note: This article was first published as 'Ten things wrong with the
"effects model"' in Approaches to Audiences, edited by Roger Dickinson,
Ramaswani Harindranath and Olga Linne (Arnold, 1998). A different version appeared
as part of the chapter 'The worrying influence of "media effects" studies', in
Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate (Second Edition), edited by Martin
Barker and Julian Petley (Routledge, 2001). The version that appears here is basically
a version that I produced for inclusion in Media Studies: The Essential Resource,
edited by Philip Rayner, Peter Wall and Stephen Kruger (Routledge, 2004), and
is an 'optimum mix' of both previous versions, but is mostly similar to the first
one. The article, and much more material on media effects research, also appears
in my book Moving Experiences, Second Edition: Media Effects and Beyond (John
Libbey, 2005). Readers will be reassured - or perhaps appalled - to note that
little has changed in the field of media effects studies since the piece was first
It has become something of a cliché to observe that despite many decades
of research and hundreds of studies, the connections between people's consumption
of the mass media and their subsequent behaviour have remained persistently elusive.
Indeed, researchers have enjoyed an unusual degree of patience from both their
scholarly and more public audiences. But a time must come when we must take a
step back from this murky lack of consensus and ask - why? Why are there no clear
answers on media effects?
There is, as I see it, a
choice of two conclusions which can be drawn from any detailed analysis of the
research. The first is that if, after over 60 years of a considerable amount of
research effort, direct effects of media upon behaviour have not been clearly
identified, then we should conclude that they are simply not there to be found.
Since I have argued this case, broadly speaking, elsewhere (Gauntlett, 1995),
I will here explore the second possibility: that the media effects research has
quite consistently taken the wrong approach to the mass media, its audiences,
and society in general. This misdirection has taken a number of forms; for the
purposes of this chapter, I will impose an unwarranted coherence upon the claims
of all those who argue or purport to have found that the mass media will routinely
have direct and reasonably predictable effects upon the behaviour of their fellow
human beings, calling this body of thought, simply, the 'effects model'. Rather
than taking apart each study individually, I will consider the mountain of studies
- and the associated claims about media effects made by commentators - as a whole,
and outline ten fundamental flaws in their approach.
1. The effects model
tackles social problems 'backwards'
To explain the problem of
violence in society, researchers should begin with that social problem and seek
to explain it with reference, quite obviously, to those who engage in it: their
background, lifestyles, character profiles, and so on. The 'media effects' approach,
in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media
and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than
the other way around.
This is an important distinction.
Criminologists, in their professional attempts to explain crime and violence,
consistently turn for explanations not to the mass media but to social factors
such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers.
In a study which did start at what I would recognise as the correct end
- by interviewing 78 violent teenage offenders and then tracing their behaviour
back towards media usage, in comparison with a group of over 500 'ordinary' school
pupils of the same age - Hagell & Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders
watched less television and video than their counterparts, had less access
to the technology in the first place, had no unusual interest in specifically
violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same material as non-offending teenagers
or were simply uninterested. This point was demonstrated very clearly when
the offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be someone who appears on
television, who would you choose to be?':
'The offenders felt particularly
uncomfortable with this question and appeared to have difficulty in understanding
why one might want to be such a person... In several interviews, the offenders
had already stated that they watched little television, could not remember their
favourite programmes and, consequently, could not think of anyone to be. In these
cases, their obvious failure to identify with any television characters seemed
to be part of a general lack of engagement with television' (p. 30).
Thus we can see that studies
which begin by looking at the perpetrators of actual violence, rather than at
the media and its audiences, come to rather different conclusions - and there
is certainly a need for more such research.
(Another study of the viewing
preferences of young offenders was commissioned in the UK (Browne & Pennell, 1998),
but this made the 'backwards' mistake of showing violent videos to the offenders
- putting violent media content onto the agenda from the start - rather than discussing
the offenders' everyday viewing choices. The study, which had some methodological
flaws (see Gauntlett, 2001), was only able to hint that some violent individuals
may enjoy watching violent material more than non-violent people do, if you actually
sit the participants down, and show them the videos. Of course such a study is
unable to tell us anything about 'media effects').
