journal of Broadcasting & Electronic /Vlccfr'a/Soptcmbcr 2004

Measuring Television Addiction

Cary W. Horvath
In an effort to discover a means of empirical distinction between normal and problem television viewing, 2 reliable measures of television addiction were created by writing items to reflect established criteria used in psychiatry for the detection of substance dependence. One measure contains 4 factors measuring distinct components of addictive behavior: heavy viewing, problem viewing, craving for viewing, and withdrawal. Supporting construct validity, these factors were positively related to an alcoholism screening instrument adapted to television use, and to television exposure. The second measure is reliable and unidimensional. Pe op le a be s as dependent on television to varying degrees. The study of dependence on television is important for two reasons. First, research has yet to define clearly norma/ versus problem viewing, if such constructs exist. To compound the problem, s u c h as dependence, reliance, and high exposure to televi sion overlap across media research, and are often operationalized differently. For example, Kubey and Csikszentmihaiyi (1990) found that the typical American watches television for 3 hours per day (although the set is on for 7-8 hours). This implies that 2-3 o f viewing is normal, in the sense of average. In their cultivation research, Morgan and Signorielli (1990) explained that "what constitutes light, medium, and heavy viewing is made on a sample-by-sample basis, using as close to a three-way split of hours of self-reported daily television viewing as possible" (p. 20). In another study, Signorielli (1986) said that heavy viewing is typically defined as 4 hours per day. Horton and Wohl (1956), in their classic explanation of parasocial interaction, made no mention of an hourly measure of abnormal viewing, but argued that pathology exists when our relationship with o r with or takes the place of real-life relationships. These examples point to the fact that the television literature is fraught with wildly different interpretations of normal and abnormal viewing. The main objective guiding this study was the need for a means of empirical distinction between normal and problem television viewing. This research represents an attempt to begin to determine whether dysfunctional viewing patterns truly exist. To that end, a new measure of addiction is proposed.
Cary W. Horvath (Ph.D., Kent State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Theater at Youngstown State University, t-ter research interests include interpersonal and media uses and effects. 2004 Broadcast Education Association lournal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48(3), 2004, pp. 378-398 378

Horvath/MEASURINC ADDICTION

379

Addiction Defined
The e addiction can be applied to all types of excessive behavior, such as o n on drugs (e.g., alcohol, narcotics, caffeine), food, exercise, gambling, and television viewing (Peele, 1985). Newer types of addictions that have been studied include Internet addiction (Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows, 2001), online sexual addiction (Bingham & Piotrowski, 1996), and addictive consumer behavior (Elliott, Eccles, & Cournay, 1996; Faber, O'Cuinn, & Krych, 1987). According to Peele (1985), the r motives for addictive behavior are: reduction of pain, s and awareness (i.e., escape); enhanced sense of control, power, and self-esteem (i.e., compensation); and the simplification, predictability, and immediacy of experience (i.e., ritual). Interestingly, comhiunication research on television use has uncovered similar motives for watching television (Rubin, 1981). Researchers have had great difficulty in reaching agreement in defining addiction. This is f a c t by th a t addiction can be defined by contributing factors, symptoms, and consequences. The history of alcoholism is a good example of this struggle. According to Keller and Doria (1991), alcoholism has over the years been "applied to getting drunk, to heavy drinking, excessive drinking, deviant drinking, and unpopular " (p. 253). Most researchers now agree that heavy drinking does not constitute alcoholism unless other symptoms are manifested. For example, Beresford (1991t said th e concept of alcoholism has changed over time to merge psychological and social symptoms with physical ones. According to Akers (1991), the traditional concept of addiction included tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal, and applied to the physiological demand for a drug. However, the term psychological dependence replaced addiction in the 1960s to r to the a for a drug without physical dependence; the term is now used to describe habitual behavior in the absence of proof for physical addiction. Although popular no w favors the traditional conceptualization of addiction, the term dependence remains in its place (Akers, 1991). Criteria for dependence (i.e., addiction) are outlined in the American Psychiatric Association's (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMIV), which lists seven symptoms: (1) tolerance (a need for more of the substance to achieve the same effect, or a diminished effect with the same amount of substance); (2) withdrawal (a substance-specific syndrome that results if the substance use is reduced or stopped that is unrelated to another physical illness, or use of the substance o n et o to reduce withdrawal symptoms); (3) the substance is taken in larger amounts over longer time than is intended; (4) persistent desire and/or cu efforts t cut down are experienced; (5) a great deal of time is spent in obtaining, using, and recovering from the substance; (6) important activities such as school, work, or time with friends are given up or reduced; and (7) the individual continues use of the substance despite physical or psychological problems (p. 181).

380 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004 An individual o has to respond affirmatively to three or more symptoms during any b e to be classified as substance dependent. Substance abuse is characterized by severe impairment or distress, such as loss of employment, child neglect, or putting one's life at risk due to the behavior. t h e on the above criteria, a person could be diagnosed as substance dependent based o n psychological factors. Although the American Psychiatric Association (1994) typology includes physical withdrawal, the argument has been made that people could experience psychological withdrawal, consisting of irritability, anxiety, and fear when the substance is reduced or stopped (Beresford, 1991). So, can people be "addicted" to television in the true sense of the word?

