Available online at www.jmle.org

The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 Measuring the Effects of a Media Literacy Program on Conflict and Violence Erica Scharrer Department of Communication, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA Abstract

A 5-session curricular unit on the topic of face-to-face conflict mediation and on-screen media violence was administered to 85 sixth graders. Repeated measures analyses were employed to study the 57 students for whom matched questionnaires were available. Results show students became more likely to choose a non-aggressive approach to two of three conflict scenarios presented and boys in the sample became more likely to acknowl- edge two of three effects of media violence. Other measures employed suggest a mixed response to the curricu- lum. Implications for successfully promoting media literacy in schools and for addressing interpersonal conflicts among young people are discussed.

Keywords: Conflict, Violence, Mediation, Aggression, Media Effects The effects of media violence have been a Phelps 1980; Irving and Berel 2001; Pinkleton et al. primary concern for researchers interested in the 2007). One potentially fruitful approach in violence-fo- impact of media on thought and behavior. The ways in cused media literacy programs is to encourage children which violent messages in media may affect children to think critically about violence and conflict as they have been of special concern. Research has shown that are presented in media as well as enacted in “real life” exposure to media violence contributes to psychologi- face-to-face conflict situations (Scharrer and Cooks cal effects such as desensitization, fear, and an inflated 2006a, 2006b). The present study is a pilot study that sense of danger and crime (Comstock and Scharrer adds to these findings by highlighting the specific ef- 1999; Potter 1999; Smith et al. 1998). Behavioral ef- fects that one media literacy program had on students’ fects have also been measured, indicating that viewing perceptions about media violence and on their conflict violent media can and does contribute to aggression resolution skills. (Comstock and Scharrer 1999; Potter 1999; Smith et Literature Review al. 1998). As such, the topic is not only considered Conceptualizing and Implementing Media Literacy important for scholarly inquiry, but also for scholarly Varying approaches to conceptualizing and en- intervention. acting media literacy programs has accounted for some Media literacy is one type of intervention that debate (Hobbs 1998; Kubey 1998). However, a level of can be used to help counter effects of media violence agreement has been established on the principles and (Cantor and Wilson 2003). By encouraging children goals of media literacy (Aufderheide 1997). The abili- to think critically about the violence they see in televi- ties to access, analyze, and evaluate a variety of media sion, movies, videogames, and other media, school forms, to understand the relationships between media media literacy programs have the potential to interfere and audiences, to draw connections between media and with the potentially negative effects of media violence. other social actors, and to actively create media define, Media literacy instruction has successfully intervened for the most part, what it means to be media literate in the relationship between media and negative ef- (Aufderheide 1997; Scharrer and Cooks 2006a). Some fects on audience thoughts, opinions, and behaviors important principles that guide media literacy are the on a number of topics (Brown 2001; Dorr, Graves and ideas that media constitute and are constituted by real- E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 13 ity, that media are value-laden, that media function on Media Literacy: Theoretical Foundations a commercial basis, that audience members interpret Approaches to media literacy tend to largely media messages differently, and that aesthetic codes fall into two related but distinct theoretical catego- and conventions are specific to each medium (Aufder- ries: intervention-oriented and cultural studies-based heide 1997). (Kubey 1998). An intervention-oriented approach is Fostering critical thinking is another key based on a media effects model that understands there component of media literacy (Buckingham 1998). to be a relationship between media exposure and audi- However, like media literacy, neither critical thinking, ence thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes. Those oper- nor its cousin critical autonomy (independent critical ating out of this theoretical framework view media thinking) are clear-cut concepts (Ruminski and Hanks literacy as an attempt to intervene in the relationship 1995; Wright 2002). According to Kurfiss (1988), between media and potential effects on audiences. Due critical thinking is the result of an approach to teaching to their limited real-world experience to counter media and learning that raises questions for class discussion, messages (Comstock and Scharrer 2006) and also as opposed to a strict presentation of material. Ediger to their developing sense of identity (Brown 2000), (2001) defines critical thinking as a learning process children are believed to be especially susceptible to that centralizes questioning truth, accuracy, and hon- effects of media. Consequently, interventionists often esty, which is best achieved through a teacher-centered target young people for media literacy instruction. introduction followed by a student-centered discus- Some studies have found that intervention-based me- sion. Christ and Potter (1998) identify the standards set dia literacy programs can indeed mitigate the influence forth by the National Communication Association (for- of media on audiences (Brown 2001; Dorr, Graves and merly Speech Communication Association, or SCA) Phelps 1980; Irving and Berel 2001; Pinkleton et al. that characterize critical thinking as it specifically 2007). relates to media literacy. These standards prioritize an Cultural studies perspectives inform a different ability to analyze and discuss the effects of media, as approach to media literacy. Media literacy researchers well as recognize and utilize the skills needed to com- operating out of the cultural studies framework priori- municate across media (SCA 1996). Combining these tize discussions about media that bring to the forefront ideas in the study at hand, critical thinking in media the enjoyment young people derive from popular cul- literacy is conceptualized as an educator-introduced, ture. This strategy aims to value young people’s lived student-focused discussion in which the accuracy and experiences in order to counter the types of knowledge ethics of media content—as well as its social effects— that are traditionally privileged in the school setting are assessed, and skills to communicate through media (Sholle and Denski 1994). Scholars approaching me- forms are enhanced. dia literacy from this angle tend to see interventionist As young people in the U.S. spend six to eight attempts to “inoculate” young people against negative hours a day with media (Roberts and Foehr 2004) and media effects as problematic (Buckingham 1998; Hart as almost every state in the country now recognizes 1997; Masterman 1985; Tyner 1998). Intervention- the need for media literacy curriculum (Kubey and ists might also be considered judgmental and elitist, Baker 1999; McCannon 2002), the inclusion of media since these scholars may assume they know what is literacy in schools and beyond is expected to be on the best for the youth and take on an authoritative role in rise. On the rise along with this process-oriented media telling them what is right and wrong. Cultural studies- literacy approach is a trend toward results-oriented oriented scholars argue that as a result, interventionist standardized testing in public schools. Though these approaches lead to student resistance to media literacy. two pursuits are not mutually exclusive, assessment measures for media literacy programs become increas- Media Violence and Media Literacy ingly important with this shift. This is especially true Despite these criticisms, most media literacy since new curriculum initiatives are rarely put in place studies pertaining to violence are interventionist-ori- in public schools without first having their effective- ented, likely due to the negative effects associated ness assessed. This study aims to demonstrate an as- with the topic. Three studies in the 1980s began this sessment of the success of a media literacy program on research tradition. Doolittle (1980) found little in the students’ critical attitudes toward media violence and way of success after conducting an eight-session me- conflict. dia literacy curriculum with eleven-year-olds focusing 14 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 on the production aspects of television violence. Two dren were components of the curriculum. While boys, studies by Huesmann and colleagues (Huesmann et but not girls, were found to experience a reduction al. 1983) showed mixed