The fact that effects studies
take the media as their starting point, however, should not be taken to suggest
that they involve sensitive examinations of the mass media. As will be noted below,
the studies have typically taken a stereotyped, almost parodic view of media content.
In more general terms, the
'backwards' approach involves the mistake of looking at individuals, rather than
society, in relation to the mass media. The narrowly individualistic approach
of some psychologists leads them to argue that, because of their belief that particular
individuals at certain times in specific circumstances may be negatively affected
by one bit of media, the removal of such media from society would be a positive
step. This approach is rather like arguing that the solution to the number of
road traffic accidents in Britain would be to lock away one famously poor driver
from Cornwall; that is, a blinkered approach which tackles a real problem from
the wrong end, involves cosmetic rather than relevant changes, and fails to look
at the 'bigger picture'.
2. The effects model
treats children as inadequate
The individualism of the
psychological discipline has also had a significant impact on the way in which
children are regarded in effects research. Whilst sociology in recent decades
has typically regarded childhood as a social construction, demarcated by attitudes,
traditions and rituals which vary between different societies and different time
periods (Ariés, 1962; Jenks, 1982, 1996), the psychology of childhood - developmental
psychology - has remained more tied to the idea of a universal individual who
must develop through particular stages before reaching adult maturity, as established
by Piaget (e.g. 1926, 1929). The developmental stages are arranged as a hierarchy,
from incompetent childhood through to rational, logical adulthood, and progression
through these stages is characterised by an 'achievement ethic' (Jenks, 1996,
In psychology, then, children
are often considered not so much in terms of what they can do, as what
they (apparently) cannot. Negatively defined as non-adults, the research subjects
are regarded as the 'other', a strange breed whose failure to match generally
middle-class adult norms must be charted and discussed. Most laboratory studies
of children and the media presume, for example, that their findings apply only
to children, but fail to run parallel studies with adult groups to confirm this.
We might speculate that this is because if adults were found to respond to laboratory
pressures in the same way as children, the 'common sense' validity of the experiments
would be undermined.
In her valuable examination
of the way in which academic studies have constructed and maintained a particular
perspective on childhood, Christine Griffin (1993) has recorded the ways in which
studies produced by psychologists, in particular, have tended to 'blame the victim',
to represent social problems as the consequence of the deficiencies or inadequacies
of young people, and to 'psychologize inequalities, obscuring structural relations
of domination behind a focus on individual "deficient" working-class young people
and/or young people of colour, their families or cultural backgrounds' (p. 199).
Problems such as unemployment and the failure of education systems are thereby
traced to individual psychology traits. The same kinds of approach are readily
observed in media effects studies, the production of which has undoubtedly been
dominated by psychologically-oriented researchers, who - whilst, one imagines,
having nothing other than benevolent intentions - have carefully exposed the full
range of ways in which young media users can be seen as the inept victims of products
which, whilst obviously puerile and transparent to adults, can trick children
into all kinds of ill-advised behaviour.
This situation is clearly
exposed by research which seeks to establish what children can and do understand
about and from the mass media. Such projects have shown that children can talk
intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham, 1993, 1996),
and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical and 'media literate'
video productions themselves (Gauntlett, 1997, 2005).
3. Assumptions within
the effects model are characterised by barely-concealed conservative ideology
The systematic derision
of children's resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader conservative
project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the mass
media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability
today. Effects studies from the USA, in particular, tend to assume a level of
television violence which is simply not applicable in Canada, Europe or elsewhere,
and which is based on content analysis methods which count all kinds of 'aggression'
seen in the media and come up with a correspondingly high number. George Gerbner's
view, for example, that 'We are awash in a tide of violent representations unlike
any the world has ever seen... drenching every home with graphic scenes of expertly
choreographed brutality' (1994, p. 133), both reflects his hyperbolic view of
the media in the US and the extent to which findings cannot be simplistically
transferred across the Atlantic. Whilst it is certainly possible that gratuitous
depictions of violence might reach a level in US screen media which could be seen
as unpleasant and unnecessary, it cannot always be assumed that violence is shown
for 'bad' reasons or in an uncritical light. Even the most 'gratuitous' acts of
violence, such as those committed by Beavis and Butt-Head in their eponymous MTV
series, can be interpreted as rationally resistant reactions to an oppressive
world which has little to offer them (see Gauntlett, 1997). The way in which media
effects researchers talk about the amount of violence in the media encourages
the view that it is not important to consider the meaning of the scenes
involving violence which appear on screen.
