A few weeks ago I received the following question from a parent:
A good friend of mine allows her children to view scary movies and images. For example, she will allow her toddler to watch the Michael Jackson video “Thriller.” He will watch it over and over. I feel this is child abuse. I really don’t want her children around mine. Her other son will talk about how a boy's legs were cut of from going down the slide at the park. I know I show tell her how I feel. I’ve read a research paper you wrote on the subject. I feel she can entertain her children with these images, like a babysitter. (I have a few theories of my own)
Any feedback would be appreciated.
----
Here's how I answered:
Thanks for writing!
I agree that showing scary movies and images to children can be extremely harmful. Some kids become anxious and have trouble sleeping; others may become more violent, more accepting of violence, or less empathic. A toddler is definitely too young to put these images in perspective -- my research is full of reports of children who were traumatized by viewing "Thriller" at a young age.
Some children are less sensitive than others, but you are right to be concerned about the home environment of your children's friends. You certainly should be wary that if your children visit their house, they are likely to be exposed to images that could be potentially traumatizing.
I know that there are parents who think the concern about media violence is overblown. Often these are parents who love to watch violence themselves and might see any information about harm as a criticism of them.
Aside from not wanting your children to be exposed to your friend's choice of media, you probably also want your children to hang around with kids like them, who are sensitive and empathic and not overly attracted to violence. So you certainly are not overreacting if you want your children to play with kids whose values are more like yours.
If, as you say, this person is a good friend of yours, you might want to bring up the issue gently, perhaps with some information and data to back you up (there are things on my web site that might be helpful (e.g.,, http://www.joannecantor.com/longtermfright.html). But be prepared for your friend to be defensive. She may never agree with you, but at least she will understand the basis of your decisions.
Whatever you do about your friend, keep being a wise steward of your child's media use. Your child's physical and mental health will surely benefit.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Children and Recent Mass Shootings
I have been asked by a local television station to give parents advice on how to prevent their children from becoming overly fearful during this most recent spate of highly publicized shootings -- at the mall in Nebraska and at two churches in Colorado. I've been giving advice in the wake of similar high-profile news events for some time on my web site (for example, see my advice after the Virginia Tech shootings).
What can I say for a 2 1/2 minute TV piece?
1) These news stories are not "educational." Kids will not miss anything they need to know if they don't hear about or see these stories, so don't be afraid to shield your child from this information. In general, don't watch the news with your young children in the room.
2) If they do hear about it or you know they will hear about it, describe it to them in the least emotional, most calming way possible.
3) In explaining it to them, try to find as many contrasts you can between your child's situation and the one they've heard about. For example, you could say, if it's true, that nothing like that has ever happened here (even though you know that it could happen anywhere).
4) Talk about what we've learned from the tragedy, for example, that security people are paying better attention now.
5) If a child is frightened, be understanding and give him or her your calm, warm attention. If they are fixated on it, drawing pictures about it may help younger children; writing about it may help older children and adults.
6) Younger children may simply want to get their mind off of it and do something distracting and fun.
7) Remember that television often creates the most intense emotions about these stories because it often shows vividly visual, emotional events. Because local tragedies become national via television, television makes the world seem much scarier than it really is.
What can I say for a 2 1/2 minute TV piece?
1) These news stories are not "educational." Kids will not miss anything they need to know if they don't hear about or see these stories, so don't be afraid to shield your child from this information. In general, don't watch the news with your young children in the room.
2) If they do hear about it or you know they will hear about it, describe it to them in the least emotional, most calming way possible.
3) In explaining it to them, try to find as many contrasts you can between your child's situation and the one they've heard about. For example, you could say, if it's true, that nothing like that has ever happened here (even though you know that it could happen anywhere).
4) Talk about what we've learned from the tragedy, for example, that security people are paying better attention now.
5) If a child is frightened, be understanding and give him or her your calm, warm attention. If they are fixated on it, drawing pictures about it may help younger children; writing about it may help older children and adults.
6) Younger children may simply want to get their mind off of it and do something distracting and fun.
7) Remember that television often creates the most intense emotions about these stories because it often shows vividly visual, emotional events. Because local tragedies become national via television, television makes the world seem much scarier than it really is.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Antidote to Violent Video Games?
