Communication Methods and Measures

ISSN: 1931-2458 (Print) 1931-2466 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hcms20

Measuring Exposure to Media with Antisocial and

Prosocial Content: An Extended Version of the Content-
based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME2)

A. H. Den Hamer, E. A. Konijn & B. J. Bushman

To cite this article: A. H. Den Hamer, E. A. Konijn & B. J. Bushman (2017) Measuring Exposure
to Media with Antisocial and Prosocial Content: An Extended Version of the Content-based
Media Exposure Scale (C-ME2), Communication Methods and Measures, 11:4, 289-299, DOI:
10.1080/19312458.2017.1375089

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1375089

Published with license by Taylor & Francis

Group, LLC© A. H. Den Hamer, E. A. Konijn,
and B. J. Bushman.

Published online: 22 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10649

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcms20
COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES
2017, VOL. 11, NO. 4, 289–299
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1375089

RESEARCH NOTE

Measuring Exposure to Media with Antisocial and Prosocial

Content: An Extended Version of the Content-based Media
Exposure Scale (C-ME2)
A. H. Den Hamera, E. A. Konijna, and B. J. Bushmanb,a
a
Department of Communication Science, Media Psychology Program, VU University Amsterdam; bSchool of
Communication and Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

ABSTRACT
The present research developed a measure for exposure to both antisocial
and prosocial media content by revising and extending a previous Content-
based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME). The validity and reliability of the C-ME2
was tested in two independent samples (N = 678), among young adults
(Study 1) and adolescents (Study 2). Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses
showed good fit, in both studies, for both antisocial and prosocial dimen-
sions of media content, and for both males and females. Furthermore, the
C-ME2 explains unique variance beyond previous measures of violent and
general media exposure. Evidence is presented of reliability, discriminant
and predictive validity of the C-ME2, measuring both frequency and expo-
sure to specific content of media. The C-ME2 covers all media platforms, is
easy to use in all research designs, and allows for standardization and
systematic comparisons across studies.

Antisocial and risk behaviors (e.g., swearing, stealing, fighting, binge drinking) are frequently
depicted in the media. This type of media is also popular among youth and they are especially
susceptible to its negative influence (e.g., Brown & Witherspoon, 2002; Dahl & Hariri, 2005; Nije
Bijvank, Konijn, & Bushman, 2012; Parkes, Wight, Hunt, Henderson, & Sargent, 2013; Strasburger,
Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2010). Thus, it is crucial to investigate the impact of exposure to antisocial
and risk behavior media content on youth, which requires reliable and valid measurement instru-
ments for all media platforms. The Content-based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME; Den Hamer et al.,
2014) was developed for this purpose. This article briefly describes the C-ME and explains the need
for the C-ME2, which is an expanded version of the C-ME.

C-ME
In a special issue of Communication Methods and Measures (Fishbein & Hornik, 2008), three
recommendations were offered for instruments measuring media exposure. First, the instrument
should measure both the general frequency of media exposure (e.g., “how often do you watch
TV?”), and the content of that exposure (e.g., Annenberg Media Exposure Research Group, 2008;
Bleakley et al., 2008; Lee, Hornik, & Hennessy, 2008; Sargent, Worth, Beach, Gerrard, &
Heatherton, 2008). Second, the measurement of content should be weighted by the frequency
of exposure (e.g., “how often do you watch violent content?”; Annenberg Media Exposure
Research Group, 2008; Bleakley et al., 2008). Third, the instrument should not be focused on
one particular medium, but should transcend the various media platforms (Bleakley et al., 2008).

CONTACT E. A. Konijn [email protected] Media Psychology Program, Department of Communication Science, VU

University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, Amsterdam, HV 1081. The Netherlands.
© A. H. Den Hamer, E. A. Konijn, and B. J. Bushman. Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited,
and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
290 A. H. DEN HAMER ET AL.

Given today’s media landscape, media are watched on mobile devices, tablets, computers, TV
screens, etcetera. The C-ME meets all three recommendations. The original C-ME contains eight
antisocial items (e.g., fighting, vandalism, stealing, substance abuse) and nine neutral filler items.

