Viewing Wars:

Action Heroes and Canadian Mothers Concerns about Violent Television for Boys 3-6 Stephen Kline Media Analysis Laboratory Simon Fraser University Canada (draft June 2, 1999)

Much of the growing interest in the analysis of audiences is written against the previous effects approach to understanding mass media. These models primarily theorized the influence of mass media rather narrowly as the flow of a dominant meaning from TV (stimulus) to audiences (respondents) and subsumed the idea that ‘reception’ could best be understood as the ’assimilation and storage of that meaning’. Since the late 1970’s however, challenged by a new theorizing of separate encoding and decoding processes (Hall’s 1980), communications studies has become aware of the fragmentation of mass media audiences and the active assimilation of media content (Morley 1986, Schroder 1994). This has inspired greater interest in viewers motivations and choices underlying viewing, and the reception processes have become the focal point for an audience centred study of communication and media culture (Livingstone 1998). There is a growing interest in applying this approach to children’s relationship to media (Livingstone 1999).

In this regard, the work of the Himmelweit project using cross national comparative research on children and youth audiences is providing an empirical basis for a broad and subtle understanding of the global problem of children and media. Yet in the light of research that shows young audiences often make diverse, unexpected and even aberrant readings of their media, there is a growing need to better theorize the ‘diversity’ in young peoples media use and audiences (David Buckingham 1993, 1997). Current studies of young audiences with one broadcast footprint, typically reveal no modal child viewer but profound niched differences not only in the programmes they watch regularly, but in their preferences for and identification with particular TV characters (ABA 1994).

Indeed nowhere is the influence of audience fragmentation and niche marketing more in evidence than in the under 7 children’s audience between males and females. [Insert Chart #1.] It is not surprising given targeting by promotional marketing, that by age six Canadian children’s audiences reveal significant differences in TV programme preferences and viewing along age and gender lines (Kline 1993, 1995). 1 But even

1 After deregulation, US schedules for the family oriented mass programming made with “children of all ages” in mind totally disappeared. This broad programming mandate was replaced in the 1980’s with a more targeted, and gender and age specific production objectives. Both in the public education programming ( Sesame Street; Electric Company; Bill Nye) and in the commercial sector where animated character series (He-man and She-ra) colonized the schedules targeting defined programming. During the 1980’s targeted action hero programmes Transformers, Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers and now Pokemon comparing across many countries, the strongest differences are not national, so much as gendered. Jo Groebels (1999) study of 12 year olds reveals the global effects of audience segmentation -- the gender differences once acquired, persist: boys preferred programming is action and horror oriented, and their favourite role models are “action heroes”. The variation in children’s media use is perhaps best explained by the programming priorities and attitudes so evident among commercial media producers which have favoured superhero animation and high intensity conflict for penetrating into world markets because they reliably attract young male audiences. (Gerbner 1998). Audiences however fluid and diverse, are historically constructed over time through the application of ratings research (Ang 1990).

In my own thinking about the children and adolescent media preferences and use, variation is best described not as diversity but as fragmentation (Leiss et al. 1990). Young males particularly exhibit a fairly rigid pattern in their entertainment genre preferences establishing loyalties fairly young, common preferences in both TV and video game genres, as well as a reticence toward educational programming and reading. (Kline 1997, 1999).Those familiar with Himmelweits work know that her approach to children’s audiences was comparative, broadly focused on the domestic scene, social-psychological and yet aimed at public policy and debate. I have become similarly convinced that a better system for comparative study of global children and youth audiences must provide a subtle analysis of the relationship between programming choices and the differences in cultural environments in which various media are habitually used in different ways by children.

In the wake of war in Europe, and the equally recent massacres in US schools, audience researchers are once again having to think beyond the apparent idiosyncrasies of contemporary youth audiences to understand why so many “boys” are fascinated with violence in media. The weight of thousands of studies adequately confirms that their choice of programming can play an important role in the processes of acquisition of violent and aggressive attitudes and behaviours in young audiences (MacBeth 1996). Yet when it comes to the public debates about children as audiences, the mass media effects model continues to hold sway ( Huston et al. 1992), particularly with the focus on children’s exposure of media violence ( Hamilton 1998, Television Violence Monitoring Project 1998).

Although there are differences, the majority following for action adventure programming, and the rarity of cross-over viewing is still characteristic of boy audiences who seem uniformly fascinated by the animated tales of warrior heroes. In this regard we must note that the traditions of “effects” research still holds sway in our thinking about this problem of the reception of media violence – and analysts continue to favour the notion of observational learning to explain the violent attitudes and fearfulness, mean world views, desensitization, copy cat modeling of aggressive behaviours that are in evidence (Dubow and Miller 1996, Heussman et al. 1994; NTVS 1998). Effects researchers have demonstrated that violent media can reinforce, legitimize and consolidate aggressive attitudes in personal relationships with both peers and authorities – especially among some heavy viewers. Yet the consequences of heavy consumption of violent media seems to vary for different viewers and this limits the ability to apply such results.

filled the Saturday morning ghettos as action adventure animation successfully cultivated loyal male audiences around the world. These programmes continue to fill US screen’s with a steady flow of highly aggressive and often warlike fictional material that the reviewers of the National Television Monitoring Study agreed was most problematic (1997) Although our understanding of the context of the depiction of violence has progressed from the 1970’s (APPC 1997, Wartella NTVS), the lived context of children’s viewing of violence is generally not. Three factors in the contemporary debates about violence and media suggest that it is time to rethink the contribution that “audience research approaches” can make to critiquing the media’s production biases towards violence programming for children since: 1) policy discourses about the audience are increasingly focused on parental responsibilities and domestic regulation (ie V-chip); 2) research discourses are also focusing on media use in the context of competing media in the “domestic environment”; 3) the fragmentation in children’s audiences that reveal the real differences in family life and culture that influence the child’s relationship to media. In short effects research has probably gone as far as it can in explaining the media’s generalized role in the acquisition of male aggression without explaining this fascination for action adventure programming or how it develops in boys.

