Preaching to the Choir: TV Advisory Usage Among Parents of Gifted Children.

It has long been a well known fact that by the age of 18, most American youngsters will have spent more time in front of a television set than behind a school desk. Most parents and educators recognize television as a major socializing agent, and concerns about television's portrayal of violence and sex and its impact on young children have been long-standing (see, for example, Bandura, 1963). The question of what types of children are most influenced by television is a recurrent theme in the scientific literature, particularly since Schramm, Lyle, and Parker's (1961) conclusion that "for some children, under some conditions, television is particularly harmful" (p. 1). More recently, Sprafkin, Gadow, and Abelman (1992) noted that intellectually gifted children are especially vulnerable to attractive television portrayals. They tend to watch more television at an earlier age and are exposed to more age-inappropriate programming than their non-gifted counterparts. During the early school years, intellectually gifted children are also likely to perceive many of the fictional characters found in sophisticated adult-oriented programming as real and fail to accurately comprehend many of the more complex visual techniques employed as narrative devices in these programs (see Abelman, 1992; Hunter, 1992), leading to misinterpretation of television information.

Until recently, neither the television industry nor the government have taken much initiative to address the concerns of parents and educators and the potential vulnerability of young children (see Abelman, 1995). However, in January 1996, with the House voting 414 to 16 and the Senate voting 91 to 5, the first major rewrite of communications regulation in half-century was approved. One provision in the new Telecommunications Act required every TV set sold in the U.S. to come with the ability to block programming based on an electronically encoded rating. The television industry itself was required to develop the rating system, which would identify "violence, sex and other indecent material" (cited in Stem, 1996, p. 9), and agree voluntarily to broadcast signals containing such ratings. In December 1996, Jack Valenti, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and head of the ratings effort, presented an on-screen system that separated general entertainment programs on broadcast and cable television into four age-based categories and children's programming into two: TV-M (mature audiences only); TV-14 (may be inappropriate for children under 14); TV-PG (parental guidance suggested); TV-G (suitable for all audiences), TV-Y7 (suitable for children 7 and older), and TV-Y (suitable for children of all ages).

It did not take long before critics of the proposed rating system went public with their concerns. The Parents Television Council--the entertainment-monitoring arm of the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center--pronounced the MPAA ratings "hopelessly vague," "inconsistent," and "contradictory" (Fleming, 1997a, p. 22). National Parent Teacher Association president Joan Dykstra called the industry's age-based system "confusing and insufficient" (Fleming, 1997b, p. 8). Senator Conrad Bums (R-Mont.), chairperson of the Communications Sub-committee, feared that parents would find the rating system counter-productive when attempting to influence their children's televiewing habits and practices (Aversa, 1997). Even Edward Markey (D-Mass.), father of the V-chip legislation that prompted the ratings, said that "the industry system doesn't give parents information they need to make appropriate decisions for their own kids, and it won't give them the choices they need to block programming" (Fleming, 1997a, p. 22). The Annenberg Public Policy Center (Bash, 1997; see Mifflin, 1997) and the National Association of Broadcasters (Greenberg, Rampoldi-Hnilo, & Ver Steeg, 1998) confirmed this observation by reporting that almost two-thirds (65.3%) of parents were not using the rating system to guide their children's viewing. In response, legislative efforts to revamp the system were put into effect. In July 1997, television programmers agreed to modify the age-based rating system by adding symbols to alert viewers about violent (V) and sexual (S) content, course language (L), and suggestive dialogue (D) (see Farhi, 1997; Ostling, 1997).

Although the relative failure of the original age-based television rating system has been noted, there has been little insight into how or why failure occurred. Furthermore, a comprehensive assessment of the actual use of the advisory ratings by one-third of American households has yet to be conducted. The research reported here attempts to examine the manner by which the advisory ratings are incorporated into rules and regulations about television in the homes of intellectually gifted children. This investigation also profiles the types of parents most and least likely to use the ratings in their decision-making, and offers insight into the likely success of the new content-driven ratings campaign and forthcoming V-chip technology.

Parental Mediation 

The theoretical assumption on which any media advisory system is based--that parents can directly impact on their children's media use--is well grounded in the scientific literature. A substantial body of research indicates that parents have the potential to influence their children's media consumption patterns (Austin, 1980; Gunter & Svennevig, 1980; Nivin, 1960; Singer, Singer, Desmond, Hirsch, & Nicol, 1988), interpretations and acceptance of media content (Christenson, 1992; Clifford, Gunter, & McAleer, 1995; Davies, 1997), and the learning and performance of anti-social and pro-social behaviors portrayed in popular media content (Berry & Asamen, 1993; Brown & Bryant, 1990).

Although parents can affect their children's television use through intervention, few parents actually become directly involved in or actively exercise control over their children's selection, consumption, and interpretation of television information. Abelman (1995), Desmond, Singer, Singer, Calam, and Colimore (1985), McLeod, Atkin, and Chaffee (1972), and Steiner (1963), among others, discovered that less than half of the parents in their respective samples forbade exposure to certain adult or offensive shows, set bedtime limits on viewing, or made comments on the nature of the content being viewed. Researchers have found that as television set saturation (see Hefzallah, 1987), VCR usage (see Lindlof & Shatzer, 1990), channel number (see Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), cable access (see Atkin, Heeter, & Baldwin, 1989) and broadcast network options (see Andreasen, 1990; 1994) increased over the years, parental control over television and family co-viewing dramatically decreased. Desmond, Singer, and Singer (1990) noted that "parents and children reported instances of general and television-oriented mediation with a relatively high degree of reliability, and yet we observed few instances of such activity during our home visits" (p. 304).