C-ME2
Prosocial behaviors are also often portrayed in the media (e.g., helping, sharing, cooperation).
Exposure to prosocial media content can increase prosocial behaviors, such as cooperating, helping
others, and empathy (e.g., Gentile et al., 2009; Happ, Melzer, & Steffgen, 2015; Harrington &
O’Connell, 2016), also demonstrated in meta-analytic reviews (Greitemeyer & Mugge, 2014; Mares
& Woodard, 2005). Long-term effects of prosocial media use further increases empathy and help-
fulness among youth (Prot et al., 2014). Because the C-ME did not assess consumption of media with
prosocial content, we replaced the nine neutral filler items of the original scale with ten items that
measure prosocial behaviors in media content (e.g., helping, comforting, standing up for others).
These ten items were based on previous research on prosocial behavior (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,
1996; Greitemeyer & Mugge, 2014).
Another deficiency in the C-ME is that it did not measure exposure to relational aggressive
content in the media, defined as intentionally harming another person’s social relationships,
feelings of acceptance, or inclusion within a group (e.g., Archer & Coyne, 2005; Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995; Underwood, 2003). Some examples include gossiping, spreading rumors, and
giving someone the “silent treatment”. Previous research has shown that relational aggression is
more common in females than in males (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Gentile, Coyne, & Walsh, 2011;
Puckett, Aikins, & Cillessen, 2008; Underwood, 2003). Thus, we added 4 relational aggression
items to the C-ME2.
This research tests the internal and external reliability and validity of the revised and extended
C-ME2, using a sample of young adults (Study 1) and a sample of adolescents (Study 2). Because
adolescents are heavier consumers of media than young adults (Brown & Witherspoon, 2002;
Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010; Strasburger et al., 2010), we expected stronger relations for
predictive validity in Study 2 than in Study 1.

Study 1
Study 1 had two primary purposes: (1) to test the simple structure of the antisocial and prosocial
media content factors using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and (2) to test the convergent and
discriminant validity of the C-ME2 with personality traits (i.e., trait aggressiveness, empathy) and
other media use measures.

Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 216 undergraduate university students (age range 18–24 years; Mage = 21.62, SDage
= 1.82, 34.3% male). An additional 68 participants were excluded because they did not finish the
survey. Participation was voluntary (without credit). The anonymous survey was completed online.
All items were scored using a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). A debriefing followed.

Measures
Antisocial media content was measured using 12 items (the original 8 items (den Hamer et al., 2017)
plus 4 new items measuring relational aggression), and prosocial media content was measured using
10 items (Table 1; Appendix A).
 COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES 291

Table 1. Item loadings and descriptive statistics from items in Study 1.

Antisocial Prosocial
factor factor
Item Men Women Men Women
Each of the items start with: “How often do you watch, on the Internet/TV/games/mobile
phone/DVD, people who. . .”
. . . openly talk about sex? .71 .72
. . . drink (a lot of) alcohol? .69 .76 - -
. . . fight? .66 .58 - -
. . . use drugs? .66 .64 - -
. . . make a fool of someone else? .65 .68 - -
. . . are having sex? .62 .66 - -
. . . laugh at another persons’ expense? .60 .74 - -
. . . destroy someone else’s belongings? .59 .67 - -
. . . say negative things about another person behind their back? .58 .72 - -
. . . steal? .57 .75 - -
. . . make someone else trip and fall for fun? .47 .66 - -
. . . shoot at another person? .45 .52 - -
. . . help someone? - - .75 .78
. . . are willing to do something for someone else? - - .74 .88
. . . comfort others? - - .72 .87
. . . are nice to another person? - - .70 .71
. . . give something to another person to make them happy? - - .68 .80
. . . stand up for someone? - - .65 .70
. . . are in love? - - .64 .68
. . . cooperate with someone else to do good? - - .58 .75
. . . understand how another person is feeling? - - .56 .74
. . . put someone in the spotlight in a positive way? - - .48 .64

Trait aggressiveness was measured using the physical aggression subscale of the Aggression
Questionnaire (adapted version from Buss & Perry, 1992; in Konijn, Nije Bijvank, & Bushman,
2007; Cronbach α = .83; M = 1.74, SD = 0.60), which consists of 9-items (e.g., “I have threatened
people I know”; “I get into fights a little more than the average person”).
Empathy was measured using the 20-item Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006;
e.g., “When someone is feeling ‘down’ I can usually understand how they feel”; “I get caught up in
other people’s feelings easily”). However, a CFA revealed that the reverse-scored items had low factor
loadings (<.20). Therefore, the 8 reverse-scored items were removed, leaving 12 items (Cronbach
α = .86; M = 3.79, SD = 0.49).
General media use was measured using an often used scale that asked for frequencies of using
several media platforms (Rideout et al., 2010). Participants indicated how often they used television,
social network sites, video games, YouTube and other websites during a normal weekday, and during
a normal weekend separately (1 = less than 1 hour, 2 = between 1–2 hours, 3 = between 2–4 hours,
4 = more than 4 hours). Participants also indicated how many movies they generally watched per
week (1 = 0 movies, 2 = less than 2 movies, 3 = 2–5 movies, 4 = more than 5 movies). Weekday and
weekend scores were combined to obtain an overall measure of media use. Scores ranged from 1–16.
A mean score index of general media use was created by averaging across media platforms
(Cronbach α = .63; M = 4.76, SD = 2.08).
Violent media use was measured by asking participants to list their three favorite television
programs, films, and video games, to rate how often they consumed it (1 = Almost never to
5 = Almost every day), and to rate how violent it was (1 = Not at all violent to 4 = Very violent).
Frequency scores were multiplied by violence ratings. Thus, scores ranged from 1–20 (Cronbach
α = .67; M = 5.26, SD = 1.86). This measure has been used in several previous studies (e.g., Anderson
& Dill, 2000; Gentile et al., 2011; Ostrov, Gentile, & Crick, 2006; Swing & Anderson, 2014).
292 A. H. DEN HAMER ET AL.

