The Child and Television Drama: The Psychosocial Impact of Cumulative Viewing

5HSRUW

/ / " / + ' $#/ & / / '. $'$ / !% (/ $ / ) * ( , / - # /

&( 3 - 8 58 1 8 ! 2 8 " 8 # 8 )$3'8 $*8 . 8 4 08 % 8 ,6 /+78

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..............

VI

.xii

FOREWORD 1 THE MEDIUM: TELEVISION IN AMERICA . ..... ..

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

GnJ11p .for the Advancemmt of Psyrhir,try. Co1m11ittn on Social fssue.,. '/'he child and teleuision drama. ( P11IJ/icati1m: 11. 11. no. 112j Bibliog,·aplq: p.

I. Television and dii/dreu--United Stnte,--P1w·lw­ lug1cal asp,,.i,,. 2. Tel,:visim1 1111d d1-1 /d1-r11--Sonf/( a,j,ecL<--United States. 3. Child dn,rfopmmt. /. 1it/,_ II. S�ries: Publimtiu11 (Gmu/1 .fm· liw Adva,n,mrnl uf Ayrl11a1ry); no. 112. [DNLM: 1. Ti,/evi,:,io11. 2. Child d,.ielup11um1. 3. Child bt•lwvior. WJ l'U675N ""· 112,ws 105.5.£9 C5J6J 82-21717 JU5.2'3 HQ784.T·/f.76 1982 ISBN 0-910958-17-.J

Capacity and power of the medium ................

The uniqueness of television .....................

The economics of the television industry ........... .

Television as a psychosocial issue ....... .

2 THE AUDIENCE: CHILDREN AS VIEWERS ...... .

Needs of the developing child .....................

The changing family environment ..............

The psychological process of identification ........

Stages of psychological development .............. .

Infancy and toddlerhood ......................

Preschool Years ............................ .

School age ..................................

Adolescence ................................

Summary ................................. .

3 THE AUDIENCE: SOME QUESTIONS OF EFFECT Copyright © 1982 by the Mental Health M.aierials Genta. All rights resaved. This report must not he ,eproduced in any form without written permission of the Mental Health Materials Center, except by a reoi.ewer, reporter, or commentator whu wishes to quote brief passa;1;es.

November, 1982, Volume XI, Pu/Jlicatwn No. J12 This is the sixth in a series <if GAP publication, comprising Volume XI. Manufactured in llu United Statts of America.

How does television affect play and fantasy? .........

Why fantasize? ............................. .

Images of fantasy and reality .................. . \Vhen fiction and reality merge .................

The ability to fantasize ....................... .

Docs television promote passivity?................ .

Does television foster dependent personalities? ......

How does television relate to loneliness? ............

5 5 7 8

12

17 18 19 20 23 24 25

26

29 32 35 35 35 36 37 39 42 44 47 lll

; 4# ;.0-!0 +1 ; 0 + 1;:%5#;(%9 ; 6-01 ; Ĉ Ņʄ ƸDZɉȶʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ +ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ +ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ,ʄ ʄ ôDzq`8ƎģɊʄ0ǜRʄĹȏr`8ƏĤɋʄȞUȷdzƹɭɌƐǴ)ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ-ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ õǵqŹgĥɍʄ:&ȸ~ƺ=<Ƒ sʄ ʄ>ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ !ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ?ʄ @ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ"ʄ ĉƆVʄ ƻ'ʄǶ5ʄɳƒǷLJŭtQWʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ #ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ āȟ ɴġm ǝĦXʄčuRʄȹ(źthŸQĎǞħņʄ ʄ#ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ù_ų Ĩ ;ʄ 5ʄɵgŇ YȠʄ16ŻȡňȺ;Ɠ~zʄ ʄ .ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄAʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ $ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ -ʄ ʄ ʄ LʼnȻŊ2 ĩ ʄŶƳǟĺƔǠż ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄBʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ăǸǑŋʄǹɎc^ȢʄŌŴŵō3ɏ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ Aʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ,ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄʄ ČƇɿʄɶƕǺƼŎǡĪZïʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ "ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ĊƈVʄīƉďȣMĬɐŏȤȼʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ¡ʄ ʄ¢ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄCʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ?ʄ ʄDʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ!ʄ ʄ ʄ ĄɑYȥZǻɒʀ Ƚʄ £ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ¤ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ-ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ"ʄ ʄ ¥ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ¦ʄ ʄ ʄ ċc'ʄɻ :ƵʄŷȓȦĭ&ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ Eʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ$ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ§ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ÿWvʄMw4ʄɼǼpXxʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ >ʄ ʄEʄ ʄ ¨ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ©ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ .ʄ ĀƖǢ ȧh 7ŐȾʄ ª ʄ ʄ « ʄ ʄ ʄ%ʄ üő^mƗǣa*ʄĐ}Ļʄ ȨđƘɓȿʄ ʄ ʄ ¬ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄBʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ øŒ ɮnĒ)ƙʃēɔi sʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ"ʄ $ʄ ʄ@ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ

2 ; ÍÆʄ ÎÇʄ ÏÐʄ Ñßʄ Òàʄ ÔGʄ ÕÂʄ JJʄ Öáʄ رʄ Ù¸ʄ ÚIʄ ÛÃʄ ÜÈʄ ÝËʄ ÞKʄ

; 7$ ;/0-!0 +1 ; #%( 0 , 1;4 ) 9%3&-,; ; ; ; ; öĔȩ<ǽ Ǥɀʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ%ʄ /ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ %ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄCʄ ʄ ʄ $ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ/ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ú4=ĮOɕƚ ǥĕ8ʄȖȳ ŽȪ0o ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ#ʄ ʄ ʄ Dʄ ʄ ʄ#ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ þǾ ʄįĢ{ʄɖ LjŮ ƛ*ƜǿǦʄœļɯİĖɗŔðʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ­ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ +ʄ ʄ ʄ .ʄ óɰƴĽiǧbʄƶ9Ȁɽƽŕľ6UʄėvĿʄ*ƷƝljNJɁʄ %ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ Fʄ ʄ!ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ĂȴȐnȁɘƞ9žʄƊ'ĘNjɬ ʁʄȗ ʂıdȂƾȃſ7IJęƿʄSŖɷ&k Șǒ'yə ʄ ʄ ʄ ýȄ ɚŗȫjǨƀʄșȅ Ɵ (ɸŘʄ* ijƠNkʄȬřǀ2ɛơ ǩ;ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ÷ƋƢǁŀȭŚǪ ɂʄśŁɱĴĚɜƣȆxěǂʄȚȵȑaȮĜǓ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ąȇo&ʄĵȈǫ3[:ǰɃʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ®ʄ ʄ,ʄ ʄFʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ!ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄʄ ʄ ñʄț ȕ6ȯOǔǕƤǬƁʄ)Ŝŝłîʄ Ȝ Ȓǖ ɝ7uƂʄǗŞzɞĝlʄeş0njɟƌʄ ¯ʄ ʄ ʄ

; âÉʄ ã²ʄ äHʄ åGʄ æ³ʄ çÄʄ èÌʄ éKʄ êëʄ

; 0 -++ , 4'-,3; , ;"8' *', 3; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; LŠĶȉpǘš9SPɠƥȊy ʄ2{Ńʄƃ=ƦTůǍƧǭŢɄʄ_ȔȰʄȝĞȱţǮɡɅ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ/ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ĆȋǙ[ʄƄ (ńŰǎƨ|Ť ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ » ò Ɇ\ ʄɢ ťʄȲ ǃŦʄ űʄɣ\Ǐŧ Ʃ jȌ)ʄƪrʄ< Ũʄ3fƫDŽT ɇʄlƬ5]ʄ ʄ ʄ Å ûɹ1Džɲğɤũʄ eNɥʄɦf]ʄķdƭdž4ʄ(Ɉʄ Pɧĸ Ʈwb ʄ ʄ ʄ°ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ Ê ćŪɨʄ1ʄǐƲǚƯɩʄȍ}ʄɪƍūʄĠǛȎ ǯɫʄ ŲʄɺưŬɾƱ|ƅʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ ʄ

¹´Óʄ ºµ×ʄ IHìʄ ¼¶í ½¾·ʄ ¿ÀÁʄ

Statement of Purpose

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THE GROUP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PSYCHIATRY has a membership of approximately 300 psychiatrists, most of whom are organized in the form of a number of working committees.

These committees direct their efforts toward the study of various aspects of psychiatry and the application of this knowledge to the fields of mental health and human relations.

Collaboration with specialists in other disciplines has been and is one of GAP's working principles. Since the formation of GAP in 1946 its members have worked closely with such other specialists as anthropologists, biologists, economists, statisti­ cians, educators, lawyers, nurses, psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and experts in mass communication, philosophy, and semantics. GAP envisages a continuing program of work according to the following aims: 1.

To collect and appraise significant data in the fields of psychiatry, mental health, and human relations

2.

To reevaluate old concepts and to develop and test new ones

3.

To apply the knowledge thus obtained for the promotion of mental health and good human relations.

GAP is an independent group, and it reports represent the composite findings and opinions of its members only, guided by its many consultants.

THE CHILD AND TELEVISION DRAMA: THE PSYCHOSOCIAL IMPACT OF CUMULATIVE VIEWING was formulated by the Committee on Social Issues, which acknowledges on page xii the participation of others in the preparation of this report. The VJ

Vil

members of this committee are listed below. The following pages list the members of the other GAP committees as well as additional membership categories and current and past officers of GAP.

COll.fMITTF.£ ON SOCIAL ISSUJ:.S

Roy \\.'. Menninger: lOpeka, Kans., t:hairpen,on

Ian J\. Alger, New York, N. Y. William R. Rcarrlslee. Boswn. Mass.

Viola W. Bernard, New York, !\:. Y. l'-dul Jay Fink, Philadelphia, Pa. Henry J Gault, Chirago, Ill. Roderick (;orney, Los Angeles, Calif.

Lester Gri 11:-.poou, Boslon, Ma5o::.. .Joel Handler. Chicago, 111.

Judd Marinor, Lo.'I" Angeles, Calif.

Perry Ollenb<'rg. Philadelphia. Pa.

Kcndon Smirh, °;\"ew York, �.V.

Paul L. Adams, Louisville, Ky. Jame, M. Bell. Canaan, N.Y. Harlow Donald Dunton, :'Jew York, N.Y. Joseph Fischnff, Dt:i" ,it, Mich.

Joseph�- Green, Madison, Wis.

John Schowalter, :-kw Haven. Conn.

Theodore Shapiro, New York, J',;.Y. Peter Tanguay. Los A11gde-s, Calif

Lenore F. C. Terr, Sari Francisco, CaHf .

CoM�IITH,E o:-,,, Tt-1£ COLLEGE Sn;of,Jl,,'T Kent E. Robinson, Towson, Md.,

Chairperson

L. Arnstein, Hamden, Conn.

Varda Backl». La .Jolla, Calif.

Myron B. Liptzin, Chapel Hill, N.C. Rohtn

COMMLTTEE 0� ADOI.ESCE:"JC.E.

WancnJ. Cadpaille. Englewood. Colo., Chairverson

lan A. Canino, New York, N.Y. Harrison P. Eddy, :-Jew York, N.Y. Sherman C. Feinstein, Ii ighland Park, Ill. Michael Kalogerakis, New York, N.Y. Clarice J. Kr.stcnhaum, l\ew York. N.Y. Derek :Vhller, Chicago. Ill. Silvio J. Onesti. Jr., Belmont, Mas,.

Malkah Tolpin Notman. Brook.line, Mass.

Gloria C. Onque, PitlSburgh, Pa. Elizabeth Aub Reid, Cambridge, Ma.ss.

Earle Silber. Chevy Chase, Md. COMMITTEE ON CULTURAL PsYCHIATRY Andrea K. Delgado, New Yor1:., N.Y., Chairperson

John r. Spiegel. Waltham. Mass.

COMMfffEE ON AGlNG

Charlr"s �1. Gait.z, Houston, Tex: , Chairpcnon Gene D. Cohen, Rockville, Md. Lawcencc F. Greenlcig:h, Los Angelts, Calif.

George H. Pollock, Chicago, 111.

Harvev L Ruht"n, New Haven, Conn.

F. Co�yers Thompson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga.

Ronald M. \Vimrob, Fa.rmingwn, Conn.

(OM:i♦11TTEE O>J THE fAMIL\'

Henry U. Grunebaum. Cambridge, M a.'is., Chairperson

W. Roben Beavers, Dallas, Tex. Ellen M. Berman, M�rion, Pa. Lee Combrint·k-Graham, Philadelphia., Pa .

COM:i.tJTIF..t ON CHILD PsY<.;HiA1 RY

John t. �cDermotLJr.. Ho11ulltlu, Hawai� Chairperson

Ira D. Glick. New York, N.Y.

Frederick. Goctlieb, Los Angeles, Calif.

Cha1lc, A. Malone, Clevdand, Ohio Jo,fph Satten. San Francisco, Calif.

@ 34 B ! B '-7 &( / " # 8B

>% @ @

("5 @ 09=1+ @ <: @ $ &64#7;2,@

-`ɭ ȒͩЗĬ З ͪʏ 0 9@З â І З Ş ƙLЗ kŸǺĵàȅĽQȅ ±ƞƹŹ ȅ l²ľĿ³ƺ ,ȅ áǶ ȅ ǤĶȅ t ȅ yǥƻǟƗŐ ȅ ~źDz´ȅ ĔǓǻ-ȅ ķň.ǯµȅ ŻʐDZuƪ ǿЗ X¾З żȓ ̋Ȕʼȕ:AЗ Ň ЗÕ3ɮȖ|.Ν З óh2ʑɝ З

# 12 :$ : (5 : 3 - % :

Ž̺ǟȗΑϗƨÍЗ ôa˸ͣǠȘ ˟ З łșϽЗƚ̻ͫʽ З ş Зƛ З õɶ`ʻ ͤ. Ξ ̌З Š̼ͬ˹b̍Зŏ З ň ϪЇBЗ ƇȚˠˡțͭΟ ʒ 2Ȝ"З ųƫ З Ǧĸ ǧƼȅ ÏĈƟâĕÊ Ơ/ȅ ¥¶ƽ Ėőăǔ# 0ȅ m `Fȅ œʓ ɔΠЗ ě З ƈɷ ͮo З ã7ρϘ ̎#ЗŔƬςσ З \̽ǡ Β!З ЗƉ ˊ̾Ͼ ЗäȝϸȞΓ ЊЗĭʔˢˣΡ$З Vj˷vɢ З Ńȟ3ύЗ З Ʀʕ˺˻ 9 ƭ̏%З ͯʾɕ З ö ʖɞ¿З

$ 0 2 B% B +: . * B

ãơƢǼȅ @ ädzė' ȅ n· ŀ ƾ1ȅ Ƿ 2ȅ aĉ ƣƚåƤƿŻŒȅ ĸ̿ɸ̐З Ē З ÖȀƮ ΢ З Ĥcʗ ȠΣϹʵ ˤȡ З Ĝ ǝЗ \ ǢȢΔϙЗ)Ư Dz З šȣ?ЗƜ ͰˉЗ Ţ¡Ɲ¢З Ɗ!ȃˋȤ З ĮÀЗ ēˌȁͱ ȂCЗ åȥˍ˼ 6Ϛ&З d=τ З żĊœȅ w ȅ xǨŔÙæƥ'Žŕ3ȅ ýŁʼnž Ǖ4ȅ ¸(( ȅ ̀Ͳ vΤЗ× З ʼnʘͥϛ84 З ÷ɹư ɖ З įʙ ˥"З Z ) З Ĺ́t З ĥÁЗ Ŋ ͂̒ȦЋDЗ ČƱ˦ ƲΥ£ЗƐ/ЈÂЗ øɺƳΕ˧/;З Ŵ З ŭ æͳʚ ̓¤З ŵɻʛ ƴ o˨ ɼʜƵ#З [ З ɬȧȃЗ İ З Ƌώ ̷Ϝ ̔EЗƕȨ˩ ȩΦ ɗЌЗıʝ˪ Χ#З ŕƶΨΩ З ſċŖȅ ȅ ǖƦ¹ǩǀǁ çǴȅ z ǰèŗ bƀŘřGȅ

ùŮŖŗɥɦƑĔĝ'ЗÑДЗ . ) ' 4/ : úØžĕЗ ůΖ˫ 5 ЗçPЗ ŐʶɯɽϏq̓͢ϩRЗ è Ϊϐ ̕¥З ŘƷΫ З ГЗ cČºĘƧƛā&ǂƁŚȅ Yéƨś»ƩÚȅ !ÛłþǗ5ȅ ¼ŊËƪęÜĄê6ȅ ǃDŽ ȅ ƒɾ8˽e<ЗĖ'З ûϫ ϝwά$ЗüɿƸͦȪˎЗIJʷˬ З ţ ý З ſ ǣȫ ϨЗ- З ĦʞǤέ̈́Ʃ̖DЗ]ͅϿή̗͆¦З ř З *͇̘ƹˏȄЗƖ З ijƺ Ȭʹ;˭nЍ%З ƻίʀʟ̙ɰϞ̚͠FЗ č þQЗ ƂÌ ƫǠƘȅ ȅ Ěŋë"ìȁȄȅ ½ŜȅVŝǘƃŞěƄ7ȅ ¡íǸ ȅ ĜŃǡƅşȅ Ƭ¾ŌîƭHȅ dĝŠÐĞšŢ Ǚğ8ȅ ĠƆȅ ʠ̛ЗƌƼǥΰʁʡ3 З Ɨƽαʂʢ̜ɱϟ ̝§З *MT З

& ?;<56 A B =>B1 ,)9B

ƇÍïƷǢȅ ġÑč ŇDž ȅ *)ȅª$Ʈİ9ȅ «I:ȅ eĎ¿ĢƯƜð¢džƈ!ȅ {ñţŤȃȅ¦Jȅ ZưƉLJģť ;ȅ ǪÒLjƊŦ<ȅ WƱĤȂKȅ ĺƾ˾ȭÔЗƍ З ėƿϑ͈̞BЗĻ͵ ¨З ƀ dzʿϺʸˮ1ȮGЗ ŚȅÃЗ uǫ òŧóȅ [ ȅ vôĹ × ljƋŨ ȅ \%ƌƍĴ ǽũ=ȅ ¬Lȅ Ɠ ˀ БЗ éЎ9f З ńgͶǀβϬ©З ŤȯЀЗƞ͉ͷzÄЗ ņOƟÅЗ Ù5 ȰЁЗ Ŷ З +͊ΗΘʣγ̟͋FЗ ÿ ˿Ǧ͸xȆsȱªЗ ƧÒ υφNЗ ʹ˯ ʤǁ З Ā З Űqɤp̠ˁ͹ǂ̸ϠВHЗ +ʥːЂcϭ˂ȲȳAЗ ʦδ З ŋ Ѓʧ<З ő З Ɓ͌ǧǨy ε«З ħ~ ̡З űǃˈ= З ť ЗƠOЗ Ú ˰DŽ̢З Ď З Ƃ ̣ǩˑDžϒϓ¬ЗŌdžЗļ͍ ~LJ З Wf|ʨɣÏЗ

&! 6* 8 0 "9: 7 +,:

ULjΙ ͎<Зā З ̤­ĽͺÆIЗ Ϯrɧlj˒7®З Ŧ ơЗ Ă :˓ ϡϢȴЗ Ĩ'З SNJǪǴ ǵ˃JЗ ŷʩ̀ǫ ͻ0ʃ¯З ŸǞЗ Y hǶȵЗ êNj˄ȶͼ З ŧȷ?ЗƢ͏ͽ{"З Ũ ƣ З X;xǷЗÛ(З ë °ЗÜz: ̥±З Ųʄw З ƝõŪÓöƲȅ]ÀǾĺ÷NJ ȅ |ƎǬNjǚ$ū >ȅ øǹ ȅ XÁƳƏŬȅ ȅ ùÔı?ȅ °T¤ǿ "ÕǵƐƑÝ ȅ Mȅ f ȅ gďƴĥnjǛĦ ŶRȅ úÿńǍ@ȅ Еȸ?З­ƒƵIJAȅ ®ȅ ħÞŭû Ȁȅ ^ %ŏÂŮ ȅ §ÃǎĐĨ ąØƙůBȅ o h ȅ ^ ˔ɪ Ж З ì˕ ͐́m Ϳɲ²З T Ǭ΀ ȇɳ ÇЗ +Ǜχζ(З £đ#ōÄǏȅ ȅ }ƶÅŰ ĩÖij ȅ ĻŎǭ É ȅ i ļĪĂUȅ Ĵ З Ņ.ʪϔʅЗ ĵ З S΁ Ȉ ȹCЗ *ϯ΂ʆnĵ%З ZPWÎЗ U З Ǎ Ǹɘ ЗíΜАǎ ϣ³З ƎǏ̦З Ğ΃ȩǹʫηǺ͑ З Vǐ˖ʬɟMЗ ĘЄl2ȉЗ ^ÈЗ îϰ= ȺÉЗ ďϱ ʇ ̃´З ũÊă З ƓÎüƸǣȅ ȅ _ǮǜŅĀ&Cȅ ¯ ǐĒīűĆǝƔŲNȅ p ȅ Źdϲ˗З Ą ͒ ͓rɨQЗ -bθʈʭ60ϕ ̨µЗ Đ ) З -@ Sȅ @ ) . ? @ * 8'3 @ / ! @ ƏǑ ɩ8΄ȊЗ Ķ Зą͔uȻ̩ËЗ ï͕ι!̪͡¶З ś ψωLЗ ¨Įņ ĬÆų+ȅ q ȅ rÇDZĭßǑƕŴDȅ ©ÈǒēįŷćǞƖŵEȅ sOjPȅ Œ˱ ЏȋЗ Ć З ę1ǒ̄·З Ūiκʉϻʮ˲ ȼ З ]Ƚ̫6NЗ ō͖ϳ λЗćÌЗ Ě5ɴ˳ʺμ IЗ ź͗̅ ̬ $З ū Ƥ З ƃ ϼ ̭ З ğə Ȍ̆Ǔ4&З ð ϴ ȍ ΅ З Ĉ͘˘͙ З Ý}ɠΆȾȎЗ Ġ˙ǔ·νʊȿʯ̇¸З ʰ}̈ɚϤϖɀ¹З ľ˴ З ÞΈǻtʱɁЗƄ З ġ ˚ З ŬɂЅЗ_͚ {ºЗ , _(З ˛ǜ̹ЗɡΉǕ̮˅»Зߘǭ ͧ ɃΊͨϵnGЗ , З đǖ4ʲɛ1ЗƘ З Ģ΋ɄɅ j̯EЗĉʋ Ǽ s͛RЗŀķ З ĿỉɆξЗ ñ З ģ϶ ˆ 7ϷοɇΌ З ƅyǽʌ̰̊͜ȏ&ЗƔk З Ɔ ǮɈ̱З Ó З ĩǗ΍mɉ ¼З Ɋ ɋЗ / ½З Ł З ˝ǯɌΚ>З Ī˞lϊϋJЗ òɍ!ʍ ȐgKЗ Ŝȑ З à˵ɜЉǘ̲ ɎΎЗ Y Ǚ ̳ʳǾˇÐ З [͝ΛϥЗĊʎɏόϦɐΏ@З , ƥ З ŝʴ ϧ̴͞З īΐɑɒ̵ǰ ǚ>>HЗ Ŏ͟πЗá̶ɵp˶ɓ;KЗ ċk ɫЗ

Statement of Purpose

X

John H. C:.rf"i,1. lnd1:.1napolis, lnrl.

