Copyright 1984 by the
American Psychological Association, Inc
Developmental Psychology
1984, Vol. 20. No. 2. 212-218
Children's Memory for Auditory and Visual
Information on Television
Kathy Pezdek
Ellen Stevens
daremont Graduate School
Stanford University
This study examines the relationship between children's cognitive processing of
video and audio information on television. Ninety-six 5-year-old children viewed
a videotaped segment of Sesame Street followed by a comprehension test and a
recognition test. Equal numbers of subjects viewed an experimental segment in
which (a) the audio and video tracks were from the same segment (A/V match),
(b) the audio and video tracks were not from the same segment (A/V mismatch),
(c) the video track was presented alone, or (d) the audio track was presented alone.
This design allows unconfounded comparisons of modality-specific processing. In
the A/V mismatch condition, memory for audio information was reduced more
than memory for video information. However, comprehension and recognition of
audio information was similar in the audio-only and A/V match conditions. These
results suggest that in regular television programs, the video information does not
interfere with processing the audio information, rather, the video material simply
appears to be more salient and more memorable than the audio material.
Television presents a natural medium for
studying cognitive processing of visual and
auditory information. Comparisons of visual
and auditory (most often verbal) processing
have been of interest to researchers in cognitive
psychology (Baggett, 1979; Pezdek, 1980) and
education (Meringoff, 1980; Salomon, 1979).
However, few researchers have examined modality-specific processing of television. Only
recently have "television researchers" directed
their attention specifically to how viewers
watch television and what information they
retain from watching television.
The present study examines the relationship
between children's memory for visual and auditory information presented on television.
Specifically, two questions are addressed in this
study. First, does processing video information
interfere with processing the simultaneously
presented audio information? Several studies
have reported higher rates of memory and
comprehension for video than audio information from intact television programs (Hayes
This research was supported by a grant from the National
Institute of Education.
We thank Edward Teyber and Daniel Anderson for critical comments on the manuscript.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kathy Pezdek,
Psychology Department, Claremont Graduate School,
Claremont, California 91711.
212
& Birnbaum, 1980; Ward & Wackman, 1973;
Zuckerman, Ziegler, & Stevenson, 1978).
There is a problem with these comparisons in
that the difference may be an artifact of the
test items; that is, there is no way to assess the
comparability of the audio and video test
items. Nevertheless, the superior memory for
video over audio information does appear to
be robust. The first issue to be addressed in
the present study is whether this difference is
because the audio information is just not as
compelling in some way as the video information, or does processing the video information interfere with processing the audio information?
A number of studies in the cognitive literature have reported that visual stimuli tend
to dominate over other modalities in both perceptual and memory tasks (Posner, Nissen, &
Klein, 1976). However, none of these studies
has used simultaneously presented visual and
auditory dimensions of the same semantic
message. In situations of this type, it is not
clear whether visual superiority would be the
result of the visual stimulus interfering with
processing the auditory stimulus or whether
the visual stimulus would simply be more salient and more memorable.
In a relevant study, Beagles-Roos and Gat
(1983) presented 6- to 11-year-old children
with identical stories on the radio or on tele-
CHILDREN'S AUDITORY AND VISUAL MEMORY FOR TELEVISION
vision. On a later verbal-recall test, the children
performed better in the radio than television
condition. However, on the visual-memory test
(a picture-arrangement task), the children
performed better in the television than radio
condition. A similar finding was reported by
Meringoff (1980) comparing children's verbal
and visual memory following listening to a
picture book read versus viewing a narrated
video film of the same story. These researchers
concluded that processing the visual channel
on television interferes with processing the
verbal channel by making it less salient. However, an alternative interpretation is that the
visual channel on television is more salient
than the auditory-verbal channel and is therefore more memorable, but the visual channel
does not reduce the salience of the auditoryverbal channel. The present study tests this
interpretation.
A relevant suggestion also follows from
findings reported by Pezdek (1980). In this
study, subjects were serially presented pictures
and related sentences. Sixth graders (and young
adults) integrated in memory the semantically
related items despite the modality difference.
However, third graders (and older adults) retained the pictures and sentences in an unintegrated form. Perhaps young children are
also more likely to process audio and video
information from television as separate information sources, rather than as a well-integrated whole. If so, the primary modality
source would be expected to interfere with the
secondary modality source.