Television Addiction
In 1977, in argued in The Plug-in Drug that television has properties of addiction. Researchers have been intrigued by this idea, but few have tried to study it systematically. Anecdotal accounts and speculation comprise most of the research on television addiction. Furthermore, similar to the alcohol and drug abuse literature, a conceptual haze between the concepts of heavy exposure, reliance, dependence, and addiction to television remains problematic. A clear distinction needs to be made between these concepts to determine the difference between normal and problem viewing. Foss and Alexander (1996) compared self-defined heavy viewers (6 hours per day) with nonviewers and found that many nonviewers called television a drug or a re li gi on an d i t it caused less interaction with friends and family, less time spent doing more productive or healthier things, and less critical thought. Nonview ers reported that television was simply too seductive to have around. Heavy viewers saw addiction to television as a likely outcome, but not for themselves. For them, it was simply a means for escape and relaxation. People who avoid television tend to cite its addictive properties as the reason. Nonviewers in Australia wouldn't watch because they couldn't "resist its power" (Edgar, 1977, p. 74). They regarded it as a depressant drug that dulls the senses. Mander (1978) collected around 2,000 anecdotal responses to television that made it sound like "a machine that invades, controls and deadens the people who view it" (p. 158). Common statements resulted, such as "I feel hypnotized" and "I just can't keep my eyes off it" (p.158). In talking about their television behavior, people compared themselves to mesmerized, drugged-out, and spaced-out vegetables. Similarly, Singer (1980) asked, "why do we turn the set on almost automatically on awakening in the morning or on returning home from school or work?" (p. 31). Singer, though, said that addiction to television is a extreme n d speculated that television's magnetism can be explained by a human "orienting reflex." That is, we are programmed to respond to new or d stimuli, and because novel and sudden images are key features of television, it draws our attention. Singer said that the addictive power of television is probably to minimize problems by putting other thoughts in your mind (i.e., escape).

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION

381

In an empirical search for this seemingly pervasive psychological phenomenon. Smith (1986) used popular literature to generate items for a measure of television addiction. Although e resultant scale was not directly based on the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), it included some of the concepts such as loss of control, time spent using, withdrawal, attempts to quit, and guilt. Her study via mail of 491 adults found that very few of the participants identified with the concepts in her measure; only 11 out of 491 respondents admitted television addiction, o 64% f the respondents reported that television was addictive (consistent with the third-person effect literature; e.g., Davison, 1983). Smith found a strong relationship between the amount of time spent viewing and the tendency to call oneself an addict. Noting that there have been almost no empirical studies of television addiction, Mcllwraith, Jacobvitz, Kubey, and Alexander (1991) cited an earlier version of the DSM-IV t DSM-III-R) o discuss a possible relationship to television viewing. Using Smith's (1986) measure, they found that only 17 out of 136 college students were self-designated addicts. They reported twice as much television viewing as non-addicts, more mind wandering, distractibility, boredom, and unfocused day dreaming, and tended to score higher on scales measuring introversion and neuroticism. They also d significantly more dysphoric mood watching, and watching to fill time. Also using Smith's (1986) measure of television addiction, Anderson, Collins, Schmitt, and Jacobvitz (1996) found that, for women, stressful life events predicted television addiction-like behavior and guilt about television watching. The authors d that women used television in a way that was "analogous to alcohol" (p. 255), and wondered f television watching served to delay more healthy and appropriate coping strategies. Also using Smith's measure, Mcllwraith (1998) found only 10% of the 237 participants sampled while visiting a museum identified themselves as television addicts. Mcllwraith found that those who admitted addiction to television watched significantly more hours of television than others, and watched e to escape unpleasant moods and to fill time. Mcllwraith's sample echoed Smith's (1986), who found that participants most often responded never on all the items about television addiction. According to Smith, the phenomenon of television addiction is unsubstantiated in empirical research, but is robust in anecdotal evidence. For example, like other addictions, television watching is thought to contribute to si a n d n in family relationships. One woman explained how her husband's addiction to television contributed to their separation (Edgar, 1977): "There n o no way of spending an evening alone with my husband without television. He was most resentful if I stuck out for my choice of program and m os t re se ntf u l i I t it off while he slept in front of it" (pp. 75-76). There are worse stories. Fowles (1982) related tragic newspaper accounts due to quarrels about television: "Charles Green of East Palo Alto, California stabbed his sister to death

382

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

w i t h s h knife e she took out the electrical fuses so he would stop viewing. In Latwell, Louisiana, John Gallien shot his sister-in-law because she kept turning down the volume" (p. 30). Studies of television deprivation (e.g.. Tan, 1977; Winick, 1988) also indicate profound and real withdrawal-like symptoms, supporting the notion of addiction. A h a v e have attempted to study other types of media addiction directly using APA criteria. For example. Fisher (1994) found that children could be vi as de o video games (based on a specific APA model of gambling addiction). The children's pathological video game playing was based on model criteria such a n d duration of play, supernormal expenditures, borrowing and selling of possessions to play, and self-awareness of a problem. Phillips, Rolls, Rouse, and Griffiths (1995) studied the video game habits of 868 children, aged 11 to 16. They found that 50 could be classified as addicts. The addicted children e v e r y every day, for longer time periods than intended, often to the neglect of homework. They reported feeling better after play, and using play to avoid other things (escape). Also based on APA criteria, a case study in the United Kingdom effectively diagnosed a young man as addicted to pinball machines (Griffiths, 1992). Consistent with third-person effect literature (e.g., Davison, 1983), the young man thought t he o o much, but that he was not "addicted." Therefore, a n d and inferential evidence suggests that television can be extremely compelling and important in people's lives, even beyond dependence or habit. Whether n viewing can truly be addictive is still unclear. Although many have made the comparison and some have even studied addiction based on concepts drawn from popular literature, no researchers have studied and measured television addiction based purely on DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria. Recently, Kubey (1996) argued that at least 5 of the 7 DSM-IV criteria a r e t o applicable to television viewing, but this remains to be tested. Although he did not believe th e addiction criteria of tolerance and continued use despite e (symptoms one and seven) seemed likely for television use, he did believe that all the others could clearly apply. According to Kubey, although we don't think of television as a substance, we do take it into our minds. Although this is a fruitful area of t o to diagnose television dependence have not been estabse (p. 233). e rn s that television use may be addictive for some people, but addiction has not been effectively conceptualized in the communication literature (Kubey, 1996). Psychiatry has provided criteria for dependence/addiction that have taken decades to develop, but communication scholars have yet to attempt to use them fully. In that effort, this research involved two separate studies. The first used convenience sampling to pilot and test the validity of a new measure of television addiction. The second employed purposive sampling, replicated parts of the first study, and added a measure of social desirability. Reliable multidimensional and unidimensional scales f television addiction result from the research.