Family Dynamics, Media and the Socialization of Aggression

Given these regularities in young male audiences, this project examines aspects of the family context in which Canadian boys between the ages of 3-6 acquire their fascination for violent and aggressive programming and play media. The role of parental style in shaping and mediating children’s aggressive attitudes and behaviour has been well researched. (Korzenny et al. 1981) The Singers have noted that for very young children family discipline style as well as encouragement of imagination can be important influences mediating the effects of viewing TV violence on judged aggressiveness and activity levels of children ( Singer et al. 1984). The work of Abelman has noted the differential impact of inductive and sensitizing family styles on gifted vs. emotionally disturbed children’s judgement of “pro-social television content (Abelman 1991). As social psychologist I recognize the social differences in the children’s audience behaviour had to be conceptualized within socio-ecology of the households in which they lived. Not only do we need to understand how variations in family practice and control shapes the adolescents use of media but also how family dynamics change over time as children grow.

Broader surveys of parental mediation of TV in the USA reveal a vista of increasingly laissez fair parenting and growing anxiety: only a small minority restrict or control their child’s exposure to programmes and most of this control is directed at sex, violence and swearing (Parental Advisory study) . In a recent study of Canadian households with children under the age of 3 my students similarly noted that the 80% of the homes had the television on all day, and that children as young as 9 months were encouraged to watch TV on their own – particularly Teletubbies and other child oriented programming. These processes of guiding children are particularly strong with young children, but lessen over time. By the times they are teens, the majority of boys are unregulated in their media use, and report that their parents have no idea about what movies they watch or what video games they are playing (Kline 1998)..

The pilot study described below was part of a broader inquiry into the possibility of intervening in the war play of young boys with pro-social media. This report describes our attempt to gain insight into the domestic context of the young males acquisition of preferences for action heroes based on 28 in depth interviews with mothers of boys between the ages of 3-6 about their concerns about and observations of their sons acquisition of an interest in violent media, and TV’s consequences on their behaviour. Based on this pilot study I am going to argue that to better understand the impact of mediated violence we must not only appreciate the diversity in the family context of media consumption in terms of their mediational style (Huston and Wright 1996) but also the variety of ‘interpretive’ modalities – particularly play – as the assimilative context in children’s media use and assimilation of violent material.

Mothers and aggression in boy culture

In spite of the five thousand plus effects studies over the last 25 years which have documented the determinant influence of media violence very little has been done in the USA to address this problem -- mostly because it would be construed as limiting the freedom of the press and a violation of constitutional rights to guns. And so because Canada is in the American Broadcast footprint, we have a tradition of attempting to control the flow of violent and aggressive media content across our borders (e.g. the 9 o’clock watershed; the V-Chip being the most recent policies); but to no avail given the pre-eminence of US media conglomerates and cable regulations. In this policy context, many Canadian parents are increasingly frustrated, concerned and confused about violent media their children watch, the lack of positive role models for their children. Recent surveys find that concern about media violence and its effects is greatest for children seven and under as parents realize there is a disruptive influence of their growing fascination with violence action and weapons (Media Watch 1995/ CRTC- Agvot).

Whether recruitment was a matter of self selection or a reflection of the long standing Canadian concern about their children’s excessive and gratuitous exposure to violence in contemporary media culture (cf. CRTC report on V-chip), the mothers in our sample unanimously articulated generalized concerns about the problem of aggressiveness in boy culture. Sometime during the third year especially, most mothers report noticing that their sons are developing a not always positive relationship with aggressive television programmes. A mother said forcefully: "TV for kids should be censored... I don't think violent images are good for the spirit and I think the way that media has become so global and it has really contributed to the level of fear that society has now, for instance the crime rate is dropping but the perception of crime is still huge and I think that is because of global media".

Many of the boys seen to become fascinated with animated action shows, often watching them along with siblings. She went on to say: “the stupidity and the mindlessness of the cartoons and the TV in general really concerns me". Another declared passionately: "I think that what makes us adults today, everything is instilled in us as young kids and if they see so much violence that they think it is an everyday thing then there is a good chance that they may act that out. I don't want my kids to think that that is ok". Their concerns are often deeply felt because they are based on first hand observations of their own children as they acquire their interest in violence. Their sense of alarm is with good reason. Mothers are in fact first hand observers of the effects of media on their children. "For every child to some degree what they see whether its on TV or at home they mimic and they learn and they become until it becomes part of their typical self." Most also had first hand observations about the effects of watching violent TV on their children. Another was more alarmed: “The more he watches of the rough stuff its going to effect him and I would be concerned if all he wanted to watch was violence, I would probably have to take the TV away from him because he does get rough if he watches certain shows" . These moms were remarkably thoughtful about their role and responsibilities in socializing and managing the acquisition of healthy TV viewing behaviours: One mother reflected thoughtfully on their own role in their son’s development: “I really believe it starts from the beginning, how the parents will direct the boys. Like I said with these mixed messages we are getting—boys are tougher, they fight—I don’t think there is much wrong with wrestling they have to get rid of their energy, that’s a normal need. But when they get the message don’t be a baby, don’t cry like a girl then they automatically get the message that they have to toughen up, so fighting is OK -- and it is OK but depending on how they do it. If everywhere they see on TV or other kids that are hitting each other or they are fighting with each other they will think that is totally normal and I think it is the parent’s work to guide them and say there is nothing wrong with you having the energy and you wanting to get rid of it or wrestle with each other but until the point that someone gets hurt, then it is NOT OK.”