The second question of interest in the present study involves incompatible television
programs in which the audio track from one
program is combined and presented with the
video track from a different program. With
programs of this type, with which viewers have
to choose which modality to process, how will
processing be allocated to the video as compared with the audio track? With this manipulation it is possible to determine how children
process television during ambiguous segments.
Hayes and Birnbaum (1980) compared children's recognition for audio versus video portions of incompatible programs. They concluded that recognition was consistently higher
for video than audio information. However,
there were several problems with the study.
First, as mentioned earlier, the difficulty of the
213
audio and video test questions and the extent
to which each type of question could be answered from information presented in the
other modality were not controlled for. It
would have been useful, for example, to know
(a) the guessing rate for both the audio and
video questions for subjects who had not seen
the modality channel on which the questions
were based, and (b) the extent to which each
type of question could be answered from information presented on the other channel
alone. In this way, the possibility of confounding effects of test-item difficulty and the extent
to which the items tested cross-modality information could be assessed. Second, within
this study the critical comparisons of memory
for incompatible audio versus video information were made on a limited number of
program segments and only two (Experiment
1) or five (Experiment 2) questions from each
channel of each segment. The effect might,
therefore, be an artifact of the segments and
test items used. Third, in Experiment 3 of this
study, subjects were presented an intact program (Video A with Audio A) or a composite
program (Composite 1 = Video A with Audio
B; Composite 2 = Video B with Audio A).
Recognition accuracy for the Video A information was compared in the intact versus
Composite 1 program, and recognition accuracy of the Audio A information was compared in the intact versus Composite 2 program. However, all questions tapped information presented both visually and auditorily.
Thus, the drop in recognition of "auditory"
questions in the Composite 2 compared with
the intact condition could have been due to
the absence of the visual information necessary
to answer the question. The result that there
was no change in recognition accuracy of "visual" questions (although these questions also
tapped both visually and auditorily presented
information) could have been because the information presented on the compatible auditory channel was not as necessary for answering the specific questions used. The absence of questions that specifically relied on
auditorily presented information alone and
visually presented information alone thus
limits the interpretation of Hayes and Birnbaum's (1980) study.
The present study further examines children's memory for audio versus video infor-
214
KATHY PEZDEK AND ELLEN STEVENS
mation on television. The audio and video
tracks from four different television segments
were multiply combined to produce conditions
in which (a) the audio and video tracks were
from the same segment (A/V match), (b) the
audio and video tracks were not from the same
segment (A/V mismatch), (c) the video track
was presented alone, or (d) the audio track
was presented alone. With this design, memory
for the auditory track alone can be compared
with memory for the same audio information
presented in the A/V match condition. The
confounding effect of test-item differences is
thus avoided. This tests if processing the simultaneously presented visual information
interferes with memory for audio information
or if the audio information is simply less compelling than the video information. In addition,
memory for the audio versus video portions
of the A/V mismatch segments will be compared to examine how children process the
two tracks when they have to choose between
them.
Method
Subjects and Design
Ninety-six children were recruited from kindergarten
classes in public schools in the San Bernardino, California
metropolitan area. The children were brought to the campus by a parent to participate.
The experiment used a one-way, independent groups
design with four conditions Twenty-four children were
randomly assigned to each of four television program conditions (A/V match, A/V mismatch, video only, and audio
only). The sex and ethnic mixture of the subjects was
approximately equal in the four conditions, but these factors were not specifically controlled. The dependent variables were (a) the percentage of total viewing time that
each child visually attended to the television, (b) recall
accuracy on audio and video comprehension questions,
and (c) accuracy in recognizing 5-s portions of the audio
and video segments.
Setting and Materials
Children individually viewed a color videotaped segment
from Sesame Street, selected from programs shown locally
and edited by the experimenter. Although all of the subjects
were familiar with Sesame Street, none had previously
seen the experimental segment. There were four types of
segments—A/V match, A/V mismatch, video only, and
audio only. To increase the generalizability of the findings,
however, there were four segments compiled for each of
the four conditions, for a total of 16 segments. Each child
viewed only one of these 16 segments Half of the segments
were constructed from audio and video portions of two
Bert and Ernie segments. Half were from audio and video
portions of two Big Bird segments. The audio and video
tracks from the two Bert and Ernie segments were combined to produce eight experimental segments as follows:
(a) both of the compatible audio and video portions were
presented together for the two A/V match segments; (b)
the audio track of each segment was presented with the
video track of the other Bert and Emie segment for the
two A/V mismatch segments; (c) each of the two video
tracks was presented alone with no accompanying audio
track, (d) each of the two audio tracks was presented alone
with no accompanying video track. The same procedure
was applied with two Big Bird segments to produce the
additional eight experimental segments. It is important to
note that all of the A/V mismatch segments were arrived
at by recombining audio and video portions of segments
that involved the same characters Although the voices
and mouth movement were not synchronized, the voices
and visible characters were the same. Character-compatible
audio and video sources in the A/V mismatch condition
were included to avoid salient cues that the two sources
did not go together
The experimental segments were each 3 minutes long.
