COMMUNICATION
10.1177/009365002237830
Fujioka,
Austin • Family
RESEARCH
Communication
• December
2002
YUKI FUJIOKA
ERICA WEINTRAUB AUSTIN
The Relationship of Family
Communication Patterns to
Parental Mediation Styles
A telephone survey of parents (n = 216) of third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade children examined the relationship between reported family communication patterns and parental mediation styles. Concept orientation predicted parental
involvement in both positive (endorsements of TV messages) and negative
(counter-reinforcement of TV messages) mediation as well as critical discussion of a variety of issues with a child. Socio orientation predicted positive
mediation and was associated with coviewing, but it was not related to the
parental practice of either negative mediation or critical discussion. The
results suggest that parents with an open communication style are more likely
to make use of discussion-based intervention strategies applied to television. A
parent’s more control-oriented style translates into reinforcement of TV
messages.
Possible negative influences of media messages on children have long concerned parents, educators, policy makers, and scholars. In conjunction with
this concern, many have examined how parents influence children’s
responses to television messages (e.g., Atkin, Greenberg, & Baldwin, 1991;
Austin, 1993a; Corder-Bolz, 1980; Krcmar, 1996; Nathanson, 1999). Although
a number of studies have examined parental influences, we still know little
about parents’ motivations for discussing media messages or the results of
such discussions.
The literature on media effects suggests that parents have four major
routes by which they can modify the effects of television messages. These
include intentional activities such as (a) making restrictions on a child’s TV
viewing and (b) active mediation via critical discussion of television
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Vol. 29 No. 6, December 2002 642-665
DOI: 10.1177/009365002237830
© 2002 Sage Publications
642
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
messages with a child (Atkin et al., 1991; Austin, 1993a; Corder-Bolz, 1980;
Huston & Wright, 1996). Also included are more subtle, often unintentional
activities such as (c) the general style of communication patterns that exists
within the family and (d) the example parents set as models for children to
imitate (Desmond, Singer, Singer, Calam, & Colimore, 1985; McKechnie,
1977; McLeod & Chaffee, 1972; Medrich, 1979).
A sizable literature suggests that parents do not make extensive use of
existing means for intentional influence (e.g., Bower, 1973; Comstock, 1975;
Corder-Bolz, 1980; Lyle & Hoffman, 1972). The literature also suggests that
parents may not sufficiently recognize the importance of their indirect methods of influence, frequently serving as poor role models or cultivating communication patterns within the family that do not help children develop effective
decision-making skills (e.g., Alexander & Fry, 1990; Austin & Nach-Ferguson,
1995; Flay & Sobel, 1983; Kandel & Logan, 1984). A variety of studies suggests that general discussion styles in the family (e.g., Andreasen, 1990;
Austin, 1993a, 1995; Krcmar, 1996) can help explain media-specific discussions and effects. More specifically, general styles may help explain the motivations for discussion along with the likely results of various discussion
strategies.
According to research on family communication norms, parents differ in
the style of communication they apply to parent-child interaction. Parental
communication can be located along two relatively independent dimensions:
(a) stressing the value of challenging ideas without much concern for controversy and (b) emphasizing deference and harmony and the avoidance of controversy (Chaffee, McLeod, & Atkin, 1971). This study explores how these
parenting styles are associated with parents’ use of more specific strategies
that tend to reinforce or counter-reinforce messages about television, known
as positive and negative mediation (Austin, Fujioka, Bolls, & Engelbertson,
1999; Austin, Knaus, & Meneguelli, 1998).
Family Communication Patterns (FCP)
The family communication patterns model (Chaffee et al., 1971; McLeod &
Chaffee, 1972) was developed specifically to aid the investigation of media
socialization issues. Scholars have found the FCP model useful for predicting
a variety of socialization outcomes in contexts such as public affairs, academic achievement, and persuasion. The model also has withstood critical
reexamination by a number of scholars (e.g., Ritchie, 1991; Ritchie &
Fitzpatrick, 1990; Tims & Masland, 1985). In particular, scholars have
explored ambiguities in the meaning of the constructs. For example, Ritchie
(1991; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990), expressing concerns consistent with
643
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
those of other scholars, argued that socio orientation inventory items may
measure parental control, the assertion of parental power, rather than harmonious relationships. They also noted that strategies associated with the
socio style of communication may not lead to a harmonious relationship.1
According to both Ritchie (1991) and Austin (1993b), socio orientation
reflects a desire for harmonious interpersonal relationships in the family,
and the measures may reflect the parent’s efforts to achieve harmony
through the emphasis of conformity and control. Accordingly, socio-oriented
parents report an interest in telling their children to avoid controversy and
arguments. In contrast, concept-oriented parents tend to consider communication a tool to convey and share views. Conflict, controversy, and resolution
all can occur through candid discussion. As conceptualized by Ritchie (1991),
who focused on the meaning of communication to each participant rather
than the goal of communicative acts as perceived by the parent, socio orientation represents strategies used by parents who want to protect the status quo
and is thus more internally focused. Concept-oriented parents focus on making their children capable of handling information and understanding the
world, thus reflecting a more external focus. Parents can embrace both of
these orientations, one but not the other, or neither.
McLeod and Chaffee’s (1972) conceptualization of two dimensions to communication style represented a contrast to the prevailing unidimensional
views of parenting style. For example, Baumrind (1968) conceived of a single
dimension that subsumed behavior management and communication characteristics. According to Baumrind, authoritarian parents seek strict obedience (control of power) from the child and discourage give and take (communication). Authoritative parents, however, might make rules but
demonstrate more openness to their child’s opinions and more willingness to
adjust their behavior accordingly, still reflecting an emphasis on power but
encouragement of communication (Baumrind, 1968). At the other end of the
continuum from authoritarian parenting, Baumrind referred to parents
deemphasizing power as permissive. Burleson, Delia, and Applegate (1995)
similarly summarized that control-based orientations emphasize imperatives and commands, discouraging open communication and reflection. Parents who use styles more focused on reflection enhancement tend to incorporate reasoning and explanation in their attempts to guide the child’s conduct.
