The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on the Television Viewing Habits of Children

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

Drexel University

Tiffany L. Perry-Harrison

in partial fulfillment for the

requirements for the degree

Master of Science in Television Management

July 2015

iii

Dedications

This thesis is dedicated to my daughter Annalise, the inspiration for all that I do, my motivation to be better today than I was yesterday. I love you.

Acknowledgments

Many people deserve acknowledgment from me, as they have helped me get to this final step, and for them, I am truly grateful.

● To my husband, Martin: Thank you for your continued love, encouragement, and support throughout this process. Without you stepping in and being mommy and daddy some nights, I would not have been able to complete this paper. ● To my baby, Annalise: Thank you for giving me a reason to be better. I know that you are watching and because of that, I must be my best so that you can be yours. Mommy loves you. ● To my mother, Lynette: Thank you for continually holding me accountable for completing this degree. You pushed me when I did not want to be pushed, and it is because of that pushing that I am at this point. I love and thank you. ● To my father, Al: You have supported every venture I have ever embarked upon. Though you do not truly support “cheerleading,” you are my biggest cheerleader. Thank you for making sure I learned the hard lessons. I am proud to call you my dad, and I hope that I have done you proud with this accomplishment. ● To my graduate advisor, Al: Thank you for supporting me through my matriculation in the television management program. I have taken the road less traveled to get to this point, and I appreciate all the grace that you have afforded me throughout the process. ● To my thesis advisor, Michelle: Thank you for guiding me through the course of writing a paper of this magnitude. I appreciate every time you’ve answered a question, looked over my research and corrections you’ve made. Thank you.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ. It is because of him that I am blessed with this opportunity. I promise not to squander it.

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

ABSTRACT ...... x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Research Questions ...... 3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5

Television Viewing Habits of Children ...... 5

Socioeconomic Status Impacts Television Viewership ...... 9

The Positive Impact of Television on Children ...... 9

The Negative Impact of Television on Children ...... 13

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 19

Hypotheses ...... 19

Limitations ...... 21

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...... 22

Hypothesis 1...... 43

Hypothesis 2...... 46

Hypothesis 3...... 48

Hypothesis 4...... 49 vi

Hypothesis 5...... 51

Hypothesis 6...... 53

CHAPTER FIVE: Discussion ...... 55

Conclusion ...... 58

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 60

APPENDIX ...... 63

vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Nielsen’s Average Weekly TV And Peripheral Consumption ...... 6

Figure 2.2 Incidence of Co-Viewing on TV by Age ...... 7

Figure 2.3 Kids and “Tech Toys.” Homes with Kids Index Higher for Electronics ...... 8

Figure 4.1 Gender ...... 23

Figure 4.2 Ethnicity ...... 24

Figure 4.3 Marital Status...... 25

Figure 4.4 Highest Education Level Attained...... 26

Figure 4.5 Employment Status ...... 27

Figure 4.6 Yearly Household Income ...... 28

Figure 4.7 Where Participants Live ...... 29

Figure 4.8 Role of Participants in Household ...... 30

Figure 4.9 Number of Adults in Household...... 31

Figure 4.10 Number of Children in Household ...... 32

Figure 4.11 Age of Youngest Child ...... 33

Figure 4.12 Presence of a Yard ...... 34

Figure 4.13 Access to a Park...... 35

Figure 4.14 Hours of Television Watched Per Week ...... 36 viii

Figure 4.15 Familiarity with the American Academy of Pediatrics Television Viewing

Recommendations ...... 37

Figure 4.16 Impact of Recommendations ...... 38

Figure 4.17 Censoring Television Quality ...... 40

Figure 4.18 Children’s Programming ...... 41

Figure 4.19 Educational Programming ...... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 How familiar parents with a master’s degree or higher were with the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for children’s television ...... 43

Table 4.2 How familiar parents without a master’s degree or higher were with the American of Academy Pediatrics recommendations for children’s television ...... 44

Table 4.3 How often parents with a master’s degree or higher censor their children’s television consumption ...... 46

Table 4.4 How often parents without a master’s degree censor their children’s television consumption ...... 46

Table 4.5 Number of adults in home and its impact on the amount of time children spend in front of the television ...... 48

Table 4.6 Parents ages in relation to the amount of time children spend viewing television in a week ...... 49

Table 4.7 Yearly Income Comparison to Hours of Television Watched ...... 51

Table 4.8 Employment status compared to the total number of hour of television watched per week ...... 53

Abstract The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on the Television Viewing Habits of Children Tiffany L. Perry-Harrison

This study examines the relationship between socioeconomic status and the impact it has on the television viewing habits of children. Most of this research was done through a survey as well as with the use of online articles, journals, and books. The data found that demographic factors such as race, education and employment status all affected what children watch on television as well as how much television children watched. Factors such as access to the outdoors and yearly household income had little to no influence on the television viewing habits of children. The number of adults in the home had little to no bearing on how much television children watched, but the employment status of those adults did. Other factors that impacted the number of hours that children watched was the educational level of the parent and household’s yearly income. Television managers and broadcasters should apply this research to their marketing strategies surrounding children’s and educational programming to yield greater results.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Every aspect of life is affected by a person’s socioeconomic status. According to the American Psychological Association, “Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation. Examinations of socioeconomic status often reveal inequities in access to resources, plus issues related to privilege, power and control” (2006).

Socioeconomic status impacts everything from our media consumption habits to how we parent our children. As a society, television is integrated into in our everyday lives.

Often, the televisions may be on in our homes, playing in the background but not being watched. It is almost impossible to avoid television content altogether, especially given the number of platforms on which content is distributed. Children in households with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to watch more television under less supervision. These same households are less likely to be aware of the recommendations that surround television viewing for children and the long and short-term effects that television viewing may have on their children’s lives.

There are many recommendations about healthy ways for children to consume television. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) recommends:

“For children younger than 18 months, avoid the use of screen media other than

video-chatting. Parents of children 18 to 24 months of age who want to introduce

digital media should choose high-quality programming, and watch it with their

children to help them understand what they are seeing. For children ages, two to 5

years, limit screen use to one hour per day of high-quality programs. Parents

should co-view media with children to help them understand what they are seeing 2

and apply it to the world around them. For children ages six and older, place

consistent limits on the time spent using media and the types of media, and make

sure media does not take the place of adequate sleep, physical activity and other

behaviors essential to health.”

However, these recommendations are not being heeded. Due to this, television is having negative long-term effects on children such as increased violence and antisocial behavior, obesity, and difficulty with concentration and focus (Pagaini, Fitzpatrick and

Barnett 2010). According to Pagaini, Fitzpatrick and Barnett (2010), “We found every additional hour of TV exposure among toddlers corresponded to a future decrease in classroom engagement and success at math, increased victimization by classmates, have a more sedentary lifestyle, higher consumption of junk food and, ultimately, higher body mass index.” Though the research is overwhelmingly negative regarding the effects of television on children, there are numerous positive outcomes achieved through the utilization of television in the home and the classroom. Television is used as a teaching tool in the classroom to engage children in the learning process. Television exposes children to different races, customs, religions, and cultures than they may typically be exposed. Some studies show that children who are exposed to children’s programming achieve better grades in the future (Long 2015). According to Long (2015), “Kids who watch "Sesame Street" do better in elementary school, according to a new study by two economics professors.” Also, according to Long (2015), “Even taking into account a number of other factors that influence educational success, the study still found that one hour of "Sesame Street" a day made a difference to young kids in the late 1960s and early 3

1970s. It suggests that educational programs online could have similarly beneficial impacts today at a very small cost.”

This research explores if a relationship exists between socioeconomic status and how much television children are watching, what they are viewing on television, awareness of television recommendation guidelines for children and what if any impact, television has on children’s academics.

The methodological design is quantitative. The researcher has surveyed parents, grandparents, and guardians who meet the research criteria. The selected respondents participate in parenting groups on Facebook.

