Religiousness, values, and parental mediation of children´s television viewing in Slovakia

PROOF COVER SHEET

Author(s): Pavel Izrael

Article title: Religiousness, Values, and Parental Mediation of Children’sTelevision Viewing in Slovakia?

Article no: 827129

Enclosures: 1) Query sheet

2) Article proofs

Dear Author,

1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the correspondingauthor to check these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normallyprovided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even ifintroduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to

the article, it will be considered ready for publication.

Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not makeinsignificant changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existingmaterial at this stage. Making a large number of small, non-essential corrections canlead to errors being introduced. We therefore reserve the right not to make suchcorrections.

For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please seehttp://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp.

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first andlast names are structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correctorder of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will appear correctlyonline and when the article is indexed.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 Pavel Izrael

Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs.

AUTHOR QUERIES

General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary writtenpermission from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text,illustration, or other material in your article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check that any required acknowledgementshave been included to reflect this.

Q1 Kirwil (2009) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q2 Bybee et al. (1982) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q3 Austin (1997) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q4 McLeod & Chaffee (1972) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q5 Eggermont (2006) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q6 Austin and Fujioka (2002) is not included in the Reference list. Please check.

Q7 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q8 Please provide the name of editor.

Q9 Buijzen & Valkenburg (2005) is not cited in text. Please check.

Q10 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q11 KAcINOVa (2008) is not cited in text. Please check.

Q12 Please provide the name of editor.

Q13 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q14 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q15 Scantlin & Jordan (2006) is not cited in text. Please check.

Q16 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q17 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q18 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q19 Suchy (2008) is not cited in text. Please check..

Q20 Please provide the retrieved date.

Q21 Please provide the retrieved date.

How to make corrections to your proofs using Adobe Acrobat

Taylor & Francis now offer you a choice of options to help you make corrections toyour proofs. Your PDF proof file has been enabled so that you can edit the proofdirectly using Adobe Acrobat. This is the simplest and best way for you to ensurethat your corrections will be incorporated. If you wish to do this, please follow theseinstructions:

1. Save the file to your hard disk.

2. Check which version of Adobe Acrobat you have on your computer. You can dothis by clicking on the “Help” tab, and then “About.”

If Adobe Reader is not installed, you can get the latest version free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/.

. If you have Adobe Reader 8 (or a later version), go to “Tools”/ “Comments &Markup”/ “Show Comments & Markup.”

. If you have Acrobat Professional 7, go to “Tools”/ “Commenting”/ “ShowCommenting Toolbar.”

3. Click “Text Edits.” You can then select any text and delete it, replace it, or insertnew text as you need to. If you need to include new sections of text, it is alsopossible to add a comment to the proofs. To do this, use the Sticky Note tool in thetask bar. Please also see our FAQs here: http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/index.asp.

4. Make sure that you save the file when you close the document before uploading itto CATS using the “Upload File” button on the online correction form. A full list ofthe comments and edits you have made can be viewed by clicking on the“Comments” tab in the bottom left-hand corner of the PDF.

If you prefer, you can make your corrections using the CATS online correction form.

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL

MEDIATION OF CHILDREN’S TELEVISION

VIEWING IN SLOVAKIA?

Pavel Izrael

This study is based on an analysis of data drawn from a 2010 survey of 486 adolescents and their

parents from the Orava region in Slovakia. This study investigates whether a Dutch scale for

assessing parental mediation strategies can be used in a different cultural context. The results

demonstrate the applicability of the scale. In addition, this study aims to determine which parental

mediation strategies are used among parents in Slovakia in relation to TV viewing and what factors

predict the use of given strategies. Aside from the commonly used socio-demographic factors,

media-related factors and family communication patterns, religiousness and value orientation

were taken into consideration as possible predictors. From all of the variables included,

religiousness appears to be an important predictor for all mediation strategies.

KEYWORDS parental mediation; instructive mediation; restrictive mediation; coviewing;

religiousness; family communication patterns; values

Parental Mediation

Extensive research has been carried out on parental involvement in children’s TV

consumption in terms of guiding, intervening, minimizing possible risks, etc. These different

parental approaches and techniques can all be covered by the term “parental mediation.”

The past three decades have brought a considerable increase in research on adult

mediation of children’s television viewing, although the mediation of Internet use has been

studied as well (Kirwil, 2009; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). Studies of parental mediation can

generally be divided into three categories (Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999).

The first category consists of research that assesses the occurrence of television mediation

in the home (Abelman, 2001; Vandewater, Park, Huang, & Wartella, 2005; Valkenburg et al.,

1999); this research answers the question of how often and in what form parents mediate

television viewing.

The second category includes mediation studies that focus on the determinants or

correlates of various styles of mediation (Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Warren, 2005; Warren,

Gerke, & Kelly, 2002); these studies analyze, for example, demographic correlates or

communication patterns.

The third category of mediation research examines the effects of parental mediation

of TV viewing in various areas be it children’s emotional responses to a violent news event

(Buijzen, Walma van der Molen, & Sondij, 2007), adolescent sexuality (Fisher et al., 2009),

[Q1]

Journal of Children and Media, 2013Vol. 00, No. 0, 1–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2013.827129

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

aggression (Nathanson, 1999), TV-induced fears (Paavonen, Roine, Pennonen, & Lahikainen,

2009), or female stereotypes (Nathanson & Cantor, 2002).

On the whole, research on parental mediation of media consumption by children and

youth (Bybee et al., 1982; Livingstone, 2002) has shown that parents regulate media

consumption in a number of ways. In this study, the concept of parental mediation is adopted as

defined by Valkenburg et al. (1999), who considered instructive mediation, restrictive mediation,

and coviewing. Thus, the term instructive mediation refers to situations in which a parent asks

questions or makes comments such as “the situation shown in this movie is far from reality.”

Restrictive mediation can often be performed by saying something such as “no TV for one week,

you need to focus on studying.” Coviewing simply means watching TV with the children, but

even the mere sharing of TV time between parents and children can work as a behavior model.

In studies following Valkenburg’s work, two sub-types of active mediation (positive

and negative) can be distinguished; the first refers to parental endorsement of media

messages and portrayals, while the second refers to counterarguments or criticism of media

messages (Fujioka & Austin, 2002). Within coviewing we can distinguish intentional

coviewing from passive coviewing (Yang & Nathanson, 2009). Even though these nuanced

scales deal with parental mediation in more detail, for examining parental mediation in

broader sense, Valkenburg’s scale seems to be appropriate.

