Children's Television Viewing: Attention and
Comprehension of Auditory versns Visual
Infomiation
Kathy Pezdek
Claremont Graduate School
Eileen F. Hartman
California State College, San Bernardino
PEZDEK, KATHY, and HARTMAN, EILEEN F . Children's Television Viewing: Attention
and
Comprehension of Auditory versus Visual Information. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1983, 54, 10151023. This study examines the relationship between children's attention and comprehension of
auditory and visual infonnation on television. 60 5-year-olds viewed a videotape of "Sesame
Street" and were then asked comprehension questions. Equal numbers of children viewed the
television with (a) toys available to play with (the visual attention manipulation); (b) a record
playing in the room (the auditory attention manipulation); or (c) no toys or record available (the
control condition). All children viewed the same television sequence, which consisted of (a)
visual segments, (b) auditory segments, and (c) mixed modality segments. The major results were
that the children effectively distributed their attention such that they could process auditory and
visual information from television while performing other activities. Further, the children were
sensitive to which segments required visual attention and which did not, and they were able to
spontaneously adjust their pattern of visual attention appropriately. These results indicate that
children utilize a fairly sophisticated cognitive processing strategy while watching television.
The large majority of research on the
effects of television on children has
examined the social impact of television on
children's behavior (e.g., aggression and
presocial behavior). Although it seems obvious that social lessons cannot be learned
unless the lessons are understood and remembered, surprisingly little research has
examined these cognitive processing aspects of children's television viewing. The
present study investigates the relationship
between children's attention and comprehension of infonnation presented visually versus auditorily on television.
. J ,^ ^ . ,,
. „ ,. u t 1
Adults typically appear to watch television by following the action auditorily
(often while performmg some household
task) and looking at the screen periodically
simply to confirm their comprehension. This
is consistent with the description of television as a "radio with pictures" (cf. Bechtel,
Achelpohl, & Akers, 1972; Szalai, 1972).
However, this method of watching television assumes a fairly sophisticated cognitive
processing ability. It assumes that a person
can (a) follow the plot from the auditory
channel while participating in some other
activity, (b) develop hypotheses about what
is likely to happen next, so that he or she can
(c) look at the television when it is necessary
to catch a particularly interesting or important visual event. Current research on children's attention indicates that children are
generally inefficient at selective, divided,
and maintained attention (Lipps Birch,
1976; Pick, Frankel, & Hess, 1975; Strutt,
Anderson, & Well, 1975). These findings
suggest age differences in the pattern of
television processing, particularly regarding
^j^^ relationship between watching and listening to television,
Results from several studies suggest
that children's attention to television is more
strongly correlated with audio than with visual attributes of television programs (Anderson & Levin, 1976; Wartella & Ettema,
1974). These results appear to suggest that
children process more of the auditorily than
This research was supported by a grant to the first author from the National Institute of
Education. We thank Ed Teyber and Dan Anderson for their helpful comments on this manuscript. Reprint requests and correspondence should be sent to Kathy Pezdek, Department of
Psychology, Claremont Craduate School, Claremont, Califomia 91711.
[Child Development, 1983,54,1015-1023. © 1983 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/83/5404-0020$01.00]
1016
Child Development
visually presented information on television. However, a number of studies have
suggested that, although children's attention
is drawn to television by auditory attributes
of programs, they actually remember visually presented information better than auditorily presented information (Hayes &
Birnbaum, 1980; Zuckennan, Ziegler, &
Stevenson, 1978; Pezdek, Note 1).
Lorch, Anderson, and Levin (1979)
examined 5-year-old children's television
processing using intact "Sesame Street"
programs. They manipulated children's visual attention to the television by including
two conditions of viewing. One group
watched television with a variety of toys
available for play. A second group watched
television without the toys. In the no-toys
group, visual attention to the television averaged 87%, whereas visual attention for the
group with toys averaged only 44%. Interestingly, despite the visual attention differences, (a) the two groups did not differ in
accuracy on comprehension test questions,
and (b) in the toys group, there was a
significant and substantial positive correlation between visual attention at the time the
infonnation was given on questions and
comprehension of those questions, including questions based on information presented only auditorily. This latter result
suggests that comprehension of all aspects of
the program was better during periods of visual attention. When children looked away
from the television, their comprehension of
even the auditorily presented information
declined.