That almost two-thirds of parents did not use the age-based MPAA rating system to guide their children s viewing is consistent with a literature laden with assessments of government warning mediations and industry advisory interventions on a variety of media. The impact of specially produced, parent-targeted television warnings (Wurtzel & Surlin, 1978), film ratings (Austin, 1980), music warning labels (Christenson, 1992), radio public service announcements and newspaper articles (Neuendorf, 1979), and TV viewing guides (Greenberg, Abelman, & Cohen, 1990) have been examined. Although the informational materials were heard/read by the majority of the target audiences, the resultant changes in parental mediatory practices were insignificant in each investigation. In addition, Greenberg, Abelman, and Cohen (1990) found that the children watched the programs that were identified as "warranting parental supervision or discretion." Similar "boomerang" results were found in interventions reported in Heald (1980), Curry (1983), Cantor and Harrison (1996), Cantor and Nathanson (1997), and Desmond (1997).

Interestingly, several specific factors have been identified in the literature that help determine how much and which form of mediation is most likely to occur in a given household. Chief among them are child rearing practices, parental perceptions of television effects, children's cognitive abilities, children's television consumption levels, and the gender of the parent/child. Each of these factors offers insight into whether and how the new television rating system would be employed in the household and offers a profile of the most and least likely receptive users of the rating system.

Child Rearing Practices

Two main categories of child rearing practices have been identified by Aronfreed (1969, 1976) and Hoffman (1970, 1975), and subsequently applied to parental mediation of television in recent years--induction and sensitization. The main difference between these two modes of child rearing is that induction is communication-oriented and sensitization is based on the exercise of actual or implied power. Inductive practices "tend to make the child's control of its behavior independent of external contingencies. In contrast, [sensitization] merely sensitizes the child to the anticipation of punishment" (Aronfreed, 1969, pp. 309-310). Induction techniques include the use of reasoning, explanation, and appeals to the child's pride and achievement, and they exert little external power over the child. Parents who engage in this form of discipline/child rearing typically point out to the child why one course of action may be better than another for the child's own well-being or because of effects on others. Sensitization "includes physical punishment, deprivation of material objects or privileges, the direct application of force, or the threat of any of these" (Hoffman, 1970, p. 285). Inductive and sensitizing techniques are often employed in combination, to varying degrees.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the type of child rearing practices (see, for example, Davis & Rimm, 1998; Osofsky & Oldfield, 1972; Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & Goodnow, 1992) and comparable disciplinary style (see, for example, Socha & Stamp, 1995; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982) are related to children's social and moral behavior in general. Several researchers have determined that the interaction and socialization style of parents are related to children's use of television information in particular. Singer, Singer, and Rapaczynski (1984) found that parents who most regularly employed sensitization techniques in their child rearing had few rules about television. This finding was also evident in a follow-up investigation by Desmond, Singer, Singer, Calam, and Colimore (1985). Similarly, Abelman (1986) found that parents who were high sensitization/low inductive tended to be infrequent mediators of television. However, when they did intervene in their children's televiewing, they were most likely to employ more restrictive forms of mediation--that is, the deprivation of a favorite television program as a disciplinary device. Parents who were high inductive/low sensitization were more frequent mediators and more likely to employ evaluative forms of mediation--that is, the purposeful discussion and/or criticism of programs and commercials. The author also found that low inductive/low sensitization parents were largely infrequent and unfocused mediators, using television for reward/punishment without rationale, co-viewing with their children with little direct intervention, and recommending programs for viewing or not viewing without explanation. Consequently, when examining the impact of the television rating system on parental mediation, it is reasonable to expect that:

H1: Parents who engage in high induction/low sensitization child rearing practices are more likely to employ the rating system in their mediation than are parents who are high sensitization/low induction;

H2: Parents who engage in high induction/low sensitization child rearing practices are more likely to use the rating system in their discussions of programs rather than as a method of restrictive mediation; and

H3: Parents who engage in high sensitization/low induction child rearing practices are more likely to use the rating system to directly restrict viewing preferences or practices than any other form of mediation.

Parental Perceptions of Television Effects

Among the most prominent factors that are likely to contribute to the amount of parental control of the home-televiewing situation are parents' perceptions of television's impact on their children. Mills and Watkins (1982) and Bybee, Robinson, and Turow (1982) discovered that one reason for the lack of parental mediation found in the literature was that many parents did not perceive television to be a harmful or beneficial force in their children's lives. According to the authors, "there was a clear relationship between parents' awareness of possible effects of televiewing and subsequent enforcement of rules at home" (Mills & Watkins, 1982, p. 11). Similarly, Austin (1993) found that a greater knowledge of and skepticism about the television medium led to more active mediation. Consequently, when examining the impact of the rating system on parental mediation, it is reasonable to expect that:

H4: Parents who believe that television is likely to have significant positive or negative consequences on their children's behavior are more likely to employ the rating system in their mediation than are parents who perceive little or no consequences of televiewing.

Abelman and Pettey (1989) found that parents who were primarily concerned with the behavioral effects of television (e.g., the medium influencing how children behave during and after viewing) were more likely to mediate their children's televiewing than other parents, and were more likely to employ restrictive methods of mediation. In addition, parents who were more concerned with cognitive- and/or affective-level effects (e.g., the medium influencing what children think about and their thought processes; the medium influencing how children feel about themselves and others) were more likely to use evaluative mediation than other parents. These findings were confirmed by Van Evra (1998) and Desmond, Singer, and Singer (1990), and duplicated in Abelman (1991). Consequently, when examining the impact of the rating system on parental mediation, it is reasonable to expect that:

H5: Parents who perceive television's impact to be primarily behavioral are more likely to employ the rating system as a method to directly restrict viewing preferences or practices than are parents who perceive television's impact to be more cognitive and/or affective; and

H6: Parents who perceive television's impact to be primarily cognitive and/or affective are more likely to employ the rating system in their discussions about television than are parents who perceive television's impact to be primarily behavioral.