This statement reveals the complexity of the problem which requires moms to draw a line between the natural energy and exuberance of their boys active play, the subtle messages layered into the narratives, and the complexity of teaching boys to draw a line between what is acceptable and not acceptable play behaviour. In this regard, a number of the mothers expressed deep uncertainty about the aggression they witnessed in their son’s play: “Sometimes, I would notice he says ‘oh this guys will kill this guys.’ Then, he would crash the two toys. I thought about it a lot. It shocks me at that point, but I don’t know if I should make a big deal about it. I think he does it mostly when he want s attention. I think he’s a very sensitive child. He s concerned about people and people getting hurt. SO I don’t think I am very worried at this point. I think he’s on the right track. I’m hopefully not blinded. Its hard. Its really hard. I find myself sometimes being way too paranoid.”

Acquisition of Preferences

These mother’s were both aware of and concerned about their son’s growing interest in violent media. In the course of learning about their child’s response to TV many moms observed that there was “somewhat of an effect” of violent TV programmes on their child’s aggressive play. "just the fighting I don't know what it is. It does seem like boys get more into that [fighting]". Another said of her four year old "he just got into action figures, definitely has bad guys and good guys." "talks about fighting off bad guys a lot" "Batman is always the good guy". Although many moms observed such consequences of TV and toys less than half saw it as a “really big problem” and their accounts indicated that the way the boys responded varied greatly from family to family.

They were less clear about what was best for their child and many mom’s systematically negotiated greater ‘freedom to choose’ as their children aged. In fact, three quarters of the mom’s claimed to monitor and regulate their own children’s exposure to violent programming on television (especially for the younger children 5 and under) although, what they regarded as unsuitable violent material varied greatly as did their methods of controlling and addressing it. Most parents restrict or monitor their children’s viewing of fighting and blood to some degree, although animated and exaggerated fighting scenes are less worrisome and more often allowed. Incidents mostly focused on social interactions around aggressive games at school: "when A plays he likes to be in charge and be the one to set the rules and so we need to talk about other children and their ideas about how the play is going to go as well" . Another mentioned that “ there was one incident where he hit another child at school but they talked about it and there has never been another incident like that since then. A third said: "Managing anger has been something we've had to work on with him, he used to the door quite regularly into his bedroom and we actually took his door off" Another remarked: "we've had to have some chats about the kids he plays with that I think play quite violently and that's been kind of tough because there was a new friend that Z was making in his kinder-garden class and we had to say that we didn't like the way that he played because the other boy played very rough...The other boy was interested in playing 'beasties' with a lot of crashing and z was quite taken with the other boys method of play and they were the only ones who weren't doing what the other 40 kids were doing and so we had to have quite a chat about that.. ..and that was tough but we weren't keen on his method of play so certainly I am concerned about this".

Most of these negotiations stem from their attempt to shape their child’s exposure to aggressiveness in their culture without over-controlling it. One mother of a 5 year old reported her concern about her son’s interest in TV she thinks is suited to older children: “I’m trying to encourage things that are for his age. Like to watch Arthur or Magic School Bus. But he does want to watch a lot of shows with action and fighting. But I have to realize that he is almost six, and he is a boy, so there is no preventing that. But I’m there right beside him watching. If I see it I try to talk to him about those things”. Another mom says she monitors her son’s TV viewing for violence, “but if something comes on while they are watching she tries to talk to him about it” rather than shut it off. She explains that “its just make believe” because her primary concern is with getting her son to understand make believe violence.

Given the degree to which their children seemed intrigued by action adventure programmes the mothers found themselves in a quandary. One mother commented on how hard it was to instill a non-violent play ethic in their boys peer group in the face of a media onslaught: "The focus at home is a non-violent and ... there was all this senseless violence and a shooting game going on with the kids in the hallway and I said what about some dialogue guys and we all started talking about what happens when you stop bank robbers , the police don't just come in shooting they try and protect the other people around and so we did a little bit of an informational session and they tried to do some dialogue but they couldn't bring it there so they had a hard time.” Another mother confessed that she felt trapped: “its really hard being a single parent. I don’t agree using the television as a babysitter but often I do rely on it for him… I don’t want to say no way no way, because then he will be rebellious and that is all he will watch.”

So their concerns about violent play were often articulated with broader reference to the cultural environment. As one mom stated: “… now, although the play is innocent I have no idea how the play is going to manifest itself when Y is 16. And so I have a real concern about it because I feel that kids get numbed to the level of violence and I think statistics in our society in teen crimes are testimony to that. Its sitting there slapping us in the face and no one is doing anything about it.” Regulation of Exposure

The mothers seem to watch their children when they are very young and respond if they notice some disturbing consequences. Yet in a busy family, concern about TV violence had to be balanced against the obvious babysitting benefit of the box: “it’s a few moments when I can get on with other things” declared one otherwise very hands on mother when discussing how she felt about his TV viewing. A mother who restricted violent TV and video games, and managed his media exposure to “mostly watching videos” reported a positive side to TV: “TV entertains him while he is relaxing”. ”He is not a "TV head" she claimed about her four year old but since "he's very active…. and so its good for him when he sits and watches a video or TV cause it calms him down” and while he is calmly watching she can get on with some chores. Very few mothers in fact voiced any concerns about the amount of time their children watched TV; viewing was not the problem but rather the contents.