A model of children's television viewing was derived from these data and further
elaborated by Anderson (Note 2). This
model posits that, when children watch
television, they can effectively divide their
attention between the television and other
activities. When they are looking at the television, they are semantically processing
both the auditory and visual channels. When
children look away from the television, they
monitor the auditory channel only at a level
sufficient to detect auditory cues signaling
the need to return full attention to the television. By at least age 4, children seem to
have learned the nonsemantic auditory features (e.g., lively music, change of voice,
sound efFects, etc.) that are predictive of important content (Anderson & Levin, 1976).
The auditory cues thus guide visual attention when children look away from the television.
The aim of the present study is, first, to
test the replicability of the results of Lorch
et al. (1979). Second, this study extends
Lorch et al.'s (1979) model of the relationship between attention and comprehension of television to account for auditory attention and comprehension processes. In addition to the control and toys
conditions, the present study includes a record condition to manipulate children's auditory attention to television. Thus, variations in auditory as well as visual attention
can be related to comprehension of television. Third, the Lorch et al. (1979) model
was developed on the basis of television
segments in which the auditory and visual
channels were well integrated. With segments of this type, auditory cues are available to guide visual attention. The present
study examines children's pattern of television viewing using auditory segments and
visual segments as well as the mixed modality segments similar to those utilized by
Lorch et al. (1979). In the visual segments,
most of the plot-relevant content was presented visually, and the visual content was
not supported by the typical auditory cues.
In the auditory segments, most of the plotrelevant content was presented auditorily
and not visually. The type of television segment was manipulated in this study to test
whether children are sensitive to variations
in the presentation modality of television
segments and whether they differentially
adjust their viewing as a function of which
channel the principal information is presented on.
Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 was designed to test and verify
that the three different types of segments—
auditory, visual, and mixed modality—were
in fact modality specific as indicated. Experiment 2 tests the major issues of interest
in this study.
Experiment 1
The purpose of the first experiment is to
validate the distinctions among the three
types of segments. Subjects viewed all three
types of segments in one of three presentation conditions: (a) only the auditory track
was presented; (b) only the visual track was
presented; or (c) both the auditory and visual tracks were presented.
Several predictions follow from the
definition of the three types of program segments. First, the auditory segments are accu-
Pezdek and Hartman
rately defined as "auditory" if comprehension of these segments is significantly better
in the auditory-only than visual-only presentation condition and nonsignificantly
different in the auditory-only and both auditory and visual conditions. Second, visual
segments are accurately defined as visual if
comprehension of these segments is
significantly better in the visual-only than
auditory-only presentation condition, and
nonsignificantly different in the visual-only
condition compared with the both auditory
and visual condition.
Finally, the mixed modality segments
involve processing both auditory and visual
information. Although comprehension of an
entire segment of this type required processing both auditory and visual information, specific questions were derived that
tapped largely auditorily presented information or largely visually presented information. For the auditory questions from
the mixed modality segments, it was predicted that comprehension would be
significantly less in the visual-only presentation condition than in either of the other
two conditions. For the visual questions
from the mixed modality segments, it was
predicted that comprehension would be
significantly less in the auditory-only presentation condition than in either of the
other two conditions.
Method
Subjects and design.—Thirty 5-year-old
children were recruited from kindergarten
classes in public schools in Claremont,
California. The experiment utilized a 3
(segment type) x 3 (presentation condition)
mixed factorial design. All subjects viewed a
"Sesame Street" sequence that contained
approximately equal amounts of three types
of segments. The central infonnation in each
of the three types of segments was presented
visually, auditorily, or on both the visual and
auditory channels. Ten subjects (five males
and five females) were randomly assigned to
view the television sequence with only the
auditory track presented, only the visual
track presented, or both the auditory and visual tracks presented. The dependent variable was recall accuracy on comprehension
questions.
1017
domly ordered segments. The segments
were rated by three adult viewers as containing principally auditory, visual, or mixed
modality information. A segment was
labeled visual if the central information was
presented via the visual channel. An example of a visual segment would be a film, with
a constant musical background and no verbalization, showing how to grow beans. A
segment was labeled auditory if the central
information was presented via the auditory
channel. An example of an auditory segment
would be Bert and Ernie (two Muppets)
talking to each other in one setting. They
nod to each other as they talk, but the central
content is in their conversation, not in their
movement. A segment was labeled as mixed
modality if, throughout the segment, central
information was presented on the auditory
and the visual channels, and the complete
segment could be understood only with both
the auditory and visual channels on. Most
television segments are of this type. An
example would be Big Bird talking with
Maria about repairing a radio while they
are doing so together in the shop.