I just heard the hilarious deadpan comic Dimitri Martin give the following riff:
----------
I love videogames
But they're very violent
I want to design a videogame
In which you have to take care of all the people who've been shot in the other games.
-- "Hey, Man, what are you playing?"
-- "Super Busy Hospital -- 2.
Please leave me alone.
I need to concentrate.
I'm performing surgery on a man who was shot in the head 57 times."
-----------
Here's a link to his performance on You-tube
------------
Makes you think, doesn't it?
----------
I love videogames
But they're very violent
I want to design a videogame
In which you have to take care of all the people who've been shot in the other games.
-- "Hey, Man, what are you playing?"
-- "Super Busy Hospital -- 2.
Please leave me alone.
I need to concentrate.
I'm performing surgery on a man who was shot in the head 57 times."
-----------
Here's a link to his performance on You-tube
------------
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The devastating impact of TV on individuals and society
Last week I received the following very thoughtful email from a woman in New Zealand. She makes many good points. Let me know what you think of her ideas:
----
22 November 2007
Dear Joanne,
My very first memory as a child watching a black and white television. The programme was the Lone Ranger, and I hated the series with a vengeance, but I made up my mind as a child that I simply wouldn’t watch TV at all. That caused a lot of problems with the family, because TV was “new” and the in thing. As an adolescent, going to films only happened when I had read the book, and knew the ending from the start. Even now, watching DVD’s, I watch the making of it, the producers tracks, out-takes, and interviews before I watch the film. As I have got older and got into research I realise that the way I felt as a child was directly as a result of the stress it produced, and cortisol flooding my body. I couldn’t put it into words then, but whenever the Television was put on, I’d leave the room, and if it was loud, either go outside or right to the other end of the house.
When we were first married my husband had a television. At the age of two, our oldest saw an advertisement on TV called “It’s moments like these you need minties” in a break during a tame kids programme, something like sesame street… The advertisement showed incidents such as when a sculler’s craft sank before the finish, or a horse tripped on a jump. Those sorts of things. Our son crumpled in a distraught heap, and I needed no further impetus to make a decision. The TV was biffed, and we didn’t get one again, until he was 16,and even then it was just a screen for videos. Two years later we connected to TV and the youngest mainly watched animal planet, the history channel and National Geographic. They never watched the news which was then one of the most violent programmes on the box. The oldest never watched it until he was 20.
We do not have TV now, and I rarely have the radio on at all. I chose to keep up to date with the news by looking at newspapers because I can control what and how much I chose to read.
I believe that TV is a major blight in the lives of society today, and we would have been better off without it. It’s addictive, divisive, couch potato engendering, and literally ruins people’s lives, society, and health, depriving people of properly relating and participating IN REAL LIFE. Children whose only connection with others is discussing TV shows are intellectually deprived, and physically challenged. Our oldest who is mid-twenties, is a professional sportsman and coaches children. There are some schools which he hates going to. He says that the majority of the children don’t have any eye-hand co-ordination; they have no initiative; have lost the ability to think laterally; don’t listen, and dish sass because they are hollow and embarrassed at their inability to get it together, so they act “staunch.” He has nothing good to say about the way these children are brought up, and I suspect he will leave children’s coaching eventually, because the children don’t want to do it, because they can’t. He compares these children with his peers and just shakes his head. Its all the parents’ fault.
To me, the answer is a no-brainer. It’s very simple. Get rid of television. Being there for them is silly. Once seen, something is etched in the mind. I can still picture the Lone Ranger, and I was only five. You cannot erase the memories etched into the brain. Talking the children “through” it is pointless.
If the only means of seeing things you want children to see, is to hire DVD’s and the parents watch them first, so they know the story and what’s coming, then that’s about the only compromise that is sanity building, because you can either toss the DVD, or discuss it in detail with the children first.
Society managed without any “box” of any sort, once, and made their own entertainment. Just perhaps children might have a lot more self confidence and relate to each other better that way, if they learned how to entertain themselves as families and children. The problem is would their parents even have half a clue as to how to entertain themselves in the first place? And if parent have no clue, then how will the children absorb what should be a normal skill of life.
