Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 21 September 2011, At: 01:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20
Kindergartners’’ understandingsof television: A cross culturalcomparisonDafna Lemish aa Senior Lecturer, Department of Communication, Tel AvivUniversity, Tel Aviv, Israel, 69978
Available online: 22 May 2009
To cite this article: Dafna Lemish (1997): Kindergartners’’ understandings of television: Across cultural comparison, Communication Studies, 48:2, 109-126
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368495
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use ofthis material.
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS OF TELEVISION:A CROSS CULTURAL COMPARISON
DAFNA LEMISH
This study compared American and Israeli kindergartners' understandings of television.Macrosystem cultural differences are applied to explain the differences in these children's viewingpreferences, ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality characteristics of television,perceptions of news' functions, and the purpose of commercials. Overall, the Israeli children in thisstudy lag behind their American counterparts in the development of television literacy. However,they had much more knowledge about the news and its role in society. The argument advanced isthat "television" as a medium may mean different things to different children growing up indifferent cultures.
A central focus of media studies has been on articulating how children comprehendx \ . a n d understand television. Several studies have focused on the role of informalmediation by families in enhancing young children's comprehension and learning fromtelevision as well as its role as a socializing agent (Corder-Bolz, 1980; Desmond et al.,1985; Lemish, 1987; Lemish & Rice, 1986; Messaris, 1987; Messaris & Sarett, 1981).Such mediation studies typically concentrate on parents' restrictions on viewing timesand contents, on content comprehension, and on the production of textual meanings.The general conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that children differ, amongother things, in their attitudes toward television, their viewing habits, and theircommunication patterns as a result of family influences.
More recently, Hodge and Tripp (1986) contend children need to be seen as activeviewers situated in much broader social relationships and contexts than the familyalone. As a result, the television-related meanings attained by children are understoodto result not only from individual cognitive processes, but also from their learningorientations and expectations about texts which are socially shared (Buckingham,1993). This suggests that social class, race, and gender play significant roles in theseprocesses of meaning production-though few empirical studies have been conductedto confirm these views.
Following this line of reasoning, Atkin, Greenberg, and Baldwin (1991) studied thehome ecology of children's television viewing. Based on Bronfenbrenner's (cited inAtkin et al., 1991) ecological typology, they suggested three levels of relationshipsbetween television viewing and mediation: "(a) microsystem, or pattern of activitiesthat influence the child in a given setting (e.g., interaction with parents at home); (b) amacrosystem, involving relations at the level of subculture or culture (e.g., socioeco-nomic status) along with any belief systems or ideology underlying such consistencies,and (c) an exosystem, which includes one or more settings that do not involve childrenas active participants but nevertheless influence them (e.g., a family media room)" (p.41). Their study limits its definition of macrosystem to occupation, income, education,and ethnicity. As a result, it overlooks the more general concerns that differ acrosscultures-national identity, deep social or political conflicts, national goals, and mediasystems.
Korzenny and Ting-Toomey (1992) suggest a list of variable clusters that should beconsidered in cross-cultural research. The first cluster, which they label antecedentvariables, includes: social, political, historical, cultural, and media contexts. Similarly,
Dafna Lemish (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Senior Lecturer, Department of Communication, Tel AvivUniversity, Tel Aviv, Israel 69978. The American part of this project was supported by a grant from the ScholarsProgram of The Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
COMMUNICATION STUDIES, Volume 48, Summer 1997
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
110 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Berger (1992) stated the goal of cross-national studies is to gain insights into issues suchas national character and related social, political, and belief systems and values. WhileBerger suggested comparative analysis of cross-national television texts according toquestions regarding ideology, values, social class characteristics, language, and dia-logue among others, he seems less concerned with other general issues relating to acultural understanding of television as a medium, such as the nature of media systemsin particular countries, as well as the public's perceptions of their role in identityformation.
When it comes to television, societies differ in the historical development of themedium, its institutional characteristics, the ideology attached to it, the mechanisms ofcontrol, as well as in preferred genres and contents, tension between global and localforms of entertainment, unique functions and uses and the like. It follows that children'sunderstanding of television should be analyzed as an interaction not only of individual,contextual, and social characteristics as has been suggested before, but also of a moregeneral understanding of television as a culturally situated medium. The purpose of theinvestigation reported in the current study is to contribute to the understanding of suchsocial influences through a comparison between children growing up in differentcultural settings. More specifically, the primary purpose of this study was to compareand contrast the early development of television literarcy with a view to analyzingchildren's understandings of television.
Such a study is important because cross-cultural studies that compare and contrastthe development of television literacy in two very different television environmentsmay further highlight those aspects shared by all children of a certain developmentalstage, in contrast, to those aspects unique to particular cultures. In doing so, we mightbe able to ask: Are children's age-related genre preferences universal? Does a television-saturated environment such as the United States accelerate children's television-relateddevelopment, enabling them to make a distinction between fantasy and reality ontelevision or to develop an understanding of the function of news? Does accumulatedexperience with television commercials result in earlier and/or better understanding ofadvertising? Does children's talk reflect differing cultural attitudes toward television?
The two cultures chosen for this initial cross-cultural study were the United Statesand Israel. Though each society is composed of heterogeneous cultural groups, bothare democratic Western societies with relatively similar television fare, yet they differgreatly on other television-related variables. For example, Israel was just introducing acable system as well as a second channel to the existing public channel when this studywas conducted. This new channel began experimenting with the use of privatecommercials for the first time in Israel's 25 years of television history. Within one year,the Israeli viewing audience was offered a multichannel partially commercial televisionsystem. In comparison with their American counterparts, Israeli children have justdiscovered the remote control and channel-zapping behavior associated with such avaried system (Tidhar & Nossek, 1994; Weimann, 1995, 1996).