Critics of screen violence,
furthermore, often reveal themselves to be worried about challenges to the status
quo which they feel that some movies present (even though most European film critics
see most popular Hollywood films as being ridiculously status quo-friendly). For
example, Michael Medved, author of the successful Hollywood vs. America: Popular
Culture and the War on Traditional Values (1992) finds worrying and potentially
influential displays of 'disrespect for authority' and 'anti-patriotic attitudes'
in films like Top Gun - a movie which others find embarrassingly jingoistic.
The opportunistic mixing of concerns about the roots of violence with political
reservations about the content of screen media is a lazy form of propaganda. Media
effects studies and TV violence content analyses help to sustain this approach
by maintaining the notion that 'antisocial' behaviour is an objective category
which can be measured, which is common to numerous programmes, and which will
negatively affect those children who see it portrayed.
4. The effects model
inadequately defines its own objects of study
The flaws numbered four
to six in this list are more straightforwardly methodological, although they are
connected to the previous and subsequent points. The first of these is that effects
studies have generally taken for granted the definitions of media material, such
as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' programming, as well as characterisations of behaviour
in the real world, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' action. The point has
already been made that these can be ideological value judgements; throwing down
a book in disgust, sabotaging a nuclear missile, or smashing cages to set animals
free, will always be interpreted in effects studies as 'antisocial', not 'prosocial'.
Furthermore, actions such
as verbal aggression or hitting an inanimate object are recorded as acts of violence,
just as TV murders are, leading to terrifically (and irretrievably) murky data.
It is usually impossible to discern whether very minor or extremely serious acts
of 'violence' depicted in the media are being said to have led to quite severe
or merely trivial acts in the real world. More significant, perhaps, is the fact
that this is rarely seen as a problem: in the media effects field, dodgy 'findings'
are accepted with an uncommon hospitality.
5. The effects model
is often based on artificial elements and assumptions within studies
Since careful sociological
studies of media effects require amounts of time and money which limit their abundance,
they are heavily outnumbered by simpler studies which are usually characterised
by elements of artificiality. Such studies typically take place in a laboratory,
or in a 'natural' setting such as a classroom but where a researcher has conspicuously
shown up and instigated activities, neither of which are typical environments.
Instead of a full and naturally-viewed television diet, research subjects are
likely to be shown selected or specially-recorded clips which lack the narrative
meaning inherent in everyday TV productions. They may then be observed in simulations
of real life presented to them as a game, in relation to inanimate objects such
as Bandura's famous 'bobo' doll, or as they respond to questionnaires, all of
which are unlike interpersonal interaction, cannot be equated with it, and are
likely to be associated with the previous viewing experience in the mind of the
subject, rendering the study invalid.
Such studies also rely on
the idea that subjects will not alter their behaviour or stated attitudes as a
response to being observed or questioned. This naive belief has been shown to
be false by researchers such as Borden (1975) who have demonstrated that the presence,
appearance and gender of an observer can radically affect children's behaviour.
6. The effects model
is often based on studies with misapplied methodology
Many of the studies which
do not rely on an experimental method, and so may evade the flaws mentioned in
the previous point, fall down instead by applying a methodological procedure wrongly,
or by drawing inappropriate conclusions from particular methods. The widely-cited
longitudinal panel study by Huesmann, Eron and colleagues (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder
& Huesmann, 1972, 1977), for example, has been less famously slated for failing
to keep to the procedures, such as assessing aggressivity or TV viewing with the
same measures at different points in time, which are necessary for their statistical
findings to have any validity (Chaffee, 1972; Kenny, 1972). (A longitudinal panel
study is one in which the same group of people - the panel - are surveyed and/or
observed at a number of points over a period of time). The same researchers have
also failed to adequately account for why the findings of this study and those
of another of their own studies (Huesmann, Lagerspetz & Eron, 1984) absolutely
contradict each other, with the former concluding that the media has a marginal
effect on boys but no effect on girls, and the latter arguing the exact opposite
(no effect on boys, but a small effect for girls). They also seem to ignore that
fact that their own follow-up of their original set of subjects 22 years later
suggested that a number of biological, developmental and environmental factors
contributed to levels of aggression, whilst the mass media was not even given
a mention (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984). These astounding inconsistencies,
unapologetically presented by perhaps the best-known researchers in this area,
must be cause for considerable unease about the effects model. More careful use
of similar methods, such as in the three-year panel study involving over 3,000
young people conducted by Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp & Rubens (1982a, 1982b), has
only indicated that significant media effects are not to be found.