Television has so much to answer for in the breakdown of huge sections of society today. “Managing” it is not the answer. If everyone got rid of their television and started thinking for themselves and getting back out into the community, and re-learning how to live, there would be huge spin-offs, like reduction in crime, increase in community initiatives, like gardens, games parks,… life could be so different if people weren’t mainlining of “television methamphetamine”
Sorry for the rant, but its something I feel that strongly about, and have since the age of five.
Regards,
Hilary.
----
22 November 2007
Dear Joanne,
My very first memory as a child watching a black and white television. The programme was the Lone Ranger, and I hated the series with a vengeance, but I made up my mind as a child that I simply wouldn’t watch TV at all. That caused a lot of problems with the family, because TV was “new” and the in thing. As an adolescent, going to films only happened when I had read the book, and knew the ending from the start. Even now, watching DVD’s, I watch the making of it, the producers tracks, out-takes, and interviews before I watch the film. As I have got older and got into research I realise that the way I felt as a child was directly as a result of the stress it produced, and cortisol flooding my body. I couldn’t put it into words then, but whenever the Television was put on, I’d leave the room, and if it was loud, either go outside or right to the other end of the house.
When we were first married my husband had a television. At the age of two, our oldest saw an advertisement on TV called “It’s moments like these you need minties” in a break during a tame kids programme, something like sesame street… The advertisement showed incidents such as when a sculler’s craft sank before the finish, or a horse tripped on a jump. Those sorts of things. Our son crumpled in a distraught heap, and I needed no further impetus to make a decision. The TV was biffed, and we didn’t get one again, until he was 16,and even then it was just a screen for videos. Two years later we connected to TV and the youngest mainly watched animal planet, the history channel and National Geographic. They never watched the news which was then one of the most violent programmes on the box. The oldest never watched it until he was 20.
We do not have TV now, and I rarely have the radio on at all. I chose to keep up to date with the news by looking at newspapers because I can control what and how much I chose to read.
I believe that TV is a major blight in the lives of society today, and we would have been better off without it. It’s addictive, divisive, couch potato engendering, and literally ruins people’s lives, society, and health, depriving people of properly relating and participating IN REAL LIFE. Children whose only connection with others is discussing TV shows are intellectually deprived, and physically challenged. Our oldest who is mid-twenties, is a professional sportsman and coaches children. There are some schools which he hates going to. He says that the majority of the children don’t have any eye-hand co-ordination; they have no initiative; have lost the ability to think laterally; don’t listen, and dish sass because they are hollow and embarrassed at their inability to get it together, so they act “staunch.” He has nothing good to say about the way these children are brought up, and I suspect he will leave children’s coaching eventually, because the children don’t want to do it, because they can’t. He compares these children with his peers and just shakes his head. Its all the parents’ fault.
To me, the answer is a no-brainer. It’s very simple. Get rid of television. Being there for them is silly. Once seen, something is etched in the mind. I can still picture the Lone Ranger, and I was only five. You cannot erase the memories etched into the brain. Talking the children “through” it is pointless.
If the only means of seeing things you want children to see, is to hire DVD’s and the parents watch them first, so they know the story and what’s coming, then that’s about the only compromise that is sanity building, because you can either toss the DVD, or discuss it in detail with the children first.
Society managed without any “box” of any sort, once, and made their own entertainment. Just perhaps children might have a lot more self confidence and relate to each other better that way, if they learned how to entertain themselves as families and children. The problem is would their parents even have half a clue as to how to entertain themselves in the first place? And if parent have no clue, then how will the children absorb what should be a normal skill of life.
Television has so much to answer for in the breakdown of huge sections of society today. “Managing” it is not the answer. If everyone got rid of their television and started thinking for themselves and getting back out into the community, and re-learning how to live, there would be huge spin-offs, like reduction in crime, increase in community initiatives, like gardens, games parks,… life could be so different if people weren’t mainlining of “television methamphetamine”
Sorry for the rant, but its something I feel that strongly about, and have since the age of five.