Children's Cognitive Abilities

In any discussion of parents' interactions with and disciplining of their children, and the resultant outcome of these activities, it is important to point out that children are not mere passive recipients of parental child-rearing practices. The nature of the child often dictates or shapes the type, intensity, and regularity of parental interaction and discipline, as well as how a child is likely to react to those activities. According to Brody, Pillegrini, and Sigel (1986):

   Just as researchers realized, a decade and a half ago, the limitations of
   unidirectional models of socialization, they today recognize that families
   comprise several subsystems (i.e., spousal or marital, parent-child, and
   the sibling subsystem), each of which affects and is affected by events
   that occur in the other subsystems. In particular, this suggests that
   parenting both influences and is influenced by the child. (p. 291)

This observation explains the tendency for the inductive communication style to be more frequently found among parents of intellectually gifted children (Colangelo & Dettman, 1983; Morrow & Wilson, 1961; Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980), particularly when compared with other types of children (see, for example, Cummings & Maddux, 1985; Lynch & Lewis, 1988). In general, parents of gifted children are significantly clearer and more open in their communication with their children than parents of academically average children (Perkins, 1989).

In addition to being typically inductive in their child rearing, parents of intellectually gifted children are particularly conscious of their children's learning processes (Clark, 1997; Socha & Stamp, 1995) and the sources of external stimuli that tend to advance or hinder their children's intellectual progression (Page, 1983) when compared with other parents. This concern clearly generalizes to their perceptions of the likely impact of television on their children. According to Sprafkin, Gadow, and Abelman (1992), gifted children watch fewer hours of television than their age-mates from birth to adolescence but tend to watch more television during both the early school years and early adolescence-stages when they are arguably most vulnerable to social influences. They are also more likely to watch adult-oriented programming at an earlier age than their peers. As a result, parents of intellectually gifted children generally believe that television can have both positive (e.g., increases curiosity) and negative (decreases reading ability) affective- and cognitive-level effects on their children. Given this particular configuration of child rearing practices, parental perceptions of the role of television in their children's lives, and children's TV consumption habits, it is reasonable to expect that:

H7: Parents of intellectually gifted children are more likely to employ the rating system in their mediation than are parents of academically average children;

H8: Parents of intellectually gifted children are more likely to employ the rating system in their discussions about television than are parents of academically average children; and

H9: Parents of children who are high consumers of television are more likely to employ the rating system in their mediation than are parents of low consumers.

Gender

A significant amount of research suggests that how a parent responds to a child may be dependent on whether the child is male or female. Margolin and Patterson (1975), Hatfield and Abrams (1995), and Randall (1995), for example, have demonstrated that fathers provided almost twice as many positive reactions to their sons as to their daughters. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and Prusank (1995) found that boys were punished more often than girls and received more praise and encouragement by mothers. Baumrind (1971), Hoffman (1975), and Socha and Stamp (1995), among others, have suggested that fathers tended to be more authoritarian or sensitizing than mothers when engaged in child rearing and disciplining. There is also some evidence that parents' rules about television viewing vary with the gender of the child. Barcus (1969) and Abelman (1985), for example, found that boys had fewer TV rules than girls. Similarly, stricter and more frequent rule-making has been observed for girls (Greenberg & Dominick, 1969; Lyle & Hoffman, 1982), particularly when fathers were in charge of television mediation. It is reasonable to expect that:

H10: Parents of girls are more likely to employ the rating system in their mediation than are parents of boys; and

H11: Fathers are more likely to employ the rating system as a method to directly restrict viewing preferences or practices than are mothers or parental dyads.

Method

Participants

The sample of parents was generated from 588 households with school-labeled academically average (N = 459; 79%) and intellectually gifted (N = 129; 21%) second grade children selected from 40 classrooms across 10 elementary schools in and around a mid-size Midwestern city. Gifted students met state and local guidelines for placement in special education or pull-out programs. The children ranged in age from 7 to 8, with a mean age of 7.9 years. Children in this age group were selected because they have been identified by the MPAA (Stem, 1996) as in the greatest need for parental mediation, thereby resulting in the TV-Y7 (suitable for children 7 and older), TV-G (suitable for all audiences), and TV-Y (suitable for children of all ages) rating categories. They have also been among the primary targets of the majority of social intervention efforts reported in Clamp (1988), Brown (1991), and Van Evra (1998). Fifty-three percent of the children were girls. Parent participants were recruited by letter, which sought the "only or primary rule-making and rule-enforcing parent in the household, if one exists, or both parents if [they are] equally involved in rule-making and rule-enforcing." The sample consisted of dyads (49%), fathers (29%), and mothers (22%).

Measures

Child Rearing Practices. Parental child rearing orientations were assessed through an instrument created by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) and modified by Korzenny, Greenberg, and Atkin (1979) and Abelman and Petter (1989). Parental reactions toward the child's behavior were obtained in response to several hypothetical situations. Each parent was presented with eight situations, four positive and four negative. Nine possible responses were provided for the four items that compose the positive situation index. Similarly, nine possible responses were provided for the four items that compose the negative situation index. Parents were asked whether each of the responses represented what their actual response would be should the hypothetical situations occur (response categories: no, maybe, yes--coded 0 to 2). Final scores for each of the eighteen response items were summed across the various social situations. The means were typically higher for the positive than for the negative situations; the means for the induction strategy items were typically higher than for the sensitization items.

The items were submitted to a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation, limiting the extraction of factors to the two hypothesized induction and sensitization dimensions. Factor 1 underlies the inductive orientation, accounting for 37% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 6.13 (alpha = .90), and factor 2 comprises the sensitizing orientation of parental discipline, accounting for 23% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 4.02 (alpha = .89). Loadings of .35 were considered the cutoff point for the factor loadings. The proportion of inductive and sensitizing child rearing practices across the subjects employed in this investigation can be found in Table 1.

Table 1

Child Rearing Practices

                              High Induction/     High Induction/
                            High Sensitization   Low Sensitization

Parents of Academically
  Average Children                  2%                 28%
Parents of Intellectually
  Gifted Children                  21%                 72%

                              Low Induction/       Low Induction/
                             Low Sensitization   High Sensitization

Parents of Academically
  Average Children                  12%                 48%
Parents of Intellectually
  Gifted Children                    2%                  5%

Parental Perceptions of Television Effects. The second part of the questionnaire asked parents about their attitudes toward the likely effects of television on children. Fifteen statements were presented that referred to various commonly debated consequences of the television/child relationship (see Abelman, 1987), including increases and decreases in reading ability, verbal ability, self concept, the desire for immediate gratification, creativity, knowledge and awareness of the world, attention span, curiosity, desire to learn, interest in reading, stereotyping of roles/genders, level of physical activity, appreciation of others, and aggressive behavior.

