From Here to Eternity Children's Acquisition of Understanding of Projective Size on Television

Abstract

This study attempts to trace children's acquisition of understanding of projective size (e.g., getting closer to and farther away from an object) as depicted on television through two distinctive techniques—zooming in/out and multiple edits. Unlike previous research in this area, this investigation applied aspects of cognitive processing that have been identified as untapped through gross Piagetian measures—Level 1 and Level 2 knowledge of visual perception (Pillow & Flavell, 1986). Findings suggest that children classified as “preoperational” by Piagetian standards, but possessing Level 1 knowledge of visual perception—the ability to infer what objects can or cannot be seen from another person's viewpoint—are capable of understanding the more simple form of projective size; children possessing Level 2 knowledge—the ability to infer the nature, as well as the content, of another person's visual experience—have a better comprehension of the more complex, edited presentation of projective size. Level of television consumption plays a role in children's acquisition of understanding of television information.

Audio Facilitates the Perception of Cinematic Continuity by First-Time Viewers

“…flashbacks, crosscutting) are first understood later, in comparison to more simple features (e.g. shot reverse shots, POV Shots; Abelman, 1989;Lowe & Durkin, 1999;Munk, Rey, Diergarten, Nieding, Schneider, & Ohler, 2012). However these studies do not clarify whether increases in comprehension of formal features are due to age-related increases in experience with the medium, or to general cognitive development.…”

“…Furthermore, most infant studies (e.g., Pempek et al., 2010; Richards & Cronise, 2000) use existing program material in which the use of such techniques is confounded with familiarity of narrative contexts. Systematic research on older children’s (4+ years) understanding of cinematic techniques suggests that complex formal features (e.g., flashbacks, crosscutting) are first understood later, in comparison to more simple features (e.g., shot reverse shots, point-of-view shots; Abelman, 1989; Lowe & Durkin, 1999; Munk et al., 2012). However, these studies do not clarify whether increases in comprehension of formal features are because of age-related increases in experience with the medium, or to general cognitive development.…”

Surveying the Effect of Media Effects A Meta-Analytic Summary of the Media Effects Research in Human Communication Research

“…Various studies examined children's ability to distinguish between real world and manipulated effects (Acker & Tiemens, 1981;Alwitt, Anderson, Lorch, & Levin, 1980;Reeves & Garramone, 1982;Welch & Watt, 1982) or their ability to identify audio/visual inconsistencies (Hoffner, Cantor, & Thorson, 1989). Similarly, other research focused on the use and misuse of the media and their effects on children (Abelman, 1989;Acker, 1983), television's influence on adolescents' conflict resolution behaviors (Roloff & Greenberg, 1980), and children's ability to comprehend information and images as portrayed on television (Cohen, Adoni, & Drori, 1983;Reeves & Garramone, 1983).…”

Cognitive Processing of Film Cuts Among 4- to 8-Year-Old Children

“…Children of today are inevitably exposed to more media than the children of any former generation. Because the bulk of research on children’s understanding of television editing techniques was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., Abelman, 1989; Lowe & Durkin, 1999; Smith, Anderson, & Fischer, 1985) these data may no longer be contemporary. A key conclusion of those studies, investigating using a wide variety of editing techniques and methods on young viewers, was that complex formal features are first understood later, in comparison to more simple features.…”

“…For example, Abelman (1989) reported that 4-year old children can understand zoom-ins and z oom-outs (defined as a cut from a medium shot to a close-up, and from a close-up to a medium shot, respectively). Beentjes, de Koning, and Huysmans (2001) argued that these visual formal features are understood by very young children because they correspond with normal, non-film, perceptual experiences.…”