Horvath/MEASURINC ADDICTION 383

Study One
Voluntary participation was solicited from a convenience sample of adults of various ages to test a proposed Television Addiction Measure. Participants were personally contacted at four locations in a suburb of a small Midwestern city: a flea market, a restaurant, and two fire stations. These locations were chosen due to ease of access, and to maximize a diverse sample and the likelihood of heavy television users. This research k place over the December holiday season, during which busy public places provide an unusual opportunity to reach people of mixed demographics.

Participants
A diverse sample was obtained (N = 300). Participants' reported ages as of their last 1 8 to 8 to 2 years (N = 298, M = 34.52, SD = 15.20). Of those who r their gender, 135 were male (45.3%, coded 0) and 163 were female (54.7%, coded 1). Results also varied among those who reported their education level (N = 297), with 7 participants achieving some high school (2.3%, coded 1), 56 graduating from high school (18.9%), 33 graduating from trade school (11.1%), 152 attaining some college (51.2%), 35 graduating from college (11.8%), and 14 achieving a graduate-level education (4.7%, coded 6). On this 6-point rating scale, the mean r for education was 3.65 (SD = 1.12). Participants were also asked to report the number of hours they watched television yesterday morning (M = 0.36, SD = 0.80), afternoon {M = 0.40, SD = 0.87), and evening (M = 1.75, SD = 1.56), as well as how many hours they usually watch in the morning (M = 0.45, SD = 0.81), afternoon (M = 0.61, SD = 0.99), and evening {M = . SD = 1.44). Television exposure was measured this way in order to achieve accuracy of recall. From these numbers, overall television exposure was indexed by adding the three numbers describing television watched yesterday to the three numbers g television watched today, and dividing hy 2 {M = 2.90 hours, SD = 2.25). This enabled an average of concrete memory about yesterday with the more abstract memory about usual behavior. Average exposure ranged from 0 to 15 hours per day. The questionnaire contained a cover page describing the purpose of the study and participants' rights, a w measure of television addiction, a measure of alcohol addiction adapted for television, and some demographic questions to describe the sample.

Television Addiction Scale

A new scale measured symptoms of television addiction based wholly on the DSM-IV criteria for psychological addiction (American Psychological Association, 1994). Although Smith's (1986) scale measured television addiction, it was based on

384 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004 content gleaned from popular literature, not psychiatry. Here, five statements were created o represent each f the seven criteria of addiction/dependence: tolerance (e.g., "I feel like I watch more TV than I used to in order to feel the same"); withdrawal (e.g., "when I am unable to watch television, I miss it so much that you could call it 'withdrawal'"); unintended use (e.g., "I often watch TV for a longer time than I intended"); cutting down (e.g., "I often think that I should cut down on the amount of television that I watch"); time spent (e.g., "compared to most people, I spend a great deal of time watching television"); displacement of other activities (e.g., "I often watch television rather than spending time with friends and family"); and continued use (e.g., "I keep watching TV even though it is causing serious problems in my life"). Response options were strongly agree (5), agree (4), agree some and disagree some (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). The 35-item measure appeared to have face validity, as assessed by the researcher and a colleague in communication studies (see Appendix A for the measure). Principal components factor analysis with iterations and varimax rotation deter mined the factor structure for the addiction measure. (Oblimin rotation yielded no improvement from the resultant varimax structure.) A factor needed a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 and t least three loadings meeting a 50/40 rule (in which an item loads on o r at .50 or more, and less than .40 on other factors) to be retained. A liberal 50/40 rule was applied because the resultant factors approximated DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria, and to retain as many of the original items as possible. The analysis initially identified six factors that explained 62.59% of the total variance. However, only four factors explaining 55.45% of the variance were retained for analysis. Retained factor items were summed and averaged to create factor indices. The primary loadings in the factor solutions are summarized in Table 1. Factor 1, Problem Viewing, accounted for 22.1% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 7.75). Its 11 loadings described television viewing that is problematic (e.g., has created real problems for me, family members get angry; M = 1.64, SO = 0.58, Cronbach a = .93). Of the seven DSM-IV criteria for psychological addiction (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) all five of the items designed to represent "continued television use despite problems" loaded on this factor. Two items from each of the following criteria also loaded on this factor: time spent, cutting down, and displacement of other activities. Factor 2, Heavy Viewing, accounted for 14.9% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 5.20). Unlike Factor 1, these 10 items represented heavy viewing, but not necessarily m viewing (e.g., time really gets away from me, wind up spending hours; M = 2.41, SD = 0.78, a = .89). The APA criteria were represented in this factor by three displacement items, three unintended use items, two time spent items, and two cutting down items. Factor 3, Craving for Viewing, accounted for 7.8% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 2.74). The six items that loaded on this factor suggested a craving to watch more television (e.g., I've tried to reduce, I watch more and more

Horvath/MEASURINC ADDICTION Table 1 Factor Structure of Television Addiction Scale

385

Factors Item Number Factor 1: Problem Viewing 33 alienating my loved ones 35 loved ones can't stand it 31 causing serious problems 20 embarrassed to tell people 28 my whole life 19 feel bad but can't stop 26 rather than time with family 34 caused real problems 22 much of my time 32 family members angry 23 all my leisure time Factor 2: Heavy Viewing 11 longer time than intended 29 productive if watched less 13 hours rather than minutes 30 hobbies if watched less 12 time gets away from me 16 think I should cut down 18 guilt about watching so much 21 much time compared to others 27 should be working or at school 25 more time than anything else Factor 3: Craving for Viewing 03 more shows for same enjoyment 01 watch more to feel the same 1 7 can't reduce amount 07 watch because 1 missed it 04 same amount, less satisfaction 03 more TV for same enjoyment Factor 4: Withdrawal 10 could easily go without it 24 don't spend that much time 09 can't imagine going without 06 withdrawal when unable
1 2 3 4

