Effects of prosocial portrayals on
television on social behavior
Meta-analysis of studies of
prosocial portrayals
• Marie-Louise Mares (1996)
• Sponsored by Annenberg Public Policy
Center, University of Pennsylvania
• “It is commonly held that television
viewing does more harm than good,
especially to young audiences.”
“Prosocial”
• “it is not as easy as it first seems to sort out which
behaviors are positive and which are negative.
This is more than a hazy relativism. It is naïve to
assume that all groups in society place equal value
on cooperation (rather than rugged individualism),
tolerance of others (rather than willingness to stick
up for one’s own group), nonviolent conflict
resolution (rather than heroism), or ability to resist
temptation (rather than ability to seize the
moment). Nonetheless, all these have been used
as prosocial outcomes in research.”
• “Effects are strongest when the behavior
that is modeled is salient, clearly portrayed,
and can be easily incorporated into a child’s
everyday interactions”
– Kotler, p. 817
Altruism
• Children who were given tokens, then
shown portrayals of a model acting
generously, (donating prize money to
charity) were more likely to donate tokens
to charity compared to children who
watched a model behave selfishly (cashing
in winnings for a big prize) or in a neutral
manner
Positive interactions
• Lynette Friedrich and Aletha Huston-Stein found
that children who had viewed Mr. Rogers’
Neighborhood exhibited more friendly behavior in
the school playground compared to those who
viewed neutral content. Studies of Barney and
Friends indicate that children learn about
cooperation and friendship through viewing the
show.
Self-control and persistence
• Studies of self-control include programs that focus
on resistance to temptation, obedience to rules,
and persistence at a task. The self-control studies
are often set up as lab experiments similar to the
studies on altruism. Many studies conducted in the
1970s indicated that children who view models
who are able to resist temptation (e.g., resisting
playing with a forbidden toy, eating forbidden
food) are more likely to demonstrate self-control
compared to children who view models who
indulge in forbidden activities.
• In a more recent study, children who
viewed 20 episodes of Dragon Tales, a
show designed to encourage children to
pursue challenges, more frequently chose to
pursue challenging tasks, compared to those
who were not exposed to the series.
Reduction of stereotypes
• Early evaluations of Sesame Street found that Caucasian
preschoolers had more positive attitudes toward African
Americans and Latino Americans after viewing Sesame
Street over the course of the 2-year study.
• A more recent study of the Israeli-Palestinian production
of Sesame Street showed that viewing led to an increase in
prosocial problem solving and more positive attitudes
toward children of the other group.
Content characteristics
• Portrayals can be transferred to children’s
lives
– Likely to occur in their own lives (including
other kids v. comfort for loss)
– Reality v. fictional story
• Combining prosocial and violent content
may backfire
– Linda Silverman found that 3-year olds who
saw a Sesame Street segment with conflict
followed by resolution were less cooperative
– Marsha Liss and Lauri Reinhardt found that
combinations of prosocial and antisocial acts in
the cartoon series Superfriends led to more
aggressive behavior than either prosocial or
antisocial depictions alone
Viewer characteristics
• Prosocial depictions have similar effect on
– Boys and girls
– Kids of different races or ethnicity
• May be more effective for kids from
middle- or upper-class homes
• Effect of prosocial content appears to
increase between ages of 3 and 7, and then
decline
Context
• The effect of prosocial content is enhanced
by adult coviewing
– Parents in the home
– Teachers in school
• Supplementary materials enhance impact
Prosocial content
• Greenberg and colleagues analyzed the favorite programs of a sample
of fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. They found that these programs
contained an average of 44.2 acts of prosocial behavior in an average
hour. The prosocial behavior included displays of altruism and
empathy and discussion of feelings. The researchers also found that the
violence was just as frequent, however. A recent study conducted by
Deborah Weber and Dorothy Singer analyzed the favorite programs
and videos viewed by children age 2 and under. They found many
occurrences of prosocial behavior, including sharing, helping, and
manners. For example, in the video Sesame Street: Learning to Share,
there were 45 instances of positive social behaviors.