It should be pointed out that, although
the auditory segments and visual segments
are not typical of most television shows, they
are not in fact uncommon. In selecting the
segments for the present study we found at
least one auditory and one visual segment in
each of 10 segments of "Sesame Street"
viewed. Of the 11 segments utilized in the
present study, three were auditory (6 min
and 30 sec), five were visual (6 min and 45
sec), and three were mixed modality (7 min).
Procedure.—Each child was tested individually in a comfortably furnished room
on the campus. No toys or distractors were
available. The children were instructed to
pay careful attention to the television because they were going to be asked some
questions afterward. The experimenter remained in the room during the session to encourage the children to maintain attention to
the television. Ten subjects were presented
with the sequence with the visual track
turned ofF(the auditory-only condition). Ten
subjects were presented with the sequence
with the auditory track turned off (the
visual-only condition). Ten subjects were
presented the sequence in a normal fashion
with both the auditory and visual tracks on.
Stimulus materials.—The sequence of
"Sesame Street" segments was edited by
Immediately following the television
the experimenters for this study. The complete sequence was approximately 20 min sequence, the comprehension test was
long, was in color, and consisted of 11 ran- administered. Thirty-five comprehension
1018 Child Development
questions were selected to query specific
aspects of the three types of segments. Nine
questions were based on information judged
to have been presented auditorily. Thirteen
questions were based on information judged
to have been visually presented in the segments. Two types of test questions were developed for the mixed modality programs:
seven questions were based on the auditorily presented content, and six questions
were based on the visually presented content.
Questions followed the order in which
the corresponding segments had been presented. The comprehension test utilized
children's recall. Each answer was scored on
the following three-point scale: two points if
the child answered correctly, one point if a
verbal prompt from the experiment was necessary before the child gave the correct answer, and no points if the child did not give
the correct answer even 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 questions was,
"What was Big Bird making?" The correct
answer was "a model of Big Bird" or "a
bird." If the child could not answer this
question or answered incorrectly, a prompt
was offered, "What was Big Bird making out
of a box?" If the child did not answer correctly when prompted, the experimenter
gave the correct response before proceeding.
The acceptable "correct answers" for each
question were specified in advance, making
the scoring of answers quite clear-cut. Most
correct answers were only two or three
words long.
Results and Discussion
The specific predictions in Experiment 1
were tested with four separate one-way
analyses of variance. Comprehension accu-
racy (the range of scores = 0-2) as a function
of presentation condition was examined for
responses to visual segments, auditory segments, auditory questions from mixed modality segments, and visual questions from
mixed modality segments. The data are presented in Table 1. The rejection region for
all analyses is p < .05.
With the auditory segments, comprehension accuracy significantly varied with
presentation condition, F(2,27) = 26.35, MS^.
= .130. A priori t tests yielded significantly
better comprehension in the auditory-only
condition (1.37) than in the visual-only condition (.43). Comprehension accuracy did
not differ between the combined auditory
and visual condition (1.51) and the
auditory-only condition. These results verify
that the information needed to answer questions from the auditory segments was available on the auditory track, but insufficient
infonnation was available on the visual
track.
Comprehension accuracy for visual
segments also varied significantly with presentation condition, F(2,27) = 32.33, MS,. =
.087. A priori t tests yielded significantly
better comprehension in the video-only
condition (1.36) than in the audio-only condition (.47). Comprehension accuracy did
not differ between the combined auditory
and visual condition (1.41) and the visualonly condition. Therefore, it can be concluded that the information needed to answer questions from the visual segments was
available on the visual track but not on the
auditory track.
Comprehension accuracy for auditory
questions from the mixed modality segments
significantly varied with presentation condition, F(2,27) = 7.43, MS, = .152. Comprehension was significantly less in the
TABLE 1.