Vast differences in family styles of involvement and regulation of violent TV and toys did show up in these interviews. Several mothers reported a tight control over their child’s viewing. One said her three year old could only watched age appropriate TV (Winnie the Pooh, Bernstein Bears ,PBS) and that he therefore played mostly with puzzles, Lego and Hot Wheels. The family was actively cultivating its pro-social values by monitoring TV and encouraging constructive play. “We like to play with creative things” such as colouring and Playdo.”… “he is rarely aggressive . Yet it was evident that generally, the younger children were under stricter control. Another mother of a three year old reported that because she was so careful in limiting his exposure kids she was satisfied with the results: “ not concerned …yet as there have not really been any reason to be, not really overtly effected his play”.

Yet, however strongly felt their concern, many mothers are reluctant to enforce such strict controls on their boys, especially the older ones. “I got him a Spiderman that shoots out missiles and stuff. But I always try to tell him don’t aim at people or animals. But I got it for him because I always have this thing in my mind, I don’t want to take him too much away from boys toys because then, I don’t really want to pay attention to all these controversial messages I get from society, but I don’t want him to miss out on anything. Especially I don’t want to say you can’t have that because then of course he will want it.” Other families, who have limited violent programming claimed that as their children got older and more familiar with it, their concern with violence tended to diminish: "when he saw Power Rangers or Ninja Turtles at a friends house I saw him do all that stuff. But it seems like they play it for a bit but then they go on to something else. So I sort of see it dissolve because there is only so much that is interesting about it and then how much more can they do with it…”

A few of the restrictive mothers felt they were able to buffer their kids from violence in media and its effects on their children’s play; but they had lingering concerns: ”usually it’s the kids in his daycare that concern me more than him”. Which raises another issue that many mothers expressed about aggressive TV viewing and its effects on kids play in the peer groups and peer environments which lie beyond the control of these concerned parents – especially as their kids enter the nurseries and day care centres where the child is impacted by the peer “culture of violence”.

Effects on Play This concern about the child’s public vulnerability is interesting in the light of the most commonly reported effect of watching violent TV is that it influences their social play behaviours. Their attitudes are based on many direct observations of their child’s behaviour in relation to particular programmes: "afterwards he went and got one of his brothers guns and said he was off to hunt rabbits" or with Power Rangers he'll start kicking and fighting”. Another stated: " we were watching Spiderman and Batman and we found we were planning our day around (it was the old Batman) and we found we had to cut it out because there was a lot of punching and kicking and X started picking up on it and going 'pow' and things like that, so we had to cut it out". The majority observed that TV may pacify children while there are viewing, but it also seems to energize them afterwards often by eliciting active rough and tumble play when the TV is turned off.

The influence of TV on what children wanted to play with was remarked on by several mothers as was the alarm felt at their children’s growing ability to demand greater access to TV, and the toys and foods they saw advertised there. We noticed that many of the boys while viewing a cartoon actually had the toy characters near, or manipulated it while watching. One mother stated in exasperation at the pressure to buy TV toys for Christmas: "If I had my way we wouldn't have TV at all" Another family where currently there is no TV in the home because the VCR broke noted similar changes: "Before he use to watch Beetleborgs, Power Rangers, Beast Warriors. He hasn't missed the TV but it did effect his Christmas list because none of those things were on it. His list consisted of only the toys we had seen in the mall over the last week and so it was a mini package of gardening tools whereas before it was full of Beasties, Power Rangers, etc."

Many also felt that their children not only wanted the toys, but imitated what they saw on TV in their subsequent play. Another said simply “he would act it out-monkey see, monkey do”. But some noticed that more was going on than simple imitation. One said her son “had an incredible memory” and “he could do the last half an hour of cartoons he had just seen he use to mimic the beast wars. ”In the same way, one mom reported that the play behaviour is grounded in the scripts and concepts seen on TV "he gets his bad guys and good guys' from TV and computer games" he'll make sound effects or battle sounds, nothing much more however”. We noticed that in defining their concerns about boys play, many of their statements were related to the observation that violent cartoons on TV and video games were especially likely to spill over into aggressive. The mother whose TV broke down recently also noticed a change in her son’s creative play and the way the child narrates his play scripts: "He doesn't have the dialogue to imitate he has the figures but the dialogue is now his own he makes it up... it is still bad guys and good guys but its not straight word-for-word from the show...they work as a team more, they are against the world, him and his friend and their figures against the forces...and they get along better as friends".

Several mothers were convinced that all violent play is bad. One said: "I won't tolerate violence in the house when the kids play here. But the boys know that. We've explained to them why this is not right and we've also shown them by example and by giving them other choices, a range of choices of other sorts of things to play which are positive and have a positive effect on them". Yet not all moms felt their own children were aggressive or violent and showed a remarkable tolerance for the displays of aggression in their children: “sometimes he gets aggressive but it is usually tied to something like if he's hungry or if he gets annoyed with his little sister. "He is pretty mellow” … but she then states that lately he has been hitting Mom if she does something he doesn't like and this concerns mom, but she will excuse it because she does not see it as part of his usual play style to play aggressively. Still others found their attitudes toward aggressive play changed: "It doesn't seem to be too much of a problem now, I can't say that there is a particular show that gets him going, I think we are doing ok" It seems that “acting out TV” is not too much of a problem anymore” although this mom keeps a watchful eye out for it.