Similar to the family communication patterns model, both theories conceptualize patterns of behavior management and the openness of discussion as
important elements. Unlike the FCP model, however, the Baumrind and
Burleson et al. models do not conceptualize them as separate but related
aspects of parental communication style.
644
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
The distinction between patterns of behavior management and openness
of discussion is especially relevant to the consideration of the relationship
between general parenting styles and media-related parenting strategies.
For example, patterns of behavior management should be related to the
extent to which a parent makes use of rule-making strategies or coviewing.
Openness of discussion should be associated with the extent to which a parent actively engages a child in critical discussion of television. Thus, it makes
sense that parents’ general style of communication should correspond to
their discussion patterns regarding specifically the media along two dimensions of behavior-management orientations and open discussion.
Relating Parenting Styles to
Parental Mediation of Television
Parent-child discussion patterns related to media often are referred to as
parental mediation, defined as the active discussion of television content
with a child (Austin, 1993a). Mediation is conceptually distinct from other
parental behavior such as coviewing (watching a television program with a
child) and rule making (prohibiting certain television programs for a child).
Mediation has been considered an important role for parents (Austin et al.,
1999; Nathanson, 1999), helping children (a) determine whether and how
television presents the actual world (categorization), (b) decide whether to
endorse or condemn television messages (validation), and (c) obtain additional information that demonstrates the potential relevance of television
messages to real life (supplementation) (Austin, 1993a; Messaris, 1982).
Parental mediation can contribute to children’s understanding of persuasive
intent of television by immunizing them with skeptical or critical thinking
(e.g., Austin, 1993a; Austin, Pinkleton, & Fujioka, 2000).
Two dimensions of active discussion can be distinguished, called negative
mediation and positive mediation (Austin et al., 1999, 2000). Positive mediation refers to parental endorsement of television messages or portrayals,
whereas negative mediation refers to parental counterarguments or
contextualization of television messages. These mediation strategies differ
conceptually from other existing constructs such as restrictive mediation
(rule-making strategies) or coviewing (a parent and a child watch TV
together) in which parents do not necessarily engage in discourse with a
child.2
According to the Austin et al. (1999) conceptualization, parents may use
mediation that comprises positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or
a combination of the two mediation strategies. In general, parents tend to
645
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
engage in negative mediation when strongly concerned with media influence
on their child and/or when skeptical about media messages. In contrast, parents tend to use positive mediation when they possess a low level of skepticism and when they have positive attitudes toward television in general. Positive mediators are more likely to watch more television and coview with the
child but are less likely to discuss television content than negative mediators
(Austin et al., 1999). This coincides with Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, and
Marseille’s (1999) finding that children tend to watch more television overall
in families that participate in a lot of social coviewing.
Relating the FCP to
Positive Mediation
Scholars note that family norms and behaviors regarding television tend to
reflect general family norms and behaviors (Andreasen, 1990; Krcmar, 1996).
For example, families that tend to have rules about other things also tend to
have rules about television use. Similarly, Valkenburg et al. (1999) and Austin et al. (1999) both acknowledged that parents’ comments about television
do not always focus on content or provide critical commentary but instead
sometimes just reflect the natural extension of daily conversation. This type
of discussion would be more suggestive of positive mediation, whose nature is
sometimes described as unintentional or happenstance (Austin et al., 1999).
Negative mediation appears to require more intentional effort, with discussion focused on specific topics such as advertising techniques or portrayals of
violence.
Given the spontaneous nature of positive mediation, we would expect to
receive reports of positive mediation from both concept- and socio-oriented
parents. Although the styles of communication differ, both orientations represent some involvement in communication. Chaffee, McLeod, and colleagues (Chaffee et al., 1971; Chaffee, McLeod, & Wackman, 1973) demonstrated that parents who emphasize neither concept nor socio orientation
appear to have little input overall into their children’s lives. They described
this type of parent as “laissez faire,” indicating an overall lack of parental
influence. A parent’s emphasis on either communication style therefore suggests some involvement in communication, and it appears that the default
strategy of involvement regarding television is positive mediation.
Although both concept- and socio-oriented parents may use positive mediation, they may use it differently. In general, concept (communication) orientation is associated with an open mode of parent-child communication such
646
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
that parents and children express and exchange their ideas and opinions
freely and frequently. It follows, then, that concept-oriented parents would
disclose their reactions to television messages, both positive and negative,
while encouraging analytical discussion of television content with their child.
In fact, concept-oriented parents seem more likely to provide broader contextual information and use nondirective statements including questioning
about and commenting on what they see on television (Messaris & Kerr,
1983), consistent with the parenting patterns that cultivate reflective abilities (Burleson et al., 1995). Concept-oriented parents tend to disagree with
television messages and engage in critical discussion with a child (Messaris &
Kerr, 1983), not necessarily to seek children’s conformity or agreement but to
exchange and share opinions. Concept-oriented parents may, therefore, both
express themselves and also ask children’s opinions on television messages.
This open communication style would likely include some endorsement (positive mediation) of exemplary characters and behaviors and some counterreinforcement (negative mediation) of less desirable content.
Socio orientation is positively associated with positive attitudes toward
television and greater television use (Chaffee et al., 1971), characteristics that
also correspond to positive mediation (Austin et al., 1999). Socio-oriented
parents, however, may not have discussions as wide-ranging as those of
concept-oriented parents. In a family emphasizing harmonious relationships, media messages may instead represent opportunities to point out
things on which family members can agree. The control-oriented aspects of
socio orientation identified by Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990) and by Austin
(1993a) also seem predictive of positive mediation because families may use
the television as a tool for maintaining family harmony and conformity. This
prediction is consistent with Lull’s (1990) findings that families watch television together to accomplish a variety of things. One reason to watch together
is to enjoy each others’ company without much risk of conflict, consistent with
socio orientation’s goal of maintaining harmonious relations. Lull noted that
another reason can be to give family members such as parents the opportunity to demonstrate power over the viewing experience, consistent with socio
orientation’s emphasis on conformity and parental control. Thus, television
coviewing and discussion can be inspired by varied motivations. This leads to
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Concept orientation will positively predict reported parental engagement in positive mediation.