.87 .84 .84 .81 .80 .80 .76 .72 .70

.12 .07 .06 .18 .11 .10 .22 .23 .35 .34 .37 .78 .73 .71 .71 .68 .65 .56 .53 .51 .50 .31 .13 .22 .20 .18 .21

.15 .16 .20 .12 .16 .14 .03 .32 .04 .27 .11 .17 .04 .26 .07 .17

.07

-.06 -.03 -.03

.14 .08 .13 .01 .30 .03 .37 .18 .05 .22 .04

.55
.44 .16 .18 .20 .09 .03 .20 .40 .43 .23 .44 .21 .28 .20 .29 .11 .52 .04 .17 .10 .34

.35
.27 .06 .23 .07 .61 .60 .58 .56 .45 .43 .04 .06 .14 .39

-.04 -.01 -.05

.34 .25 .25 .04 .11 .08 .19

-.17
.15 .82

-.03
.14 .23 .20

'

. 67 .58 .49

386

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

shows lately; M = 2.00, SD = 0.60, a = .75). The APA criteria for this factor included four tolerance items (one tolerance item was inadvertently repeated in the measure), one cutting down item, and one withdrawal item. Factor 4, Withdrawal, accounted for 7.3% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 2.57). The four items loading on this factor denoted feelings of withdrawal when without television (e.g., I miss it so much, can't imagine going without TV; M = 2.36, SD = 0.81, a = .65). The APA criteria items loading on this factor were three withdrawal items and one time spent item. Factor 5 was not retained due to its low reliability (a = .53). Also, a one-item Factor 6 was not d because it failed to meet the specified criteria. Item analysis was used o improve upon the reliability of factor structures. A few changes were made to the initial structure. For example, statement 1 ("I feel like 1 watch more TV than I used to in order to feel the same enjoyment"), which loaded on Factors 1 and 3, was placed in Factor 3 (see Table 1 for the factor structure and Appendix A for I t s Its removal from Factor 1 reduced the reliability coefficient from .95 to .94, but its addition to Factor 3 increased the reliability coefficient from .70 to .75. Also, the 50/40 rule was relaxed to include items that made conceptual sense. For m item 6, "When I am unable to watch TV, I miss it so much that you could call it 'withdrawal,'" did not reach the .50 mark but most clearly loaded on Factor 4 with other withdrawal items. Similarly, items 21 and 25 loaded on Factors 1 and 2, but because they were time spent items that positively contributed to reliability, they were retained on Factor 2. As a result of the pilot study, a few items that failed to fit the factor structure were reworded for clarity, as suggested by Kerlinger (1986). Item 2, "\ watch about the same amount of TV as I used to" was changed to "I've watched the same amount of TV as I always have." Item 8, "If I have to miss my shows for some reason, it makes me very upset" became "If I have to miss a favorite show I feel upset," and item 15, "I usually a TV for s long as I planned" was extended to "I usually watch TV for t o as I planned to watch." In addition, a few of the items that loaded on Factor 1 were altered to include the word "sometimes," with the hope of increasing the factor variance. Appendix A reflects these revisions.

Adapted Addiction Scale

The questionnaire also included an adapted version of the CAGE questionnaire (Ewing & , 1970), an alcoholism screening device, to establish construct validity for the new Television Addiction Scale. The acronym CAGE represents four questions used by physicians to alert them to patients' potentials for alcoholism, adapted for the present study to reflect television, not alcohol use: Cutting down (Have ou gh t you t o cut down on the amount of television you wafc/i?); Annoyance by criticism (Have people annoyed you by criticizing your television watching?); Guilty feeling (Have you ever felt bad or guilty about your television watching?); and Eye openers (Do you usually turn on the television first thing in the

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION

387

morning?). Two or three affirmative responses to the measure indicates high suspicion of alcoholism. According to Ewing (1984), "even one positive reply calls for further inquiry" (p. 1907). Responses were coded 1 = no and 2 = yes. h a s has been widely used because of its ease of administration and effectiveness (see Ewing, 1984) and has been validated by others (e.g., Mayfield, McLeod, & Hall, 1974). The measure has been found to be more sensitive than other screening devices, with accuracy ratings in predicting alcoholism of over 90% (Ewing, 1984). In s study, 28% of the participants answered "yes" to question 1, % to to 2, 11 % to question 3, and 28% to question 4. Because high scores on CAGE and high scores on the Television Addiction Measure suggest television addiction, they should be positively correlated.

Results
After e analysis of the Television Addiction Scale, two-tailed Pearson correla tions revealed relationships between study variables that tended to support the construct validity of the Television Addiction Scale. The Television Addiction Scale factors were a s well. For example. Problem Viewing was positively related to Craving for Viewing (r = .65, p < .001), Heavy Viewing (r = .62, p < .001), ( r (r = .40, p < .001). In addition. Heavy Viewing was positively related to Craving (r = .64, p < .001) and Withdrawal (r = .42, p < .001), and Craving was positively related to Withdrawal (r = .39, p < .001). Therefore, although conceptually independent dimensions, the Television Addiction Scale factors are clearly related to one another. For example. Problem Viewing items reflect a qualitatively different kind of dependence on television when compared with Heavy Viewing items (see Appendix A), however, it seems likely that people scoring high on Problem Viewing would also score high on Heavy Viewing. s expected, relationships resulted between the CAGE instrument (Ewing & Rouse, 1970) and the Television Addiction Scale factors and total scores. The CAGE total scores (M = 4.77, SD = 0.91) were positively related to Heavy Viewing [r = .44, p < .001), Withdrawal (r = .31, p < .001), Problem Viewing (r = .30, p < .001), and Craving (r = .23, p < .001). Therefore, high scores on the Television Addiction Scale were o related to high (yes) scores on the CAGE. These correlations support the construct validity of the Television Addiction Scale because both instruments are designed to measure unusually high dependence on television. These correlations suggest that people scoring high on the Television Addiction Scale tend to turn on the e first thing in the morning, feel bad about the amount they watch, feel that they ought to cut down, and feel annoyed by criticism from others about their television watching. One important goal of s study was to determine how television exposure related to television addiction. Results indicated the overall television exposure index was positively related to Problem Viewing (r = .37, p < .001), Heavy Viewing (r = .38,