The mothers expressed considerable difference in their understanding of the problem of socialization of aggressiveness and what was good or bad play however: Several moms took an active role in guiding play, as one said: “children who play rough normally if you give them guns and that kind of stuff its going to continue to make them play like that .. so we really limit the guns and if we see them playing violently we take it away.” Another reported a distaste for “guns, weapons and shooting in the house” but explained how she drew the line around realism: "we do not have any dark colored guns, they are pink ones, definitely toy guns and we don't have that many". Several moms didn’t regard clashing toys together as ‘violent’ play, reserving their concern for the occasional bouts of the ‘real fighting’ that took place when children get rambunctious and out of control or argue over toys. Another reported a change in attitudes however as they became more resigned to the boys play style: “ well at first with the 'bad guy thing, it really freaked me out and that's why I was so adamant about him not playing his dad’s video games, but now I am getting more comfortable with it because he does have a good guys bad guys scenario with it .. but he'll say I killed the bad guys and I thought what did he just say but you look at any of these movies and that's what they pick up”.

A few described how they would intervene when rambunctious play began. One mom who claimed she monitors her child’s play "not constantly, maybe 50% of the time" believes strongly that “ creative, make believe types of play are important” and that aggressive social behaviour is in need of intervention: "If they tend to get to violent I will try to get them to paint or bring out other toys to stimulate them or get them to watch a nice show, or to have quite time or occasionally read a story. Yet this rather conscientious mom went on to express how difficult it was in the contemporary world to give her child the support and encouragement they need: “ I wish I could spend more time" was a constantly repeated refrain we heard from the moms. Another spoke as if her concerns were unusual. ” do not like him to watch too much, I turn it off more than any one else.” But she notes that exposure to the violent programmes is hard to curtail: “ I think his grandma lets him watch more than she says she does”.

Family Dynamics

Not only did the mothers express divergent concerns about the acquisition of aggressive responses to television, but they noted that the situation in home did not always support their childrearing strategies. The stress and complexity of family life breed a degree of complacency about these seemingly complex issues: “You put on the TV and zone out and that is why I got rid of the cable because I just found it was happening too much that both Q and my partner were just watching junk TV all the time so it has really helped [to get rid of the cable].” She went on to note that her son “was very upset when the cable left, he cried, but about 3 days later he said it is really OK that this happened but it really has been OK. He is now finding other things to fill the time like playing with his Dad whereas before they would just sit and watch TV together and that would be their father and son time" . One mom said “She believes she should be more diligent in screening but her partner is very much 'in to' TV and so she finds it difficult to confront. "If I was the only adult in the home I wouldn't even have a TV, I am more into having music going and having them do other things" We frequently heard that their concerns are not always shared by males in their children’s lives. “I don’t think I spend as much quality time with him as I’d like to, but at least I do play with him.”

A number of moms also expressed the view that attitudes to violence in boy culture is itself based on gendered values. One single mom noted that she was not only concerned about TV violence: " I like play that's more creative than just killing or having good or bad guys " but she also “likes to see alternate and positive roles for women won't let her child watch shows in which woman are portrayed as stereotypes. "Respect for women , for half the population" she argued would help him to see “egalitarian images”. One mom said that she doesn’t like her son to play with his swords “I don’t know if its because I am a woman…. I think I feel uncomfortable because automatically in my mind it comes back that “Swords, what are they using it for? Why hurt the others.” I think I’m very sensitive and I just don’t want him to go there.” But she pointed out, her partner was not at all concerned. Several moms mentioned that these differences in attitude could produce conflicts with the child’s father, who often also tends to watch TV more with the kids, provide access to violent video games, and sometimes in the case of one separated mother, encouraged the lad to watch “fighting” programmes like Power Rangers against her will. She likes it when he goes to daycare because she knows he won't be watching TV as he would if he was at home.”

Conclusion

This pilot study reveals the complexity of studying children’s TV audiences and their reception of violent themes in context. It is clear to their mothers at least that such programming has an ‘effect’ on their children. From age three their mothers not a growing fascination among their boys with the kinds of physical conflict and action themes promoted in this programming to the point that some parents feel it is important to guide and intervene in their viewing and play. Yet we heard strong evidence that mothers energy for active parenting must be traded off against their own ‘free’ time and sense of autonomy and responsibility that they are also trying to support for their boys. At least in this sample, the moms we spoke to seemed to be both involved observers trying to understand their child’s preferences and vulnerabilities – as well as a regulator negotiating with their child as their concerns were validated. It also had to be negotiated in a family context where the fathers model and support different values.

The mom’s we talked to were thinking critically about TV especially about three aspects of media effects: 1) their child’s acquisition of viewing preferences 2) the ways they guided and mediated TV consumption and 3) the consequences of their attempts at control and regulation, restrictions and limits. As these moms observed the effects of these programmes, they begin to explore and test out the appropriate levels , regimes of regulation and appropriate contents for their own child. We hear repeatedly of a complex negotiation process that extends perhaps into teen years about what they consider to be appropriate rules and limits. The degree to which families intervene in their children’s use of television varies significantly, but generally declines as the boy ages. The boys themselves are constantly testing the limits of parental power, and actively renegotiating them.