KINDERGARTNERS AND TELEVISION LITERACY
The growing body of research on young children's understanding of television hasfound that by six years of age children spend an average of two hours a day viewing avariety of television programs, including prime-time content (Comstock, 1991). Theyhave favorite programs and tend to know when they are broadcast. They have a fairlygood grasp of some audio-visual conventions (such as montage). They discriminatebetween children's programs and other television genres as well as between programs
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS 111
and commercials (Bryant & Anderson, 1983; Liebert & Sprafkin, 1988). Yet, theresearch literature suggests that these children have an incomplete understanding oftelevision content and television as a medium.
For example, one particular area of interest in the developmental psychologyliterature is in the changes that develop in younger children's ability to distinguishbetween real and fantasy dimensions of television (Dorr, 1983; Hawkins, 1977). Thesestudies found that most preschoolers are able to distinguish between real objects andtelevised images as well as between "real" human actors and "unreal" cartooncharacters. By kindergarten age, children begin to identify the grouping of televisionprograms that are distinguished by the co-occurring features of form and content. Theyrecognize the factuality of news but only gradually make correct judgments aboutfictional dimensions of television entertainment as they mature through elementaryschool grades (Fitch, Huston, & Wright, 1993). Yet, they still lack the understandingthat television programs are staged and that television characters are portrayed byactors (Dorr, 1983).
These same developmental theories claim that the 7-8-year-old period is one ofsignificant change in children's cognitive development. Obviously, 7-8-year-old chil-dren comprehend television content differently from adults for a variety of psychologi-cal reasons (Collins, 1983). For example, while ability to identify television genresincreases with age, the understanding of the persuasive intent of television commercialswas found to be vague before the age of 7-8 (Blosser & Roberts, 1985). Morespecifically, between 10-50% of kindergartners studied (depending on the interviewingtechnique) were able to articulate some understanding of such intentions (Wartella,1980).
In summary, an integrative review of the literature suggests that before the averageage of 7, children differ from older ones in their cognitive abilities to understandtelevision in the following areas:
1. Difficulty in understanding storylines and narratives: Children gradually acquire the ability to recon-struct events, understand sequence, distinguish between central and incidental information,connect causes to consequences, and the like.
2. Difficulty in understanding characters: Children gradually acquire the ability to understand anddescribe characters not only by exterior appearance but also personality traits, motivations,feelings, personal history, and social orientation, as well as the contexts in which they act and theirinterrelationships with others.
3. Difficulty in understanding the audio-visual language: Children gradually acquire the ability to identifyand understand the codes and conventions of audio-visual expressions such as special effects,shooting angles, slow and fast motions, and the like.
4. Difficulty in understanding the production world of television: Children gradually acquire the understand-ing that all television, including realistic genres, are products of human action and that behind eachtelevision text exists a cooperation between many professions and roles.
5. Difficulty in understanding television as an industry: Generally, young children are unaware of thecomplicated system of economic, social, political, legal, and human constraints that influencetelevision content in various ways.
6. Difficulty in understanding the interrelationships between television and reality: Generally, young childrenare unaware of television's selective nature, of its role in creating as well as representing certainparts of reality, and of television's contribution to the construction of our world view.
Despite a growing interest regarding kindergartners' television literacy, direct studiesof kindergartners are infrequent (see Krendl et al., 1993, as an exception). Much of whatwe seem to assume about this age group has been inferred from older, lower-gradeschool children. Moreover, rarely in these studies is the child's voice heard directly:How does she talk about television? What does he know about his medium? How do
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
112 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
they choose to articulate their understanding of television? To gain a richer understand-ing of kindergartners' television literacy, it is necessary to meet kindergartners andlisten to their voices directly. As a result, the primary resources for this study werekindergartners' own talk-their descriptions, in their own words and their own frames ofreference, of the medium of television, and their explanations of how it works and whatit is about.
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
DataBase
The study, conducted in 1993-1994, was comprised of two samples: kindergartnersfrom the United States of America and from Israel. The American sample consisted of48 children from four classes in a public school in one higher-middle class neighbor-hood in a very large city on the East coast. A letter requesting permission was sent outto parents of 87 children. All children whose parents agreed were included in the study.Of the interviewees, 21 were boys and 27 were girls. The children's ages ranged from5.67 years of age to 6.83 years. The mean age was 6.16 years. All but two children wereCaucasian with Christian or Jewish religious affiliations.
The Israeli sample consisted of 25 kindergartners from two classes in a public schoolin one higher-middle class neighborhood in a very large city in Israel. Since parents'permission was not required, all children of the appropriate age were interviewed. Ofthe interviewees, 13 were girls and 12 were boys. The children's ages ranged from 5.58to 6.16 years of age. The mean age was 5.75. All the children were Israeli Jews.
Clearly, the children interviewed were not representative of American and Israelisocieties. However, an attempt was made to match the American and Israeli childrenon a group level as closely as possible. Most were children of middle- to upper-classfamilies, with well-educated parents who own expensive homes (U.S.A) or apartments(Israel). Most families owned more than one television set and a video recorder. Inaddition many subscribed to cable and several had a video-camera at home. Thechildren attended kindergartens in public schools located in safe neighborhoods. Allbut three children in each sample lived with both their biological parents and siblings.
Interviewing Children
All the interviews of the children were conducted in their classes, during regularschool hours, by one female interviewer (the author of this article). Each interviewlasted between 20-45 minutes in the American sample and 15-30 minutes in the Israelione. All but three interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. In addition, the fourteachers of both groups were interviewed.
Since inferences made in this study were based almost exclusively on verbal output itbecomes extremely important to consider several methodological issues relevant tointerviewing children. First, each interview with the child began with a "warm-up" chatand an explanation about the tape-recorder. The interviewer explained to the Ameri-can children that because she came from a different country she was not familiar withAmerican television and asked for the children's assistance in explaining certain things.This strategy seemed to legitimate asking questions about the obvious and to solicit anattempt from the child to explain what otherwise is taken-for-granted knowledge. TheIsraeli children were told that television people would like to understand more aboutwhat children think and know about television and they were asked to assist in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS" UNDERSTANDINGS 113
explaining certain things. Since many of the issues discussed were relatively novel forthe children, a discussion of them did not seem trivial.