Hypothesis 2: Socio orientation will positively predict reported parental
engagement in positive mediation.
647
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
FCP, Negative Mediation,
and Topic-Related Discussion
The styles of communication are expected to diverge in their relationships
with negative mediation. Considering the open mode of communication
between concept-oriented parents and their children, it is not difficult to predict a positive relationship between concept orientation and parental
engagement in negative mediation. The concept-oriented parents may
express their disagreement with what they see on television and invite a
child’s opinion. Or a child may express a feeling about a specific message or
portrayal, which may initiate active discussion, which may lead to negative
mediation. Moreover, concept-oriented parents’ tendencies toward skepticism should motivate them to engage in discussion-based negative
mediation.
Socio-oriented parents, however, tend to display their desire for more
control by means of explicit directives rather than through give-and-take
discussion (Carlson, Grossbart, & Walsh, 1990; Krcmar, 1996). Scholars
have suggested that this reflects a more authoritarian power structure in the
socio-oriented family (e.g., Desmond, Singer, & Singer, 1990; Krcmar, 1996;
Ritchie, 1991). Consistent with these scholars, we expect that socio-oriented
parents will behave in this way toward television. For example, Messaris and
Kerr (1983) reported that socio-oriented mothers of elementary school children were more likely to give directive comments about television than were
concept-oriented mothers but were less likely to engage in nondirective
kinds of discussion than were concept-oriented mothers. Thus, although
socio-oriented parents report watching more television than do conceptoriented parents, they may not speak up when they see something with which
they disagree, and if they do express disagreement, they will be less likely to
solicit their children’s opinions in an open discussion. Because Austin (1993a)
found socio orientation unrelated to a general index of parental mediation, it
may be that socio-oriented parents do counterreinforce some messages but do
not emphasize analytical discussion. As a result, we submit a research question on the relationship between socio orientation and negative mediation
along with a hypothesis regarding the relationship between concept orientation and negative mediation:
Hypothesis 3: Concept orientation will predict reported parental engagement in negative mediation.
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between socio orientation
and negative mediation?
648
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
That the concept-oriented communication style relates to open communication of issues seems clear from existing scholarship. It has been shown that
concept-oriented parents encourage children to express themselves and
engage in discussion of a variety of issues (e.g., Austin, 1993a; McLeod &
Chaffee, 1972). Moreover, according to Burleson et al. (1995), families emphasizing reflection enhancement tend to engage in more discussion overall. In
addition, relationships between concept orientation and communication
affect appear to exist, which may make concept-oriented family environments more conducive to the discussion of difficult issues. For example,
Krcmar (1996) reported that children of control-oriented (socio-oriented) parents were less likely to show positive affect—that is, warm expression—
toward their parent during decision making. Interestingly, however, control
(socio) orientation was unrelated to warm expression exhibited by the parents. Krcmar suggested that because socio-oriented parents had confidence
in their authority, they considered affect “irrelevant” to gaining a child’s
compliance.
Consistent with this view, Austin (1993a) found that a “warm” relationship between parent and child was associated with concept orientation but
not with socio orientation. Austin (1995) further reported that communication warmth, interaction serving the purpose of enjoyment and emotional
support (Austin, Roberts, & Nass, 1990), allowed the children to broach risky
discussion topics with their parents. Although Austin (1993a) found that
concept- and socio-oriented communication styles did not directly predict
communication confidence, the two studies together suggest an indirect relationship between concept orientation and openness through warmth from
the child’s point of view. Taken together with Krcmar’s (1996) study, these
data suggest a positive relationship between concept orientation and the discussion of various issues for the parent. These studies do not suggest that
socio-oriented parents care less about or feel less warm toward their children,
but they do suggest that these parents use more restricted patterns of communication. These restricted patterns appear to make children feel less comfortable discussing a wide-ranging array of topics, but these restricted patterns do not appear to lead parents to feel similarly inhibited.
Thus, existing scholarship suggests that:
Hypothesis 4: Concept orientation will predict more frequent parent-child
discussion of a variety of issues as reported by parents.
649
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
FCP Orientations, Coviewing,
and Use of TV Rating Systems
Although the primary interest of this study lies in the relationships between
overall communication styles and discussion styles regarding television, it is
nonetheless relevant to briefly consider relationships of communication style
and other aspects of parental involvement with media. Of the four forms of
parental involvement discussed previously, we have focused on one form of
intentional activity—active mediation via critical discussion of television
messages—and one form of more subtle or unintentional activity—the general style of communication patterns that exists within the family. We now
briefly consider the other form of indirect activity—the example parents set
as models for their children to imitate—and the other form of intentional
activity—that of making restrictions on a child’s TV viewing. More specifically, we offer two predictions regarding the likely associations between communication style and coviewing patterns along with the likely associations
between communication style and the use of a directive approach to management of the viewing environment.
It seems clear from previous research that positive attitudes toward television and frequent use of television are associated with coviewing (Alexander,
1990; Austin, et al., 1999). Coviewing refers to a parent and a child watching
television programs together. In fact, a relationship between socio-oriented
parenting and coviewing already has been demonstrated (Chaffee et al.,
1971). Parents who emphasize negative mediation tend to watch less television overall and therefore may coview less as well. Coviewing is not a necessary precondition for critical discussion of television (Austin et al., 1999), and
indeed coviewing tends to associate with greater viewing time and less critical viewing (Atkin et al., 1991; Chaffee et al., 1971, 1973; Desmond et al.,
1985; Medrich, 1979). It appears that the relationship between socio orientation and coviewing may be partly an artifact of opportunity. In other words,
this relationship may be a side effect of more viewing time overall in the family. Nevertheless, consistent with Lull’s (1990) findings regarding the social
uses of television, this relationship also may reflect the desire for harmonious
shared experiences in a controlled environment. This combination of factors
makes it likely that we will find a relationship between socio orientation and
coviewing, consistent with previous studies.