Research Questions

RQ1: How familiar are parents of young children with the American Academy of

Pediatrics television viewing recommendations for children?

RQ2: Do the households that censor their children’s television consumption limit them to educational shows, or are they allowed to view all shows that would be considered children’s programming?

RQ3: Do parents and guardians take a television program’s recommended age into consideration before allowing their child to view it, even if it is educational?

RQ4: Are parents and guardians in households with a higher socioeconomic status more likely to censor the television programs their children watch?

RQ5: Does the number of adults in the home affect the amount of time children spends in front of the television? 4

RQ6: Does the age of a parent or guardian relate to the amount of time their children spend in front of the television?

RQ7: Does the presence of older children, tweens or teenagers in the home affect the types of television shows young children watch?

RQ8: Does the amount of time that parents and guardians spend at work relate to the amount of time children spend in front of the television?

RQ9: Does the presence of a backyard or nearby park relate to the amount of time children spend in front of the television?

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Television Viewing Habits of Children

The medium of television has become an integrated part of our world. American society is saturated with many forms of media, but television is one that is present everywhere. Television programs and platforms can be found everywhere, there are television programming options for every genre, interest level, sex, ethnic group and age level. According to Nielsen (2016), “National Television Household Universe Estimates, there are 118.4 million TV homes in the U.S. for the 2016-17 TV season.” Children are some of the largest consumers of this medium. According to McDonough (2009),

“American children aged two to eleven are watching more and more television than they have in years. New findings from The Nielsen Company show kids aged two to five now spend more than 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen. The older segment of that group (ages six to eleven) spends a little less time, about 28 hours per week watching TV. This is because they are more likely to be attending school for longer hours.”

Figure 2.1 Nielsen’s Average Weekly TV And Peripheral Consumption

Average Weekly TV And Peripheral Consumption

Among All Kids 2-5

Total TV DVR DVD VCR Game Console

32+ hrs 24hrs 1hr 4hrs 45mins 1hr 12mins 51mins 29mins 33mins

Among All Kids 6-11

Total TV DVR DVD VCR Game Console

28+ hrs 22hrs 59mins 2hrs 18mins 2hrs 9mins 28mins 23mins

According to Certain and Kahn (2002), “A substantial number of children begin watching television at an earlier age and in greater amounts than the AAP recommends.”

The only activity that children spend more time doing is sleeping (Thakkar, Garrison and

Christiakis 2006). Similar to adults, children are immersed in media like never before.

They no longer have to wait until they get home to watch their favorite television shows.

According to Grow and Tell (2015), “Kids’ media consumption across age ranges is akin to transitioning from strained peas to silverware—with distinct differences in taste, viewing and listening preference, and even whom they are viewing with.” 7

Figure 2.2 Incidence of Co-Viewing on TV by Age

Source: Nielsen (2015)

There is a plethora of options, such as tablets and mobile phones, which allow viewers to watch television on the go, as well as DVR for recording their favorite television shows when they are not home to catch them live. As also stated by Grow and

Tell (2015):

“Regarding device usage, tablets are more commonly used by younger kids, who

are often using someone else’s device. By contrast, most 12-17-year-olds use their

smartphones. For instance, 80% of teens 14-17 years old used their smartphone in

2014, and social networking was one of the drivers of that usage.”

Figure 2.3 Kids and their “Tech Toys”: Homes with Kids Index Higher for

Electronics

According to McDonough (2009), “Left to their own devices, children two to five and six to eleven primarily watch kids programming. When another person enters the room, the viewing equation changes. Only 9% of kids two to five watch broadcast network programming alone during the day, but that percentage increases to 40% when another child two to eleven watches with them, it rises even further, to 82%, when an adult 18+ co-watches. The same pattern holds true for older children:

• Six to eleven: 24% watch a broadcast network during the day alone

• 38% watch when another child is in the room

• 63% co-view with an adult 18+”

Socioeconomic Status Impacts Television Viewership

Socioeconomic status plays a part in every aspect of our lives. Television viewing habits are no different. According to Morowatisharifabad, Karimi, and Gjorbanzadeh

(2015). “Previous research indicates that parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) is related to a number of TV children watch. Among familial characteristics that influence children's physical activity are parents’ education level and income. In general, children from families of higher SES spend less time in front of TV”. According to Triantafillia and Melissa-Halikiopoulou (2009). “it is important for parents to manage their preschoolers’ TV viewing by making a weekly plan as to what programs are appropriate for their age and how much time overall is spent on TV viewing.” Making a weekly plan can be difficult to almost impossible for households where parents/guardians are working full-time jobs.

There also appears to be correlations between the ways children of different races consume television.

The Positive Impact of Television on Children

There are many ways that television can positively affect children. As stated by

Miller (1999), “a number of quality children's shows -- such as the popular preschool show "Blue's Clues" and, of course, "Sesame Street" -- engage kids in positive ways.”

Through television, children are exposed to different cultures, customs, and traditions that they may never encounter in their communities. As stated by Thakkar, Garrison, and

Christiakis (2006), “findings suggest that educational television programs are successful in broadening young children's knowledge, affecting their racial attitudes, and increasing 10

their imaginativeness.” As stated by Powell and Roberts (2014), “television has exposed people to a wider array of cultures and societies and has made more young people aware of political and social issues, which in turn may increase their influence on their respective nation’s government.”

According to Kenney (2017), “Educational channels like Discovery, The History

Channel and especially PBS can expose kids to people and places they would not otherwise encounter in daily life. Even primetime scripted programming, when age appropriate, introduces concepts that are complex and intellectually stimulating. This can help shape a child’s interest and make him more engaged in classes that deal with those specific topics. “Television is also used as an educational tool to learn about current or historical events, according to Science Daily (2001), “Very young children who spent a few hours a week watching educational programs such as Sesame Street, Mister Rogers'

Neighborhood, Reading Rainbow, Captain Kangaroo, Mr. Wizard's World and 3-2-1

Contact had higher academic test scores three years later than those who did not watch educational programs, the researchers found.”

Medscape (2001) also reports, “some educational programs on TV can enhance children's intellectual development.” According to Anderson (2013),

“In a long-term study that followed children from preschool through high school,

the positive impact of watching Sesame Street and Mister Rogers

Neighborhood were traceable through high school. After statistically controlling

for variables such as parent education, the study found that the more children

watched Sesame Street during their preschool years, the more likely they were to

achieve better grades in high school English, math, and science. Those who 11

watched Mister Rogers were more likely to participate in the arts.”

According to Catapano, “students who regularly view age-appropriate content designed to teach them information related to any field of interest – like history, astronomy, biology, mathematics, humanities, mechanics, etc. – can easily access quality programming that will actually make them more knowledgeable.”

Television can be a useful tool in the classroom. Many children can benefit from the way television programs present information. Children are individuals and learn in numerous different ways. Two examples of traditional learning styles are auditory and visual, both of which are encompassed in most educational television programs. As reported by Teaching Science (2006), “Students have different learning styles – some retain information if expressed orally, others visually. As a teaching aid, television has the highest recall – it has the unique combination of sight, sound, motion, and emotion.”

The types of lessons that television can be used to assist with are limitless.

Educational television programs are not bound to one field of study. According to

Anderson (2013), “In addition to the three Rs, television can teach beneficial lessons about society, arts, nature, emotional understanding, self-control, practical skills, and safety, among other things.” As stated by Powell and Roberts (2014), “television programs are quite commonly used in school classrooms, and teachers may use educational videos or segments recorded from network broadcasts to accentuate their lessons and provide learning avenues for children with different learning styles.”

Television can improve a child’s reading speed and comprehension. According to

Catapano, 12

“Television can potentially improve reading skills and comprehension -- when

used intentionally for this purpose. Children in Finland have reportedly scored

higher than most of the rest of the world in their reading skills. One reason experts

point to is that Finnish children watch imported American shows. Moreover, the

only way they can understand the dialogue is by reading the captions in their

language. The captions option is often ignored in households; however, the simple

act of switching this on can expose children to viewing and reading

simultaneously.