results in the effects of vio- in peer-derived aggression scores after participating, lence-focused media literacy curricula. The first study girls, but not boys, were found to consume less violent with seven- and nine-year-olds who participated in a media, identify with aggressive characters less, and 3-session media literacy program on violence showed feel less positive toward media violence. no decline in the children’s perceptions of reality in Byrne (2009) tested three variations of media television, aggressive behavior, or their identification literacy interventions to determine their effectiveness with aggressive characters three months following a in reducing the negative effects of media violence. curriculum emphasizing the production techniques Nearly 200 fourth and fifth graders were randomly behind television violence. The follow-up study with a assigned to one of three conditions. Results showed different sample of the same-aged children two years that children who participated in the media literacy later showed more positive results after a change in lesson with an activity in which they wrote a para- the focus of the curriculum. Four months after visit- graph about what they had learned and read it aloud to ing the students and asking them to write an essay for a video camera experienced a decline in their will- younger children about the unrealistic nature of televi- ingness to use aggression over time, whereas chil- sion and the negative effects of violent television, dren who participated in the same lesson without the the researchers identified significant changes in their activity experienced an increase in their willingness attitudes toward violence. A reduction in identification to use aggression. As the studies presented here sug- with aggressive characters and a decline in the correla- gest, evaluations of violence-focused media literacy tion between viewing violence and aggression were programs show some potential for intervention but found. have yielded mixed results. The current study adopts Two studies in the 1990s continued this line some of the most successful strategies, such as using a of research. Sprafkin, Watkins, and Gadow (1990) media production activity to summarize the lessons of conducted a media literacy curriculum with children the curriculum and emphasizing the lack of realism in labeled “learning disabled” and “emotionally dis- mediated depictions of violence. turbed,” aged six to twelve. The researchers found an increase in “television knowledge” for all participants Aggression and Conflict Resolution both immediately following and two months after the Some research has been conducted to as- program, and also found that children labeled “emo- sess the effectiveness of conflict resolution programs tionally disturbed” showed decreased identification among middle school aged children. DuRant and col- with aggressive characters. Another study by Voojis leagues (1996) randomly assigned two middle schools and van der Voort (1993) exposed children to inter- with predominantly African-American students to a views with doctors, crime victims, and police officers 5-week, 10-session violence prevention program that discussing the consequences of violent acts and led was either knowledge-based or conflict resolution ori- them through a critical analysis of a television crime ented. Pre-test and post-test surveys revealed that both show clip. Results showed that the children viewed curricula were effective in decreasing self-reported protagonists’ violent actions more critically and con- violence use in hypothetical situations, as well as de- sidered television violence to be less realistic, immedi- creasing the frequency of students’ use of violence and ately following the curriculum and two years later. the frequency of fights they engaged in the previous A decline in aggression was seen—but only 30 days. Peer mediation approaches to conflict resolu- among boys—in Rosenkoetter, Rosenkoetter, Oz- tion have yielded some success with middle schoolers retich, and Acock’s (2004) media literacy study. These (Jones 2004). Sixth through ninth graders who partici- researchers randomly assigned groups of children, pated in peer mediation-oriented conflict resolution grades one through three, to either a 31-session cur- programs have been shown to become more knowl- riculum or to the control group. The media literacy edgeable about conflict processes, become more will- curriculum focused on the unrealistic ways in which ing to negotiate in conflict situations, and exhibit more aggression is used as a problem-solving tool on positive attitudes toward conflict (Dudley 1995; Dud- television. Role playing, media clip analysis, and the ley, Johnson and Johnson 1996; Johnson et al. 1997). production of an educational video for younger chil- Another peer mediation program, called Responding E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 15 in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP), was a 25-ses- H3: Students will be more likely to acknowledge the sion conflict resolution curriculum focusing on prob- negative effects of media violence after the curriculum lem solving, developed for an urban, predominantly compared to before. African-American middle school student population. Prior media literacy curricula on the topic RIPP was also shown to have positive outcomes (Far- of media violence focus on the unrealistic manner rell, Meyer, Kung and Sullivan 2001). In a post-test, in which violence is depicted in the media and the students who participated in RIPP reported that they resulting negative consequences for the thoughts, at- approved less of violent behavior, experienced more titudes, and behaviors of audience members (Byrne support from their peers for nonviolent behaviors, and 2005; Huesmann et al. 1983; Rosenkoetter et al. 2004; physically aggressed with less frequency (Farrell et al. Voojis and van der Voort 1993). The current approach 2001). For these reasons, the current curriculum con- also operates on the assumption that in order to suc- tains elements in which the students role-play and dis- cessfully intervene in the relationship between media cuss conflict mediation in groups of peers. Yet, like the violence and potential negative outcomes, the partici- research on media literacy and violence, the effects of pating media literacy student would have to acknowl- conflict resolution curricula do vary. In another study, edge that negative outcomes are indeed possible, for instance, Kaiser-Ulrey (2004) found no decrease rather than pass media violence off as “just entertain- in violence-related outcomes such as occurrences of ment.” bullying or incidences of victimization after a conflict RQ1: Will students’ conflict styles change after par- resolution program. ticipating in the curriculum? Although they can change in response to Hypotheses and Research Questions specific situations, conflict styles are considered to H1: Students will be less likely to think of violence as be relatively stable general tendencies (Wilmot and acceptable after the curriculum compared to before. Hocker 2000). Therefore, they may or may not be Among the outcomes achieved in previous likely to change in response to a single curricular unit media literacy curricula is the shifting of attitudes as is administered in the current study. Nonetheless, toward media violence toward more criticism and less the potential role of the young person’s general orien- acceptance (Huesmann et al. 1983; Rosenkoetter et al. tation toward conflict in her/his response to the cur- 2004). Due to the focus in the present media literacy ricular unit is important to test. unit on the potentially negative effects stemming from RQ2: Will students’ levels of media exposure influ- exposure to media violence and the “high-risk” ways ence how they respond to the curriculum? in which violence can be presented in the media, a It is possible that the media literacy unit will similar change in attitudes toward violence was pre- be received differently by students with heavy ex- dicted. posure to television and video games—and perhaps H2: Students will be more likely to choose a non-ag- to violence within those television programs and gressive conflict resolution option after the curriculum games—compared to other students. These students compared to before. may be more protective about their own media use The literature on the effects of conflict media- and therefore be resistant to the curriculum. Converse- tion and resolution programs on early adolescents sug- ly, they may find more connections between their own gests such programs can shape students’ choices when lives (i.e., their media use) and the curriculum and in conflict situations, and make peaceful ways of me- apply what they have been learning to more examples diating conflicts more likely (Dudley 1995; Dudley et than their counterparts. Therefore, they may change al. 1996; Farrell et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 1997). The more dramatically than other students. current curriculum also focused on ways to address conflicts that