Research on Parental Mediation in Slovakia

To date, no empirical research on parental mediation has been conducted in Slovakia.

Some partial information can be found in the study carried out on media literacy by Vrabec

(2008), who found that approximately 50 per cent of primary school children and 70 per cent

of secondary school teens are allowed to use media without any control or restrictions.

Although 75 per cent of school children listed their parents as partners in discussions on TV

consumption, the survey failed to distinguish the frequency of these discussions.

Due to the lack of parental mediation research in Slovakia, the main objective of

this study is to investigate whether a Dutch scale for assessing parental mediation

strategies can be applied in Slovakia. The need to test the scale cross-culturally follows

from the fact that there are no relevant scales available in Slovak and Valkenburg’s scale

offers a complex tool for assessing parental mediation strategies. Furthermore, it has

been used by researchers across cultures sometimes with some adaptation, e.g.,

S. Bocking and T. Bocking in Switzerland (2009); Waren (2005), Springer (2011) in the

USA and Lampada and Stogiannidou in Greece (2009).

There are some cultural differences between the Netherlands and Slovakia. Based on

the findings of the World Values Survey, Slovakia belongs to Catholic Europe, while the

Netherlands is Protestant; for the Dutch self-expression values are more important, compared

with the Slovaks who incline to survival values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Inglehart & Welzel,

2010). The Slovaks also have a 40-year long experience with communism. Nevertheless, it is

likely that a scale for assessing mediation strategies would be applicable in a different cultural

context because the items in the scale are not culture-related.

Therefore, the first research question asks the following:

RQ1: Is it possible to apply the scale for assessing parental mediation that was developed

in the Netherlands to a different cultural context?

[Q2]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

2 PAVEL IZRAEL

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

The Occurrence of Parental Mediation Strategies

Following the primary objective of this study, i.e., to validate the Dutch scale for assessing

parental mediation strategies in a different cultural context, the second objective is to determine

which mediation strategy parents apply most often when they address their children’s TV

viewing. The extant literature offers a rich spectrum of findings. For example, for children aged

3–14 in German-speaking Switzerland, restrictive mediation is the most prevalent mediation

strategy (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009). In the Netherlands, for children aged 5–12 years, social

coviewing comes first (Valkenburg et al., 1999). Regarding connections between mediation

styles, it was found that strategies are correlated, yet with different findings between studies.

Positive correlations between all three strategies were found by Fisher et al. (2009), Warren

(2003), Nathanson (2001) and Valkenburg et al. (1999). A correlation between restrictive and

instructivemediation and between instructivemediation and coviewingwas found by S. Bocking

and T. Bocking (2009). When parental mediation of the Internet was studied, positive correlations

between the four strategies (active co-use, interaction restrictions, technical restrictions and

monitoring) were found, with the highest correlation between active co-use and interaction

restrictions (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). Thus, the next research question is as follows:

RQ2: How often do Slovak parents apply the identified mediation styles and are there

positive correlations between them?

Parental Correlates of Mediation Strategies

Sociodemographic and Media-Related Factors

Correlation studies have primarily focused on sociodemographic factors such as

parents’ gender, education and income and the children’s age. They have found that mothers

are more likely than fathers to restrict their children’s television viewing (Bybee et al., 1982;

Valkenburg et al., 1999). It has also been found that parents with higher levels of education

are more likely to restrict their children’s television viewing (see, for example, Valkenburg

et al., 1999) but that mothers with lower education levels are more likely to co-view regularly

than those with higher education levels (Paavonen et al., 2009). However, Warren (2005)

suggests that “more educated parents are more likely to verbally interact with young

children; less educated parents are more restrictive.” Low income is related to a restrictive

mediation strategy (Warren, 2005) and coviewing (Austin, 1997). The family structure can

obviously play a role because there is more mediation in two-parent families (Atkin,

Greenberg, & Baldwin, 1991) and more discussion about TV (Austin, 1997). Some studies

included child gender as a predictor of television mediation, yet the hypothesis that boys get

more mediation than girls has not been supported (Van der Voort, Nikken, & Van Lil, 1992;

Valkenburg et al., 1999). Parents restrict less TV viewing of those children who have a

television set in their bedroom (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009). In addition, themore television

sets there are in a household, the less co-viewing occurs (Jordan, Hersey, McDivitt, & Heitzler,

2006) and the less parents oversee adolescent viewing (Jackson, Brown, & Pardun, 2008).

It is generally accepted that parents serve as primary behavior models for their children.

This also holds true for media usage, as it was found that parents influence viewing behaviors

of their adolescent children (Westerik, Renckstorf, Lammers, & Wester, 2007) and the more

parents watch television, the more their children do (Webster, Pearson, & Webster, 1986).

[Q3]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 3

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

Families in Slovakia, from the perspective of media use, do not differ substantially

from families abroad. Over recent years, media have massively penetrated Slovak families

which has led to increased availability of media at home (Velsic, 2007). Young people spend

considerable time using media (Vrabec, 2008) and individuals aged 15 þ spend 214

minutes per day watching television (Klempova, 2011), which is more than in Netherlands

(Borrenbergs, 2011). In contrast with the past, nowadays 58 per cent of primary and

secondary school students have a television set in their bedroom (Vrabec, 2008).

Family Communication Patterns

The second group of factors represents factors that influence family behavior, e.g., family

interaction (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009) or family communication patterns (Fujioka & Austin,

2002). It is legitimate to suggest that the manner in which parents communicate with their

children, i.e., whether they are conversation- or conformity-oriented or if they do not belong to

either category and thus represent a laissez-faire approach (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990), could

outline how parents approach their children when TV viewing is considered (Fitzpatrick, 2004;

Krcmar, 1996; Lull, 1980). When conversation or a free exchange of opinions is valued in the

family, there is a likelihood that the parents will also be active communicators when TV is

concerned (Fujioka & Austin, 2002). However, when parents place more value on conformity,

they are likely to exercise their authority by means of rules and restrictions and deny the child’s

competence and autonomy (Ritchie, 1998) in general; such parents are alsomore likely to issue

directives and decisions regarding TV viewing (Fujioka & Austin, 2002; Krcmar, 1996).