Rov R. Crinker. S1., Chicago, !IL Lester Grinspoon. Boston, Mass.

Erne-st M. Gruenberg, lia.himore, Md. Stanley Hammons, Lex.ington, Ky. Joel S. Handl,r, Wilm,11e, JII. Saul t. Harnson, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Peter Hanornllis, Topeka, Kans. _J. Cot«r Hir,chbcrg. Topek a, Kans.

Edwardj. Hornick, New York. 1'.Y. Jo>cph Hughe>. Philadelphia, Pa. Porua Bell Hume, St Helena, Calif.

•at"11jdmin Jeffries. Harper Woods, Mich.

Jay K.i.tz, I'\('"' Haven. C.:onn.

Sheppard G. Kdlam, Chicago, Ill. Pt:ter H. Knapp, Boston, Mass.

J.smcs A. Knighr, New Orleans, La. OrJ,,lda M Krng, Ciru:inmui. Ohio Robert L Leopold, Philadelphia, Pa. Alan l. Lc,eu11on. Tuc.�on, Ari2.

Rurh W. Lidz, Woodbridge, Conn.

Maurice E. Linden, Philadelphia. Pa. l:.arl A. Lo,,,m,jr., Greenport, N.Y. Rcgrnald S. L.oune, Chevy Chase, Md. Jeptha R. Macfarlane, Carden City. N.Y. John A. Ma('Leod, Cincinnati, Ohio Leo Madow, l'hiladclph1a, Pa. Sidney C. '.1-largohn. Denver, Colo. re,cr A. Manin, Southfield, ,vlich.

Ak.c \1a1uson, '.'JC\v York, N.Y. ...

Houslon, Tex. Da,·id rtC'nddl, tvfary F.. Mercer, l\:yacl, N.Y. ->Eugene Mq·f•r, Baltimore, Md. Jdmr, G. \1 iller, Louisville. Ky. John I::. Nardini. Washingron. D.C. Jo'-cph D. �oshpitz, Washington. O.C. l.ucy D. Ourin, Bethesda, Mel. Bernard L Pacella, Ne,-· York. N Y. J'\orman L. Paul, Bo:»ton, Mass.

Marvin I::. Perk.in�, RMnokc, Va. Ch.t.rlc.:, A Pinderhughes. Bedford, Ma.!ts.

St·vmour Pnllacl, Los Angeles. Cali[ D�vid N. Ratr1aval�, Chew Chase, Md. Walter Reich, Rochillc. Md. Hal'\·ey L. P Resnil-, College Park. Md. W. Douald Ross, Cindnnatl, Ohio L.<·Mei H. Rudy. Chicago. Ill. C.rurgc F,. Ruff, Philadelphia. Pa. "O<.·ccased

A. John Rush, Dalla,, Tex. David S. Sanders, Los Augclcs, Calif.

Donald Scher!. Brooklyn , N.Y. Kun 0. Schlc>inger, San Francisco, Calif.

"Rohen A.. Sen,scu, Albuquerque, N. Me.x.

Calvin F. Scn1age, SausalilO, Calif.

Cha.rlcs Shagass, Philadelphia. Pa. Alht>rt J. Silverman, Ann Arhor, Mich.

J11S1in Simon. Berkeley, Calif.

Kention W. Smith, Valhalla, N. Y. Benson R. Snyder, Caonbridg�. Ma<S. Oavid A. Soskis, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. Jeanne Spurlork. Wa.<hington, O.C. Tom G. St.auffer, \Vhhe Plains, N.Y. Brandt F. Sicde, Denver, Colo.

Eleanor A. Srecle, Denver, Colo.

Rutherford B. S1c\'cns, New York, :-,1.Y. Alan A. Stone, Cambridge. Ma.«.

Robert E. Swirzer, Tr<..-vosc, Pa. Perry C. Tall.mgton, Dalla.,, Tex. G1aham C. Ta,,1or1 J\•ton,re� Ca.nada Prescou \V. Thompson, Beavr.rr.on, Oreg.

Ha,vey J Tompkins. New York, N.Y. Luria E. Tower, Chicago, Ill. Joseph I'. Tupin, Sacramento, Calif.

Johu A Turner. San Francisco, Calif Montague Ullman. Arrl,ley, N.Y. Cene L. U>,lin, New Orleans. La. Warren T. Vaughan, Jr., Pono la Valley, Calif.

Roberr S. Wallcrslcin, San Francisco, Calif.

Andrew S. Wanon. Ann Arbor, Mich.

Bryant M. \Vedgc, \Va..,hingron, O.C. Joseph B. Whe!'lwright, Kcntlield, Calif. �oben L. Williams. Hou>ton, Tex. Paul Tyler Wilson. Berhesda. Md. Shc:n,�•n M. \r\1oods, Los Angdes, Calif.

Sranlcv F. Yolks, Srony Brook, N.Y. Israel Zwcrhng, Philadelphia, Pa.

Statement of Purpose

Dana L Farnsworth, Bclmom, MA Stephen Ficek. 1'cw Haven. Conn.

Jerome Frank, llalumore, Md. Edward 0. Harper, Cleveland, Ohio Margaret M. Lawrence, Pomona, N.Y. Harold I. Lief, Philadelphia, Pa. Ju<l<l Ma.rmor, r.os Angeles, Calif.

Karl A . \lenninger. .

Topeka. Kans.

Lc::wis L. Rohbins, Glen Oaks, N.Y. Mahel Ross. Sun Ciry, Ariz.

Francis A. Sleep er, Cape Elizabeth, Maine: Lm: CO:->SULTANT "Mrs. Elhd L Ginsburg, New York, N.Y. BOARD or DIRECTORS Officers

Henrv H. Worl 1700 Eighteenth Street, N.\V. Wa;Shlngcon, D.C. 20009

•s.

Spafford Ackerly. Louisville, Ky. C. Knight Aldrich, Charlottesville, V a .

Rcrnard Randier. Cambridge. Mass.

Lt"o H. Ba.rtemeicr, Baltimore, Md. WaJtcr E. Barrou. Hariland. Vr..

Ivan C. Brrhcn. Coral Gables. Fla. Murnv Bo,,,.en. Ch,-•y Chase, Md. 0. Spurge,nn Engfosh, Narhcrih, Pa.

Board Mr.mben Donald VJ. Hammersley Malkah Tolpin No1man William C. Offenkramz Ronald .\1. Wimroh Pa,t Presidents "\Villiam C. Menninger Jack R. £wale ¼'altt:r E Barron "Sol W, Ginsl>urg Dana L. Farnsworth 0Marion E. Ken""'onh y Henry W. Rrosin Leo H. Barccmcicr Rohen S. Garber Herbcn C. Modlin John Donnelly George Tarjan Judd Mannor John C. Nemiah Jack A. Wolford Robcn W. Gibson

PUBUCATIO"IS BOARD Robert \V. Gibson

Chnirmau

Secretary

Merrill T. Eaton Nebraska P:,ychtarric Insriwtc 602 Somh 45th Street Omaha, Neb. 68 I 06

Sheppard and Enoch Pract Hospital Tm-..·son, Md. 21204

Allan Beigcl 30 Camino Espanole Tucson, Ari,. 85716 TreaJurtr

LJrE MF.\tBlR:)

xi

Michitel R z�,r-� Edgewood Drive Greenwich, Conn. 06830 /mm.ediare Pa,t Presidrnt. 198/-82 ''Jack Weinberg, 1981-82 ('Deceased

C. Knight Aldrich Roben Arn�1ein Carl P. Malrnquisi Perl}· Otte.nberg Alexander S. Rogawski Consultant John C. t-ic-miah Ex--Offic,o Robc-rr VJ. Gibson Henry H. Work

1946-51 1951-53 1953-55 )955-57 1957-59 1959-61 1961-63 1963-65 I965--<i7 1967-69 1969•-71 1971-73 1973-;5 1975-,,77 1977-79 1979-81

cę1ż ßĴż ,> Ń! ż ċ żĬx ťà á Ŗâ żãČż9Ø żÎ-ł*ŧþy äĚ ż- ż Ùåńżĵ«ĭě CżŰ¬ż@ Ņ żŗĜżz ûčĝ@ÿ Ð ż űæ: ż !ĮżÑ2{Ř Ŧ? #ż ; ­ż Ď< ç ?řèĞ ņżğÊżd3錟ż t® BDżr ^żPQż ŨĶż 0ďÒż=êĊ%ż Ġ Ň Ā |+ Eż} ż ũķż É~ň¯¡ż ° ÓŪ±Fż Y 9 ŀżZ ż ë ć²4Gżk _Rż v³ż āʼnġż ŲìŊ żśĢż (+.ųĈÇ¢Ô´ż µż į Ŝ' ' í. ż ģËż Ĥ ż gî ŋ >3Õż e¶ ĉ AŌHż [ ŭ ż iSż h· Iż l ` Jż Đ£ż mïüĂ 7ż jĥōĦđ ŻŷKż aTż ðĒż ŝ "ż ¤¸ ¹ĸ ;ñ 7ż ŴÚ Ûż # ż</żŞ ż 4*ū ş ħ ż ÌżŠÜ 8żAĨĹ( żq 5żŎIJÈ ò ăż ýŕż ĺ ż¥Ŭ$żš ż\ ĩĄŸēż nº1 »ĻOo f ¦§¼ĔLż s UbVMż Ïļż Ţ $ż &Ŷ ½))%ĕţż ¾¨ ŤĪĽó ąż ŏŐ ő= Ė ¿ż ŵ ô ż ŒÝÀż İ ,Ůõ©&ªż öėż "ı ľ Öż Áż Íú Ćż ůÂĿœ÷ Ęż / ż øŔż 6Ãij 6:Wż uīŹż wXż pÄ ù ×Å5Nż ]Þ 2 ÆŁ80 ż

ƙЈ͔є ΅̻É·ɳÊ"є Ǝ є í ̼ ͕ɴ* є ³сє ɵ%Ņє зĒє ¥Ǒʼn?̙ Άƃє ƚŢh͖M Šˆ¦Ŋ@.ćŴє ̽ ˖˗3R?̚,ŵє ŋɛhє Ëрê Љ#R ˰є Ʌєίá є 9 ͗ΰ)Ų·є ĈƠ%3;džˇє ͘ËΈ 3O½Ȉ"є Ǻє αɜ є Ōɝ͙ȉ є !Ɇєĉ ¾Ā: ͚є W[īє §Ĭ;є ɶ ǒĭ9 Ήɷ, тє ȊШ < ōє ¿\ ͛ĹƄє £ăRr Њ rє Ǔ͜î ɸ$є ̛ɇβȋĉє ɹ Ћ 2є ǔɞơFɔȌŶє Aγє Xė ˈgє Nj=є àģ y є δ є ĺĺ + є εs¨Sє Ƣє c͝@Ίɺ΋є ͞Ïƣ єȍ˱!ЌɕâєŎ/є] ˃=}єЍ єζ єŎã єG: ¿єßĤPє¸ä\ĕ єWˀDÿєHĘŖє þ$ є Ài ηͿ ūєЎΌƅƛɟjє̾ Qɻˉ#єũÌєqljǕkє^͟ǖє4 NQ;ǗÍǻ:˲θ Àє ɼ є ǘĠMÎє -&єǙJ ѐ ĥˊȎнïιūƆє ƗɎєW є ©OÏє Kє Щ̜u є ΍ɀ Ɉƀ ȏ2κīЦǚ%B є ũȐє EЏΎ є ˠ!bB*ɽюȑє АĬє Ƥnjɾyɿλує μ̝є(ģ͠lΏÐȒŷє ŏ̞є БĊÁÐ͡ΐνƥ˳ǼŸє Ş̟є ̿ˋƦ˴Źє _Ċfє ξ̠є _ǛЃYє ƒ¡Ƒ¡єƟ>Ă Ļє˵ĢS=ÂєŐåƧŝє ŰɠВ{ª˶єɡʀΑο єb Ǹ { Βєˡ0 Ñє«˷gє| ͢ є ƨє ǜ>є ´ÒTXȓ ćє &Гd«πʁę~є 5I є ǝ ρ\ļőĮL ÓYű ƐŒ ĚД æє ςçpє ̀ ĽĽðů ´ʂ˘ˁ фєσè5 єȔ ЕǞ τñěċєº̡Ж Ãє·Į SÔєœé є¼̶ ò òK є(ĤįєæЗ ˸єľИ1 óţ Ăє ê Ŀє Ʃє ̢~ɖє ķLJǽBυʃ ˹є ˺Ǿє ƪє 6ͣ є e ČΓφʄ 3k-8 źє @ʼn є Jǟ $Δє ë¦ŀє bȕ< є ЄĢĜєΕˌ єŔ є! mͤŕ¬˄ єUs'єı¯ Õє­UєŪ A¹ɢєÄ č 'İŁє{ЙCЅʅ C Ƈє Ɯ y ţʆ"ʇ Hє MͥȖΖȗ %łє ƫ˻є ġM .ͦŖ Ďʈχ є ψ є ƬǠǡɁ ͧ ω є ϊáȘє ́¥e<є aďǿє ąNͨĝŢÉє ϋɣ є ʉ+Ħ`Ǣόє .Ýєύɤ є Кº ώʊK є Š͂Ğ˼є Xɥʋ7tє 2ЛP BŤ5Cє Åș̓:˽ Ļƈє ƓVє qÞȚ1Ηє ®є țƭFΘє (̹ıє ¾̷ VȜ+̣̈́ͩ¨ͪ є ȝÇ47ƮϏʌĝ}є Ŝɦ ŗє ʍŃє ˢ OÖє ×ßɐ;ǣV ťȞє ˾&є ØоŘn˿ΙʎЪpєϐâ] є хє m єȟČЫvńʏ/ o Zє Ɣ єʐ$єМI Ư΀Lj˙CÜ > єʑĖєʒUΚє8 ͅ­Ǥʓϑ є ϒĚє IJ Λ ̀ є E ɗóĐ]ϓ÷Ь є Ùпaˣ =2є /ɉєNJśȠ΄ưϔôЭ є àЧϕ ĸȡ$Żє ş/є ĆĞgɂ˚є Ú(Þ 7ϖõŨ є ï iͫń.́© є ĶÔþ[ ? IΜɧõħΝżє Ʊ- є ϗ̤є ͆ʔǥřє »ijöϘðǦ® є ΞLdʕ *є c ğv8iłє ¯ďȀє Śͬ ÆȢƁ̥qɑŅZє ¤ є Ŕ ʖ#є ö#є 5 є uˤa є Ɋє ì[ϙє Ñÿ Ŧʗļʘ̦,є ǧ 3ˍȁє µȣє ,&є Ħ Ĵè N"є ų ÁƲцє иü˛Dє Ǎn¢є ƕśє AΟє Ģŏє ŪɨƳϚє ÷Sє AΠє ϛ ÂƴчƉє ƝäȤє ¸ đ ȥ˥ ĜͭƵĵ є eU4į є w є¶ėϜɩєˎ ΡĹєĠĩϝ Ϟʙ8є ĒȂє˦̨PÌєŚQ 4³ˏʚ ¢є ƞh × ø2øJĎє͇΁!ё P° ˧ʛ̂ є ʜ΢є /ЮȦĴW) ˜˨ʝĔ ːшє Äġ ù}¬ŜÚÆє ǎŬє Ǩ ˩Eȧͮǩw āzŭє ΂ ɒϟђ ƶ¶ˑ;є ͈ͯÛΣȨ̃Ϡ ?ğē є ʞ̄%Í̅ȃj є є >̆ϡ ͰϢ`ʟĈƊє Ɩ є <Τє HĘϣє Ê+ I"Œĭ²R є š¼çє Нŀ є ɋєϤå'є ęņʠŊʡŧÜє ͉ ϥȩFϦʢƷ є ěɌєT ȪЯʣŇv0̇є (̺ͱє ÅОǪ±ŝù ̈Zє Ƙ 1є ƸͲØє Řɪoijȫє ͳ̩|ʤ̉n̊ϧє ϨʹpĔfΥє Ş̪йƹĵfє ͒Пƺ˒ʥϩ_şʦаȬє ʧ|͊΃̸бl˪l̋Іƍє Əǫ ʨȭŧʩ єϪɫú єĥJ Ȯ ϫʪ^DєXx˝*єIJÒĪšô͵ȯєE̫ͶȰє oĪРªϬɃăщєɓ̌ƻĐǬÕȄєƼGÇє ˫ Qȱє ͷj 9Ŧƽēŗє ͸ ΦȲ6͹½)є ̍ÃєȅkвÎ˞ ͋ ̎ϭєŋë§ єɬ^Χє ъȳ%є µ ̏є С Ȇȴͺů ŕ6˅ GŽє ²̐&є °є ǭ̬˟ ȵǮϮʫгȶє ǯK+ˬʬϯ˭ ̑ žє ĕ ϰє Ů9 є ȷдʭȇȸ- є .є ˮ!Ũ є ϱ̭к`ͻ є#Тǰtє ̒є ̮Ǐ˂ÛDZϲʮ ÓƋє £ņє ͌ɭыΨʯDzʰƾ~Ωє ǹ ϳʱĖУƿĄ є dz̯̘Ї HÈʲ̓ɘє лʳϴãє ŃŮǴ) ͍ Tɮ̰Ā̱ ŭſє ħľŬǵɯʴǀϵͼʵ ϶ є±Ķȹє ͎ 1ϷîǶФ ǁİ ьєΪ č ûōxť'єϸ єřɰ'є͏ ϹrLəȺ̔ú»єĨLΫ#ûǐʶ˓ʷŌü Ŀє ÝєϺ ā ŤuŇʸ̲ є N ɚ1 ˯άƌє ¤Хőє ͐"э7ɱʹ Vͽ@ňϻňє ǂ˔έ̳є ķȻǷ ċʺяȼє ϼì TєŐ Ą ʻѓ ήñ̴ є Łє 6є $í ýеȽє 0 Ͻʼ zƂ є ͑0Ͼ ̕ ʽ Dєм wdtє¹ ̖єm̗)ǃ,cȾєs DŽzϿéє FÈє ĩO ą̵Ѐ єxĆĨĸ0жȿ Ö-œєʾđєЁɲÙє ͓4Dž*ýЂ є ɍє˕ʿɏɄYє

G

Ŋ²U ̴ǧǭ͞TǮ ͞ 'Û *èZâ ͞ ǒ͞˺ é ͞ Ɔ$°ɛ UȀ̓5͞$ʮ£ɼȁÈ ê͞ ɮ ͗͞ -ɋ˻ L͞T¡ ͞ ȃD ġ ͘͞ ˾ǯ ͞ M Ā3˿ ·͞ Ȅ!͞ Ó ó˼ ˙O͞ ÁǓ͞ Ăä˕ ¶˽͞ V Ɍ +¤RȂ ͞ '˖% ʸ ̈́ȅ ƦJ͞ ͅȆJª ɽƇƧĊ͞ ǟʭÜ͞ ƨ͕qɯ'BƩĢʕăÜ͞ ƈƪ¸ÿʹr?͞ Ɖ E ݸS͞ Þ:³Ųȇ ͞ Ôʯ«¥͝ Ɗ Ƃ¬ `͞ Ňɜɝ͞ Ãǔ̵˚ċ͞ ͑ ̀ǰƫʺ͞Ó ʻ ɾW˛\͞ X9 > ßPČ͞ ɍ ȈPɎ ôÄʼ˜č͞ Õ Ĉ ȉ WʽȊ˝́˞͞ ʾ͞ õǏ± ͆ȋ*Ȍ%D͞ Ƌ)Ƭų̂ à˟Ď͞ ɰ[ˠ̃͞ Wõ ¹ƙ͞ ƌɹ̄ȍ ̶s±²ĉ͞ ̅ʖ͞ öDZ6͞ (ˡ͙ƍ¢Åˢ%3ȎŴɏ͞ Ô) ƭOí͞ ·ƚ͞ $̷ó ɱ ͞ ÁǕ̆͞ ͞ Y MtƎUȏ%ɿ͞ 7̇ĄƮ8º͞ ̈Dz ͞ Ɉɭƛ͞ ." ̉͞dzƯ͞ ʰãʪ ß/ɲa͞ o ͞ ¯?͞ 4͞ ̊ ͞ > + ͞ Ȑ ʔ̲ȑ=ɇư ͞ V ͞ ˣ¤Ǩ Ȓǥ -ʀ÷͞ Ǣ ̋*͞ ͞ ͇ȓ ą¦" ]͞ ƱˤÖ9ƏȔqɞɟ͚͞ ͈ ʿ͞ ̌ȕɳ `͞ ů ͞ uɠ®͞ ʁ Ɯ͞ ̍ʗ͞ ©FʘĆ͞ǴʙĆ͞ Ù ̎ ʂ̏Ȗ0ɐ͞ ŵˀɴ͞ ͞ 9͞ á 4̸ Ʋ ͞ N͞ ªȗ´Ș"-XƳƝģ͞ ňʃƞ͞ ³ Q÷͞ Æǖ͞sɡɢď͞ ,ƴ͞ ͞ ¼͞ ā ´ !̐ ̑șÇʄ͞ ̒͞¡5͞'5àëÂʅv°͞ . Ɵ͞ êÅƐȚvɑ͞ ƃƵʆƶǦ̓˥͞ ʚǗ̔͞ƷɒƸ͉ț˦£ʛG ͞ o8͞ 3ÈGìȜ ƹ)͞ Kāâ͞ Çć!͞ ć ãɉ͞ ̕ ͞ Ƅ ͞ ͞ ˧Õ Ƒȝwɓ͞ ɵȞR˨ȟ º͞ ͒Ƞ̖ ȡD͞ w͞ ƅáʫ. M͞ ʷ̹ R̗͞ ǠÒä͞ /͞ ƒ FøȢFZ [*^͞ !ǡÒˁɶ ͞ Ŷ×(˂ ȣ˩ŷ­͞ ʜǘ͞ôǵ ͞ / ĉ͞ ¦ =ɬ̺ Q͞ ǣ ̘ ʇ ͞ Ā˗͞=̙͂Z˃ ͞ ŨǶĂ˪Đ͞ ą ͞ 4˄ ë ̚͞ ȤP͞ Lƺʱ Lø͞ V ̛͞¢6͞ å ȧy®͞ ØK J˅˫͞ Ǚ͞Y ɣƻ+ȨQȩ ʈ͞ ͊ ͓ȥ» ͞Øă ɔȦ đ͞ ̜ʝ͞ʲxÛ:¼̝í_͞ ̞ʞ̟͞ :͞ Ä (æʬ ˘ ɷéĒ͞ Y ͞ ̠ǐɤ ͋Ȫˬȫ$ʉ͞ ,)ȬT ˆè͞ " ͞ ʳNK ̻ 6ˇî]͞ tG ͞ ö ͞ ­ɕ͞ ʴ ʟ(ɖ8͞ Ą> _͞ «¥© ͞ʠ̼æSƼɗ+ O ē͞ xçƽ͞˭̡ç̽ BɅ ̢͞ʡ͞ 7?Ö͞Ã[ˈì ɘ͌;S͞0ʊƠ͞ ùǷ ˉˮ͞ơƾŸə͞ ,ọ̃̄Ǹ͞ ú 7͞ ƓÉ ×ɚƿ͖Ȯúȯ; ͞ ʢṳ̈̌͞ Ȱî͞ y» ȱ ͞,ÆN¯ Ĥ͞