Responses noted whether parents felt television was not a contributory cause at all," a "contributory cause of little importance," a "somewhat important contributory cause," an "important contributory cause," or a "very important contributory cause," (coded 0-5). These items were also submitted to a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation and resulted in three factors. Factor 1 underlies parents' perceptions of "cognitive level effects" (TV influencing what and how children think) accounting for 31% of the variance and having an eigenvalue of 5.47 (alpha = .92). Factor 2 underlies parents' perceptions of "affective level effects" (TV influencing what and how children feel about themselves and others), which has an eigenvalue of 4.12 and explains 27% of the variance (alpha = .87). Factor 3, reflecting "behavioral level effects" (TV influencing what and how children behave), has an eigenvalue of 2.97 and explains 18% of the variance (alpha = .91). In addition, final scores for each of the fifteen items were summed. Those with a mean score of 3 or greater were classified as believing that television is likely to have significant positive or negative consequences on their children. The proportion of parents' who believed that television has significant cognitive, affective, and behavioral level effects on their children across the subjects employed in this investigation can be found in Table 2.

Table 2

Perceived Effects by Parents

                               Cognitive-Level      Affective-Level

Parents of Academically
 Average Children                     8%                   63%
Parents of Intellectually
 Gifted Children                     76%                   52%

                                Behavioral-Level

Parents of Academically
 Average Children                    78%
Parents of Intellectually
 Gifted Children                     12%

Parental Mediation/Ratings Usage. The type and quantity of parental mediation of television were assessed through a modified version of the instrument utilized by Bybee, Robinson, and Turow (1982). A series of fourteen questions asked parents about the frequency (often, sometimes, rarely, never) with which they used certain methods, in conjunction with TV ratings information, to control or guide their child's televiewing. They addressed the use of TV ratings to pick shows to watch or to avoid, to set limitations on when and what to view, to inspire the switching of channels, to explain or discuss programming, to inspire co-viewing, and to facilitate the use of TV for reward or punishment. The level of mediation employing TV ratings was determined by assigning numerical values to each response category (coded 4-1) and summed across the fourteen items that comprise the mediation index. Parents were categorized as being high mediators (range = 43-56, mean = 49), moderate mediators (range = 29-42, mean = 37), and low mediators (range = 28-14, mean = 17) (see Table 3).

Table 3

Quantity of Parental Mediation

                                            High    Moderate   Low

Parents of Academically Average Children     12%      40%      48%
Parents of Intellectually Gifted Children    23%      33%      44%

The items were then submitted to a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine underlying dimensions of mediation. Three distinctive mediation strategies emerged. The first was the Restrictive Mediation strategy (accounting for 49% of the variance and having an eigenvalue of 6.79), which focused on the physical removal of the child from the medium in the form of specific viewing hours and the forbidding of specific programs based on ratings information (alpha = .92). The second was the Evaluative Mediation strategy (explaining 20% of the variance and having an eigenvalue of 5.01), which entailed the purposeful discussion of TV programs and ratings between parents and children (alpha = .90). The third factor reflected the Unfocused Mediation strategy (explaining 8% of the variance and having an eigenvalue of 2.95), and entailed casual coviewing and the use of television for punishment and/or reward (alpha = .84). The proportion of parents' who employed restrictive, evaluative, and unfocused television mediation strategies across the subjects employed in this investigation can be found in Table 4.

Table 4

Parental Mediation Strategie

                              Restrictive   Evaluative   Unfocused

Parents of Academically
 Average Children                 58%          18%          24%
Parents of intellectually
 Gifted Children                  12%          73%          15%

Children's Television Consumption. Three weeks prior to the parents' participation in this investigation, children were asked to keep a two-week diary of their television viewing behavior as part of a daily homework assignment. In comparison with A.C. Nielsen's (1996) measures of average child audience viewing activity, children viewing: (1) under 1 hour per day were identified as "low consumers;" (2) between 1-4 hours per day were identified as "moderate consumers;" and (3) over 4 hours per day were identified as "high consumers." The proportion of low, moderate, and high consumers among the child subjects employed in this investigation can be found in Table 5. Distribution of viewership across and within these two categories of learning capability is consistent with the research literature (see Sprafkin, Gadow, & Abelman, 1992).

Table 5

Television Consumption

                                 High-Level    Moderate-Level
                                 Consumption    Consumption

Academically Average Children        40%            48%
Intellectually Gifted Children       51%            41%

                                  Low-Level
                                 Consumption

Academically Average Children        12%
Intellectually Gifted Children        8%

Statistical Analysis

Canonical correlation was the analytical tool used to examine the multivariate associations between parental ratings usage, child rearing styles, parent's perceptions of TV's impact, children's cognitive abilities, children's TV consumption habits, and gender. Similar to loadings in factor analysis, canonical component loadings represent the correlations between the original variables and the canonical variates which are linear composites of the original variables. Also like factor analysis, there may be more than one orthogonal linear composite or canonical root extracted from the data (see Ducey, 1986; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992). To reduce possible misinterpretations that might result from multicollinearity, structure coefficients were computed by summing the product of canonical loadings and standardized scores of the variables for each set.(1)

Results

The canonical correlation analysis (see Table 6) indicates that three roots are significant at the .001 level(2) The first canonical root (Rc = .44) explained 18.2% of the variance in common between the canonical variates. Set 1 depicts a positive relationship between Evaluative mediation and a high level of parental mediation of television, as well as a negative correlation with low mediation. Set 2 indicates positive associations among parents' perceptions of cognitive- and affective-level effects, perceptions of television's significant impact, high inductive/low sensitization child rearing practices, high induction/ high sensitizing practices, and parental dyads. Set 3 reflects a positive association between child giftedness, female gender, and moderate and low levels of television consumption.