avoid physical and verbal aggression, Methods and discussed such key aspects of successful conflict Curriculum Design resolution as considering attribution of responsibility Little work has been done to research the and perspective-taking. Therefore, a similar move to- effects of joint media literacy/conflict resolution ward non-aggressive conflict strategies was predicted. programs. The current study, therefore, fills a substan- tial gap. The media literacy and violence prevention program implemented for this study was designed to 16 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 foster critical thinking, facilitate media literacy, and stands for Listen (listen carefully to what the other encourage nonviolent conflict resolution. In corre- person is trying to say when in conflict), Think (think spondence with effective critical thinking (Ruminiski about what both you and other person want to achieve and Hanks 1995; Wright 2002) and media literacy that is causing the conflict, think about what the per- (Aufderheide 1997; Byrne 2009) techniques, the son means to you, and think about that person’s point curriculum was designed to begin with an introduc- of view), and then Act (act in ways that show you are tion of material followed by open-ended discussions thinking about and listening to the other person). The and applied activities with students. The “teacher” second, the Lens Model (Wilmot and Hocker 2000), introduced lessons that consisted of summaries of emphasizes the differences in perceptions of the con- main themes from media effects and interpersonal flict and the events surrounding the conflict from the communication research on violence and conflict. multiple people involved. To illustrate this model, the The activities following the lessons were made up of curriculum included the presentation of an example student-centered discussions, interactive activities, of a conflict in which the individuals involved had role-playing exercises, and a media production proj- very different views of what had taken place and why. ect. Finally, the central concept of attribution in conflict This media literacy and violence prevention mediation (Baron 1985; Orvis, Kelley and Butler curriculum heeds some of the cautionary observa- 1976) was introduced, explaining to the sixth graders tions stemming from the cultural studies-based ap- that often when we are in conflict we often find ways proach, while it is organized around an interventionist to escape blame ourselves and assign it to others. Stu- model. For example, the negative effects of exposure dents were then guided through an exercise in which to violent media according to the research evidence they thought of an example of a conflict, considered were presented to students, but “preaching” to stu- multiple ways to address the conflict, and identified dents about what to watch and not watch, or how consequences for each way. Finally, a group exercise much to watch, was not part of the curriculum. In- called for two students to act out a conflict and then stead, students were encouraged to express their own at any point, another student would jump in to change experiences with and opinions about media violence the direction of the conflict by attempting a resolution, and conflict to each other and to the facilitators in an pointing out a new perspective, or interjecting in any open-ended discussion. way. The unit began with a discussion of critical The second major emphasis in the curriculum thinking, defining the term as carefully considering was on the analysis of conflict and violence in media. a topic from multiple points of view and developing The sixth graders were asked how they would define one’s own well-reasoned and well-supported position. whether something in movies, television, and video The process of figuring out whether something is fair, games is violent, and a discussion of possible elements accurate, or reliable was discussed as an important of a definition of media violence ensued. Sixth grad- component of critical thinking. The goals of the cur- ers were also asked whether they think any effects on riculum were shared with the students (to encourage themselves and others may stem from spending time that type of critical thinking about media violence, to with violent media. Then, the three potential effects encourage non-violent resolutions to conflicts) as well of media violence from the literature were introduced as what goals do not entail (to tell them what to watch, (Smith et al. 1998), with the caveat noted that these play, etc.). effects do not mean everyone is influenced the same A unique aspect of this curriculum was the way each time they are exposed to violent media, but combined focus on face-to-face conflict and conflict rather, that such exposure makes one or more of these resolution and mediated conflicts and violence. The effects more likely to occur. The concepts of learning first major section of the curriculum focused on the aggression, becoming desensitized, and experiencing former, and was introduced by asking students to de- the “mean world syndrome” were thus introduced and fine conflict, provide examples, and explain why con- defined. Then, a subsection called The Target is You flict may surface. Three models derived from the liter- provided data about how children’s media, in particu- ature to make sense of conflict and consider effective lar, are replete with violence (Gerbner, Morgan and resolutions were then presented. The first was created Signorielli 1994; Smith et al. 1998) and the sixth grad- by one of the present authors, the LTA Model, which ers fielded an open-ended question about why vio- E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 17 lent media are targeted to kids. These elements were its analysis is beyond the present focus. created to tap into the key questions of media literacy as defined by the Center for Media Literacy (2009): Sample and Research Procedures “How might different people understand this message The participating students were 89 sixth grad- differently from me?” and “Why was this message ers from five different classrooms in three towns with- sent?” in a 20-mile radius from one another, encompassing A number of “high-risk factors” in the portray- a rural town, a college town, and a small post-indus- al of media violence—violence perpetrated by appeal- trial city in New England. The locations were chosen ing characters, justified violence, rewarded violence, because of their proximity to the university and the realistic violence, and lack of consequences in violent classrooms were chosen due to the desire of the teach- portrayals—were then introduced as factors that make ers and principals to participate. Therefore, the sample one or more of those effects more or less likely. The is a non-random convenience sample. Census figures sixth graders were asked to speculate about why each from 2000 indicate that the median yearly household type was associated with heightened risk of an effect, income in the three locations was $42,294. The popu- give examples from their own media experiences of lation of the three towns/cities was 1.3% Black or each type, and look for each type in a series of media African American, 1.4% Asian or Asian American, clips. The factors were identified by Smith and col- 15.1% Latino, and 86% White or Caucasian non-La- leagues (1998) in the National Television Violence tino. The mean age of the sixth graders was 11.71 (SD Study (NTVS) as those that constitute a particular risk = 0.46). Just over half (51.1%) of the students were for older children and adolescents (ages seven to 18) male (48.9% female). to learn aggression from viewing. College students who were enrolled in two up- The two elements of the curriculum were per-level undergraduate seminars, Television Violence woven together by asking the students to compare and and Conflict and Mediation, were the facilitators (or contrast real-life conflicts with those they see enacted “teachers”) who conducted the media literacy ses- on television and in movies and video games. The sions. The use of college students to facilitate the cur- students generally concluded that conflicts are much riculum was designed to promote their own learning more likely to result in violence in the media than in as well as to avoid the sixth graders feeling that they real-life, and the facilitators supplied some statistics were being judged, as they presumably would with from media violence content analyses to support this an authority figure such as a college professor. The conclusion. When analyzing media clips to look for college students met weekly with the authors to design high-risk factors, the sixth graders also assessed how a reading packet that would serve as a guide for the conflict is depicted in the clip and how it could have curricular unit, to choose media clips to analyze with been resolved differently. Therefore, in analyzing how the sixth graders, and to practice implementing the some ways of telling violent stories in the media are lessons. Thus, they received about 9 hours of training