388

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

p < .001), Craving for Viewing (r = .29, p < .001), and Withdrawal (r = .50, p < .001). wa s was also positively related to CAGE scores (r = .28, p < .001). So, those who watched more hours of television were very likely to feel withdrawal without it, and likely to report heavy viewing, problem viewing, craving for viewing, d respond affirmatively to CAGE items. Also, relationships emerged between Withdrawal and usually watching in the evening (r = .42, p < .001), as well as yesterday evening (r = .37, p < .001). Problem Viewing was also related to time spent viewing yesterday evening {r = .34, p < .001) and usually in the evening (r = .31, p < .001). In general, correlations for time t he in the evening were higher for all television addiction factors. t h i s from this preliminary analysis, people who watch heavily in the evening hours tend to feel withdrawal from television more when it's gone and experience m problem viewing than other people. Statistically significant, but weak correlations resulted between the Television Addiction Scale factors and demographic variables. For example, age, in number of years, was positively related to Craving for Viewing (r = .18, p < .001), and gender was negatively related to Problem Viewing (r = -.17, p< .01). So, there was a slight e f or t o t o c r a v e v i e wi ng m ore t han youn ger people and f or males to experience problem viewing more than females. Also, education was weakly and negatively related to Problem Viewing (r = .13, p < .05) and Craving for Viewing (r = -14, p < .05). Therefore, a slight tendency resulted for more educated people t o r e p o r t f r o m from viewing or a craving for viewing. In comparing age, total E and CAGE items, average exposure was positively related to age (r = . 24, p < .001) and to CAGE total scores (r = .28, p < .001). However, age was unrelated to CAGE total scores (r = .03, p = .58). Therefore, people who watched heavy amounts of television tended to be older, and answer affirmatively to CAGE thos e often wh o who watch light amounts of television. Two-tailed f-tests were used to compare scores by gender on the two measures of television addiction. Scores on the CAGE instrument (Ewing & Rouse, 1970) were independent of gender effects, t{292) = 1.57, p = .12. Similarly, three of the Television Addiction Scale factors were independent of gender effects, including Heavy Viewing, ((296) = 1.54, p= .12, Craving for Viewing, ((296) = 1.81, p= .07, and Withdrawal, #296) = 1.24, p = .22. On Factor 1, Problem Viewing, scores did differ by gender, #296) = 3.01, p = < .01. Specifically, men {M = 1.70) scored somewhat higher than women (M = 1.50) on problem viewing.

Study Two
Although the first study indicated that a valid and reliable measure of television addiction could result from convenience sampling, it was unable to address the stability of findings or how social desirability might have affected results. A second

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION 389

study was conducted to sample more purposefully, to replicate parts of the first study, reduce error, a to add a measure of social desirability.

Participants
W h e t h e r u s i n g r or convenience samples, scholars have reported difficulty in finding participants o self-report addiction to television (Condry, 1989; DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989; Mander, 1978; Mcllwraith, 1998; Smith, 1986; Steiner, 1963). Therefore, the most efficient way to find television addicts is to actively seek participants who identified themselves as being television addicts, or who are identified by others as being television addicts. To maximize the likelihood and efficiency of obtaining a sample of people addicted to television, the assistance of w a s was solicited at a small liberal arts college in western Pennsylvania. Students were offered extra credit for their help. To increase score variance, the students were asked to secure participation from four people, two of whom they identified s very heavy users of television and two of whom they identified as very light viewers of television. In this way, purposive sampling was used to identify and r compare known groups of participants (Rubin, Rubin, & Piele, 1990). Students were t o use the CAGE instrument (Ewing & Rouse, 1970) items as a screening device. They were told to include people for participation if they believed two of them would answer "yes" to at least one, and preferably all four of the CAGE items, and o f them would answer "no" to at least one, and preferably all four items. Two versions of the cover sheet were created to secretly code and administer to those identified as heavy and light television users. Students were instructed to vary the gender and age of participants systematically (with a minimum of 18 years). A sample consisting of 346 people and usable questionnaires resulted. Once again, analysis included the same measures of age, gender, and education. Reported ages ranged from 8 6 to 86 (N = 339, M = 39.99 years, SD = 1 7.23). Of gender, 1 60 were male (46.2%, coded 0) and 186 were female (53.8%, coded 1). Reported education level varied (N = 344), with 20 participants achieving some high school (5.8%, coded 1), 87 graduating from high school (25.3%), 21 graduating from trade school (6.1%), 104 attaining some college (30.2%), 83 graduating from college (24.1%), and 29 achieving a graduate level education (8.4%, coded 6). On this 6point rating scale, the mean score for education was 3.67 {SD = 1.44). An equal number of people were identified as heavy (N = 1 73) or light (N = 1 73) viewers. Participants were also asked to report the number of hours they watched television yesterday morning (M = 0.56, SD = 0.99), afternoon {M = 0.80, SD = 1.26), and evening (M = 2.41, SD = 1.65), as well as how many hours they usually watch in the morning (M = 0.65, SD = 0.91), afternoon {M = 0.88, SD = 1.09), and evening (M = 2.83, SD = 1.60). Again, an overall index of television exposure was created by adding the three numbers describing television watched yesterday to the three

390 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004 numbers describing television watched today, and dividing by 2 {M = 4.07 hours, SD = 2.59). Average exposure per day ranged from 0.00 to 15.50 hours.