Regards,
Hilary.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Role of the Media in School Shootings in Finland
The latest school shootings in Finland repeat horrible events that have become all to common. Another disaffected teenage boy went on a violent rampage at his school, killing himself after murdering 7 students and the principal. What is new is that he apparently posted an anticipatory communication on You-tube and communicated with an American kid who had admitted to plotting a Columbine-type massacre at his school. Both youths are said to have been fans of the violent video game "Hitman." This raises so many issues regarding the role of the media in the lives of our youth, includingthe impact of media violence (both fantasy and real) on aggression; and the viral nature of some of these events that are communicated among teens around the world. Another major issue is the fear that such incidents evoke in children who suddenly are afraid in their own schools. I have posted a review of the effects of media violence on my website. I have also posted information on what types of images scare kids in these stories and advice on how to help children cope.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Helping Children Frightened by California Wildfires
The horrific images of the California wildfires are no doubt frightening many young children who happen to be in the room when their caregivers are watching television. Kids are often frightened by vivid visual images of threats in the news -- even if they don't seem to normally pay attention to the news. This is a problem that has repeatedly occurred whenever a vivid natural disaster has been covered in the news. I have posted advice on my web site to help families cope in similar situations. If this is a problem in your home, I recommend that you check out the advice I gave on coping with responses to Hurricane Katrina. If you have any questions on this topic, please post it as a comment.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Can you believe it? Using Halo3 to lure kids to church?
A story on the front page of today's New York Times entitled "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game," describes the fact that many pastors around the country are so desperate to attract teens to their churches that they are sponsoring events in which children sit around in groups playing the popular violent video game, Halo. The latest version, Halo 3, has exceeded $300 million in sales in just two weeks. The game is rated M, for mature audiences, which means you have to be 17 to buy it. And yet, young teenagers are participating in these sessions, which are often followed by a lesson involving church teachings. There has been some criticism of these policies, but many pastors seem to argue that children know that it's only pixels they are shooting, so they're confident that the trade-off is worth it.
Well, there's a great deal of research on the harmful effects of violent video games. Here's a link to Professor Craig Anderson's web site, where he discusses many of these findings and their implications. And the web site of the Center for Successful Parenting talks about the impact of playing violent video games on brain activity and has an archive of research on media violence. In addition, research on the effects of prosocial communication documents that trying to undo the strong audiovisual and interactive media messages of violence by giving verbal explanations after the fact is woefully inadequate. What these children are coming to church to learn is that violence is a great solution to conflict, that it's easy, exhilarating and risk free, and that the church endorses it! What are church leaders thinking? Isn't there any other way to attract kids? And if not, are they creating more problems than they know?
Well, there's a great deal of research on the harmful effects of violent video games. Here's a link to Professor Craig Anderson's web site, where he discusses many of these findings and their implications. And the web site of the Center for Successful Parenting talks about the impact of playing violent video games on brain activity and has an archive of research on media violence. In addition, research on the effects of prosocial communication documents that trying to undo the strong audiovisual and interactive media messages of violence by giving verbal explanations after the fact is woefully inadequate. What these children are coming to church to learn is that violence is a great solution to conflict, that it's easy, exhilarating and risk free, and that the church endorses it! What are church leaders thinking? Isn't there any other way to attract kids? And if not, are they creating more problems than they know?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The News Frenzy About Missing Women
A few days ago, I was interviewed by a reporter from the Wisconsin State Journal who was writing an article about the news coverage of yet another missing woman in our area. It turns out that, like another missing woman recently, this one left suddenly of her own accord because she was feeling stress, and she was later found unharmed. Unfortunately, earlier this year, there was also a tragic local story about a missing woman whose body was found in a county park and whose murderer is apparently still on the loose. The question the reporter asked me was, "how should the news handle these stories, without freaking children out who may be in the vicinity of a television set?" My answer was that news programs are in a difficult position. If a person is missing and foul play is suspected, new programs are doing a public service by notifying the community to look for her. My advice was that a news program could perform that service by matter-of-factly announcing that police were looking for a woman (perhaps with her picture), who was last seen in a particular type of car in a particular location, etc. This would not make a "compelling" news story, however. The purpose of television news is not simply to provide useful information; it's to bring in as many viewers as possible so that stations can charge high fees to their advertisers. Because of this, news programs usually don't stop with the facts about who's missing and from where. They often speculate about the kind of ill fate that might have befallen her; they often talk about the dreaded outcomes that have occurred in similar situations; and they sometimes even interview distraught friends and family members. These are the things that upset children greatly. As long as the purpose of TV news is to make money, news channels are not likely to limit these stories to providing necessary information. This makes children the secondary victims of these events (even if everything turns out OK for the missing woman). Many children will be left with residual anxieties and sleep problems. So it is all the more necessary for parents to avoid watching the news when children are present.