Hypothesis 5: Socio orientation will positively predict coviewing as
reported by the parent.
650
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Because of socio orientation’s apparent emphasis on directives and control, it would be informative to know whether socio-oriented parents use an
alternative strategy to express their disapproval of television through rule
making regarding television, particularly if they do not use much negative
mediation. Krcmar (1996) reported that when parents and children were
asked to select a TV program to watch, parents and children among conceptoriented families had consultations, whereas parents directed the decision
among socio-oriented families. Carlson et al. (1990) also found that controloriented parents tended to regulate children’s exposure to television. Both of
these findings suggest that socio-oriented parents may make particular use
of television advisory ratings. When Krcmar and Cantor (1997) compared the
role of television ratings in decision-making processes for both parents and
children, they found that parents mostly made negative comments about the
ratings (e.g., “We don’t like this show”) and used more commands (e.g., “Don’t
watch this”). Such comments are consistent with socio orientation, reflecting
the belief that the parent is the one who makes decisions about the television
shows their children will watch. This suggests that socio-oriented parents
may be particularly likely to consult the television ratings system. Thus, we
predict:
Hypothesis 6: Socio orientation will positively predict parental use of the
new TV ratings system in selecting programs for the child as reported
by the parent.
Methodology
Sample
A telephone survey (n = 216) was conducted with parents of third-, sixth-, and
ninth-graders in two Washington state communities. Those parents (60%
women, 40% men) whose child had completed an in-class survey prior to the
phone survey were asked to participate in the study using a randomization
procedure to obtain male and female respondents. The study obtained a 78%
response rate. The survey indicated that 62% of the respondents had completed college. The respondents’ family income was relatively higher than the
state median income, with 64% making more than $50,000 per year.
Although an overwhelming majority indicated they were White (90%), the
sample reflects the population of the state in terms of ethnic representation
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995).
651
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
Measures
The descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analysis, all of which
were based on self-reported perceptions of beliefs and behaviors, are displayed in Appendix A.
Socio (five items, alpha = .67) and concept orientations (five items, alpha =
.65) were measured by the traditional family communication patterns inventory (e.g., Tims & Masland, 1985) on 4-point scales (4 = often, 1 = never).
Positive and negative mediation were measured by the mediation questions used in Austin et al.’s (1999, 2000) studies. Positive mediation (six
items, Cronbach’s alpha = .64) and negative mediation (five items,
Cronbach’s alpha = .68) were measured on 4-point scales (4 = often, 1 = never).
Parent-child discussion (four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .70) was measured
by asking parents how often they talk about television, advertisements, and
health-related issues such as alcohol and tobacco using a 4-point scale (4 =
often, 1 = never).
Coviewing (five items, Cronbach’s alpha = .66) was measured by asking
how many days of the week they watch prime time, sports, educational TV,
news, and TV movies with their child.
In addition, five demographic variables, including child’s gender, child’s
grade (third, sixth, or ninth), parent’s gender, parent’s formal education
(highest education completed), and parent’s annual income, were measured
and used as control variables.
Analysis
All the hypotheses were tested via hierarchical regression. Five control variables (child’s gender, child’s grade, parent’s gender, parent’s income, and parent’s education) were entered first, followed by the independent variables entered
as a block. There were no significant relationships between demographic variables (child’s gender, child’ grade, parent’s gender, parent’s education, and
parent’s income) and either socio orientation or concept orientation in the
present sample except for one. Parent’s education (highest education completed) had a negative relationship with socio orientation, r = –.24, p = .001.
Because of the nature of the sample, which overall was highly educated
and included slightly more mothers (60%) than fathers, interaction of the
demographic variables (child’s gender and grade and parent’s gender, education, and income) and the independent variables (socio orientation and concept orientation) were assessed. The analysis was conducted through moderated regression in which all interaction terms were entered after the additive
effects of each predictor had been entered.
652
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Mean scores for all variables and indices used in the analysis are displayed in
Appendix A. Socio orientation and concept orientation were unrelated (r =
–.05, ns).
Hypothesis Testing
Results of hierarchical multiple regression tests of hypotheses are shown in
Table 1.
The test of Hypothesis 1 examined whether concept orientation would predict parent involvement in positive mediation. As predicted and as shown in
Table 1, higher scores on concept orientation did predict more frequent positive mediation, β = .22, t(175) = 2.98, p = .003.
Hypothesis 2 stated that socio orientation reported by parents would lead
parents to engage in positive mediation. As hypothesized, socio orientation
was found to be a significant predictor of positive mediation, β = .27, t(175) =
3.53, p = .001. Also, although unanticipated, the study found the interaction
between socio orientation and education (B = –.15, p < .05) a significant predictor for positive mediation, R2change = .02, F = 2.27, df = (2, 167), p = .11.
The overall equation including the interaction term reached R2 = .17, F (9,
167) = 3.78, p < .001.
Following the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991), we
obtained the slopes (unstandardized betas) for the socio orientation variable
at the high level (b = –.71) and low level (b = –1.32) of education. The educational level was determined by 1 SD below (low) or above (high) the mean
education level.
The test of Hypothesis 3 assessed whether concept orientation would predict parental involvement in negative mediation. As expected and as shown
in Table 1, higher scores on concept orientation did predict more frequent
negative mediation, β = .26, t(177) = 3.47, p = .001.
The test of the research question assessed the relationship between socio
orientation and negative mediation. Socio orientation was not related to negative mediation, β = .04, t(177) = .52, ns.
Hypothesis 4 stated that higher scores in concept orientation reported by
parents would predict more parent-child discussion of a variety of issues.
Consistent with the hypothesis, concept orientation was found to be a positive predictor of discussion, β = .19, t(176) = 2.59, p = .01.