privileged over others (e.g., lack of consequences), before conducting the sessions. The authors observed the question was posed: “What lifestyles, values, and the media literacy sessions and provided feedback. points of view are embedded in this message?” (Cen- Before the curriculum was administered, the authors ter for Media Literacy 2009). met with some of the teachers and principals to get The final component of the curriculum for the their input. The corresponding changes were applied sixth graders was scripting, acting out, and videotap- to all classroom settings so that the media literacy pro- ing of a public service announcement (PSA) on media gram was administered consistently. The curriculum violence or conflict resolution. After explaining why was implemented in five one-hour visits to the sixth- creating media is also an important part of media lit- grade classrooms. eracy and after defining PSAs, the sixth graders were assigned a topic from within the curriculum (e.g., the Measurement lens model, rewarded violence in the media, violence Data collection occurred in the form of a in children’s media, etc.) to be used to inform and pre-unit questionnaire administered by the research- persuade third and fourth graders on the topic. The ers before the curriculum had begun and a post-unit sixth graders produced clever and creative PSAs and questionnaire administered by the classroom teach- enjoyed this aspect of the curriculum very much, but ers approximately one week after the curriculum had 18 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 ended. The pre-test questionnaire was designed to ways in which the youngsters approached conflict measure pre-existing attitudes and thinking about the situations. A 12-item scale was employed consisting of topic of conflict and violence in the media. Those items created by the authors that mirrored the dimen- responses were compared with the responses reported sions of the selecting items from the Kilmann-Thomas by the sixth graders after the visits to their classes had conflict MODE instrument (1977). The items asked ended to determine whether any change occurred. the students to report how often they take the follow- To examine changes in attitudes toward vio- ing approaches when in an argument, with response lence, the eight items comprising the General Beliefs options ranging from “never” to “always” on a five- component of Huesmann and Guerra’s (1997) revised point scale. The scale included two items to measure Normative Beliefs about Aggression (NOBAGS) scale the avoiding style (e.g., “I don’t talk about things that was employed. This scale was designed for young might cause a conflict,” “I keep quiet about my views respondents and has been tested for validity and reli- in order to keep others from arguing”), three items to ability and includes such items as “In general, is it measure the competing style (“I keep arguing until my OK to take your anger out on others by using physi- point is accepted,” “I raise my voice when trying to cal force (like punching)?” “If you’re angry, is it OK get other to see my point of view”), two items to mea- to say mean things to other people?” and “Is it wrong sure the collaborating style (“I try to use everyone’s to make other people feel bad with insults or mean ideas when solving a problem”), three items to mea- words?” with response options including “It’s per- sure the accommodating style (“I tell myself that the fectly OK,” “It’s sort of OK,” “It’s sort of wrong,” and argument is not a big deal,” “I try to make disagree- “It’s really wrong.” In the present sample, the NO- ments seem like they’re not important”) and two items BAGS scale was reliable at both pre-curriculum data to measure the compromising style (“I’m willing to collection (α = .86) and post (α = .92). give in a little if the other person is, too,” “I settle In order to determine if the sixth graders differences by meeting the other person halfway”). change their conflict resolution tactics away from The five styles have been shown in past research to verbal or physical aggression and toward non-violent encompass two main dimensions, an assertiveness mediation strategies, a number of conflict scenarios approach in which one’s own wishes in the conflict are were created by the authors and the students were paramount and a cooperativeness approach in which a asked how they would respond to each. Three sce- desire to satisfy the other’s wishes is central (Thomas narios in which conflicts surface between two or more and Kilmann 1974). individuals were presented to the students (see Ap- Lastly, the authors created measures designed pendix) and response options unique to each scenario to determine whether students learned about the three were presented. There was a common logic across the potential negative influences of violent television. three scenarios in that each contained (1) either an These items test both the ability to grasp key concepts indirect aggressive response (starting rumors, exclud- covered in the curriculum and the students’ agree- ing people, etc.) or a verbally aggressive response, ment that media violence, can, indeed, have a negative (2) a physically aggressive response, and (3) a media- influence, a key issue in taking the topic seriously. tion/talking through problems response. In the first, “People who watch a lot of TV may get the idea that one girl breaks a promise to a friend to keep an embar- the real world is a mean and scary place,” measured rassing secret and instead tells other classmates. In the acknowledgment of the mean world syndrome. “The second scenario, a boy publicly makes fun of another more people see violence in the media, the more likely boy for getting a bad grade on a test. In the third, two they are to think violence is an OK way to solve a boys laughed as they played a joke on another by conflict” measured acknowledgment of learning ag- pulling his chair out from under him as he was sitting gression. Finally, “Watching a lot of violence on TV down, causing him to fall. In each scenario, students can make it seem like violence is common in real life” were also able to provide an “other” response, filling measured acknowledgment of desensitization effects in the blank to indicate what it would be. of violence. For these items, a score of 1 meant the An additional set of items measured the re- students strongly agreed that the effect occurs and 5 spondents’ conflict styles for the purpose of determin- meant they strongly disagreed. ing whether learning about the models and perspec- A number of items both pre- and post-cur- tives used in conflict mediation would change the ricular unit posed open-ended questions pertaining to E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 19 interpersonal conflict and mediated violence. Students’ significantly different post-curriculum compared to responses to a media clip analysis exercise were uti- pre-curriculum (χ2 = 15.91, p < .001, Kendall’s Τ = lized to assess the curriculum, as well. However, these .61, p < .001). There was also a significant difference qualitative items are outside the present focus of this in overall responses to the third scenario, in which a paper. classmate intentionally causes another classmate to fall and then laughs (χ2 = 4.85, p < .05, Kendall’s Τ = Results .36, p < .05). Therefore, there is evidence that some Data were analyzed only for those students sixth graders moved from aggressive to non-aggres- present on each of the days on which the curriculum sive responses in two of the three conflict scenarios was taught and who completed matched pre-curricu- after participating, with the corresponding counts and lum questionnaires and post-curriculum question- percentages indicated in bold in the table. (There is naires. This reduced the sample to 57 of the original also evidence in the table that a very few students—6 89, but allowed for the use of Repeated Measures for the first scenario and 1 each for the second and ANOVA to examine within-subjects change. In each third—demonstrated the “boomerang” effect of choos- of the following analyses, gender was entered as a ing a non-aggressive response pre-curriculum and an between-subjects variable. aggressive response post-curriculum.) The difference in pre-curriculum responses to H3, which predicted that students would be the Normative Beliefs about Aggression (NOBAGS) more likely to acknowledge the negative effects of items and post-curriculum responses were arrayed in media violence after the curriculum compared to the expected direction, but did not reach statistical before, received minimal support from these data. significance (see table 1). Results did not change when Two of the three potential negative outcomes associ- students’ levels of television and video game expo- ated with exposure to media violence—mean world sure were each entered as covariates in the equation, syndrome and learning aggression—appeared to be addressing RQ2. Thus, no support can be claimed for learned (and implicitly agreed with), but only by the H1, which had predicted that students would be less