Table 6

Canonical Correlates

                                          Root 1

                                  Canonical    Structure
                                   Variate    Coefficient

Set 1: Parental Ratings Usage
Restrictive Mediation               -.24         .21
Evaluative Mediation                 .82         .92(*)
Unfocused Mediation                  .09         .12
High Mediation                       .80         .87(*)
Moderate Mediation                   .02         .09
Low Mediation                       -.54        -.73(*)
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.09]       [.15]

Set 2: Parent Attributes
High Inductive/Low Sensitizing       .81         .93(*)
High Sensitizing/Low Inductive      -.79        -.84(*)
Low Inductive/Low Sensitizing        .08         .17
High Inductive/High Sensitizing      .28         .34(*)
Perceived Cognitive Effects          .88         .91(*)
Perceived Affective Effects          .39         .65(*)
Perceived Behavioral Effects        -.02        -.06
Perceived Significant Impact         .76         .86(*)
Perceived Insignificant Impact      -.09        -.19
Parental Dyad                        .85         .94(*)
Mother as Mediator                   .11         .09
Father as Mediator                  -.02        -.07
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.03]       [.12]

Set 3: Child Attributes
Intellectually Gifted                .77         .91(*)
Academically Average                 .03         .09
High Consumer                       -.04        -.12
Moderate Consumer                    .14         .28(*)
Low Consumer                         .81         .87(*)
Male                                -.03        -.11
Female                               .76         .93(*)
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.05]       [.14]

                                          Root 2

                                  Canonical    Structure
                                   Variate    Coefficient

Set 1: Parental Ratings Usage
Restrictive Mediation                .45         .87(*)
Evaluative Mediation                -.18        -.19
Unfocused Mediation                  .01         .17
High Mediation                       .10         .16
Moderate Mediation                   .82         .94(*)
Low Mediation                        .07         .09
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.08]       [.12]

Set 2: Parent Attributes
High Inductive/Low Sensitizing      -.02        -.07
High Sensitizing/Low Inductive       .45         .87(*)
Low Inductive/Low Sensitizing       -.09         .12
High Inductive/High Sensitizing      .12         .19
Perceived Cognitive Effects          .09         .11
Perceived Affective Effects          .16         .18
Perceived Behavioral Effects         .37         .78(*)
Perceived Significant Impact         .62         .65(*)
Perceived Insignificant Impact      -.08        -.17
Parental Dyad                       -.05        -.09
Mother as Mediator                   .04         .08
Father as Mediator                   .55         .67(*)
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.06]       [.10]

Set 3: Child Attributes
Intellectually Gifted                .07         .13
Academically Average                 .37         .64(*)
High Consumer                        .57         .89(*)
Moderate Consumer                    .46         .66(*)
Low Consumer                        -.11        -.17
Male                                 .12         .19
Female                               .05         .12
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.04]       [.08]

                                          Root 3

                                  Canonical    Structure
                                   Variate    Coefficient

Set 1: Parental Ratings Usage
Restrictive Mediation               -.35        -.67(*)
Evaluative Mediation                -.20        -.22(*)
Unfocused Mediation                  .74         .85(*)
High Mediation                      -.22        -.49
Moderate Mediation                   .04         .06
Low Mediation                        .57         .89(*)
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.04]       [.03]

Set 2: Parent Attributes
High Inductive/Low Sensitizing      -.12         .14
High Sensitizing/Low Inductive      -.14         .12
Low Inductive/Low Sensitizing        .35         .66(*)
High Inductive/High Sensitizing     -.12        -.11
Perceived Cognitive Effects          .02         .09
Perceived Affective Effects          .09        -.05
Perceived Behavioral Effects        -.10        -.16
Perceived Significant Impact        -.09        -.14
Perceived Insignificant Impact       .21         .27(*)
Parental Dyad                       -.12         .17
Mother as Mediator                   .23         .37(*)
Father as Mediator                   .29         .42(*)
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.04]       [.03]

Set 3: Child Attributes
Intellectually Gifted                .17         .37(*)
Academically Average                 .72         .86(*)
High Consumer                        .49         .82(*)
Moderate Consumer                    .17         .14
Low Consumer                        -.07        -.09
Male                                 .62         .92(*)
Female                              -.13        -.16
 Redundancy Coefficients            [.04]       [.02]

Note: Root 1: Rc = .44, eigenvalue = .18, [chi square] (139) = 122.34, p<.001; Root 2: Rc = .51, eigenvalue = .26, [chi square] (167) = 154.32, p<.001; Root 3: Rc = .67, eigenvalue = .42, [chi square] (282) = 254.37, p<.001; (*) p < .001

This root would seem to identify the type of household most likely to utilize TV ratings information in the mediation of their children's televiewing--parental dyads who, collectively, employ a highly inductive style of child rearing (partially supporting hypothesis 1), a highly evaluative method of mediation (supporting hypothesis 2), believes that television can have significant positive and/or negative effects on children (supporting hypothesis 4), and is more concerned with cognitive- and affective-level effects than behavioral-level effects (supporting hypothesis 6). In addition, parents most likely to utilize TV ratings information in their evaluative mediation are also more likely to have an intellectually gifted child (supporting hypotheses 7 and 8). Interestingly, these high mediators are also likely to have children who are moderate or low consumers of television. This does not lend support for Hypothesis 9, which predicted that high mediators would have children who were high consumers of television. These children are also more likely to be female (supporting hypothesis 10).

The second canonical root (Rc = .51) explained 25.7% of the variance in common between the canonical variates. Set 1 depicts a positive relationship between Restrictive mediation and a moderate level of mediation. Set 2 indicates positive associations among parents' perceptions of behavioral-level effects, perceptions of television's significant impact, high sensitization/low inductive child rearing practices, and fathers as primary mediators. Set 3 reflects a positive association between children with learning disabilities, academically average children, and high and moderate levels of television consumption.

