The power of the electronic media in the socialization of young Americans: implications for social studies education.

Back in 1979, Neil Postman described television and school as two competing learning systems, and he estimated that television was fast becoming "the first curriculum." Consequently, he exhorted educators to make sure that students study television's effects, its biases, and its relationship to learning. At that time, many of us in social studies education considered television to be a promising news and entertainment source and discussed its professional potential for replacing 16mm films and their troublesome projectors in our schools. I recall that we enjoyed the easy accessibility of entertainment and news but were not watching TV as a daily thing. In my family, for example, we often watched the evening news, and now and then selected special dramatic, historical, or variety programs for family viewing. Before the 1990s, few social studies educators contemplated the growing power of television to socialize and teach (see Hepburn 1990).

At that time, in social science courses, social studies educators learned about the process of the "political socialization" of youth, and many teachers taught their students about those influences on their lives. (Today educators would be more likely to refer to the process as the shaping of civic attitudes and behavior, or "civic socialization.") Conceptualization of the socialization process as it was developed from the research of the 1960s and 1970s defined several "agents" that molded the lives of young people--the family, the school, peers, the church and other organized groups, and the media (see figure 1). Those several agents were not considered of equal importance in the civic development of young people. The family was considered the predominant influence, exerting particularly strong sway on political identification and partisanship (e.g., Jennings and Niemi 1974). The school's influence was considered minimal, based mainly on a study by Langton and Jennings (1968) of high school students. (Their five-itemquestionnaire was soon challenged by educational researchers for its lack of validity and reliability, but the study is still cited today.) By 1975, Torney, Oppenheim, and Farnen found persistent evidence that classroom experiences do affect civic understanding, but the conventional wisdom persisted for some years that social studies curriculum and schooling have little or no effect, either negative or positive.

Church and social groups were considered significant influences on civic attitudes and behavior in that early literature. The mass media, however, were given little attention (e.g., Easton and Dennis 1965; Sigel 1965). There was some consideration of social conditions. For example, social differences related to race were recognized as studies examined ways that African Americans came to terms with the political situation in the United States and experienced a duality in the socialization process (e.g., Marvick 1965; Greenberg 1970). But societal conditions were somewhat peripheral to the "agents" model. Moreover, the influencing agents were usually viewed as independent or disconnected--each exerting a separate influence on young people (see figure 1).

In this article, I argue that the power of the electronic media in the 1990s has made the 1960s archetype of how political/civic socialization takes place among youth outmoded. It is time for social studies educators to revise the old perception of learning and take into account the extensive direct and indirect effects on youth of electronic media. Not only do the electronic media shape perceptions of young people, but there is plenty of evidence that the mature population, including teachers and parents, are affected as well. Let us examine some foundational data about the ubiquity and content of television.

PERVASIVENESS AND CONTENT OF ELECTRONIC MEDIAIn our society, television is the main source of news and information, and the main source of entertainment as well. More than 99 percent of U.S. households have at least one television set, and about two-thirds of them have two, three, or more sets (Nielsen 1993). As the number of TV sets in a household has increased, family viewing has declined, and individual program selection and solitary viewing have increased. Cable programming is found in 68 percent of households, greatly expanding the number of networks and independent stations that can be accessed. In the United States, 54 percent of children have a television set in their bedrooms. About 87 percent of U.S. households have a VCR, and about $10 billion is spent annually on video rentals, double the amount spent at movie theaters (Mediascope 1996).

The average weekly viewing time has increased annually in American households, from 43 hours in the early seventies to 50 hours in the midnineties. In 1996, the average was 51 hours and 55 minutes per week (Nielsen 1993; 1996), which is close to 7 hours per day! Children spend an average of 28 hours a week watching TV. During prime time (7 to 11 p.m.), about 7 million teenagers and 9 to 10 million preteens are watching TV (Media Dynamics 1996).