You can encourage children to watch channels in other languages with the

translated captions turned on. Alternatively, in your own classroom, you can show

foreign films or even Shakespeare, compelling students to read at a fixed pace if

they have any desire at all to know what’s going on.”

Television viewing can also be an opportunity for bonding between child and caregiver. Kenney (2017) stated, “Setting aside some of those hours specifically for family viewing encourages interaction, conversation, and togetherness. Whether it becomes a bonding moment with young kids watching “Sesame Street” or endless discussions about the plot intricacies of “Lost” with your teens, television can be a catalyst for family interaction.” Also stated by Kenney (2017), “Parents should be engaged in their children’s television viewing so they can be purveyors of further information. When a child sees something of interest or has questions about a particular topic, parents can use that as a springboard for deeper study.”

Television viewing can also assist in the process of language development. 13

Kenney (2017) said, “Watching television gives kids whose native language is not

English exposure to the conversational rhythms of spoken English. Just like college students taking Spanish are encouraged to go home and watch Telemundo or Univision to develop an ear for the language, students who are learning English can benefit from watching English-language television.”

Negative Impact of Television on Children

It is widely accepted in our society that television can be a powerful influence in shaping behavior (TV Violence and Children 2014). It is also a widely accepted idea that the impact of television on children is overwhelmingly negative. “Studies have related viewing noneducational programs with negative outcomes, such as aggressive behavior, obesity, risk-taking behavior, and attentional problems.” (Thakkar, Garrison and

Christiakis 2006). There are arguments that children who watch television have violent and anti-social tendencies. According to TV Violence and Children (2014), Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may:

● Become "immune" or numb to the horror of violence.

● Begin to accept violence as a way to solve problems.

● Imitate the violence they observe on television; and

● Identity with certain characters, victims, and victimizers.

There are correlations between television viewership in children and its long and short-term impacts on health. Children’s television viewing habits are thought to affect both the child’s mental and physical health. There is evidence that a child’s mental health 14

is affected by way of concentration and focus. According to Schmidt, Pempek, Kirkorian,

Lund, and Anderson (2008), “as a dynamically varying audiovisual distraction, background television may interfere with the ability of very young children to sustain an activity in a focused and organized manner.”

Watching television close to bedtime can, in some cases, negatively affect children similar to the way caffeine does. It can cause them to have difficulty falling asleep or to have bad dreams. (Gardner 2011) Also according to Gardener (2011), “In the study, 28% of preschoolers who watched TV or played video games for at least 30 minutes after 7 p.m. had sleep problems most nights of the week, versus 19% of children whose TV and video-game use took place only before 7 p.m.” Additionally, Gardener

(2011) also stated, “Slightly under one-fifth of parents said their children had at least one sleep problem, the most common of which was difficulty falling asleep. Others included repeatedly sleep walking during the night, not being alert in the morning, daytime sleepiness, and nightmares.”

Sleep quality can also be negatively impacted by a child’s television usage close to bedtime. According to Owens, Maxim, McGuinn, Nobile, Asall, and Alario (1999):

“The television-viewing habits associated most significantly with sleep

disturbance were increased daily television viewing amounts and increased

television viewing at bedtime, especially in the context of having a television in

the child's bedroom. The sleep domains that appeared to be affected most

consistently by television were bedtime resistance, sleep onset delay, and anxiety

around sleep, followed by shortened sleep duration.” 15

Owens, Maxim, McGuinn, Nobile, Asall, and Alario (1999) also stated:

“Health care practitioners should be aware of the potential negative impact of

television viewing at bedtime. Parents should be questioned about their children's

television-viewing habits as part of general screening for sleep disturbances and

as part of anticipatory guidance in regards to healthy sleep habits in children. In

particular, the presence of a television set in the child's bedroom may be a

relatively underrecognized, but significant, contributor to sleep problems in

school children.”

Obesity rates in children and adults are associated with the amounts of television watched in America. “It is not just that children who were already overweight decided to watch more television. Rather, children who watched much television were likely to become overweight.” (TV’s Negative Effects 2004) According to Morowatisharifabad,

Karimi and Gjorbanzadeh (2015), “Furthermore, children who are high TV viewers tend to remain high TV viewers, relative to others, over time, and high level of TV viewing in childhood is associated with health risk factors (e.g., overweightedness, poor cardio- respiratory fitness) in adulthood, independent of an adult's levels of TV viewing.”

According to Miller (1999), childhood obesity can be remedied through watching less television, “Three studies have demonstrated that overweight children lost weight as they decreased their TV viewing.” Television viewing also can affect heart health negatively,

“Watching television for more than two hours a day increases the risk of raised blood pressure in children, warns a study those aged two to ten were 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure than youngsters who spent less time in front of a TV or computer screen.” (Daily Mail 2015) 16

There are also many studies that support that children who watch violence on television are more likely to be violent. As stated by Bersesin, “Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age four, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy and may view violence as an ordinary occurrence.” Beresin also went on to say

“Additionally, children who watch televised violence are desensitized to it. They may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer.”

Consumption of violent television in young children is likely to result in aggressive behaviors. “Early childhood exposure to TV violence predicted aggressive behavior for both males and females in adulthood. Additionally, identification with same sexually aggressive TV characters, as well as participants’ ratings of perceived realism of

TV violence, also predicted adult aggression in both males and females.” (Huesmann, L.

R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolki, C., & Efron, L. D. 2003) In additional, Huesmann, L. R.,

Moise-Titus, J., Podolki, C., & Efron, L. D. (2003) also stated, “early exposure to TV violence places both male and female children at risk for the development of aggressive and violent behavior in adulthood.” This data is especially concerning as much of the media that is directed at children contains violence. According to the Committee on

Public Education (2001), “The recently completed 3-year National Television Violence

Study found the following: 1) nearly two-thirds of all programming contains violence; 2) children's shows contain the most violence; 3) portrayals of violence are usually glamorized; and 4) perpetrators often go unpunished.” Miller (1999) also stated, “Several studies have shown that a child is more likely to display violent or antisocial behavior 17

depending on the degree of violence and the total number of violent programs he or she watches.”

Child anxiety can be a direct result of television the television viewing habits of children. “Studies show extensive viewing of television violence may cause children to become more aggressive and anxious. Children who watch many hours a week of violent

TV may become inured to violence and begin to see the world as a scary and unsafe place.” (TV Violence -- a Cause of Child Anxiety and Aggressive Behavior?)

There are a variety of studies state that television viewing negatively impacts children’s academic success. Consistent with Bliss (2016), “A study conducted at the

University of Washington found that kids watching the most TV before age three performed poorest on reading and math tests at the ages of six and seven. The research suggests that the negative influence of TV begins long before a child starts formal schooling.” The impact of television on children who watched television before the age of three wouldn’t be observed until it was too late to intervene. Televisions can also have an impact on how well a student performs on a standardized test. Dershewitz (2005) stated, “Students with TVs in their bedrooms had significantly lower standardized test scores than did children without bedroom TVs.” Bliss (2016) also said, “A variety of academic studies have demonstrated that childhood hours spent in front of the television can be linked to aggressive behavior and poor attitude in school.” Television does not only impact the substantial part of academics such as test scores but the intangible aspect of a student such as an attitude.

Television consumption affects a child’s ability to focus or concentrate in school.

As stated by Miller (1999), “television hands kids all the answers, promoting passive 18

learning and short attention spans. As a result, kids have difficulty concentrating and working hard to solve a problem.”

In summary, there is a plethora of research and data on the topics of television viewing habits of children, the recommendations about healthy television viewing habits for children and the short term and long-term effects of television viewing on children.