Each was immediately preceded on the videotape by a 3minute intact Sesame Street segment. This filler segment
was included to direct children's attention to the television
as they situated themselves in the room and to reduce the
primacy effect from the beginning of the experimental
segment. The same filler segment was used in all conditions.
The content of this segment was different from that of the
experimental segments There were no test items on the
filler segment.
Procedure
Each parent and child were brought into the comfortably
furnished viewing room where the study was briefly explained The full session took 25 minutes. Each child participated individually. Children were instructed to watch
television just like they would if they were in their own
home. They were also told that they would be asked a few
questions about the television sequence when it was finished The experimenter then turned on the television and
left the room with the parent, leaving the child alone
One observer behind a one-way mirror recorded the
child's visual attention to the television during the experimental segment. Thus, visual but not auditory attention
was monitored in the experiment. Only one observer was
deemed necessary due to consistently high interobserver
reliability (r = .98) with this measure in a previous study
(Pezdek & Hartmann, 1983). The observer knew which
condition each subject was in but was "bund" to the specific
predictions in the study The observer depressed a push
button attached to a timer every time the child looked at
the television and released it when the child looked away.
The percentage of the total time that the child was visually
attending to the television during the experimental segment
was thus calculated.
Each child viewed the 3-minute filler segment and the
3-minute experimental segment from the condition to
which they had been assigned. At the end of this sequence
the experimenter returned to the room to test the child's
comprehension and recognition accuracy for the experimental segment In the comprehension test, children were
asked six questions from auditorily presented information
in the segment and six questions from visually presented
CHILDREN'S AUDITORY AND VISUAL MEMORY FOR TELEVISION
information in the segment. Half of the subjects received
the video questionsfirst,and half received the audio questions first The order of the audio and video questions was
randomized for each subject.
Each answer was scored on the following 3-point scale:
2 points if the child answered correctly; 1 point if a prompt
from the experimenter was necessary before the child answered, and 0 points if the child could not answer or
answered incorrectly with the help of the prompt Prompts
were essentially restatements of the original questions but
with an additional piece of information given For example,
one of the original visual questions was, "What things
were on top of the cabinet that Big Bird was working on?"
If the child could not answer the question or answered it
incorrectly, a prompt was offered, "What tools were on
top of the cabinet that Big Bird was working on?" Prompts
to visual questions always included visually presented information. Prompts to auditory questions always included
auditorily presented information.
Visual comprehension questions were generated by first
watching each segment with the sound turned off. Then
to check the questions, the segments were listened to with
the picture turned off. Questions were eliminated if it was
judged that they could be answered without the visual
signal. The converse procedure was followed to generate
auditory comprehension questions. Examples of visual
comprehension questions are the following' "What type
of hat did Big Bird pick out to wear to the party?" "What
did Bert find in his toy box?" Examples of auditory comprehension questions are the following. "What languages
could Mr. Hooper speak?" "Who did Big Bird want to
invite to the party?"
In the A/V match and A/V mismatch conditions, subjects were asked questions on the audio and video portions
that had been presented—whether they were compatible
or not. In the video-only condition, subjects were asked
questions on the video track that had been presented and
also on the compatible audio track that was not heard
In the audio-only condition, subjects were asked questions
on the audio track that had been presented and also on
the compatible video track that was not seen. Audio questions in the video-only condition and video questions in
the audio-only condition were included to get baseline
response rates on all questions.
The recognition test followed the comprehension test.