What do you think? Should television stations avoid emotionalizing these missing woman stories? Should they care more about their impact on children or their advertising revenues?
What do you think? Should television stations avoid emotionalizing these missing woman stories? Should they care more about their impact on children or their advertising revenues?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Viewing "The Exorcist" Changed Her Life
Here's an email I received last week:
Dear Dr. Cantor,
I just finished reading "The Elephant in the Living Room" and came across your research for the first time. The issues you raise has made a tremendous impact on the choices I am now making for my children ages 5 and 1. While I feel I have been mindful of their viewing habits (no TV for the one year old), I saw room for improvement and have taken action.
I wanted to share with you an experience I had as a child that changed the landscape of who I am. When I was nine, my parents left me in the care of my 12 year old sister for the evening. While they were out, we watched "The Exorcist". The terror those images instilled in me lasted for YEARS. It set in motion obsessive compulsive behaviors and bizarre rituals I developed in order to protect myself from demonic possession. No matter what I did, I could not "unsee" Linda Blair's body transformed by Satan. As a young adult I sought counseling (for several reasons) and was finally able to watch the film again and deal with the horror I had seen.
It saddens me when I look back on my childhood and see so many passages marked not by family experiences, but rather by The Bionic Woman, and the Love Boat/Fantasy Island combo that I watched for years. Yes, we had other issues at home, and in some ways TV was my escape, but like any other vice, it came with a high price tag.
I wish TV was not so much a part of our lives. My husband likes the background noise at night, when the kids are asleep, but I would rather enjoy a quiet evening. TV has a huge impact on marriages. I am curious to know if there is research in that particular area.
Thank you so much for your valuable work. I plan to order your books for my family.
-- Concerned
Dear Concerned,
Thank you very much for your message. It is good to hear that my work is helpful to you. And you certainly are not alone in your traumatizing experiences! If you haven't seen it, you'll enjoy a brief paper I posted on my web site that reports similar experiences:
Dear Dr. Cantor,
I just finished reading "The Elephant in the Living Room" and came across your research for the first time. The issues you raise has made a tremendous impact on the choices I am now making for my children ages 5 and 1. While I feel I have been mindful of their viewing habits (no TV for the one year old), I saw room for improvement and have taken action.
I wanted to share with you an experience I had as a child that changed the landscape of who I am. When I was nine, my parents left me in the care of my 12 year old sister for the evening. While they were out, we watched "The Exorcist". The terror those images instilled in me lasted for YEARS. It set in motion obsessive compulsive behaviors and bizarre rituals I developed in order to protect myself from demonic possession. No matter what I did, I could not "unsee" Linda Blair's body transformed by Satan. As a young adult I sought counseling (for several reasons) and was finally able to watch the film again and deal with the horror I had seen.
It saddens me when I look back on my childhood and see so many passages marked not by family experiences, but rather by The Bionic Woman, and the Love Boat/Fantasy Island combo that I watched for years. Yes, we had other issues at home, and in some ways TV was my escape, but like any other vice, it came with a high price tag.
I wish TV was not so much a part of our lives. My husband likes the background noise at night, when the kids are asleep, but I would rather enjoy a quiet evening. TV has a huge impact on marriages. I am curious to know if there is research in that particular area.
Thank you so much for your valuable work. I plan to order your books for my family.