653
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
Table 1
Results of Hierarchical Regression Tests of Hypotheses
Dependent Variables
Independent Variables
Positive mediation
Socio orientation
Concept orientation
Socio × Education
Socio × Concept
Negative mediation
Parent’s gender
Socio orientation
Concept orientation
Coviewing
Education
Child’s gender
Income
Socio orientation
Concept orientation
Discussion
Socio orientation
Concept orientation
TV ratings use
Education
Socio orientation
Concept orientation
R2 Change F Change
.11
10.57***
.02
2.27
.02
.07
3.95*
6.08**
.08
.03
.02
.06
Beta
df
F Probability
.27*** (7, 169)
0.22**
–.15*
(9, 167)
0.04
4.15***
.15*
.04
0.26**
3.95*
5.45**
(1, 177)
(3, 175)
14.32*** –.28*** (1, 174)
5.21*
–.16*
(2, 173)
5.12*
–.17*
(3, 172)
6.28**
.23** (5, 170)
.12
.04
3.76*
–.06
.19**
(2, 175)
.04
.07
6.38*
6.84***
–.19** (1, 173)
.28*** (3, 171)
–.02
3.78***
14.32***
9.94***
8.49***
7.92***
3.76*
6.38*
6.83***
Note. Control variables (child’s gender and grade and parent’s education and income) are entered
first using the stepwise procedure; thus, they enter only when they are significant. Standardized
betas reported from the block of entry. Independent variables entered using the forced entry procedure in a single block. Interaction terms entered using the forced entry procedure in a final block.
When interactions were examined, control variables were forced into a block previous to the interaction terms. Only the interaction statistics associated with a block that included statistically significant entries are reported, including a nonsignificant entry if it was entered in the same block as
a significant interaction. Higher number indicates higher, more frequent, or positive. Gender: male =
0; female = 1.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
The analysis also supported Hypothesis 5, which proposed that socio orientation would predict coviewing. As expected and as shown in Table 1, parents who were high in socio orientation watched television with their child
more frequently, β = .23, t(174) = 3.17, p = .002. Concept orientation was unrelated to parent-child coviewing, β = .12, t(174) = 1.67, ns.
The test of Hypothesis 6 examined whether socio orientation reported by
parents would predict parental use of the television ratings system in selecting television programs for the child. Consistent with the prediction, those
parents high in socio orientation tended to use the TV ratings system, β = .28,
t(173) = 3.68, p < .001. Being high in concept orientation had no influence on
parental use of the TV ratings system, β = –.02, t(173) = –.23, ns.
654
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Discussion
Research has suggested that parental input can effectively counteract possible negative influences of media messages on children while cultivating their
potential for positive effects. Research also has suggested that some types of
parental input can make worrisome media effects more likely. To understand
when and how parents make use of more or less productive strategies, it is
valuable to explore how mediation patterns reflect more general patterns of
communication within the family. As a result, this study examined the relationship between family communication style and parental use of different
mediation strategies.
Findings
To investigate the links between general family communication norms and
television-specific behaviors, this study tested hypothesized relationships
between family communication patterns constructs and parental mediation
strategies, coviewing, and the use of the new television ratings system. As
hypothesized, concept orientation predicted parents’ frequent use of both
negative mediation (counter-reinforcement of television messages) and of
positive mediation (endorsement of television messages) as well as frequent
discussion of issues more generally. Also as hypothesized, socio orientation
predicted frequent use of positive mediation and coviewing. No relationship
was predicted or found between socio orientation and discussion-oriented
behavior such as negative mediation or general discussion of issues. As
hypothesized, socio-oriented parents also reported more frequent use of the
TV ratings systems in TV program selection for the child.
General Implications
of the Results
Previous research on the effects of parental mediation has indicated that it is
discussion-based parental mediation more than coviewing or rule making
that helps equip the child with critical skills necessary to combat possible
negative media influence (Alexander, 1990; Andreasen, 1990; Austin, 1993a;
Austin et al., 1990; Nathanson, 1999). Discussion that encourages reflection
has been shown especially beneficial for children’s development of communication competence, which assists with problem solving, academic achievement, and self-control (Burleson et al., 1995). Unlike negative mediation, positive mediation appears to take place on a happenstance basis in response to
655
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
frequent enjoyment of programming (Austin et al., 1999; Valkenburg et al.,
1999). As a result, positive mediation appears to heighten potential persuasive effects of media messages, particularly to the extent it occurs together
with increased viewing and a less reflective strategy of parental discussion.
This seems to be confirmed by Austin and Chen’s (in press) and Austin et al.’s
(2000) findings that parental reinforcement of media messages was associated with increased students’ expectancies and desirability for drinking alcohol, which in turn related to more consumption of alcohol. The results of this
study relate these mediation strategies to socio and concept orientations,
which have previously been connected to media-related outcomes such as
persuadability and public affairs involvement. The findings suggest that
communication style and media-related effects are related partly as a function of how they translate into discussion strategies regarding media
messages.
Implications Regarding How Mediation
Strategies Reflect Family Processes
These results support the view that family communication styles provide a
consistent, sometimes subtle guide for a child’s behavior and information
seeking. In particular, the results of this study further confirm the utility of
the family communication patterns model when studying family life and the
media, even given the methodological and conceptual limitations discussed
by a number of scholars. The FCP constructs do appear to represent a communication structure that provides a frame of reference to family members to
guide the construction of social reality in new situations, as asserted by
McLeod and Chaffee (1972). These contexts include the child’s exposure to
and interpretation of television content.
For example, the results suggest that socio orientation can be seen as the
expression of a parent’s desire to seek conformity and quiescence through the
assertion of power and control over family members. This mode of communication appears to transfer to the ways parents interact with their children
regarding television. For example, socio-oriented parents tend to make rules
or use TV ratings systems, but they engage in less critical discussion. This is
problematic because open discussion that encourages reflection seems
important to the development of valuable media literacy skills.
These findings therefore add support to the contention that family interaction regarding television and the media both reflects and affects family
dynamics and socialization processes in a broader sense. Andreasen (1990)
noted that communication during television viewing and about television
656
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
teaches children what kind of informational help they can get from their parents more generally. The finding that concept orientation relates to the tendency to discuss a variety of issues supports that view.