Commercials
• Commercials also contain examples of prosocial behavior. In one
study, prosocial behavior appeared in 59% of all children’s
commercials. Friendly behaviors were the most common forms of
prosocial behavior, with 42% of all commercials containing examples
of affection between characters. Helping and teaching were common
altruistic behaviors, appearing in 21% of all commercials. Mary Strom
Larson analyzed 595 commercials in children’s programming and
found that commercials depicting only girls showed almost all
cooperative interactions (i.e., 85% of the time). Mixed boy and girl
commercials primarily portrayed cooperative interactions (51%),
compared to boys only commercials, which contained primarily
competitiverinteractions.—Jennifer A. Kotler
• V. O. Lovelace and A. C. Huston have identified three
strategies for modeling prosocial behavior for children
through the media.
1. Present characters who exhibit only prosocial behavior.
– Could be boring
2. Incorporate story lines in which characters resolve conflict
by making prosocial choices. Positive consequences are
attributed to prosocial behavior and negative consequences
to antisocial behavior.
– Concern over modeling of antisocial behaviors
3. Present both prosocial and antisocial behaviors without
presenting a resolution within the program. Rather, the
viewer is asked to offer his or her own solution to the
presented conflict.
– considered most effective in classroom or therapeutic settings, where an
adult can supervise postviewing discussion or activity
.
Impact of viewing prosocial
behavior
• Just as in learning violent behavior,
prosocial behavior can be learned by
observation
– Prosocial behavior can be induced by emotional
responses to television portrayals
• Unlike violent portrayals (according to
Rushton), there is a social norm to help one
another
Rushton:
• “If we asked a stranger in the street for
directions, we would expect him or her to
provide the information if possible and to
apologize if not. If the stranger were
instead to turn to us and say ‘Yes I do know
where that place is but I can’t be bothered to
tell you,’ we would be rather surprised.”
Differences among individuals
• “Research on prosocial behavior finds that
individuals tend to be consistent in the
degree to which they display prosocial
behavior, but there is some variation
between individuals.”
– Likely that prosocial acts receive spontaneous
reward
– Media effects should be at least as strong for
prosocial as for violent portrayals
Sample of studies
• 1966-1995
• Studies included if they:
– Involved exposure to television content deemed
prosocial or positive by the researchers,
– Measured a relevant behavioral outcome of exposure,
and
– Contained enough statistical information to allow for
calculation of effect sizes
• Different age groups and different genders were
treated as separate samples
• Yield: 39 usable sources; 185 effect sizes
Overall effect sizes for prosocial
content
d
N
Prosocial v. Other
.28
104
Prosocial v. antisocial
.40
59
Effect of prosocial content on
positive interaction
d
N
Prosocial v. Other
.27
41
Prosocial v. antisocial
.30
14
Effect of prosocial content on
altruism
d
N
Prosocial v. Other
.61
25
Prosocial v. antisocial
.56
25
Effect of prosocial content on
self-control
d
N
Prosocial v. Other
.23
12
Prosocial v. antisocial
.53
14
Effect of prosocial content on
antistereotyping
d
N
Prosocial v. Other
.29
26
Prosocial v. antisocial
--
--
Age differences in the effect of
prosocial content
Age
Prosocial v.
other
d
(N)
Prosocial v.