There was much less data that addressed how socioeconomics affects how much television children watch as well as what types of television children watch. The researcher explores this concept through this study.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the impact of socioeconomic status on the television viewing habits of children, concentrating on the American Academy of

Pediatrics recommendations for children’s television viewership. Data in this study has been collected via an online survey of 92 respondents. The surveys were primarily disseminated through parenting Facebook groups. The participants that have been selected for this study are parents/guardians of children ages one to six in the states of Pennsylvania,

Maryland, and Delaware. The answers have been recorded using many different types of survey questions in hopes of participants having the ability to express their sentiments as accurately as possible. This survey explores the established research questions that will yield both qualitative data/results.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Parents that have acquired a master’s degree or higher will be more knowledgeable than parents without a master’s degree about the American Academy of

Pediatrics recommendations for children’s television viewing.

Related Research Questions: How familiar are parents of young children with the

American Academy of Pediatrics television viewing recommendations for children?

Do parent and guardians take a television program’s recommended age into consideration before allowing their child to view it, even if it is educational?

Hypothesis 2: Households with parents who hold master’s degrees or higher censor their children’s time in front of the television more than parents without master’s degrees.

Related Research Questions: Do the households that censor their children’s television consumption limit them to educational shows or are they allowed to view all shows that would be considered children’s programming?

Are parents/guardians in households with a higher socioeconomic status more likely to censor the type of television shows their children watch?

Hypothesis 3: Children in households that have two or more adults will watch less television than households that only have one adult.

Related Research Questions: Does the number of adults in the home affect the amount of time children spend in front of the television?

Does the presence of older children, tweens or teenagers in the home impact the types of television shows young children watch?

Hypothesis 4: Children with millennial parents (34 years and younger) watch fewer hours of television than Generation Y parents (35 - 50 years old).

Related Research Question: Does the age of a parent/guardian relate to the amount of time their children spend in front of the television?

Hypothesis 5: Children of parents whose yearly household income is $100,000+ watch less television per week than the children of people who make less than $100,000 yearly.

Related Research Question: Are parents/guardians in households with a higher socioeconomic status more likely to censor the amount of television shows their children 21

watch?

Hypothesis 6: Parents/guardians who work part-time or not at all will have children who watch 10 hours or less of television per week.

Related Research Question: Does the amount of time a parent/guardian spend at work relate to the amount of time children spend in front of the television?

Limitations

Limitations exist within the participant group. The first limitation is that this group consists primarily of married mothers. In most cases, by definition, this will mean there is at least one other adult in the house. Having more than one adult in the house will also result in higher household incomes.

Another limitation is that most of the participants would be considered middle to upper class based on income. A special effort has been made to encourage the participation of fathers, single parents and low-income households to ensure they are represented in the data.

One other limitation is that the sample group does overwhelmingly identify as

African American. African Americans only make up 12 percent of this country’s population, and this may skew the data. According to Garcia (2013), “It is not only that the African-American audience watches more TV, but it is substantially more – two hours over other groups.”

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

The purpose of this section is to summarize the collected data from the survey conducted by the researcher. The research shows that an association can be made between socioeconomic status and the television viewing habits of children though not in the ways the researcher originally thought. Television managers and programmers can apply this research to marketing ventures involving children’s or educational programming. It can also be used to help make the consumer more aware of the dangers of too much television or the wrong types of television.

Figure 4.1 Survey Results Gender

Figure 4.1 displays the gender identity of the survey respondents. There was a total of 92 respondents. Two (2.17%) respondents identified as male and ninety (97.83%) identified as female.

Figure 4.2 Survey Results Ethnicity

Figure 4.2 displays the ethnicity of the survey respondents. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 87 (94.57%) identified as African American, one

(1.09%) identified as Caucasian, one (1.09%) identified as Hispanic and three (3.26%) identified as Multiracial.

Figure 4.3 Survey Participant Marital Status

Figure 4.3 displays the marital status of the survey respondents. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 21 (22.83%) of the respondents identified as single, 63 (68.48%) respondents identified as married, one (1.09%) respondent identified as separated, six (6.52%) respondents identified as divorced and one (1.09%) respondent identified as being widowed.

Figure 4.4 Highest Educational Level Attained

Figure 4.4 displays the highest educational level achieved by the survey respondents.

There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, one (1.09%) respondent’s highest educational level was a high school diploma/GED, ten (10.87%) respondents’ highest educational level was some college/associate degree, 13 (14.13%) respondents’ highest educational level is a bachelor degree, 11 (11.96%) respondents’ highest educational level is completed some post-graduate work, 43 (46.7%) respondents have their master’s degrees and 14 (15.22%) hold a Ph.D., law or medical degree.

Figure 4.5 Employment Status

Figure 4.5 displays the employment status of the survey respondents. There was a total of

92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 14 (15.22%) respondents identified as unemployed, six (6.52%) identified as having part-time employment or working less than

35 hours per week and 72 (79.3%) identified as having full-time employment or they work 35 hours or more per week.

Figure 4.6 Total Household Income

Figure 4.6 displays the yearly household income of the survey respondents. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of 92 respondents, two (2.17%) made less than $25,000 yearly, 3 (3.26%) made between $25,000 - $34,999 yearly, 11 (11.96%) made between

$35,000 – $49,999 yearly, 22 (23.91%) made between $50,000 - $74,999 yearly, 11

(11.96%) made between $75,000 - $99,999 yearly, 19 (20.65%) made between $100,000 and 149,999, 17 (18.48%) made between $150,000 - $199,999 yearly, and seven (7.6.1%) made over $200,000 yearly.

Figure 4.7 Where Participants Live

Figure 4.7 displays where the survey respondents live. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 36 (39.1%) lived in a city, 39 (42.4%) respondents lived in the suburb of a city, and 17 (18.5%) respondents lived in a town or rural area.

Figure 4.8 Role of Participant in Household

Figure 4.8 displays the respondents’ role in their household. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 86 (93.48%) respondents were mothers, one

(1.09%) respondent was a father, four (4.35%) respondents were guardians, and one

(1.09%) respondent was a grandmother.

Figure 4.9 Adults in Household

Figure 4.9 displays the number of adults in the respondents’ households. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 14 (15.22%) had one adult in their household, 60 (65.22%) respondents had two adults in their household, 15 (16.30%) respondents had three adults in their household, and three (3.26%) respondents had four adults in their household.

Figure 4.10 Children in Household - Aged Birth to 17

Figure 4.10 displays the number of children aged 17 and younger in each respondents’ household. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 37 (40.22%) respondents had one child in their household, 36 (39.13%) respondents had two children in their household, 15 (16.30%) respondents had three children in their household, three

(3.26%) respondents had four children in their household and one (1.09) respondent had five children in their household.

Figure 4.11 Age of the Youngest Child in the Household

Figure 4.11 displays the age of the youngest child in the respondents’ household. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 11 (11.96%) respondents’ youngest child was less than one-year old, eight (8.70%) respondents’ youngest child was one-year old, 17 (18.48%) respondents’ youngest child was two years old, eight (8.70%) respondents’ youngest child was three years old, seven (7.61%) respondents’ youngest child was four years old, 13 (14.13%) respondents’ youngest child was five years old, and 28 (30.34%) respondents’ youngest child was six years old.

Figure 4.12 Presence of a Yard

Figure 4.12 displays the presence of a yard at the respondents’ home. There was a total of

92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 73 (79.3%) respondents had access to a yard at their home, and 19 (20.65%) respondents did not have access to a yard at their home.

Figure 4.13 Access to a Park

Figure 4.13 displays the respondents’ access to a park. Respondents’ were only asked to answer this question if they answered no to the previous question. There was a total of 19 respondents. Out of the 19 respondents, 15 (78.95%) respondents had access to a park, and four (21.05%) respondents did not have access to a park.