Measurement The same adapted version of the CAGE questionnaire (Ewing & Rouse, 1970) was again indexed (M = 5.14, SD = 1.17). Last, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Form C C Form ) (Reynolds, 1982) was added. Although other short forms of the original 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) s e e Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972), Reynolds found Form C to be best, based on comparison of seven different versions of the measure. A 13-item measure, it requires participants to respond to statements such as "I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable" and "There have been occasions when I o advantage f someone." The usual response method is true-false. However, this study employed a response format consistent with the other measures used. Therefore, response options included strongly agree (5), agree (4), disagree some and agree some (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). Using Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability, Reynolds (1982) found that the M-C Form C reliability was acceptable (.76). The measure was also shown to be highly related to the original Marlowe-Crowne Standard (r = .93, p < .001) and related to the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (Edwards, 1957) in a manner consistent with the original (r = .41, p < .001). In this study, the instrument's t w ea k (Cronbach a = .59), so item analysis was used to eliminate item 1, "It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged," and item 3, "On a few occasions, 1 have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability." The resultant 11-item measure was more reliable (M = 3.19, SD = 0.53, a = .74). Television addiction was measured by the revised version of the Television Addiction Scale (see Appendix A). Items were reordered before being included in the questionnaire. To replicate the pilot study, principal components factor analysis with iterations and varimax rotation determined the factor structure for the addiction measure (oblimin rotation yielded no improvement from the resultant varimax structure), e more conservative rules for factor analysis guided this study so that the most efficient measure of television addiction would emerge. This time, a factor needed a m eigenvalue of 1.0 and at least three loadings meeting a 60/40 rule to be retained. The 60/40 rule was relaxed for a few items that approximated the rule, made conceptual sense, and added to factor reliability. The analysis identified six t that explained 64.6% of the total variance. However, only two of the factors explaining 49.98% of the variance were retained for analysis. Retained factor items were summed and averaged to create factor scores. See Table 2 for a summary of primary factor loadings. Factor 1, Problem Viewing, accounted for 24.6% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 8.61). Its 14 loadings described television viewing that is

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION 391 Table 2 Varimax Factor Structure of the 35-ltem Television Addiction Scale 1 .82 .81 .79 .79 .72 .71 .70 .65 .64 .64 .61 .61 .60 .54 .40 .34 .37 .37 .46 .30 2 .17 .26 .29 .26 .30 .24 .33 .00 .20 .32 .14 .30 .39 .52 .71 .68 .61 .58 .57 .56 Factors Item Number Factor 1/Problem Viewing 32. causing serious problems 33. family members get angry 35 loved ones can't stand it 34 created real problems 03 watch more and more 28 whole life revolves around 33 alienating my loved ones 34. you could call it withdrawal 35. watch because I missed it 19 feel bad but can't stop 01 more and more to feel same 25 more time than anything 36. embarrassed to tell people 37. great deal of my time Factor 2/Guilty Viewing 29 more productive if I didn't watch 16 think I should cut down 13 wind up spending hours 18 guilty about watching so much 27 should be working/school 30 would spend time with hobbies

ba (e.g. , feel d but I can't stop, al i enati ng my loved ones; M = 1.79, SD = 0.74, a a = .95). Of the seven DSM-IV criteria for psychological addiction (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), all five of the items designed to represent "continued television use despite problems" loaded on this factor. One displacement item loaded on this factor, as well as two items from each of the following criteria: time spent, cutting down, tolerance, and withdrawal. Factor 2, Guilty Viewing, accounted for 13.86% of the total variance after rotation (eigenvalue = 4.85). Its 6 loadings described feelings of guilt and displaced activities (e.g., think I should cut down, more productive if 1 didn't watch; M = 2.26, SD = 0.88, Cronbach a = .87). Items representing the seven DSM-IV criteria for psycho logical addiction (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) included three displace ment items, two cutting down items, and one unintended use item. Interestingly, these two factors are quite similar to Smith's (1986) two-factor

392

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

u s i n that g using questions grounded in popular literature. Her first factor represented heavy viewing and loss of control and her second factor described feelings of guilt, anger, and depression. Two-tailed bivariate correlational analysis between the two main factors revealed that they were highly related (r = .78, p <.OO1). Suspicion that the two factors were measuring very similar constructs and together, unidimensional in nature, was supported by principal components factor analysis with oblimin rotation (See Table 3 for a summary of factor loadings). Although items from Guilty Viewing loaded on a second o they also loaded on the first one. Thus, the two Television Addiction Scale factors were collapsed to create a reliable unidimensional 20-item measure of television addiction = - 1.91, SD = 0.74, Cronbach a = .95). See Appendix A for the 20-item measure. Indexes were computed through mean scores on the measure, which t o 1.00 to 4.42 {M = 1.91, SD = 0.74, Cronbach a = .95).

Table 3 Oblique Factor Structure of the 20-ltem Television Addiction Scale

Factors Item Number Eigenvalues after oblimin rotation TV Addition items 06 you could call it withdrawal 19 feel bad but can't'stop 07 watch because I missed it 20 embarrassed to tell people 33 alienating my loved ones 01 watch more t o to feel the same 34 has created real problems for me 25 more time than anything else 32 family members get angry 03 watch more and more lately 35 loved ones can't stand it 28 whole life revolves around the TV 31 causing serious problems in my life 21 great deal of time 30 would spend more time with hobbies 18 guilty about watching so much 16 think I should cut down 29 more productive if I didn't watch 27 should be working/going to school 13 wind up spending hours 1 10.22 72 0 76 7 76 72 83 70 84 75 8 81 5 67 49 58 54 56 62 59 2 8.70 .45 .70 .59 .67 .62 .48 .61 .62 .57 .61 .58 .60 .55 .74 .73 .77 .78 .82 .73 .80