antisocial
d (N)
5 and under
.31
(40)
.59
(15)
6-10
.43
(31)
.44
(22)
11+
.22
(33)
.17
(15)
Susan Hearold
• “A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on
social behavior”
–
–
–
–
1986
Covers both prosocial and antisocial effects
230 studies
1,043 treatment comparisons
Outline of studies in sample
• 170 published, 60 unpublished
• 131 lab experiments, 33 field experiments,
66 surveys
• 9 pre-1950; 10 from 1950-1959; 36 from
1960-1969; 175 from 1970-1977
Antisocial treatments
Mixture
132
Detective/crime
129
Demonstrated behavior
119
Drama
110
Cartoon
51
News
34
Western
31
Consumerism
26
Cartoons and comedy
10
Mixed movies
10
Sanford & Son/All in the Family
Other
8
19
Prosocial treatments
Demonstrated behavior
48
Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood
42
Drama
31
Public service ads and programs
21
Mixture
13
Lassie
6
Big Blue Marble
6
Comedy
4
Patrik and Putrik
4
Other
14
Types of antisocial behavior
Physical aggression
330
Physical and verbal aggression
120
Approval of aggression and indirect
aggression
39
Rule breaking
33
Materialism
26
Verbal aggression
23
Unlawful behavior
14
Perception of world as violent
10
Use of drugs
9
Stereotyping
8
Play with aggressive toys
8
Other
57
Types of prosocial behavior
Altruism
98
Acceptance of others/antistereotyping
37
Social interaction
23
Engages in activities
21
Safety, health
14
Mixture
13
Buys books
12
Follows norms/conventions
11
Respects the law
11
Cooperation
7
Imaginative/creative play
7
Affiliation
6
Other
46
Effect sizes for antisocial
behavior
N
Effect Size
(ES)
Antisocial v. other
528
.30
Antisocial v. prosocial
40
.65
Prosocial v. other
48
-.20
Effect sizes for prosocial
behavior
N
ES
Antisocial v. other
152
-.01
Antisocial v. prosocial
33
-.38
Prosocial v. other
108
.63
Prosocial effect size by treatment
Prosocial treatment
Demonstrated behavior
Avg. effect
size
1.02
Simulate programs (usually drama)
.79
Public service ads
.79
TV Programs overall
.59
Lassie
1.16
Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood
.68
Sesame Street/Electric Company
.58
Big Blue Marble
.57
Comedy
.54
Mixed Programs
.18
Patrik and Putrik
-.73
Effect sizes for assorted
prosocial behaviors
Self-control
.98
Altruism
.83
Buy books
.81
Mixture of socially desirable behaviors
.78
Safety, health, conservation activism
.69
Positive attitude toward work
.57
Antistereotyping; acceptance of others
.57
Respect for the law
.23
Play without aggression
.21
Socially active/communicative
.17
Creative, imaginative play
.02
Cooperation
.00
What do we mean by “prosocial”
• Not as easy to define as one might think
– Which is more important, the intent or the effect?
• “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
• “Enlightened self-interest”
• Without intent, any good outcome suddenly becomes evidence
of moral behavior
– When one group benefits and another is disadvantaged,
is the act “prosocial”?
– Can one benefit from “pro-social” behavior? Can one’s
family?
“Prosocial” working definition
• For our use, a person will engage in prosocial behavior
when she intentionally commits any act which will be
likely to improve her own condition or the condition of
someone else
– One can (and as we see later, hopefully does) feel
good about the act
– If one is compelled to act in a certain way then she is
not acting prosocially, though the person requiring
the act may be
– Contributions to Red Cross taken out of your check
while the boss looks on
What kinds of prosocial acts have
been proposed?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Altruism
Control of aggressive impulses
Delay of gratification/task persistence
Explaining feelings of self or others
Reparation for bad behavior
Resistance to temptation
Sympathy
• Liebert & Sprafkin
Prosocial effects
• Minor part of effects study
• Most study in late 70s and early 80s
• Findings reviewed in a number of metaanalyses
–
–
–
–
Rushton
Hearold
Paik
Mares
Most common concern is the
learning of prosocial behavior by
children (socialization)
• Part of the 1960s-1970s concern over the
development of television as an educational
medium
– Educational content
– Prosocial content
• Often the two are combined (Sesame Street)
Prosocial effects
• Conclusions
– Prosocial content can lead to positive
behavioral outcomes
– Effects of prosocial comparable in strength to
antisocial
• Scholars disagree on which is stronger
– Altruism most effective prosocial portrayal
Prosocial effects
• Effect of prosocial content on boys not
significantly different from the effect on girls
– Paik, 1995
• Greater effect for family sitcoms than for
educational programming
• Effects positive for all ages
• Higher effect for donation than for prosocial play
or cooperation
• Effect of stereotyping greater than effect of antistereotyping content
Hearold, 1986
• Synthesis of 1043studies of effects of television
on social behavior
– “Effect sizes for prosocial treatments and behavior, of
course, were consistently greater than for antisocial
treatments on behavior.”