Figure 4.14 Number of Hours of Television Watched Per Week

Figure 4.14 displays the average number of hours of television that children watched per week. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 4 (43.5%) respondents’ children watched less than one hour of television per week, 27 (28.35%) respondents’ children watched between one and five hours of television per week, 23

(25%) respondents’ children watched between six and ten hours of television per week,

16 (17.39%) respondents’ children watched between eleven and fifteen hours of television per week, eight (8.70%) respondents’ children watched between fifteen and twenty hours of television per week, nine (9.78%) respondents’ children watched between twenty and twenty-five hours of television per week, three (3.26%) respondents’ children watched between twenty-five and thirty hours of television a week, and two

(2.17%) respondents’ children watched between thirty-five and forty hours of television per week. 37

Figure 4.15 Familiarity with the American Academy of Pediatrics

Figure 4.15 displays the respondents’ familiarity with the American Academy of

Pediatrics’ recommendations for children’s television viewing. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 38 (41.3%) respondents considered themselves not familiar with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 13

(14.23%) respondents considered themselves somewhat familiar with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 17 (18.47%) considered themselves moderately familiar with the recommendations of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, 15 (16.30%) considered themselves familiar with the recommendations of the

American Academy of Pediatrics, and nine (9.78%) considered themselves very familiar with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Figure 4.16 Impact of Recommendations

Figure 4.16 displays on a scale of one to five (one being the least or lowest and five being the most or highest) the impact the of respondents’ familiarity with the American

Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations for children’s television viewing has on the quality or quantity of television the respondents’ children watch. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 35 (38.04%) respondents rated the impact of their familiarity with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics on their children’s television viewing a one, 20 (21.74%) respondents rated the impact of their familiarity with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics on their children’s television viewing a two, 22 (23.91%) respondents rated the impact of their familiarity with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics on their children’s television viewing a three, ten (10.87%) respondents rated the impact of their familiarity with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics on their 39

children’s television viewing a four, and five (5.43%) respondents rated the impact of their familiarity with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics on their children’s television viewing a five.

Figure 4.17 Censor Television Quality

Figure 4.17 displays how much respondents censor what their children watch on television. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, 0 (0%) respondents indicated that never censor what their children watch on television, 1

(1.09%) respondent occasionally censors what their children watch on television, 6

(6.52%) respondents moderately censor what their children watch on television, 21

(22.83%) respondents frequently censor what their children watch on television, and 64

(69.57%) respondents always censor what their children watch on television.

Figure 4.18 Children’s Programming

Figure 4.18 displays how much respondents limit what their children watch on television to children’s programming. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, two (2.17%) respondents indicated they never limited what their children watched to children’s programming, four (4.35%) respondents occasionally limited what their children watched to children’s programming, 15 (16.30%) respondents limited what their children watched to children’s programming, 21 (22.83%) respondents frequently limited what their children watched to children’s programming, and 50 (54.34%) respondents always limited what their children watched to children’s programming.

Figure 4.19 Educational Programming

Figure 4.19 displays how much respondents seek out educational programming for their children. There was a total of 92 respondents. Out of the 92 respondents, one (1.09%) respondent indicated he/she never sought out educational programming for his/her children, two (2.17%) respondents occasionally sought out educational programming for their children, 11 (11.96%) respondents moderately sought out educational programming for their children, 34 (36.96%) respondents frequently sought out educational programming for their children, and 44 (47.83%) respondents always sought out educational programming for their children.

Hypotheses Results

The research demonstrated a relationship between socioeconomic status and the television viewing habits of children. At the beginning of this research, the researcher believed that respondents who attained a higher educational level (master’s degree or higher) and made a larger salary (more than $100,000 yearly) would result in their children watching less television. The 23-question survey often yielded results that conflicted with the researcher’s original hypotheses. The significance threshold was set at

0.05 for this study.

Hypothesis 1: Parents that have acquired a master’s degree or higher will be more knowledgeable than parents without a master’s degree about the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for children’s television viewing.

Table 4.1 How familiar parents with a master’s degree or higher were with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations for children’s television on a scale 1= Not Familiar to 5 = Very Familiar

Grand 1 2 3 4 5 Total 43 Master’s degree 21 6 8 6 2 (46.74%) Ph.D., law or medical 14 degree 3 3 2 2 4 (15.21%) 24 9 10 8 6 57 Grand Total (26.09%) (9.78%) (10.87%) (8.70%) (6.52%) (61.96%) P = 0.3

Table 4.1. Displays how familiar parents with master’s degree or higher were with the recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on children’s television viewing. Numbers on the table are actual numbers. Out of 92 respondents, 57 (61.96%) held a master’s degree or higher. Out of the 57 respondents who held a master’s degree or higher, 24 (26.09% of the total number of respondents) of them did not consider themselves familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, nine (9.78% of the total number of respondent) considered themselves somewhat familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, ten (10.87%) considered themselves moderately familiar with the recommendations from American 44

Academy of Pediatrics, eight (8.70%) considered themselves familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, and six (6.52%) considered themselves very familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.3.

Table 4.2 How familiar parents without a master’s degree or higher were with the American Academy Pediatrics’ recommendations for children’s television on a scale 1= Not Familiar to 5 = Very Familiar

Grand 1 2 3 4 5 Total 13 Bachelor degree 6 2 4 1 (14.13%) Completed some 11 postgraduate work 2 2 1 4 2 (11.96%) 1 High school diploma/GED 1 (1.09%) Some college/Associate 10 degree 6 2 1 1 (10.87%)

14 4 7 7 3 35 Grand Total 0 (15.22%) (4.35%) (7.61%) (7.61%) (3.26) (38.04%) P = 0.9

Table 4.2. displays how familiar parents without master’s degree or higher were with the recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on children’s television viewing. Numbers on table are actual numbers. Out of 92 respondents, 35 (38.04%) held a master’s degree or higher. Out of the 35 respondents who did not hold a master’s degree or higher, 14 (15.22% of the total number of respondents) of them did not consider themselves familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, four (4.35% of the total number of respondents) considered themselves somewhat familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, seven (7.61% of the total number of respondents) considered themselves moderately familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, seven (7.61% of the total number of respondents) considered themselves familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics, and three (3.26% of the total number of respondents) considered themselves very familiar with the recommendations from American Academy of Pediatrics. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.9.

Results for Hypothesis 1: 24 (26.09% of the total number or respondents) parents with a master’s degree or higher were moderately familiar (scored a 3 or 5) with the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendations on children’s television. Of the parents who 45

had not received a master’s degree, 17 (18.48% of the total number of respondents) considered themselves at minimum moderately familiar. When comparing respondents with master’s degrees or higher to other respondents who met the same criteria, 24 out of 57 (42.10%) considered themselves moderately to very familiar with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. When comparing respondents without a master’s degree or higher to other respondents who met the same criteria, 17 out of 35 (48.67%) considered themselves moderately to very familiar. Respondents without the higher degrees were more knowledgeable about the recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The results contradicted the researcher’s hypothesis. The researcher believed that families that held education as a higher value would be more familiar or knowledgeable about the controversial topic of children’s television viewing. Less than 50% of respondents with master’s degrees or higher, as well as those not having master’s degrees, considered themselves moderately familiar with the recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The moral thing for television managers and broadcasters to do, because of these findings, would be to run ads on children’s channels letting people know what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations are regarding children’s television viewing, similar to the way tobacco companies run ads letting people know about the dangers of cigarettes. The less moral step that television manager could take is to put less focus or emphasis on creating high-quality programming for young children because it does not appear that parents are aware that high-quality programming is what’s recommended for younger children. The chi scores for both Tables 4.1 and 4.2 were higher than 0.05 making the hypothesis statistically significant.

Hypothesis 2: Households with parents who hold master’s degrees or higher censor their children’s time in front of the television more than parents without master’s degrees.

Table 4.3 How often parents with master’s degrees or higher censor their children’s television consumption on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= never to 5= always).