This root would seem to reflect parents with a moderate likelihood of utilizing TV ratings information in their mediation of their children's televiewing--a father (supporting hypothesis 11) who typically disciplines through physical punishment and/or the deprivation of material objects or privileges, including more restrictive methods of television mediation (supporting hypothesis 3). This type of parent believes that television can have significant positive and/or negative effects on children (supporting hypothesis 4), and is more concerned with behavioral-level effects than cognitive- or affective-level effects (supporting hypothesis 5). Parents of academically average children tend to use the ratings information in more restrictive methods of television mediation (supporting hypothesis 8). Unexpectedly, these children also tend to be moderate or high consumers of television. This, along with the structure coefficients of the first canonical root, does not support hypothesis 9 which predicted that high TV consumption by children would be associated with a high level of mediation by parents.

The third canonical root (Rc = .67) explained 42.1% of the variance in common between the canonical variates. Set 1 depicts a positive relationship between Unfocused mediation and a low level of mediation, as well as a negative association between Unfocused mediation, other forms of mediation, and a high level of mediation. Set 2 indicates positive associations among parents' perceptions of no significant impact of television, low inductive/low sensitization child rearing practices, and fathers or mothers as the primary mediator. Set 3 reflects a positive association between academically average children, high levels of television consumption, and male gender.

This root would seem to identify the type of parents least likely to utilize TV ratings information in their mediation of their children's televiewing. These parents tend to be either mothers or fathers who exhibit little explicit supervision or direct discipline when engaging in child rearing in general and television mediation in particular. When mediation does occur, it tends to be highly unfocused in nature. This is in line with the expectations posited in the first set of hypotheses, which predicted that parents with more inductive and sensitizing child rearing practices would employ the ratings in more evaluative and restrictive mediation strategies, respectively. The profile of the parent least likely to utilize TV ratings also includes a perception that television does not necessarily have significant positive and/or negative effects on children (which supports hypothesis 4), despite the fact that their children tend to be the heaviest consumers of television (which does not support hypothesis 9). In addition, boys who are academically average are more likely to have parents who are unfocused, low mediators than are academically average girls (which supports hypotheses 10).

Discussion

To date, the MPAA television advisory system has not been a resounding success. Just over a third (34.7%) of parents were reported using the age-based rating system to guide their children's viewing (Bash, 1997; Mifflin, 1997) and many parents found the ratings counterproductive to decision-making (Cantor & Harrison, 1996; Krcmar & Cantor, 1997) and relatively useless (Greenberg, Rampoldi-Hnilo, & Ver Steeg, 1998). Critics have begun second-guessing the Telecommunications Act provision to empower parents with ratings information to keep inappropriate programming from reaching their children. They are now wondering whether the newly revamped system with content coding and the forthcoming V-chip technology are wasted efforts (see Aversa, 1997; Fleming, 1997a) as well.

This investigation confirms the finding that a relatively small proportion of parents actively incorporate TV ratings into their mediation of television. In addition, by profiling the types of parents most likely to use the ratings in their decision-making and the manner by which ratings are incorporated into rules and regulations about television in the home, this investigation suggests that the MPAA has also been preaching to the choir. Those parents in the least need of mediation assistance are the ones most likely to be using the ratings information. These mothers and fathers work in tandem when creating and enforcing rules about television, interact frequently with their children, use reasoning, explanation, and appeals to the child's pride and achievement as disciplinary techniques, and exert little external power over their children. According to the self-reports employed in this investigation, these parents use the ratings information in their discussions about TV with their children; children who tend to be in the least need of this information. The children of these high mediators were low-to-moderate consumers of television, intellectually gifted, and primarily female.

When considering the new ratings with content-specific information, which were implemented in the Summer of 1997, it would seem likely that they would be used by the same audience in the same manner as the age-based ratings--as fodder for discussion when planning to watch or while watching television. When the availability of the V-chip became a reality in late-1998, it seems unlikely that these highly inductive/low sensitizing parents will use this technology to block programming from their children. Such restrictive mediation is uncharacteristic of parents of intellectually gifted children. It will be interesting to see if the V-chip is used by the children themselves in their televiewing decision-making.

This investigation also suggests that those parents and children in greatest need of ratings information to guide televiewing in the home are the least likely to use it. These parents, typically mothers or fathers creating and enforcing rules about television without the input of another parent, tend to exhibit little explicit supervision or direct discipline when engaging in child rearing in general and television mediation in particular. They tend to believe that television does not necessarily have significant positive or negative effects on children. They also tend to constitute the greatest proportion of the sample. When mediation is enacted by these parents, it tends to be highly unfocused. Contrary to predictions, the children of these low mediators are the heaviest consumers of television in the sample. They also tend to be boys.

It would seem unlikely that the simple addition of content-specific information to the age-based ratings would be sufficient to modify an unfocused mediation strategy deeply rooted in low inductive/low sensitizing child rearing practices. Consequently, it is unlikely that the new rating system will have any significant impact on this segment of the population. Although V-chip technology provides a simple, more direct method of mediation for parents, one expects that it, too, will be largely ignored by these parents.

The findings in this investigation that pertain to gifted children and their parents are particularly engaging and raise several questions for future research. According to Meckstroth (1992, p. 91):

   Issues for families of gifted children are complex and intense. Indeed, the
   process of recognizing qualities of giftedness in a child evokes a range of
   responses in families effecting the roles and relationships of an entire
   family system as the whole family constellation shifts to accommodate a
   child's giftedness, and each family member's reactions differ because of
   their own particular temperament, personality, interests, and abilities.

Although this investigation found that parents of gifted children employed the TV ratings in a highly consistent manner--that is, through frequent parent/child interaction, the use of reasoning, and explanation rather than more restrictive methods of intervention--there is little insight as to whether this strategy was used for all family members. Are mediation strategies different for gifted and non-gifted children in the same household? Clearly, further investigation is required.