Social-economic conditions are related to the TV lifestyle. People with low incomes watch more TV that those with higher incomes. People with more formal education watch fewer hours of TV than those with less education (Mediascope 1997). Nielsen (1993) reports ethnic differences as well. For example, African American children aged 2-11 view about 55 percent more TV than same-aged children in all other households. African American men aged 18 and over, watch 90 percent more daytime TV than their counterparts in other households. The heaviest viewers are older people, especially retirees, some of whom watch 55 plus hours a week.

The media industry does plenty of research on viewers. One can learn such details as who is watching, at what hour, and which programs. Comprehensive research is motivated by the advertising divisions of various corporations that buy and sell time on commercial TV to sell products based on audience profiles. Those business forces are clearly convinced of the power and influence of TV and now are beginning to monitor the sales power of the Internet as well.

One example of media business research is the detailed study on the media habits and interests of the 16- to 30-year-olds known as "Generation X." Those young adults make up the first generation to be fully "raised on television." With an average weekly viewing time of 24 hours, they are quite specific about their preferences. They like nighttime comedies, adventure-dramas, those dramatic on-the-scene adventures, such as Cops and Rescue 911, and the daytime talk shows. Their favorite cable channel is MTV, followed by USA Network and ESPN. It was learned that radio is also a popular medium in this age group whose members listen an average of 3.9 hours on weekdays (driving time for most) and 3.8 hours on Saturday or Sunday. Generation Xers said they were fond of the television programs Beverly Hills 90210 and Friends. In interviews, they said that they found role models in the TV shows and that those shows were their main sources for fashion ideas and even for public information. The American Society of Newspaper Editors (1996), which sponsored this study of media tastes, was interested in finding out just what newspapers can do to attract young adults to read their papers.

Psychological, sociological, and medical researchers have been scrutinizing the effects of television violence. They find that violent action attracts many viewers, including children. Studies of younger viewers who daily watch cartoons, police shows, and murder dramas with heavy doses of violence further relate to the potency of TV. Two large national studies of the contents of television programming that have been published in the last two years clarify the degree, quantity, and the various contexts within which network shows, movies, and cable programs present acts of violence for viewers, especially young viewers (UCLA Center of Communication Policy 1995; National Television Violence Study 1996). The majority of programs (57 percent) were found to contain violence, and often they included numerous violent acts. Much of the gratuitous violence is produced by Hollywood in movies that end up on TV. Not only are researchers concerned about the magnitude of violence in TV programs, but the public is beginning to express apprehension. From a recent national survey, the Pew Research Center (1997) reported that 75 percent of Americans find too much violence in non-news programs.

Communications research on news broadcasts should also be reviewed. News communication via TV is quick and lively, but significant public issues are seldom covered in depth. One extensive analysis of TV news broadcasts and the degree of audience understanding concluded that "news generally and TV news in particular is failing to systematically inform the public about important issues and events" (Davis and Robinson 1989). Those researchers determined that the networks made great efforts to increase audience size, but there was little concern about the quality of news disseminated to the audience. The Internet now adds the possibility of obtaining more news in more detail if one searches for it and prints it out, but only 18 million Americans have Internet access at home.

Most commercial TV news is a hodgepodge of fast-paced reports of unconnected and sometimes insignificant events that do not help viewers to be informed about important public issues. News items are immersed in advertising, and the eyes, ears, and minds of viewers must shift from world events to soft drinks and laxatives, from congressional decisions to running shoes and headache pills, all in rapid and colorful presentations. To make news programs more engaging, hard news and light entertainment are mingled in a subtle manner. Individual vignettes and emotional interviews are used to demonstrate the personal aspects of a public issue. As one news analyst observed, "television news operates on 'borrowed time in a commercial entertainment-oriented media system" (Neumann 1987).