Horvath/MEASURINC ADDICTION 393

Results
The 20-item Television Addiction Scale was positively related to Ewing and Rouse's (1970) CAGE instrument (r = .57, p < .001) and negatively related to the measure of social desirability (r = -.27, p < .001). Interestingly, older participants re por likely t report socially desirable answers (r = .21, p < .001). As expected, participants who were identified as "heavy" (coded 2) or "light" (coded 1) viewers by student research assistants differed on measures of television addiction. Independent f-tests showed that people classified as heavy viewers (M = 2.22) reported more television addiction than light viewers (M = 1.66), H297) = 7.16, p < .001, and had higher scores {M = 5.64) on the CAGE instrument than light viewers (M = 4.65), f(315) = -8.67, p < .001. Although exposure was related to age (r = .17, p < .01), Pearson correlations indicated that no relationships existed between television addiction and age (r = .03, p = .61) or television addiction and education (r = .07, p = .22). Results from an independent f-test indicated that men (/Vl = 2.07) scored significantly higher than women (M = 1.82) on the television addiction measure, f(31) = 2.88, p < .01. Men {M = 5.32) also scored higher than women (M = 5.00) on CAGE scores, f(308) = 2.51, p < .05. However, mean differences were rather small. So, gender produced the only demographic difference in television addiction scores, as measured by the Television Addiction Scale and the CAGE instrument. Television exposure was positively related to television addiction (r = .47, p < .001) and ( r = .37, p < .001). Einally, a partial correlation between Television d and the CAGE measure, controlling for gender and social t revealed a a strong relationship still existed (r = .54, p < . 001).

Discussion
The purpose of this article was to discover a means of empirical distinction between normal and problem television viewing using established criteria used in psychiatry for the detection of substance dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Using factor analysis with varying criteria for retention, two studies produced uni- and multi-dimensional measures of television addiction. The of measure of television addiction resulted from a liberal retention r u l e i n f a c t o r a n d contains reliable measures of heavy viewing, problem viewing, a for n d withdrawal. These factors were positively related to the adapted alcoholism screening measure and to television exposure, as expected. People scoring higher on the measure were more often male, older, and less educated than non-addicts. The unidimensional measure, resulting from a more conservative retention rule used in the second study, was also positively related to the adapted alcoholism screening measure and television exposure, and negatively related to a measure of social desirability. People whom research assistants identified

394 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004 as heavy viewers reported more television addiction and had higher scores on the screening scale than light viewers. No relationships emerged between the 20-item e an scale d age or education; however, men scored significantly higher than women. One problem i n this research was the potential for participant bias toward researchers for some variables. Eor example, some participants made verbal remarks th e y assumed the researcher was against television viewing. Taken together with the negative relationship between social desirability and television addiction, it is possible that Type II error resulted in this study; more robust effects may exist, but were not identified by this analysis because of minimal variance on the measure. To minimize the problem of socially desirable responses, future studies should continue to use established scales to measure and control for the effects of social desirability. It might also help to provide a very clear explanation of the purpose of research, and encourage people to respond honestly about their television use. For example, instructions could be more explicit in cover letters, clearly explaining th e researcher does not necessarily have a personal bias against media. Perhaps a cover letter that spoke somewhat favorably about television use would discourage socially desirable answers. Such statements might range from obvious to subtle in nature. Also, because we know very little about how television addiction might manifest in the child or adolescent population, research with those samples should yield interesting results. It seems likely that adolescents are capable of being addicted to television. Typologies f viewing patterns have been created on demographic bases, finding h a s as homemakers, children, and elderly people are more dependent on television (Donohew, Palmgreen, & Rayburn, 1987; Frank & Greenberg, 1980). Rubin (1977) found that in the adolescent population, habit and pass time are major viewing motivators. Media scholars need to determine children's susceptibility to psychological addiction to television at different developmental stages in life, whether children's programming can lead to or encourage addiction, and whether children, if addicted, experience greater media effects such as purchas ing advertised goods, attitude formation, or social learning from television. We need to discover possible detrimental effects children and adolescents might experience in school, at home, and at work. We also need to establish what adults can do to reduce addictive a s as media literacy projects or parental intervention. Euture research might also adapt the Television Addiction Scale to other and more specific kinds of media addiction such as sports, soap operas, romance novels, newspapers, radio, or the e The measure of television addiction is flexible enough to adapt, while reflecting the DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). This a continues a process of teasing apart the concepts of normal, heavy, and problem uses of television that confound the media literature. There remains much work to be done in this area in order to determine whether television addiction may be a s "true" addiction, such that people manifest legitimate

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION

395

symptoms of clinical psychological dependence. Therefore, it is necessary to research possible f of addictive behavior, and possible treatments for television addiction. Addiction tha t seem most appropriate to media addiction include motivational enhancement (using self-efficacy and planning to change internal motivation for , cognitive-behavioral coping skills therapy (using coping skills, self-talk, and role-playing), natural recovery (self-induced reduction or absti nence boosted through education and prevention programs), psychodynamic ap proaches (understanding underlying causes of addiction and denial), and family t h e r a p y t h e family engages in intervention and support) (Rasmussen, 2000). It would be instructive to conduct follow-up research with participants who score highly on the Television Addiction Scale, asking them and their family members about perceived consequences from this behavior. As with other addic t one would expect relationships and responsibilities at home and work or school to suffer as a result. It would also be interesting to test whether addicts exhibit characteristics of i f their perceptions about the behavior match family and friends' perceptions. Potential outcomes to consider range from minor annoyance o family members to severe neglect of real relationships or work. Of course, treatments should be unique to each addicted individual, varying according to the severity of the , and may include drug therapy, as well as cognitivebehavioral therapy (Morris, 1998). Whether similar treatments would be effective for addiction to television remains to be seen. Both versions of the Television Addiction Scale can serve as valuable screening tools in the process of understanding the extent of media use and effects that follow.