Second, since most children in both groups were quite eager to try to explain things,some in more detail than the others, a special effort was made to mirror the child'sresponses for further prompting and to avoid evaluative comments. By adopting thechild's language and avoiding evaluation, a supportive climate between the interviewerand the children was established which encouraged the children to explain theirperceptions in more depth.
Third, interviews were unstructured and followed a loose outline, which includeddiscussion of the child's viewing preferences, television genres, television technologies,the making of television, and the reality of television. The length of the interview wasalmost always a function of the child's cooperation. Children varied in their attentionspan, openness, willingness to cooperate, and interest in the interview. Overall, theIsraeli children were less talkative than their American counterparts. This differencemay be explained by the fact that the American sample was familiar with theinterviewer, who happened to be also the mother of a class member. Furthermore, theAmerican children were accustomed to having mothers in the class who volunteer towork with them on a variety of subjects. For the Israeli sample, the interviewer wasunfamiliar and visitors in the class are, in general, a unique occurrence.
Analyzing Children's Talk
Analyzing children's talk requires confronting the issue of production versus compre-hension. In particular, we must not assume that language is a clear indicator of thechild's actual inner world (Buckingham, 1991; Hodge & Tripp, 1986). Children'sproduction of linguistic utterances often fail to represent, to over-represent, or tounder-represent their understandings and feelings. For example, many children pro-duced strings of "I don't know" in response to various questions. A less persistent orinexperienced interviewer might have concluded that the child "really doesn't know."However later in the interview, when the child was involved in a different chain ofthought, different stimuli prompted the same child to suddenly produce complicatedand sophisticated responses referring or relating directly to the question which hadearlier elicited an "I don't know" response. In other cases, children produced morecomplicated talk than they were actually able to understand. Such was the case of achild who suggested that the audience decides what's on television (clearly, a veryadvanced understanding!). When asked to explain the meaning of "audience," thechild stated that the audience is the man who tells the actors what to do (probablyreferring to the director).
Furthermore, children's use of language should be understood and analyzed in aparticular social context (Buckingham, 1993). In these particular cases, the settingswere clearly school-based and the interviewer was a mother "helping out with schoolassignments" in the American case and a "stranger from television" in the Israeli case.The interview demanded that the child concentrate on direct thinking processes, asexhibited by interviewer's requests for "think," "explain," "tell about," etc. It ispossible that alternative methods using drawings or audio-visual materials would haveproduced different insights into children's understanding. Yet, the goal in this study wasto actually hear what each child had to say, within the limits-or uniqueness-of his orher individual expressions. For this reason, as well as their young age, a decision wasmade to interview each child individually rather than in a focus group.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
114 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Analysis of Transcripts
It is the nature of studies such as the one before us that they produce vast amounts ofverbal output that is sometimes exciting, sometimes repetitious, and all too oftenoverwhelming in its complexity. Transcripts were read several times and their contentcoded according to themes that were emphasized in children's talk; key expressions,programs or concepts which reoccurred; and interpretations regarding the generalconcern of this study, namely, the children's understanding of the medium of televi-sion.
While an attempt was made to let the data generate issues for analysis, certainpredetermined theoretical concerns were built in throughout the interviews andanalysis. This was particularly true for the Israeli part of the study, which wasconducted after the American part was already concluded. Emerging schemes ofinterpretations were already available and were used to conceptually reduce the data toparticular issues. As a result, differences between the Israeli and American kindergart-ners were made salient in the following topics: viewing preferences, understanding thereality and the making of television, and in the discussion of two specific genres: newsand commercials.
What follows then is a description and discussion of the comparative aspects of thestudy (for a detailed account on the early development of television literacy based onthe American part of the study, see Lemish, forthcoming). Selecting specific parts of anongoing conversation to illustrate the arguments is bound to cut off various strings ofcontextual meanings. In addition, it involves choice and interpretations that alreadyreflect broader theoretical assumptions and expectations. Hence, concluding thatdiscourse with one child is representative of others is always problematic. Whileacknowledging the complexity of each individual interpretation, an attempt has beenmade to explain it in terms of a broader understanding in order to gain insights into theworld of these kindergartners' understanding of television.
ISRAELI AND AMERICAN KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGSOF TELEVISION: A COMPARISON
Viewing Preferences
American as well as Israeli kindergartners love to watch television. Furthermore,they speak about the medium and its contents enthusiastically. Most of the Americanswere in the processes of "outgrowing" cartoons and educational preschool programs(such as Sesame Street), while developing a strong preference for situation comedies. Incontrast, the Israeli viewers were still loyal viewers of the educational programs andcartoons. Dramatic programming-including situation comedies-were rarely men-tioned in the Israeli interviews.
At least two possible contextual explanations can account for this difference inviewing preferences. First, Israeli television at the time of the study consisted of twogeneral broadcast channels, each of which devoted only a few hours a day specificallyto children's programs. Of the time devoted to children's programming, typicalAmerican cartoons were but a small portion of a variety of programs imported fromother parts of the world or produced locally. The Israeli Educational Television sharesbroadcast time with the two general broadcast channels. In addition, as mentionedabove, cable television, which offers a variety of channels and programming schedules,was a relatively new phenomenon in Israel. Even though its penetration in urban areas
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS'UNDERSTANDINGS 115
in Israel was very high, only about half of the children in the Israeli sample study hadaccess to it. Generally speaking, then, Israeli children had much less exposure tocartoons and much more exposure to educational programming on their two broadcastchannels than their American counterparts.