Another question that should be addressed in future research is whether parents respond to their children's traits, aptitudes, and behaviors when devising television mediation strategies or reflect on their own characteristics as adults. Neisser, Boodoo, Bouchard, Boykin, Brody, Ceci, Halpern, Loehlin, Perloff, Sternberg, and Urbina (1996) suggested that, "like every trait, intelligence is the joint product of genetic and environmental influences" (p. 96). Perhaps the unique characteristics of intellectually gifted children, such as problem-solving ability, high internal control, and abstract thinking (see Frasier, Hunsaker, Lee, Mitchell, Cramond, Krisel, Garcia, Martin, Frank, & Finley, 1995) are shared by parents. How might this allow us to best predict parental mediation strategies and the potential use of the new ratings with content-specific information and V-chip technology?

(1) Although alternatives to canonical correlation have recently come into fashion, this analysis has been the method of choice in the body of research on which this investigation is based and with which our findings will be compared (i.e., Abelman, 1987). It should also be noted that one particular advantage of canonical correlation involves its ability to accommodate metric as well as nonmetric data for either the dependent or independent variables; it places the fewest restrictions on the types of data on which it operates. Because some measures in this investigation are essentially ordinal composites (i.e., nonmultivariate-normal), canonical analysis remains a more appropriate test than others that are designed for metric data.

(2) The significance of canonical roots is assessed through the Bartlett's chi-square test.

REFERENCES

A.C. Nielsen Company (1997). Year end report. New York: Author.

Abelman, R. (1985). Sex differences in parental disciplinary practices: An antecedent of television's impact on children. Women's Study Journal, 8(2), 51-61.

Abelman, R. (1986). Children's awareness of television's prosocial fare: Parental discipline as an antecedent. Journal of Family Issues, 7(1), 51-66.

Abelman, R. (1987). Child giftedness and its role in the parental mediation of television viewing. Roeper Review, 9(4), 217-220.

Abelman R. (1991). Parental communication style and its influence on exceptional children's television viewing. Roeper Review, 14(1), 23-27.

Abelman, R. (1992). Television and gifted children: What the research says. Roeper Review. 15(2), 80-84.

Abelman, R. (1995). Reclaiming the wasteland. TV and gifted children. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Abelman, R., & Pettey, G. (1989). Child attributes as determinants of parental television-viewing mediation. Journal of Family Issues, 10(2), 251-266.

Andreasen, M.S. (1990). Evolution in the family use of television: Normative data from industry and academe. In J. Bryant (ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Andreasen, M.S. (1994). Patterns of family life and television consumption from 1945 to the 1990s. In D. Zillman, J. Bryant, & A. Huston (eds.), Media, children, and the family (pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Aronfreed, J. (1969). The concept of internalization. In D.A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp.). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Aronfreed, J. (1976). Moral development from the standpoint of a general psychological theory. In T. Lickona (ed.), Moral development and behavior theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Atkin, D., Heeter, C., & Baldwin, T. (1989). How presence of cable affects parental mediation of TV viewing. Journalism Quarterly, 66(3), 557-563.

Austin, B.A. (1980). The influence of MPAA's film-rating system on motion picture attendance: A pilot study. The Journal of Psychology. 106, 91-99.

Aversa, J. (1997. June 25). TV getting closer to enhancing rating system. Associated Press (reprinted in The Plain Dealer), p. 11-B.

Bandura, A. (1963, October 22). What TV violence can do to your children. Look, pp. 46-52. Barcus, F.E. (1969). Parental influence on children's television viewing. Television Quarterly, 8 (3), 83-96.

Bash, A. (1997, June 10). Most parents don't use ratings to guide viewing. USA Today, p. 3D.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 271-283.

Berry, G.L., & Asamen, J.K. (1993). Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural world. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brody, G., Pillegrini, A., & Sigel, 1. (1986). Marital quality and mother-child and father-child interations with school-aged children. Developmental Psychology. 22, 291-296.

Brown, J.A. (1991). Television "critical viewing skills" education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, D. & Bryant, J. (1990). Effects of television on family values and selected attitudes and behaviors. In J. Bryant (ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 253-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bybee, C., Robinson, D., & Turow, J. (1982). Determinants of parental guidance of children's television viewing for a special subgroup: Mass media scholars. Journal of Broadcasting, 16(3), 697-710.

Cantor, J., & Harrison, K. (1996). Ratings and advisories for television programs. National Television Violence Study. Volume 1 (pp. 361-409). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cantor, J., & Nathanson, A.I. (1997). Predictors of children's interest in violent television programs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41 (2), 155-167.

Christenson, P. (1992). The effect of parental advisory labels on adolescent music preferences. Journal of Communication, 42(3), 106-113.

Clapp, G. (1988). Child study research. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Charles E. Merrill Publishing.

Clifford, B.R., Gunter, B., & McAleer, J. (1995). Television and children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colangelo, N., & Dettmann, D.F. (1983). A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children. 50(1), 20-27.

Cummings, R.H., & Maddux, C.D. (1985). Parenting the learning disabled. Springfield. IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Curry, J. (1983, November 17). Viewer guides: Teaching tools boosts network ratings, too. USA Today, p. 1c.

Davies, M.M. (1997). Fake. fact, and fantasy : Children's interpretations of television reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Desmond, R. (1997). Media literacy in the home: Acquisitions versus deficit models. In R. Kubey (ed.), Media literacy in the information age (pp. 323-344). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Desmond, R.J., Singer, J.L., & Singer, D.G. (1990). Family mediation: Parental communication patterns and the influences of television on children. In J. Bryant (ed.), Television an the American family (pp. 293-310). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Desmond, R.J., Singer, J.L., Singer, D.G., Calam, R., & Colimore, K. (1985). Family mediation, mediation patterns, and television viewing: Young children's use and grasp of the medium. Human Communication Research, 11(4), 459-470.

Ducey, R. (1986). Relating communication needs to the salience of computer-based telecommunications services. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Chicago. IL.

Farhi, P. (1997, July 10). All networks except NBC agree to note violence, sex. Washington Post (reprinted in The Plain Dealer), pp. 1-A, 10-A.

Fleming, H. (1997a, February 17). Ratings attacked as hopelessly vague. Broadcasting & Cable, p. 22

Fleming, H. (1997b, March 3). TV "open to ideas' on program ratings. Broadcasting & Cable, p. 8.