Results and discussion

See Table 2 for descriptive statistics for all variables measured in Study 1.

CFA of antisocial and prosocial content

To assess the factor structure of the C-ME2, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted
using Structural Equation Modeling (Mplus-V.6.12). Maximum-likelihood extraction (WLSMV)
with polychoric or categorical variables was used. The following fit indices are reported: the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), with its 90% confidence interval, and the Chi-Square with its correspond-
ing degrees of freedom. A good fit is assessed with a CFI and TLI of .95 or higher, an RMSEA of .06
or lower (RMSEA<.10 indicates an adequate fit), and a non-significant Chi-Square (Chen, 2007;
Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kelloway, 1998). However, Chi-Square tests are often
significant in large samples even when the fit is good (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Because we expected that males and females would differ in their use of antisocial and prosocial
media content, a CFA with multi-group analysis on participant sex was conducted separately for
antisocial items and prosocial items. Because males and females had different variances on various
items, the thresholds of some items were unconstrained and the error variances of several items were
allowed to correlate. The model for antisocial media content showed a good fit; CFI = .98, TLI = .97,
RMSEA = .08 (90% CI: .06-.10), χ2(111, N = 216) = 186.08 (χ2males = 80.16, χ2females = 105.92),
p < .001. The model for prosocial media content also showed a good fit; CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .07 (90% CI: .04-.09), χ2(73, N = 216) = 133.25 (χ2males = 81.08, χ2females = 52.17), p < .01.
Both the antisocial media content factor and the prosocial content factor were internally con-
sistent (antisocial: Cronbach α = .89; M = 2.72, SD = 0.63; prosocial: Cronbach α = .88; M = 3.30,
SD = 0.52; total: Cronbach α = .90; M = 3.00, SD = 0.47). As expected, males reported more exposure
to antisocial media content (M = 2.96, SD = .57) than did females (M = 2.60, SD = .62; t(214) = 4.14,
p < .01, d = 0.60), whereas females reported more exposure to prosocial media content (M = 3.39,
SD = .52) than did males (M = 3.11, SD = .48; t(214) = −3.83, p < .01, d = 0.56). Over all, both males
and females reported more exposure to prosocial media content than to antisocial media content
(males: t(73) = −2.37, p < .05, d = −0.30; females: t(141) = −15.05, p < .001, d = −1.38). Exposure to
antisocial media content was significantly related to exposure to prosocial media content for both
males (r = .42, p < .001) and females (r = .40, p < .001).

Predictive and discriminant validity

Predictive analyses were conducted between the antisocial media and prosocial content factors of the
C-ME2 and trait aggressiveness, violent media use, general media use, and empathy. Furthermore,
discriminant analyses were used to assess whether the antisocial factor discriminated between violent
media use and general media use. In order to test discriminant validity, 1- and 2-factor models were

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the measures included in Study 1 for all participants (N = 216), and for males (n = 74) and
females (n = 142) separately. Independent t-tests and standardized mean differences (i.e., Cohen’s d) are given for gender
differences.
Variable Mean (SD) t d
Antisocial content Overall: 2.72 (0.63); Males: 2.96 (0.57); Females: 2.60 (0.62) 4.14** 0.60
Prosocial content Overall: 3.30 (0.52); Males: 3.11 (0.48); Females: 3.39 (0.52) −3.83** −0.56
Trait aggressiveness Overall: 1.74 (0.60); Males: 1.95 (0.63); Females: 1.63 (0.56) 3.76** 0.55
Empathy Overall: 3.40 (0.67); Males: 3.09 (0.60); Females: 3.56 (0.65) −5.10** −0.75
General media use Overall: 4.76 (2.08); Males: 5.32 (2.44); Females: 4.46 (1.81) 2.95* 0.42
Violent media use Overall: 5.26 (1.86); Males: 6.18 (1.97); Females: 4.78 (1.61) 5.80** 0.81
Note. Df = 390, *p < .005, **p < .001
 COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES 293