Perhaps the most frequent
and misleading abuse of methodology occurs when studies which are simply unable
to show that one thing causes another are treated as if they have done so. Such
is the case with correlation studies, which can easily find that a particular
personality type is also the kind of person who enjoys a certain kind of media
- for example, that violent people like to watch 'violent films' - but are quite
unable to show that the media use has produced that character. Nevertheless
psychologists such as Van Evra (1990) and Browne (1998, 1999) have assumed that
this is probably the case. There is a logical coherence to the idea that children
whose behaviour is antisocial and disruptional will also have a greater interest
in the more violent and noisy television programmes, whereas the idea that the
behaviour is a consequence of these programmes lacks both this rational
consistency, and the support of the studies.
7. The effects model
is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence
In addition to the point
that 'antisocial' acts are ideologically defined in effects studies (as noted
in item three above), we can also note that the media depictions of 'violence'
which the effects model typically condemns are limited to fictional productions.
The acts of violence which appear on a daily basis on news and serious factual
programmes are seen as somehow exempt. The point here is not that depictions of
violence in the news should necessarily be condemned in just the same, blinkered
way, but rather to draw attention to another philosophical inconsistency which
the model cannot account for. If the antisocial acts shown in drama series and
films are expected to have an effect on the behaviour of viewers, even though
such acts are almost always ultimately punished or have other negative consequences
for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the antisocial activities
which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such apparent
consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects.
8. The effects model
assumes superiority to the masses
Surveys typically show that
whilst a certain proportion of the public feel that the media may cause other
people to engage in antisocial behaviour, almost no-one ever says that they have
been affected in that way themselves. This view is taken to extremes by researchers
and campaigners whose work brings them into regular contact with the supposedly
corrupting material, but who are unconcerned for their own well-being as they
implicitly 'know' that the effects could only be on others. Insofar as these others
are defined as children or 'unstable' individuals, their approach may seem not
unreasonable; it is fair enough that such questions should be explored. Nonetheless,
the idea that it is unruly 'others' who will be affected - the uneducated? the
working class? - remains at the heart of the effects paradigm, and is reflected
in its texts (as well, presumably, as in the researchers' overenthusiastic interpretation
of weak or flawed data, as discussed above).
George Gerbner and his colleagues,
for example, write about 'heavy' television viewers as if this media consumption
has necessarily had the opposite effect on the weightiness of their brains. Such
people are assumed to have no selectivity or critical skills, and their habits
are explicitly contrasted with preferred activities: 'Most viewers watch by the
clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or
follow established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose
a book, a movie or an article' (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986, p.19).
This view - which knowingly makes inappropriate comparisons by ignoring the serial
nature of many TV programmes, and which is unable to account for the widespread
use of TV guides and digital or video recorders with which audiences plan and
arrange their viewing - reveals the kind of elitism and snobbishness which often
seems to underpin such research. The point here is not that the content of the
mass media must not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves
are not well served by studies which are willing to treat them as potential savages
or actual fools.
9. The effects model
makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media
A further fundamental flaw,
hinted at in points three and four above, is that the effects model necessarily
rests on a base of reductive assumptions and unjustified stereotypes regarding
media content. To assert that, say, 'media violence' will bring negative consequences
is not only to presume that depictions of violence in the media will always be
promoting antisocial behaviour, and that such a category exists and makes sense,
as noted above, but also assumes that the medium holds a singular message which
will be carried unproblematically to the audience. The effects model therefore
performs the double deception of presuming (a) that the media presents a singular
and clear-cut 'message', and (b) that the proponents of the effects model are
in a position to identify what that message is.