EFFECTS ON SOCIETY: A SUBJECT FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIESHow do all the characteristics of the electronic media affect us as a society? And should those influences be addressed in social studies education? In a school subject that is fundamentally concerned with citizenship or civic learning, the significance of media studies is obvious. Consider the research on Generation X. The report indicated that TV is ingrained in their lives. "For these young people television served as a baby sitter, entertainer, educator, and a form of company for latchkey kids" (ASNE 96). The newspaper editors group concluded that "we've got a good chance to connect with most of them if we make our papers more relevant to people in their teens and 20s" (7). Specifics were laid out in the report, challenging newspapers to cover the leisure pursuits of these young people ("fitness, cyberspace, career opportunities, budget dating, news on renting apartments"). Other suggestions included, "Put more resources into sports" and "Do features on where to take dates, new and trendy restaurants, clubs and entertainers." The report even advised that, because of the high interest of young people, Kurt Cobain's death should be front page news. Here we have evidence of what many of us have seen in our local papers. It tells a lot about how television is changing the content and style and aims of our newspapers. This process is very different from what is studied in the typical newspaper-in-education classroom exercise. The change in approach to news delivery deserves attention in the curriculum.

Let us consider the high dosage of violence in American television programs. Research teams from several leading universities found most entertainment programs and TV movies include overt depictions of physical force and harm (National Television Violence Study 1996). The American Psychological Association (1993) and the American Medical Association (Walsh, Goldman, and Brown 1996) have gathered research evidence of the effects on young children, especially those who are heavy viewers. Children tend to learn from TV that aggressive or violent behavior is appropriate in given life situations. They act out the violence they see--in their play and in family life (Minow and LaMay 1995). As these same children mature, they are also more aggressive and violent as teenagers, and for some it carries on into adulthood. Prolonged viewing of violence often has a desensitizing effect, leading to callous acceptance of violent behavior. For some young people, the daily scenes of killings, rapes, and beatings create fears--fear of being in dark areas, fear of being in school, fear of violence. Students should have opportunities to learn about that research and discuss the effects of certain types of heavy TV viewing in their studies of American society (Hepburn 1995).

Consider the effects of typical TV news reporting. One is the high level of confidence the public places on television coverage. Close to 60 percent of the public is more inclined to believe television over newspaper, radio, and magazine reports (Stanley and Niemi 1993). Apparently, people do not consider the ways in which video cameras can mislead, and few evaluate the selection and slim presentation of news on most TV channels. Years of electronic news consumption, received in quick, brief segments and sound bites of speech, have produced a shorter attention span for news and less understanding of public affairs, especially for those who have little background knowledge (Adatto 1993). Awareness by educators of public overconfidence in the TV medium may encourage the use of analytical classroom study on how sound bites shortchange our news knowledge and how the TV camera can exploit. Some work with a school video camera can readily demonstrate how a camera angle can twist reality.

The increasing use of emotional, personal vignettes in TV news also has an impact on the viewer. Studies show that sensational and personal narratives have a negative effect on viewers' cognition. An issue is shown as one person's problem. The brief dramatic story tends to oversimplify complex issues and suppress thinking about solutions in the broader community or the society (Iyengar 1991). Such news coverage actually decreases recall of information about the public issues or event (Milburn and McGrail 1992). Educators, alerted to that phenomenon, could tape the personal vignettes and, with students, trace the connection to public issues that require greater information and public attention in greater depth.

Even if away from a TV set, Americans are not often far from electronic broadcast influences. Radio, an old medium, is enjoying a new popularity and use. Radio sounds accompany Americans on the jogging trail, on buses, trains, or planes, and while they sit in cars commuting or trapped in traffic jams. Many stations that used to broadcast music now send out national or regional talk shows, broadcasting the opinions of the hosts or the audience. Shows discuss everything: medical advice, social advice, car repair, legal matters, and, of course, viewpoints on politics. People seem to enjoy having "a say." But there is seldom a check on the authenticity or accuracy of what is said. Talk radio shows tripled between 1989 and 1994, and some of those shows are credited with contributing to a kind of populist negativism toward government and authority. Here again are topics for classroom civics discussion. How do these media contribute to the democratic process? To what extent should information be counterbalanced with opinions?