There is lack of research into family communication patterns in Slovakia, yet the

studies available show that adolescents express the need for a better relationship with

parents (Vendel, 1987). Adolescent perceive their parents as more hostile in comparison

with older findings (Sımova, 1994) and findings confirm signs of authoritative parenting

(Sramova, Lajciakova, & Fichnova, 2004). Nowadays, when raising children, parents put

greater emphasis on such values as autonomy and free will, while in the past obedience

and subordination were preferred (Ondrejkovic & Majercıkova 2006). Based on these

findings, examining family communication patterns as a possible predictor of parental

mediation might shed some light on changes taking place in Slovak families.

H1: Family communication patterns will affect parental mediation strategies: a higher

conversation orientation will be linked to more frequent instructive mediation, and a

higher conformity orientation will be linked to more frequent restrictive mediation.

Value Orientation

Human values form a basis for attitudes and motivate people’s behavior in various

situations. It can be said that values influence most, if not all, motivated behavior (Schwartz,

2007) and decision making (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Although values can be relatively

stable, they can also undergo changes in the long run, e.g., modern parents prefer their

child’s autonomy and independence over parental authority, which can be interpreted as a

weakening of traditions (Smith, 2001). For these parents, the values of tradition or

conformity appear to be suppressed by the values of benevolence or tolerance. Given this,

the parents’ value orientation can be taken into consideration when finding the factors that

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

4 PAVEL IZRAEL

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

affect the use of mediation strategies, which is directly linked to, on the one hand, the

assertion of one’s authority or, on the other hand, the encouragement of open discussions

based on respect for others.

In line with what is stated above, some values in Slovakia are relatively stable, e.g.,

family or work, while some other have undergone changes, e.g., unconditional love of

parents to children which has becomemore important. In general, there is an obvious trend

toward individualization of one’s life, along with higher importance of personal

responsibility. On the other hand, tolerance and thoughtfulness have been given less

priority than in the past (Buzik, Tızik, Kusa, & Kostlan, 2008).

H2: Parents who value conformity, power and tradition will be inclined to use restrictive

mediation more often than those who find these three values to be less important.

H3: Parents who value universalism and benevolence will be inclined to use instructive

mediation more often than those who these two values to be less important.

Religiousness

Religion has been consistently the most important value for the Slovaks and,

according the 2011 census, 75.5 per cent of the population is affiliated with a church,

predominately Christian churches. With so many people being church members, it is

legitimate to ask what the impact of religion on one’s life might be.

It is a generally accepted fact that values stand at the center of any religion, and some

studies have shown that religion can determine these values in parents (Canetti-Nisim,

2004; Costa & Goodwin, 2006). Hence, because values have an impact on motivation and

behavior, this impact could apply for religion. However, an affiliation with a religion does

not necessarily mean that one adheres to the religion’s value system. Values are only one

sub-part of a religion (Stefanak, 2009), and to study the extent of a person’s affiliation with a

religion, a different category is required, i.e., religiousness.

Studies have addressed the issues of religion from different perspectives. Although

no studies have investigated religiousness as a possible determinant of parental mediation,

researchers have paid attention to the family life areas that relate to raising children.

Religiousness has been related to authoritarianism because both concepts include a

tendency toward conventions and rules (Wink, Dillon, & Prettyman, 2007) or toward higher

paternal involvement in family life (Wilcox, 2002). Parents with a stronger religious

commitment supervise and control their children more than those who are less religious

(Ahmadi & Hossein-abadi, 2009). More religious people tend to avoid TV content that they

find morally offensive (Hamilton & Rubin, 1992). Only a limited amount of evidence

supports the hypothesis that greater Christian conservativism correlates with a general

belief that places a high priority on children’s conformity and obedience (Mahoney,

Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001). Despite some discrepancies in research findings,

it can be assumed that more religious parents will try to prevent their children from

watching inappropriate programs or will counter possible negative effects via discussion.

H4: More religious parents will be inclined toward instructive and restrictive mediation.Based on the above-mentioned factors, the next research question is as follows:

RQ3: What are the important predictors of parental mediation strategies?

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 5

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

Methods

Participants

The data were drawn from a survey conducted at the ninth-grade level of primary

school and the fifth-grade level of secondary grammar school1 that targeted adolescents in

the 14- to 15-year-old age bracket and their parents. Adolescents were considered to be

appropriate for this study because adolescent attitudes toward marriage, divorce, same-sex

marriage and premarital sex will be studied in the second phase of this research project.

Younger children would not be appropriate for studying these attitudes. The schools were

chosen so that they would geographically represent the entire region. Altogether 486

children (N ¼ 486) were asked to complete a child questionnaire at school and to take the

parent questionnaire in an envelope home to have it completed by one parent. The

children were asked to return the parents’ questionnaires to their school within one week

to have them collected. The instructions in the questionnaires stated that the questionnaire

should be filled out by the parent who primarily discusses TV content or sets the rules

regarding TV viewing with the child (the child who brought the questionnaire from school).

The response rate from the parents was 52 per cent, resulting in 254 completed and

returned questionnaires (N ¼ 254).

Procedure

Pretest. The questionnaire used for data gathering was pretested on a sample of 18

adolescents and their parents from one secondary school in the town of Ruzomberok. One

of the goals of the pretest was to check the overall comprehensibility and reliability of the

translation of the scales. The pretest respondents did not experience any problems

understanding the items. Regarding the reliability, a Cronbach’s alpha test was used, and all

of the scales except for one showed acceptable internal consistency (a $ .7). The reliability

was verified after all of the questionnaires were collected in the main wave of the survey,

and all of the scales fell within acceptable internal consistency limits (a $ .7).

Media-related factors. Data on these factors has been collected asking parents how

much time on average they spend watching television on working days, how many

television sets there are in the household and whether their child has a television set in his/

her bedroom.

Parental television mediation. Parental television mediation was measured with a

typology developed by Valkenburg et al. (1999), who originally worked with thirty items but

who, through a factorial analysis performed in her pilot study, eventually introduced a 15-

item scale as an effective tool for evaluating mediation strategies. In this research, however,

a 15-item scale is used that consists of three 5-item sub-scales that measure the parents’ use

of instructive mediation, restrictive mediation, and coviewing. For instructive mediation,

the questions were designed to assess whether the parents communicate media messages

to their children, e.g., How often do you explain the motives of TV characters?; for restrictive

mediation, the questions targeted the existence of restrictions regarding TV viewing, e.g.,

How often do you set specific viewing hours for your child?; and items in the coviewing

scale assessed to what extent the parents watched TV with their children, e.g., How often

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

6 PAVEL IZRAEL

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

do you laugh with your child about the things that you see on TV? For each item, the

parents indicated their degree of concern on a 4-point scale (coded 1–4; never, rarely,

sometimes, often). The English version of Valkenburg’s scale was translated into Slovak by

two experts on English and Slovak language. The two translations were compared and the

comparison did not confirm any substantial differences. Then, the Slovak version was

translated back to English resulting in a form almost identical to the original.