conducted (following Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005). First, a 1-factor model was tested for the
antisocial factor and violent media use measure; all items were constrained to load on one factor.
Second, a 2-factor model was tested in which the items were constrained to load on their expected
latent variable (i.e., items of the antisocial factor of the C-ME2 were allowed to load on one factor,
whereas items of the violent media use measure were allowed to load on the other factor). The 1- and
2-factor models were then compared, using χ2-difference tests, as well as fit indices.
As expected, exposure to antisocial media content related significantly to violent media use
(r = .55, p < .001; rmales = .50, p < .01; rfemales = .42, p < .001). Also, the 2-factor model fit the
data significantly better than the 1-factor model (Table 3), which indicates that the two factors
discriminated from each other. Thus, measuring exposure to antisocial media content via the C-ME2
explains unique variance beyond measuring violent media content with a traditional measure.
As expected, the general media exposure measure correlated positively to the antisocial factor of
the C-ME2 (r = .44, p < .001; rmales=.59, p < .001; rfemales=.37, p < .001). Furthermore, the 2-factor
model fit significantly better than the 1-factor model (Table 3). Thus, measuring exposure to
antisocial media content via the C-ME2 also explains unique variance compared to measuring
general media exposure in a commonly used way.
Similarly, when considering prosocial and general media use, the 2-factor model was significantly
better than the 1-factor model (Table 3). Thus, measuring exposure to prosocial media content via
the C-ME2 explains unique variance above measuring general media exposure. In addition, the
general exposure measure was positively correlated to exposure to prosocial media content (r = .20,
p < .01; rmales = .52, p < .001), but not for females (rfemales = .21, p = .08).

Predictive validity
Exposure to prosocial media content correlated positively to empathy (r = .30, p < .001; rmales = .19,
p = .11; rfemales = .23, p < .007), although the correlation was not significant for males. Exposure to
antisocial media use was not significantly correlated to empathy (r = -.08, p = .25; rmales = .08,

Table 3. Predictive and discriminant validity of the content-based media exposure-2 scale in Study 1.
Single factor Two factor Improvement in fit from single to two
Variable model model factor model
χ2(df) χ2(df) Δχ2 (df)
CFI CFI ΔCFI
TLI TLI ΔTLI
RMSEA RMSEA ΔRMSEA
Violent media use and antisocial media Men 232.52 (399) 228.10 (395) 4.42 (4)
content
Women 339.61 (399) 282.89 (395) 56.72 (4)
.94 .96 .02
.94 .96 .02
.06 .05 −.01
General media use and antisocial Men 211.38 (285) 187.18 (281) −24.20 (4)
media content
Women 230.93 (285) 214.02 (281) 16.91 (4)
.95 .96 .01
.95 .96 .01
.07 .06 −.01
General media use and prosocial media Men 251.65 (240) 194.62 (236) 57.03 (4)
content
Women 167.25 (240) 161.31 (236) 5.94 (4)
.93 .95 .02
.93 .95 .02
.08 .07 −.01
Note: Cronbach α is the internal consistency reliability estimate for measurement of the construct in that row. CFI = Confirmatory
fit index. TLI = Tucker Lewis index. RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation. All changes in χ2 are statistically
significant at p < .05.
294 A. H. DEN HAMER ET AL.

p = .52; rfemales = .13, p = .12). In addition, empathy was not significantly correlated to violent media
exposure (r = -.11, p = .11; rmales=.10, p = .41; rfemales = -.04, p = .61), as expected.
Exposure to antisocial media content was significantly related to trait aggressiveness (r = .30,
p < .001; rfemales = .28, p < .001; and only marginally significant for young adult males (rmales = .20,
p = .09). Exposure to prosocial media content was not significantly related to trait aggressiveness
(r = .003, p = .97; rmales = .06, p = .60; rfemales = .08, p = .38).

Study 2
Study 2 was designed to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1 and the original C-ME using a
sample of adolescents (aged 11–17).

Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were 392 secondary school pupils from two rural schools in The Netherlands
(Mage=13.01, SDage=0.89, 56.6% males; 92.3% Caucasian). The procedure was the same as in Study
1. In one school, the survey was completed online. In the other school, the survey was administered
by paper-pencil due to limited access to computers. Results were similar for the two schools, so the
data were merged. Missing data were handled using hotdeck imputation (Myers, 2011), with the
decks being gender and age. Participant consent rate was 100%; parent consent rate was 99.7%.