ıe pǀɥɦï Ĕ͞ kĥŔĦ͞ 9 G *B:% ' G + G 3;*1E G ŕzˊƢ ͞ ŌȲùĈĕ͞ mbűcł Ŗ{ˋ ǁÀ͞ō§û͛͞ ŋÊËɊð^͞ ĬĽķľĖ͞ ŬÍɧ ͞ Ĵė͞ ʵ ħ͞ IJijĿĻ fĨ Œȳ˯ǂHǹÌ͔ǃˌĘ͞ ü͞ }ɪ ͞ <,G KT 0)L e.^MU" e V;e #4N_D e -& 4= WE 5C`$1*Xb e œȴ½|ɫ͞ŢDŽʶʣˍ̥ę͞ ŚŹ̦ȵʽ|@͞iËɸɹȶññȷ&I͞&#͞iź̾˰Džð͞Żʋƣ Şˎdž͍LJʌýȸ&#͞ÍǛ͞ŭȹʤ@<¾Ɣ< Ě͞p{˱ǺcŃ͞ŪI§ýLjƤ͞Ţ̌ż̨<˲͞ŗ&͎ljˏ#µNJÀ̳͞şːȺ¿þȻ#ǩ ŝǤɆƕ ě͞ ĭhĺhĜ͞ Ù ͞ ĵīĹĩ Ķe śrXȼÎʍŽ¬͞ Šnʼn͞ ũǑɨ;͏Ƚ˳¨ÎE͞ ŎʥCɺȾò˴¨Ï¶\͞ > G ?5G . G @ # C F 6 /(G <6e !+/ F 7e 7 e c<aY e ŏǻȿƖ1Ǫʦń͞ m1̩ɀÐʎ2@͞ jÌʏǫÞ ò˵͞ Ïǜ šžˑ ʐ̪˶͞ 1ʑƥ͞n ſƗǼNj˒˷ĝ͞ Įŀgg ĸĪ ŜƀÿɁÑH~B͞Řʒï̫ɂ̬̭̿nj͞Ñǝ͞ř E̮uA͞ k zA̯ǽĞ͞ < $ D 7 0)G ( G D!.2 Z 8ed GOe= eP , 6[% & eAH> I QRe 9 e'3B2- \(?:Se @Je] A" 8 G Ůʧɩd͞ įŅ͞ ť̀µCƁå͜͞ ţǍÚʨ˓̰b͞ Ű}˸ǾɃIǬûÐʓğ͞ Őajdņ͞ ūŦ

ő Ú~Ýüɻ ¿þ͞ʩǞ͞lǎ0A̱ǿ͞ 2¾ ͞ĺC2H͞ ŧ ˔͐ɄƘ ˹Ġ͞ İŁļf

ŘΓΝ ŀeŐľΝʙ Ũí»ΔΝ eőĔΝ ǣΝýǸ ΝǹKC ̆Ν ¨ÅΝ ŕD ˥Ș hΝ5˂Î̬i©(ƸƤΝj̭Νɨ j̮̇Ν ) Ν ̯ ¸73? ª Νð 1Ľ ŝˁΝ ŁfōfğΝ ̰¦ Νũ΁ƹ˦ŪDZ Ν̱ ¹ ΂șñȚ,ʚΝ Ǻ,\ ǻ˃ɩ ΝǼi Ν ūΝ /7̲Ν ΝǯâåΝŬÑΝ ̳«ʏk̴ ƥΝ̈ *Νǽ˄\æ̉Ν G ΝŅņΝ'% ]0 üΝ lƍǾΝ 4č`Ν š$ Ν ̵ & ¬òțÒ(Ν 8̶Ν m Νƀ Ǝ-À Ν̷ 8Νó!ƏĈºmTΝŭɪ̸Ů˧ΝȜ+Ν̹> Νɫ% ȝ DzΝ˿ ÓEĠΝ"vD@ɬĎΝ UOÔʐġΝ ƦƺʛĢΝ Ɓ9Ƨ̀ FģΝ ɦAX|ǿƻ*ĤΝ ƨΝƼ΃ Ν̺Ȁ ΝƂů̻ȁ˨˅ EΝÕǤΝ̼¢ƽΝ¢ˆʑ aΝ ř,çΝ 'Ȟ ¾ ij}Bn Ν ŖʒƾèȟƐtʜΝ ǬvÁȠɭȡƿVĥΝ Y ɮ ΄Ȣ̊ȣÖHΝ y×ô̽̋Ν &Ȥ̾ͭ& Ĵ̿ Ν wĆ Ν ÆƩΝ΅­UĂćŰʎΕΝ)Ø̀ȂȥÇdzΝ́ØΝUͿÐĵĞΝ Š ˢćA˩Ȧ ǴΝ ʝˇΝ̌ɧȧɼɽΝˈǥΝ͂ȃ ΝÕ˛ǀ˪o̓Ù˫ĦΝ Ȩ̈́Ν ȩûΝkƑz õ̍Ȫƃ»ǁΝ ċ ÈΝͅ Νã טɯ Ν_>ˉΝ éǂΝP>Ζ̎ȫƒ ɾɿ Ν£4Ë ȬƓ QP ΝLˬΝƄ! Λ ˭ȭƪ ǃÉaΝ ŚÿΝ î^ʞ Ν Ɣ Ê1Ȯ ͯ ͰöɰďΝ 4Ë Ν ˝́áΆ® ̏Ν ƕȄÒ®Ɩ ̐ħΝ ½ƅ ¯ZΝ ɱȯÀȰþ Ν ˊʟDŽ̑ĶΝ ŢǢʀ ·° ȱKÌΝȅp Ν ÿȆ ΝɲqT#7̒͆Ν#ɳ-Ɔl¼Ν hĆ6ȲDžGƗdžΝ : Ν ̓õ ÂƇɴ; Ν ȳÂ2ɵē ͇ Í Mͱ̔ɶďΝqʠ Νˮ8 2¼ îʍđΝǰâ˯ΝűʡΗΝ ΐP ì¨LJÎƘ ĨΝ ȴÅ~ʁĊƫ±ʢǵΝ{ȇͲ˰ƙȈbΝŦ<ʂʃΝ 3 .Ν $ B=Νýȉ;Ν ä ,Q¹;Ν ˋIΝ êĀȊΝ é Ν ñŲȵƬΝ ͈NΝ ƈ<Ν ȶç ƚͮʄ Ν :ΑäÚó ƭΝ ͉ Ν ȷ[ķΝ ţ B Έ¶ ȸ ÌΝ ÷ āVΝ +Ý_ΝLĈ͊ʣͳʓx!˱Ν͋ ʅ Q Û ̕Ν ĘňdŊΝF´ʆ¿ȹˌ ΝƛÜE˞ ˲ Ν ĂÖΝʼnŋĿΝFȺʇºȻˍÈěcΝ şë yɣ̖ ʈĐΝx ƜoʹôLjΝ ǦΝ͌¤lj̗ Ν ªÃNJʤ̘ȼˎH̙ĩΝ ͍NjɷnjČȽ ȾˏÆΝA Ν ?ǭǮ ˳ ÏăΝ"̄ː'ΝųʥΘΝÓ͎ȋ ˴Ν"˚TDΝ ǧΝ|L'ʔ͵H«} ͏ȿ ʦĸΝ śĄΝɀøĪΝ ɁʧΝ ΀̂ΝORǍʨē ?ʩ#Ν_ ˵ ùīΝ ĉʪɂˣͶ Ν °JΝ Ȍͷʕr*Ν ΒS Ƀ zǎĹΝ

ŞJΝ ʫĎΝ Ʈ² ƣĉúW³ ʬΝ ÝǨΝ͐ ɸ 3² @ˑGΝ Ŵ Ν ³͑ Ν ´Äãŵ51ĬΝ Þ+ Ν Ã^̚ZΝ ·!ǏSΝ ¬ʭΝ ʖɄʮ6Ν Ā$ǐΝ Ǒ~˒ʯ˓CɅ{Ν ̛ɆΚǒΝ Ú=Ν ͒ȍ Ν ͓<ɹǓΉ±̜ɇ˔ʰΝ ©ʱ ͸̝͔̅ĒĺΝ ŗƝ ˕˶ Ɉ( Ν ͕˖Ν Ŷ Ί ˷Xɉ ǔ.̞Ν ùS9ʲĄΝ ċǕèΝ ɊǶ¤͖ΝƉɋʉ¿µ˗ Ν Ôʊʋŷë Ν )Ν ą ɺǖ΋Ɍ̟ɍÞÐΝs 3Ǘ˸͗µ Ɏʳ#ΝɏʴΝ łgŎœĭΝ Ÿ+ΝŹÁÛ͹Ï0Ν ͘Ȏź͙Ν ȏŻVΝɐ)ƞ.ǘt÷ ƯΝ ͚ uưɑΜ ɻđΝ ż5 Ν ĒǙr˹bΝ ŤȐǚΝ Žʗ 2ÍăΝ ˺ ˟ì ̠Ǜʵ͛WŧΝ ͺ* ˻ ̡Ν NǩΝ ͜ȑNĊ ʶ ̢Ν ˘Ǫ ɥÙƊ̣Ν ɒʷΝ ͝ȒǜΝ s ǝ˼͞ɓ̤ɔÇ¡Ν ɕ Ʊ^W͟æĐĮΝ ɖʸΝ ͠ȓ ΝY ʌ Όɗú¶ß Ν ɘÊƲ\ðąåčįΝ ž(ƳΝ əʹΝ ZȔ Ν Ƌ]/ɚJ9̥û öΝ u̧̦ÜƟɛp͡ Ν ΍¯͢£ΝnI Ν ͻRˠ˙.0%Č Ν āOΝ Y¥ ÄcΝ ť§ Νƌï ſƴƠ ̨ͣɜʺǷΝ ʻƵΝʘà1ɝMʼΝˡɞơ[ͼ˽ Νɟʽƶͽòþí Νɠ̩Ν ʾ:Ν ǫΝͤ¦ ΝCK̪[Ν R̃ "ɤX w½ Ν % Ν 0$ Ν Ύ ê¸ ĻΝ ŜʿΝ ŃŔŏŒİΝ ͥ§@ Ν ɡÑ62 ͦ Ν ȕáΏǞƷΝ ͧ Ν Ȗɢ¡ȗǟ̫ͨΝ ͩ Ν ß=Ν ͪ]ïIΝ àÉΝ ø &ǠüΝ ęgļŌĕΝĜıΝ MˀΝ /ͫ-Ƣ·¥-¾ ǡ˾/ėΝ ˤ;­ͬΙΝ ĚŇń`dĖΝĝIJ ÍÎ fÎc gÊÎ Á Îw4Ω? Î Çx Y Î h ÎGiÎ yz Î ª Î{5Ϋ@ Î jH¬ Î ­ ® Î ¯A Î | °Î 6Πα2]!ÅIÌ J}kÎ "²ÎK Î ³ :;# Ll<ÎMmÎ ~ ³N nδ εB$Î %  & Î 7Î9dOZP' Î C ¶Î·D(ËÎÈQ^_Îo p)¸D*[+¡¢Î ,\- ¹Î º Î ÃËÎ Î £.»Î R`aĤ¼ ½/¥Î ¾E0Î ¦¸ qS§FTr=Î Ue ¿ s 1Î 8Î~ÉtVu>Î ÎÀ3b%ÆW¨X v Î

10

'J 'he Child & Television Drama

and on total return to investors (33.34%) of the Fortune 500 com­ panies.* * 6 Although it would seem reasonable that such a profitable industry could afford to make choices on other grounds, decisions made in the television industry are based on the same premise as they are in other industries. Choices are based on what will produce the maximum profit. The larger the audience, the greater the demand for advertising time and the higher the fee that advertisers will pay for a minute of television time. This may mean spending anywhere from $110,000 to $300,000 per minute for a prime time commercial, with an average of $160,000. 7 By com­ parison, Variery estimated that the cost of producing an entire thirty-minute, prime time show may range from $210,000 to $265,000 and a sixty-minute shew from $400,000 to $450,000. 8 To produce the type of program that will garner the maximum profits, the industry follows the formula described by Bob Shanks, a television network vice president. "Program makers are sup­ posed to devise and produce shows that will attract mass audiences without offending those audiences or too deeply moving them emo­ tionally. Such ruffling, it is thought, will interfere with their ability to receive, recall, and respond to the commercial messages." 9 The bottom line is what will sell or, put another way, what the masses are willing to buy. How well television critics or educators receive a program makes little difference. Unless the program can attract large audiences and score in the ratings, it will soon be off the air.

Based on the billions spent each year by television advertisers, we can assume that advertisements do work. Each year, advertisers continue to spend more and more money, which in turn brings the networks more and more profits. Notably, of the profits, 25% come from the 7 % of programming directed toward children. 10 More­ over, as Peggy Charren of Action for Children's Television has stated, "children are the objects of a $400-million-a-year advertis­ ing assault ... It is obvious that advertisers have not made this kind of investment to attract ... (a few pennies) from a child's allowance. ** All•industry avera ges were: 4.8% return on sales, 14.3% return on stockholders' equity, and 7.16% on total return lo inve:;tors.

The Medium: Tel,vision in America

t1

In fact, the parents are the purchasers, and the children assume the role of surrogate salesmen, the advertisers' personal representatives in the home." 11 The fact that the television programming and production process is so deeply embedded in a commercial context places sharp limits on the kinds and degrees of changes which might be introduced. \Vriting in the New li>rk Times, William V. Shannon stated, "TV can never be substantially reformed as long as it remains solely in the hands of businessmen preoccupied with packaging the largest possible audiences for sale to hardsell advertisers." 12 Because television is a mass-audience medium,judgments about its content are commonly based on ratings. Though many have deplored the ratings' influence, the industry retains them as central in decisions about what is shown and when. Although present trends are not encouraging, advances in television technology and new developments in the means for distributing television programming will substantially increase the number of choices of what to watch. Expanded cable facilities, videodiscs, satellite receiving centers, and low-power neighborhood TV stations may in time release viewers from the stranglehold of the programming monopolies which dominate commercial television and from the current rating system. Two-way cable systems that allow viewers to register opinions about various agenda items may ultimately enable the viewers to have great influence over program offerings.

How responsive any industry should be to the needs of society is an important question of public policy, larger than our special pro­ fessional perspective can embrace. Television in our view certainly has as much or more responsibility as 'the automobile: energy, or building materials industries. We believe that at mini­ mum those involved with the production and marketing of com­ mercial television programming should become more aware of its effects, both positive and negative, and that they should share the obligations of other professions to make continuing efforts to improve the quality of the impact of their products.

14

The Child & Television Drama

severe beatings by his own father during childhood had set him up to punish his children in the same way. When they were asked by the counselor to consider why this previously latent tendency was now producing actual injury to his children, the wife suggested that the change in their television-viewing habits might have contributed to the change in the emotional atmosphere of their home.

With reluctance, the husband agreed to a reduction of their viewing (including his own) to two hours a day, with exclusion of violence except for that which may be integral to quality programs. The wife reported that, although the home atmosphere still was stressful in some ways, after six months on this reduced television diet some joy had come back into their lives. "We laugh more. We're kinder to each other. The children don't fight continuously. And Al hasn't hurt them since we made the viewing change.''

The psychiatrist's opinion was that the constant modeling of impulsive, violent discharge of tension on television mobilized the man's identification with his own battering father and weakened his already shaky defenses against his own violent impulses.

Whether the reduced viewing, the therapeutic counseling, or some other influence brought about the beneficial changes, we are reminded b y this vignette that television is a prime example of an experience that is intense, especially arousing, and frequently repeated. As a consequence, it may well have effects on other aspects of a person's life.

Another example illustrates the complexity of direct effects on

children when they view emotionally stirring television drama: A four-year-old girl, the daughter of broadly tolerant white parents, awoke from a nightmare screaming, "Mommy! The black people­ help me!" The next day she told her mother, "Black people are bad." Pressed for further explanation, she said, "I saw it on Roots," and added, "The white people are good. They wouldn't whip anyone who wasn't bad." Perplexed, the mother wondered how her child could have gotten an impression about "good" and "bad" people so much at variance from what the producers had intended.

1'l1e }.1,dium: Television iri America

15

By analogy, when the child saw a (white) person whip a (black) person on TV, she concluded from her own experience of being spanked that the (black) victim must have been bad-and that such a bad person might also punish her.

Acknowledging that she spanked her child-" ... but only when she's bad," the mother agreed that perhaps the idea of being spanked conveyed just that message: it is what "good" people do to those who are "bad."

The viewing of an episode is not the only relevant factor, nor is the influence of a particular episode universal. Several older siblings of the child in the example saw the same episode of Roots. Although they, too, were spanked for bad behavior, they did not have the same reactions.

The example also illustrates that the process and effect of televi­ sion viewing are a complex interaction between the psychological state, particularly the emotional and cognitive maturity, of the child, the content of the program, the viewer's environment, and the immediate situation at the time of viewing.

Comstock divides the complex of interacting factors into three broad categories: 1. person-related factors: age, sex, personality and level of cognitive development; 2. stimulus-related factors: program content and the way it is pre­ sented; and 3. environment-related factors: the characteristics of both the specific viewing situation and the person's living conditions. 15 Our report focuses primarily on the first two of Comstock' s three categories. We examine the person, the developing child, and discuss some common assumptions about how television interacts with children's developmental needs. With the child's needs as the backdrop, we then consider the major properties of several of the types of dramatic programs that children watch. As we present our recommendations, we touch briefly on environment-related factors.

č ɺzȘɺ ɺ ğDZ Ȳɺ * ȳɺ G# g²șɺm6ƃYĶDz ljɺ Ġ ɺ ɺ 1 ȴɺ5łSYɺ ŗɺȵŃ-ń¥C B .Øɺ Ď ɺ *Ǚ Țɺ =y +ɺ ġů~ J hɺ 7 ɺ ư ɱƄ X Fɺ <ɺ B ɺ .ɺ 4 ɺ 2 Ņɺ ǚŘɺ ùąɺ ŰǛɡdzțɺ úäɺ &ƅ.ɢȶ Ȝɺ ɺ = ņ »ɺ ē ɺ mǜ&ǪSǴ 5ɺ ȷ ɺ õRɺ v ɣǵ_ɺ ûĀɺ ]ƆFɤ _ɺ ƭ ɺCNJɺűǝɥ Ʊ ȝɺ! ŲG (ɺ P Ċ ɺ%£Ģ ɺ( ƹ W z ɺģ6B[ 3 ɺ >Aɺ ; ɺɴɵƇ( ɺ ɺ ɺ ĔĤ Pɺ Đ ɺ ( ɺNj0ȸ)#¼ɺ ³´ĉ ɺÙÚÛɺ; Ň" ɺ ȹ 4Ⱥɺ^Ƕ ĥ6Ǟ Ʋ KLɺ Kňɺ ȻĦ ƈ/ ɺîāɺ*'ɦ;Ȟɺöɺ Ɖ N< ɺǫ ɺ=ʼnŊƮɺ ɺ w ɺ ¦ Ƿ Üɺ« ď Ƴ ɺ ɺċ ?Ţ& ɺuǩɧ ɺ ɺ - ɺ E\ɺȼ+ ɺuƩ Ƚɺūȑ T ɺ { ɺ , | ɺ Ĉ -{Ũ ǘƊ ɺ "%ǬE ɺ="(>ų UɺȾ ƺ §}` ɺ 2 ɺ# ɶ½ɺ #ɺ (ɺ VɺȿA ɺ ɀħ+ ɺ ũǸɺ ɺ: eɺ 'ɺɁ ɺ 82 ɺ ¤1ȟĆɺ ƻɺ ¦ ǹɺ . O ŴCǺ5ɺ ɂĨŵ Tɺ Ūɨ;ɺ * J`ɺ 'ǻɺ % 3ŋÝɺ i A N ,ɺ 8 ɺ J $)ɺ D ɺ = <ĩ+ ɺ Ī+ ɺòÞɺĂɺ 2aɺ I Ǽɺ ɺl ɺ ɺ QR¾ɺ ǽɺ Ę ɩ ɺ ïăɺ 9 Ȓ ɺ^ Ǿɺ! ¿ɺ ķɺ ƴ gɺ ĸ ĴƼƋnj ɺ Ŷ 1 V ǿÀ ję0ɪbɺ Rü°ɺ řɺ 8 ɺ ƌfb9ɺ #ɺ ìçc6ɺ Ȁ 5 Ƞɺŷ Ĺɺ Ƀn ɺ ɺ: ɺ?ƪɲ Ö /ĺO ן Vɺ ǟɯ1ȡɺǠŚɺɄ)ƵŌ ƍ C .ɺ ɺ ɺ Ǝ¨ /ɺ >* ǡ ɺ ßɺ đAƏȢɺ ©W !| $ɺ fɅ Ǎs ɺ )-ƽɺ Ě ɺ Ź ɺ ?ė%}\ ɺ Ɛ ! $ɺ 9 ¡ȁ ɺ ɺ ɫL j[ƶ ɺ ţ ĻÁɺ 4ǎ ɺ Ɇ+ ɺ ɠ ; ɺ śɺI Ŭȓ Mɺ īd ɺ ļƑĽɺ ɺ ǂ ɇoźɺ dx ɺ Ǩ@Ȕk ǃƒ ŭɺ Ĭ"Ɉ @'Ȃ ɺ ǢŜɺ¬oxƬU Ǐµ ɺ ƾŖ¨ƓȣƔǣ à­ɺ ć ɺ Ż ɺ Ťƫ ɉɺ ȃ4 ōÂɺ ÷ ±ɺ ŝɺ 6 ɺp7ƕƷľ ¶Ȥɺ ªƖt!W $ɺ ! ȥɺ T '( Ŀɺ Ɋ ɺ ǭ2H@3 %DŽƗǐŮɺ r\ ť ɺ ɺ ® #¢ á¯ɺ Čɋɺ ,"Mɺ ě ɺ © 2Ƙ NȦ:ɷɺ ȧ<B& b 5ɺ Ɍż ɺ Ĝ ɺ ɍŽŎɺ ɺ Şɺ èĄÃɺ ɺ Ǯƙq Zɺ c $ Ȅɺ9 Ȩɺ ^ /cɺ ĵ0 ƚ K lEgɺ& ȅ ɺ Ɏƛ ɺ ƜFɺ ŦȖ Ǒ<ɺ şɺ ɺ e): ¥Ɲ ~0 ɺ ɺ ·éýÄ Oð Å ɺ 8 £Ȇ ¹ɺ ɏ /ɺ D/ɺ nž Ƹɺ ¸QQÆ ɺ ɬ ºPɺ 3 9 ɺ ĭG¢ȇ_ ɺ Šɺ ſSɐɺ ɑqƀƞF Çɺ ɺ ɺ v ɺ Lɺ ŏ ɺ LǤ ɺ êóÈ ɺ ƯƟ-ƿƠ @ Éɺ Ȉ ɺ 7 ǒɺ í ëÊå ɺ ơ0Z Ǔɒɺ ŐǯD # Ëɺ ŀɺ ĝ !) ɺ ôþ Ì ɺ ɺ ÿø Í ɺĮǥDž& 3įƢ :ȩâ Ē8 eɺ Nǔ ɺɓ ɺ dž ɺñ Îæ ɺİ ]] 1ıƣ Z ɺ ő >*ɺ ɸ ȉÏɺ Ȋɺ &H3 ɺ 7 Ǖɺ ɔ7ȋ Œɺ , ɭJȪɺ Ǧšɺ U Ȍɕ MX $ɺ œ pwɺ ! ãɺ iǁɖ, ɮ$,ɺ % ȫƤª ɺ tfI Ȭ ȍ ɺ `ɺ ǖ'ɗɺ 4¡dǧ ĕɘƥIJ ǀ ɺ % ɺ əŔ ɳy ƦH ɺ kɺ ǰ Ȏŧɰ ɺ ɚ "ijƁ ȏÐɺ rƂƧ ȐŕǗɺ Ł'ɺ E "K ɺ s ȭÑɺ Y MÒɺ Ğ Ė X 3 Óɺ ȕG[ ȮÔɺ ɛɜƨɝ¤ ȯÕɺ LJHɞD Ȱhɺ . ɺ 1 ȱI0 a aɺ ?ȗ Ljɺ ɟ - § ɹ

- " 3 ) 3 (2 ) 3 .# 3 &* 0 # 3 ,$ 3 ')% + /3 1 !

