Person Perception and Children's Impressions of Television and Real Peers
- 1 December 1988
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Communication Research
- Vol. 15 (6) , 680-698
- https://doi.org/10.1177/009365088015006002
Abstract
Much television programming depicts people engaged in social interaction. Children's understandings of television, therefore, may be guided by their abilities to make sense of character depictions. By examining the developmental characteristics of impressions, this study suggests that the same construal process shapes children's understandings of both television and real peers. The study also indicates that impressions of both television and real peers are based on a common set of perceptual dimensions. Moreover, children's impressions are shown to be a function both of characteristics of the target and of the common underlying construal system.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- CHILDREN'S PERSON PERCEPTION: THE GENERALIZATION FROM TELEVISION PEOPLE TO REAL PEOPLEHuman Communication Research, 1982
- COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY MEASURES AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY TO COMMUNICATIONHuman Communication Research, 1981
- IS COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY LOQUACITY? A REPLY TO POWERS, JORDAN, AND STREETHuman Communication Research, 1981
- THE DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF TELEVISION CHARACTERS: A REPLICATIONHuman Communication Research, 1979
- A multidimensional measure of children's identification with television charactersJournal of Broadcasting, 1978
- CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF TELEVISION CHARACTERSHuman Communication Research, 1977
- Children and the Perceived Reality of TelevisionJournal of Social Issues, 1976
- Observational Learning of Motives and Consequences for Television Aggression: A Developmental StudyChild Development, 1974
- Children's Descriptions of Peers: A Wernerian Developmental AnalysisChild Development, 1971
- Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965