Other scholarship also reinforces the value of considering mediation in
the context of family processes more generally. Alexander (1990) noted that
even beyond the extent to which families watch television and discuss it, television helps define the context of family interaction as well as the meaning of
that interaction. Moreover, television can help facilitate interpersonal communication for purposes such as conflict management, relaxation, maintenance of family solidarity, and the transmission of values (Carlson et al.,
1990; Lull, 1990; Moore & Moschis, 1983). As Lull (1990) demonstrated, families use television in a number of ways that includes the exercise of authority
or the opportunity for discussion.
Implications of the Findings for Parents’
Management of Media Influences
Scholars have suggested that parental influence is most effective when parents exhibit management styles based on explanation and interplay along
with psychological support (Gecas, 1981, 1992). A child is more receptive to
parental influence attempts when receiving parental support (e.g., warmth
via daily conversation) along with direction (e.g., critical discussion and viewing skills). Parental mediation given in an open communication environment
thus may be a key to obtaining a child’s acceptance of a parent’s intended
interpretation of television messages.
Current research suggests that if the goal of parental mediation is to teach
children critical skills to help a child cope with media messages, it seems that
this can be best achieved when (a) parents engage in mediation that encourages reflection; (b) a child interprets the messages as the parents intend,
which also requires open discussion; and (c) a child willingly accepts the messages given by the parents or model examples endorsed by the parents. The
data from this study suggest that concept-oriented parenting leads to mediation strategies that accomplish these objectives. The results further suggest
that socio-oriented parenting does not prevent parents from engaging in beneficial mediation strategies, but it may in some cases lead to counterproductive results. Socio-oriented parents, therefore, may have more need for media
literacy interventions.
Concept-oriented parents appear to have an advantage when it comes to
managing media influences. The use of negative mediation may be necessary
but not sufficient to produce favorable outcomes, and concept-oriented
657
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
parents appear to use both positive and negative mediation. Positive mediation appears to have value despite its potential drawbacks because parents
need to point out exemplary characters and behaviors to which children
might wish to aspire rather than focusing only on the negative aspects of
media portrayals. Moreover, because the reality of media messages is that
they excel at portraying desirable imagery, parents who only condemn messages may lose credibility. This could be why concept-oriented parents make
use of both positive and negative mediation strategies, although these data
have not explicitly investigated the motivations behind the relationships
between concept orientation and mediation strategies.
Scholars and activists attempting to encourage parental involvement in
children’s media use and interpretation may find it useful to consider the
extent to which mediation patterns reflect more general patterns of communication in the family. For example, to the extent negative mediation reflects
concept orientation, media activists might question whether they should
focus their efforts on encouraging discussion of television specifically or
whether they should emphasize open discussion of issues more generally.
Austin (1993a), based on children’s reports, found that parental active mediation (critical discussion), not family communication patterns, significantly
affected a child’s level of skepticism (critical viewing skills). Those results,
however, did not examine reports of positive and negative mediation separately. The current study, based on parents’ reports, suggests that general
communication styles have indirect influence on a child’s skepticism through
positive or negative mediation variables.
Limitations and Recommendations
for Further Study
Parental mediation appears to comprise a relatively consistent indicator of
the family socialization environment and more specifically of communication
style. This merits further investigation because these data reflected parents’
self-reports of general communication behaviors regarding television rather
than communication from both parents and children about specific topics or
programs. The level of generality in these data may have obscured a complex
variety of behaviors and interpretations based on differing perspectives.
This study has identified relationships between the FCP orientation
styles and mediation strategies but far from perfect correspondence between
them. It would be useful to investigate the results of consistency or inconsistencies between general communication styles and mediation strategies.
Concept orientation in conjunction with negative mediation may be an
658
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
especially useful form for parental input because it represents critical evaluation in combination with warmth and open discussion. Indeed, Krcmar
(1996) reported that the concept-oriented style, which was less prescriptive,
elicited more compliance from children regarding program selection than the
socio-oriented style, which was more dictatorial.
These findings also suggest a number of other avenues for further study.
For example, this study did not incorporate the child’s perspective, which
should be considered to achieve a better understanding of the relationships
among communication norms, mediation patterns, and children’s beliefs and
behaviors (Austin, 1992; Ritchie, 1991). It also is important to explore how
beliefs and behaviors relevant to family communication patterns and mediation
differ as a child grows older. No grade-related differences were found in this
study, but other studies (e.g., Fortman, Clarke, & Austin, 1998; Meadowcroft,
1986) have demonstrated age-related differences in communication style and
mediation strategies. Further research with fathers also would be advisable
given that mothers were slightly overrepresented in this sample. It also
should be noted that this study was based on generally highly educated parents’ reports about their communication patterns and mediation behavior.
These data indicate that some relationships among education, mediation
strategies, and FCP orientations exist that merit further exploration. For
example, the results suggested that socio orientation has both a direct influence on positive mediation and also an interaction effect that is conditional
on parent’s education. It appears that socio orientation works against parental engagement in positive mediation for those parents with high education.
That is, socio-oriented parents with high education may be less likely to
engage in positive mediation.
Together, this and previous studies suggest that although general communication styles and mediation strategies are distinct, FCP styles affect parental choices of specific mediation strategies and children’s responses to the
parents’ mediation messages. Future research needs to examine this link by
using both parents’ and children’s reports along with observational or other
behaviorally based data to achieve a better understanding of the processes
involved in parental mediation effects.
Conclusion
This study has established that it is fruitful to explore connections between
family communication patterns and parental involvement in specific mediation strategies. An open family communication style, commonly known as
concept orientation, tends to be associated with critical viewing and open
659
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
discussion between parents and children. A style such as socio, emphasizing
conformity, associates with reinforcement of messages and rule making but
not discussion-oriented parental guidance regarding television messages.
That general family communication patterns are reflected in parental
choices of specific mediation strategies is especially informative for educators and media literacy practitioners who aim to enhance the effectiveness of
parental input about media as a socialization tool. Parents’ daily interaction
with a child can help alleviate negative media influences and promote positive media influences. A better understanding of the relationships among
parenting styles, mediation strategies, and socialization outcomes should
help parents better harness this potential.