; c )ɸ f ɸȨǗɸ; u2 ½ɸ o# ɸ Nɸ0_ © ɸ i ɑõ ɸŀǴɸ ɸ",å99iǘ %ɸ æ ɸ &<öDɸ x 2 ȑQɸ ijĴ ǵś Oɸ Oɸ ɸ ÚTQɸ "E ƾɸ ƛ§7ɸ ÷DZp L ɸ ŁǶƶ ȩŜ7 ɸ]Ȏ ƷɸǮLǬŃL*%'ɸ (`ŝø`ɸ ɸ ǯ 4 j )ɸ đ ɸ ɸ R ¦Ru Vɸ ß ɮɸ 9 ɒ Ş ɸ # ľ ɸ RE 0ɸ ƪ ! F- ɸ ĵĶ y; ɸ 1-¶ 3ɸ Ƿ& 9»ɸ Ȫ ş ɓ Ȓɸ ɸ ɨ ùȫ « ȓɸ Y-ɔ ɸ ¬ʼn ɸ ƿ ȬɠȊ ɸ ɸ0Ŋ ɸ( Ȑ ɸ ǀ ɸ ŋ ɸ K KƜ ɸ ¶ǁ ɸ ­Ō Ƹɸ ɸ 0ɸ 4®ɸ ú ɸ ç & ɸ §43 Š\Ɨ" IɎ 1ɸ 2 ɸ # Ɲ Ǹ ¼Ȕɸ ±ɏš®o Ñɸ Üɩ .Ţ% ȭ/ɸ ō = ɸ #ƫĒ j,ɯɸ čēƹǙǂ:¯ǹ Ĕ ɸ Ȯ è ɸ )hɕ ɸ# ɸ kĕ Z ɸ _ ɸ X Ŏv!ţ Mɸ ȯ )ɸ Aȕ .= ɸ ɸ R ƞ ! ȖŤ frɸ ťǃČƬɖ Ŧgńɸ @ ǺB ȗŧ> ɸ @ûȰ'ɸ *DŽ ɸ /ɗüŏɸ / zŨòƟ)ɸW DžB Ƙý *Ơɸ WBŐ*=ũǚ£ɸ @/ɸ þ 8 QŪ 6¾ɸ ¦<ƭ ɸ XĖ { ¿ɸ ɸ = ¡x ơūɵ ȱŬ džɸ ǛCɸ Ľ ƢŭLJ^ȘÒɸ ã Sɸ i % Lj:ɸȲǜɸó ɸ I ɸbJɸ ɸǻ$ ,%ɸ Cɸ¢ 8" ɸŮ ɸ ɸ K ÿůĤɰɸm ɸĻ[´ǝ8:ɸ Ső ²ɸ Ŀoė Ā$ɸ ¨<"Dɸ H ȋǖŰ ^ɸ ɸ ȳD ɸ Z ű°Ų șɸ wf ɸā n ^ [ų 9ɸ ȴD ;ɸ ķĸ 2 ɸ (a Œ ɸ Mɸ 6 µɸ v ɸ _ Uɸ ɸ K Ǽ& ɸ ɦŴ5,ɸ ǽ N] M ɸ ɸ ĥ & ɸ¬ ɸ\ñ{ȵ©sɸ Ħ Ʈ4 3ȚÀɸ țsɸ ɸ ȶ0Fȷ· ɸ a ɸ Ǿɸ ɸ 2Dz· :ɸ \ȏǞ ɸ ȸ , ɡŵȜŶ ljVɸ

t¢ ȹŷĂȝɸ ħɸ± , ɢŸ Źh Áɸ | J| ɸ Aǟɘ¯ɸ Q ɸ 5 Ⱥ .ź7əNɸ Ż ĹƳ¸ 6ă ɸ ǠĨɸ Ȼ c ɣżȞ ɸ- ɸ 1 ɚ Ņɸ !GĘ( ȟÂɸ M ɸFNJy Nj ɸ ɸ éƚɸ hĩɸĄ`FƵ ɸ Ƞɸ Īɸ ɱɸ( ǿ ɸ Ž # ISɸ}. n¹Ȁ ªɸƺ7ƣ ɸX?ɸ ɸ$ ²bȁģe?ɸ mɸ ³œ ɸ % ą?ɸ īɸ ļ ž ɛNɸ ȼ Ư ɤ ǡnjɸ ŔǢUȡÓɸ áɜĆ ɸ ɸ !ſę(ɸ ƀ3Ǎ-Ȃ ɸ« ɸ Y & ~ɸ )~ " ɸ 8 ƤƁȽƂ :ɸ ǣCɸ ć d £ JÔɸ t 5Ďj ɸ O/ ' ɸC $H4 /ɸ ɸ ! ɸȾ ɸ ɸ ȿb= ƥ?ɸTǎƃ ŕƄWƅ ĚďVɸäƆ0 Tɀɸ 1ɸS ư !Ƈ ɸ ´ɸ w5ƦÃɸ ɲɸ Ŗ > ɸ Ǥɧ ɸ PɁȌ ɸ Ĭ Ƨƈ ¨ɸ ĭɸ ɪƉ )Äɸ Åɸ ȃƊ> d Æɸ ƙB ƨ7pȢ?Çɸ '' PȣƋɥ ǏěO'Èɸ ' ƱĮÐz ǐ L llÉɸ į *¤Êɸ l *ƻ rɸ êg ɸň¸ƌdɐÕɸ Ù <Ʋ; ɸU ɸ ɫ ȍ ³Ĝɸ ɂEĝɸ G ɸ İɸɃE ɸŗ Ʃ HЪPɸZaƍ ɸĈǥkkq ­ ɸôɳɸ ɬn ɸ Ǝ ]ƴq Ǒĉ Ëɸ q[ ɸ @ ɸm ɸ Ə Ìɸ Y }TȄ ɸɄ ɸ#- ǰ ğɭɸ 6 ȅɶ Ʌ ɸ ıɸƐǒ G>G ɝ cɸ ɸ ! ¥Ǧ Øɸ Þ ɸ ɸ ȤɆɞ 1ɸ ɸ Û ɇ Řɸ H ¤ Íɸ Ý.$$ A 3ɸ ¹ ɸ µ 1ɸ ɸ ëɸ 6<ƼA ¡ɸ ǧIJɸ° $Ƒ8ɸ UJɸ¥ & ɸ ĺǭ.ɸ ( " ɸ Ɉ 5 > ƒ Öɸ âǨ% Îɸ ĠP ġɷ ĊƓìeeɴɸ ++Ǔíņ+ȆȥÏɸºîIɉ+ĐɸɊǩɸïċdzpƔȇ+ɸǔ+ºɸƕǕłȈƽðɋƖǪg×ɸàɌřĢȉȦɸȧǫɟŇŚɍɸ

$ J E & 2 J %', =!7J BJ + H @CJ

Ɂ ˔Xǁ Ƿ͕ ͕̮ H U ] ͕ ¶ %͕%ȝK ǏY ͕ ͕Z ʂ&̻ ɂ ͕ ʚ͕ Ƀʃ ® ʛ͕Ʉ ͕ ɅǨ ʜ[Ɇ.ɼǐǂ̀ ʝÍ͕ [/ ͕ ˌ Ǒ% ˫͕ ȑ͕ ɇ ́&˧3D Ɉ͑ Ȧ͕ Ǹ ̂D ͕ ˒`DMɉ̃Ɋǹ ͕ Ȓ͕ ͕ % ʞ͕ ͕ ɾɋ ȧ͕ [ ͕ U]͕ ȓ͕ ʟ Æ ͕ ̈́ʠ͕ G a Ȩ͕ )͕ ƫ ʄ ̼ ( ͕ ͕ ̯ ͕ ̄ ̅1 ʅ͕ ̆ ͕ ʡ ʔ·ǺʢǒI͕\ȰɌ ͕ ® Ǔ ö͕ Ż ͕̇ I͕ǔ ·˨ &͕ Ȕ͕ ¸njMɍ ͕ ͕ V© ( Ɏ ʣ ͕ G E ̈J͕ E ¸͕̉ ̊ ͕ &.Ȟ%Ǖ̋ ͕ ʵȕ͕̽ɏ,! Î͕ ˬ ,͕ǖʶ ʕ ͕ ˓̰ Z0 ͕ ͕ ͊̌ ' ɐ ͕ ̾ ͕ ɑ˭ ÷͕ ű !͕ Z ' a1 ɒ ͕ ̿ɓ ! ͕ KǻǗ̍±͕ ˍ' ͕͋ ¡ ͕ .NJ ´ (͌Ï͕ ! I̎ V͕ ɔµ͕ ̏ ͕ ɕ̀ɖ͍͕̐ ͕ǩJ Ǫ ͎4͕ ǫ͕ȱ !͕ɗX͕¯ ʆ ̑Ǽ²͕³ʷ͕ʇ ʤǽʍɻ &(ˮ͕ U ͕ 3͕̒/ Ǿ ͕ɘ¡͕̓ ͕Hə ʈ ȩ̱ ͕ǃʥǬ͕ F ̔ ͕ F ̲͕̕ǘȲɽG˕ ͕ ͕ \ȏ ́ɚ ͕ ƒ̳V͕ ȡˋʎʏ ! ͕ ɛ±Ǚ` ɜ© ͕ ʸȖ͕X ͕1 ̴, ͕ ɝMʐ̵ ̖¯ ´J ͕ ̗ ǿ͕ H͕ ̘ ͕ F ͕ ( ²ɞYɟa ͕ µ ͕ E Y/͕ ] ͕ ' Ȫñ ȫ ͕ ǭ͕ ̙ȳ ͕ ˯/ ̚ò ʦȬ ͕ ǚɠ˖ ` \ ʧǛ ˰͕ ͕ .K ̛ ø͕

jù ĒĿ Ĥ͕ ƌ#ūƁ}<@͕ƞtƙA|Ƭ͕Ɠƍ͕ƭşƂ< Ŷ}#AƎÐ͕ ˎú͕ ķ k +ɡ ˗̜c͕B 6Ñ͕ Q$͕Ʀǜȴͅ ˘^͒ ˙ȭÒ͕ ? CÓ͕ »=ȣ ǝ̝ ͕ ȗ͕ ˱͕y Ǯɢ û¼ 67L 5S N,!PS?S GR *:3;) S ē;**Ô͕ S ĔĮĕdĖ*ĩf Īi ?ɣ O˲ ¢Õ͕ ʹ¬ ͕Ǟɤ^ ͕¬6͕ óŀ mü x͏ Ö͕ ¢$͕ Ų ȤP ×͕ u Ɵ ͕ ½pȵɥ $˚ Ç˳͕ ƹ ͕ ʺȘ͕ Ʈ ʉ ¹ɦ˴ɧʻ ͕ Qǯ Ɣ̞ȶ ˛͕ y $ɨDŽ ¾͕ ŷR͕ =ý"þ͕ B̶Ǎɩʨ˵_ ɪSØ͕ >7")͕ qʼʖ˶̟ʽǟɿÙ͕ ʩǰ͕ w ƚÿ ̷°˩ ͕͐ bŠDZ˷ĎÌÚ͕ ƯšƃŢ #~Ÿƕ@͕ Ō@Ŝ͕ Ƨ{ŗ#ōƄ͕ œţųŎƺŹƖ|Û͕ ʾ i͕ į ƾ ˸ȷɫʪL³T Ü͕ rĀp ņ͕ ů ¹ ˪¨ʗ ʫ^͕ƛ˜ɬS̫2ʬȮ͕ ƗȥǠ Ý͕ ė;oĨÞ͕ ĥİĸdĦnlg ı) ŏDzʊȀ˝ß͕ Ơ)Ɯ64͕ ȁ̠͕ ljOā͕ ŘvżƅŝơŤƏ8͕ Ɔ-͆ɭʭ ̡ª£à͕ ƊDž ˹ĂŇ͕ ƇȂ͇ɮ¤ ¶ʿ3͕Ŕ«Tʀ á͕ ĘŁļĐâ͕ ˏːă͕ ęīôħĽ ͕ +ď͕ ¿ư ͕ ɰ ʋ ¨ǡ ͕ -DJ Ŵ WPȢ̺N À͕ # "@ CS -(#DH Ĵ C̢-ɯ¥ș-Ndzã͕ w Ő­°ɱʌ͕ j;nĬ5͕ ­Ą͕ ĭoõmIJŊ͕ ƨˀʘ ä͕ ő£¦ ͕ Ƣą͕ Á ɲT' ¦Ǣ å͕ Ʊ ʑ ͂ɳ 1«3͕dž¤Ǵ _ȸ ͕ uȃ ʓ̣ȹ͕ ˁȚ͕"ʙȄ˞ɴǣ ʮ͕ ƿ˂̸_Ⱥ5Â͕ IJ 3#. 4 J 9FA /J<J ( )5 ĚłĹĵæ͕ kŃ:͕ Ġġe ěĺŋ͕ ƣ˃̤Ȼ Rǎȅ˟ȯç͕ ɵǤȼLJ 7͕ ÃťȟȠȆǥ̥˺͕ ˄ț͕ ƲȇOȈ͓ º0˻0˅ʯ͕ ƻ0 ,§Ǧ ͕ §͕ řȽ2 ˠȉʰ͕ ʱǵ͕ ǀª̹̦Ⱦ ÈÉ͕ :G?8 0J ;"J I+$S 1 >* 6 % . 4S EF< / J0=8 S ĜńĻijc͕ SbĢ9ËĆ͕ ĝ9:leģ9:Ķè͕ r ǧf͕ 7 *8 " N-Wé͕ BćƝĈê͕ ̧͕ h͕ ƳvŦ͕ŧŬŭŨŚƴƩ͕{Ů͕ƵtƈũƼ#ƪŽƘz͕Œsƽ<ƤƸž~źƐŰ͕Az śŵſƉsƥŪƑĉ͕ x ͈ɶʲL̬ ¥5͕ ˼ ň͕ + ͉ɷ L̨ ʳ͕ ŕˆ ʁ ë͕ ĞŅ đì͕ ˑĊ͕ ğ ľ8 +ȊɸȜȋˡí͕ "ċŞČî͕ >ˇˢ$ˈS4͕ ? ƀčï͕ Nj ͕>ˣLjºȌ˽ð͕C Ŗh͕ Äqȿ2 Ƕˤ QÊ˾͕ƶȐʒȍ̓ɹ͔ ˿2ˉ ʼn͕ƋˊWȎ͕Ʒɀ ͕ ˥ ͕=R̩ ˦̪ ɺ P ʴ̭gÅ͕ B A S M K1>9 5S &O2'Q

ŏ˽± Ƴ Ī /̐ ȧH̐ ũ >dz + ó̐ Ć ̐ ƴ] ʙ:+ 0̐ $ Ó ̐ ɚ ² ? v̐ "O É̐ Ƕ%)ɛ ̐2 ̐`Őƈ˖¢ À&Ö̐ + # ̐ ̐' Ƿ CĜ %Ƶ ˭ ̐-Ȁ h̐ ̐ƒ -Ɍƶ ɜÝ̐ ̐ ȝő ɿ˪ )̐ĝB̐Æ$ Ʒ¸̐ŒÕɍɝœʀʁƸȶ\ ̐ Ū̐ƹȨʚ*ɞ ̐ Ń̐ī˗ɟƺ ʛh̐ ­w̐Ğ̂̐ÊƓ Sa̐ 0ȞƻȐ¡ Ɖ̐LDĬ cô̐

Ċ £ ˮ; Ƽȷȩ̐ |¾ Þ̐ ˷;ʜP̐ Tʝ ̐ I% ʂ̐ - ˬʃTȸ ̐ ū̐ 'qǿ ð3 ȑ Ŕ̐ ʄĭ* ɠƽ ʅß̐ 8 ʆ̐ Ɏ& Į ƾȹ 1̐ ̐ \%B̐ M_¹̐ Ɣ ̐ 4Q:XńÛ ̐ Ņ &!ɏ<Ȫ+̐ UȟČNƿ¬( ǀ° ̐ğÏA̐pȜ ̐ƀ_ɡ̐ 0̐ ̐ º̐ x ̐(¬y̐ ˾³ įA ʞǁ Ä̐ ̐ʟP ̐» (ȁ̐ ˸ ɻȒzõ̐ n ¥ f=1 ̐ }¼ ' ̐ ×̐ MŹ ɢ̐ ̐ ɣVsR̐ ˫?İ ̐ Ŭ̐' Ì @ǂ Ȃ̐ Ɓɋ ̐ Ƞ Ǹ ñr7§ à̐ ɤSı8 ɥ̐ ʠƕ ̐ ʡQ ̐ IJƖW¤I̐ 9 ̐ ǃ]̐ DŽc̐ ̐ Rŕ ̐ '© 5 ̐ ÔDžɼ Aû̐ ā ̐ Ɨ ̐ $ ¦{ ̐ ˹Ƙ ʇ ̐ - ½ Ç ̐ ¾ ̐ Ġ ̐ ̐ " ̐ ġ˘ i̐ »̐ ƙdžN ȃ̃̐ ʈʢ¿ 0 x̐ Æƚ ˙Ɗƛ̐ LJ¤>­ ̐ ɦ̐ ɐ f ?ʣÖá̐ 6Ȅ Ô; ; ̐ ̄̐ '̐ ̐ | ´ ®ņ Ģ¥Ŗ̐ °˚ɧ ̐ ̐ȡ ǹ òģ ȅLj ˯ ̐ljŇ* ö̐ n ̐ ijo0ÏčȆ̐ ̍ ˰ .Å ʤ ,̐ ŭ̐ ̅̐4Ɯ ȇzɨŗ^̐ Ð#Ƌ ʥʉ̐ÈƝ ʦ̐ʧQ NJɩ̐Ȣ Ǻ CĤ YNj ̐ b ň/̐ ʼn̐ LD ʨ ʊØ̐ Ƈ+Ò. ̐ ɪ ̐ )Á ˺ȫ̐ Ƃb! ̐ ʩ ¦ : ̐ Eƞ ɫ ʪ ɬ j̐ 1ÑE9̐ ̐ ýnj Ȭ Ĵ̐ Ą ȭâ̐ þ= ĵ̐ ċ Ȯã̐ ć˛- .ȣ \ä̐ ¹̐ ̐ Ɵ ̐ Ā ǻT ̐ ąȺ 1ʫ ɭk̐ ăÒ "̐ /̐ ̐ Ů̐2 É̐ 6̐ Ơ >5̐ ʋ̐!ȯ̐ ʬ § ˱Ǎ ^̐ ̐ǎ Ķ ɮɑȻÂ Ê I̐ Ǐ ̐´Zp×̐( Ŋ̐Ƅ ̆å̐©˜F$̐ ǐ"̐ ź*ķË ̐ ̐ ɯ̐O ̐ĥ ZW ů ̐ ŋ̐ ÕɒĸGʭ ̏̐ ʮǑ ̐ Ű̐˻ơ(d̐ P ̐ g Â%5̐ ǒ ̐ ¢ǓǼ ÷̐ m ʯ ̐ Żż Ĺʰ ̐Ȥ ̇̐ ˝ɰ̐ Ďʱ̐ Ř̐ ̐ ʲǔ ø̐ Ă .̐ ˿ ³X j̐ ̐EƢ &J̐ 2 ÌFRǕ ƌ̐ ̐ )` ʳ t̐ɓà a ̐ 3 Ðʴ̐ ̐ µ ˲ Ař̐ ˳6ʌÈǖ# ˔ À̐ ̈̐ <ȥ ¯ ̐ & ďwǗ #̐ 8 ʵ̐ ǽ= J̐ ȼű̐ ̀s< ƍæ̐ ĺ ˴ ç̐ 5ĐȰ ˞ʍ̐ ȓǴLŨk̐ mđ ǘ ̐ ʶƣŚ̐ ƅ eĒʎ̉̐ qĦȽ˟ʷ̐ ʏˠĻƤ̐ ē̐ȈǙŲś̐Ⱦȱ̐ ʸƥ ̐ =,4 `ÃŜtÍ̐ Ȳ _Á«ĔÍǚȿ,̐Ǝ ŝŌ̐ƃbɀª̐ʹƦĕʺ̐ɔɽɊƏɾęª̐Ė^ō̐ɁʻƧŞɱè̐ ʐǛȦǜȉėɲ̐ ! ʑé̐ 9ş̐G ǝ£~̐« Ù̐K ¨ µ̐ Fļˡ¼ ʼ ̐u ² ɂ ̐ ̐ʽ ̐ɳ ̨ ʾi̐Ƀų̐ ̐ 1 ǞN ɴÜ ̐ ¸l̐ Ĉǟ Ľ7̐ Îƨ ̐ ± ǠɄȳ̐ Ʌ ̐@ ȊUei̐ Ä̐ ǡ oľ ˢɵ̎ ʿ ê̐ Š̐ ƆȴˀĘ Ù̐r K̐ ¯̐ ˁƩ ˂̐ ! Ŀ ¶˃Ǣ ,̐: ̐ MŽ ˄ {ù̐ ĉÑ3/ əˣ Ȕ̊ë̐ eO ̐ŀ ǣȋy̐ Ú̐$ ˵ ̐d š̐) žſǵ ˤ[˕̐˅ Ǿ̐ ̐Ŏ< Ç Ɛ˥Ǥʒ8 Ƒ̐ħ ˆg Ţ ̐9ǥ ̐Ɇ½̐ .̐ŷD ˇ ʓ̋ì̐ ƪǦ ̐ɇ@̐ƫ ɶ̐Ĩ >ǧţŴ̐Ǩ ̐@ ȌW Ú̐ɕ ɷˈ¿ Ø H̐ ̐ ȕ Óǩ Ǫ í̐ H̐ ˉ ̐ ɸ Zǫ"B̐ g$V Ƭ̐ ȍ "7 ̐ ́ɖ ɹ¡ *̐ 2ǬȖȗ̐ ˊ˦ Ș&B̐ ? Yl̐ üˋ̐ ˌ ̐ % cˍî̐Îƭ ̐ ˎ˧ Ȏ̐} GɈ ɺh̐ ˏ̐º7 X̐ȏǭŵ ̐S ̐®!Ë̐˼Ʈ d̐ ș ˶U ̐ /̐ K ̐Ǯ"̐ ·¶6 a̐ː ̐3 ̐ ̐ĩ ̐~ǯ ·ɗ! ȵ #̐ v̐ f ̐J ʔ [Y˨ V #ú̐ ÿ u ˩ Ť̐ ʕɉ ̐Ÿě,ˑ ʖǰ Åï̐ťʗɘŦ4DZ [Ț̌̐˒Ư ʘŧ̐2ưDzŁƱ̐ ]Ʋ ł ̐ țŶC ˓ ̐