MEAN CODED COMPREHENSION SCORES IN EACH CONDITION IN
EXPERIMENT 1 (0-2 Range)
QUESTION TYPE FROM EACH SECMENT
PRESENTATION
CONDITION
Auditory only
Visual only
Auditory and
visual
Auditory
Visual
Mixed
Modality
(Auditory)
Mixed
Modality
(Visual)
1.37
43
.47
1.36
1.09
.23
.53
1.00
1.51
1.41
1.08
1.26
Pezdek and Hartman
1019
visually attended to the television and (2) recall accuracy on comprehension questions.
Setting and procedure.—Each child individually viewed a "Sesame Street" sequence in a comfortably furnished room. In
the toys condition, several toys were available in the room for the child to play with. In
the record condition, a children's record was
playing on a phonograph in the back of the
room. The record was "Peter and the Wolf"
with its musical background. The volume of
the record player was set slightly lower than
that of the television (detennined from
where most children sat) and was constant
for all subjects. The children were instructed
to watch television just as they would if they
were in their own home. They were told that
they could play with the toys (if present) or
The results of Experiment 1 validate the listen to the record (if playing) if they
materials for use in Experiment 2. The non- wanted to. They were also told that they
zero response rate for the auditory questions would be asked a few questions about the
in the visual-only condition and for visual television sequence when it was finished.
questions in the auditory-only condition can
After the study was explained the child
be accounted for by three factors. These
factors are (a) the extent to which the correct was left alone in the viewing room. The paranswer could be inferred from information ent was taken to another room during the
in the other modality, (b) previously ac- session and instructed to fill out a questionquired knowledge of and familiarity with naire on the television-viewing habits of the
child. Two observers behind a one-way mir"Sesame Street," and (c) guessing.
ror recorded the child's visual attention to
the television. (One of the two observers was
Experiment 2
blind to the predictions of the experiment.)
Experiment 2 specifically examines the The observers depressed a button attached
relationship between children's attention to a timer every time the child looked at
and comprehension of auditory and visual the television and released it when the child
information on television.
looked away. The duration of attention in
seconds and the cumulative frequency of
Method
Subjects, design, and materials.—The glances were recorded for each of the 11 insubjects were 60 5-year-old children re- dividual television segments. The observers
cruited from kindergarten classes in public noted the beginning and end of each segschools in the San Bernardino, Califomia, ment on a video monitor in the observation
metropolitan area. The children were room. The two observers produced an interobserver reliability correlation of .98.
brought to the campus by a parent.
visual-only condition (.23) than in the
auditory-only condition (1.09) or the combined auditory and visual condition (1.08).
This is consistent with the definition of these
items.
Finally, comprehension accuracy for visual questions from the mixed modality
segments also significantly varied with presentation condition, F(2,27) = 8.28, MS^ =
.143. Comprehension was significantly less
in the auditory-only condition (.53) than in
the visual-only condition (1.00) or the combined auditory and visual condition (1.26).
The visual-only condition and the combined
condition did not significantly differ from
each other. This is consistent with the definition of these items.
The experiment utilized a 3 (television-viewing condition) x 3 (segment type)
X 2 (sex of subject) mixed factorial design.
All subjects viewed the "Sesame Street"
television sequence pretested in Experiment
1. This sequence included the same random
ordering of visual, auditory, and mixed modality segments. Ten female and 10 male
subjects were randomly assigned to view the
television sequence with either toys available for play (the visual attention manipulation), a record playing in the room (the auditory attention manipulation), or no toys or
record available (the control condition). The
dependent variables were (1) the percent of
the total time for each segment that subjects
Immediately following the television
sequence, the experimenter returned to the
viewing room for the comprehension test.
The 35 comprehension questions pretested
in Experiment 1 were utilized in this experiment. These included auditory questions from the auditory segments, visual
questions from the visual segments, auditory
questions from the mixed modality segments, and visual questions from the mixed
modality segments. Questions followed the
order in which the corresponding segments
had been presented. Each answer was
scored from 2 (correct answer without
prompt) to 0 (no correct answer even with
prompt).
1020 Child Development
Results
The principal measures were the
amount of visual attention and comprehension accuracy. Separate analyses were carried out on these measures. The rejection
region for all analyses was p < .05. Sex of
subject was included as a factor in all
analyses. However, because no significant
sex effects resulted in the analyses, the data
reported have been collapsed across sex.
children's visual attention to the television.
Auditory attention may have been reduced,
but there was no way to observe this except
to infer attention differences from comprehensive differences.