Second, almost all situation comedies broadcast on Israeli television, including thecable channels, were at the time imported from the United States and England. Whilecartoons aimed at the young audience are dubbed into Hebrew, all dramatic program-ming is in its original languages but includes Hebrew subtitles. The language barrierpresents a serious comprehension challenge, since most Israeli kindergartners do notunderstand English nor are they capable of reading such texts in Hebrew. This wasclearly expressed by the children themselves. Many used "English" as an additionalcriteria for sorting different television genres. A common comment by Israeli childrenwas: "I watch cartoons. My (older) sister watches English programs." This is a similardistinction to "children's programs" versus "adults' programs" used by the Americanchildren. Their comments were often: "I watch kids' shows; my parents like to watchgrownups' shows."
"English" could also mean much more than a non-comprehensible language. Itcould possibly refer to what is perceived as less-familiar, maybe even irrelevant content(therefore grouping it together with adult programming). The following quotationsillustrate this point. An Israeli boy (IB) describes his older siblings' preference forChannel 4 (a cable movie channel) in response to a question by the interviewer (Int).
Int: Do you watch it with them?IB: No.Int: Why?IB: Because it's boring. It just has movies.Int: What do you mean, just movies?IB: It is not cartoons. It is movies in English.
An exception to this was the animated situation comedy The Simpsons. A boy asked totell about The Simpsons after mentioning it as a favorite program answered:
IB: I don't understand a thing. It's in English.Int: So why do you like it if you don't understand a thing?IB: I see the pictures.
This suggests that when the visual attributes of the program are attractive and familiarenough (as in this case of animation dealing with a family), a special effort is made bythe child to overcome the linguistic obstacles so as to find pleasure and meaningthrough the visual content.
"What's Real"?
American as well as Israeli children were spontaneously struggling to understand theissue of television reality. This comes as no surprise given what we know of youngchildren's difficulties in distinguishing between the fantasy and reality dimensions oftelevision discussed earlier. I did not have to ask directly about "what's real"; theyfreely used "real" as a categorizing device to distinguish generally between televisionand everyday life, as well as between types of programs. All children in this studyargued that the news is real and cartoons are not. However, a significant differencebetween the groups emerged in relation to the realistic genres of dramatic fare. MostAmerican children expressed that television is composed of people acting a role. Israelichildren, on the other hand, were very confused in their discussion of realistic genres of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
116 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
television. One example came from a discussion of the action adventure programMaguiver, mentioned by an Israeli boy (IB) as a favorite:
IB: Ifheflieswithouta parachute he can jump.Int: How can he do that? Is it a cartoon?IB: No.Int: So how does he do it?IB: Maybe he jumps to the ocean.Int: And nothing happens to him?IB: No.Int: Who is Maguiver? Is he a man?IB: Yes.Int: Can we meet him?IB: No.Int: Why not?IB: Because it speaks English and it's in a different country.Int: And if I travel to that different country, can I meet him?IB: No, because maybe you don't know where he lives.
This boy, it seemed, was unaware of the fictional elements of television drama andattributed unusual qualities to his favorite character. As the conversation unfolded, theboy kept offering rational explanations for the existence of this person. At no time didhe provide a hint of an understanding that this person was an actor playing a role.
A budding understanding of the fantasy dimensions of television came from anIsraeli girl (IG) who described a program about a boy who can fly.
Int: How come the boy can fly?IG: There is a picture on top of a picture.Int: What do you mean?IG: It means it is a real picture and a drawing, and it looks like it is real. And someone holds the boy
outside and then he flies.
Clearly this girl had a notion that someone is creating a flying scene through the use of abackground drawing, but she was very confused about how this was accomplished.
Actors and actresses in dramatic family programs were perceived by Israeli childrenas actually being related and living together in real life as a family while their Americancounterparts had already realized that they are just actors and actresses playing roles.Rarely did the Israeli children use an equivalent vocabulary of words such as "acting,""rehearsal," "reading lines," etc., which were often mentioned by the Americanchildren and followed by a demonstration of some understanding of the creativeprocess of making television programs. Such was the example provided by thefollowing American boy (AB):
Int: How do they know what to do in the program?AB: They have script and they rehearse it and they know what to do.Int: What is a script?AB: It tells them what to do.Int: How do you know that? Did anybody explain this to you?AB: I can tell by the way people sometimes forget the words.
Many American children were able also to articulate some understanding of themaking of cartoons. For example, an American girl said: "It's like a coloring book andpeople color in and people make them talk with their voices." An American boyexplained: "Something they can draw a lot on a lot of pages like about 2,000 pages and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS 117
keep them flipping and keep them moving." An American boy discussing a popularcartoon said:
AB: It's just a cartoon.Int: What is a cartoon?AB: It's something that they draw on paper and they shoot it and it looks like it's real.Int: So it's not Teal? They just draw it and they take pictures of it. And how about Saved by the Bell
(situation comedy mentioned earlier)? Is that a cartoon?AB:No.Int: What is that?AB: Just real people.
Israeli children, on the other hand, were very unclear about the making of cartoons. Ina discussion of a cartoon, an Israeli girl (IG) suggested that they are drawn:
Int: If they are drawn—how come they can move? Can pictures move?IG: Maybe they are dolls that they draw and cut out and put diem on a stick.Int: And how do they move?IG: They move it.Int: Who are they?IG: The people that move it.
An Israeli boy suggested that the cartoon Ninja Turtles can talk because "they have avoice . . . they have a mouth of turtles but not of people; they have a different voice."When asked how come turtles can talk and how diese turtles are different, the boyanswered:
IB: Because they have a voice.Int: What do you mean they have a voice?IB: Their back. Their back makes the voice.
Later in the interview when discussing broadcasts of soccer games, the boy argued thatit is similar to the Ninja Turtles, except that in soccer they use balls and in the NinjaTurtles they use bombs.
While clearly distinguishing between things that are possible and feasible in theirown lives and on television, many of the Israeli children still attributed fantasticqualities to people and animals on television. Some interviewees went so far as to arguethat, if they themselves were on television, they could do certain things as well (e.g., fly).For example, many of the other children's explanations of cartoons suggested that theyare people in drawn costumes or that they are pictures that the "television" moves.Similarly, "machines," "electricity," and other vague concepts were used as possibleexplanations for the creation of the fantasy world of television. Such was the explana-tion given by an Israeli girl to the operation of the puppets in her favorite educationalprogram: She explained that the puppet has a special machine that can make her talkand move when you press the buttons.