2 3 4 5 Grand Total 43 Master’s degree 4 9 30 (46.74%) Ph.D., law or medical 14 degree 1 4 9 (15.22%) 1 4 13 39 57 Grand Total (1.09%) (4.35%) (14.13%) (42.39%) (61.96%) P = 0.8

Table 4.3 displays how often parents with master’s degrees or higher censor their children’s television consumption. Out of 92 respondents, 57 (61.96% of the total number of respondents) held a master’s degree or higher. Out of the 57 respondents who held a master’s degree or higher, one (1.09% of the total number of respondents) respondent never censored their children’s television consumption, four (4.35% of the total number of respondents) respondents occasionally censored their children’s television consumption, ten (10.87% of the total number of respondents) respondents moderately censored their children’s television consumption, eight (8.70% of the total number of respondents) respondents frequently censored their children’s television consumption, and six (6.52% of the total number of respondents) always censored their children’s television consumption. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.8.

Table 4.4 How often parents without a master’s censored their children’s television consumption on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= never to 5= always).

3 4 5 Grand Total Bachelor degree 1 4 8 13 (14.13%) Completed some postgraduate work 1 2 8 11 (11.96%) High school diploma/GED 1 1 (1.09%) Some college/Associate degree 2 8 10 (10.87%) 2 8 25 35 Grand Total (2.17%) (8.70%) (27.17%) (38.04%) P = 0.9 Table 4.4 displays how often parents without master’s degrees or higher censored their children’s television consumption. Out of 92 respondents, 35 (38.04% of the total number 47

of respondents) did not hold a master’s degree or higher. Out of the 35 respondents who did not hold a master’s degree or higher, two (2.17% of the total number of respondents) respondents moderately censored their children’s television consumption, eight (8.70% of the total number of respondents) respondents frequently censored their children’s television consumption, and 25 (27.17% of the total number of respondents) always censored their children’s television consumption. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.9.

Results for Hypothesis 2: When comparing respondents with master’s degrees or higher to other respondents who met the same criteria, 56 out of 57 (98.24%) respondents moderately to always censored their children’s television consumption. When comparing respondents without a master’s degree or higher to other respondents who met the same criteria, 35 out of 35 (100%) respondents moderately to always censored their children’s television consumption Though these results contradict the researchers’ hypothesis, the differences are marginal. Both groups of respondents, with and without advanced degrees, overwhelmingly censored their children’s television consumption. This information is useful to television managers. A recommendation would be that television managers utilize more opportunities to market children’s programming on television programs or other mediums geared towards adults. Currently, most children’s television program marketing happens during other children’s television shows. If all adults are censoring their children to the degree that was indicated in this research, it would be beneficial for television managers to market directly to the adults who are the gatekeepers for the children. The chi scores for both Tables 4.3 and 4.4 were higher than 0.05 making this hypothesis statistically significant.

Hypothesis 3: Households that have two or more adult children watch less television than a household with only one adult.

Table 4.5 Number of adults in home impact on the amount of time children spend in front of the television.

less than 1 1 - 5 6 -10 11 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 35 - 40 Grand Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Total 14 1 Adult 2 3 4 3 2 (15.21%) 60 2 Adults 1 16 16 10 6 6 3 2 (65.22%) 15 3 Adults 7 2 3 2 1 (16.30%) 4+ Adults 1 1 1 3 (3.26%) Grand 4 27 23 16 8 9 3 2 Total (4.34%) (29.35%) (25%) (17.39) (8.70%) (9.78%) (3.26%) (2.17%) 92 P = 0.5

Table 4.5 displays the relationship between the number adults in the home and its impact on how many hours of television the children in the home watched. Out of 92 respondents, 14 (15.21%) respondents reported there was only one adult in the home, 60 (65.22%) reported there were two adults in the home, 15 (16.30%) reported there were three adults in the home, and three (3.26%) reported that there were four or more adults in the home. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.5.

Results Hypothesis 3: Regardless of the number of adults in the home, 54 (58.7%) respondents watched ten hours or less of television per week. The number of adults in the home did not seem to be related to how much television children watched. This contradicts the hypothesis. The researcher believed that having more adults in the home would create more opportunities for adult and child interaction and less time for television. This does not appear to be the case. The chi scores for Table 4.5 is higher than 0.05 making this hypothesis statistically significant.

Hypothesis 4: Children with millennial parents (34 years and younger) watch fewer hours of television than Generation Y parents (35 - 50 years old). Table 4.6 Parents ages in relation to the amount of time children spend viewing television in a week.

Grand 18 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50+ Total

Less than 4 1 Hour 2 1 1 (4.35%) 1 - 5 27 Hours 1 1 6 6 2 8 3 (29.35%) 6 -10 23 Hours 2 2 6 7 4 2 (25%) 11 - 15 16 Hours 5 5 5 1 (17.39%) 15 - 20 8 Hours 1 3 2 2 (8.70%) 20 - 25 9 Hours 2 1 1 3 1 1 (9.78%) 25 - 30 3 Hours 1 1 1 (3.26%) 35 - 40 2 Hours 1 1 (2.17%) Grand 3 6 17 22 20 15 9 Total (3.26%) (6.52%) (18.48%) (23.91%) (21.74%) (16.30%) (9.78%) 92 P = 0.9 Table 4.6 demonstrates parents ages in relation to the number hours of television watched by their children. The table has actual numbers. Out of 92 respondents, three (3.26%) reported that they were between the ages of 18-24, six (6.52%) were between the ages of 25-29, 17 (18.48%) were between the ages of 30-34, 22 (23.91%) were between the age of 35-39, 20 (21.74%) were between the ages of 40-44, 15 (16.30%) were between the ages of 45-49, and nine (9.78%) were 50 years old or older. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.9.

Results Hypothesis 4: 14 (53.85%) out of 26 respondents who are 34 years or younger reported that children under their care watched ten hours or less of television a week, and 40 (60.60%) out of 66 respondents 34 or older reported their children watched ten hours or less of television a week. These results contradict the researcher’s hypothesis. The researcher believed that because the millennial generation is thought to be the most educated and health conscious generation, they would be less likely to allow their children watch large amounts of 50

television. What had not been considered, is that the millennial generation is the generation most comfortable with technology when compared with older generations. Television managers can use this research when marketing children’s or educational television programming to adults. They should spend more marketing dollars trying to enagage the 34 or younger demographic because their children consume more television. The chi scores for Table 4.6 is higher than 0.05 making this hypothesis statistically significant.

Hypothesis 5: Children of parents who make $100,000+ watch less television per week than people who make less than $100,000. Table 4.7 Yearly Income Comparison to Hours of Television Watched

Less $25,00 than 0 - $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,00 $25,00 $34,99 - - - - - 0 or Grand 0 9 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 more Total less than 1 4 Hour 1 3 (4.35%) 1 - 5 27 Hours 1 4 11 4 3 4 (29.35%) 6 -10 23 Hours 1 2 3 3 5 7 2 (25%) 11 - 15 16 Hours 1 5 6 2 2 (17.39%) 15 - 20 8 Hours 1 1 2 1 3 (8.70%) 20 - 25 9 Hours 1 1 2 2 3 (9.78%) 25 - 30 3 Hours 1 1 1 (3.26%) 35 - 40 2 Hours 1 1 (2.17%) Grand 2 3 11 22 11 19 17 7 Total (2.17%) (3.26%) (11.96%) (23.91%) (11.96%) (20.65%) (18.48%) (7.61%) 92 P = 0.9 Table 4.7 shows the relationship between the respondent’s households’ yearly income and the amount of time their children watched television per week. This table represents actual numbers. Out of 92 respondents, two (2.17%) made less than $25,000 yearly, three (3.26%) made between $25,000 - $34,999 yearly, 11 (11.96%) made between $35,000 – $49,999 yearly, 22 (23.91%) made between $50,000 - $74,999 yearly, 11 (11.96%) made between $75,000 - $99,999 yearly, 19, (20.65%) made between $100,000 and 149,999, 17 (18.48%) made between $150,000 - $199,999 yearly, and seven (7.6.1%) made over $200,000 yearly. The chi score is statistically insignificant at 0.9.