Overall this pilot study suggests that in order to understand differences in how boys acquire aggressive responses we might focus on three factors: the strategies that mothers use to encourage and limit the effects of media; the gendered family dynamics as it comes to influence children’s acquisition of TV viewing preferences and aggressive play routines; the part that toys and play have in consolidating the expressive re- enactment of aggressive play scripts. But I note that already, with regard to children’s audiences we a have a limitation on this assumption of familial viewing contexts because many of the families we talked to the children are also watching TV in childcare centres, at friends houses and with baby sitters – the home is not the sole context for child audiences nor is the parent the only mediating and adult.

The mothers were clear that their children do respond to the violent media content but do so in a rather complex way. Yet they were less concerned about direct imitation of behaviours observed in animated programming than of a gradual change of attitudes and behaviours that followed from the incorporation of aggressive attitudes into their social play. Most recognized that watching TV influenced what and how their children played. Children identified with the strong heroic characters and were energized and excited about the deeds and exploits they enacted. In this respect the mothers testimony validates Huesmann’s script based theory which focuses on how children internalize the social cognitions associated with the characters, the weapons, and the situations and how the child acts out those ideas and attitudes in their playful interactions.

Work on what kids do with the violent content of television has largely been based on the social learning model (Dubow and Miller 1995). Huessman’s script based theory is probably the most comprehensive explanation of the cognitive process by which children generally assimilate the programming content and actions into their attitudes. But it doesn’t recognize that degree to which children are active audiences, as observed by their mothers often busy working on the connection between the TV programme and play. Reid and Fraser (1980) have noted the playful way children responded to television programmes. Many researchers have noted that kids play using ideas and characters, situations and voices taken from their programmes. In the light of strategies that emphasize these connections between toys and TV Kline has argued that the effects of children’s TV viewing are witnessed in not only in their energized and expressive dimensions of their audience behaviour but in the content, form and structure of their play based on a translation of TV universes into play scripts (Kline 1995, 1999).

This dynamic reading of TV for play was often observed and commented on by these mothers. The implications however have not be assimilated into our theories of child audiences. What their observations suggest, I believe, is that we must understand children’s first forms of reception as the combination of ‘decoding’ and ‘encoding’ activities. Kids not only learn how to understand TV by watching it, they learn how to translate social behaviour into performance routines through play. In this respect too, we notice that gradually over time, the act of being a TV audience is a matter of “decoupling” these two activities. The boys are told that watching is just a passive activity based on understanding – that they must channel their playful expressions of that understanding into a purer form of fantasy.

Bibliography

Agvot http://www.cbsc.ca/english/canada.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/social/tv.htm

Alexander, Alison and Margaret A. Morrison. 1995. Electronic Toyland and the Structures of Power: An Analysis of Critical Studies on Children as Consumers. CSMS, September, pp. 344-353. APPC http://appcpenn.org/kidstv/

Argenta, D.M., Z. Stoneman and G.H. Brody. 1986. The Effects of Three Different Television Programs on Young Children’s Peer Interactions and Toy Play. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 355-371.

Blurton Jones, N.G. 1984. An Ethological Study of Some Aspects of Social Behaviour of Children in Nursery School. Primate Ethology, chapter ten, pp. 347-367.

Bjornebekk. 1992. Commercialization of children’s television-the market force’s invasion of children’s everyday lives? Paper presented in the IAMCR Scientific Conference, Brazil.

Brougere, Gilles. 1987. Play and Culture: The Child between the World of Yesterday and the World of Tomorrow. pp. 149-157 in Eva Balke, ed., Play and Culture, OMEP Seminar OSLO.

Brougere, Gilles and Christine Pincemaille. 1996. From TV-show to game: The Power Rangers example. From the International Toy Research Conference session nr:5.

Brougere, Gilles. Cinema et jouet: l’exemple du Bossu de Notre-Dame des studios Disney. From GREC, Universite Paris-Nord.

Brougere, Gilles (Virginie Prat) English summary Virginie Prat, Student of the Dess en Sciences du Jeu with Gilles Brougère 1998.

Buckingham, David: 1993. Reading Audiences: Young People and the Media. BFI: London

Cantor, Joanne. 1998 http://www.parentstv.org/publications/reports/sr052699.html

Carlson-Paige, N and D. Levin. 1987. The War Play Dilemma: Children’s Needs and Society’s Future. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.

Carlson-Paige, and D Levin, 1988. Young Children and War Play, Educational Leadership Vol 45 (4) pg 80-84.

Cohn, Janice. 1996. Raising Compassionate, Courageous Children In A Violent World. Atlanta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.

Connor, Kathleen, 1989. Aggression: Is it in the Eye of the Beholder? Play and Culture, vol 2. Pp 213-217

Copple, Carol K. , Rodney R. Cocking and Wendy S. Matthews. 1983. Objects, Symbols, and Substitutes: The Nature of the Cognitive Activity during Symbolic Play. In Rubin, K. The Play of Children: Current Theory and Research, Basel New york: Krager .pp. 105-123.

Davie, C.E., S.J. Hutt, Ed. Vincent and M. Mason. 1984. The Young Child at Home. Winsor: NFER_Nelson.