What's News?
Both American and Israeli children described news as "real," "grown-up," and"important." An American boy explained: "They tell people and they show things thatare really going on around the world . . . it is real things that really happen on thenews." Similarly, an Israeli girl said: "That's the idea of the news, that it is notimaginary. It has to happen so they can really tell about it. It's not just nonsense."
The reality of die news was often contrasted with cartoons and drama in both groups.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
118 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
For example: consider the following segment from an interview with an Israeliboy (IB):
IB: I don't like to watch (the news). But sometimes it happens that I peek.Int: And when you peek, what do you see?IB: Things that are not cartoons.Int: Not cartoons?IB: That's why it doesn't interest me.
Similarly,
Int: In the news, is it also cartoons?IB: No, it's like Michael Jackson, real people.
In a discussion of his favorite situation comedy, an American boy said: "No, they don'tdo it like Saved by the Bell. They tell people and they show things that really happen onthe news." For both groups, news is about "what's really happening."
While American and Israeli kindergartners agreed on their perception of news, someof the Israelis added that the news was about "what's happening in die country." Thediscussion of the content and purpose of news by the two groups is especially revealing.For the American children, "news as weather" was quite a common understanding:
Int: Do you know what the news is?AG: It tells you if it is going to rain or if it is going to be sunny.
In contrast, only three Israeli interviewees mentioned the weather as an important partof the news. The rest were mainly concerned with national security and politics:
IG: They talk about all the lawyers and the Prime Ministers.
Or,
IB: It's all about Prime Minister Rabin . . . Things that happen in the world.Int: What things are happening in the world?IB: People die. Maybe wars.
Or,
IB: I don't understand the news at all.Int: What do they talk about in the news?
IB: They talk about the Arabs that want to kill the people.
And,
IB: They (parents) watch Arabs throwing stones.
Or,IB: . . .you need to listen to the news to know what's happening. If we are in good relationships with
the Palestinians, if today it is going good with them or not.
There are several possible explanations for the prevalence of "news as weather"descriptions by the American kindergartners. First, the local television news programson the East coast of the United States indeed emphasizes the weather reports; they areplaced within the hard news framework and use "hyping techniques" intended tohighlight their importance and to generate interest and excitement. Second, during thewinter months that directly preceded the research, the area where the study wasconducted underwent a severe blizzard. Schools were closed for a few days and the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS'UNDERSTANDINGS 119
weather reports had an immediate relevance to each child. Therefore, for this particu-lar age group of children, the weather was related to such questions as: What will Iwear? Will the trip be canceled? Will we have a day off from school? It was suggestedthat the perception of "relevance" of the news was the major interest, with weatherbeing an immediate manifestation of the phenomenon. Third, informal home inter-views with mothers of a quarter of the American sample provided additional insight: allof them expressed concern over their children's exposure to disturbing violent newsand claimed that they make a point of turning the news on to catch a glimpse of theweather forecast and then switching to another channel.
Israeli children's responses suggest that for them news deals with the "bad" and the"sad": death, war, injuries, earthquake, and so on. The news is also concerned withauthorities: the government, military, police. While several of the American childrenmentioned these negative aspects of the news, all were concerned with personal safety(robbery, fire, murder). In contrast, most of the Israeli children were almost entirelyconcerned with security on the national level (which certainly bears significance on thepersonal level as well).
Regardless of these differences, the "surveillance" function of the news (to useWright's terminology, 1960) seemed to underlie both groups' discussions. Such was theexample presented by an American girl: "It's a good thing to have cable so you knowwhat's on the news and the weather that's on so you'll know if there's a storm oranything, and if you do that then you'll know if there's a storm coming and you can getall the stuff to be protected. Like if there was a tornado or hurricane or something or likea big storm or thunderstorm, you would know what to do." Similarly, referring to adifferent content area, but attributing the same function to the news an Israeli girl (IG),answered a question about what is in the news:
IG: An earthquake in America and all kinds of things. Soldiers got wounded.Int: Why do they show us an earthquake in America and soldiers get wounded?IG: Because it is important to know. If for example someone sees the news and he goes to America,
and he goes on vacation and afterwards there is an earthquake, so he needs to watch television.
Here too, this Israeli girl is suggesting that the news' role is to warn us against dangers inour physical and social environment. Another Israeli boy (IB) expresses his discomfortwith watching fighting in the news:
Int: So why do they show people shooting in the news if it is unpleasant?IB: So the grownups, the adults will know what happened and they will tell the others so there will be
peace and if there will be peace they will not attack.
Children in both groups, so it seems, perceived the "surveillance" function of thenews as it was relevant to their own personal reality. For American children, theweather was perceived as the major interest. For Israeli children, the Arab-Israeliconflict was perceived as the most threatening to their well-being.
Israeli children however, were generally more preoccupied with and informed aboutthe news than their American counterparts. A few of them were even concerned withthe pragmatic implications of the news. For example, in an attempt to compare news tocartoons, an Israeli girl (IG) argues:
I" : . It is much more important.Int: Why is it more important then cartoons?IG: Because you can't help in them (=cartoons).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
120 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
The implied purpose of the news, according to this girl, is to help. When earlier askedto describe what's in the news, she said:
IG: All kinds of things. That soldiers got killed or wounded or that a terrorist came.Int: Why do your Mom and Dad want to watch this?IG: Because they are for peace and want to help.
The overall impression was that Israeli children perceived the news as relevant to socialaction (e.g., helping, telling others, warning against trouble), on top of its informativefunction.
In summary then, kindergartners in both countries clearly distinguish news as adultprograms that tell you what's happening "so you'd know" and occasionally, "so you'ddo something about it." They understand that news deals with what is relevant in theirlives-for American children, mostly the weather; for Israeli children, mostly issues ofwar and peace. From the children's point of view, news is instructional and serves aprosocial purpose. The news' reality is unchallenged and its role in the construction ofreality is yet unperceived.