A significant effect for type of television
segment also resulted, F(2,108) = 30.52, MS^
= .008. Post hoc comparisons revealed that
subjects' visual attention to the television
was significantly higher with the visual segments (73%) and the mixed modality segments (76%) than with auditory segments
(64%). The effect of the type of segment did
not interact with the television viewing condition.
Visual attention.—An analysis of variance was performed on the percent of time
that each child visually attended to television
as a function of the television-viewing condition, type of segment, and sex of subject.
These data are presented in Table 2.
Comprehension accuracy.—This study
probes whether the conditions that produce
differences in attention also result in differences in comprehension. An analysis of
variance was performed on the coded comprehension scores (0-2 range). The factors in
the analysis were television-viewing condition, type of question, and sex of subject.
There were four types of comprehension test
questions, as described in Experiment 1.
Mean comprehension scores are presented
in Table 3.
Presenting toys did effectively reduce
visual attention to the television relative to
the other two viewing conditions. The effect
of the television-viewing condition was
significant, F(2,54) = 72.62, MSe = .048. Post
hoc comparisons indicated that subjects' visual attention to the television program was
significantly higher in the control condition
(88%) and in the record condition (82%) than
in the condition with toys (44%). Attention in
the record condition and the control condition did not differ. It should be noted that
the measure of attention utilized was the
Comprehension did not significantly
vary as a function of the television-viewing
TABLE 2
MEAN PERCENTAGE OF VISUAL ATTENTION FOR EACH
TELEVISION-VIEWINC CONDITION AS A FUNCTION OF
THE TYPE OF SEGMENT IN EXPERIMENT 2
TELEVISIONVIEWING
CONDITION
TYPE OF SEGMENT
Auditory
Visual
Mixed Modality
Mean
.81
.37
.74
.89
.44
.87
.93
.50
.86
.88
.44
.82
Control . . . .
Toys
Record
TABLE 3
MEAN CODED COMPREHENSION SCORES IN EACH CONDITION IN
EXPERIMENT 2 (0-2 Range)
QUESTION TYPE FROM EACH SEGMENT
TELEVISIONVIEWING
CONDITION
Control
Toys
Record .
Auditory
Visual
Mixed
Modality
(Auditory)
1.31
1.17
1.09
1.31
.92
1.20
1.06
.98
.82
Mixed
Modality
(Visual)
1.17
1.08
, 1.17
Mean
1.21
1.04
1.07
Pezdek and Hartman 1021
condition, despite differences in visual attention in these conditions. However, a
significant effect for type of question was observed, F(3,162) = 7.94, MS, = .081. Comprehension was lower with auditory questions from mixed modality segments than
with the other three conditions.^ The more
interesting effect, however, was the significant interaction of television-viewing
condition x type of question, F(6,162) =
2.99, MSe = -081. This result suggests a relationship between attention and comprehension that is specific within the visual
modality and the auditory modality. Dunnett's post hoc contrasts were perfonned to
compare the control condition with each of
the other viewing conditions for each of the
four types of questions. Comprehension of
auditory segments was significantly reduced
in the record condition (1.09) but not in the
toys condition (1.17) relative to the control
condition (1.31). With visual program segments, comprehension was significantly reduced in the toys condition (.92) but not in
the record condition (1.20) relative to the
control condition (1.31). With auditory
questions from mixed modality segments,
comprehension was significantly reduced in
the record condition (.82) but not in the toys
condition (.98) relative to the control condition (1.06). No significant differences resulted with visual questions from the mixed
modality segments.
Correlational data.—The relationship
between visual attention and comprehension of segments was further examined. Correlations were calculated between the mean
percent of visual attention and the mean
comprehension score for subjects across all
program segments. The overall correlation
was low but significant, r = -I-.30, t{58) =
2.35.
To more closely observe the rela-
tionship between visual attention and comprehension, we computed separate correlations for auditory and visual segments in
each television-viewing condition. Only auditory segments and visual segments were
examined here since it was not possible to
determine for the mixed modality segments
at what particular part of the show the child
was visually attending. Significant correlations between visual attention and comprehension resulted for visual program segments in the control condition (r = +.43), in
the toys condition (r = +.61), and in the record condition (r = +.36).^ No significant correlations resulted for auditory segments in
any of the viewing conditions.
Television-viewing
questionnaire.—
Parents completed a questionnaire on the
television-viewing habits of their child.