Religiousness. The level of religiousness was measured using the Religious

Commitment Inventory developed by Worthington et al. (2003). The nature of statements

such as My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life or Religious beliefs

influence all my dealings in life make the inventory suitable for studying how religiousness

might influence parental mediation strategies. In addition, the ten items in the inventory

cover many dimensions of the religion concepts offered by Billiet (2007) in his proposal for

questions on religious identity in the European Social Survey, e.g., Religion is especially

important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. For each

item in the ten-item inventory, the parents indicated their response on a 5-point scale from

“not at all true of me” to “totally true of me.” The ten items constituted a reliable scale

(range 10–50, M ¼ 33.79, SD ¼ 9.45, a ¼ .74) on which higher scores indicate a higher

degree of religious commitment.

Human values. Because this study does not primarily address values, it was

necessary to derive a reasonable set of values to include in the research. The individual

values were taken from those proposed by Schwartz (2007) for the European Social Survey,

where he classified ten basic values. Based on this description of basic values, those that

were related to parenting were chosen in terms of expressing authority, communication,

care about the well-being of others, and respect. These issues are crucial in a parent-child

relationship. Thus, the following basic values were included in the questionnaire: power,

universalism, conformity, tradition, and benevolence, with each value being assessed by

two items (each item consisted of two statements), e.g., for benevolence: “It’s very

important to him/her to help the people around him/her. He/she wants to care for their

well-being.” Parents indicated how well the description fits them on a five-point scale with

the following options: “not like me at all,” “not like me,” “somewhat like me,” “like me,” “very

much like me.”

Family communication patterns. Consistent with previous research (Schrodt, Witt, &

Messersmith, 2008) this study uses the original instrument for measuring the family

communication patterns (McLeod & Chaffee, 1972) , which consists of a series of questions

about how parents communicate with their children. There were seven items on

conversation orientation (content orientation), e.g., “I often ask for my children’s opinion

when the family is talking about something” and seven items on conformity orientation

(socio-orientation), e.g., “I often say something like “My ideas are right and you should not

question them.” Respondents answered the questions on a five-point scale that ranged

from strongly disagree (coded as 1) to strongly agree (coded as 5). Even though in the

pretest the scale for conversation orientation, which measured family communication

patterns, did not reach acceptable internal consistency, after the main wave of the survey

[Q4]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 7

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

this scale fell within the limits: for conversation orientation (range 7–35, M ¼ 26.36, SD

¼ 4.00, a ¼ .70); for conformity orientation (range 7–35, M ¼ 22.33, SD ¼ 4.85, a ¼ .71).

Results

Research question 1 asked whether it is possible to apply a scale for assessing

parental mediation developed in the Netherlands (Valkenburg et al., 1999) in a different

cultural context. To answer this question, a confirmatory factor analysis of fifteen television

mediation items was conducted. Three factors emerged—identical to the factors in

Valkenburg’s study—labeled “instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and “social

coviewing.” These three factors explained 59.7 per cent of the variance (Table 1). Each factor

was composed of five items. Scores on the component items were summed to form a scale

for instructive mediation (range ¼ 5–20, M ¼ 14.18 SD ¼ 3.07, a ¼ .82), restrictive

mediation (range ¼ 5–20, M ¼ 14.04, SD ¼ 3.64, a ¼ .81) and coviewing (range ¼ 5–20,

M ¼ 16.49, SD ¼ 2.83, a ¼ .84). The relevant factor loadings for all items (Table 1) are

similar to those in Valkenburg’s study, which, along with the good reliability values,

demonstrates the applicability of the scale (in its Slovak translation) to a different cultural

context.

Research question 2 asked how frequently parents applied the three mediation styles

and examined the connections between these styles. The data show (see Table 2) that

parents most frequently coview, which is in line with previous findings showing that the

frequency of coviewing increases with age (Valkenburg et al., 1999), followed by restrictive

and instructive mediation. The correlation between restrictive and instructive mediation is

r ¼ .54, p , .001, and that between instructive mediation and coviewing is r ¼ .27,

p , .001. There is also a slight correlation between restrictive mediation and coviewing:

r ¼ .15, p , .05. The size of these correlations is consistent with past research (Valkenburg

et al., 1999) and the fact that the highest correlation is between instructive and restrictive

strategy also corresponds with other studies (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009; Warren, 2003).

Based on the highest score, Table 3 shows the number of parents who use a certain

strategy as the dominant strategy. For 54 per cent of parents, coviewing is a dominant

strategy, for 18 per cent it is restrictive mediation and for 14 per cent it is instructive

mediation. A considerable number of parents (14 per cent) do not have a dominant

strategy and primarily use two or even all three strategies equally.

To identify the factors that affect parental use of the three mediation strategies (RQ3

and H1, H2, H3, and H4), hierarchical multiple regression analyses were employed. In order

to examine whether the factor of religiousness and the one of human values do not overlap

and refer to the same concept, the covariance of these factors was tested. The results

showed positive correlations between religiousness and universalism (r ¼ .19, p , .05),

benevolence (r ¼ .27, p , .05), conformity (r ¼ .22, p , .05) and tradition (r ¼ .44, p , .05).

A moderate correlation between tradition and religiousness could be caused by the fact

that one of the two items measuring tradition includes a reference to religion. However, for

measuring religiousness, ten items are used and thus they provide more detailed and

complex examination. The size of these correlations implies the factors of religiousness and

human values do not measure the same concept and thus can be used alongside.

Sociodemographic factors (child gender, parent gender, parent education, family structure,

and income) were included in the first block, while parent gender and education were used

as control variables. Factors related to media use (number of TV sets in the household and

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

8 PAVEL IZRAEL

330

335

340

345

350

355

360

365

370

375

the presence of a TV set in the child’s room) were entered in the second block. Factors

influencing parental behavior (family communication patterns including conversation and

conformity orientation, religious commitment, and values including power, tradition,

conformity, benevolence, and universalism) were included in the third block.