boys and not the girls in the sample. For the third likely to think of violence as acceptable after the cur- negative media violence outcome, desensitization, a riculum compared to before. change from pre- to post-curriculum occurred only H2 predicted that the sixth graders would be when the students’ television and video game expo- more likely to choose a peaceful, non-aggressive reso- sure were each entered as covariates. (Entering these lution to the conflict scenarios after participating in the covariates in the analysis made no difference for curriculum compared to before. Chi square was used mean world syndrome and learning aggression media to test this hypothesis, as the responses to the conflict effects.) Thus, mixed evidence is found in exploring scenarios were measured at the ordinal level. For all RQ2, with students’ media exposure levels having a three scenarios, the most common pattern was no significant contribution in their responses to the cur- change from pre- to post-test scenario responses (see riculum in one of three instances. Table2). The majority of participants chose a non-ag- The sample did not demonstrate an overall gressive response to the conflict scenarios both pre- increase in agreement that people who watch a lot curriculum and post. A handful of participants were of television may get the idea that the real world is a consistent in choosing the aggressive response to each mean and scary place from pre-curriculum to post-cur- scenario at pre as well as post. riculum responses. However, results revealed a gen- However, change toward non-aggressive der interaction, in which girls in the sample became responses occurred for two of the three conflict sce- less likely to agree that mean world syndrome effects narios, lending partial support to this hypothesis (see occur (pre-curriculum M = 2.85, SD = 0.93 post-cur- table 2). Responses to the first scenario, involving riculum M = 3.55, SD = 1.10) and boys became more one friend exposing another friend’s secret to others, likely to do so (pre-curriculum M = 3.03, SD = 1.38 did not achieve statistical significance, although the post-curriculum M = 2.62, SD = 1.42), F (1, 52) = results largely arrayed in the expected direction (χ2 = 5.31, p < .05, η2 = .09, see table 1. 3.49, p = .08, Kendall’s Τ = .30, p = .08). Responses Similarly, there was no significant within- to the second scenario, in which a student’s poor subjects change in agreement that television violence performance on an exam is ridiculed by others, were exposure can lead people to think violence is an ac- 20 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 ceptable way to solve a conflict. However, once again, To explore RQ1, once again, a Repeated gender played a role, with girls becoming less likely to Measures ANOVA was run to look within subjects at agree with the statement (and therefore acknowledge changes between pre- and post-curriculum, with gen- the effect) (pre-curriculum M = 3.20, SD = 1.15 post- der entered as a between-subjects factor and television curriculum M = 3.65, SD = 1.27) and boys more likely and video game exposure as covariates. There was no in a result that approaches statistical significance (pre- change in the frequency with which students reported curriculum M = 3.31, SD = 1.28 post-curriculum M = using cooperative conflict resolution styles before (M 2.97, SD = 1.32), F (1, 52) = 3.40, p = .06, η2 = .06, = 18.56, SD = 3.43) compared to after (M = 18.65, SD see table 1. = 4.06) the curriculum, F (1, 50) = 0.23, ns. Neither The desensitization item (“Watching a great gender nor the media exposure covariates contributed deal of violence on TV can make it seem like violence meaningfully to these results. Likewise, there was is common in real life”) showed neither an overall no difference in the tendency to report that when in within-subjects change from pre- to post-curriculum, conflict “I keep arguing until my point is accepted,” nor a significant gender interaction (see Table 1). (pre-curriculum M = 2.93, SD = 1.01 post-curriculum However, when the analysis was run with students’ M = 2.96, SD = 1.18), F (1, 52) = 0.02, ns) and no re- television and video game exposure levels entered as lationship with gender or either of the media exposure covariates, within-subjects change did occur from pre- variables. No within subjects change occurred for the (M = 3.32, SD = 1.12) to post-curriculum (M = 3.79, “I raise my voice when trying to get others to see my SD = 1.15), F (1, 30) = 12.11, p <.01, η2 = .29) toward point of view” item, although there was a significant less agreement with the statement. A significant inter- gender interaction. Females were less likely to report action occurred in this analysis, as well, with students’ using this conflict resolution style after the curriculum levels of television exposure (F [1, 30] = 6.47, p = .01, (M = 3.56, SD = 0.95) compared to before (M = 3.20, η2 = .18). Heavy television exposure, therefore, ap- SD = 0.95), whereas males were more likely to do so pears to be associated in this case with a “boomerang (pre-curriculum M = 3.01, SD = 1.28 post-curriculum effect” from the curriculum. M = 2.82, SD = 1.06), F (1, 52) = 5.28, p < .05, η2 = The first research question asks whether stu- .09. Finally, no within subjects change or interaction dents’ conflict management styles would change after with gender occurred in agreement with the item “I participating in the curriculum. In order to explore this take a tough stand, refusing to give in,” but a signifi- RQ, first the data were reduced. A principal compo- cant interaction emerged with video game exposure, nents factor analysis was run on all of the conflict F (1, 30) = 4.71, p < .05, η2 = .04. Thus, on balance, styles items in the pre-curriculum data to investigate there is little evidence that conflict styles changed in the factor structure. Ten of the 12 items loaded cleanly response to participating in this curriculum. onto one of two factors, one containing roughly all of the non-aggressive cooperative conflict style items (7 Discussion items spanning avoidant, cooperative, and dismissive This study builds on our own past media lit- styles) and the other containing all three more aggres- eracy initiatives (Scharrer and Cooks 2006a, 2006b) sive assertiveness conflict items. Thus, the data fit the and employs a rather novel approach in which two expected dimensions of this measure well (Kilman ways of addressing the issue of aggression in young and Thomas 1977). The two remaining items were people that are typically quite disparate, media literacy dropped from the analysis. An additive index was then and conflict resolution, are brought together in a uni- formed with all of the non-aggressive conflict style fied curriculum. Thus, it is a pilot study, exploring the items, and it was determined that dropping one addi- possibility that such a combined curricular approach tional item would increase the Cronbach’s α from .60 might shift attitudes toward media violence as well as to .64. Therefore, 6 items spanning multiple coopera- encourage more peaceful responses when faced with tive conflict styles were added together to form this a real-life conflict. Drawing from past violence-ori- index, with an α of .64 at both the pre-curriculum and ented media literacy attempts (Byrne 2009; Huesmann the post. The 3 assertive conflict style items formed a et al. 1983; Rosenkoetter et al. 2004; Sprafkin et al. reliable index at the pre-curriculum (α = .66) but not 1990; Voojis and van der Voort 1993) as well as prior at the post (α = .44). Therefore, those 3 items were conflict resolution approaches for early adolescents treated individually. (Dudley 1995; Dudley et al. 1996; Farrell et al. 2001; E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 21 Johnson et al. 1997), in the present project these two potentially problematic for these two reasons, which elements were integrated. The reasoning behind the could, perhaps, inspire them to think more critically combined approach was that media violence concerns about the violence in the media they consume and largely stem from the potential of violence exposure ultimately discourage their own potential negative to encourage the learning of aggression (Comstock response. and Scharrer 1999; Potter 1999; Smith et al. 1998). However, troubling results emerge as well, as In young people’s lives, opportunities to act aggres- seen in the tendency for the girls in the sample to have sively often occur when they are faced with a conflict. what could be called a “boomerang” response to the Therefore, we believe a curriculum that combines the curriculum for some of the items. They became signif- critical analysis of media violence with the facilitation icantly less likely to agree that mean world syndrome of positive conflict mediation skills is fruitful. and learning aggression effects can stem from media Another aspect of the present approach that violence exposure, which suggests a certain resistance makes it somewhat unique is that although it clearly to this aspect of the curriculum. Interestingly, Rosen- stems