– “The implication is that if subjects watched the
antisocial treatments, usually violent programs or
episodes, they would be elevated from the 50th to the
62nd percentile in antisocial behavior, typically physical
aggression, and if they watched the prosocial treatment,
they would be elevated from the 50th to the 74th
percentile in prosocial behavior, typically altruism.”
Critique of studies
•
Stimulus materials usually either:
1. depictions of prosocial behavior developed
specifically to elicit the behavior, or
2. Either Mister Rogers Neighborhood or
Sesame Street
•
Normal tv fare sends mixed messages
–
–
prosocial violence
characters exhibiting good and bad behaviors
Prosocial content research
• Liebert, Sprafkin, Rubinstein and others
– mid 70s
• Greenberg et al.
– late 70s
• Baxter & Kaplan
– early 80s
• Lee
• Potter & Ware
– late 80s
Behaviors chosen
• Positive interaction
– Friendly/nonagressive interactions
– Expressions of affection
– Peaceable conflict resolution
• Altruism
–
–
–
–
Sharing
Donating
Offering help
Comforting
Behaviors chosen (cont’d)
• Self-control
–
–
–
–
Resistance to temptation
Obedience to rules
Ability to work independently
Persistence at a task
• Anti-stereotyping
– Attitudes
– Beliefs
Distribution of prosocial acts on
Saturday morning TV, 1970s
25
20
15
10
5
0
Altruism
Sympathy or
explained
feelings
Reparation Resistance to
for bad
temptation
behavior
Poulos et al.
Greenberg et al.
Control of
aggressive
impulses
Lee, 1988
% of total
C
es
is t
in
g
ar
in
g
g
in
g
ag
gr
es
sio
n
at
io
n
so
n
fr
ea
pe
ra
tio
n
oo
Sh
H
el
pi
ng
ltr
ui
sm
re
m
or
se
Te
m
pt
se
o
on
tr
ol
lin
R
U
C
th
y
pa
af
fe
ct
io
n
H
er
oi
cA
g
g
ow
in
ow
in
Sh
Sh
,e
m
th
y
m
pa
Sy
Primetime prosocial behavior
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Comparison of pro- and antisocial
behavior primetime
(Kaplan & Baxter, 1982)
bo
lic
Sy
m
Frequency of acts
Note: 12 hours, 17 programs
Th
ef
t
ag
re
ss
io
n
ar
d
ew
R
gg
re
ss
io
n
ce
Ph
ys
ic
al
a
ss
ist
an
In
su
lt
en
t
pl
im
om
C
Ph
ys
ic
al
a
V
er
ba
l
as
sis
ta
nc
e
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Prosocial content
• Relative incidence of prosocial and
antisocial acts varies widely among studies
– Greenberg et al., about 42 pro and 40 anti acts
per hour
– Kaplan & Baxter, 46 pro and 17 anti per hour
• Altruism
– Greenberg et al, 14 acts/hour, most common
pro-social act
– Potter & Ware, 2 acts/hr, 5th most common
Prosocial and antisocial acts per hour
of primetime programming
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Prosocial
Antisocial
Greenberg et al.