Measures
Trait aggressiveness (Cronbach α = .88, M = 1.95, SD = 0.79) and empathy (Cronbach α = .73,
M = 3.37, SD = 0.63) were measured in the same way as in Study 1.
General media use was measured differently because the general media use measure had low
reliability in Study 1. In Study 2, we measured participants’ general use of TV, music, the Internet,
and video games. Furthermore, we refined the rating scale to measure participants’ media use
frequency more precisely than in Study 1 with scores ranging from 1 = 0 hours to 9 = 7 hours or
more. However, these adjustments did not improve the reliability of the scale (Cronbach α = .54;
M = 7.09, SD = 2.95).
Violent media use was measured in the same way as in Study 1 (Cronbach α = .79; M = 16.06,
SD = 9.80).

Results and discussion

See Table 4 for descriptive statistics for all variables measured in Study 2.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the measures included in Study 2 for all participants (N = 392), and for males (n = 222) and
females (n = 170) separately. Independent t-tests and standardized mean differences (i.e., Cohen’s d) are given for gender
differences.
Variable Mean (SD) t d
Antisocial content Overall: 2.17 (0.79); Males: 2.33 (0.81); Females: 1.96 (0.72) 4.69** 0.48
Prosocial content Overall: 2.83 (0.77); Males: 2.66 (0.73); Females: 3.05 (0.76) −5.10** −0.53
Aggressiveness Overall: 1.95 (0.79); Males: 2.13 (0.83); Females: 1.73 (0.66) 5.29** 0.53
Empathy Overall: 3.37 (0.63); Males: 3.13 (0.55); Females: 3.68 (0.58) −9.76** −0.98
General media use Overall: 16.06 (9.79); Males: 17.41 (10.20); Females: 14.29 (8.97) 3.22** 0.32
Violent media use Overall: 7.09 (2.95); Males: 8.15 (3.01); Females: 5.69 (2.19) 9.38** 0.92
Note. df = 390, ** p < .001
 COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES 295

CFA of antisocial and prosocial media content

As in Study 1, the model for antisocial media content showed a good fit; CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .06 (90% CI: .04-.07), χ2(122, N = 392) = 187.40 (χ2males = 73.71, χ2females = 113.69),
p < .001. The model for prosocial media content also showed a good fit; CFI = .97, TLI = .98,
RMSEA = .07 (90% CI: .06-.09), χ2(90, N = 100) = 190.63 (χ2males = 96.00, χ2females = 94.63), p < .001.
Both the antisocial (Cronbach α = .89; M = 2.17, SD = 0.79) and prosocial (Cronbach α = .88;
M = 2.83, SD = 0.77) factors were statistically reliable. As expected, the adolescent males reported
significantly more exposure to antisocial media content (M = 2.33, SD = 0.81) than did females
(M = 1.99, SD = 0.72), t(390) = 4.69, p < .001, d = 0.47. In contrast, females reported significantly
more exposure to prosocial media content (M = 3.05, SD = 0.76) than did males (M = 2.66,
SD = 0.73), t(390) = 5.10, p < .001, d = 0.52; Table 5). As in Study 1, both males and females
reported on average significantly more exposure to prosocial media content than to antisocial media
content (males: t(221) = −4.66, p < .001, d = −0.44; females: t(169) = −15.24, p < .001, d = −1.47).
Exposure to antisocial and prosocial media content did not correlate for the overall sample or for
males (r = .04, p < .42; rmales = .03, p = .67), although there was a significant positive correlation for
females (rfemales = .21, p < .01).

Discriminant validity
As expected, exposure to antisocial media content was positively related to violent media use (r = .63,
p < .001; rmales = .68, p < .001; rfemales = .46, p < .001). The 2-factor model fitted the data significantly better
than the 1-factor model (Table 6). Exposure to prosocial media content and violent media use correlated
negatively for the adolescents over all (r = -.14; p < .01; nonsignificant: rmales = -.09, p = .17; rfe-
males = .04, p = .58).

Table 5. Item loadings and descriptive statistics for items of the C-ME2 used in Study 2.
Antisocial factor Prosocial factor
Item Males Females Males Females
Each item starts with: “How often do you watch, on the Internet/TV/games/mobile phone/
DVD, people who. . .”
. . . openly talk about sex? .66 .73
. . . drink (a lot of) alcohol? .80 .79 - -
. . . fight? .68 .75 - -
. . . use drugs? .79 .77 - -
. . . make a fool of someone else? .65 .74 - -
. . . are having sex? .67 .68 - -
. . . laugh at another persons’ expense? .49 .65 - -
. . . destroy someone else’s belongings? .77 .81 - -
. . . say negative things about another person behind their back? .49 .80 - -
. . . steal? .81 .75 - -
. . . make someone else trip and fall for fun? .46 .49 - -
. . . shoot at another person? .60 .77 - -
. . . help someone? - - .68 .75
. . . are willing to do something for someone else? - - .78 .78
. . . comfort others? - - .69 .82
. . . are nice to another person? - - .70 .84
. . . give something to another person to make them happy? - - .61 .70
. . . stand up for someone? - - .67 .78
. . . are in love? - - .58 .62
. . . cooperate with someone else to do good? - - .61 .71
. . . understand how another person is feeling? - - .65 .74
. . . put someone in the spotlight in a positive way? - - .63 .61
296 A. H. DEN HAMER ET AL.