SbŎ·Q·ͪǕMS^·ǖ ƨʞŤŏǗ ©˻·˼d·İɹ Ã[ ͊ťŐ·ʏ˒O ±ȵ®Ʃ ıģ·L˽ğ?ǘ^ ˾ͻë· ü +ÅǓTʟ· Ǚ B·ͶǚÄƻ·IJ µ ?ʠQɍ·ʐR^˓O·~8͋ȶő·b8˿·ɐ°ͫ ·ƼVʡ·ʢǛƪƽ̀·jǜŒ ì· Ċƾ ·qR˔·Bǝj΅ ́ʣ kk œ·ĥO·͉ · S˕O·ɑđ Ǟij·͹ǟ F·Ĵ8ÌȷB·ƫǠͬ · ʊÌʤĒƬ · ̂+·̃FŦ·ȸǡɺ ·ĠbŔ· Ħˈ%[ ˖·̄®·̅ƿŧ·k QµŨ~¶±ͷ·ħÍ̆· dÍȹŕ· ḋ·ĵ͌ʥũ·ǀ ʦí·Ĉ̈ǁŪʧ·Ķ Ǣ Ŗʨūɛ·Ơʎ͍©ŗ· Ãǔ · ̉ʩ%ɜ˗ǣ̊\+ ·Ƨ+ɒ· %· ÙÚ: RɎ· ȺǤƇTÕ· ķ %fēĸÄTʪ· Åɻ· Ĕ· q\̋Ĺ Û· ɼʫ·q%̌ ǥɝ · ÆF ·̍¼ ˘· ƺ%?·ÿ+ʬɽ̎ǂ ·%ɞB·F ʭ·Ƣː[ Ř˙Ü· Æ8·? · ɓ8˚M·ř\j͎̏¶ĨǦ ƭw· ċ=@ · · ȩȻH·´ ͭ · $͏· ĕɟ ·ĩ ͐˛ ·ǧ̐· ˉ n ˜· ͺǨ ;ͼ· ˊ = · Z ǩƦA ɠ̑·ʑ 9˝ ɏ·Ǫ˞˟͑ŬÁ·Ė'· ·/ ŭ· ǃ ɡ·' · ǫȼǬ̒ ·" · ǭƗƘ -( ̓Ǯ>' · Xġ ̔0lr· XÀ ɔ· ʮŮ0¢ǯ̕Ò· · 0$ǰͮů Ò· ! ͸· 1 Ś· DZȽr· ͒&lŰ<÷· 1 0 * 1 / 1 ( ʒDz$ ·dz" ·͓ ǴˠʓÎ̖ ś· Ⱦ͔̗ ʯÔ·ǵ ʔ ĺ̘Ý· ' ·: =ʰǶ Ʈ· Ĥ · ʱ ΂ Z· ǷEƙ ű · Ī # ɢ· ƣ6̙ . · · » z`Ǹ/Ó· ǹ · _oˋʲ Cî· P Ȯ · #* · 5͕ˌ Ǻ7Ư· · @ g |ȿ ·̚ · <4 · ʳ>I " · Xƚ ĻÇÞ· ǻ"·DŽ · Ð ļɾaE² ̛ ɀ · A ɣ 3ʝ͖ @ ˡ·øY²ʴ· ˢ,I · * _ ªï· ąɸ· ̜ D·I¯f · 9U2U«̝·2ʵDy̞Ǽ¯ɤß· 1 -1 '#1 (! +1 $ 1 ̟ (· ǽˣΆ mǾ Ľ̠ · / ɥ·YȪľ/ǿ · 6Ŝ·ʶ ` ̡ ·Ȁ · ͯ ɦ·Heg · a ] ,͗ t· ā : à· ɧ · Ñȁ΃ · Ŀ͘ ˤ· ̢G · *Ȃ5 · # · # · Ö¡ ̣s · ´ʷ ̤ 7 ×· Èͧ· · ƈ· ̥ · ˥̦ɿ¿Óð· ĉ ' ¸á· ɨ· Ͱ ȃī` · ɕ 6]΄( · ͙ɖ · ư· Ɂ ȯ · 1ɩ · ˦ · ɂ Ȱ · ʀ Ų· ·̧ · N¹ $ñ· P* · · ·Ȅ ̨,·Dž ŀ· x #ȅ â· · ·! ̩·Łdž0 ) · ·0&& ʸ !ł u· Č=ʕ ʹH ·1! ·ý &̪ ɪ·ć gp 5· ͱ ã· Ɖ·Ń ͚º ä· W¥ «·'4ˍʋ͛Ʊ ·ń ¦ȆŅ· ̫: ʖ· ʗ ņ3· ³ʺ·ͽų ʻ å·Ĭ̬͜·̭LJ ȇʼ· n& Lj ¹ · Ň <na .· .Ȉ >Ƀ· ė·.ȉ̮o>̯ K!· Ɗ· ȱŴê 3ɌȊ p v· ̰ · ň · Ƌ· WĝcÉ ˧Mȋ2· A Ȍɫ ˨æ· ̱ ŵÔ· »V· Ŷ ̲ ʽ· M DfV· °ʾ· 7 mû· ď ɗ· č ƌ̳s· Ā- ͲȍÊ¿ʌ7· · ō¤ŷ ˑ¡ · ɬ · Nlj 9· ̴ xJ· · Ƥ ̵ ̶ · Ȏ ò· 1 .1 )%1 )" ,1 &1 ] ·˩KI 4 ʿ ·ȏª· ($ Ÿ !·'* ·˪͝& · · ƖĢ ̷ ˫̸Ȑ2·¦Ę NJ cUˬt· Ă · ęL·§ 2 ȑɭŹ˭·ĭ͞Ȓ¥͈·ȓ · ˮ·ʘ ¼̹· ƍ· Ȕ˯·ʙʁ źˀÁç· }̺͟· G · ¢ʂʃȲ˰· ɄȭȴŻ· Ě· GÏɘěɮ· }żȕɯƲó· ㎷ ŝʄ l· əȖˎĞʼn͠Ʌʅ͡˱· ̻NjȗɰƳ˲· Į̼͢· ȳ & · K!· 5K Z· =H ɱô· Đnj · ŊÏ · $ · Ș _· Ǎ3̽ ˁ· ; · ˳̾ i · · ˂ y£· · "· · |£ͣ½˃žŞv· þ Ɇ ˄ · /Aǎșɲƴ· ʚ º § · Ǝ·ÇǏ L· L 9̿· Ə̀ſ¬· GʆÑ·)¸ ́ · ȚEƞȨŋͤɇ$;· ț · h3˴ 5ͳȜ¬Ƶ·Ê ƀ·Ɛ ¤ȧɳ) · 1­ ·WƆ ·;ǐ · ʛ½, ˅ ¨.· {¾ʇͥ˵ õ· ĎoŌ · ʜ ʍƶ:{¨˶· · 9 ÐÂƁ· Ƒ ˆ˷· JƷ· N · ʹ Ƃ ¾ ö· Ć Ɉ · ɴC·Ą,Yƛ ·ơ³Î7C·͂ ̓·/ ɉƃ͵ȝ˸ +ɵ·şȞC· "ˏͨŠ · ·É D· ši( .· ʈƒ· Ɵȫi N· Ƹ -˹è· Ţ· Ë4 Ë· úù·Ø· eƓ· "* · Ȭh $· ƹ Ĝ Ƅ- · ̈́Ǒ Ϳ· #ͦ ȟ · ɚ ;" ·È,·į )·EÀȠ) <ƅ! · · ǒe · 6·ͅ Ɋ pȡ 6w· P ɶ· z· c ͩ˺ ʉJ· ͆ ·- ɋȢ#r· ɷ ·ƥ­͇ ΀·ȣ ·1 ţ ·# · Ȥ - ·Ɣ hé· ;4 · ƜƝ @<· J· ·m ˇ ȥƕ΁Ȧ )u·

50

Tiu Child & Television Drama

REFERENCES 1. Bettleheim, B. THE USES OF ENCHANTMENT. New York: Random House, 1975.

2. Singer, J. L. ''Television, Imaginative Play and Cognitive Develop­ ment: Some Problems and Possibilities." Invited address to the Division of Educational Psychology, American Psychological Asso­ ciation, San Francisco, Calif., 1977.

3. Lyle, J., and Hoffman, H.R.· "Children's Use of Television and Other Media." In E.A. Rubinstein, G .A. Comstock, and J.P. Murray (Eds.), TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, Vol. 4. Wash­ ington, D.C.: Government Printing Offic.c, 1972, pp. 257-273.

4. CaJdeira, J., Singer, J.L., and Singer, D.U. "imaginary Play­ mates: Some Relationships to Preschoolers' Television Viewing, Language and Play.'' Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., March 1978.

5. Singer, J.L., and Singer, D.G. "Can TV Stimulate Imaginative Play?" Journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 74-80.

6. "What TV Does to Kids." Newsweek, 21 February 1977, p. 68.

7. "Learning to Live with TV." Time, 28 May 1979, p. 49.

8. Siegel, Alberta E. Personal Communication, 1979.

9. Himmelweit, H.T., Oppenheim, A.N., and Vince, P. TELEVISION AND THE CHILD. London, Oxford University Press, 1958.

10. Murray, J.P. "Television in Inner-City Homes: Viewing Behavior of Young Boys." In E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, and J.P. Murray (Eds.), TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, Vol. 4.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972, pp. 345-394.

11. ·Murray,J.P. "Television in Inner-City Homes: Viewing Behavior of Young Boys." In E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, and J.P. Murray (Eds.), TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Vol. 4.

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 365.

12. Schramm, W., et al. TELEVISION IN THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961.

13. Schramm, W., et al. TELEVISION IN THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961, p. 158.

14. Lyle, J., and Hoffman, H.R. "Children's Use of Television and Other Media." In E.A. Rubinstein, G.A. Comstock, and J.P.

The Audience: Some Questions of Effect

51

Murray (Eds.), TELEVISION AND SOCIAL .BEHAVIOR, Vol. 4.

Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1972, pp. 257-273.

15. Medrich, Elliott. "Constant Television: A Backgrounc! to Daily Life." Journal of Communication, 1979, 2S,::3), pp. 171-176.

16. Menninger, Karl A. Television: "The Comforting Presence." (With Jean Menninger) TV Guide, 18 May 1968, p. 7.

 ȓƏ. .ÊŴ ȓĖ ȓ Ď 79ȓ ȓ K7 ė ] Ę & ȓ ƚ ȓ ƌ njȓę Ǎ ƛ ƿF åȓ ȓǎď ȓ % cĚ x ȓæƷ iEȓ ěÓĐȓÔ Ĝ=çƜ Ŷȓ 0Õ ¯ȓ à E ȓ8Ɲ ȓ ȓ Ǭ ƞȍ J ȓ ȓ $°ȓ L ȓ C ǽv ȓ ȓ Q >% ȓ ǭ ȓ ȓ Ht ĝƟȓ?ÈŚ .ȓ X B ^ ï gȓ w ȓ 2 ȓ ðÆ!"u6ȓ ȓ e ȓ bƠȓ ȓ X ǀȓ 7 7 . xŷĈȓ G ȓ ǏKX ȓ üȓ # F (ȓ B Z ĞŸ ® Ű ȓ 0 ȓ Ŝğ ȓ _ !ǁ ȓ " ! ȓ èȓ m! ǐĠÖȓ m3 y ŝȓ B ĉY ȓ PWơȓ y ±ȓ Ä % S ġ-Aȓ$Ƣ ȓ ȓ ȓ Ǯƣȓ v ¡ȓ ǯŞ ȓ M 4 ȓ ĢǑȓ PĄ [ ȓ 2 ȓ ģ Ƥȓ ȓ ƥ`J Ĥ 5ȓ1 ȓ D1* ĥ ȓ × Ʀ ǰ +5ȓĦ ȓħ S ĨŹ ȓ/ĩ DZ Ȏ FT ȓ wØ ȓi! ȓ e(Īǒ ¢ȓ Pƽ 9Ǔ ź £ȓ !ȓ n ŻĊ Ƹ 4 ¤ȓ Î ƧD īż ȓ Cȓǔ &Ĭ ²ȓ ¼ Dz ȓǕu ȓY } ȓT ȓ ȓ ĭ( ƨĮ 3 ȓ 6ȓ ȓǾį Cȓ ȓ ȓ {Ïİŧ 0fȓ Ć Dȓ ǖ Yȓ Ʃ Ǘı ȓ ] ȓ adz FIJ Ž ȓ ȓ D ş S ȓ &đ ³ȓ ¿ ȓ ȓ ȓ ; ȓ ć ȓ ȓ ř 'ȓ ǘt ȓ ăj 'ȓ 9 ǴǙȓ 3ij+ ȓ ȓ NŠĴ ĵ ´ȓ LĔ ȓ H5 ĶÙÉ}ȓ ǂ Ƙ3 Ú ȓ ýȓǚĒ ȓǛ Ũ ķǃ ,ȓ $ ŵ ȓ ĸ ũJ$ ȓ ǵ DŽ hȓ äŪz@Ígȓ ž ȓ Dž š Ĺ µȓ ½ N< ĺſ ȓM ȓcĻE Uȓ 8ȓ 48;G 'ȓ 2T ȏ Ţ * ¥ȓ % ǿļ Ľ ȓ #ƹ ȓ Ɛ ȓ 9 ȓ Zû> ǜ +Ȉȓ Ƒ ȓ Ȁ< [ȓ ǝ ȓ ? ,Kȓ ľ,` , ū5ȓ [ 3 Ŀ ȓ ȅƒ ƪ dž¶ȓ Å ñȓoƫ ű ŀ ȓ ƍƀH Hȓ ? 'ȓ Ð ȓ )ǼƬǞ: ƭȓ Ɓ: ƂÛ 8ȓÑȉȓ_: ȓǶLJ ȓVþȓ Ü:ȓ ȁŁk ȓ ȓéòƓłkǟ< ȓ-ÿȓȂŃƎȐ ţ " ¦ȓ ƙ4ń"śȓ ÝǷǠ §ȓ ƺÇBŅpȓ ǡņ 6ȓ Aqȓ êȓ J Ň ·ȓ À ŤË qȓ pȓ ; ƃċȓ ȓ ȓ @QW I N+ ȓ " { ¨ȓ 2 ȓ z ƮȓÞ ȓ ǸŬǪ ó-b UȊȓ e ȑ Ư " ȓ ȓ @ 0 -A ȓ ư ŭŮ ȓ ß- Lj1 Ʊȓ Āȓ Ʋ Ų ^ňȌ ȓ Ǣ ů ȃʼn ; Ƅȓ ƅ ȓ @ Ŋ ȓà Ɣ~ `ô=fȓ / ā ¸ȓ Á V ȓ Qƾ ȓ G ȓ Č ȓ ƕ ǣ ëȓ ȓ ' ]ȓ M ȓ ȓ Ƴa* ŋƖ Ǥ ©ȓ ȓ \ȓ ȓ ǥ #ȓÒ'ȓ ȓ ǹ#Ō á ȓ ť ȓ $ȓǦ ȓl )Wƴaō ȓ| % ȓ1 0ȓI ȓ .V ƻ ȓ ìȓ1 õȓ Ƽ ȓ <%+ȓ !ö&4C ȓ Ɔ Ȇ2ȓ |hȓ ÷ȓ ǧŎ ªȓ E ȓ G ǫ A¹ȓ Lĕŏ ȓ ǺZŘ_fȓ â b Ȓ /ȓ ȓ Ő ŦȓsÌƇ& /5ȓ Oȓ Ȅ*ƈRȓ)jã oȓč Iȓ# R «ȓ c ȓ í ¬ȓ nȓ ő Rȓljǻ dŒ ­ȓ îȓ r\ œǨNJȓ? Kȓ Ŕ r\ ȓǩ ȓ )ą &ȓƗ d d ȓ s U ȓ Ăȓ ~ = Ɖ Njȓ ŕƊȓ ȓ l > ȇȓ $ºȓ ¾ Ƶȓ ȓ O ȓ )> Ŗ ȓ ų I 6ȓ ^ ȋȓ Ƌȓ *ø ùȓ ȓ ȓ Oȓ =ȓ ( ( ȓ ,#ȓ ȓ ēúƶ ŗ/ »ȓ

54

The Child & Television Drama

the real one in which personalities and interactions are complex, motives unclear, and outcomes ambiguous.

The conflicts of daily life are rarely simple choices between good and evil or right and wrong. Some involve desirable ends that have different costs along different dimensions-short-term versus long­ term costs, time costs versus money costs. Some involve moral issues, such as a conflict between self-gratification and an obliga­ tion to help someone else. Some involve the difference between what one wants to do and what one ought to do.

Daily conflicts that appear to be largely interpersonal ones may be complicated by significant intrapsychic issues. An individual may, for example, project attitudes or ideas which are consciously distasteful but unconsciously attractive onto other people, who are then condemned, criticized, attacked, or rejected. It is often this contribution of one's inner dilemmas to conflict with another per­ son which exaggerates the disagreement and makes its resolution difficult.

Television programming for the most part ignores this common human response to conflict. Instead, conflict is simplified first by reducing it to dichotomies which are easily recognized and under­ stood: good/bad, right/wrong, win/lose, yield/resist. Then these opposing positions are assigned to separate individuals in the story as their primary role characteristic. Splitting and displacing the two sides of a conflict in this way does keep the story line clear and understandable, but at the cost of obscuring the fact that both sides of a conflict can usually be found within each party.

In the same manner, personifying good and evil through the characters of the hero and the villain is a time-honored theatrical device. Not uncommonly, the characters of televised drama, particularly the heroes, do depart from the idealized models of behavior and rely upon violence, dishonesty, or other methods characteristic of a villain. But rather than despoiling the image of the hero, the use of such methods by the hero legitimizes them.

May has described the phenomenon of "contrast conceptions"; once the "good guy" has been identified, everything he does auto-

The Programs: Dramas with Live Actors

55

matically becomes good, and vice versa for the "bad guy." 1 In an earlier program series entitled Switch, the '' good guys'' explicitly employed deceit and dishonesty as primary tools. The fact that both protagonists were likable, while their targets were not, and the fact that their methods seldom employed violence tended to minimize the negative qualities of the essentially immoral methods they used. In any case, the crimes they fought seemed to justify almost any treachery, especially if it could be performed in a humorous and imaginative way. But what was the covert message?

That any dishonest or even illegal act is all right if evil is the target?

That a virtuous end justifies use of an evil means? Either one or both messages clearly come through, and because the characters are likeable and the action warmly humorous, the viewer is inclined to affectionate agreement.

Conflict resolution. Most real-life conflicts do not have neat, clean endings, and they are seldom resolved rapidly. Indeed, many are never fully resolved at all. There are often unexpected conse­ quences or costs that were not anticipated and residual feelings of doubt ("was I right?"), uncertainty, or even guilt. Moreover, ordi­ nary conflicts often do not stay settled; they reappear in a different form or with different persons; or, as expressions of significant inter­ nal conflict, the individual may even recreate them. Further, when real-life conflicts are resolved, it is usually by compromise and seldom in the all-or-nothing way of television.

Television commonly treats conflict resolution as a zero-sum game in which everything gained by one side is lost by the other.