The meanings of media content
are ignored in the simple sense that assumptions are made based on the appearance
of elements removed from their context (for example, woman hitting man equals
violence equals bad), and in the more sophisticated sense that even in
context the meanings may be different for different viewers (woman hitting man
equals an unpleasant act of aggression, or appropriate self-defence, or
a triumphant act of revenge, or a refreshing change, or is simply
uninteresting, or any of many further alternative readings). In-depth qualitative
studies have unsurprisingly given support to the view that media audiences routinely
arrive at their own, often heterogeneous, interpretations of everyday media texts
(e.g. Buckingham, 1993, 1996; Hill, 1997; Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash & Weaver,
1992; Gray, 1992; Palmer, 1986). Since the effects model rides roughshod over
both the meanings that actions have for characters in dramas and the meanings
which those depicted acts may have for the audience members, it can retain little
credibility with those who consider popular entertainment to be more than just
a set of very basic propaganda messages flashed at the audience in the simplest
10. The effects model
is not grounded in theory
Finally, and underlying
many of the points made above, is the fundamental problem that the entire argument
of the 'effects model' is not substantiated with any theoretical reasoning beyond
the bald assertions that particular kinds of effects will be produced by the media.
The basic question of why the media should induce people to imitate its
content has never been adequately tackled, beyond the simple idea that particular
actions are 'glamorised'. (However, antisocial actions are shown really positively
so infrequently that this is an inadequate explanation). Similarly, the question
of how merely seeing an activity in the media would be translated into an actual
motive which would prompt an individual to behave in a particular way is
just as unresolved. The lack of firm theory has led to the effects model being
rooted in the set of questionable assumptions outlined above - that the mass media
(rather than people) should be the unproblematic starting-point for research;
that children will be unable to 'cope' with the media; that the categories of
'violence' or 'antisocial behaviour' are clear and self-evident; that the model's
predictions can be verified by scientific research; that screen fictions are of
concern, whilst news pictures are not; that researchers have the unique capacity
to observe and classify social behaviour and its meanings, but that those researchers
need not attend to the various possible meanings which media content may have
for the audience. Each of these very substantial problems has its roots in the
failure of media effects commentators to found their model in any coherent theory.
So what future for
research on media influences?
The effects model, we have
seen, has remarkably little going for it as an explanation of human behaviour,
or of the media's role in society. Whilst any challenging or apparently illogical
theory or model reserves the right to demonstrate its validity through empirical
data, the effects model has failed also in that respect. Its continued survival
is indefensible and unfortunate. However, the failure of this particular model
does not mean that the impact of the mass media can no longer be considered or
investigated. Indeed, there are many fascinating questions to be explored about
the influence of the media upon our perceptions, and ways of thinking and being
in the world (Gauntlett, 2002), which simply get ignored whilst the research funding
and attention is going to shoddy effects studies.
It is worrying to note the
numbers of psychologists (and others) who conduct research according to traditional
methodological recipes, despite the many well-known flaws with those procedures,
when it is so easy to imagine alternative research methods and processes. (For
example, see the website www.artlab.org.uk, and Gauntlett (2005), for information
about the 'new creative audience studies' in which participants are invited to
make media and artistic artefacts themselves, as a way of exploring their
relationships with mass media). The discourses about 'media effects' from politicians
and the popular press are often laughably simplistic. Needless to say, academics
shouldn't encourage them.
Ariés, Phillippe (1962),
Centuries of Childhood, translated by Robert Baldick, Jonathan Cape, London.
Borden, Richard J. (1975),
'Witnessed Aggression: Influence of an Observer's Sex and Values on Aggressive
Responding', in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 31,
no. 3, pp. 567-573.
Browne, Kevin (1999), 'Violence
in the Media Causes Crime: Myth or Reality', Inaugural Lecture, 3 June 1999, University
Browne, Kevin, & Pennell,
Amanda (1998), 'Effects of Video Violence on Young Offenders', Home Office Research
and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No. 65.