Commercials
Both groups had difficulty describing how commercials "look different" (in terms offormal features) from other programs. Both groups claimed that commercials were"short shows" and that "you could just tell it's a commercial."
In contrast to the American children, most of whom understood that commercialspresent products that can be bought, the Israeli children accepted commercials morefor their entertainment value. When asked about the purpose of commercials, Israelichildren answered:
IG: Maybe to entertain us.IB: To make the children laugh.IB: Because we want to see them.IB: Because it's pretty.IB: So it will be interesting.
For most American children, however, commercials were prosocial: they are there totell you about new products "so you'd know" and use them.
AB: (discussing a detergent commercial) So you know what it's for and know what it does.AG: Because you can find things out for your birthday. You can tell your aunt, uncle and grandma and
grandpa what you want for your birthday.AB: . . . like it tells you like what other stuff there is to buy that's good to get so you can get them if you
need to get them.
Very few of the Israeli interviewees used this line of argument. One example did comefrom a very talkative girl who mentioned a favorite Coke commercial.
Int: Why is there a Coke commercial on TV?IG: So they'll buy it.Int: Why should they buy it?IG: If there were no commercials no one would have known about it and no one would have
bought itInt: So what if no one would have bought it?IG: There is a supermarket. And if there was no commercial no one would have wanted to buy it.Int: So let's say no one would have bought it in the supermarket. So what?IG: It's bad, because they want us to buy.Int: Why do they want us to buy?IG: So we will have food.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS 121
Similarly, another Israeli girl (IG) was answering a question about a commercial for adessert:
IG: So they'll eat because it is healthy.Int: Why do they want the children to eat?IG: So they'll be strong.
Explaining a commercial for a kitchen knife, an Israeli boy (IB) suggests:
IB: Maybe people don't know about it and want to know.Int: Why would they want to know?IB: Maybe people don't have a cutting knife and they need a new knife.
Commercials, so it seems, are there to help us find what we need.Regardless of the major difference in the perception of commercials as dealing with
products, about a quarter of both groups demonstrated an understanding of thepersuasive intent and the profit motive involved:
AB: So like they're advertising stuff. They want you to buy i t . . . well, paper towels, cough drops.Int: Why would they want you to buy them?AB: So they can get money.
Or,
AB: like if they didn't tell you where they were selling no one would never know it, the companywould go out of business, no one would be coming. They wouldn't know what they have.
And,
AB: When they tell you this stuff they want you to really buy it and make enough money.Int: They want to make money?AB: Yeah. So they make these great commercials because they need more money.
Similarly, the Israeli children explained:
IG: They show things that it's worthwhile to buy.Int: Why do they show things that it's worthwhile to buy?IG: Because the stores want to buy money.Int: Why?IG: Because they don't have money and they want money. But they want them to buy fast. (Later in
the interview she suggested that "they" were poor and therefore needed the money, even thoughit was not clear who "they" were).
Another Israeli girl was explaining her love for candy commercials that excite her andmake her want to buy it.
Int: Why do you think they've got these commercials?IG: To convince people to buy it.Int: Why do they want to convince people to buy it?IG: Because they want money. If you see that no one is buying your products, it is a bad situation and
you need to make commercials.
An Israeli girl was describing a new Barbie doll commercial when asked its purpose:
IG: Because it is a new Barbie so they show her so people can buy her.Int: Why do they want us to buy her?IG: Because that's why they did it, to get money.Int: How do they get money from advertising it?IG: They advertise and then they'll buy and then they'll get money.
All of these children assumed that the only person profiting from advertising is the one
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
122 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
selling the product. Television's role in this transaction seemed completely transparentto them.
While the American children offered rival explanations for the purpose of commer-cials (such as providing a break for the people on the program to rest, change clothes,and the like)—Israeli interviewees did not. In addition, while some seeds of cynicism orcriticism were already noticeable in the American group, no cynicism or criticism ofcommercials was detected in the Israeli interviews:
AG: They show you stuff that you buy... then it's not as good as it looks on TV.
Apparently the development of this cynicism is encouraged by parents. An Americangirl related vividly her attempts to persuade her mother to buy her things advertised ontelevision and her mother's refusal. She added: "She explained to me that they justwant to make it really look cool so they can fool you like it's not really good."
DISCUSSION
This comparison between American and Israeli kindergartners' understandings ofsome aspects of television reconfirms the proposition that by six years of age there is awide diversity among children's understanding of television. While some children wereconfused, others had some clear and accurate notions of television genres andreality-fantasy dimensions.
However, beyond expected individual differences, a few more general themesemerged. First, the Israeli children as a whole, in this study lag behind their Americancounterparts in the development of television literacy. Their viewing preferences weresimilar to American pre-schoolers (rather than kindergartners), they were quite con-fused in regards to realistic genres, and they perceived commercials as mainlyentertaining short programs. An argument can be made that the relatively limitedexperience of Israeli children with commercial television and its children's populargenres (such as commercials, situation comedies, and cartoons) can account for thesedifferences. One might hypothesize that Israeli children are exposed to less discussionabout television at home, have fewer opportunities to visit studios, watch "how it wasdone" programs, or encounter first-hand production experience with the medium.Israeli children's limited experience with television commercials is a case in point. Asmentioned above, advertising on Israeli television was introduced gradually in the yearpreceding the study on one of the two main channels. Children- and family-orientedcable channels are still prohibited by legislation from broadcasting commercials. As aresult, these children's acquaintance with television commercials was limited. This mayexplain their interest and lack of familiarity with this attractive genre and their limitedexperience with actually purchasing advertised products.