The process is often organized like a competitive game. "Evil" must be defeated simply to prevent serious loss to the representa­ tives of "good." Only after several narrow escapes, near defeats, and tight squeaks does "good" come through. When "good" wins, it wins all, and "bad" is annihilated-often literally. In show after show, rewards and punishments come quickly, uncontami­ nated with regret, sadness, or any acknowledgment that there is some cost for every benefit. Crises are completely resolved, unam-

E ɖ 7Ɠ ɖ > ɖ ' M Ņɖ ļ = »ɖ Z œ ĺNj%@ s¼ɖ + Z) H eɖ ?©ɖJ Ŕ« ŕ ɖ Ŗ Ïɖ å ɖ ! , ǔ_ 6ɖ ÿ ɖ ĵùĀȂ ɖ ɖ û ɖ S ɖ ǕO ȃ!ǀ ɖ ɖ Ɍ, ɖ Ȅ ɖ` Ʀ ɖ : ā ɖAiƲ ɖq ɖ Ę ɖ ŗ5 ' ɖ{Ɂ ) ǖɖ Ē 6 Ðɖ ñʼnɏɖ é ɖ ɖƑ ī ɖ ) ɖ' ęɖ Ĭɖ Ř $ 8 ɖǁ ɖ ȅ $ ɂ ř ɖ B ŚƬɖȆŊ ȇɖƔśĭ9ɖŜ&ɖC Ǘ <ȯ;ɐɖLŝ ; aɖ ēɖ¥ŋ _ɖ Ƀ Ȉɖ Ş @ ɖ ɖt * ɖ "ǰɖ ȉɖ $Mɖ ĚDZ\ Nɖ5ǂɖ_ ɖ Ȋ % ɖ$ş ½ɖü' ɖ ɖĂ 4T4ȋO ɖ Š )ɖǘ ƕš Ñɖ ç ɖ ȱ D ȌŢĸƐ ɖ Ȳ ȍ3©ɖ ŀ Ɩɖ 17 ɖ Ȏ ȏɖ Ʉţ Wě A ɖ 4ɖ n: ( ɖ > ɖ ɖ + đɀƗ" ɖ á " ɖ Ķú Ť a# ¾ɖ ť*+ N 1ɖ ( ɖ Ŧ ɖ ŧKɖ ɖ Ƙ Ũ4 ɖ Ǧ G ɖũ ɖ* ħ dɖ Dz, .Ū 1ɖ ɖ ! ɖķo ū fɖ ¬î ǃƙ ɖ " ɖ 5 ɖ> &Ŭ ɖ Įɖl:ƚɖ .ǧ( ¿¯°ɖ R ɖ (V Òɖ ±²ï! X ɖ Ĺƫ A ɖS ɖ ªɖ5 ɖ ɖ Ȑ ǙNÓɖ ò ȑ Kɖ U ă Àɖ Ȓɖ F ɖ YIƛŭ Áɖ Ō ɖ ɖ ɖ vǚ Ô³ɖ´ ê ɖ [ - ɖ Pɖdz ɖ , ƒ * ɖ !]ɖ ɖ ŃV ƳŮ ɖ 4ɖ ȓ| ů%ɖ p ƴ.ɖ Ű t#Ŀ Ǜ0 ɖ= ɖ= ɖ+ Ą Ǵ Ɯɖ űƭǎ # ( Ų \ɖ įɖ ȳ ɖ b6 `ȴ/ Õɖ æ ɖ ɖ B2ƵQ ąȔÂɖ <DŽȕɖ ɅC2Ɲ9 ĜÃɖ Ȗō ȗɖ ų ɖ ^^ ƶȘŴm;ɖ a2ɖ Ʈ gɖ ë ɖ | Ldɖ Ĕ , 8 ɖ İɖKĨƧ T ɖ Ǩ * șD ɖ ǯ #ƷƯ Țɖ ɖ ŵ Ć ɖ +$ F ɖ z 8 ɖ ț) ɖ yo ɖ ¡ cɖ # ĩ ɖ µ¶ Ö·¸ɖ ðŶ - ɖ ȰKǩ -Ȝ&ɖ ɖ $ ɖ &ɖ "0 Äɖ ǜɖ 2ɖ"ȝɖC^ɖǏǝ9ǵ G ĕɖýɑɖ5) ɖ+ǞDžɓ ȵ@ ǟ gɖ è9ć ¢ɖ ¨# 0Åɖ Ɇ0ǠÆɖ ] ɖ ȞŎ ¢ɖ ! < ɖu ɖ ȟɖ ŷ ɖ Ľ cɖ - ɖ + I'ƞ [Ÿ ª×ɖ h ǡɖ /ɖ h ä 73ɖĻnj¦ vɖ ɖ @ Ǫǫ Ɵ ɔ Ź ɖ ? Ƹɖ ɖ G 7 Jɖ xɖ ɇź Ơ r ɖ Żƹɖ c ɖ Hż& / ɖ ıɖ ÛÜɖ &ɖ dž ɖ ɖ \ Ƕ ɖ /ɖ R ɖ 1 àɖ } Mɖ 8 ɖ ­ɈŽ ơ A ®ɖ Nɖ ɖ - 0 ɖ xɖ ȶ ɖ ǐ U i$ɖ ɖ 3> Ʃɖ (? Çɖ ɖ ! ɖ Ĉ ɖ IJɖ ǓȷóǷžÎɉSLJƢĝƺȠɖôĉȡſLjƻɖĞ ğưĠ ȢǸÈɖǹȸĊŏɖj ɖċõǢɖČ~jǺġ Ø ì~Ģɒɖöƣǻljɖ{Ǎȹ Ėɖ JŐ bɖ= ɖ ņǣ ɖ PɖǑ % ɖ E ɖ ɋ ɖ 7 ; J ɖ£ ɖ;ƀ C Ňɖ łǤɖ÷ɖ ňD ɖ HƁ .ģÙɖ ã Ƃ Ⱥ ɖ , [ % øFɖ Pɖ ɖ *§č ɖ Lƃ $ ɖ " ɖ ȣĪƨĤ¨E ɖ wǬ ɖ ɖ Ƅ ĥɖ# ɖ Ik ¤ɖzǭ Yɖ ɖľƅ: ɖ¡ ɖ DǼ` 1§U őɖp ɖ Œ ɖ Ȼǒ ǥɕ Qƪ' ']ɖ ( ɖ Ȥ ɖ ǽ Ɔ :eɖ ? ɖ ɊƇ F r ɖ lƼėɖ Z Y ƈĎɖ Q ď=ɖ EB ɖ#Ǿɖ ɖǿ2Ʊ0ɖ2ȥ ɖ ɖ ɍBƉbƊ< Éɖ m3NJ Ƌ Êɖ 3ɖ9ƽ ƾ Úɖ â&ƌuĦɖ ń GɖȦ} ɖIǮ ! ¦ dɖ ȧ sɖ1 k ɖ¹þ Ȩɖ 7Ȁºɖn ȼ , ɖȩ Ȫɖ Đ y ɖ - Ëɖ 6) ɖ ɖ ɖ ƍ/ H wɖ %3 < Ƚ ɖ 6Ǝ ɖȫ ɖ " Ƥ ɖ ¤ V fɖ í ɖX 6¥ ɖ LT Ìɖ R Íɖ &ɖ ƿȬ « .Ə8 ɖ q ɖ5 ɖ % 4Ⱦƥȭ ɖ ijɖ ɖ Ɏ % * Ȯ WɖŁOX/ɖ ȁ£ȿ.Mɖ ĴɖÝßÞɖ ' W ɖ

70

The Child & Teleoiswn Drama

such evidence of the consequences of violence, as part of news reports on the Vietnam War, for example, have been criticized as being insensitive, as glorifying violence, and so forth. The wish to experience the excitement of vicarious violence without having to acknowledge its painful reality is apparently very strong.

While televised violent episodes are themselves abundantly laced with noises and actions which emphasize the destructive quality of the event, seldom do we see the consequences of that violence.

Viewers do not see the bloody, messy results, the pain, suffering, paralysis, and death which result. Their knowledge of violence is partial and distorted. Their understanding would be more com­ plete if they customarily witnessed the weeping and anguish of the victims' families, the funerals, the sudden poverty, and the alone­ ness that are the aftermath of violence.

It might well be that a more honest depiction of violence would help to reduce the unalloyed pleasure it is capable of generating, as well as reinforcing some capacity for inhibition of violent action. At least the information delivered to viewers would be more accurate­ an aspect important for children, who are prone to an uncritical acceptance of the information they receive from television that violence is safe, useful, and justifiable.

THE CHARACTERS What the characters do in the course of a televised drama can become, and for some viewers does become, a basis for real-life action. How people deal with each other, how they seem to feel, and how they speak may become models for viewers to emulate.

Exactly what the causal linkages are and how this process works are, as we have noted, complicated questions. The modeling may be done consciously, in an imitative manner, 01· it may happen unconsciously, over time, through the process of identification as a person, especially a young one, views programs repeatedly.

The Pro.l/rams: Dramas with Live Actors

71

Of interest to psychiatrists are distortions in the presentations of human beings and the possible consequences from the viewer's perspective. We are especially concerned with the processes of imitation, identification, and modeling in children.

Stereotypes In general, we find that dramatized television portrays people in such a simplified and inaccurate way that the characters are crude stereotypes. Occupational roles and workers, women, minorities, the aged, single parents, the handicapped, and various ethnic groups are quite commonly presented as stereotypes and given few individual characteristics. The development of central characters in the drama is quite limited, often intentionally so. The intent is to highlight only those characteristics necessary to the image of the hero or the villain. Secondary persons are bland and featureless, quite literally "supporting" and without dimensions of their own.

We are interested in these features of character portrayal and choose to discuss them in particular because we believe that char­ acter stereotypes and oversimplified (and violent) plots combine to promote dehumanization in the viewer. And this, particularly for children who view repeatedly, can be psychologically and socially damaging.

The work force. In its depiction of the world of work, television

distorts reality by disproportionately emphasizing certain occupa­ tions and roles and ignoring a great many others. The labor force on television bears little resemblance to the real population of workers. De Fleur noted in 1964 that "professional workers were substantially overrepresented. Nearly a third of the labor force on television was engaged in professional occupations of relatively high social prestige. " 33 Likewise a third was involved in enforce­ ment or administration of the law. Occupations that were repre­ sented were represented stereotypically: lawyers were clever, actors

72

The Child & Television Drama

were temperamental, and so forth.

Some nine years later in 1973 Seggar and Wheeler found the same pattern. 34 Professional and managerial roles were still over­ represented in the television picture of the work force. Occupations with low prestige were underrepresented except for the service area, and there minorities were represented more often than whites.

Men and women. Men play the lion's share of leading roles. Some time ago Head noted that there were twice as many men as women in TV character roles,3 5 and DeFleur 'found that women were portrayed working only half as often ( 16 % ) as they work in reality (31 % ). 36 Since then the proportion of working women has steadily increased, but in 1973 working women were still grossly underrep­ resented on television. Only 18% of the television labor force was female.37 In a study of personality characteristics and nonoccupational roles, Tedesco found that men's roles were more likely to portray bad persons who were unsuccessful, unhappy, unmarried, violent, and serious as opposed to comic. 38 Women's roles, on the other hand, were more likely to be happy, married, nonviolent, and comic as opposed to serious. Tedesco also reported that the programs distributed personality traits to characters in a stereo­ typic way. Women were typically more attractive, sociable, warm, and peaceful; men were more powerful, smart, rational, and stable. In each case, the characteristics reinforce the stereotypic views of masculinity and femininity.

Central roles in dramatic television portray men who are mostly single, middle- and upper-class, white, American, and in their twenties and thirties. Seldom do they appear to have significant lives apart from their primary characterization; rarely do they worry about matters other than the central task of the drama of the moment. The many who are either single or without sharing relationships with others convey images of freewheeling, devil­ may-care action. They have virtually no responsibilities or encum-

The Programs: Dramas with Live Actors

73

brances, except those the dramatic tasks entail. The leading man is rarely burdened by real-life constraints, like a family. When pres· ent, the families are subordinate to the story line. They neither impose the irrelevant interjections, obstructions, competition, and confusion nor offer the support, assistance, and guidance that the typical family does. Such family shows as The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie are notable exceptions.

The portrayal of women is equally stereotypic and unrealistic.

Long and Simon noted that of 34 female characters observed in 22 programs meant for children and families, most played comic roles or supportive wives and mothers. 39 None of the married women worked outside their homes, and, of the single women and widows who did, only two occupied positions of prestige. Those two appeared more subservient and dependent and less rational than their male colleagues. Women never occupied positions of author­ ity, whether at home or on the job. They were usually portrayed as silly, overemotional, and dependent on husbands and boyfriends.

Most were under 40 years old, well groomed, and attractive. They were concerned with their appearance, their families, and their homes. The authors concluded: ... this general image of women ... is one of traditional sexism. The young people to whom these shows are largely or primarily aimed are not likely to gain any insights into the new roles and perceptions that many women have of themselves or want for their daughters. 40

Minorities. Historically, stereotyping has been a prominent method in the dramatic presentation of minority characters. As Spurlock noted in 1978, this historical treatment continues. • 1 The early portrayals by film and television of minority group members have moderated but not changed. We still see Asians as karate experts, as villains operating with cunning, slyness, and inscru­ tability, and as Charlie Chan types, supergood, superwise, self­ effacing detectives. Black characters arc still song-and-dance enter-

74

The Child & Television Drama

tainers or buffoons in comedy shows, and Native Americans are still seen as alcoholics or fierce savages. The images of minorities are still negative. The Black, for instance, is victimized and limited (OJ Black America), immature and irresponsible (Hey, Baby, I'm Back), foolish and stubborn ( The Jejfersons), or mother-dominated and fatherless Uulia, Good Times). Although more positive depic­ tions of minority characters have appeared in these series, in mini­ series, in docudramas, in other series, and in public television programming, the standard televised drama of prime time main­ tains stereotyped images of minority figures. The stereotyped minorities in television drama are certainly not helpful to minority children who are striving to evolve positive self-images. Such chil­ dren, already laboring under significant social and educational handicaps, are also exposed to more hours of television than white children. Nor are these images helping nonminority children and adults to accept and understand their fellow human beings.

Feelings and traits. Stereotyping television characters extends to the manner in which their feelings and personal traits are pre­ sented. Often, presumably to reinforce the story line in an unam­ biguous way, characters seem to possess but a single trait, such as evil power, brilliance, aggressiveness, stupidity, sexual attractive­ ness, weakness, and so forth. Other personal characteristics that might be obvious in any real-life person are eliminated; television's heroic characters rarely show ambivalence, confusion, a capacity to make mistakes, and so forth.

This monochromatic characterization creates false models of people, models which may be quite attractive to some viewers. In susceptible individuals this attraction can lead to a degree of identi­ fication which may be antithetical to healthy, balanced growth in the person. Monochromatic characterization, particularly when positive and negative traits are split between two separate charac­ ters, may reinforce a splitting tendency within the viewer. When the characters are split according to positive and negative traits, the viewer is encouraged to identify with the positive side and to

Thl Programs: Dramas with Live Actors

75

displace or project the negative side onto others. The viewer can feel fully comfortable in doing this after having watched the heroes on a favorite program do the same thing over and over again.

Attractive characters which express only positively valued traits may also convey the implicit message that anyone who shows ambivalence, inner conflict, or confusion is less than adequate.

Such a message is quite misleading about the real nature of human feelings and thoughts. The susceptible viewer may feel guilty about his or her perceived inadequacies and attempt to suppress or dis­ place those demonstrably undesirable traits or patterns onto others in the environment.

Collins demonstrated that the presentation of a judicious mix­ ture of human qualities in dramatic characterizations can affect the viewer. 42 He found that elementary school-age children became more aggressive immediately after seeing an aggressive televised act performed by a villain with redeeming features than they became after viewing a villain with uniformly bad motives. This might suggest that those intent on employing violence in television presentations should, after all, use monochromatic characteriza­ tions, thus discouraging children from imitation. On the other hand, encouraging viewers' identification with characters whose behavior is admirable might also be enhanced if those characters were portrayed as having a mixture of qualities. Television could thereby provide more wholesome and more accurate role models and could create more interesting programs as well.

Stripping a character of the variety of traits which make it human produces a crude stereotype so meager and unattractive as to be bad entertainment. An actor commented to one of the authors that he was bewildered and disheartened when he was offered 11 guest roles of the same type on different dramatic programs. In each case he was asked to play one-dimensional, nearly motivation­ less murderers. "Aside from my concern about the social conse­ quences of such portrayals, I was baffied by the technical problem of how to play such characters ·so that anyone with discernment would want to see the program." To confine him to playing indi-

78

The Child & Television Drama

large groups ofpeople to engage in dehumanization ofothers. The Nazi propaganda films ofthe 1930' s illustrated the power offilmed drama as a mass persuader in the hands of unscrupulous authority.

Equally unscrupulous use of televised drama now could serve socially malignant purposes with vast consequences. The compli­ cated process of stereotyping and dehumanization by groups involves contagion, displacement of responsibility to the leader or major actor, acceptance of submissiveness, and a marked decrease in discriminating judgment. Illuminating the insidious capacity of current television drama to promote the individual dehumanizing process would help us to prevent both individual and social harm.

We might also,ifwe understood the stereotyping and dehumaniza­ tion processes more completely, contribute to a better understand­ ing of prejudice and discrimination, thereby improving the quality of contemporary social life.

REFERENCES 1. May, Rollo. "Love and Will." Psychology Today, 1969, 3 (3), p. 17-61.

2. Smythe, D.W. "Reality as Presented by Television." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18, 143-156.

3. Comstock, G., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M., and Roberts. D. TELEVISION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR. New York: Columbia University Press 1978, p. 64.

4. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Eleey, j.F., Jackson-Beeck, M., Jeffries­ Fox, S., and Signorielli, N. VIOLENCE PROFILE #8: "Trends in Net­ work Television Drama and Viewer Conceptions of Social Reality," Journal ef Communication, 1967-76. Philadelphia: Annen­ berg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, 1977.

5. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. "The 'Mainstreaming' of America: Violence Profile No. 11." Journal ef Communication, 1980, 30 (3), 10-29.

6. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. "The 'Mainstreaming' of America: Violence Profile No. 11, journal of Communication, 1980, 30 (3), 11.

The Pro grams: Dramas with Live Actors

79

7. Comstock, G., Chaffee, S., Katzman, N., McCombs, M., and Roberts, D. TELEVISION AND HUMAN I)EHAVIOR. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978, pp. 64-79.

8. Gerbner,G.,Gross, L., Eleey, M.F.,Jackson-Beeck, M.,Jeffries­ Fox, S., and Signorielli, N. VIOLENCE PROFILE #8 "Trends in Network Television Drama and Viewer Conceptions of Social Real­ ity," journal of Communication, 1967-76. Philadelphia: Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, 1977, 1.

9. Somers, Anne R. "Violence, Television and the Health of Ameri­ can Youth." New England journal of Medicine, 1976, 291- (15), 813.

10. Baker, R.K., and Ball, S.J. "The Television World of Violence."

In R.K. Baker and S.J. Ball (Eds.), VIOLENCE AND THE MEDIA: A STAFF REPORT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CAUSES AND OF VIOLENCE. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969, pp. 311-339.

11. Bandura, A. "Influence of Models' Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition oflmitative Responses." journal ef Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 589-595; Bandura, A. AGGRESSION: A SOCIAL LEARNING ANALYSIS. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice­ Hall, 1973.

12. Liebert, R.M., Neale, J.M., and Davidson, E.S. THE EARLY PREVENTION

WINDOW: EFFECTS OF TELEVISION ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH.

New York: Pergamon Press, 1973.

13. "What TV Does to Kids." Newsweek, 21 February 1977, p. 68.

14. Wertham, Frederic, quoted in Liebert, R.M., Neale, J.M., and Davidson, E.S. THE EARLY WINDOW: EFFECTS OF TELEVISION ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH. New York: Pergamon Press, 1973, p. 34.

15. Red!, Fritz. Personal Communication, 1978-1979.

16. Dorr, Aimee. "The Effects of Television Violence on Children's Behavior.'' Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Orthopsychiatric Association, April 11-16, 1977.

17. Liebert, R.M. "Television and Social Learning: Some Relation­ ship Between Viewing Violence and Behaving Aggressively." In J.P. Murray,E.A. Rubinstein and G.A. Comstock (Eds.), TELEVI­ SION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. VOL 2. TELEVISION AND SOCIAL LEARKING. Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office,1972, pp. 181-201. The five studies are described in Volume 3 of TELEVISION AND SOCfAL BEHAVIOR: TELEVISION AND ADOLESCENT AGGRES-

80

Th, Child & T,levi.rion Drama

SIVENESS, (G.A. Comstock and E.A. Rubenstein, Eds.) include: McIntyre, .f.J., and Teevan, J.J., Jr., "Television Violence and Deviant Behavior," pp. 383-435; McLeod, J.M., Atkin, C.K., and Chaffee, S.H. "Adolescents, Parents and Television Use: Self­ Report and Other-Report Measures from the Wisconsin Sample," pp. 239-313; Robinson, J.P., and Bachman, J.G., "Television Viewing Habits and Aggression," pp. 372-382; Dominick,J.R., and Greenberg, B.S. "Attitudes Toward Violence: The Interaction of Television Exposure, Family Attitudes and Social Class," pp.

314-335; and Lefkowitz, M.M., Eron, L.D., Walder, L.O., and Huesmann, L.R., "Television Violence and Child Aggression: A Follow-Up Study," pp. 35-135.

18. Lefkowitz, M.M., Eron, L.K., Walder, L.O., and Huesmann, L.R. GROWING UP TO BE VIOLENT: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGGRESSION. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977, pp. � 15-116.

19. Belson, William. TELEVISION VIOLENCE AND THE ADOLESCENT BOY. London: Teak.field, 1978.

20. Liebert, R.M., Cohen, L.A.,Joyce, C., Murrel, S., Nisonoff, L., and Sonnenschein, S. "Predispositions Revisited (Symposium on Effects of Television). Review of Heller & Polsky: 'Studies in Violence and Television,' New York: ABC, 1975." Journal of Communication, 1977, 27 (3), pp. 217-221.

21. Comstock, G. TV Portrayals and Agg ressive Behavior. Sama Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1976, P-5762; Liebert, R.M., Neale, J.M., and Davidson, E.S. THE .EARLY WINDOW: EFFECTS OF TELEVISlON ON CHlLDREN AND YOUTH. ew York: Pergamon Press, 1973; Liebert, R.M., and Schwartzberg, N.S. "Effects of Mass Media." Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 2, 141-173; Rothenberg, Michael. "Effects of Television Violence on Children and Youth," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1975, 234 (10), 1043-1046, Dec. 8.