Although television is the most pervasive, all forms of electronic communication exert influence on the social-political-economic thinking of users and are affecting behavior. The Internet has changed the speed and form of written communication. It has also served to make TV and radio more interactive because the stations encourage viewers or listeners to use their Web sites to communicate with the broadcast station. The Internet is clearly a more interactive mode of communication; therefore, some consider it a more democratic medium. But all forms of the media in a democratic society require users who learn to think critically and analytically about each media form and its contents. In a democratic society, we shun censorship and rely on educating citizens to analyze, evaluate, and make choices based on an estimate of the consequences. How do we embed that critical perspective in the work we do? How can we assure that it is understood by the professors who educate social studies teachers and the teachers who, in turn, are responsible for educating students to analyze the pervasive forces in their social environment? I suggest that we need to look to a more timely model of the socialization process.

THE OLD MODEL STILL IN OUR MIDSTThe thirty-year-old model of civic socialization shown in figure 1 is clearly outmoded. Nevertheless, it is still with us today. Look around. You will find it in government and civics course outlines, high school textbooks, and introductory college textbooks (e.g., Patterson 1994; O'Connor and Sabato 1995; Remy 1993). The agents of socialization are usually discussed as contributors to the formation of public opinion with little examination of how the mass media interact with other forces in the context of societal conditions. In social studies teacher-education textbooks, professionals generally follow the social scientists. Some write of the old model (Banks 1990), which at least mentions the media, but most teacher-education textbooks do not even mention the force of the media in shaping the perceptions of young people. The one exception is an elementary teacher-education textbook by Murry Nelson (1992).

Perhaps the lack of change in our professional views of the civic/political socialization process is related to the fact that neither "media literacy" nor "critical viewing education" has become part of mainstream social studies education. In the seventies, several well-designed general education projects in the United States were aimed at raising students' critical consciousness of television (Brown 1991), but those instructional research projects withered and died during the eighties, and many of their materials are now unavailable. Meanwhile, in Australia, Canada, and England, along with some countries of Europe and Latin America, education and research on media awareness and media literacy have developed across the disciplines, including social science and social studies.

Overall, U.S. educators, especially social studies educators, have been slow to realize the powerful effects of the mass media. During the years when the process of socialization and informal learning has gradually changed all around us, we have been caught up in other types of formal content concerns--the Constitutional Bicentennial, multiculturalism, and history and social science standards for the schools. While we have been concerned with issues of formal content, young people have been learning a great deal directly from television and indirectly from others influenced by television. Contributing further to the outmoded perception of the socialization process has been the limited communication with other than the traditional history and social science disciplines. As civic educators, we have been quite isolated from the research of the psychologists, mass communications specialists, sociologists, and medical researchers who are studying the effects of television and other electronic media on young people.

A SOCIALIZATION MODEL FOR THE ELECTRONIC AGEWe need to view figure 2 to understand the interrelated forces that influence the civic socialization of young people in our current electronic lifestyle. Drawing on Lewinian field theory, I found it beneficial to depict students in their psychological "field," or the psychological world within which they learn. The concept of cognitive field is useful for analyzing how young people perceive and respond to their psychological environment. It provides some ideas of the several interdependent factors that motivate learning and behavior. That field includes political, social, and economic conditions that affect their awareness and the school environment in which they operate each day. The field also includes their social, cultural, and religious experiences as well as the conveyers (or agents) of social-political information and perceptions. Of importance here is the extensive influence wielded by the electronic media not only on young people directly, but also indirectly by influencing the other factors in their social-psychological environment. Listening, reading, watching, and thinking about what they have seen and heard shapes the attitudes and behavior of our young people.

In the 1990s, research shows the electronic media to be intricately involved in socialization from early youth on. Along with civic news and family entertainment, the electronic media flash vibrant ads, lively colorful animations, violent fearful crimes, shocking explosions, and hours of programming on celebrities in life and even in death. We are in need of an up-to-date conceptual framework to motivate inquiry into our socialization. Figure 2 deserves consideration in our search for an approach that can bring civic education/social studies education into the present. As educators, we must examine the process as a complex psychological field in which cumulative learning takes place; a process by which people acquire information and attitudes and then organize their thinking about our society, its government, and its public affairs. Neil Postman (1990) aptly predicted that television was becoming "the command center of our culture." A model like that in figure 2 emphasizes the interconnection of socializing agents and their interaction with social background factors in a psychological field abuzz with electronic media. It clearly implies the great importance of educating students to analyze and evaluate electronic communication. Analytical and critical thinking are not new skills requirements for social studies education, but the need for them may be more acute in a time when communications are so fast, so vivid, and so beguiling.