Each child was presented twenty-two 5-s video portions
and twenty-two 5-s audio portions on videotape As each
item was presented, the subject responded "yes" or "no,"
had the item been seen or heard in the segment just presented? Half of the audio and video portions were from
the specific segment presented to each subject and half
were from the other segment that included the same characters (i.e., Bert and Ernie or Big Bird) but had not been
presented to them. In the video-only condition, subjects
were tested on video but not audio recognition items. In
the audio-only condition subjects were tested on audio
but not video recognition items. In both other conditions
subjects received both audio and video recgmtion items.
Half of the subjects received the audio test items first and
half received the video test items first.
curacy on video and audio comprehension
questions, and video and audio recognition
accuracy. An initial analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated no significant effect of either
segment type (four different segments were
used) or test-item order (audio or video items
first) on any measures. Thus, the critical analyses presented are the separate one-way ANOVAS carried out on each measure. The rejection region for all analyses was p < .05.
Visual Attention
The mean percentage of the total time that
children visually attended to the experimental
segment was calculated in each of the four
conditions. These data are presented in the
first column of Table I.1 A one-way ANOVA
yielded a significant difference among the four
conditions, F\3, 92) = 92.83, MSC = .021.
Schefie comparisons indicated that attention
was significantly less in the audio-only condition than in each of the other conditions.
The only other significant difference was that
visual attention was less in the video-only condition than in the A/V match condition.
Video Comprehension
Children's responses to comprehension
questions were coded on a 0 (incorrect answer)
to 2 (correct answer without prompt) scale. The
mean score for video questions in each of the
four conditions is presented in the second column of Table 1. A one-way ANOVA resulted
in a significant difference among the four conditions, /1(3, 92) = 30.28, MSC = .170. Schefie
tests yielded all comparisons significantly different except the difference between the A/V
mismatch and the video-only conditions. To
examine these differences more systematically,
consider the score in the audio-only condition
(.51) to be the chance response rate on video
comprehension questions. Comprehension
accuracy then was significantly better than
chance in each of the other three conditions.
Also, video comprehension was significantly
higher in the A/V match condition than in
1
Results
The principal measures were percentage of
visual attention to the television, recall ac-
215
The level of visual attention in the A/V match condition
was similar to the 88% and 89%figuresreported in comparable conditions by Pezdek and Hartmann (1983) and
Lorch, Anderson, and Levin (1979), respectively.
216
KATHY PEZDEK AND ELLEN STEVENS
Table 1
Mean Performance on Each Measure in Each Condition
Condition
Percentage
of visual
attention
Video (V)
comprehension
accuracy (0-2 range)
Audio (A)
comprehension
;accuracy (0-2 range)
Video
recognition:
d'
Audio
recognition:
d
A/V match
A/V mismatch
Video only
Audio only
91.6
83.8
74 0
28.4
1.61
1 13
1.28
0.51
1.51
0.85
0.57
1.20
3.92
3.06
3.15
3.04
1.05
either the A/V mismatch or video-only conditions, which did not differ from each other.
Audio Comprehension
The mean comprehension score for audio
questions in each of the four conditions is presented in the third column of Table 1. A oneway ANOVA indicated a significant difference
among these four conditions, 7*1(3, 92) = 17.13,
MSe = .234. Scheffe tests were conducted to
more specifically examine the data. The comprehension score in the video-only condition
(.57) is considered to be the chance response
rate on the audio questions. Scores in the A/
V match and audio-only conditions were not
significantly different, and both were significantly better than chance. However, audio
comprehension in the A/V mismatch condition was both not significantly better than
chance and significantly less than that in the
A/V match condition.
Video Recognition Accuracy
The recognition data were transformed to
the signal detection measure of d'. The d' values were included because the conditions of
the experiment suggested that response bias
as well as sensitivity might affect recognition
accuracy. The values of d' reflect subjects'
ability to distinguish old from new test items.
(See Banks, 1970, for an explanation of Signal
Detection Theory.) The procedure outlined by
Hochhaus (1972) was followed for calculating
d! values. The mean d' value for video recognition items in each of three conditions is
presented in the fourth column of Table 1.
Video recognition items were not presented
to subjects in the audio-only condition, and
audio recognition items were not presented to
2.17
subjects in the video-only condition. A oneway ANOVA yielded the differences among
conditions nonsignificant, F(2, 69) = 3.03,
MSe = 1.770.