from an interventionist, media effects paradigm, koetter and colleagues (2004) also found boys, but not it is also informed by the admonitions against harsh girls, to respond more favorably in some measures judgments and teacher-as-sole-expert lessons that have (i.e., to experience a reduction in peer-derived aggres- surfaced among more cultural studies-oriented me- sion scores) after participating in their curriculum. dia literacy scholars (Buckingham 1998; Hart 1997; Nonetheless, the fact that girls rather than boys (who, Masterman 1985; Sholle and Denski 1994; Tyner once again, had the intended response to the curricu- 1998). By employing college students as the facilita- lum on these items) had a “boomerang” outcome is tors, by allowing room for discussion of the pleasure quite surprising, since past research shows boys tend that media bring to young people (and to the college to be more likely to be resistant to criticism of media students, as well), and by encouraging critical think- violence (Bushman and Cantor 2003) and Rosenkoet- ing by beginning with the presentation of information ter and colleagues (2004) showed girls but not boys and then opening up the discussion to students’ views, experienced a number of encouraging responses to opinions, and experiences (Ediger 2001; Kurfiss their violence-oriented curriculum, including feeling 1988), we attempted to avoid the pitfalls of some past less positively toward media violence (Rosenkoetter interventions. et al. 2004). Clearly, the role of gender in students’ The data yield both promising and troubling responses to media literacy is complex and should be results, as well as some results that are equivocal at examined further. this time. Promising results emerge in the analyses The data also revealed the possibility that of the responses to the conflict scenarios posed to the young people’s levels of average television and video sixth graders. In two of the three scenarios, there is game exposure can contribute to a boomerang effect, evidence of change from a more aggressive response as was the case for the desensitization item. Results (employing physical threats or actions or, more mod- showed that heavy television viewers became less erately, indirect or verbally aggressive strategies) likely to agree that media exposure can make violence toward a non-aggressive mediation of the conflict. In seem common in real life after participating in the the third, there is also evidence of such change, but it curriculum. To the best of our knowledge, the study at falls just short of statistical significance. Thus, when hand is one of the only existing studies to examine the presented with a conflict that may realistically surface potentially important mitigating variable of students’ in the life of a 12-year-old, there is some indication typical levels of media exposure. It stands to reason that participating in the curriculum was associated that heavy media use among students might contribute with choosing a non-aggressive way to address the to greater resistance to a critical media literacy cur- situation. Also promising is the pattern of results that riculum. That possibility, suggested in some results in shows for the males in the sample; significant change the current study, should be taken up further in future in their responses occurred which indicates greater intervention analyses. acknowledgment of two of the three major negative Other researchers have discussed the potential effects of exposure to media violence, the mean world of certain aspects of media literacy curricula to pro- syndrome and the learning of aggression. The boys duce the opposite outcome as intended. Austin and became more likely to see media violence exposure as colleagues, for instance, have experienced “paradoxi- 22 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 cal” results in some of their work meant to encourage largely attributable to the students’ participation in the critical thinking about media’s role in young people’s curriculum. attitudes and behaviors around tobacco use (Austin, An additional limitation is that pre- and post- Pinkleton and Funabiki 2007). In follow-up analyses, curriculum data could only be matched up for 57 of they determined that positive rather than negative af- the original 89 participating students. Some students fect toward the media text(s) being critiqued in me- failed to put their names, initials, number codes or dia literacy instruction—the paradox or boomerang other identifying marks on one or both of their ques- effect—can occur due to greater understanding of the tionnaires. Other students were absent on one or more process involved in creating the text(s) to be appeal- of the data collection days or for one or more of the ing to audiences. Byrne (2009) advances construct sessions of the curriculum and therefore were exclud- activation and priming processes as explanations for ed from the final sample. The result is that power is boomerang effects in media literacy. Nathanson and compromised in the analyses. It is possible that some Botta (2003) found that critical comments about body of the results that approached significance would have size and shape of media characters by parents meant achieved significance with a larger sample, but only to help young people can actually lead to greater pro- future research can determine if that is the case. cessing of those images and subsequent negative emo- The use of college students as the facilita- tion. Why such unintended outcomes occur for some tors of the program could pose a limitation to the participants and not for others and for some measures study, as well. It is possible that there were threats and not others should be the subject of future stud- to implementation fidelity since different groups of ies across the spectrum of media literacy analysis (in college students worked with different classrooms. violence, body image, etc.). This possibility was limited by the extensive training Finally, we would characterize some of the of all participating college students, as well as the fact results of the present study as equivocal, including that every session was observed by one or more of the fact that the change in attitudes toward aggression the authors. However, variation is still likely to exist. occurred in the predicted direction (toward more criti- Furthermore, although we have studied the learning cism/less acceptance) but did not achieve statistical and experiences of the participating college students significance. Future research with a larger sample size in similar media literacy programs in the past (Schar- should explore whether this was a function of reduced rer and Cooks 2006b), no formal data were gathered power in the present study. Furthermore, there was no in this particular iteration. The college students wrote real evidence that a curriculum such as the one em- reflection papers and journal entries, however, which ployed here can stimulate a change in young people’s do show they found the experience beneficial, memo- overall approach to conflict as measured by their rable, and gratifying. conflict styles. This is not too surprising given the Despite these central limitations, as well as the considerable stability of conflict styles within one’s possibility of social desirability bias operating in the personality (Wilmot and Hocker 2000), but it shows, data and a curriculum that was perhaps too crowded or nonetheless, the challenge of this sort of work. overly ambitious, there are enough provocative re- Because we did not employ a control group, sults to justify expansion of this line of research in the we cannot claim unambiguously that changes in re- future. In order for media literacy to gain institutional sponses reported before compared to after the curricu- recognition and permanence, data are needed to show lum were caused by the media literacy instruction. The which approaches are most likely to be beneficial to lack of a control group that did not participate in the students and which are less so. And, in order to help curriculum precludes the ruling out of some external young people to negotiate the conflicts and difficulties influence (rather than the curriculum itself) contribut- they experience in their day-to-day lives, the enor- ing to changes in the sixth graders’ responses. Howev- mous appeal of media should be harnessed to present er, practically speaking, it would be difficult to fathom a relevant, interesting, and multi-faceted approach to an external influence that would shape the knowledge the topic in school. If such curricula can effectively and attitudes of dozens of sixth graders in five differ- challenge media models in which conflict is met with ent classrooms in three separate locations. Thus, we aggression and encourage among young people a more present our pre- and post-curriculum comparisons peaceful approach to conflict, they deserve a place in with a fair degree of confidence that they are, indeed, the classroom. E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 23 Table 1. Repeated measures ANOVA, N = 57.