Results Hypothesis 5: 43 (46.74%) respondents reported they made more than $100,000 yearly. 21 (49%) out of 43 respondents who had a yearly income of $100,000 or more reported their children watched ten hours or less of television per week. 49 (53.26%) respondents had a yearly income of less than $100,000. 33 (67.34%) out of 52

49 respondents who had a yearly salary of less than $100,000 reported their children watched hours or less of television per week. The results contradict the hypothesis. The researcher believed that the households with more disposable income spent less time in front of the television. The researcher now believes that the disposable income allows the higher earners the ability to purchase larger cable packages or television programs on more platforms which result in more options in programming as well as more television viewing. Television managers can apply this research by creating children’s and educational programing for mobile devices. They would also benefit from creating more child friendly offerings on cable and premium channels. The chi scores for Table 4.7 is higher than 0.05 making this hypothesis statistically significant.

Hypothesis 6: Parents/Guardians who work part-time or not all will have children who watch ten hours or less of television per week Table 4.8 Employment status compared with a total number of hour of television watched per week.

Full-time Part-time Employment Employment Unemployed Grand Total less than 1 4 Hour 3 1 (4.35%) 27 1 - 5 Hours 20 1 6 (29.34%) 23 6 -10 Hours 20 1 2 (25%) 16 11 - 15 Hours 12 1 3 (17.39%) 8 15 - 20 Hours 7 1 (8.69%) 9 20 - 25 Hours 7 2 (9.78%) 3 25 - 30 Hours 1 2 (3.26%) 2 35 - 40 Hours 2 (2.17%) 72 6 14 92 Grand Total (78.26%) (6.52%) (15.21%) P = 0.9 Table 4.8 displays respondents’ employment status and its relationship to number hours their children watched television. The table shows actual numbers. Out of the 92 respondents, 14 (15.22%) respondents identified as unemployed, 6 (6.52%) identified as having part-time employment or working less than 35 hours per week and 72 (79.26%) identified as having full-time employment or working 35 hours or more per week. Results Hypothesis 6: 72 (78.26%) respondents reported they worked full time or more than 35 hours per week. 43 (59.72%) out of 72 respondents who worked full-time reported their children watch ten hours or less of television per week. Six (6.52%) respondents reported they worked part-time or less than 35 hours per week. Two (33.3%) out of six respondents who worked part-time reported their children watched ten hours or less of television per week. 14 (15.21%) respondents reported they were unemployed. Nine (64.28%) out of 14 respondents who were unemployed reported that their children watched ten hours or less of television per week. The results are consistent with the hypothesis. Families who have an unemployed adult in 54

the home can engage their children on a more consistent basis. Television managers and broadcasters could benefit from creating programming that is geared specifically for stay at home parents with young children. For example, a “mommy and me” show that allows for the adult to engage the child while they watch the show. The chi scores for Table 4.8 is higher than 0.05 making this hypothesis statistically significant

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The following hypotheses were believed originally in this study:

Hypothesis 1: Parents that have acquired a master’s degree or higher will be more knowledgeable than parents without a master degree about the American Academy of

Pediatrics’ recommendations for children’s television viewing.

Hypothesis 2: Households with parents who hold master’s degrees or higher censor their children’s time in front of the television more than parents without master’s degrees.

Hypothesis 3: Households that have two or more adults’ children will watch less television than a household that only has one adult.

Hypothesis 4: Children with millennial parents (34 years and younger) watch fewer hours of television than those with Generation Y parents (35 - 50 years old).

Hypothesis 5: Parents who make $100,000+ children will watch less television per week that people who make less than $100,000.

Hypothesis 6: Parents/Guardians who work part-time or not all will have children who watch ten hours or less of television per week.

Most of these hypotheses were disproved by this research. The researcher believes that this study was inconsistent with prior research because most of the participants were highly educated African American women. Most of the research that was used to support and develop the hypotheses explored in this research was based on the “typical

American.” The majority, or 62% of Americans, identify as Caucasian or white. Males make up 49.2 % of America's population, and only 8.9% of Americans hold a master’s 56

degree or higher. If this research is replicated, the respondent group should better reflect the American race, educational and gender makeup. African Americans consume more television than other races (Garcia 2013). These factors impacted the data collected for this research.

The hypothesis in this study were proven to be statistically insignificant. This is largely due to the survey respondents being too much like one another in terms of race, educational background, marital status and yearly household income. If this study were to be replicated more diverse sample group should be utilized. It is also recommended that the survey be taken by more than 92 respondents.

The facet of this research that the researcher found the most interesting was that whether a parent was educated or not, they were unaware of the American Academy of

Pediatrics recommendations toward children’s television viewing though the American

Academy of Pediatrics is considered the experts on this topic. It is expected that people who obviously valued education (received a Master’s degree or higher) would naturally be more educated and well-versed on this subject. It was astonishing to see that this was not the case.

Additionally, though most parents were not familiar with the recommendations, they did believe it was necessary to censor the time that children spent in front of the television and the content that they watched. The researcher questioned if parents/guardians, though unaware of the recommendations of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, were possibly aware of other research of on the topic of the impact of television on children. If this study were to continue with additional research on this subject, this question should be addressed. 57

One other interesting takeaway from this research was that the children of younger parents/guardians (34 years old and younger) watched more television than the children of their older counterparts. This surprised the researcher in large part because parents who are 34 and younger are classified as Generation Y or the Millennial

Generation, and that generation is the most health conscious of all generations according to Kiersz (2014)

One would think that with the millennials being the most educated and most health conscience generation, they would limit the amount of time that their children spend in front of the television because of all of the negative research that can be found on the long-term impact of children’s television viewing. The researcher believes that because the millennial generation grew up with more media than all previous generations, there is a higher level of comfort in utilizing media in general. Millenials are also the generation most likely to utilize platforms other than a traditional television to consume programming. It makes sense that this would result in them and their children consuming more television than their counterparts.

The number of adults in the home did not impact television viewing nearly to the same degree as the employment status of the adults in the household did. Households that had an unemployed adult present watched significantly less television than families where the adults were working. This is because parents who are unemployed have more time to spend with their children. They also may have less money to invest in television programming platforms such as cable or Netflix.

Conclusion

Television is one of the most popular and powerful mediums across all age groups in this country. It can be used in many ways such as entertainment or education. Many factors contribute to how much televisions children watch as well as the content that they watch. Some of the influencing social and economic factors on the television viewing habits of children are the race, educational level, and employment status of the parent or guardian.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to find the extent of interdependence between the parent or guardian’s socioeconomic status and its impact on the television viewing habits of children.

As a result of this study, television managers should run advertisements for children’s and educational programs making parents aware of the American Academy of

Pediatrics recommendations are regarding children’s television viewing. They would also benefit from running advertisements about the recommendations of American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as advertisements for children’s and educational programs geared towards adults because adults serve as the gatekeepers for their children and censor what they watch on television. When using children’s or educational programming marketing dollars to engage adults, television managers should focus their efforts on enagaging the

34 and younger adult demographic because their children consume more television.

Television managers would profit from creating children’s or educational programming for alternative television platforms such as netflix or hulu. Children of parents who make $100,000 watch more television programming and utilize mobile 59

phones and tablets more than there counterparts. They also have the disposable income to pay for subscriptions to platforms such as Hulu or Netflix. Television managers should also create programming that is geared towards stay-at-home parents and their young children. Children of unemployed parents currently watch the least amount of television.

This type of program would be a new and innovative way to engage that group and increase their television viewership.

Reference List

American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use. (2016.). Retrieved March 5, 2017, from https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the- aap/aap-press-room/pages/american-academy-of-pediatrics-announces-new- recommendations-for-childrens-media-use.aspx

Anderson, D. R. (2013, May 28). Learning from Television—Kids Do (and so Can Media Developers). Retrieved from http://www.fredrogerscenter.org/2013/05/28/learning-from- television-kids-do-and-so-can-media-developers/

Anonymous. (2004). TV’s Negative Effects. The Science Teacher; Washington, 71(8), 14– 16.