Table 6. Predictive and discriminant validity of the content-based media exposure-2 scale in Study 2.
Single factor Two factor Improvement in fit from single to two
model model factor model
Variable χ2(df) χ2(df) Δχ2 (df)
CFI CFI ΔCFI
TLI TLI ΔTLI
RMSEA RMSEA ΔRMSEA
Violent media use and antisocial media Males 360.78 (410) 209.35 (406) −151.43 (4)
content
Females 452.63 (410) 344.15 (406) −108.48 (4)
.91 .97 .06
.90 .96 .06
.08 .05 −.03
General media use and antisocial Males 308.52 (230) 150.98 (226) −157.54 (4)
media content
Females 276.49 (230) 206.30 (226) −70.19 (4)
.93 .97 .04
.92 .97 .05
.10 .06 −.04
General media use and prosocial Males 335.71 (192) 132.49 (188) −203.22 (4)
media content
Females 299.18 (192) 179.55 (188) −119.63 (4)
.88 .97 .09
.89 .97 .08
.12 .06 −.06
Note: Cronbach α is the internal consistency reliability estimate for measurement of the construct in that row. CFI = Confirmatory
fit index. TLI = Tucker Lewis index. RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation. All changes in χ2 are statistically
significant at p < .05.

As expected, the general media exposure measure correlated positively with the antisocial factor of
the C-ME2 (r = .40, p < .001; rmales = .31, p < .001; rfemales = .38, p < .001). Again, the 2-factor model
showed a better fit than the 1-factor model (Table 6). The correlation between exposure to prosocial
media content and general media exposure was nonsignificant (r = .00, p = .96; rmales = -.01, p = .95;
rfemales = .13, p = .051). Also, the 2-factor model of prosocial media use and general media use fit
better than the 1-factor model (Table 6).

Predictive validity
As expected, antisocial media use was negatively correlated to empathy (r = -.14, p < .01; rmales = -.12,
p = .07; rfemales = .07, p = .39). Exposure to prosocial media content correlated positively to empathy
(r = .37, p < .001; rmales = .33, p < .001; rfemales = .26, p < .001).
Also expected, exposure to antisocial media content was significantly related to trait aggressiveness
(r = .57, p < .001; rmales = .53, p < .001; rfemales = .53, p < .001). The correlation between trait aggressiveness
and prosocial media content was nonsignificant (r = -.09, p = .07; rmales = -.08, p = .27; rfemales = .04, p = .61).
Regression analysis showed the antisocial factor of the C-ME2 was the best predictor of aggres-
siveness for males and females (βmales = .38, p < .001; βfemales = .39, p < .001), followed by general

Table 7. Regression analyses predicting aggressiveness in Study 2.

Aggressiveness
Males Females
Predictor R2 β R2 β
Model .35 .38
Antisocial Media Use .38*** .39***
Violent Media Use .18** .17*
General Media Use .19** .25***
N 222 170
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
 COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES 297

media use (βmales = .19, p < .01; βfemales = .25, p < .001), followed by violent media use (βmales = .18,
p < .01; βfemales = .17, p < .05; Table 7).