Pre-test Post-test means means F df sig. η2 M F M F ______Normative beliefs 27.64 28.50 27.05 28.78 about aggression index (4.80) (3.73) (5.50) (3.61) 0.54 1, 38 ns .00

Mean world syndrome 3.03 2.85 2.62 3.55 item* (1.38) (0.93) (1.42) (1.10) 5.31 1, 52 < .05 .09

Learning aggression 3.31 3.20 2.97 3.65 item* (1.28) (1.15) (1.32) (1.27) 3.40 1, 52 .06 .06

Desensitization (violence 3.45 3.33 3.90 3.67 is common) item* (0.99) (1.24) (1.07) (1.28) 0.07 1, 36 ns .00

* Coded so that higher responses indicate less agreement that such a media effect is likely to occur. 24 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 Table 2. Cross-tabulations with chi-square, measuring changes in responses to conflict scenarios from pre-cur- riculum to post-curriculum. Post-curriculum Scenario 1: Exposing your secret Aggressive Non-aggressive response response Pre-curriculum ______Aggressive response n = 6 n = 17 50.0% 55.4%

Non-aggressive response n = 6 n = 12 50.0% 44.6%

χ2 = 3.49, p = .08, Kendall’s Τ = .30, p = .08

Scenario 2: Ridiculing your test grade Aggressive Non-aggressive response response ______Aggressive response n = 8 n = 6 88.9% 18.2%

Non-aggressive response n = 1 n = 27 11.1% 81.8%

χ2 = 15.91, p < .001, Kendall’s Τ = .61, p < .001

Scenario 3: Tripping you and laughing Aggressive Non-aggressive response response ______Aggressive response n = 2 n = 5 66.7% 14.7%