Similar to other developmental issues, it can be argued that earlier exposure andaccumulated experience in a particular area can accelerate learning and comprehen-sion. Given that the Israeli television scenario is starting to resemble the American onemore closely (Tidhar & Nossek, 1994; Weimann, 1995, 1996), this study provides ahistorical, comparative baseline for future study to verify this proposition (i.e., demon-strate a narrower gap between Israeli and American children in their comprehension ofcommercials). Recent screening on Israeli television of locally produced Hebrew-speaking situation comedies and dramatic series should provide us with a new basis foranalyzing Israeli children's understanding of realistic drama. It will be of great interestto follow kindergartners' interest in such programming in order to determine whether
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS 123
the genre-preference difference between the Israeli and American children reflectsdifference in taste or language and cultural barriers.
A second conclusion of this study is that when compared with their Americancounterparts, Israeli children had much more knowledge about the news and its role insociety and an awareness of television as connecting them with the world outside oftheir immediate space and time. This difference clearly reflects the uniqueness of theIsraeli's cultural environment. Israeli news is indeed saturated with issues of nationalsecurity, which are perceived on a personal-threat level. Israelis are, in general, heavyconsumers of news from all media, and everyday small talk is constantly infiltrated withreferences to news sources. Obviously, a child raised in this society cannot escape theprevalence of this level of news dependency and is apparently aware from a young ageof the "surveillance" function of the news. It is also worth mentioning that thekindergartners of this particular cohort were toddlers during the Gulf War when theentire State of Israel was attuned to the news 24 hours a day in traumatic circumstancesfor several weeks (see for example Tidhar & Lemish, 1994). It could be suggested then,that from an early age, these children have experienced a strong dependency on thenews media. This is completely different from American children, who have noimmediate need to be concerned about national security issues. Furthermore, theirfamilies watch and discuss the news less, and they are sheltered from bad news by theirparents (Lemish, forthcoming).
Third, the two groups differed in expressing a role of prior direct or indirectinstruction from others. American children had internalized in their discourse parents'judgments about cartoons being "nasty" or "bad for your brain"; that news is"important," that violence should be avoided. They were aware of some of theirparents' social uses of television ("so kids can watch while their Mom is fixing dinner");that there are certain rules about the amount of television to be watched, regarding thehours they are allowed to watch, and the content suitable for them. This findingsupports Krendl et al.'s (1993) report that the majority of the 50 preschoolers inter-viewed indicated that their parents had rules about television viewing (although theyhad some difficulty articulating what they were). I found very limited evidence of suchlearning in the Israeli children's discourse. One possible interpretation of this differ-ence relates to Israeli society's general evaluation of television. For example, in asurvey of parents of 2-11-year-old children, Levinson and Tidhar (1993) found that 77%of parents evaluated educational television's impact on their children as positive, andonly 3% as negative. This compared to 46% positive and 16% negative with regards tocable television's impact. Given that at the time this study was conducted educationaltelevision was still the dominant television fare offered to young children, it follows thatthese children were raised in an atmosphere that had a relatively favorable andnon-critical attitude to television.
Abelman (1990) argued that parents' perceptions of television's impact on theirchildren is among the most important factors in determining the amount of parentaltelevision mediation. In addition, he suggested that external social interventions, suchas public pressure groups or televised public interest warnings, affect parents' willing-ness to intervene in their children's viewing habits. The general lack of debate overtelevision's influence in Israel at the time of the study (which coincided with thetransition to a multi-channel society) in comparison to a 20-year tradition of Americanpublic debate over this topic initiated by the Surgeon General's report on the influencesof television (1972), can explain some of the differences in the talk of these Israeli andAmerican children.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
124 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
This difference, like the others discussed above, may be disappearing as Israeliculture moves away from collectivism towards individualism as manifested by consum-erism, a decrease of consumption of high culture, and an increase of popular media andthe like (Katz, Haas, & Gurevitch, 1997). Television's role in Israel as an agent for theintegrating of national identity may be giving way to global trends of entertainment. Ifthis is the case, we should expect young Israeli children's understandings of televisionand its role in their lives to become similar to those of their American counterparts inthe years to come. Possible support for such a thesis comes from Weimann's (1995,1996) study of the introduction of cable to Israeli society. In his sample of 180households, Weimann found significant change in consumption of television, in thesocial context of viewing television, and in feelings and attitudes towards the medium.For example, increased viewing time was accompanied by uneasiness and even guiltfeelings (as expressed by agreement with statements such as: "Watching TV is often awaste of time"; "I often watch TV more than I intend to"). In addition, there was anincrease in expressed worries about children's viewing and in attempts to controlviewing, which often resulted in conflicts.
A theme worth pursuing in the future is the gender differences which seem to beemerging in the Israeli group even at this young age in regards to both the news andcommercials. Israeli boys seemed to know and/or be able/willing to articulate knowl-edge about the news more often than the girls. On the other hand, the girls seemed tounderstand commercials better than the boys. Surveys in Israel have suggested a highermale viewership of the news and news-related specials. In addition, most commercialsthat the children remembered (those broadcast during children's programs) consistedof food products, traditionally associated with women's role. The possibility of earlysocialization of children to expected gender roles in regards to television is a phenom-enon worthy of further study.
Recent discussions of television literacy development have positioned children in thecenter of the meaning-creating process: the needs, interpretations, pleasures, and socialcontexts surrounding their television world. At the same time, they acknowledge theideological meanings integrated within the child's general social relations and particu-lar viewing contexts (Buckingham, 1993; Hodge & Tripp, 1986). It is here that the roleof culture as a whole has proven to be a primary factor, in this study, explainingdifferences in kindergartners' understanding of television. The context of viewing issituated in particular families which are not only part of particular sub-cultures, but arealso an integral part of and influenced by society as a whole. Children growing upwithin these families accept television as any other integral aspect of their complexlives, a medium which defines them at the same time that it defines the world to them.The early development of television literacy, therefore, cannot be explained merely bycognitive development; neither can it be completely understood by accounting for thefamily context or social relations. A developmental model needs to include thediffering roles macro-cultural processes play in socializing their children to the mediumof television, its role in their lives, and the ideology ascribed to it.