Dill Karen, And Jody Dill. 1998 Video Game Violence: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol 3. (4) pp 407-428

Dubow. E and Miller Laurie 1996. Television Violence Viewing and Aggressive Behavior. Pg 117 in Tannis MacBeth (ed.) Tuning in to Young Viewers. Sage:California pp 117-148

Eaton, B. Carol and Dominick, Joseph R. 1991. Product-related Programming and Children’s TV: A Content Analysis. Journalism Quarterly, vol 68 (1/2) Spring/Summer, pp. 67-75.

Eisenberg, Nancy, Sharlene A. Wolchik, Robert Hernandez and Jeannette F. Pasternack. 1985. Parental Socialization of Young Children’s Play. Child Development, vol. 56, pp. 1506-1513.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, Eugene F. Shaw. 1990. How Synthetic Experience Shapes Social Reality. Journal of Communication, vol. 40 (2) Spring, pp. 75-87.

Furby, Lita and Mary Wilke. 1982. Some Characteristics of Infants’ Preferred Toys. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol 140, pp. 207-219.

Graves, Sherryl, Diversity on Television in Tannis MacBeth (ed.) Tuning in to Young Viewers. Sage:California pp 61-86

Greenfield, Patricia Marks, Emily Yut, Mabel Chung, Deborah Land, Holly Kreider, Maurice Pantoja and Kris Horsley. 1990. The Program-Length Commercial: a Study of the Effects of Television/ Toy Tie-Ins on Imaginative Play. Psychology & Marketing , vol. 7 (4) winter, pp. 237-255.

Goldstein, Jeffery and J. Jukes. 1993. Preference for aggressive toys. International Play Journal, vol. 1, pp. 81-91.

Goldstein, Jeffery, Sex differences in toy play and use of video games. Pp 110 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), 1994. Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Goldstein, Jeffery, 1995 Aggressive Toy Play, in Pelegrini, Anthony ed. The Future of Play Theory, Suny University:Albany. Greenfield, Patricia Emily Yut, Mabel Chung, Deborah Land, Holly Kreider, Mourice Pantoja, Kris Horsley. 1990 Psychology and Marketing, Vol 7(4) pp 237-255

Groebel Jo, 1999, Media Access and Media Use Among 12 year olds in the World. In C and M. in Cecilia von Feilitzen and Ulla Carlsson 1999 Children and Media: Image Education Participation, Yearbook Unesco International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen. Nordicom: Goteborg University

Gunter B. Svennievig. M. 1987 Behind and in front of the screen: Televisions involvement with family life. John Libbey and co. London

Hall, Stuart. 1980. Encoding/ Decoding in Culture, Media, Language. Hall, S. Hobson, D. and Andrew Low, Paul Willis. Ed. London: Hutchinson.

Hamilton, et. al. Television Violence and Public Policy (U of Michigan?) 1998

Hoffman, M.L. 1975. Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent child-interactions. Developmental Psychology. 11(2) 228-239

Huesmann, LR, Guerra, NG, Miller,L Zilla A et al. 1992. The Role of Social Norms in the Development of Aggression. In Zumkley, H and Frczek, A. (Eds) Socialization and Aggression pp 139-152, New York, Springer Verlag

Huesmann, L.R. Moise, JF, Podolski, CL 1997 The Effects of Media Violence on the Development of Antisocial Behaviour. In Stoff DM and Breiling.J (eds) Handbook of Antisocial Behaviour, pp 181-193, New York: John Wiley and Sons

Humphreys, Anne P. and Peter K. Smith. 1987. Rough and Tumble, Friendship, and Dominace in Schoolchildren: Evidence for Continuity and Change with Age. Child Development, vol. 58, pp. 201-212.

Huston, AC, et al. Big World, Small Screen: The role of Television in American Society. Lincoln: University of Nebraska,

Huston, Aletha and John Wright. Television and Socialization of Young Children in Tannis MacBeth (ed.) Tuning in to Young Viewers. Sage:California pp 37-60

Karpoe, Delly and Rachel Olney. 1983. The Effect of Boys’ or Girls’ Toys on Sex-typed Play in Pre-adolescents. Sex Roles, vol 9 (4) pp 507-18.

Kincheloe, Joe and S. Steinberg. 1997. Kindercult: The Corporate Construction of Childhood. Boulder, Wesview Press.

Kinder, Marsha. 1991 Playing with Power in Movies, Television, and Video Games. University of California, Berkeley. Kline, Stephen. 1988. The Limits to the Imagination: Children’s Play in the Age of Marketing. in I Angus and S Jhally, eds. Cultural Politics in America. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kline, Stephen. 1993. Out of the Garden: Toys and Children’s Culture in the Age of TV Marketing. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Kline, Stephen. 1995. The Promotion and Marketing of Toys: Time to Rethink the Paradox? In Anthony D. Pellegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York. pp. 165-185.

Kline, Stephen. 1999. Rescue Heroes Study Technical Report. http://www.sfu.ca/media-lab/research

Korzenny, F. “Styles of Parent-Child Interaction as a Mediating Factor in Children’s Learning form Antisocial Television Portrayals. Ph.D dissertation Ann Arbor, Michichand University Mic rofilsm Internation # 78-10,079, 1977

Korzenny, F, Greenberg, B.S and Atkin. CK 1979 Styles of parental discioplinary practices as mediation of children’s learning from antisocial television portrayals. In D Nimmo ed. Communication Yearbook 3. New Brunswick NJ : Transaction.

Knight, Jane. 1984. Television: Plague or Play Partner? International Association for the Child’s Right to Play, vol VIII, Jan, pp. 5-6.