Audio Recognition Accuracy
The mean d' value for audio recognition
items in each of three experimental conditions
is presented in the fifth column of Table 1. A
one-way ANOVA indicated significant differences among conditions, F\2, 69) = 9.66,
MSe = 2.409. Scheffe tests revealed that recognition accuracy in the A/V mismatch condition was significantly less than that in both
the A/V match and the audio-only conditions,
which did not differ from each other.
Discussion
The results are discussed primarily in terms
of the issues raised in the introduction. The
first question is whether processing video information interferes with processing the simultaneously presented audio information on
television. To answer this question, comprehension and recognition of auditory information are compared in the audio-only condition and in the A/V match condition. In this
way performance on the same audio test items
can be compared with and without the accompanying video material. As reported in
Table 1, comprehension and recognition of
auditory information was not significantly different in the audio-only and the A/V match
condition. Thus, the video channel in the A/
V match condition did not interfere with processing the audio channel. This suggests that
the audio and video channels in the A/V match
condition, and in most regular television programs, should not be considered as independently processed. Rather, audio and video in-
CHILDREN'S AUDITORY AND VISUAL MEMORY FOR TELEVISION
formation on television appear to be processed
together as part of a single integrated stimulus.
An alternative interpretation of the above
result is that comprehension and recognition
of auditory information in the audio-alone and
A/V match conditions did not differ because
processing of auditory information was actually elevated above normal in the audio-only
condition. However, this interpretation flies in
the face of results from numerous other studies.
For example, Lorch, Anderson, and Levin
(1979), in one condition, examined the relationship between visual attention to television
and comprehension of information presented
only auditorily. They reported a significant and
substantial positive correlation between visual
attention to television at the specific time that
the auditory information was presented and
comprehension accuracy on questions probing
this auditory information. In other words,
children comprehended more auditory information of television when they were looking
at the television than when they looked away.
In the present study, visual attention to the
television in the audio-only condition was only
28.4%. Furthermore using materials similar to
those used in the present study, Pezdek and
Hartmann (1983) reported that children semantically processed auditory television segments primarily during periods of visual attention. Thus, it is unlikely in the present study
that processing of auditory information was
elevated above normal in the audio-only condition.
The second question raised in the present
study is how do children allocate their processing to the audio versus video channels on
television in the A/V mismatch condition? The
results suggest that when children have to
choose one channel or the other, processing
the audio information suffers more than does
processing the video information. Visual attention in the A/V mismatch condition was
not significantly less than in the A/V match
condition. However, memory for both audio
and video information declined when the two
modality channels were incompatible. Audio
comprehension and recognition were significantly reduced in the A/V mismatch condition, with audio comprehension not significantly different than chance. Video comprehension and recognition were relatively more
217
accurate and significantly better than chance.
These findings are consistent with the literature
on the visual-dominance effect, in which less
complex perceptual and memory tasks have
been used (cf. Posner et al., 1976).
In summary, the suggestion by Hayes and
Birnbaum (1980) that "nursery-school children have a strong tendency to "look and not
listen" while attending to television" (p. 415)
is disputed by the present findings. Children's
comprehension and recognition of audio information in the A/V match condition were
significantly greater than chance and not significantly different than in the audio-only condition. However, the conclusion by Hayes and
Birnbaum (1980), Ward and Wackman (1973),
and others that video information is better
retained than audio information on television
is supported with qualifications. With the A/
V match segments in the present study, comparable to typical television programs, comprehension and recognition were similarly high
for audio and video information. However,
these data cannot be directly compared because they are based on different test items.
The relative memorability of audio and video
information can be examined in the A/V mismatch condition. In the A/V mismatch condition, comprehension and recognition of audio information were reduced more than video
information. When subjects had to choose
which of two incompatible channels to process,
the video channel was favored, and memory
for the audio information was reduced to
chance. Together, these results suggest that in
typical television programs the video information does not interfere with processing the
audio information, rather, the video material
simply appears to be more salient and memorable than the audio material.
References
Baggett, P. (1979). Structurally equivalent stories in movie
and text and the effect of the medium on recall. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 333-356.
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human
memory Psychological Bulletin. 74, 81-99
Beagles-Roos, J., & Gat, I. (1983). The specific impact of
radio and television on children's story comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75. 128-137.
Hayes, D. S., & Birnbaum, D. W (1980). Preschoolers'
retention of televised events: Is a picture worth a thousand words7 Developmental Psychology; 16, 410-416.