Buckingham, David (1993),
Children Talking Television: The Making of Television Literacy, The Falmer
Buckingham, David (1996),
Moving Images: Understanding Children's Emotional Responses to Television,
Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Gauntlett, David (1995),
Moving Experiences: Understanding Television's Influences and Effects,
John Libbey, London.
Gauntlett, David (1997),
Video Critical: Children, the Environment and Media Power, John Libbey
Gauntlett, David (2001),
'The worrying influence of "media effects" studies', in Barker, Martin & Petley,
Julian, eds, Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate (Second Edition), Routledge,
London & New York.
Gauntlett, David (2002),
Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction, Routledge, London.
Gauntlett, David (2005),
Moving Experiences, Second Edition: Media Effects and Beyond, John Libbey,
Gauntlett, David, & Hill,
Annette (1999), TV Living: Television, Culture and Everyday Life, Routledge,
Gerbner, George (1994),
'The Politics of Media Violence: Some Reflections', in Linné, Olga, & Hamelink,
Cees J., eds, Mass Communication Research: On Problems and Policies: The Art
of Asking the Right Questions, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey.
Gerbner, George; Gross,
Larry; Morgan, Michael, & Signorielli, Nancy (1986), 'Living with Television:
The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process', in Bryant, Jennings, & Zillmann, Dolf,
eds, Perspectives on Media Effects, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
Gray, Ann (1992), Video
Playtime: The Gendering of a Leisure Technology, Routledge, London.
Griffin, Christine (1993),
Representations of Youth: The Study of Youth and Adolescence in Britain and
America, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hagell, Ann, & Newburn,
Tim (1994), Young Offenders and the Media: Viewing Habits and Preferences,
Policy Studies Institute, London.
Hill, Annette (1997), Shocking
Entertainment: Viewer Response to Violent Movies, John Libbey Media, Luton.
Huesmann, L. Rowell; Eron,
Leonard D.; Lefkowitz, Monroe M., & Walder, Leopold O. (1984), 'Stability of Aggression
Over Time and Generations', in Developmental Psychology, vol. 20, no. 6,
Jenks, Chris (1982), 'Introduction:
Constituting the Child', in Jenks, Chris, ed., The Sociology of Childhood,
Jenks, Chris (1996), Childhood,
Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; Eron,
Leonard D.; Walder, Leopold O., & Huesmann, L. Rowell (1972), 'Television Violence
and Child Aggression: A Followup Study', in Comstock, George A., & Rubinstein,
Eli A., eds, Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, Volume III:
Television and Adolescent Aggressiveness, National Institute of Mental Health,
Lefkowitz, Monroe M.; Eron,
Leonard D.; Walder, Leopold O., & Huesmann, L. Rowell (1977), Growing Up To
Be Violent: A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Aggression, Pergamon
Press, New York.
Medved, Michael (1992),
Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values,
Milavsky, J. Ronald; Kessler,
Ronald C.; Stipp, Horst H., & Rubens, William S. (1982a), Television and Aggression:
A Panel Study, Academic Press, New York.
Milavsky, J. Ronald; Kessler,
Ronald; Stipp, Horst, & Rubens, William S. (1982b), 'Television and Aggression:
Results of a Panel Study', in Pearl, David; Bouthilet, Lorraine, & Lazar, Joyce,
eds, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications
for the Eighties, Volume 2: Technical Reviews, National Institute of Mental
Palmer, Patricia (1986),
The Lively Audience: A Study of Children Around the TV Set, Allen & Unwin,
Philo, Greg (1990), Seeing
and Believing: The Influence of Television, Routledge, London.
Philo, Greg, ed. (1996),
Media and Mental Distress, Longman, London.
Piaget, Jean (1926), The
Language and Thought of the Child, Harcourt Brace & Company, New York.
Piaget, Jean (1929), The
Child's Conception of the World, Routledge, London.
Schlesinger, Philip; Dobash,
R. Emerson; Dobash, Russell P. , & Weaver, C. Kay (1992), Women Viewing Violence,
British Film Institute Publishing, London.
Van Evra, Judith (1990),
Television and Child Development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,