Leiss, W. Kline, S, Jhally, S. 1990 Social Communication in Advertising. Nelson: Toronto

Liss, Marsha. 1981. Patterns of Toy Play: An Analysis of Sex Differences. Sex Roles vol 7. (11) pp 1143-50

Liss, Marsha, ed. 1983. Social and Cognitive Skills: Sex Roles and Children’s Play. New York: Academic Press.

Livingstone, Sonia, 1998, Audience Research at the Crossroads: The ‘implied audience’ in media and cultural theory, European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol 1(2) pp 193-218

Livingstone, Sonia, Katharine Holden and Moira Bovill. 1999. Children’s Changing Media Environments: Overview of a European Comparative Study. in Cecilia von Feilitzen and Ulla Carlsson 1999 Children and Media: Image Education Participation, Yearbook Unesco International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen. Nordicom: Goteborg University

MacBeth, Tannis M. 1996. Tuning into Young Viewers: Social science perspective on television. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. Pp 149-220 McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding media: the extension of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Media Watch. 1995. Action Bulletin. Toronto: Media Watch.

Morley, David, 1986. Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London: Comedia

Mouritsen, Fleming. 1997 Child Culture –Play Culture in Childhood and Children’s Culture, Esbjerg Denmark Proceedings published by South Jutland University Centre

National Television Monitoring Project http://www.utexas.edu/coc/research/ntvs/

Pecora, Norma. 1995. Children and Television Advertising from a Social Science Perspective. CSMS , Review and Criticism, September, pp. 354-364.

Pulaski, Mary. 1973 Toys and Imaginative Play in Singer ed The Child's World of Make Believe. Academic Press NY..

Pellegrini, Anthony. D. 1995. Boys’ Rough-and-Tumble Play and Social Competence: Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Relations. In Anthony D. Pellegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York, pp. 107-126.

Reeves, Byron and M. Mark Miller. 1978. A Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Identification with Television Characters. Journal of Broadcasting, vol. 22 (1), winter, pp. 71-86.

Reid, Leonard and Charles Frazer, 1980. Television at Play. Journal of Communications, Vol 30 (4) pp 66-73

Rieckien, Glen and Ugur Yavas. 1990. Children’s General, Product and Brand Specific Attitudes Towards Television Commercials: Implications for Public Policy and Advertising Strategy. Integrated Journal of Advertising, 9, pp.136-148.

RosenKoetter, Lawrence, Aletha Huston, John Wright, 1990. Television and the Moral Judgment of the Young Child, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 123- 137

Schroder, Kim, 1994. Audience Semiotics, Interpretive Communities and the “Ethnographic” Turn in Media Research, Media Culture and Society 16: pp 337-47

Seiter, E. 1993. Sold Separately: Children and Parents in Consumer Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers U. Press. Silverstone, R 1994. Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Smith, Peter K. 1995. ‘ Play, Ethology, and Education: A Personal Account’. In Anthony D. Pillegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, State University of New York. pp. 3- 21.

Smith, Peter K. 1994. The War Play Debate, pp 67-84 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Singer, Jerome L. and Dorothy G. Singer. 1981. Television, Imagination, and Aggression: a study of Preschools. New Jersey: LEA Publishing.

Singer, Jerome, (1994) Imaginative play and adaptive development. P 6-26 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), 1994. Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Singer, Jerome, Dorthy Singer, Wanda Rapaczynski 1984 Family Patterns and Television Viewing as Predictors of Children’s Beleifs and Agression, , Journal of Communication, Spring: pg 73-89

Singer, Jerome and Singer, Dorthy. 1976 Family Television Viewing Hapits and the Spontaneous Play of Preschool Children. American Jouranl of Ortho-Psychiatry, 46, pp. 496-502

Snow, Robert P. 1974. How Children Interpret TV Violence in Play Context. Journalism Quarterly, vol. 51 (1), pp. 13-21.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1988. War toys and childhood aggression. Play and Culture, vol. 1, pp. 57-69.

Sutton-Smith, Brian, John Gerstmyer and Alice Meckley. 1988 Playfighting as Folkplay amongst Preschool Children, Western Folklore, July pg 161-176

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Tanner, Ron. 1994. Toy Robots in America, 1955-75: How Japan Really Won the War. Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 28 (3), pp. 125-154.

Tedja, Zuhra. 1994. Creative Play Behaviour with Media-Based and Neutral Toys. Research report submitted for CMNS 320. Varney, Wendy, (forthcoming). "Toys, play and participation" in Brian Martin (ed.), Technology and Public Participation Also at Webstite http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/TPP/tableofcontents.html

Varney, Wendy 1995 “Playing into Corporate Hands: The Hyper-Commercialisation of Children’s Toys” in Stephen Frith, Barbara Biggins and Tracy Newlands (eds.), Marketing Toys: It’s Child’s Play, New College Institute for Values Research, , pp. 57-65.

Wegener-Spohring, Gisela. 1994. War toys and aggressive play scenes. In Goldstein’s Toys, Play and Child Development, chapter 5, pp. 85-109.

Wilson, Barbara J. and Audrey J. Weiss. 1992. Developmental Differences in Children’s Reactions to a Toy Advertisement Linked to a Toy-Based Cartoon. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Fall, pp. 371-394.

Wolf, Thomas M. 1975. Response Consequences To Televised Modeled Sex- Inappropriate Play Behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 127, pp. 35-44.