Children in this sample watched an average
of 2.75 hours of television a day (with a range
from 1 hour to 7 hours). These results are
consistent with national norms for children
reported by Lyle and Hoffman (1972a,
1972b). This confirms that the children in
this study were typical television viewers.
General Discussion
The results are discussed in terms of
three specific issues. First, were the results
of Lorch et al. (1979) replicated in the comparable conditions in the present study? The
answer is yes. In the mixed modality segments, attention was significantly reduced in
the toys condition relative to the control
condition, but there were no significant differences in comprehension accuracy between these two conditions. The explanation
offered by Lorch et al. (1979) for this result is
that, although the children were attending to
the television less in the toys condition than
in the control condition, they were sensitive
to when it was necessary to return attention
' The reader is cautioned against interpreting the performance differences among the segment types in terms of modality differences in recall. For example, the equal recall scores for
auditory and visual segments in the control condition might appear to contradict numerous
findings supporting the visual superiority effect. However, in the present study, these auditory
and visual scores are based on different test questions, and no attempt was made to equate the
difficulty of these questions.
* The correlation coefficients hetween visual attention and comprehension reported here are
considerably smaller than those reported hy Lorch et al. (1979). However, the coefficients reported by Lorch et al. (1979) were calculated for each question from continuously recorded
attention data. They thus were ahle to measure the percent visual attention during the precise
time that the information needed to answer each question was given and the comprehension
accuracy on each question. These authors have indicated that, when they calculated correlation
coefficients on overall percent visual attention per child and comprehension accuracy per child,
smaller positive correlation coefficients resulted, more similar to those reported in the present
study (Anderson, Note 3).
1022
Child Development
to the television. The cues for when they
needed to return full attention to the television were in the nonsemantic features of
the accompanying auditory track. But subjects were semantically processing the auditory information primarily during periods
of visual attention. This interpretation by
Lorch et al. (1979) is strengthened by their
result that there was a substantial positive
correlation between visual attention and
comprehension of both auditory and visual
infonnation. Lorch et al. (1979) utilized a
continuous method of recording attention
data so that they were able to measure the
percent of visual attention during the precise
interval that the information needed to answer each question was given. This method
was not utilized in the present study, and
thus these correlations are not available for
comparison with the Lorch et al. (1979)
study. However, the parallel findings in
terms of both the attention data and the
comprehension data suggest that subjects
were performing similarly with the mixed
modality segments in the two studies.
An additional test of the Lorch et al.
(1979) model is offered in the present study
by including visual segments in which no
supporting auditory cues are available to
signal important visual content. With these
visual segments, in contrast to the mixed
modality segments, comprehension was
significantly reduced in the toys condition
relative to the control condition. When subjects looked away from the television to play
with toys, there were no auditory cues to rely
on to redirect attention to the television.
However, the record did not significantly
reduce comprehension of visual segments
because there were no important auditory
cues to be interfered with by the competing
auditory stimulus.
The second purpose of the present study
is to examine children's processing of segments that are primarily auditory or primarily visual. The results of Experiment 1
suggest that children did not have to look at
auditory segments to comprehend them, nor
did they have to listen to visual segments to
comprehend them. The question of interest
is whether, in the process of viewing a series
of segments, children are sensitive to which
segments require visual attention and which
segments do not. To examine this issue,
subjects' attention and comprehension of
auditory segments and visual segments are
examined. If children are sensitive to when
visual attention to the television is neces-
sary, then attention should be less with the
auditory segments than with the visual segments. This prediction was supported. In all
viewing conditions, subjects visually attended to the auditory segments less than to
the visual segments. This result is particularly impressive given that, in this experiment, the type of segment was manipulated
within subjects, and subjects were viewing a
randomly arranged series of 11 segments,
each only a few minutes long. Thus, these
5-year-old children were able to rather
quickly evaluate the presentation modality
of segments and spontaneously adjust their
pattern of visual attention appropriately.
The third purpose of the present study is
to extend Lorch et al.'s (1979) model of the
relationship between attention and comprehension to account for auditory attention
and comprehension processes. As can be
seen in Tables 2 and 3, presenting the toys
effectively reduced visual attention to auditory segments without reducing comprehension of the segments relative to the control
condition. Further, the overall correlation
between comprehension and attention of
auditory segments did not approach significance in any of the viewing conditions.