The first block (child gender, parent gender, parent education, family structure, and

income) accounted for 3 per cent of the variance for instructive mediation, F(5,

202) ¼ 1,381; 3 per cent of the variance for restrictive mediation, F(5, 202) ¼ 1.275; and 2

per cent of the variance for coviewing, F(5, 202) ¼ .688. However, this model was not

statistically significant. The addition of the second block (number of TV sets in the

household, the presence of a TV set in the child’s room, amount of parent’s viewing)

resulted in an increase in the variance explained for each of the three mediation styles.

These variables added 1 per cent to the variance for instructive mediation, F(3,

199) ¼ 1.381; 6 per cent to the variance for restrictive mediation, F(3, 1999) ¼ 4.373,

TABLE 2

Statistical values of television mediation scales

Television Mediation Scale Number of Items M SD Alpha N

Instructive mediation 5 14.18 3.07 .82 254Coviewing 5 16.49 2.83 .84 254Restrictive mediation 5 14.04 3.64 .81 254

Note. Scores on the component items were summed to form a score for each mediation type. The scales foreach item ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (often).

TABLE 1

Factor solution (Varimax rotation)

How often do youFactor 1

Coviewing

Factor 2RestrictiveMediation

Factor 3InstructiveMediation

. . . point out why some things that actors do are bad? .213 .771

. . . explain the motives of TV characters? .101 .121 .784

. . . explain what something on TV really means? .310 .270 .606

. . . point out why some things actors do are good? .332 .715

. . . try to help the child understand what she/he sees on TV? .122 .197 .726

. . . laugh with your child about things that you see on TV? .726 .207

. . . watch together just for fun? .701

. . . watch together because you both like a program? .820 .163

. . . watch together because of a common interest in a program? .807 .114

. . . watch your favorite program together? .788

. . . set specific viewing hours for your child? .646 .289

. . . forbid your child to watch certain programs? .767 .129

. . . specify in advance the programs that may be watched? .680 .260

. . . tell your child to turn off the TV when she/he is watchingan unsuitable program?

.761 .178

. . . restrict the amount of the child’s viewing? .761 .165Eigenvalue 4.93 2.67 1.36Variance explained by each factor 32.8% 17.8% 9.1%

Note. N ¼ 254. Acceptability of the sample for factor analysis according to KMO . .80.Factor loadings , .10 are not reported.

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 9

380

385

390

395

400

405

410

415

420

p , .05; and 4 per cent to the variance for coviewing, F(3, 199) ¼ 3.297, p , .05. This model

was not statistically significant for instructive mediation. When the third block was added

(family communication patterns including conversation and conformity orientation,

religious commitment, and values including power, benevolence, universalism, conformity,

and tradition), a significant increase in the variance explained for each of the three

mediation strategies was obtained. These variables added 26 per cent to the variance for

instructive mediation, F(8, 191) ¼ 8.946, p , .001; 14 per cent to the variance for restrictive

mediation, F(8, 191) ¼ 4.527, p , .001; and 12 per cent to the variance for coviewing, F

(8, 191) ¼ 3.407, p , .001.

The results show that different combinations of factors affect the three television

mediation strategies (see Table 4). Instructive mediation is most strongly affected by

conversation orientation followed by religiousness. Both factors result in more discussions

about TV content. The child’s sex was marginally significant (p ¼ .07), implying that TV

content is more often discussed with boys than with girls. Surprisingly, no other factors

significantly correlate with instructive mediation.

In contrast to instructive mediation, restrictive mediation is most strongly affected by

religiousness, followed by tradition and marginally significant benevolence (p ¼ .056).

Religiousness and benevolence positively relate to restrictions on the children’s television

usage, while tradition is negatively correlated with restrictions. To verify the relationship

between values and restrictive mediation, a correlation analysis was conducted, which

confirmed the relationship between restrictive mediation and benevolence (r ¼ .187,

p , .01), yet the relationship between restrictive mediation and tradition was not

statistically significant.

Coviewing increases with a conversation orientation and with the parent’s viewing

time, while it decreases with religiousness and the number of TV sets in a household. A

conversation orientation shows the strongest influence; the number of TV sets in a

household and religiousness are far less important than conversation orientation.

In partial agreement with H1, which posits that family communication patterns will

affect parental mediation strategies in that a higher conversation orientation will be linked

to more frequent instructive mediation and a higher conformity orientation will be linked to

more frequent restrictive mediation, instructive mediation is most affected by conversation

orientation. However, a conformity orientation did not result in more restrictions on TV

usage; thus, the second part of the hypothesis was not confirmed.

H2 posits that parents who value conformity, power, and tradition will be inclined to

use restrictive mediation more often than those who do not place as much importance on

TABLE 3

Prevalent mediation types among parents (Which mediation strategy do parents use most often?)

Mediation Strategy % Parents

Coviewing 54%Restrictive mediation 18%Instructive mediation 14%No dominant strategy 14%

Note. N ¼ 254. In the group “no dominant strategy”, the following combinations of strategies wereobserved: instructive þ restrictive; instructive þ coviewing; restrictive þ coviewing; instructive þrestrictive þ coviewing.

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

10 PAVEL IZRAEL

425

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

these two values. The results of the regression analysis show that tradition has the opposite

effect and results in less restriction. Because conformity and power were not significant

predictors, this hypothesis was not supported.

H3 posits that parents who value benevolence and universalism will be inclined to use

instructive mediation more often than those who find these two values to be less important.

This hypothesis was not supported as neither of the two values was a significant predictor.

However, benevolence did positively influence restrictive mediation, which might mean that

benevolence does not necessarily mean lessening rules and restrictions as they can serve as

means for protecting someone.

In H4, it was hypothesized that more religious parents would be inclined toward

instructive and restrictive mediation. This hypothesis was fully supported, although there is

some discrepancy between the influence of religiousness on instructive and restrictive

mediation. Religiousness is more relevant in affecting restrictivemediation; yet in both cases, its

effect is significant.