General discussion
The results from Study 2 generally replicated the findings from Study 1. However, adolescents were exposed
to more violent media content (M = 16.06, SD = 9.80) than were young adults (M = 5.26, SD = 1.86). As
expected, predictive validity was also greater for adolescents than for young adults. Likewise, among young
adults, exposure to prosocial media content correlated positively to empathy for females but not for males,
whereas among adolescents exposure to prosocial media content was positively correlated to empathy for
males and females. The C-ME2 seems to be a better measure for adolescents than for young adults.
The psychometric properties of the prosocial factor were comparable to the psychometric proper-
ties of the antisocial factor. Adding the prosocial factor improves the balance of measuring content-
based media exposure and is useful in investigating the effects of both antisocial and prosocial media
content. Although a number of studies have investigated the negative impact of violent media
content on youth, far fewer studies have investigated the positive impact of prosocial media content
on youth. Thus, the C-ME2 can help fill this gap in the literature.
Consistent with previous research, males were heavier users of media with antisocial content
than females (e.g., Dal Cin, Stoolmiller, & Sargent, 2012; Denniston, Swahn, Hertz, & Romero,
2011; Linder & Gentile, 2009; Möller, Krahé, Busching, & Krause, 2011; Parkes et al., 2013; Den
Hamer et al., 2014), whereas females were heavier users of media with prosocial content than
males. Likewise, predictive validity was comparable, and in the adolescent sample somewhat
stronger, to the results for the original C-ME (den Hamer et al., 2017). Importantly, the factor
structure of the C-ME2 (antisocial vs. prosocial media content) provided a good fit for both
males and females, consistent with the original C-ME.
One limitation with the C-ME2, and most other media exposure measures, is that it relies on self-
report data. Previous research has shown that self-reported data can be problematic (e.g., Nisbett &
Wilson, 1977). Future research should compare C-ME2 responses to actual exposure to antisocial
and prosocial media content. Another limitation in both studies is the low reliability of the measure
of general media exposure (cf. Lee et al., 2008).
Although the C-ME2 includes items that measure exposure to different types of antisocial content
in the media, these individual items loaded on the same factor. However, researchers interested in
specific types of antisocial behavior could use those specific items.
In conclusion, the C-ME2 measures both the frequency and differential exposure to a wide variety
of media content, in particular antisocial and prosocial content, covering all media channels, today
often converging through computer screens. The C-ME2 is a valid, reliable, and easy to use
instrument in all research designs, and allows for standardization and comparisons across studies.

References
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory
and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772
Annenberg Media Exposure Research Group, A. (2008). Linking measures of media exposure to sexual cognitions and
behaviors: A review. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(1–2), 23–42. doi:10.1080/19312450802063180
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2
Bleakley, A., Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Jordan, A., Chernin, A., & Stevens, R. (2008). Developing respondent-based
multi-media measures of exposure to sexual content. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(1–2), 43–64.
doi:10.1080/19312450802063040
Brown, J. D., & Witherspoon, E. M. (2002). The mass media and American adolescents’ health. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 31(6), 153–170. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00507-4
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
298 A. H. DEN HAMER ET AL.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: A content analysis of british television programs.
Aggressive Behavior, 30(3), 254–271. doi:10.1002/ab.20022
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Development, 66(3), 710–722. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression.
Development and Psychopathology, 8(02), 367–380. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007148
Dahl, R. E., & Hariri, A. R. (2005). Lessons from G. Stanley Hall: Connecting new research in biological sciences to the
study of adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(4), 367–382.
Dal Cin, S., Stoolmiller, M., & Sargent, J. D. (2012). When movies matter: Exposure to smoking in movies and changes
in smoking behavior. Journal of Health Communication, 17(1), 76–89. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.585697
Den Hamer, A. H., Konijn, E. A., & Keijer, M. G. (2014). Cyberbullying behavior and adolescents’ use of media with
antisocial content: A cyclic process model. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 74–81.
Den Hamer, A. H., Konijn, E. A., Plaisier, X. S., Keijer, M. G., Krabbendam, L., & Bushman, B. J. (2017). The content-
based Media Exposure Scale (C-ME): Development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 459–557.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.050
Denniston, M. M., Swahn, M. H., Hertz, M. F., & Romero, L. M. (2011). Associations between electronic media use
and involvement in violence, alcohol and drug use among United States high school students. Western Journal of
Emergency Medicine, 12(3), 310.
Fishbein, M., & Hornik, R. (2008). Measuring media exposure: An introduction to the special issue. Communication
Methods and Measures, 2(1–2), 1–5. doi:10.1080/19312450802095943
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., . . . Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of
prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experi-
mental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752–763. doi:10.1177/0146167209333045
Gentile, D. A., Coyne, S., & Walsh, D. A. (2011). Media violence, physical aggression, and relational aggression in
school age children: A short-term longitudinal study. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 193–206. doi:10.1002/ab.20380
Greitemeyer, T., & Mugge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects
of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578–589. doi:10.1177/
0146167213520459
Happ, C., Melzer, A., & Steffgen, G. (2015). Like the good or bad guy—Empathy in antisocial and prosocial games.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(2), 80–96. doi:10.1037/ppm0000021
Harrington, B., & O’Connell, M. (2016). Video games as virtual teachers: Prosocial video game use by children and
adolescents from different socioeconomic groups is associated with increased empathy and prosocial behaviour.
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 650–658. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.062
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for
public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 298–323. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence,
29(4), 589–611. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Los Angeles, CA/ London,
UK: Sage.
Konijn, E. A., Nije Bijvank, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of wishful identification in
the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1038–1044.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1038
Lee, C., Hornik, R., & Hennessy, M. (2008). The reliability and stability of general media exposure measures.
Communication Methods and Measures, 2(1–2), 6–22. doi:10.1080/19312450802063024
Linder, J. R., & Gentile, D. A. (2009). Is the television rating system valid? Indirect, verbal, and physical aggression in
programs viewed by fifth grade girls and associations with behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(3), 286–297. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.013
Mares, M.-L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children’s social interactions: A meta-analysis.
Media Psychology, 7(3), 301–322. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_4
Möller, I., Krahé, B., Busching, R., & Krause, C. (2011). Efficacy of an intervention to reduce the use of media violence
and aggression: An experimental evaluation with adolescents in Germany. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2),
105–120. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9654-6
Myers, T. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for
handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(4), 297–310. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.624490
 COMMUNICATION METHODS AND MEASURES 299

