4. Measures Media Use Alternative Activities Monitoring Consistency Media Knowledge Media Effects Higher scores = ‘healthier’ media habits Higher scores = less influenced by media Social modeling – celebrities Social modeling – media characters Persuasion – product purchase Fright effects
5. Samples National Random N = 527 Mail & telephone 55% response rate 2.18 children 78% married 76% White/Caucasian All income & education levels National Convenience N = 1257 MediaWise training 2.17 children 88% married 84% White/Caucasian Income & education skewed high
6. H1: Decreasing Trend in Alternate Activities to Media Random Sample F = 67.48, p <.001 Convenience Sample F = 100.30, p < .001
7. H2: Decreasing Trend in Healthy Media Use Random Sample F = 63.45, p <.001 Convenience Sample F = 70.06, p < .001
8. H3: Decreasing Trend in Parental Monitoring Random Sample F = 17.83, p <.001 Convenience Sample F = 15.73, p < .001
9. H4: Decreasing Trend in Consistency Random Sample F = 19.50, p <.001 Convenience Sample F = 10.24, p < .001
10. H5: Increasing Trend in Knowledge of Media Effects Random Sample F = 4.80, p <.05 Convenience Sample F = .25, p = .78
11. H6: Increasing Trend in Resistance to Media Effects Random Sample F = 26.20, p <.001 Convenience Sample F = 19.78, p < .001
18. RQ1: Will siblings affect relation between media use and school performance? Table 1. Predictors of School Performance in Multiple and Only-Child Families (National Sample). Note. *p < .05, **p. < 01, ***p < .001.
19. RQ1: Will siblings affect relation between media use and school performance? Table 2. Predictors of School Performance in Multiple and Only-Child Families (Convenience Sample). Note. *p < .05, **p. < 01, ***p < .001.
20. Implications Crucial transition: School-age children teens Multiple sibling families Healthier media habits Greater vulnerability to media effects Resolving the contradiction “What is the effect of media exposure?” “How do events and changes in family structures alter media effects experienced by families?”