Discussion

The findings demonstrate that a Slovak measure of parental mediation is achievable

because the factor analysis yielded the same factorial structure identified by Valkenburg

et al. (1999). All three mediation strategies (instructive mediation, restrictive mediation and

TABLE 4

Determinants of parental mediation

Instructive Mediation Restrictive Mediation CoviewingPredictor Beta Beta Beta

Sociodemographic factorsChild?s sexa 2 .116 2 .096 .001Parent?s sexa 2 .013 2 .074 2 .039Parent?s educationb .013 .069 .071Family structurec .080 .080 2 .098Income .087 .098 .020

Media-related factorNumber of TV sets 2 .028 2 .079 2 .172*TV set in child?s bedroom .041 .031 2 .026Amount of time parents spendwatching TV on a weekday

.015 2 .107 .147*

Factors influencing parental behaviorValue- power .001 .016 2 .090Value- tradition 2 .046 2 .196* .030Value- conformity 2 .038 .105 2 .009Value- benevolence .082 .158 2 .121Value- universalism 2 .021 2 .060 2 .010Religiousness .221** .313*** 2 .162*Conversation orientation .431*** .131 .345***Conformity orientation 2 .038 .044 2 .084R 2 adjusted .25*** .17*** .11***

Note. N ¼ 210,a

1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female;b

1 ¼ lower, 2 ¼ higher;c

1 ¼ both parents, 2 ¼ single parent.

***p , .001, **p , .01, *p , .05.

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 11

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

510

515

social coviewing) are used by Slovak parents, and the scales measuring them show high

reliability, enabling their use in future research.

The results show that Slovak parents of adolescents most frequently apply coviewing

but that the other two strategies are also frequently used. The findings correspond with

those from the Netherlands, where social coviewing is the approach most frequently used

by Dutch parents (Valkenburg et al., 1999). In addition, S. Bocking and T. Bocking (2009)

found that as children get older, they coview more often with their parents. In earlier

studies, it was found that as children get older, the use of restrictive guidance methods is

less frequent (Van der Vort et al., 1992). This finding may explain why coviewing is the most

frequently used mediation strategy. However, it must be noted that children between the

ages of 5 and 12, and not adolescents, were studied in the Dutch study. Fewer restrictions

can be explained partly by a trend of more liberal parenting during adolescence (Sang &

Schmitz, 1992) and the fact that in adolescence, children are granted more autonomy

(Bumpus, Crouter, & McHale, 2001) and relaxing of parental control over children is also

visible as regards TV viewing (Atkin, 1994).

Regarding the predictors of television mediation, sociodemographic factors did not

prove to be important, which contradicts previous studies (Atkin et al., 1991; Austin, 1997;

Paavonen et al., 2009; Valkenburg et al., 1999; Warren, 2005). However, S. Bocking and

T. Bocking (2009) also found that sociodemographic factors are less important than factors

influencing parental behavior and that only the parents’ education and the child’s age were

significant predictors. In the present study, the child’s age was not considered because the

sample was intentionally homogenous. Amongmedia-related factors, the presence of more

than one TV in the household was influential, but was not as important as the factors

influencing parental behavior. The presence of more than one TV set in the family decreases

the frequency of social coviewing, which implies that the children watch TV alone more

often than with their parents. This finding could be related to altered TV viewing patterns in

adolescence (Eggermont, 2006). The factors influencing parental behavior proved to be

very important in predicting TV mediation. For instructive mediation, conversation

orientation is the most important factor, followed by religiousness. Parents who value the

mutual exchange of opinions also apply this approach to their children in relation to TV

content. This finding corresponds to previous research by Austin and Fujioka (2002), who

found that a conversation orientation generally results in more discussions, counter-

reinforcement and the endorsement of television messages. A conversation orientation

also positively affects coviewing, and thus, coviewing can be viewed as an opportunity for

parents to communicate with their children. A relationship between instructive mediation

and coviewing via correlation analysis has been identified, which could imply that parents

apply instructive mediation while coviewing.

An important predictor of all mediation strategies appears to be religiousness. The

effect of religiousness was maintained after controlling for the parents’ age and gender.

The more religious the parents are, the more they apply instructive and restrictive

mediation. For the latter, religiousness is the most important predictor. This finding

suggests that a more rigid approach to children’s television usage is employed by more

religious parents. Religiousness was negatively related to coviewing. However, the

motivation behind this behavior requires further investigation. Two other factors

appeared to explain restrictive mediation: the values of tradition and benevolence. The

more that parents value tradition, the less restriction there is of TV viewing. However, the

more that parents value benevolence, the more restriction there is of TV viewing. The

[Q5]

[Q6]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

12 PAVEL IZRAEL

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

555

560

effect of benevolence can be explained by the parent’s concern about their child’s well-

being; limiting TV use is one way that parents care for their children This can suggest that

the value of benevolence (He/she wants to care for the well-being of people around him/

her) is likely to address the concept of parents’ negative attitude to TV content in terms of

protecting their children (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009; Warren et al., 2002). However, this

does not apply to religiousness as that does not measure parents’ moral objections to TV

content, but targets their organizational activity and involvement, religious knowledge,

congregational friendship, and behavior (Billiet, 2007). The findings raise the question of

whether religiousness predicts instructive and restrictive mediation directly, or if it is

linked with the formation of attitudes toward media content. The latter assumption is

more likely as it has been proved that religiousness is linked with social attitudes

formation (Bensen & Zicklin, 2007; Rowat, LaBouff, Johnson, Froese, & Tsang, 2009) and

has an effect on attitudes toward the advertising of controversial products (Fam, Waller, &

Erdogan, 2004).

As far as coviewing is concerned, it appears that the items in the questionnaire that

were designed to assess coviewing could work as principal predictors because they target

the parents’ motivation, and this motivation may explain why coviewing occurs.

This study presents a reliable Slovak-speaking measure for investigating the parental

mediation of television that allows for international comparisons of television mediation.

The findings presented here show that religion and religiousness can be considered as

predictors of parental mediation.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study could be a social desirability bias, which can be

seen in the parents’ answers when asked about restricting their child’s TV viewing in the

past; they tended to report a higher frequency of restriction than the children did for the

same question. Another limitation is that the sample consisted mainly of Catholics, which

prevented a comparison between various religions (including those without confession).

Despite the significant variance explained by our model in the regression analysis

(the model explains 32 per cent of instructive mediation, 25 per cent of restrictive

mediation, and 23 per cent of coviewing), there must be other factors that determine

parental mediation. Other items that could be added to further research are questions

addressing the perception of TV’s effects (S. Bocking & T. Bocking, 2009) and child-rearing

practices (Abelman, 2001). Parents’ negative attitudes toward television and its content

result in more active and restrictive mediation, while positive ones result in increased active

mediation and more coviewing (Austin, Bolls, Fujioka, & Engelbertson, 1999; Warren et al.,

2002). Regarding religiousness as a predictor of parental mediation, further research should

investigate how mediation works across various religions or denominations.