22. Belson, William. TELEVISION VIOLENCE AND THE ADOLESCENT BOY. London: Teak.field, 1978.

23. Comstock, G. TV Partrayals and Aggressive Behavior. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1976, P-5762; Drabman, R.S., and Thomas, M.H. "Does TV Violence Breed Indifference?" Journal of Communication, 1975, 25 (4), 86-89; Drabman, R.S., and Thomas,

The Programs: Dramas with Live Aclars

81

M.H., "Does Watching Violence on Television Cause Apathy?"

Pediatrics, 1976, 57, 329-331; Cline, V.B., Croft, R.G., and Courrier, R.G. "Desensitization of Children to Television Vio­ lence." journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 360-365.

24. Gerbner, G., and Gross, L. "Living with Television: The Violence Profile." Journal of Communication, 1976, 26 (2), 173-199; Gross, L. "The Scary vVorld of TV's Heavy Viewer." Psychology Today, 1976, 9 (12), 41-45, 89.

25. Berkowitz, L., and Rawlings, E. "Effects of Film Violence on Inhi­ bitions Against Subsequent Aggression." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyclwwgy, 1963, 66, 405-412.

26. Gerbner, G., and Gross, L. "Living with Television: The Violence Profile." Journal of Communication, 1976, 26 (2), 173-199; Gross, L. "The Scary World of TV's Heavy Viewer." Psychology Today, 1976, 9 (12), 41-45, 89.

27. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., and Signiorelli, N. "The 'Mainstreaming' of America: Violence Profile No. 11." Journal of Communication, 1980, 30 (3), 10-29.

28. Doob, A.N., and McDonald, G.E. "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37 (2), 170-179.

29. "Violence on TV: Why People Are Upset." U.S. News & World Report, 29 October 1973, pp. 33, 36.

30. Diener, E., and DeFour, D. "Does Television Violence Enhance Program Popularity?" journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36 (3), 333-341.

31. Gorney, Roderic, Loye, David, and Steele, Gary, "Impact of Dramatized Television Entertainment on Adult Males." American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977, 131- (2), 170-174.

32. Rothenberg, Michael. "Effects of Television Violence on Children and Youth." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1975, 234 (10), 1043-1046, Dec. 8.

33. DeFleur, M.L. "Occupational Roles as Portrayed on Television."

Public Opinion Quarterly, 1964, 28, 64.

34. Seggar, J.F., and Wheeler, P. "World of Work on TV: Ethnic and Sex Representation in TV Drama." Journal ofBroadcasting, 1973, 17, 201-214.

35. Head, S.W. "Content Analysis of Television Drama Programs."

86

The Child & Tdeviswn Drama

avid nine-year-old fan responded, "If it's a real scary program, I'd rather watch the cartoon version; it's not so real."

Human dramatization is experienced as more real, richer in information and feeling, and capable of generating more empathy and identification. It can, therefore, be less appealing or more threatening to a young child who is unable to handle its complexity.• Since most children see cartoons as make believe, different expectations and different rules apply. The child can experience the unthinkable at a distance and deal with it more easily. A sudden unpredictable cataclysm, an engulfing monster, a murderous witch or villain, a violent denouement in which the young protagonist plays a part, or a rivalrous physical struggle­ the child's interest in watching these subjects comes from his own wish to achieve mastery over one or another developmental prob­ lem. Using the cartoon fantasy can help.

Cartoons depict an "as if" world of pseudoreality and indul­ gence. Children can have multiple identifications with all of the characters in the drama. They can, thereby, accept the threat of extinction in one character and survival in another, or laugh at the stupidity in a character, rather than fear it in themselves. Switching identifications, the child can relieve conflict and choose a different threshold of excitement. The viewer can be both victim and victor, lover and loved, outcast and group member, or alive and dead, according to his or her feelings and his or her ability to tolerate their expression.

Cartoons permit children to select from explicitly nonreal pre­ sentations of emotional issues those which they are able to tolerate.

Yet .sometimes, if the cartoon content too closely parallels an issue about which a child has considerable unconscious fear or guilt, the protective aspects of the line drawing and the reduced sense of reality may not be enough to neutralize the strong feelings. Vulner­ able seven- or eight-year-olds may feel intense anxiety when their own developing senses of reality are still relatively unstable and their senses of good and bad are more absolute than what they are viewing.

• See clinical example on page 63

Children's Television

87

But the risks are not only in the emotional responses a child may have in the short run. While the child is amused by the cartoon, assisted in fantasy development, or protected from frightening things, he or she is also learning from the cartoon. Cartoons, inten­ tionally or unintentionally, teach about people, feelings, and the outside world. Depicted in abbreviated form and distorted by the otherwise beneficial simplification of cartooning, characters are grossly stereotyped. Animals take on human personality traits, manifesting single, unmitigated feelings and traits-love, hate, competition, cleverness, strength, or cowardice. The oversimplified stereotype appears invariably in a given cartoon character and often contrasts with its polar opposite which is manifest in a rival.

What the child learns about people through these characters is distorted and unreal. If cartoons are a major source of information, this distribution is likely to feed into stereotyping and dehumaniza­ tion at later ages.

Our concern about violence extends to the cartoons. So much of what happens between cartoon figures involves violence that cartoons sometimes seem to be nothing but a connected string of violent events. For example, on a particular Saturday morning: ... a mean, gray coyote barrels down the highway in hot pursuit of the roadrunner. The coyote slams into a tree. Seconds later, he falls off the edge of a cliff and gets flattened by a two-ton boulder. A slab of road pavement flips over and buries him. A piano wired with dynamite blows up in the coyote's face. He goes flying through the air and lan ds with a mouthful of keys. The entire sequence lasts less than three minutes. 2 Such a sequence may undergo a dozen repet1t10ns m a given cartoon and also recur in succeeding cartoons. Child viewers may watch the same programs ten times in a year. Yet these repeatedly battered animals (people) never seem to suffer. Like the Bobo-the­ Clown doll, they keep coming back for more, undeterred, unin­ jured, unaffected. As in the dramas with live actors, the real

90

Thz Ch;ld & Teleoision Drama

Children's Television

91

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

aspects noted in the literature. Some exceptional efforts are, how­ ever, worth noting.

How can television educate?

A series of 15-minute episodes called Inside/Out, available to public schools as instructional television, portrays youthful actors in a variety of actual and potential conflicts, dealing with secretive­ ness, rejection, vengefulness, or jealousy. Under the carefully non­ judgmental leadership of a teacher, classroom viewers discuss the alternative outcomes, the possible consequences, and the solutions they might have considered had they been the protagonists. The children learned more from the discussion period than from the television program, and the discussion itself was especially focused and engaging because it followed the televised scenarios. Having an adult mediator also seemed an important contribution to the psychological benefit the children received.

Building knowledge and skills. Television is undoubtedly a teacher. As Schramm has observed, because television is "perhaps richer and denser than any other instructional medium, children have almost invariably shown learning gains, often large ones. " 3 Using scripts for television plays as texts, some Philadelphia schools have demonstrated dramatic improvement in the reading skills of the children involved. Much of the success here was due to the design of the program as a coordinated activity for the whole family and to the active involvement of the parents.

In other parts of the country, the recognition that regularly watched, prime time television offers opportunities for learning has led to a number of notable initiatives. Prime Time Television, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization, has developed a series of study guides to illustrate the general principles of prime time teaching. Use the screen and the dramatic show, they recommend, to get the students' attention. Then engage their intelligence with questions, study guides, and scripts to be read as homework. These and other teaching approaches have emphasized logic and language skills, literary and dramatic elements, conflict develop­ ment and resolution, and civil rights and constitutional law, to identify a few important topics.

Promoting healthy psychological development. Clearly, with

appropriate programming and instructional guidance, television can teach. But can it educate? Can it draw a person out and help a person to grow psychologically? We have already discussed its possible harmful effects on psychological well-being.

The possibilities of television for aiding the psychological growth and development of children are less apparent to many than the hurt we have observed in some individuals and the deleterious

Singer and Singer confirmed the vital role of the adult mediator in a different setting with a different age group. t They studied the impact of television on the imaginative play of younger children. In the study, four-year-old children viewed a Mister Rogers' Neighbor­ hood segment with and without a mediator. As evidence of imagina­ tion, researchers observed whether or not a child used an object or toy in a way different from what its appearance would ordinarily suggest. They found that viewing the program alone was less stimulating to imaginative play than might have been hoped for.

The four-year-old children could not sit still throughout the half­ hour program. When the adult was present during the television viewing period, concentration improved, interaction increased, involvement with the program was greater, and evidence of imaginative play was greater. The researchers inferred that chil­ dren of this age are most susceptible to the influence of an adult who can engage them directly and reinforce their own responses immediately, something which television alone, no matter how positive, cannot do. The implications for parental or other adult intervention are clear. Apparently, the adult can and should play a powerful mediating role, perhaps offsetting the harmful viewing material and helping the child to enjoy more of the potential

94

The Child & Television Drama

be beneficial. Programs for bilingual children, programs showing _ black, Oriental, or handicapped children in realistic, nonstereo­ typed roles, and even programs showing children with single parents, can be helpful. Such minority children in the viewincr audience may feel less singled out when they can watch th: successful adventures of children like themselves.

As well as the direct benefits that children can gain from positive programs created especially for them, children can benefit from the positive effects that some programs for adults foster in the home.

The previously mentioned experimental field study of 183 married c�uples demonstrated that socially positive programs produced sig­ mfican tly less aggressive moods and hurtful behavior among the _ adults than did the programs with a high violence content. Such positive effects enhance the emotional climate of the home on wh�ch children mainly depend for support as they move thr�ugh their normal but often troublesome developmental sequences.

Conducted in the natural setting of the home, this study yielded results parallel to the findings of the many laboratory studies that have confirmed the beneficial effects of socially positive programs.

Moreover, the fact that the study was in the natural setting cou :ters the legitimate contention that the findings of laboratory 1 studies cannot be generalized to the real-life condition.

Children's educational programs Soon after the beginning of commercial television in this country, programs especially intended for children appeared, though tenta­ tively and �n small numbers. Captain Kangaroo (Bob Keshan) led the way, and m 1954- Fred Rogers began a short program on Station QED in Pittsburgh. Entitled Children's Corner the program subse­ quently expanded to national television as Mister Rogers' Neighbor­ hood. These initial efforts were given an enormous boost with the appearance of Sesame Street in November 1969, and in its wake have come other programs of significance, offering other perspectives and methods- Electric Company, Mi Casa, Su Casa, Big Blue Marble,

Children's Television

95

Villa Alegre, Carra Scolendas, and many others. Worth noting is the fact that some of these programs have benefited from extensive advice from mental health professionals. Psychologists Gerald Lesser, Ed Palmer, and others advised on Sesame Street, and Mister Rogers has had the advice of psychologist Margaret McFarlane.

Sesame Street was an experimental program, developed by the Children's Television Workshop with the aid of grants from the Carnegie and Ford Foundations. Since it was developed without the usual need of children's television to sell products, great innovation and flexibility resulted, compared with the usual car­ toon fare. A pioneer in the development of new techniques and methods intended to educate young viewers, Sesame Street demon­ strated that positive learning on several levels-cognitive, affective, and attitudinal-can result from a format that is both entertaining and engaging.12 Partly because this program was innovative in a number of ways, partly because it began at a time when educa­ tional television was held in low esteem and new initiatives were badly needed, and partly because the program assertively under­ took to teach material felt to be important to young children, Sesame Street was widely hailed as a milestone in education as well as in television. The program offered a means of preparing preschoolers for formal education. For children whose disadvantagement threat­ ened lifelong learning handicaps, Sesame Street promised to inter­ vene in the cycle.

Sesame Street did break ground in many areas. The program developed methods for enhancing perceptual and symbol­ recognition skills. It broadened vocabulary and introduced many concepts new to preschool children. The program attacked racism through its careful casting and role playing. It engaged viewer par­ ticipation through adroit use of studio audiences similar in age to the television audiences, and it presented new material in familiar contexts, easing the transition from the known to the unfamiliar.

Although Sesame Street is in many ways an oasis in the desert of television, its actual impact on the educational growth of young children-especially disadvantaged children-is in doubt, accord-

96

The Child & Television Drama

ing to the published evidence. An early study by Ball and Bogatz suggested that children encouraged to view Sesame Street did watch and did demonstrate learning gains over relatively short (six­ month) periods. 13 Cook and others challenged those findings in a subsequent analysis.U In effect, while the latter study team found that children who viewed more did gain more, they also found that much of the gain was caused not by high viewing itself, but by natural maturation and environmental factors. They found, more­ over, that the more socially advantaged children made larger gains.

Thus, rather than closing the gap between the disadvantaged chil­ dren and their more fortunate peers, Sesame Street seemed uninten­ tionally to be increasing it. In fact, Liebert observes, one study showed that the first year of Sesame Street produced gains only for advantaged chii den . 15 At the same time, in spite of its failure to live up to the high expectations that surrounded its inauguration, Sesame Street has generated new interest in the educational potential of television, and, as noted, has inspired the development of a number of other significant programs. These, like Sesame Street, have much promise, which time and experience will assess.

Some concerns. We are, however, concerned about the ap­ proaches used in some of these programs. The rapid-fire tech­ niques of presentation used do seem to increase the retention and recall of sounds and words among children who might not have learned them otherwise, but it is not clear that long-range learning goals are best served when the child learns the sounds and words in contexts unrelated to readiness for reading. Too many concepts, perhaps, are introduced too quickly. To facilitate reinforcement and useful integration with other learning, concepts should be re­ peated in different contexts. Rapidly paced, marginally compre­ hensible sequences can be confusing and may be damaging as well.

These sequences are intended to attract and to hold attention, but they show no concern for the slower paced processes of reflection and integration and little recognition of the varying needs and

Children's Television

97

abilities of different individuals in various developmental phases.

Make a Wish, for instance, frequently alternates a several-minute segment of informative narrative, such as a person narrating slowly, with several minutes of rapid-fire, multisensory program­ ming. In the verbatim transcript of the auditory part of a two-minute segment on mountains, a double dash (--) stands for the word ''mountain'': Mountain, -- goat, -- laurel, -- summit, -- bear, rugged, Russia --, range, Tetons, -- Rushmore; Black Hills, history, heads of our presidents carved out granite cliff, chip off the old block; Mountain!

(A poetic description of mountains follows for a few seconds at a slower pace. Original pace returns.)

Mountain standard time, -- passes, -- peak, -- peek, -- states, Montana, -- lion, roar, reaches for stars and make men reach.

(There then follows a slow-paced sequence for several minutes of a man talking of his feeling for the mountains around Taos, New Mexico.)

The rapid stimulation is not only in the script. It is multimodal.

All at the same time, visual image, sound, and print stimulate young viewers to grasp complexity as quickly as they can. Very likely, this barrage confuses the child and obscures the message. An example often cited comes from commercials aimed at children. An exciting picture of an attractive toy appears, and an enthusiastic announcer describes it. Meanwhile, the words "batteries not in­ cluded" or "each part sold separately" are shown in fine print, there to be seen but neither perceived nor understood by the young child.

On the basis of analysis of the formal features of children's tele­ vision programming, Huston and others concluded that "[com­ mercial children's programs] would appear to be intended for a particular type of child viewer whose attention must presumably be captured and held by constant action, change, noise, visual on­ slaught, as well as slapstick violence." 16 Concerning the effects of this rapid, multimodcl approach, Singer reports that the high-fre-

OƹXɗ _ ĺ -ɗ ĔɄ"ȳDž ɗ ǥ ĚǦ ǭ¸ɗ Ä = ȃ K ɗ dž # ɗ + ɗ ɗ ɗ ó ȄĻ Ƃ ɗ 7 V ɗ ļ Y ɗ Ľ ɗ X gƘ ɗ $ɗ9 Ù~h ɗÚ Ƀ=ȅľ ɗÒô ɗ ) ?ɗ WLJ y ¹ɗ J.mɗ ɗēƺƐƑƭ*,Lj ɗP Ɇ ɗƻĿƮ. õljpîɗŀƝɗȆĤpɗm, ŁÓ,ǧÏȇ,ɗ,ćĘNJȈɗ 0 ɗ )Ė Njɗ ł nj \zƯ ɗ nɗ ƃ ¥ɗ Ǎ>Ƅ`Ń -ɗ )(ɗ ɗ Ƽ4{Ǯ!{ !% ɗ Û Ôń ɔ !Ņ ɗ Nɗ ɗe ïɗ B Ü <ɗ c Fɗ 8ɗIņ Aɗ `ɗ ! ɗ: Ň8| ɗV ưěǎ #¦ɗ ň1ɗ ʼnǯɗ 5 ) F ƞFɗ F ɗǏ ƽ !ɗ "ĥ ɗ Ý Ĝ ȉ} §ɗ \ ƅ¨ɗ Ɵ$ɗ ÞŊ ɗ Ơ $ ɗ 2ɗ &ŋ Ō ɗ Ĉɗ ȊĦ ɗ £a ¤ɗ ō I <ɗ Å ǐ _ Ǒ©ɗ Ŏĉɗ ȴ ȋ ɗ w # ɗ E ɗ Ȍ ɗ Õ>ɗ %ƒ ĕɅƆɗ ȍ ɗ Ȏħ ɗ ß ŏƇ ǒ (ɗ I@ ɗ ö÷ðɗ ɐȏǨ ɗ Ȑ5'ȵ ơɗ ɗ Ĩ%C b ɗ Ǔ>ɗ ' 9 ɗ ƀr ɑɗ : ɗ ɗ ɗ ȑ ŐZő ɗ ¡ ǔ b!@ ɗ q 9ɗ ɗ Œ ~ ɗ uɗ ɗ àĩœD Ǖ ªɗ Ŕ ɗ ǖȒ áȶƈ Ǘ«ɗ ȷ ɗ - ŕ øɗ ɗ ǰ - ɗ uɗ 7 -Y # <ɗ

Á9ɗ ĪŖ ȓ ŗ 09¬ɗ ɋ ɗ īf ɗ ɗ â gƉɗ Ř 0 YrDZȔɗ ř(ɗ ]4 ɗ 6Ʊ Dz5Ö5 ȕ ɗ " Ȗɗ 0 Ɠ ɗã ɗ ɗ Ʋ ?ɗ Ś Ɍ E ɗ0Ƴɗ h ɗ ɗ ȸȗɗ]Ĭ ś ɗ đĒ =ɕ !Ŝɇ ɗ ^E ­ɗ /7ɗĊ% & Ƣ? ºɗ Ç / ɗ ' ? Șɗ Dƾɗ /VC ɗ C ǩ ɗ i /ȹ1ɗ É. ®ɗ *ĭjșɗ ù ,ǘÊ dzɗ ŝ;¯ɗ ƣ2ɗ x ɍɗ ; ɗ . ɗ SGɗ Ş ɗ &Nɗ 3ɗ ɗ ;AúǙ »ɗ Æs y ɗ Gɗ + ȺD3ɗ 4qƔ6ɗ W Ɗ ɗ ] ɗ H ñ 7Ǵ 3ɗ ƚƿ Ț ɗ 3ɗ Iɗ0 ɗ Ɉ D ɗ 2ɗȻǵ%ɗŽ ¼ɗÈĮ ɗ6 Ƌ ɗ țɗş ɉ ǚ ¢ɗ ĝtɗŠ ɗ ì 8 ɗǛ B į 8ɗ Ƥ ɗx Ɏɗ; ɒɗ vİȜɗ × ɗ' v ɗ ǜ ɗ i Ƕ)ɗ ɗ ȝ ƌ ɗǀ ĞǝK ' -ɗ+ HT$ɗ Z<ɗ d ɗ ɗ/ ɗš# Ȳ ƥ ɗ ǁƴǷǸŢØż ţȞŤûǹɗ ťƦɗ ȟıŦ ɗ kǞüËɗ ƛŧğPȠɗ Ũ íƕȼoýɗ ƍþkǪ ũƧĠɗ IJƵ*ɗ ȡƶɗ oÿÌƎɗ * ȢPɗ MƷ.Oƙ M;ɗ 2ɗ2ŪėĀ ɗ Bƨɗ ä 8 MȣRɊ ɗ * ¢ ɗ ɗ U*ɗ Ȥ ɗ J ɗ*ūȥijɗ ȦŬ ɗ ċ Ɩŭ ɗ H=Ĵɗ Ǻɗ ĵ ȧRƗŮ!a°ɗ a±ɗž & ^ǻ ²ɗ &/ S ³ɗ ů OĆɖ ŰȨɓ´ɗ ÐnāǃȽ `µɗ e 3ɗ Č ɗ Nɗǟ ſ å1űƸ ɗ ɗ %Ǽ CčɗÍ ɗ Q Ǡǽ½ɗ ÃǫjƜ :Ųæɗ Ʃ : ɗ Rģ ɗ ɗȩƪȪ ɗ ę ɗ}&ƏȾ "ǡ ȫtɗ ɗ 6[ çĶ T ų+Ñɗ Ŵ[Ǿȿ ǿɗ ɗ @ Ǣ L ɗGs èAɗ ' ȬķB.ġɗ L "ɗ "ĸĂ ¾ɗ c "ɗ 14 ɗ " l@ Ģɗŵ ɗ ) ɗ " ɗ \A ɗ S ɗ ǣ ȭŶéɗ6ɀ7 [ăɗ J( ¶ɗ Ȁɗ ¡ ɗ _ ɗ UL Ǭ $·ɗ ɗ Ď1 ƫɗ T> òŷ w¿ɗ d Ÿ Ƭɗ #Ź 4 ɗ 1 ' Gź+ ɗ | Ɂ : Ȯ ɗ ȯĹ ɗ ɏÎ ȁɗ Q%ɗ ê)## ɗ Ż ! E Ǥ K&ɗ Ȃ ȰH ȱz ɗ ë (ɗ Ąɗ WX $ɗ ɗ Q ɗ l ( ąDŽɂ (+ Zɗ ďɗ f 5 ^ ɗ ǂ U Àɗ ÂɗƁ $ɗ Đɗ

102

Tiu Child & Television Drama

REFERENCES 1. Sr.ow, R.P. "How Children Interpret TV Violence in Play Con­ text." Joumalism Quarterly, 1974, 51, 13-21.

2. Lublin, Joann S. The Television Era, Wall Street Journal, 19 October 1976, p. 1.

3. Schramm, W., Lyle, J., and Parker, E.B. TELEVISION IN THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1961.

4. Singer, J.L., and Singer, D.G., "Can TV Stimulate Imaginative Play?" journal of Communication, 1976, 26, 74-80.

5. David.son, E.S., and Neale, J.M. "Analyzing Prosocial Content on Entertainment TV." Paper presented at the American Psychologi­ cal Association, New Orleans, La., September 1974.