Kaplan & Baxter
Prosocial content
• Males engage in most prosocial acts
– Potter & Ware 67% of pro, 80% of anti
– Baxter & Kaplan, 69% of pro, 78% of anti
– However, more male characters
• Great majority of both violent and prosocial
acts are seen as justified
• Outcome of prosocial acts not reviewed
Proportion of prosocial and
antisocial acts committed by gender
(Greenberg et al. primetime 1975-78 study)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Males
Females
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Prosocial
Antisocial
Prosocial content
• Most analyses exclude violent content from
prosocial analyses
– Some evidence of a significant amount of
prosocial violence
• Heroes commit a significant amount of violence
• Saturday morning tv
Liss and Reinhardt
• Regular and prosocial Saturday morning
cartoons
• Antagonists commit more violent acts than
protagonists
• No significant difference in amount of
violence on regular and prosocial cartoons
Prosocial content
•
•
•
•
Relationships among actors
Involvement of third parties
Rewards for altruism
Social support
The method:
finding and measuring altruism
• Primetime programs recorded for one week
on ABC, NBC and Fox networks
• 26.5 hours of programming included in the
study
• Only regularly scheduled series included
(no movies, game shows, sports, news)
• Unit of analysis: the altruistic act
Defining altruism
• “social behavior carried out to achieve
positive outcomes for another rather than
for the self” (Rushton, 1980)
– must include some nontrivial self-sacrifice
– leaves open the possibility of antisocial altruism
Acts of altruism
• Risking life, health or
safety
• Risking career or
future
• Sacrificing money
• Sacrificing or giving
up time
• Sacrificing something
of personal value, a
dream or satisfaction
• Not included: common
courtesy or minimal
sacrifice
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• Relationship of benefactor and beneficiary
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Friends, neighbors or coworkers
Mere acquaintances
Strangers
Superior and subordinate
Subordinate and superior
Family
Lovers or romantically involved
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• Gender of beneficiary
and benefactor
• Relationship to
violence
• Involvement of a third
party
• Outcome of the act for
any third party
• Immediate response to
the act by the
benefactor and the
beneficiary
• Long-term outcome of
the act for the
benefactor and the
beneficiary
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• Coding the justification of the acts
– Was it part of the benefactor’s job?
– Was it expected under the circumstances?
– Was this above and beyond what would be
expected?
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• Coding instrument was pretested
– Both authors viewed two hour long programs
– (Neither program included in results)
• Programs were recorded on videotape and
later coded
• Second author coded all programs
• No “sweeps month” programs included
Research questions
• 1: What is the rate for
altruistic behavior in
primetime programming?
• 3. What is relationship
between the benefactor
and the beneficiary?
• 2: Is there a relationship
between the gender of the
benefactor and the gender
of the beneficiary of the
altruistic acts?
• 4: What is the nature of
the altruistic act?
Research questions
• 5: What are the consequences of the
altruistic act for the benefactor and the
beneficiary?
– Outcome
– Response
Results
• 27 acts of altruism identified in 26.5 hours
of primetime programming
• Just over one act per hour (1.1 acts/hour)
– Fewer than in previous research
Gender of the actors
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Benefactor
Men
Recipient
Women
Both
Relationships portrayed
Friends
Lover
Family
Superior
Stranger
Subordinate
Nature of the altruistic act
Sacrifice of:
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Money Time
Health Career Value
Outcome for the actors
Percent of acts (n=27)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Benefactor
Positive
Recipient
Neutral
Negative
Response to the altruism
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Benefactor
Positive
Recipient
Neutral
Negative
Results
• Altruistic acts rarely tied to violence
• Most acts (63%) exceeded expectations of
occupation or social norms
• Outcome for third parties was negative
more than half the time
Conclusions
• Results of altruism are as likely to be
negative as to be positive
• Gender is less related to TV altruistic acts
than in the past
• Altruistic violence is uncommon
More conclusions
• Definition of altruism is critical to outcome
of the analysis
• Larger sample is needed
• Multiple coders
• More extensive analyses are needed
– Monitoring much like violence studies
– Dramatic function of violence and prosocial
acts