The role of tradition is difficult to interpret and requires further investigation because

it demonstrates that when parents try to follow customs of their religion or family, they

restrict the children’s TV use less. Real-life observations, however, show the opposite, i.e.,

modern ways of living and upbringing appear to be more liberal and laissez-faire both in

general and in the case of media use. Yet, the scope of this study is limited in clarifying this

relationship.

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 13

565

570

575

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Professor Wolfgang Donsbach for tutoring my project and for all of his

advice on the methodology issues.

Some of the findings in this paper were presented at Megatrends and Media 2012

conference in Trnava (Slovakia) on April 24 and April 25, and were published in conference

proceedings.

NOTE

1. Only eighth-grade secondary grammar schools were considered (children enrol in this

type of school after finishing the fifth grade at primary school, in contrast to the normal

fourth-grade secondary schools in which children enrol after the ninth grade).

REFERENCES

Abelman, R. (2001). Parents’s use of content-based advisories. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1,

237–265.

Ahmadi, K., & Hossein-abadi, F. (2009). Religiousness, marital satisfaction and child rearing.

Pastoral Psychology, 57, 211–221.

Atkin, D. J. (1994). An integrative perspective on parental mediation of children’s TV viewing

across traditional and new program environments. World Communication, 23, 22–34.

Atkin, D. J., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home ecology of children’s television

viewing. Journal of Communication, 41, 40–52.

Austin, E. W., Bolls, P., Fujioka, Y., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why parents take on the

tube. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43, 175–192.

Bensen, Y., & Zicklin, G. (2007). Young Men, Religion and Attitudes Towards Homosexuality.

Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 1, 250–266.

Billiet, J. (2007). Proposal for questions on religious identity. European Social Survey, 339–383.

Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/-index.php?option¼com_docman

&task¼doc_view&gid¼128&Itemid¼80

Bocking, S., & Bocking, T. (2009). Parental mediation of television: Test of a German speaking

scale and findings on the impact of parental attitudes, sociodemographic and family

factors in German-speaking Switzerland. Journal of Children and Media, 3, 286–302.

Borrenbergs, C. (2011). Netherlands. Television 2011: International key facts (pp. 316–342). Paris:

IP NETWORK.

Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2005). Parental mediation of undesired advertising effects.

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49, 153–165.

Buijzen, M., Walma van der Molen, H. J., & Sondij, P. (2007). Parental mediation of children’s

emotional responses to a violent news event. Communication Research, 34, 212–230.

Bumpus, M. F., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2001). Parental autonomy granting during

adolescence: Exploring gender differences in context. Developmental Psychology, 37,

163–173.

Buzik, B., Tızik, M., Kusa, Z., & Kostlan, D. (2008). Nase/europske hodnoty 1991–1999–2008. Podklady

k tlacovej besede Sociologickeho ustavu SAV k zisteniam vyskumu europskych hodnot EVS

2008 na Slovensku [Our/European Values 1991–1999–2008. Materials for Prees Conference of

Sociological Institute of SAV on findings of EVS 2008 survey in Slovakia]. Retrieved from http://

www.sav.sk/index.php?lang¼sk&charset¼&doc¼services-news&news_no¼2203&do¼print

[Q7]

[Q8]

[Q9]

[Q10]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

14 PAVEL IZRAEL

615

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

Canetti-Nisim, D. (2004). The effect of religiousness on endorsement of democratic values: The

mediating influence of authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 26, 377–398.

Costa, P., & Goodwin, R. (2006). The role of religion in human values: A case study. Journal of

Beliefs & Values, 27, 341–346.

Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2004). The influence of religion on attitudes towards the

advertising of controversial products. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 537–555.

Fisher, A. D., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., Bersamin, M. M., Walker, S., & Gruber, E. W. (2009). Televised

sexual content and parental mediation: Influences on adolescent sexuality. Media

Psychology, 12, 121–147.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). The family communication patterns theory: Observations on its

development and application. The Journal of Family Communication, 4, 167–179.

Fujioka, Y., & Austin, W. E. (2002). The relationship of family communication patterns to parental

mediation styles. Communication Research, 29, 642–665.

Hamilton, F. N., & Rubin, M. A. (1992). The influence of religiousness on television viewing.

Journalism Quarterly, 69, 667–687.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and

democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 551–567. doi:10.1017/S1537592710001258.

Jackson, C., Brown, J. D., & Pardun, C. J. (2008). A TV in the bedroom: Implications for viewing

habits and risk behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 52, 349–367.

Jordan, A. B., Hersey, J. C., McDivitt, J. A., & Heitzler, C. D. (2006). Reducing children’s television-

viewing time: A qualitative study of parents and their children. Pediatrics, 118, 1303–1310.

Kacinova, V. (2008). Medialna vychova v rodine [Media education in family]. In T. Roncakova (Ed.),

Rodina a media (pp. 377–387). Ruzomberok: Verbum.

Klempova, M. (2011). Slovakia. Television 2011: International key facts (pp. 444–452). Paris:

IP NETWORK.

Krcmar, M. (1996). Family communication patterns, discourse behavior, and child television

viewing. Human Communication Research, 23, 251–277.

Lampada, V., & Stogiannidou, A. (2009). Attitudes of adolescent’ parents towards computer

technology and strategies of parental regulation in Greece. Retrieved from http://www2.

lse.ac.uk/media@lse/events/MeCCSA/pdf/papers/Lampada,%20V%20-%20Attitudes%

20of%20Adoloscents.pdf

Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media. London (Project report). Retrieved from

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21172/1/Young_people_New_media.pdf

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 581–599.

Lull, J. (1980). Family communication patterns and the social uses of television. Communication

Research, 7, 319–333.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the

1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between

religion, marriage and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 559–596.

Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation

and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26, 124–143.

Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental

television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 210–220.

[Q11]

[Q12]

[Q13]

[Q14]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 15

660

665

670

675

680

685

690

695

700

705

Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on

adolescents. Mediapsychology, 4, 207–230.

Nathanson, A. I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the aggression-promoting effect of violent

cartoons by increasing children’s fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active

mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 125–142.

