp. 109-116. 1

Clark, Wesley C., "The Impact of Mass Communicationsin America,"The Annals, 378, 1968, pp. 68-74.

Chaffee, Steven H. Political Communication (Beverly 11111s: Sage Publications, 1975).

Courtney, Alice E. and Thomas W. Whipple, "Women inTV Commercials,",Journal of Communication, 24, 1974, pp. 110-118.

Dominick, Joseph and Gail Rauch, "The Image of Womenin Network T ommercials," Journal of Broadcasting, 16,-1972, por. 259-265.

Gerbner, George,."Violence in Television Drama: Trend* and Symbolic FunCtions," in George A. Comstock and Eli A. Rubinstein (eds.5;Television and-Social Behavior, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing"Office, 1972), pp. 28-187.

, "Cultural Indicators: The Third Voice," in George Gerbner,, Larry P. Gross, and William H: *lody (eds.), CommunicationsTechnology and Social Policy (New York: JOhniWiley & Sons, 1973), pp. 555-573.

-Goodlad, J.S.R., A Sociology of Popular Drarria (London: Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd., 1971).

Hartmann, Paul and aC4rles-Husband, "The Mass Media and Racial Conflict," in Denis McQuail .), .Sociology of Mass CommunicatiOns (Harmondsworth: Penguin BooksLtd., 1972), pp. 435-455.

. ... , Head, Sydney W., "Content Analysis of Television D4Ma Programs,"Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, 9, 1954, pp. 175494.

Hinton, James L., John F. Seggar, Herbeit C. Northcott, and Brian F. Fontes "Tokenism and ImproVing Imagery of Blacks in TV Prama and Comedy: 1973," Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 1974, pp. 423-432. 4 Lang, Kurt'and Gladys Engel Lang, "TheUnique Perspective of Television," American Sociological Reyiew, 18,1953, pp. 3-12.

Larson, Charles U., "A Content Analysisof Media Reporting of the Watergate Hearings," Communication Research,L41974, pp. 440-448.

19 18

..1 . ,,.,...... _ Lazar6fel4,, Paul F. and Robert K. Merton, "MassCommuniaabion, Popular Taste and Organized Social, Action," in Wilbur Schramm (ed.),Mass Communications (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1949),pp. 459-480.

McNeil, .Jean C., "Femini-sm-,--Petininity, and N the Television Series: . ,tontent Analysis," Journal ofBroadcasting-, 19;.1975, pp. 259-211.

,.Allpot., Frank Allen, "A Noteon Television News and Newspaper News," in Ithiel de Sola Pool, et al. (eds.), Handbook pole' of,Communication (Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing Company,--1973),pp. 551-558.

Robinson, Michael J. and Clifford Zukin,.-2tTelevisionand the . Wallace Vote," Journal of Communication; 26,1976, pp. 79-83.

Seggar, John F., "Imagery of Women in TelevisionDrama: 1974," ------Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 1975,pp. 273-282;

and Penny Wheeler, "World of Workon TV: Ethnid and Sex Representation in TV Drama," Journal of Broadcasting, 17, 1973,pp. 201-214.

Seymour-Ure, Colin, The Political Impact of MassMedia (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974).

N Selythe, Dallas W., Three Years of lq-ew York Television,Monitoring Study Number 6 (Urbana, Illinois: NationalAssociation of Educational Broadcasters, 1953).

Tedesco, AncyS., "Patternsin Prime Time," Joural 21 Communication, 24, 1974, pp. 119-124. #-- Turow, Joseph,"Adviiing _and Ordering: Daytime Prime Time," Journal of Cammu- nication,24, 1974, pp. 138-141.

Weigel,' Russell. H. and Richard Jessor, "Televisionand Adolescent Conventionality: An Exploratory Study," Ptblic Opinion Quarterly, 37, 1973, pp. 76-90. .,

. . . ','Wolf, Frank; Television Programmingfor'News and Public Affairs: A Quantitative. Analysii'21 Networks and Stations (New York: Praeger-Publishers, 1972). 4

Wright, Charles R., Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective (New York: /..andObi House, Inc., 1975).

P ;1 woe Xable 1

. \ LIGHT AND HEAVY TV VIEWERS: DESAED -GOVERNMENT ACTIONSa

Light Heavy Viewers.' Viewers

Government Action

Improve standard of Life among the poor 3.2 3.6 -4.90 **

Do even more to solve the'country's problems 3.0 3.5 -6.25 **

Help people'pay for' doctors and hoSPitak .bills `3.3 3.8 **

Reduce income difference Between rich arid poor 3.4 3.9 ,-5.39 **

Improve standard of life

among blacks '2.4 , 2.6 -2.27

defense budget and Spend more on_domestic r problems . 3.0 3.2- 4 .91 ,ns . See to it black and white children go to the same schools 2.2 2.5 -2.97 **

= 630 460

aMaximum deSire= 5, minimum = 1

**p < .01. kttest) *p (t-test).

.0;

