Evaluating the utility of methodological assumptions in mass media effects research on children

Abstract

This essay focuses on six methodological practices that are widespread in the literature examining media effects on children and adolescents by presenting a critical analyses of the assumptions that underlie each of these practices. The first three practices deal with measurement—the use of attribute variables as surrogates, the use of behavioral self report data, and assuming the validity of measures. The remaining three practices deal with data analysis—assuming that scales are better than individual items, assumptions about testing relationships, and assumptions about testing group differences. These critical analyses demonstrate that each of these practices is based on faulty assumptions. The essay concludes with recommendations about how relatively minor changes in our design decisions have the potential to reduce some of the limitations that keep our literature from being more powerful and more useful.