218
KATHY PEZDEK AND ELLEN STEVENS
Hochhaus, L. (1972). A table for the calculation of d and
B. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 375-376.
Lorch, E. P., Anderson, D. R., & Levin, S. R. (1979). The
relationship of visual attention to children's comprehension of television. Child Development, 50, 722-727.
Meringoff, L. K. (1980). Influence of the medium on children's story apprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 72, 240-244.
Pezdek, K. (1980). Life-span differences in semantic integration of pictures and sentences in memory Child
Development, 51, 720-729.
Pezdek, K., & Hartmann, E. P (1983). Children's television
viewing: Attention and comprehension of auditory versus
visual information. Child Development, 54, 1015-1023
Posnei; M. I., Nissen, M. J , & Klein, R M. (1976) Visual
dominance: An information-processing account of its
origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157171.
Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as related
to cognition and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 131-148.
Ward, S., & Wackman, D. B. (1973). Children's mformation processing of television advertising. In P. Clarke
(Ed.), New models for mass communication research
(Vol 2; pp 119-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zuckerman, M., Ziegler, M., & Stevenson, H. W. (1978).
Children's viewing of television and recognition of commercials Child Development, 49. 96-104.
Received June 7, 1982
Revision received November 11, 1982 •
Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
Children's Conceptions of Friendship. A Multimethod Study of Developmental Changes. Wyndol Furman
(Department of Psychology, Child Study Center, 2460 South Vine Street, University of Denver, Denver,
Colorado 80208) and Karen Linn Bierman.
The Stability and Determinants of Sociometric Status and Friendship Choice: A Longitudinal Perspective.
William M. Bukowski and Andrew F. Newcomb (Department of Psychology, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan 48824).
Social Organization, Physical Environment and Infant-Caretaker Interaction. R. H. Woodson (Department
of Psychology, Mezes Hall 330, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712) and E M. deCosta-Woodson.
Children's Dispositions and Mother-Child Interaction at 12 and 18 Months; A Short-Term Longitudinal
Study. Eleanor E. Maccoby (Department of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Bldg. 420, Stanford University,
Stanford, California 94305), Margaret Ellis Snow, and Carol Nagy Jacklin.
Children's Comprehension of Televised Formal Features With Masculine and Feminine Connotations. Aletha
C. Huston (CRITC, Department of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045),
Douglas Greer, John C Wright, Renate Welch, and Rhonda Ross.
Relationships Among Selected Child-Rearing Variables in a Cross-Cultural Sample of 110 Societies. David
S. Zern (Department of Education, Clark University, 950 Mam Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610).
Relations Between Reflection-Impulsivity and Behavioral Impulsivity in Preschool Children. James B. Victor,
Charles F. Halverson (Department of Child and Family Development, Dawson Hall, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602), and Ruth B. Montague.
Characteristics of 3-4 Year Olds Assessed at Home and Interactions in Preschool. R A. Hinde (MCR Unit
of the Development and Integration of Behavior, University Sub-Department of Animal Behavior, Madingley,
Cambridge, England CB3 8AA), J. Stevenson Hinde, and A. Tamplm.
Arousal Effects on Visual Preferences in Neonates Judith M Gardner (Department of Psychiatry, Albert
Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, 1300 Morris Park Ave., Bronx, New York 10461) and
Bernard Z. Karmel
Child Influences on Adult Controls: An Experimental Investigation. Molly A. Brunk and Scott W. Henggeler
(Department of Psychology, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee 38152).
Accuracy and Consistency in the Development of Social Perception Richard N. Maclennan and Douglas
N. Jackson (Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London Ontario Canada
N6A 5C2)
Predictors of Social Acceptance in Preschool Children. Lorene C Quay (Department of Early Childhood
Development, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia 30303) and Olga S. Jarrett.
Preschool Children's Conceptions of Transgressions: The Effects of Varying Moral and Conventional DomainRelated Attributes. Judith G. Smetana (Graduate School of Education and Human Development, University
of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627).
Paternal Determinants of Female Adolescent Marijuana Use. Judith S. Brook (Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, New York 10029), Martin Whiteman, Ann Scovell
Gordon, and David W. Brook.
Socializing Procedures in Parent-Child and Friendship Relations During Adolescence. Fumiyo Tao Hunter
(Child and Family Research Branch, Bldg. 31, Rm. B2B15, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, Bethesda, Maryland 20205).
(Continued on p. 228)