Appendix Television Addiction Scale

Tolerance 38. I feel like I watch more TV than I used to in order to feel the same.** 39. I've watched the same amount of TV as I always have. ***|rve watched the same amount of TV as I used to.]* 40. It seems like I watch more and more shows lately for the same amount of enjoyment. 41. I watch amoun t same o f TV as I used to but 1 don't get the same effect from it anymore. 42. I watch more and more shows to try to feel the same as I used to. Withdrawal 43. When I am unable to watch television, I miss it so much that you could call it "withdrawal." 44. Sometimes I watch TV just because I missed it a great deal. 45. If I have to miss a favorite show, I feel upset. [If I have to miss my shows for some reason, it makes me very upset.] 46. I can't imagine going without TV. 10. I could easily go without TV with no problem.* Unintended Use 11 .1 often watch TV for a longer time than I intended. 47. Time really gets away from me when I watch TV. 48. Sometimes I only plan to watch TV for a few minutes, and wind up spending hours in front of it. 49. I follow a very exact TV-watching schedule.* 50. I usually watch TV for exactly as long as I planned to watch. |l usually watch TV for as long as I planned.]*

396

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

Appendix (Continued)
Cutting Down 51. I often think that I should cut down on the amount of television that I watch. 52. I've tried to reduce the amount of TV I watch, but it hasn't really worked. 53. I often feel guilty about watching so much television. 54. I feel bad that I watch so much TV, but I can't seem to stop. 55. I would be embarrassed to tell people how much TV I actually watch. Time Spent 56. Compared to most people, I spend a great deal of time watching television. 57. Much of my time is spent in front of the television. 58. Television viewing takes up almost all of my leisure time. 59. I don't spend that much time watching television. * 60. I spend more time watching TV than just about anything else. Displacement of Other Activities 61. I sometimes watch television when I should be spending time with friends or family. 62. I often watch TV when I should be working or going to school. 63. Sometimes I feel like my whole life revolves around the TV, and I never do anything else. 64. I would be a lot more productive if I didn't watch so much TV. 65. I would spend more time with hobbies if I didn't watch so much TV. Continued Use 3 1.1 keep watching TV even though it is causing serious problems in my life. 66. My family members get angry and tell me I watch too much TV, but I can't stop. 67. I sometimes feel like my TV watching is alienating my loved ones. 68. My TV watching has created real problems for me, but i keep watching. 69. I keep watching TV even though my loved ones can't stand it. Note: *ltems 2 10, 4 15, and 24 are reverse-scored. **ltems shown in italics are retained for the 20-item TV Addiction * ** Bracketed phrases reflect wording from pilot study.

References
Akers, R. L. (1991). Addiction: The troublesome concept. Journal of Drug Issues, 21, 777-793. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, . R., A. , A., Schmitt, K. L., & Jacobvitz, R. S. (1996). Stressful life events and television viewing. Communication Research, 23, 243-260. Beresford, T. (1991). The nosology of alcoholism research. Alcohol Health and Research World, 15, 260-271. Bingham, J. E., & Piotrowski, C. (1996). On-line sexual addiction: A contemporary enigma. Psychological Reports, 79, 257-258. Condry, J. (1989). The psychology of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Davison, W. P. (1983). e third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. DeFleur, M. L, & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Theories of mass communication (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Donohew, L, P. , & Rayburn, J. D., II. (1987). Social and psychological origins of media use: A lifestyle analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 255-278. Edgar, P. (1977). Families without television. Journal of Communication, 27, 73-77. Edwards, A. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden. Elliott, R., Eccles, S., & Gournay, K. (1996). Revenge, existential choice, and addictive consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 753-768. Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 1905-1907.

Horvath/MEASURING ADDICTION

397

Ewing, J. A., & Rouse, B. A. (1970, February). Identifying the hidden alcoholic. Paper presented at the o n on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, Sydney, Australia. Faber, R. J., C , C, & Krych, R. (1987). Compulsive consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 79,459-469. Fisher, S. (1994). g video game addiction in children and adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 545-553. Foss, K. . & F . F. (1996). Exploring the margins of television viewing. Communication Reports, 9, 61-68. Fowles, J. (1982). Television viewers vs. media snobs: What TV does for people. New York: Stein and Day. F r a n k , M . & G . G. (1980). The public's use of television: Who watches and why. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Griffiths, M. D. (1992). Pinball wizard: The case of a pinball machine addict. Psychological Reports, 71, 160-162. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229. Keller, M., & Doria, J. (1991). On defining alcoholism. A/co/io/ Hea/f/i and Research World, 15, 253-259. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kubey, R. W. (1996). Television dependence, diagnosis, and prevention. In T. M. MacBeth (Ed.), Tuning in to young viewers (pp. 221-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kubey, R., & Csikszentmihaiyi, M. (1990). Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. Kubey, R. W., J. , J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 366-382. Mander, J. (1978). Four arguments for the elimination of television. New York: William Morrow. Mayfield, D. G. , G., & Hall, P. (1974). The CAGE questionnaire: Validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. American Journal of i'sychiatry, 131, 1121-1123. Mcllwraith, R. D. (1998). "I'm addicted to television": The personality, imagination, and TV watching patterns of self-identified TV addicts. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 371-386. Mcllwraith, R . R. S., Kubey, R., & Alexander, A. (1991). Television addiction: Theories and t h e ubiquitous metaphor. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 104-121. Morgan, M., & N. N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Morris, K. (1998). Seeking ways to crack cocaine addiction. Lancet, 352, 1290. Peele, S. (1985). The meaning of addiction. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Phillips, C. A., Rous e , A. , c & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing in school children: A study f incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 687-691. Rasmussen, S. (2000). Addiction treatment: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125. Rubin, A. M. (1977). Television usage, attitudes and viewing behaviors of children and adolescents. Journal of Broadcasting, 21, 355-369. Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141-165. Rubin, R. B., Rubin, , M., & Piele, L. J. (1990). Communication research: Strategies and sources (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

398

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/September 2004

Signorielli, N. (1986). Selective television viewing: A limited possibility. Journal of Communication, 36(3), 64-76. Singer, J. L. (1980). The power and limitations of television: A cognitive-affective analysis. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 31-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, R. (1986). Television addiction. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 109-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Steiner, C. A. (1963). The people look at television. New York: Knopf. S t r a h a n , . & C . C. (1972). Short, homogenous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191-193. Tan, V S. i Why TV s missed: A functional analysis. Journal of Broadcasting, 21, 371-380. Winick, C. (1988). The functions of television: Life without the big box. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Television as a social issue (pp. 217-238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Winn, M. (1977). The plug-in drug: Television, children, and the family. New York: Viking.

Copyright of Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media is the property of Broadcast Education Association and its content may not be copied or ennailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.