Appendix A
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of Variables
Variable
Index: Negative mediation
How often you
Say that something you’ve seen
somebody do on TV is not OK
Say that something you’ve seen in a
TV ad is not OK
Say that something on TV is not real
Tell your child more about something
you’ve seen on TV
Explain to your child what ads on TV
are trying to do
Index: Positive mediation
How often you
Say you like a product in a TV ad
Say you like a person or character on TV
Say you agree with something on TV
Say that something on TV often
happens in real life
Repeat something you’ve heard on TV
Index: Socio orientation
Tell your child your ideas are correct and
that they shouldn’t argue with you?
Answer your child’s argument by saying
they’ll know better when they grow up?
Tell your child not to say things that
make people angry?
Tell your child there are some things
that just shouldn’t be talked about?
Tell your child they shouldn’t argue
with adults?
660
N
Mean
SD
Range Alpha
214
3.39
0.47
1 to 4
214
3.43
0.64
1 to 4
214
214
3.23
3.25
0.78
0.81
1 to 4
1 to 4
214
3.76
0.51
1 to 4
214
212
3.27
2.65
0.70
0.46
1 to 4
1 to 4
212
212
212
2.24
2.89
2.97
0.76
0.66
0.56
1 to 4
1 to 4
1 to 4
212
212
210
2.57
2.57
2.24
0.79
0.76
0.59
1 to 4
1 to 4
1 to 4
210
2.28
0.93
1 to 4
210
2.75
0.93
1 to 4
210
1.80
0.94
1 to 4
210
2.41
0.94
1 to 4
210
1.93
0.80
1 to 4
.69
.65
.67
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Appendix A (continued)
Variable
Index: Concept orientation
Tell your child they should look at both
sides of an issue?
Encourage your child to question other
people’s opinions?
Tell your child getting their ideas across
is important even if others don’t like it?
Tell your child every member of the
family should have some say in family
matters?
Say kids know more about some things
than adults do?
Index: Discussion
Please indicate whether you talk
about each of the following things
with your child
Talk about TV
Talk about ads
Talk about alcohol
Talk about tobacco or smoking
Index: Coviewing
How often in the past week
Watched prime time TV together
Watched sports programs together
Watched an educational show
Watched news programs
Watched a movie
Income
Education
Grade
N
Mean
SD
Range Alpha
209
3.32
0.47
1 to 4
209
3.72
0.54
1 to 4
209
3.29
0.73
1 to 4
209
3.28
0.86
1 to 4
209
3.62
0.66
1 to 4
209
213
2.72
3.22
0.87
0.57
1 to 4
1 to 4
.70
213
213
213
213
211
3.50
3.04
3.09
3.24
1.64
0.69
0.84
0.79
0.82
1.20
1 to 4
1 to 4
1 to 4
1 to 4
0 to 7
.66
211
211
211
211
211
210
211
200
2.22
1.14
1.51
1.84
1.49
3.59
3.95
1.78
2.00
1.69
1.69
2.20
1.57
1.10
0.97
0.66
0 to 7
0 to 7
0 to 7
0 to 7
0 to 7
a
1 to 5
b
2 to 5
c
1 to 3
.65
Note. High score indicates an answer in agreement with the statement or a more frequent behavior.
a. Income: 1 = < $15,000; 2 = $15,001 to $34,999; 3 = $35,000 to $49,999; 4 = $50,000 to $79,999; 5 =
more than $80,000.
b. Education: 1 = less than high school; 2 = high school graduate; 3 = some college; 4 = college graduate; 5 = graduate work.
c. 1 = third grade; 2 = sixth grade; 3 = ninth grade.
Notes
1. Ritchie (1991) and Fitzpatrick (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) also argued that the
family communication patterns (FCP) cannot validly assume a shared view of perceived communication patterns between parent and child, and a number of studies has
shown considerable differences in perceptions (Austin, 1993b; Tims & Masland, 1985).
In response to these concerns, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990) proposed a revised FCP
model that measures perceived parental control (socio orientation) and
661
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
communication (concept orientation) within the family. The development of their measurement model relied on adolescent respondents and appears too complex for use with
young children, for whom the force of parental communication patterns presumably
would have the most potency. Nevertheless, Ritchie’s (1991; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick,
1990) analysis of the FCP model is useful for clarifying what FCP measures represent
from each family member’s perspective with results that correspond with Austin’s
(1993b) analysis of the FCP with children as young as 10.
2. Positive mediation generally parallels the construct of “social coviewing” proposed by Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, and Marseille (1999), which focuses on watching together for enjoyment purposes rather than instructional purposes. The two conceptualizations, however, do embody important distinctions. Whereas Valkenburg et al.
combined the act of coviewing with positive affect, the Austin, Fujioka, Bolls, and
Engelbertson (1999) positive mediation construct focuses on affirmative commentary
and does not assume concurrent viewing. The Valkenburg et al. scale focuses on the act
of coviewing, whereas the Austin et al. construct focuses on the act of discussion. The
emphasis on discussion and its valence in the Austin et al. conceptualization of mediation further distinguishes it from the Valkenburg et al. conceptualization. The
“instructive/evaluative” mediation construct proposed by Valkenburg et al. parallels
and extends Austin’s (1993a) earlier mediation index, which combined nonvalenced
and negatively oriented commentary. Although Austin et al. found that the negative
and positive items loaded on different factors in a principal components analysis,
Valkenburg et al.’s measures loaded on a single factor. Scholars have not yet compared
the two largely complementary conceptualizations simultaneously to verify and refine
the distinctions between the two approaches.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alexander, A. (1990). Television and family interaction. In J. Bryant (Ed.),
Television and the American family (pp. 211-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Alexander, A., & Fry, V. H. (1990). Interpreting viewing: Creating an acceptable context. In W. A. E. S. Thomas (Ed.), Communication and culture:
Language, performance, technology and media (pp. 236-243). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Andreasen, M. S. (1990). Evolution in the family’s use of television: Normative data from industry and academe. In J. Bryant (Ed.), Television and the
American family (pp. 3-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Atkin, D., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home ecology of children’s television viewing: Parental mediation and the new video environment. Journal of Communication, 41, 40-52.