6. Stein, A.H., and Friedrich, L.K. "Television Content and Young Children's Behavior." In G.A. Comstock and E.A. Rubinstein (Eds.), TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972, pp. 202-317.

7. Friedrich, L.K., and Stein, A.H. "Aggressive and Prnsocial Tele­ vision Programs and the Natural Behavior of Preschool Children."

Monographsfor the Sociery for Research in Child Development, 1973, 38 (4), Serial #151.

8. Sprafkin, J.N., Liebert, R.M., and Poulos, R.W. ''Effects of a Prosocial Televised Example on Children's Helping." Public Opinion Quarterly, 1975, 21, 119-126.

9. Liebert, R.M., Sprafkin, J.N., and Poulos, R.W. "Selling Coop­ eration to Children." In W.S. Hale (Ed.), PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE OF THE ADVERTISING RESEARCH FOUNDATION, New York: Advertising Research Foun­ dation, 1974, p. 108.

10. Stein, A., and Friedrich, L. "Impact of Television on Children and Youth." In E. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

11. Collins, W .A. ASPECTS OF TELEVISION CONTENT AND CHILDREN'S SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Institute of Child Development, 1974.

12. Lesser, Gerald s. CHIT.OREN AND TELEVISION: LESSONS FROM

Children's Television

103

SESAME STREET. New York: Random House, 1975.

13. Ball, S., and Bogatz, G.A. THE FIRST YEAR OF SESAME STREET. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

14. Cook, T.D., Appleton, H., Conner, R., Shaffer, A., Tamkin, G. and Weber, S.J. SESAME STREET REVISITED: A STUDY IN EVALUA­ TION RESEARCH. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975.

15. Liebert, R.M. "Evaluating the Evaluators. Review of 'Sesame Street Revisited,' by T.D. Cook, H. Appleton, R. Conner, A. Shaffer, G. Tomkin, and S.J. Weber." journal of Communication, 1976, 26, (2), 165-171.

16. Huston, A.G., Wright, J.C., Wartella, E., Rice, M.L., Watkins, B.A., Campbell, T., and Potts, R. "Communicating More than Content: Formal Features of Children's Television Programs."

Journal of Communication, 1981, 31 (3), 46.

17. Singer, J.L. "Tdevision, Imaginative Play and Cognitive Develop­ ment: Some Problems and Possibilities." Invited address to the Division of Educational Psychology, American Psychological Asso­ ciation, San Francisco, Calif.: 1977.

18. Tower, R.B., Singer,D.G., Singer,J.L., and Biggs, A. "Differen­ tial Effects of Television Programming on Preschoolers' Cognition, Imagination and Social Play." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1979. 49. (2), 265-281; Singer, D.G. "Television and Imag-inative Play." Journal of Mental Imagery, 1978, Vol. 2 (1), 145-164.

19. Spivack, George and Shure, Myrna B. SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1974.

20. Shure, Myrna B. and Spivack, George. PROBLEM-SOLVING TECHNIQUES IN CHILDREARING,San Francisco: jossey-Bass, 1978.

104

The Child & Television Drama

6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDELINES

Each day, countless decisions are made about television. Adver­ tisers decide what to sponsor, networks decide what to offer, producers and writers decide how to present material, and viewers everywhere decide what and how much they and their children will watch. On the assumption that detrimental as well as beneficial consequences are minimal and thus beneath notice, millions of these decision makers ignore the existing evidence and opinion.

Many people assume that what is known is so inconclusive as to outweigh any concern which the knowledge might provoke. We, too, would like to see more convincing and more scientific studies.

But we believe that it is neither necessary nor desirable to wait for more conclusive evidence. We know enough now to improve the quality of our decision. Aside from the fact that some of the evidence may be long in coming, we feel a sense of urgency about our society and the children we are bringing into it. While the evi­ dence is accumulating, we continue to make decisions daily-what to air, how to present it, and what to watch.

Our special focus on children and the cumulative effects of dramatic programming, coupled with our knowledge of child development and currently available programming, lead us to make recommendations to three key groups. First, we offer guide­ lines for parents. Doing so, we recognize that the burden of inter­ vention can never rest solely with parents and that, in fact, some parents, because of social and economic handicaps, lack of knowl­ edge, or other personal conditions, may have great difficulty inter­ vening. In particular the pressures on a single parent may present obstacles to effective monitoring of his or her child's viewing habits.

These conditions highlight the role of the helping professions. We therefore direct a series of recommendations to mental health pro105

Ć Ǣ J = ɏ ɏ ( ɏ ħ ɏ ŷɏ ɏ " ƿ ɏ Ɩ ɏ Ě+ĸ Ĺ Wɏ ±Ɨéɏ É E Ȫ ɏ Dz : Sĺ 9 ɏ C ɏ ȫ ɏ ɏ 'ĝ Gŵ] =dzɏ " f|Ȭ Ƙ ɏ ɏ ǣ Ļ2 $ɏ ɏ ɏ ž ɏ öɏ Qɏ ěǀ ɏ ɏ 3 + ļ ɏ IƸ1ɏ 0ȭ)ſl*ɏ 0OzĽÕ$Ɍ ; Ÿ ©ɏ ´m>CN $ ɏ ɏ ż ɏ ^ + Ǵľ/! ɏ ɏ 3ɏ ɏ ;CŽ2ɏ F ' K ɏ Ŀ ɏ h ɏ ǵ3 Tn ŀƭ ɏ Ł Ȯ Ƕǁ$ªɏ ¹ L-ɏ _ǂ ' ÷ɏ ɏ Ê# ł ɏ F Ń ń ɏ fȧ 1ɏ [wƀ ɏ 0ǃ ɏ Zƙêɏ n=Ę{ȯ ƚÖ ɏ Ɖ ɏ @ ɏ & 7 Ņ > ɏ hL× ɏ ¼DŽ4 Ƿ ɏ ƛ&ɏ` o %- ɏ< s ɏ ) ȰǸɏǹ ' ņ ɏ %ɏ ɏ& 9 M ɏ mØĨɏ ɏ + s ɏ ) Ǻɏ ɏ ɏ Ɓƹɏ ( }ɏ Ň ɏ y S "Ʈ Xɏ

² ɏ .k ɏ ȱË Jaɏ Ì ɏ ) ɏ t ň " ɏ ɏ =¡ɏ + !ɇɏ ¢ɏ c `ʼn Ɉɏ ǻĩcɏ 0½Dž Ɯ ɏ ćɏ U ɏ ÙĪŶ%14Ɲ£ɏ ƞɃ7 Ȳ ƂUɏ ŊǼɏ ɏ #ǽ^ ~ Wɏ · $ɏ Ə ɏǾ6 ɏǿ6 ɏ ȳw ɏ ĈɏȀ ɏ 2) ȁ ɏ Ŵx ɏÍ ɏ ɏ ¾ ëɍ Î Źɏ ĉɏǙȽƃ3 ɏ ,&ɏ O*5 1 Ǥɏ 6/ ɏA ɏ 9Ɗ ɏdž Ú ɏ -ɏ 8 ɏ( ɏ ! Ğ ŋT ɏ ĔĕøE ǥɏ Ċɏ ȩj ɏ Û ŌNì ɏ Ȃ Ƅ ōǦŎ/ ɏ ȿŏ Ő! «ɏ ¸ÅǞȃɏ Ưċɏ Qīő ɏ LJ ]. !ɏ ɏĜ ɏ ùɏLj y# . !Ü ɏưČɏ< $ɏ lj ɏȄ ɏ _ź u & ɏ ɏ ȴzȨKƐ ȅ ɏ GÆE °ɏ Ȇɏ 6 $ɏ ɏ ƺ ! DNɏ ?e ŒÏ8 (œ ɏ o §¿¨SM ɏ . ɏ Ƌ "ǧŔ ɏ ¬ɏ Y ~ ɏ NJ Ɵ ɏ ?ɏ . ɏ Ĭ ɏ ŕ. í ɏ Hǟ }ɏ Ŗ ɏNj2 ) p $­ɏ ºi ɏ +ɏ ȇ ɏ # ɏ Ȉ À ɏ ú"njɏ ÝĭŗƅF ɏ AƠɎ #0 PTŘ îɏ { ř Ś ɏ @ÞĮś, ɏŜ ɏơ ' ɏȉ ɏ\ûɏß àüǚƬ %ɏ Ð #Ȋ¤ɏ Ǎɏ Rį[ȋɏ Ǩ áŝýȌɉɏ Ʊǎɏ ȍİþɏ ÿɄƻĀǏȎǩ ɏ ȵğıȏɏ R ɏ ï ɏ ǪƲƑāRIJŞƢĠɏ ÁÑƳȶ ɏ ȐijĂɏ ȷƣǫÂȑşǬēÇâȒƴǐɊɏ Ƽ? ġǛDƒƓŠƤĢɏ čɏ ȓjăɏ ƥdȔ ƵǑŻǭBɏ ³ȸȕɏ ȖĴdɏ šƦðŢɀţñȹDƍɏ e>( xɏ ƽ Ò tqȗɋɏ p ɏȘ ¥ɏ >&ɏ8 ɏ ƔAǮșɏ Ó ɏ Ʌ aŤǯ ò®ɏ » ɏ * ,@ Ɇ(ɏ 9 ɏ ' ɏ : ¦ɏ ãK : ɏ $ #Ƨgɏ : Vɏ ɏ Ț u ť Ŧ ƨɏ & ȺÔț %ƆUɏ M,G|ȻĄ,ä5 ɏ Ȝ ɏ " *(ɏ Ďɏ ȝ ɏ 7 ɏ Ɂ ó¯ɏ Y/bŧÈɏ q å '/ ɏ A?ŨƩgɏ ôɏ ďQ ɏ Ȟb L ģɏ vȟ ǒ ɏ ɏ OĤP ; ɏ 8 !ũHræ !* ɏ ɏ ɏ Ū " "õȼ ƌBɏ ¶ ɏ ūƪ ɏ Ŭ ɏ ƾ#ŭ@ ɏ %ŮĖė Ǔ Ƞɏęǡ ɏ ȡɏJ ɏ #v&ɏ ɂ ɏ\ ɏ %ɏ ĵ ɏ -ǰ ɏ ÃȢçk4 ɏ ɏ ɏ -Ʒ ǔ ƕɏ Ƈƶ Xɏ µ ɏ ɏ < Ǝ ɏ ůƈ Vɏ ɏ ɏ Ű 5ɏ - DZ * ɏ Đɏ ɏ ȣɏ Ǖɏ ɏ Äǖąƫ ɏ Ir P ɏ % Ǘű ɏ ɏ IǠl Ķ 5 Ų, ɏ 1 ĥǘZ;ɏè !ɏ Ȥ7 4ɏ i ɏđ HȾ ɏų< ȥɏ ĒɏȦķ ɏ ǜ Ħǝ Bɏ

110

The Child & Television Drama

conversation with others, books to read and to be read from, and adventures, trips, and visits. Assess the quality and quantity of play, both together with friends and alone, and opportunities for imagination, fantasy, and make-believe. Be alert to excessive imi­ tation or mimicking of television characters and other indirect influ­ ences, such as nightmares.

Evaluate what the child is watching Watch television with the child, and notice the kinds of programs he or she is choosing. Consider the following questions in regard to each program: Does the program appeal to the audience for whom it was

intended? Is it appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child? (Some programming designed for children may not seem appropriate for certain children. Other programs, i.e., The lncredib/,e Hulk, may be very much in demand by seven-year-olds, even though these children have frequent nightmares and sleeplessness after viewing.)

Does the program present racial or ethnic groups positively? Does it show them in situations that enhance the minority group's image or the minority viewer's se!Vimage, or does it parrot stereotypes?

Does the program present sex roles and occupational adult roles fairly? (Who has the lead role? Who is the professional or leader, and who is the villain? Are the men either superheroes or incom­ petents? Are the women flighty and disposed to chicanery? Are teenagers portrayed with adult characteristics?)

Does the program present conflict that the child can understand, and does it present positive, nonviolent techniques for resolving conflict?

Does the program stimulate constructive activities, and does it enhance the quality of the child's play?

Does the program separate fact from fiction? Does it separate

Recommendations & Guirklines

111

advertisements from program content?

Is the humor at the child's level, or is it adult sarcasm or ridicule, or an adult's memory of childhood amusements?

Does the pace of the program suit the readiness and developmental level of the child, allowing him or her to absorb the material presented?

Does the program present social issues that are appropriate for the child viewer, and is there something that the child can do about them? (A program discussing atomic fallout might be inappropriate, while a program on litter prevention and keeping the streets clean would be more suitable.)

Set a limit on the amount of viewing Irrespective of program quality and appropriateness, the child may be watching too much television in a given day, week, or month.

Decide how much he or she should watch in a given period.

Monitor and share in the child's viewing experiences Continue to observe the child's viewing behavior, and be alert to any effects of the program content. Accompany the child when the program is likely to be particularly frightening or upsetting. Dis­ cuss his or her reactions, raise and answer questions, and encour­ age him or her to raise questions. Revise schedules and choices as needed.

Using such a checklist, parents can judge the appropriateness of particular progams for particular children. Then, as necessary, parents can assist the children, through discussion, alternative activities, and setting limits or conditions, to develop more desir­ able television viewing habits and to make better use of what they view. Action for Children's Television, an articulate public interest

114

The Child & Television Drama

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS Many parents, unfortunately, cannot fulfull the responsibility to provide a range of stimulating activities for their children. For these parents and their children, television often becomes the only avail­ able stimulation. Schools, other community agencies, and those of us who counsel parents can help fill this void in cultural enrichment and also can educate children and parents about television.

Television is a major source of social and cultural information, particularly for some families. A broader public awareness of nega­ tive consequences of extended viewing, as well as the possibilities and opportunities in positive programming for all children, will enrich the public dialogue. As psychiatrists, we share with other mental health professionals the responsibility to ensure that this dia­ logue continues to focus on the special needs of the disadvantaged child who may view for such long hours and with so few alternatives.

Beyond this special trust, we bear the responsibility to share our observations about television and to participate in the public dialogue about its best uses, effects, and social implications. Given the economics of contemporary commerce and the stranglehold it has on programming choices, enlightened public discussion may be the best route to change. More widespread information and knowl­ edge about television as a psychosocial issue will certainly mobilize great concern among parents, teachers, and other citizens. One result of our articulating the psychosocial issues will be a more sophisticated public. Simplistic views will be more readily chal­ lenged, such as the view that television advertising for young chil­ dren is acceptable and harmless. People will come to know that children are highly susceptible to suggestion and not yet intellec­ tually competent to assess the truth or significance of what they hear and see on television. People will realize that this limitation has implications for what ought to be considered acceptable adver­ tising for children, if, indeed, any advertising at all is acceptable. 3

Recommendations & Guideliries

115

Eventually, we must aim to make people aware that television's overall role in the socialization of children (and adults as well perhaps) is too important to take for granted. With better under­ standing of this remarkable phenomenon, people will be less likely to ignore the negative consequences of television or to assume that they are insignificant.

As a part of this process, special interest groups may form, working in the name of the public. Their concerns, wise or other­ wise, strongly stated and vigorously advocated, may be distressing to some but will nonetheless lead to a greater sophistication about television and to more responsible decisions on the part of our society.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PUBLIC POLICYMAKERS While much of this report focuses on the possible detrimental effects of prolonged television viewing, we wish to add some comments about what this powerful medium of mass education might do to fulfill its potential for individual and social good.

First, however, we must consider the economics of the industry and suggest some innovations which might free the enormous pool of talent in the industry to devise more creative programming.

Surely the resistance of the networks, producers, and writers to making fuller use of psychosocial knowledge must come from their struggle to obtain and hold the largest possible audience. The economics of the industry is intimately tied to the popularity of the programming. No matter how sympathetic, interested, or knowl­ edgeable a particular writer or producer might be about the nature of children's thinking and emotional and aesthetic needs, the requirement of commercial television to attract a huge audience subordinates all other considerations. Unless or until this require-

DŽȒË Ȓ3 Ȓ å ǴJ ȒƇ:Ȓ D Ę ?ȒDž Ȓwęř Şp ȒƳ ƴȒ Ȓ Ȓ $P Ȓ dž ƚŚ ?Ȓ ëȒHP Ě;Ȓ Ȓ> Ũœ$q Ȓ * Ȓ ě kȒ LJ ĜƛȒ ŵȒ - Y ǵ# Ȓ Ƕş ȒǷ Ȓ ! Ȓ $j GȒ4;ĝ Gr ȒO -Ȓ 4) !Ȓ"aŜ *ć Ȓ ȃ ȒLjĊƈ Ȓ x $ Ȓ lj Ȓ ċ " Ȓ æũ}¦e Ğ B`Ȓ ³9Ȓ & ȒNÅ Ȓ MȒ Ǹ Ȓ ¹8Ȓ NJğ Nj Ȓ< Ū Ġ + & Ȓ d . 7Ȓ Ì 7 Űp Ȓ 8 Ȓ Ə; B ~ B Ȓ Ȓ ( º C kġƐȒ l $Ȓ " 2Ȓ@çȒ )ìąK ū$Ȓ ƜȒ Ģű,Ɖ Ȓ ģÇŠ Ȓ ƊȒ b| Ȓ Ȓ/W Ȓ + .Ĥ UȒ íȒ Ȍ Ȓ. Ȓ Í Ȓnj Ȓ ȄLƝ ħ* Ȓ ĨǍm +Ȓ Ȓ s= ŶȒ ĩǎǹ Ī ŷ§Ȓ µ Ȓ Ǐ ƑȒ v Ȓ îȒ. ȅĥ Ħ +Ȓ Ʈ ĉ 0š Ȓ@ Ȓ Ȓ - Ȓ Ǻe ǐ%! uI}ŢȍȒ & Ȓ ƒǻ@ ī4Ȓ ăȁŸ Ĭ!iȒĀ ƞȒ,Ɵ iƠ%"Ȓ # ơÎ ¡Ȓ ]Ɠ X Ź Ǒ5 ¢Ȓ Ȓ > F ź.`Ȓ¯Ż ǒm Ȓ Ǽ àȒ3 Ȓ Ȓ y 1 Ȓ Ȓ Fè4ĭ% Ȓ [ ]Ȓ *Ȓ K Ƣ, Ȓ y Į +Ȓ # ĆǓ ¨Ȓ °Ȓ ǔ) żȒ ïȒ Ȓ ( 1 D/ ȒÏ 0z Ȓ3 Ȓ0 Ȓį Ȓ F % Ȓ AȒ ] Ƶ Ž Ȓ d6 4Ȓ# ƶ \ Ȓ Ȓ ǽƔ 57 ©Ȓ ¸İ S7Ȓ Q Ȓ Ų £Ȓ Ȓ V ƣǕȒ !Ȓ Ȋ UȒ ðȒV/3 Ȓ ,( ;c , ÐtOŕfȒ Ƥ ǖ B Ȓ ñȒ * Ȓ Q 0 Ȓ È Ȓ á): Ȓ : Ȓ # »( ČȒ DǗ Ȓ Ȓ Ȇ¼ \ Ȓ ' ^Ñ ıÒ zȒ Ȓ Ó cwȒ üý g Ȓ òȒ ǘ { = Ʒ EªȒ ¶ Ƹ ½<Ô ȒĄȂ Ȓ & Ǿţ ȒÉ Ȓ ƥ Cȑ Ȓ Ȓ 8 / Ȓ R Ȓ 3ŗ ǙIJ=ijH2Ȓ óȒ Ȓ <śȒ ! Ȓǚ Ȓ ' <ųĴ Ȓ C 9 ÿŖÕ ǛȒĵ8 Ȓ AȒǜ& Ȓ Ř ȒƕX ƋXĶ ķé Ȓ )$č)*Ȓ j Ȓ : GKĎȒ Ö ""0!t Ȏ«Ȓ

·ď Ȓ 9× Ȓ ôȒ Ť =ĸ s Ȓ ( Ȓ Ĺ Ȓ ŭ Ȓ Cǝ Ȓ āƎƲ Ȓ ƹȒ rǞƺȒ ؾ ahĺǟ2Ȓ ǠƌȒ Ʀ ȏȒ bDȒ žNŮĻÙǡȒ ļ Ȓ ^ƻȒ n ÚĐȒ J 'Ǣ\ Ȓ ǣo Ȓ EǤL< Ȓ EâȒ Dzdz 9Ȓ AȒ n Ȓ>Ľ Ƨ ¬Ȓ±ƨI~ Ȓ0Ƽ YȒ Ȓ Wľ 2Ȓ õȒ 6 ǥ ȒǦ Ȓ Ŀ= ( Ȓ [đ ȒƖ Ʃ ƍ ȒOư "Ȓ¿Ȓh ſ Ûŀ / ȒI %G ƽƾȒ MȒ Ł Ȓ :ȒĒ ƪȒ 9Ȓťłö _Ȓ ē56 Ȓ %Ü$qȇÀ ĈȒ ûÆ ǧ%ZŃ ƿȒ ÁƀãȒ u ; ń! Ȓ Ȓ Ɨ ƫǀ ! Ȓ Ýf ǁŅ@ 6ŔH2Ȓ Ȓ Q Ȓ -Â" ǨSgȒ Ĕ Ŵ ­Ȓ ²#Ư ZV > Ȓ AȒ Ȓ ȋ ê Ȓ Ȓȉoņ PȒ Ȓ1 -Ȓ Y Ň ň| Ȓ l Ȓ ?Ȓ ǩ Ȓ > _Ȓ -ȒǪ& ȒM Ŧʼn ǂȒ Nþ Ȓ UȒ 1Ŋ Ɓ¤Ȓ .&LȒƙǿ ŧŋ 2Ȓ ÷Ȓǫĕ Ȓ ,# 7 Ȓ [Ė Z Ŭ1 Ȓ SǃȒ Ǭ +ǭ?Ȓ EäȒ Ȓ ǮŌ Ȓ R /x Ȓ Ő ®Ȓ Ê Ȓ 51 Ȓ Ȓ R ȒJė 5 ōÞ Ȓ øȒ' 8ǯŎ { ^ȒF Hŏ Ȓ'W ( ´ƆȒ ȀƬȒ 'TƂT ƃ¥Ȓ ' ÄŝTƄ Ȓ ƘÃƭǰőß 6 #ůȐȒ ĂƱ Ȓ Ȓ ŒƅDZȒ ùȒȈv Ȓ úȒ