Frasier, M., Hunsaker, S., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond. B., Krisel, S., Garcia, J., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, S. (1995). Core attributes of giftedness: A foundation for recognizing the gifted potential of minority and economically disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Greenberg, B.S., Abelman, R., & Cohen, A. (1990). Telling children not to watch television. In R.J. Kinkel (ed.), Television and violence: An overview (pp. 2-22). Detroit. MI: Mental Health Association of Michigan.

Greenberg, B.S., & Dominick, J.R. (1969). Race and social class differences in teenagers's use of television. Journal of Broadcasting, 13, 1331-1334.

Greenberg, B.S., Rampoldi-Hnilo, L., & Ver Steeg, L. (1998). Young viewers' responses to television program ratings. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Gunter, B., & Svennevig, M. (1980). Behind and in front of the screen: Television's involvement with family life. London: John Libby.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Hatfield, S.R., 8,: Abrams, L.J. (1995). Interaction between fathers and their children in traditional and single-father families. In T.J. Socha & G.H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Fronteers of theory and research (pp. 103-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heald, G.R. (1980). Television viewing guides and parental recommendations. Journalism Quarterly, 57(1), 141-144.

Hefzallah, I. M. (1987). Critical viewing of television: A book for parents and teachers. New York: University Press of America.

Hoffman, M.L. (1970). Moral development. In P.H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley.

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

Hoffman, M.L. and Salzstein, H.D. (1967). Parent discipline and the child's moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1), 45-57.

Hunter, P. (1992). Teaching critical television viewing: An approach for gifted learners. Roeper Review, 15(2), 84-89.

Korzenny, F., Greenberg, B.S., & Atkin, C.K. (1979). Styles of parental disciplinary practices as a mediator of children's learning from antisocial television portrayals. In D. Nimmo (ed.), Communication Yearbook 3 (pp. 283-294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Krcmar, M., & Cantor, J. (1997). The role of television advisories and ratings in parent-child discussion of television viewing choices. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 393-422.

Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Television and the quality of life. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lindlof, T.R., & Shatzer, M.J. (1990). VCR usage in the American family. In J. Bryant (ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 89-112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lyle, J., & Hoffman, H.R. (1972). Children's use of television and other media. In E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, & J. Murray (Eds.), Television and social behavior, Vol. IV. Television in day-to-day life (pp. 129-256). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lynch, E.W., & Lewis, R.B. (1988). Exceptional children and adults: An introduction to special education. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Margolin. G., & Patterson, G.R. (1975). Differential consequences provided by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters. Developmental Psychology, 11, 537-538.

McLeod, J., Atkin, C., & Chaffee, S. (1972). Adolescents, parents and television use: Adolesent self report measures from a Maryland and Wisconsin sample. In G.A. Comstock and E.A. Rubinstein (Eds.), Television and social behavior, Vol 3, Television and adolescent aggressiveness. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Meckstroth, E. (1992). Paradigm shifts into giftedness. Roeper Review. 15(2), 91-92.

Mifflin, L. (1997, February 22). Parents give TV ratings mixed reviews. The New York Times, p. A6.

Mills, S., & Watkins, B. (1982). Parents' perception of television's effects and its relationship to televiewing restrictions. Paper presented at the Midwestern Association for Public Opinion Research Conference, Chicago, IL.

Morrow, W.R., & Wilson, R.C. (1964). Family relations of bright high-achieving and under- achieving high school boys. Child Development, 35, 1041-1049.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, J.C., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996, February). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

Neuendorf, K. (1979). Parental knowledge, parental mediation, and perceptions of television. Unpublished masters' thesis, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Nivin, H. (1960). Who in the family selects the TV program? Journalism Quarterly. 37(1), 110-111.

Osofsky, J.D., & Oldfield, S. (1972). Parent-child interaction: Daughters' effect upon mothers' and fathers' behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 7, 157-168.

Ostling, R.N. (1997, June 16). The scoop. Time, p. 16.

Page, B.A. (1983). A parents' guide to understanding the behavior of gifted children. Roeper Review, 5(4), 39-42.

Perkins, R.P. (1989). Communication deviances and clarity among parents of high achieving, average, and learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Alameda, CA.

Prusank, D.T. (1995). Studying parent-child discipline from a communication perspective. In T.J. Socha & G.H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Fronteers of theory and research (pp. 249-272). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Randall, D. (1995). "Doing" mother-daughter: Conversation analysis and relational contexts. In traditional and single-father families. In T.J. Socha & G.H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Fronteers of theory and research (pp. 113-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roedell, W.C., Jackson, N.E., & Robinson, H.B. (1980). Gifted young children. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E.B. (1961). Television and the lives of our children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Sigel, I.E., McGillicuddy-Delisi, A.V., & Goodnow, J.J. (1992). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

Singer, J.L., Singer, D.G., Desmond, R., Hirsch, B., & Nicol, A. (1988). Family mediation and children's cognition, aggression, and comprehension of television: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 329-348.

Singer, J.L., Singer, D.G., & Rapaczynski, W. (1984). Children's imagination as predicted by family patterns and television viewing: A longitudinal study. Generic Psychology Monographs, 110, 43-69.

Socha, T.J., & Stamp, G.H. (1995). Parents, children, and communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sprafkin, J., Gadow, K.D., & Abelman, R. (1992). Television and the exceptional child: A forgotten audience, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Steiner, G. (1963). The people look at television. New York: Knopf.

Stern, C. (1996, February 5). New law of the land. Broadcasting & Cable, pp. 8-9, 12.

Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and child development (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Webb, J.T., Mechstroth, E.A., & Tolan, S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

Wurtzel, A., & Surlin, S. (1978). Viewer attitudes toward television advisory warnings. Journal of Broadcasting, 22(10), 19-31.

Manuscript submitted March, 1998.

Revision accepted November, 1998.

Robert Abelman is Assistant Dean of Arts & Sciences and Professor of Communication at Cleveland State University. E. Jean Gubbins is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology and Associate Director of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at the University of Connecticut--Storrs.3