Subjects were thus semantically processing
the auditory information even during
periods of low visual attention to the television. This differs from the results reported
by Lorch et al. (1979) with mixed modality
segments. They reported a positive correlation between visual attention and comprehension of both auditory and visual information. The results of the present study
suggest that, although children may ordinarily semantically process auditory information primarily during periods of visual attention, they have altemative processing
strategies available to them. For example,
when an entire segment requires auditory
but not visual processing, it appears that
children can semantically process the auditory channel without visually attending to
the television. They can listen without
looking. As discussed above, apparently the
children could discriminate between those
segments that did not require processing visual information and those that did require
visual processing. The result that the record
reduced comprehension of auditory segments can be attributed to modality-specific
interference.
An alternative explanation of the above
results exists. Perhaps the subjects were not
semantically processing the auditor)' seg-
Pezdek and Hartman
ments during periods of visual inattention
but were, rather, using cues in the auditory
track to redirect full attention to the visual
track and then were only semantically processing the auditory track during periods of
visual attention. This interpretation follows
from the suggestion by Lorch et al. (1979)
that semantic processing of auditory information occurs primarily during periods of
visual attention. However, this conclusion
was based on mixed modality segments in
which there were auditory cues that accompanied important visual content. This strategy is unlikely with the auditory segments
utilized in the present study, because there
was no plot-relevant visual content and
therefore no auditory cues suggesting a need
to direct visual attention to the television.
The present results extend our understanding of the relationship between children's attention and comprehension of information on television. These findings
suggest that the cognitive processing ability
of 5-year-old children is much more sophisticated than is suggested by laboratory research on children's attention (e.g., Lipps
Burch, 1976; Strutt, Anderson, & Well,
1975). When the television is used as a
stimulus, it appears that 5-year-olds are able
to effectively distribute their attention such
that they can differentially process auditory
and visual aspects of television while performing other activities (e.g., playing with
toys or listening to a record). These results
run counter to the position that children passively absorb the information bombarding
them from television. It is hoped that continued research in this area will lead to a
better understanding of children's true cognitive processing abilities as well as to the
production of television programs that are
more comprehensible to children.
Reference Notes
1. Pezdek, K. Memory for visual and auditory
2.
3.
information on television. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Psychonomic Society,
Philadelphia, Novemher 1981.
Anderson, D. Active and passive processes in
children's television viewing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, New York, September 1979.
Anderson, D. Personal communication,
Novemher 1980.
1023
References
Anderson, D. R., & Levin, S. R. Young children's
attention to "Sesame Street." Child Development, 1976, 47, 80&-811.
Bechtel, R. B., Achelpohl, C , & Akers, R. Correlates hetween observed hehavior and questionnaire responses on television viewing. 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. Washington, D.C: Government
Printing Office, 1972.
Hayes, D. S., & Bimhaum, D. W. Preschoolers'
retention of televised events: Is a picture
worth a thousand words? Developmental
Psychology, 1980, 16, 410-416.
Lipps Birch, L. Age trends in children's
timesharing performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1976, 22, 331-345.
Lorch, E. P., Anderson, D. R., & Levin, S. R. The
relationship of visual attention to children's
comprehension of television. Child Development, 1979, 50, 722-727.
Lyle, J. L., & Hoffman, H. R. 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.
Washington, D.C: Government Printing
Office, 1972. (a)
Lyle, J. L., & Hoffman, H. R. Explorations in patterns of television viewing by preschool-age
children. In E. A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, & J. P. Murray (Eds.), Television and
social behavior (Vol. 4): Television in dayto-day life: Patterns of use. Washington,
D.C: Government Printing Office, 1972. (h)
Pick, A. D., Frankel, D. G., & Hess, V. L. Children's attention: The development of selectivity. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Review of
child development research (Vol. 5). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Strutt, G. F., Anderson, D. R., & Well, A. D. A
developmental study of the effects of irrelevant information on speeded classification.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
1975, 20, 127-135.
Szalai, E. The use of time: Daily activities of
urban and suburban populations in twelve
countries. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.
Wartella, E., & Ettema, J. S. A cognitive developmental study of children's attention to television commercials. Communication Research, 1974, 1, 69-87.
Zuckerman, P., Ziegler, M., & Stevenson, H. W.
Children's viewing of television and recognition memory of commercials. Child Development, 1978, 49, 96-104.