Austin, E. W. (1992). Parent-child TV interaction: The importance of perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36, 359-361.
Austin, E. W. (1993a). Exploring the effects of active parental mediation of television content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 147-158.
662
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Austin, E. W. (1993b). The importance of perspective in parent-child interpretations of family communication patterns. Journalism Quarterly, 70,
558-568.
Austin, E. W. (1995). Direct and indirect influences of parent-child communication norms on adolescent’s tendencies to take preventive measures for
AIDS and drug abuse. In G. Kreps & D. O’Hair (Eds.), Relational communication and health outcomes (pp. 163-183). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Austin, E. W., & Chen, Y. J. (in press). The relationship of parental reinforcement of media messages to college students’ alcohol-related behaviors.
Journal of Health Communication.
Austin, E. W., Fujioka, Y., Bolls, P., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why
parents taking on the tubes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
43, 175-192.
Austin, E. W., Knaus, C., & Meneguelli, A. (1998). Who talks how to their kids
about TV: A clarification of demographic correlates of parental mediation
patterns. Communication Research Reports, 14, 418-430.
Austin, E. W., & Nach-Ferguson, B. (1995). Sources and influences of young
school-age children’s general and brand-specific knowledge about alcohol.
Health Communication, 7, 1-20.
Austin, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., & Fujioka, Y. (2000). The role of interpretation
processes and parental discussion in the media’s effects on adolescents’
use of alcohol. Pediatrics, 105, 343-349.
Austin, E. W., Roberts, D. F., & Nass, C. I. (1990). Influences of family communication on children’s television-interpretation processes. Communication Research, 17, 545-564.
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3, 255-272.
Bower, R. T. (1973). Television and the public. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1995). The socialization of
person-centered communication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s
social-cognitive and communication skills. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L.
Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34-76). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carlson, L., Grossbart, S. L., & Walsh, A. (1990). Mothers’ communication orientation and consumer socialization tendencies. Journal of Advertising,
19, 27-39.
Chaffee, S., McLeod, J. M., & Atkin, C. K. (1971). Parental influences on adolescent media use. American Behavioral Scientist, 14, 323-340.
Chaffee, S., McLeod, J., & Wackman, D. (1973). Family communication patterns and adolescent political participation. In J. Dennis (Ed.), Socialization to politics: Selected readings (pp. 349-364). New York: John Wiley.
Comstock, G. (1975). The evidence so far. Journal of Communication, 25, 25-34.
Corder-Bolz, C. R. (1980). Mediation: The role of significant others. Journal of
Communication, 30, 106-118.
663
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH • December 2002
Desmond, R. J., Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1990). Family mediation: Parental communication patterns and the influence of television on children. In
J. Bryant (Ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 293-310).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Desmond, R. J., Singer, J. L., Singer, D. G., Calam, R., & Colimore, K. (1985).
Family mediation patterns and television viewing: Young children’s use
and grasp of the medium. Human Communication Research, 11, 461-480.
Flay, B. R., & Sobel, J. L. (1983). The role of mass media in preventing adolescent substance abuse. In T. J. Glynn, C. G. Leukefeld, & J. P. Ludford (Eds.),
Preventing adolescent drug abuse (DHHS Publication No. ADM 83-1280,
pp. 5-35). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
Fortman, K. K. J., Clarke, T. L., & Austin, E. W. (1998). Let’s talk about
what we’re watching: Parental behavior towards children’s gender and
age regarding television viewing. Communication Research Reports, 15,
413-425.
Gecas, V. (1981). Context of socialization. In M. Rosenberg & R. Turner (Eds.),
Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 165-199). New York: Basic
Books.
Gecas, V. (1992). Socialization. In E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. 4, pp. 1863-1872). New York: Macmillan.
Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1996). Television and socialization of young
children. In T. M. MacBeth (Ed.), Tuning in to young viewers: Social science
perspectives on television (pp. 37-60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kandel, D., & Logan, J. A. (1984). Patterns of drug use from adolescence to
young adulthood. I. Periods of risk for initiation, continued use and discontinuation. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 660-666.
Krcmar, M. (1996). Family communication patterns, discourse behavior, and
child television viewing. Human Communication Research, 23, 251-277.
Krcmar, M., & Cantor, J. (1997). The role of television advisories and ratings
in parent-child discussion of television viewing choices. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 393-411.
Lull, J. (1990). Families’ social uses of television as extensions of the household. In J. Bryant (Ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 59-72).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyle, J., & Hoffman, H. R. (1972). Children’s use of television and other media.
In E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and
social behavior: Vol. 4. Television in day-to-day life: Patterns of use (pp. 129256). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
McKechnie, R. J. (1977). Parents, children and learning to drink. In R. J.
McKechnie (Ed.), Alcoholism and drug dependence (pp. 451-456). New
York: Plenum.
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. S.
Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50-99). Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine.
Meadowcroft, J. (1986). The impact of family communication patterns on political development: The child’s role. Communication Research, 13, 603-624.
Medrich, E. A. (1979). Constant television: A background to daily life. Journal
of Communication, 29, 171-176.
664
Fujioka, Austin • Family Communication
Messaris, P. (1982). Parents, children, and television. In G. Gumpert & R.
Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/Media (2nd ed., pp. 580-598). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Messaris, P., & Kerr, D. (1983). Mothers’ comments about TV: Relation to family communication patterns. Communication Research, 10, 175-194.
Moore, R. L., & Moschis, G. P. (1983). Role of mass media and the family in
development of consumption norms. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 67-73.
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between
parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research,
26, 124-143.
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic analysis
and conceptual reinterpretation. Communication Research, 18, 548-565.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns:
Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationship. Communication Research, 17, 523-544.
Tims, A. R., & Masland, J. L. (1985). Measurement of family communication
patterns. Communication Research, 12, 35-57.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Statistical abstract of the United States
1993 (115th ed.). Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Economic
and Statistics Administration.
Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999).
Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social coviewing.” Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52-66.
665