Added material.

Mary A. Hepburn is director of the Citizen Education Division of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia.

FIGURE 1--Agents of Civic Socialization--1960s.

FIGURE 2--Civic Socialization: Field and Forces in the 1990s.

REFERENCESAdatto, K. 1993. Picture perfect: The art and artifice of public image making. New York: Basic Books.

American Psychological Association. 1993. Violence and youth: Psychology's response. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Assoc.

American Society of Newspaper Editors. 1996. What's important to Generation X. Reston, Va.: ASNE Foundation.

Banks, J. 1990. Teaching strategies for the social studies. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.

Brown, J. A. 1991. Television: "Critical viewing skills" education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davis, D., and J. P. Robinson. 1989. Newsflow and democratic society in an age of electronic media. In Public communication and behavior, Vol. 2, edited by G. Comstock. San Diego: Academic Press.

Easton, D., and J. Dennis. 1965. The child's image of government. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 361: 1-3.

Greenberg, E. S. 1970. The political socialization of black children. In Political socialization, edited by E. S. Greenberg. New York: Atherton Press.

Hepburn, M. A. 1990. Americans glued to the tube: Mass media, information, and social studies. Social Education 54 (4): 233-36.

Hepburn, M. A. 1995. TV violence: Myth and reality. Social Education 59 (7): 309-11.

Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television news frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jennings, M. K., and R. G. Niemi. 1974. The political character of adolescence: The influence of families and schools. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Langton, K., and M. Jennings. 1968. Political socialization and the high school curriculum. American Political Science Review 62: 852-67.

Marvick, D. 1965. The political socialization of the American Negro. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 361: 112-27.

Media Dynamics. 1996. TV dimensions 1996. New York: Media Dynamics.

Mediascope. 1996. National television violence study 1994-1995: Executive summary. Studio City, Calif.: Mediascope.

Mediascope. 1997. Information from web site at http://www.igc.apc.org/mediascope.

Milburn, M. A., and A. B. McGrail. 1992. The dramatic presentation of news and its effects on cognitive complexity. Political Psychology 13 (4): 613-32.

Minow, N., and C. LaMay. 1995. Abandoned in the wasteland: Children, television and the first amendment. New York: Hill and Wang.

National Television Violence Study Council. 1996. Executive summary 1994-1995. Studio City, Calif.: Mediascope.

Nelson, M. R. 1992. Children and social studies, 2nd ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Neumann, W. R. 1987. Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Kettering Review (Winter): 56-64.

Nielsen Media Research. 1993. 1992-1993 report on television. New York: A. C. Nielsen.

Nielsen Media Research. 1996. Phone call from Nielsen researcher.

O'Connor, K., and L. Sabato. 1995. American government: Roots and reform (2d ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Patterson, T. E. 1994. The American democracy (3d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pew Research Center for People and the Press. 1997. Optimism about TV ratings. January 1997 News Interest Index: Other Findings webpage at http://www.people-press.org/jan97mor.htm.

Postman, N. 1979. The first curriculum: Comparing school and television. Phi Delta Kappan 61.3, (November): 163-68.

Postman, N. 1990. Television and the decline of public discourse (an interview). The Civic Arts Review 3 (1): 4-6.

Remy, R. C. 1993. United States Government: Roots and reform (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sigel, R. 1965. Assumptions about the learning of political values. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 361: 41-57.

Stanley, H. W., and R. G. Niemi. 1993. Vital statistics on American politics. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Torney, J. V., A. N. Oppenheim, and R. F. Farnen. 1975. Civic education in ten countries: An empirical study. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

UCLA Center for Communication Policy. 1995. UCLA monitoring report 1994-95. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Walsh, D., L. S. Goldman, and R. Brown. 1996. Physician guide to media violence. Chicago: American Medical Association.