This may be particularly relevant as the trend for incorporating formal medialiteracy curricula in the school systems in the world grows. Lemish and Lemish (1997)have noted, that while there is broad agreement on basic principles of media education,the different social, cultural, and political agendas of countries lead to development oftheir own variations of media-education programs. For example, the Moral Majority inthe United States of America and England use media education as a means to legitimateexisting power structures. In contrast, media literacy in Israel and South Africa is used
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
KINDERGARTNERS' UNDERSTANDINGS 125
to achieve broader social and educational goals. In Israel, critical orientation isintended to advance citizen empowerment and progressive forms of social change,while in South Africa it is considered to be an important part of the anti-apartheidmovement.
Television in these and other countries is bound to be perceived differently by youngchildren, since what they will bring with them to their early encounters with themedium will determine, at least to an important degree, what they will take out of them.Television as a concept, will therefore mean different things to different childrengrowing up in different cultures. Any attempt to develop a universally applicable modelof children's early development of television literacy will have to take this intoconsideration.
REFERENCES
Abelman, R. (1990). Determinants of parental mediation of children's television viewing. In J. Bryant (Ed.),Television and the American family (pp. 311-326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Atkin, D. J., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home ecology of children's television viewing: Parentalmediation and the new video environment. Journal of Communication, 41(3), 40-52.
Berger, A. A. (1992) Texts in contexts: Analyzing media and popular culture from a cross-cultural perspective. InF. Korzenny & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Mass media effects across cultures (pp. 1-8). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blosser, B. J., & Roberts, D. F. (1985). Age differences in children's perceptions of message intent: Responses to TVnews, commercials, educational spots, and public service announcements, Communication Research, 12(4),455-484.
Bryant, J., & Anderson, D. R. (1983). Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension.New York: Academic Press.
Buckingham, D. (1991). What are words worth? Interpreting children's talk about television. Cultural Studies, 5(2),228-245.
Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: The Falmer Press.Collins, A. (1983). Interpretation and inference in children's television viewing. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson
(Eds.), Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 125-150). New York:Academic Press.
Comstock, G. (1991). Television and the American child. New York: Academic Press.Corder-Bolz, C. R (1980). Mediation: The role of significant others. Journal of Communication, 30(1), 106-118.Desmond, R. J., Singer, J . L., Singer, D. G., Calam, R., & Colimor, K. (1985). Family mediation patterns and
television viewing: Young children's use and grasp of the medium. Human Communication Research, 11(4),461-480.
Dorr, A. (1983). No shortcuts to judging reality. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children's understanding oftelevision: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 199-220). New York: Academic Press.
Fitch, M., Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1993). From television forms to genre schemata: Children's perceptionsof television reality. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children and television in a changing socio-cultural world(pp. 38-52). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hawkins, R. (1977). The dimensional structure of children's perceptions of TV reality. Communication Research,4(3), 299-320.
Hodge, B., & Tripp, D. (1986). Children and television: A semiotic approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.Katz, E., Haas, H., & Gurevitch, M. (1997). 20 years of television in Israel: Are there long-run effects on values,
social connectedness, and cultural practices? Journal of Communication, 47(2), 3-20.Korzenny, F., & Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.) (1992). Mass media effects across cultures. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.Krendl, K. A., Clark, G., Dawson, R., & Troiano, C. (1993). Preschoolers and VCRs in the home: A multiple
methods approach. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(3), 293-312.Lemish, D. (1987). Viewers in diapers: The early development of television viewing. In T. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural
audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects (pp. 33-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Lemish, D. (Forthcoming). Kindergartners' understanding of television: The early development of television
literacy. In B. Tufte & T. Lavender (Eds.) Media education. Newark, NJ: Hampton Press.Lemish, D., & Rice, M. (1986). Television as a talking picture book: A prop for language acquisition. Journal of
Child Language, 13, 251-274.Lemish, D., & Lemish, P. (1997). A much debated consensus: Media literacy in Israel. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media
literacy in the information age (pp. 213-228). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.Levinson, H., & Tidhar, C. E. (1993). Parents' assessment of television viewing among their 2-11 year old children.
Jerusalem: Guttman Institute of Applied Social Research.Liebert, R. M., & Sprafkin, J . (1988). The early window. New York: Pergamon Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
126 COMMUNICATION STUDIES
Messaris, P. (1987). Mothers' comments to their children about the relationship between television and reality. InT. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects (pp. 95-107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Messaris, P., & Sarett, C. (1981). On the consequences of television related parent-child interaction, HumanCommunication Research, 7(3), 226-244.
Tidhar, C. E., & Lemish, D. (1994). Israeli broadcasting media facing the SCUD missile attacks. In T. A. McCain &L. Shyles (Eds.), The 1,000 hour war: Communication in the Gulf (pp. 111-126). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Tidhar, C. E., & Nossek, H. (1994, July). Israeli families facing a new multichannel TV environment: Implicationsof genre preferences on cultural identity. Paper presented at the annual conference of the InternationalAssociation of Mass Communication Research, Seoul, Korea.
U.S. Surgeon General (1972). Television and social behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Wartella, E. (1979). The developmental perspective. In E. Wartella (Ed.), Children communicating: Media and the
development of thought, speech, understanding (pp. 7-19). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Wartella, E. (1980). Individual differences in children's responses to television advertising. In E. L. Palmer & A.
Dorr (Eds.), Children and the faces of television: Teaching, violence, selling (pp. 307-322). New York: Academic Press.Weimann, G. (1995). Zapping in the Holy Land: Coping with multi channel TV in Israel. Journal of Communication,
45(1), 97-103.Weimann, G. (1996). Cable comes to the Holy Land: The impact of cable TV on Israeli viewers. Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40(2), 243-257.Wright, C. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 605-620.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Rad
boud
Uni
vers
iteit
Nijm
egen
] at
01:
54 2
1 Se
ptem
ber
2011