Anonymous. (2006). Using television in the classroom - a science teacher’s guide. Teaching Science; Deakin, 52(4), 52.

Anonymous. (2015, February 26). Too much TV could raise a child’s blood pressure. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2969678/Too- TV-raise-child-s-blood-pressure-Watching-two-hours-day-makes-30-likely-condition.html

Bliss, K. (2016). Negative Effects of Television on the Academic Performance of a Child. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from http://www.livestrong.com/article/496360-negative- effects-of-television-on-the-academic-performance-of-a-child/

Catapano, J. (n.d.). How Television Can Actually Help Learning. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://www.teachhub.com/how-television-can-actually-help-learning

Certain, L. K., & Kahn, R. S. (2002). Prevalence, Relates, and Trajectory of Television Viewing Among Infants and Toddlers. Pediatrics, 109(4), 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.4.634

Committee on Public Education. (2001). Children, Adolescents, and Television. Pediatrics, 107(2), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.2.423

Dershewitz, R. (2005). Does TV Viewing Affect Academic Performance? - NEJM Journal Watch. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from http://www.jwatch.org/jw200508160000004/2005/08/16/does-tv-viewing-affect-academic- performance

Garcia, C. (2013). Nielsen report confirms blacks watch more TV than any other group | theGrio. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://thegrio.com/2013/09/27/nielsen-report- confirms-blacks-watch-more-tv-than-any-other-group/

Gardner, A. (2011, June). TV, Video Games at Night May Cause Sleep Problems in Kids. 61

Time. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/27/tv-video-games-at-night- may-cause-sleep-problems-in-kids/

Grow and Tell: As Children Age from Toddlers to Teens, Their Media Palate Changes. (2015). Retrieved February 24, 2017, from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/grow-and-tell-as-children-age-from- toddlers-to-teens-their-media-palate-changes.html

Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolki, C., & Efron, L. D. (2003). Early Exposure to TV Violence Predicts Aggression in Adulthood. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx

Kenney, I. (2017, June 13). The Advantages of Children Watching TV. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from http://www.livestrong.com/article/118554-advantages-children-watch-tv/

Kiersz, A. (n.d.). 15 Facts About Millennials And The Economy That Everyone In Business Should Know. Retrieved June 24, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/millennial-facts-2014-5

Long, H. (n.d.). Kids who watch “Sesame Street” do better in school - Jun. 8, 2015. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/08/news/economy/sesame-street-prepare-kids-for-school- study/index.html

McDonough, P. (2009). Television and Beyond a Kid’s Eye View. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2009/television-and-beyond-a- kids-eye-view.html

McDonough, P. (2009.). TV Viewing Among Kids at an Eight-Year High. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2009/tv-viewing- among-kids-at-an-eight-year-high.html

Miller, Daphne. (1999). CNN - Television’s effects on kids: It can be harmful - August 20, 1999. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9908/20/kids.tv.effects/

Morowatisharifabad, M. A., Karimi, M., & Ghorbanzadeh, F. (2015). Watching television by kids: How much and why? Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 4. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.157194

Nielsen Estimates 118.4 Million TV Homes in the U.S. for the 2016-17 TV Season. (2016.). Retrieved February 24, 2017, from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/nielsen-estimates-118-4-million-tv- homes-in-the-us--for-the-2016-17-season.html

Owens, J., Maxim, R., McGuinn, M., Nobile, C., Msall, M., & Alario, A. (1999). Television-viewing Habits and Sleep Disturbance in School Children. Pediatrics, 104(3), e27–e27.

Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., & Barnett, T. (2010.). Toddlers and TV: Early exposure negative and long-term impact. Retrieved August 17, 2017, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161229.htm

Powell, J., & Roberts, Michael. (2014). Effects of television viewing on child development | child development. Retrieved June 16, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/effects-of-television-viewing-1995158

Saegert, S., Adler, N., Bullock, H., Cauce, A., Liu, W., Wyche, K. (2006). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf

Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., Lund, A. F., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). The Effects of Background Television on the Toy Play Behavior of Very Young Children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137–1151.

Some Television May Positively Affect Child Development. (2001). Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/411382

Thakkar, R. R., Garrison, M. M., & Christakis, D. A. (2006). A Systematic Review for the Effects of Television Viewing by Infants and Preschoolers. Pediatrics, 118(5), 2025–2031. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1307

Triantafillia, N., & Melissa-Halikiopoulou, C. (2009). Effects of socioeconomic status on television viewing conditions of preschoolers in northern Greece (PDF Download Available). Retrieved March 5, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232943946_Effects_of_socioeconomic_status_o n_television_viewing_conditions_of_preschoolers_in_northern_Greece

TV violence and children: It’s a bad combination. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2017, from http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/tv-violence-cause-child-anxiety-aggressive- behavior

TV Violence and Children. (2014). Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF- Guide/Children-And-TV-Violence-013.aspx

APPENDIX Survey on The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on the Television Viewing Habits of Children You have been invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Tiffany Harrison, a candidate for a Master of Science in Television Management, (supervised by Michelle McHugh) at Drexel University. In this survey, approximately 50 people will be asked to complete a questionnaire that asks questions about the television habits of young children. For this survey, the term young children will be used to describe children aged 0 - 6. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. It is very important for us to learn your opinions. Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported only in the aggregate. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact Tiffany Harrison by email at the email address [email protected]. Demographics What is your gender? o Male o Female

What is your ethnicity? o African American o Asian o Hispanic o Pacific Islander o Caucasian o Multiracial

What is your marital status? o Single (never married) o Married o Separated o Widowed o Divorced

Please select your age: o 18 – 24 64

o 25 – 29 o 30 – 34 o 35 – 39 o 40 – 44 o 45 – 49 o 50 +

What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? o Some high school o High School diploma/GED o Some college/Associate degree o Bachelor degree o Completed some postgraduate work o Master degree o Ph.D., law or medical degree

How many hours do you usually work per week? o 35 hours a week or more o Less than 35 hours a week o I am not currently employed

What was your total household income before taxes during the last 12 months? o Less than $25,000 o $25,000 - $34,999 o $35,000 – $49,999 o $50,000 - $74,999 o $75,000 - $99,999 o $100,000 - $149,999 o $150,000 - $199,999 o $200,000 or more

Where do you live? o City o Suburb of city o Town or Rural Area

Household Information In your household, which of these terms do you identify with? o Mother o Father 65

o Grandmother o Grandfather o Guardian

How many adults (age 18+) live in your home? o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4+

How many children (age 17 or younger) live in your home? o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5+

What is the age of the youngest child in your care? (If you only have one child, please indicate his or her age here.) o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 o 6

What is the age of the oldest child in your care? o I have one child and they are 6 or under o All of my children are 6 and under o 7 o 8 o 9 o 10 o 11 o 12 o 13 o 14 o 15 o 16 o 17

Do you have a yard? o Yes o No

If you answered no to the previous question, do you live within walking distance to a park? o Yes o No

Television Viewing Habits On average, how many hours of television does/do the child(ren) in your care watch per week? o Less than 1 o 1 – 5 o 6 – 10 o 11 – 15 o 16 – 20 o 21 – 25 o 26 – 30 o 31 – 35 o 36 – 40 o 40+

How familiar are you with the American Academy of Pediatrics television viewing recommendations for children? o 1 (Not at all) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 (I am very knowledgeable)

Does your familiarity with the American Academy of Pediatrics television viewing recommendations impact the quality or quantity of television that your children watch? o 1 (Never) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 (Always)

Do you censor what your child(ren) watch on television? 67

o 1 (Never) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 (Always)

Do you limit your child(ren)’s television viewing to children’s programming? o 1 (Never) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 (Always)

Do you seek out educational television programming for your child(ren)? o 1 (Never) o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5 (Always)

Do your child(ren) view television on a device other than a television? Check all that apply? o No o Tablet o Mobile phone o Other (please list)

Would you like to participate in a focus group about the impact of socioeconomic status on the television viewing habits of children? If yes, please submit your e-mail address.