Birth, Babies, and Beyond

according to the news article in your link, no receipt is required for the refunds so it is more than a gesture.

Christina: You are right. I had the wrong information regarding the refund and corrected the copy. the point of my story is not to attack the company--which is really just trying to make fun products--but for parents to know that despite what any DVD may or may not say, television just can't compete with the real word--at least in terms of educating children.

Dr. Epstein, kudos to you and your daughter for writing
about this important subject!

I think that the AAP did a very brave thing making the
recommendation that children under two not watch TV.
There was a huge amount of pressure on them not to
make this recommendation, yet they did so anyway, so
I have nothing but admiration for them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN0734098220070508

As for why parents still use the electronic babysitter
despite the AAP recommendation, I have some thoughts.

1. The AAP argues that young children need human
interaction, not television.

The problem with this argument, as has been widely
noted, is that parents need a break, whether to make
dinner, to clean, or just to have a sanity break. The
electronic babysitter fills an important need.
Also, if the parents were to take the AAP literally,
and have someone constantly at the child, with
endless interaction, I can't imagine that that would
actually be good for the child. (As an introverted
child that would have driven me insane.)

Your argument that what young children need is
interaction with "real life" is much more effective
and true.

Parents and babies do need breaks from constant
interaction, and time spent exploring the environment,
and/or playing with toys in a playpen is time very
well spent. So I think that if the AAP changed their
statement to emphasize the importance of young children
interacting with the real world, along with interacting
with their parents, caregivers and other children, that
that would strengthen the AAP argument.

2. The AAP recommends no TV for children under two,
and no more than 1 to 2 hours of high quality TV
for children two year old and up.

Again this is a weak argument. If it is ok for a
two year old child to watch 1 to 2 hours of TV per
day, then really how bad can it be for children
under two? A much better recommendation would be
that ideally children under seven should not watch
TV, and most especially parents must ensure that
children under two not watch any TV. Children
aged seven to 12 should only watch two hours per
week at the most.

A huge number of studies have found an association
between children (both young and older) watching
TV and negative outcomes. The more the child watches
TV, the greater his/her chances are of not graduating
from college, of being overweight, of being aggressive,
of early sexual experiences, of having poor attention,
of being depressed, etc...

But, as TV defenders have pointed out, generally the
poorer and less well-educated the parents, the more TV
the kids watch. So any negative "effects" of TV could
actually be due to poorer parents skills that lead to
both the more negative outcomes and greater amounts
of TV watching. This argument, of course, completely
dismisses the fact that researchers are very much
aware of this issue, and make an effort to match
research subjects by socio-economic level and other
qualities.

Most people have heard the term "Correlation does not
imply causation", which for parents addicted to the
electronic babysitter, gives them a perfect excuse
to keep using the electronic babysitter.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/seth_roberts/what_should_correlation_d...

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/2005/05-07-05_press_release.html

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/causation.html

---

Correlational studies are important, but I think
that studies looking at the mechanisms of how TV has
a negative effect are actually even more important.

1. TV Time Displacement

One or two hours out of 24 does not seem like a lot.
But since young children spend so much time sleeping,
one or two hours is actually a much greater percentage
of their waking hours than of an older child or adult.
Plus, for kids watching 4 to 6 hours per day, it is
easier for people to understand that so many hours
is bad for kids just because of the time displacement
factor, time that could be much better spent playing,
reading, etc.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbprint.cfm?tbid=2621

2. TV Distraction

"A new study has found that leaving your TV set on
disrupts young children while they are playing, even
if the channel is tuned to adult shows. This means
that simply having the TV on, even in the background,
may be detrimental to children's development."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715071452.htm

"In a new study, young children and their adult
caregivers uttered fewer vocalizations, used fewer
words and engaged in fewer conversations when in
the presence of audible television."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182830.htm

3. TV and teaching very young children

"The results of this study have important implications
for language acquisition. It indicates exposure to language
via television is insufficient for teaching language to
very young children. To learn new words, children must
be actively engaged in the process with responsive
language teachers."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627221722.htm

"Developmental psychologists say the Vanderbilt research
offers an intriguing clue to a phenomenon called the
”video deficit“. Toddlers who have no trouble understanding
a task demonstrated in real life often stumble when the
same task is shown onscreen. They need repeated viewings
to figure it out."

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when-toddlers-learn-from-tv/12315/

4. TV slows down brainwaves

"The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation,
as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing
than during reading."

"In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson
of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to
study whether the simple formal features of television--cuts,
edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises--activate the orienting
response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching
how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers
concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger
involuntary responses and "derive their attentional value
through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement....
It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique.""

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=television-addiction-is...

http://www.jr.co.il/articles/tv.txt

List of Published studies on TV slowing down brainwaves:

http://www.tvsmarter.com/documents/brainwaves3.html

Gamma brainwaves:

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/44/11986

Importance of Gamma brainwaves for young children:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/gamma_wave_glue_memory_a...

---

This is a senseless witch hunt. Randi, you (and many other journalists) are the blind leading the blind. Your facts are NOT accurate. First, the University of Washington "study", was not a study. It was a PHONE survey of 215 parents. No control group. You call that science? And we are suppose to believe and follow, just because some group says "DVD's are bad"? I will keep my DVD's and my smart kids, thank you.

Please everyone, go to www.junkscience.com and get the REAL story. Do it for yourself and stop this agenda to save us all from evil DVD's.

Secondly, there is REAL science out there that proves content matters and quality educational DVD's can benefit in a BIG way. Brainy Baby has University Science to back up their educational results. A little research on your part would have given you a balanced article, rather than just assuming that what has been reported in the media is 100% true.

The key folks, is moderation. Let's be sensible. If there is a product and science that proves a DVD to be educational, why would you not want that for your kids? Isn't this a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water? What's next on the "bad" list? Listening to too many CD's? Reading too many books?

Parents, please... use all the tools you want, just keep the balance!

Great article. Worthwhile reading. More young parents need to heed this advise.

Randi: my son is a single parent of a 4 year old who has watched or heard the "backyardigans" since he was about 6 months old. The bright colors and music he loved and memorized all the songs. While I think too much TV is a problem - he loves watching it and his vocabulary has increased, he also has been in Goddard Day Care Center since he was 6 months old - the hands on and learning at the center is very advance and has made him a very active, inquisitive child. He does like to watch movies in bed with his Dad - which is usually at night (down time) before bed. I think eveyone has to decide how much stimulation their child needs besides using the TV as a babysitter.
Enjoyed your articles - everyone I am sure has their own opinion - keep up the good work.

Lorriane Festa Roseman

This article points out that parents need to process all the information with which they are bombarded and then think for themselves - that is good parenting! I think that some of the answers are obvious and most are not black or white. Einstein DVDs do not make you an Einstein and an extra hour of TV occasionally will not cause critical developmental delays.l However, parenting by the latest study or falling prey to the latest marketing madness can be dangerous to your child's health.