Non-aggressive response n = 1 n = 29 33.3% 85.3%

χ2 = 4.85, p < .05, Kendall’s Τ = .36, p < .05

1 The loadings for the first component were make disagreements seem not important .65, make our differences seem less serious .63, tell myself the argument is not a big deal .54, keep quiet about my views to keep others from arguing .52, meet other person halfway .51, willing to give in a little if other person does, too .50, rather not say anything at all than argue .48. For the second component: keep arguing until my point is accepted .74, raise voice when trying to get others to see my point of view .70, take a tough stand, refus- ing to give in .58. The first component had an eigenvalue of 2.37 and explained 19.72% of the variance in the concept and the second component had an eigenvalue of 2.03 and explained an additional 16.9% of the variance. E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 25 References Aufderheide, Patricia. 1997. Media literacy: From a Dudley, Bruce S. 1995. Peer mediation and negotia- report of the national leadership conference on tion in the middle school: An investigation of media literacy. In Media Literacy in the Infor- training effects. Dissertation Abstracts Inter- mation Age: Current Perspectives, ed. Robert national Section A: Humanities and Social Kubey, 79-86. New Brunswick, NJ: Transac- Science, 56(1-A). tion. Dudley, Bruce S., David W. Johnson, and Roger Baron, Robert A. 1985. Reducing organizational con- Johnson. 1996. Conflict-resolution training and flict: The role of attribution. Journal of Applied middle school students’ integrative negotiation Psychology 70: 434-441. behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology Brown, James A. 2001. Media literacy and critical 26: 2038-2052. television viewing in education. In Handbook DuRant, Robert H., Frank Treiber, Alan Getts, Karl of Children and the Media, ed. Dorothy G. McCloud, Charles W. Linder, and Elizabeth Singer and Jerome L. Singer, 681-697. Thou- R. Woods. 1996. Comparison of two violence sand Oaks, CA: Sage. prevention curricula for middle school adoles- Buckingham, David. 1998. Media education in the cents. Journal of Adolescent Health 19: 111- UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of 117. Communication 48(1): 33-43. Ediger, Marlow. 2001. Assessing methods of teaching Bushman, Brad J., and Joanne Cantor. 2003. Media in the school setting. Education 122(1): 123- ratings for violence and sex: Implications for 128. policymakers and parents. American Psycholo- Farrell, Albert D., Robert Valois, and Aleta Meyer. gist 58(2): 130-141. 2002. Evaluations of the RIPP-6 violence Byrne, Sahara. 2005. “Effective and Lasting Media prevention at a rural middle school. American Literacy Interventions.” Paper presented at the Journal of Health and Education 33(3): 167- annual meeting of the International Communi- 172. cation Association, May 26-30, in New York, Gerbner, George, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Si- NY. gnorielli. 1994. Television Violence Profile no. ———2009. Media literacy interventions: What 16. Unpublished manuscript, The Annenberg makesthem boom or boomerang? Communica- School of Communication, University of Penn- tion Education 58: 1-14. sylvania, Philadelphia. Cantor, Joanne, and Barbara J. Wilson. 2003. Media Hart, Andrew. 1997. Textual pleasures and moral and violence: Intervention strategies for reduc- dilemmas: Teaching media literacy in England. ing aggression. Media Psychology 5: 363-403. In Media Literacy in the Information Age, ed. Center for Media Literacy. 2009. Five key questions Robert Kubey, 199-211. New Brunswick, NJ: that can change the world. Center for Media Transaction. Literacy. http://www.medialit.org/reading_ Hobbs, Renee. 1998. The seven great debates in the room/rr6.php. media literacy movement. Journal of Commu- Christ, William G., and W. James Potter. 1998. Media nication 48(1):16-32. literacy, media education, and the academy. Huesmann, L.Rowell, Leonard D. Eron, Rosemary Journal of Communication 48(1): 5-15. Klein, Patrick Brice, and Paulette Fischer. Comstock, George, and Erica Scharrer. 1999. Televi- 1983. Mitigating the imitation of aggressive sion: What’s On, Who’s Watching, and What it behavior by changing children’s attitudes about Means. San Diego: Academic Press. media violence. Journal of Personality and Doolittle, John C. 1980. Immunizing children against Social Psychology 44: 899-910. possible antisocial effects of viewing television Huesmann, L.Rowell, and Nancy G. Guerra. 1997. violence: A curricular intervention. Perceptual Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and Motor Skills 51: 498. and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personal- Dorr, Aimee, Sherryl Graves, and Erin Phelps. 1980. ity and Social Psychology 72(2): 408-419. Television literacy for young children. Journal of Communication 30(3): 71-83. 26 E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 Irving, Lori M. and Susan R. Berel. 2001. Compari- Pinkleton, Bruce E., Erica Weintraub Austin, Marilyn son of media literacy programs to strengthen Cohen, Yvonnes Chen, and Erin Fitzgerald. college women’s resistance to media images. 2007. Effects of a peer-led media literacy Psychology of Women Quarterly 25: 103. curriculum on adolescents’ knowledge and Johnson, David W., Roger Johnson, Bruce Dudley, attitudes toward sexual behavior and media James Mitchell, and Joel Frederickson. 1997. portrayals of sex. Health Communication The impact of conflict resolution training on 23(5): 462-472. middle school students. Journal of Social Psy- Potter, W. James. 1999. On Media Violence. Thousand chology 137(1): 11-22. Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, Tricia S. 2004. Conflict resolution education: Roberts, Donald F. and Ulla G. Foehr. 2004. Kids & The field, the findings, and the future. Media in America. Cambridge, UK: Cam- Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(3): 233-267. bridge University Press. Kaiser-Ulrey, Cheryl L. 2004. Bullying in middle Robinson, Thomas N., Marta L. Wilde, Lisa C. Navra- school: A study of B.E.S.T.—Bullying Elimi- cruz, K. Farish Haydel, and Ann Varady. 2001. nated from Schools Together: An anti-bullying Effects of reducing children’s television and program for seventh grade students. Disserta- video game use on aggressive behavior: A ran- tion Abstracts International, Section B: Science domized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Engineering, 64(7-B). and Adolescent Medicine 155(1): 17-23. Kilmann, Ralph H., and Kenneth Thomas. 1977. De- Rosenkoetter, Lawrence I., Sharon E. Rosenkoetter, veloping a forced-choice measure of conflict Rachel A. Ozretich, and Alan C. Acock. 2004. handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Mitigating the harmful effects of violent televi- Educational and Psychological Measurement sion. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- 37(2): 309-325. chology 25: 25-47. Kubey, Robert. 1998. Obstacles to the development of Ruminiski, Henry J., and William E. Hanks. 1995. media education in the U.S. Journal of Com- Critical thinking lacks definition and uniform munication 48(1): 58-69. evaluation criteria. Journalism & Mass Com- Kubey, Robert, and Frank Baker. 1999. Has media munication Educator 50(3): 4-12. literacy found a curricular foothold? Education Scharrer, Erica and Leda Cooks, 2006a. “In Real Life Week: 56. They Don’t Use Anvils: A Media Literacy Kurfiss, Joanne G. 1988. Critical thinking. ASHE- Curriculum on Conflict and Violence.” Paper ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Wash- presented at the annual meeting of the Inter- ington, DC: Association for the Study of national Communication Association, June Higher Education. 19-23, in Dresden, Germany. Masterman, Len. 1985. Teaching the Media. London: Scharrer, Erica and Leda Cooks, 2006b. Violence, Routledge. conflict, and community service-learning: McCannon, Bob. 2002. Media literacy: What? Why? Measuring impact on students and community. How? In Children, Adolescents, & the Media, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and ed. Victor C. Strasburger and Barbara J. Wil- Engagement 11(1): 71-86. son, 322-367. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sholle, David, and Stan Denski. 1994. Media Educa- Nathanson, Amy I., and Renee A. Botta. 2003. Shap- tion and the (Re)Production of Culture. West- ing the effects of television on adolescents’ port, CT: Bergin & Garvey. body image disturbance: The role of parental Smith, Stacy, Barbara J. Wilson, Dale Kunkel, Daniel mediation. Communication Research 30(3): Linz, W. James Potter, Carolyn M. Colvin, and 304-331. Edward Donnerstein. 1998. Vol. 3 of National Orvis, Bruce R., Harold H. Kelley, and Deborah Television Violence Study: Executive summary. Butler. 1976. Attributional conflict in young Santa Barbara: Center for Communication and couples. In New directions in attribution Social Policy, University of California. research, ed. John H. Harvey, William John Speech Communication Association. 1996. Speaking, Ickes, and Robert F. Kidd, 353-386. Hillsdale, Listening, and Media Literacy Standards for K NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. through 12 Education. Annandale, VA: Author. E. Scharrer / Journal of Media Literacy Education 1 (2009) 12-27 27 Sprafkin, Joyce, Theresa Watkins, and Kenneth D. Gadow. 1990. Efficacy of a television literacy curriculum for emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 11: 225-244. Thomas, Kenneth W. and Robert H. Kilmann. 1974. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument. http://www.kilmann.com/conflict.html. Tyner, Katherine. 1998. Literacy in a Digital World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Voojis, Marcel W., and Tom H.A.van der Voort. 1993. Learning about television violence: The impact of a critical viewing curriculum on children’s attitudinal judgments of crime series. Journal of Research and Development in Education 26(3): 133-142. Wilmot, William W. and Joyce L. Hocker. 2000. In- terpersonal Conflict. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill. Wright, Ian. 2002. Challenging students with the tools of critical thinking. The Social Studies 93(6): 257-261.