Ondrejkovic, P., & Majercıkova, J. (2006). Zmeny v spolocnosti a zmeny v rodine –kontinuita a

zmena. Prıspevok k diskusii o charaktere rodiny na Slovensku [Changes in society and

changes in family – continuity and change: A contribution to the discussion about the

character of family in Slovakia]. Slovak Sociological Review, 38, 5–30.

Paavonen, E. J., Roine, M., Pennonen, M., & Lahikainen, A. R. (2009). Do parental co-viewing and

discussions mitigate TV-induced fears in young children? Child: Care, Health and

Development, 35, 773–780.

Ritchie, L. D. (1998, July). Family communication patterns and the flow of information in the family.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and

Mass Communication, Portland, OR.

Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal

perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.

Rowat, W. C., LaBouff, J., Johnson, M., Froese, P., & Tsang, J. (2009). Associations among

religiousness, social attitudes, and prejudice in a National Random Sample of American

Adults. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1, 14–24.

Sang, F., & Schmitz, B. (1992). Individuation and television coviewing in the family:

Developmental trends in the viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36,

427–442.

Scantlin, R. M., & Jordan, A. B. (2006). Families’ experiences with the V-Chip: An exploratory study.

The Journal of Family Communication, 6, 139–159.

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family

communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral,

and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248–269.

Schwartz, S. (2007). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. European

Social Survey. Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option

¼com_docman&task¼cat_view&Itemid¼0&gid¼83

Sımova, E. (1994, October). Dosledky sposobov rodicovskeho spravania na osobnost dietata.

[Impact of parental behaviour on child personality]. Paper presented at the meeting of

Slovak Sociological Association, Presov.

Smith, T. W. (2001). Ties that bind: The emerging 21st century American family. Public Perspective,

January/February, 34–37. Retrieved from http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-

perspective/ppscan/121/121034.pdf

Springer, D. M. (2011). An examination of parental awareness and mediation of media

consumed by fifth grade students. An abstract of a dissertation. Kansas State University.

Manhattan, KS. Retrieved from http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/

7299/DustinSpringer2011.pdf;jsessionid¼CFBB8FE4929D78096B5F9E2501526150?

sequence¼1

Suchy, A. (2008). Medialnı zlo: Myty a realita [Media evil: Myths and reality]. Brno: Triton.

Sramova, B., Lajciakova, P., & Fichnova, K. (2004). Hodnotenia stylu vychovy uplatnovaneho v

rodine adolescentov [Evaluation of educational styles in family of adolescents]. In J. Dzuka

(Ed.), Psychologicke dimenzie kvality zivota (pp. 459–468). Presov: Presovska univerzita.

[Q15]

[Q16]

[Q17]

[Q18]

[Q19]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

16 PAVEL IZRAEL

710

715

720

725

730

735

740

745

750

Stefanak, O. (2009). Religiozita mladeze. Na prıklade Spisskej diecezy [Religiosity of the youth: On

the example of Diocese of Spis]. Ruzomberok: Pedagogicka fakulta Katolıckej univerzity v

Ruzomberku.

Valkenburg, M. P., Krcmar, M., Peeters, L. A., & Marseille, M. N. (1999). Developing a scale to assess

three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and

“social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52–66.

Van der Voort, T. H. A., Nikken, P., & Van Lil, J. E. (1992). Determinants of parental guidance of

children’s television viewing: A Dutch replication study. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 36, 61–74.

Vandewater, E. A., Park, S. -E., Huang, X., & Wartella, E. A. (2005). No, you can’t watch that’’:

Parental rules and young children’s media use. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 608–623.

Velsic, M. (2007). Digitalna gramotnost na Slovensku. Sprava z vyskumu [Digital literacy in Slovakia:

Research report]. Bratislava: Institut pre verejne otazky.

Vendel, S. (1987). Adolescentna mladez a potreba poradenstva [Adolescents and the need for

counselling]. Psychologia a patopsychologia dietata, 22, 33–50.

Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-

centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82, 434–447.

Vrabec, N. (2008). Mladez a media – Uroven medialnej gramotnosti mladych l’udı na Slovensku

[Youth and media – media literacy level of young people in Slovakia]. Bratislava: Iuventa.

Retrieved from http://www.vyskummladeze.sk/images/stories/iuventa/DAVM_018/

Zver_spravaDAVM018.pdf

Warren, R. (2003). Parental mediation of preschool children’s television viewing. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 394–417.

Warren, R. (2005). Parental mediation of children’s television viewing in low-income families.

Journal of Communication, 55, 847–863.

Warren, R., Gerke, P., & Kelly, M. A. (2002). Is there enough time on the clock? Parental

involvement and mediation of children’s television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 46, 87–111.

Webster, J. G., Pearson, J. C., & Webster, D. B. (1986). Children’s television viewing as affected by

contextual variables in the home. Communication Research Reports, 3, 1–8.

Westerik, H., Renckstorf, K., Lammers, J., & Wester, F. (2007). The social character of parental and

adolescent television viewing: An event history analysis. Communications, 32, 389–415.

Wilcox, W. B. (2002). Religion, convention, and paternal involvement. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 64, 780–792.

Wink, P., Dillon, M., & Prettyman, A. (2007). Religiousness, spiritual seeking, and authoritarianism:

Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 321–335.

Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., & . . .

O’Connor, L. (2003). The religious commitment inventory: Development, refinement, and

validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,

84–96.

Yang, M. M., & Nathanson, A. (2009). Reconceptualizing coviewing as a kind of mediation. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,

Sheraton New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/

p13116_index.html

[Q20]

[Q21]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

RELIGIOUSNESS, VALUES, AND PARENTAL MEDIATION 17

755

760

765

770

775

780

785

790

795

Pavel Izrael, PhD, is a lecturer at the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Arts and Letters,

Catholic University in Ruzomberok (Slovakia). He addresses the issues of parental

mediation, the influence of media on families, and media education. He is the author

of several articles on parental mediation and is a co-author of the book Televızia u nas

doma (Television in our Homes). Pavel Izrael, Department of Journalism, Faculty of Arts

and Letters, Catholic University, Ruzomberok, Hrabovska cesta 1, Ruzomberok 03401,

Slovakia. E-mail: [email protected]

RCHM 827129—27/7/2013—RAJESHKUMAR.R—458360

18 PAVEL IZRAEL

800

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845