Nije Bijvank, M., Konijn, E. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). “We don’t need no education”: Video game preferences,
video game motivations, and aggressiveness among adolescent boys of different educational ability levels. Journal of
Adolescence, 35(1), 153–162. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.04.001
Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological
Review, 84(3), 231–259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Media exposure, aggression and prosocial behavior during early
childhood: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 15(4), 612–627. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00360.x
Parkes, A., Wight, D., Hunt, K., Henderson, M., & Sargent, J. (2013). Are sexual media exposure, parental restrictions
on media use and co-viewing TV and DVDs with parents and friends associated with teenagers’ early sexual
behaviour? Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1121–1133. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.019
Prot, S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Swing, E., Lim, K. M., . . . Lam, B. C. P. (2014). Long-term relations
among prosocial-media use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 25(2), 358–368. doi:10.1177/
0956797613503854
Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W., & Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Moderators of the association between relational aggression
and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34(6), 563–576. doi:10.1002/ab.20280
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Menlo
Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf
Sargent, J. D., Worth, K. A., Beach, M., Gerrard, M., & Heatherton, T. F. (2008). Population-based assessment of
exposure to risk behaviors in motion pictures. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(1–2), 134–151.
doi:10.1080/19312450802063404
Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health effects of media on children and adolescents.
Pediatrics, 125(4), 756–767. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2563
Swing, E. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2014). The role of attention problems and impulsiveness in media violence effects on
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3), 197–203. doi:10.1002/ab.21519
Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Appendix A. All items of the C-ME2 scale

Please report for every question how often you watch this on TV/Internet/DVD. This could be clips on You Tube,
music videos, quiz shows, television shows, video games, cinema, etc. So, it does not matter where you watch it, but
how often you watch it.*
For every statement, circle one number.

Hardly Very
Never ever Sometimes Often often
How often do you watch (on the Internet/TV/games/mobile
phone/DVD) . . .
1 . . . people who fight? 1 2 3 4 5
2 . . . people who openly talk about sex? 1 2 3 4 5
3 . . . people who use drugs? 1 2 3 4 5
4 . . . people who destroy someone else’s belongings? 1 2 3 4 5
5 . . . people who shoot at another person? 1 2 3 4 5
6 . . . people who make a fool of someone else? 1 2 3 4 5
7 . . . people who drink a lot of alcohol? 1 2 3 4 5
8 . . . people who make fun of another person? 1 2 3 4 5
9 . . . people who are having sex? 1 2 3 4 5
10 . . . people who say negative things about another person behind their 1 2 3 4 5
back?
11 . . . people who make someone trip and fall for fun? 1 2 3 4 5
12 . . . people who steal? 1 2 3 4 5
13 . . . people who are nice to another person? 1 2 3 4 5
14 . . . people who help someone? 1 2 3 4 5
15 . . . people who are in love? 1 2 3 4 5
16 . . . people who understand how another person is feeling? 1 2 3 4 5
17 . . . people who put someone in the spotlight in a what positive way? 1 2 3 4 5
18 . . . people who are willing to do something for someone else? 1 2 3 4 5
19 . . . people who comfort others? 1 2 3 4 5
20 . . . people who give something to another person to make them happy? 1 2 3 4 5
21 . . . people who stand up for someone? 1 2 3 4 5
22 . . . people who cooperate with someone else to do good? 1 2 3 4 5
*In the reported studies, we measured media exposure as a momentary state whereas media use also develops over time. The C-ME2 is
open to include time-indicators in the instructions (e.g., asking for media exposure in specific weeks or over the last month) and can
therefore likewise be used for long-term and longitudinal purposes. Items should be presented in randomized order.