Oi 0 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIpHT AND HEAVY VIEWERS' MEANTable DESIRED 2' GOVERNMENT ACTIONS, 'Males Females CONTROLLING FOR SEX, RACE, AGE, EDUCATION Whites 0Whites Non- Undet 30 30 and Over College to College Some Do even,-moremprovelife -to-solve amongstandibi the ofpoor - 3.01 ** t p -3.53 t ** p -4.69 ** 1.01 ns t ** p -3.80 t ** P -2.68" t , p** T3.48 t- ** p :.lems Help peopleiloctors paY'forthe country's%prob- and hospital - 4.62 ** -3.75 ** -5.68 ** -0.06 ns- -1.40 na -5.76 ** -4.30 ** -3.43 ** . bills-- - 4.04 ** .-4.40 ** -1.41 ns -1.94 ns -5.07 ** -5.08 ** -3.61 'lc* -Reduce-income. dill\andferencebetween poor rich - 3.81 .1 ** -3.38 ** -5.43 1.34 ns -3.01 ** -4.53 ** ** -1.96 * SeeImprovo to it standardwhite blacklife children and amongof blacksgo to - 1.5) ns -1.51 ns -1.10 0.64 ns -2.41 * -0,80 As '-2.27 * -1.44 ns the same schools = -1.31 500 ns -2.62 590 ** -1.47 ns -0..32 126 ns -2.64 300 ** -1.51 770 ns -2.04 762 * -2.65 323 '41* .**p 1ailegative .01 *hPositive (t-test)t = greatergreater'desire-for desire for action amongamong-heavy light viewer groups N 21,

'Table 3

LIGHT AND HEAVY TV VIEWERS' POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

. 'tight Heavy Viewers Viewers t , %

, I Membership in -s 'one'or more organizations 74.3 61.7 4.45 **

Voted in the 1974 .1. Congressional election 62.2 48.0 4.79 **

Voted in the 1972 .Presidential election 74.8 4.64

n 630 460

Jovp < .01 (t-test"for,difference between percentages) *p< .05 (t-teit for difference between percentages)

2.3. 0 Table 4 rl DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIG CONTROLLINGIOb A .ND HEAVYSEX, VIEWERS' RACE, AGE, POLITICAL-ACTIVITY, EDUCATIONa I Females p White on- t' Under 30 p 30-and t Over p College No G 'Colleget Some / P Mfmbqrsiliporganizations inope de'more-: k . 2.63 ** 4 3.38 ** 1.33 N ns\ 2.56 * VotedVo -d in'tbein-theContion\ 1972 1974ressional elec- 3.79 \kir fl 2.79 \** 4.79 ** -0.43 ns * 3.51 3,24 ** 1.92- ns a electionPresidential 2.87 3.50 -*le' 4.43, 1--,9.44. ns .o, 1.99 .64 ** 3.36 ns n, = ' 500 590. 960 126..-, '1300 \770 762 0.54 323 **p_iaNegative .01 (t *pit Positive -test =Neater.05-(t-test for t = greater for. differenceactivity among.amongbeeween:percentages)betweenTpercentages) lightheavy viewerviewer Aronpsgroups ,23'

LIGHT ,:HEAVY VIEWERS'. NOTICALHINTE

7 Light Heavy .Viewerp Viewers

7 x

All 3.2 ** 3.0 3.37 ,1090.11 I

3.4 3.1 3.68 ** 500 ..Femal 3.1 3.0 0.71 ns 590

Wh 3.31 3.45 ** 9601 hies -0.73 ns 126

2.85 ** 30 -andOver 3.3 2.10 * 77

( No Colleg 3.1 3.0 1.93 its 762, Some Col ege 3.5 3,5 -0.64 ns 324

/ ,

aMaxiniam interest= 4, minimum =,1

*p (t-test)_ *p77 .05 (t7test) 3IF

4v :able 6

L AND HEAVY VIEWERS' PERCEPTIONSOF THREAT IN INTERACTION,

Light Heavy ;Viewers Viewts t

r Fear'being taken . vantage of 32.1 50.4 -6.05

/ , Expect theynited Stat "es to/ fight 'another/war within 10 y ars 70.2 75.6 -2.00

T ink it would/be best for'the future of - the country to stay out of world affairs 31.6 4,7.2 -5.34 **

n= 630 460

_ **p <5101 (t-test. for differencbetWeen percentages)/ -*p .05 for differe etween percentages),

- ,

26 "DIFFVENCE BETWEEN LIGHT AND HEAVYNIEWERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THREAT CONTROLLING FOR SEX, RACE, AGE, EDUCATIONa Table /: I Males Females \ 141hit'es Whites Non - ck, Under 30 30 and Over College No College, SoMe t p t p t p t p . t p t p t P t p Pear being takenadvantage of -4.23" ** . -4.23 ** -5.65 ** 0.37 na -4.01 ** -3.78 ** -2.63 ** -4.67 ** .:Expect the U.S. toThink it wouldwithinfight be 10 anotheiYears war -.1.20 na -1.45 na -1.58 ns 1 -1.30 - ns - 2.73 ** -0.44 'ns -0.03 na -3.14 ** weaffairsofbest stay the for outceuntry the of futureworld if -3.85 ** -3.03 l** -4.69 ** ! -0.87 na -2.35 * -4.54 ** -3.93 ** 82' ns r n = 500 590 . '960. 126 300 770 762 4,,, 44)23 a 4tegativePositive t = greatert= greater sense sense of threatof threat imOngh among avy li viewer ht viewer groups groups **p_< * p X7 .05 (t-test for difference between percent(t-test ges). for difference between percen ages) . dt