-- Concerned
Dear Concerned,
Thank you very much for your message. It is good to hear that my work is helpful to you. And you certainly are not alone in your traumatizing experiences! If you haven't seen it, you'll enjoy a brief paper I posted on my web site that reports similar experiences:
I agree that the dominance of TV in our lives is not a good thing and that it does affect family life and marriages greatly. I am not familiar with any research that specifically answers your question about the effect of background TV on marriage, (although there is research that shows that it interferes with homework! and there's some research about fighting over the remote!) I do believe that the emotional impact of the background noise of television is negative -- that it probably increases anxiety levels. However, many people find silence aversive and always want to have something on, be it music, chatter, or whatever. I think that people can change, though, once they get accustomed to peace and quiet. We are regular TV viewers in my family (although I try to turn it off when there's nothing good to watch ), and I notice how much calmer I feel on the occasions, like vacations, when TV is not available. I certainly don't like to have the TV on in the background when I'm reading, as I've found doing one thing at a time is so much easier and less stressful. (Try to tell that to all those teenage multi-taskers!) So it might be worth attempting quiet evenings or quiet moments in your home if it wouldn't cause too much conflict.
Do any other readers have similar media experiences they'd like to share?
Monday, September 17, 2007
Are Infant Videos Good for My Child?
A while back I received a question from a mother about Baby Einstein DVDs and similar products. She had received a bunch of them at her baby shower and said she felt "a little uncomfortable" showing them to her 3 month-old. She wondered if there were any studies out there that might help her decide.
This is an excellent question. It’s one that I hear from many parents who are confused about the mixed messages they are receiving about their babies and the media. On one hand, the American Academy of Pediatrics and many child development experts have recommended that children not watch any television before the age of two, (and I heartily agree with this recommendation.) On the other hand, more and more media products are being targeted toward this age group, with names (like “Baby Einstein”) that suggest they will make children smarter.
First of all, there is no scientific evidence that babies and children benefit from exposure to media before the age of two. And media products such as Baby Einstein were not created by child development experts. According to its web site, Baby Einstein was developed by a mother who wanted to share her love of art, classical music, language and poetry with her infant. While this is indeed a worthwhile goal, doing this by exposing babies to videos is not the most developmentally appropriate method.
The American Academy of Pediatrics argues that infants and children up to the age of two need to spend the bulk of their time in interactive activities that promote brain development, including talking and playing, singing and being read to. What young children need the most is to interact with real people and with real objects in the real world. Baby Einstein’s web site argues that their videos are designed to promote parent-child interaction. However, sitting on a parent’s lap while she reads a book to you and shows you the pictures is a lot more interactive than watching a video together, and it provides a great deal more essential cognitive learning. To the extent that video watching displaces other more interactive activities, it should not be beneficial.
But as a researcher focused on child development and the media, I believe there are other potentially detrimental effects of infants’ exposure to media. As I argued in my parenting book, “Mommy, I’m Scared: How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them,” a great deal of learning goes on in the first and second years of life, and the best way for an infant to discover the world is to interact with it directly. Videos stimulate the senses of sight and hearing, but do not engage the sense of touch (or taste or smell). Young children learn an incredible amount in the first few years by picking things up in their hands, turning them over, and dropping them, for example. They learn that they can exert control over objects, and they learn certain essential facts of the physical world. For example, they learn “object permanence,” which means that if you cover your toy rattle with a blanket, it’s still really there and you’ll find it when you pick the blanket back up. They also learn that if you let go of your rattle while holding it out, it will fall to the ground. These are important learning milestones about the laws of physics. But if you look at TV, these laws don’t apply: Something can appear and disappear in a flash, and a chair can fly through the air for no reason. Time and space on TV also do not follow the rules young children are struggling to learn. So it seems to me that we ought to delay children’s exposure to the “magical” world of media until after they’ve mastered these real basics.
There is no evidence, as of yet, that Baby Einstein products are actually harmful to kids. No controlled research has yet appeared in the scientific literature on this product. There is scientific evidence, however, that another popular media product targeted to the under-2 age group, “Teletubbies,” which is shown on public television, is associated with delayed language learning.
I don’t mean to alarm parents into thinking that they’re ruining their children’s chances for success if they let them watch these videos at a young age. But I do think that young children are just as fascinated by colorful age-appropriate toys that they can manipulate in their own hands, or ordinary items you can find in any home, like a box with a top on it or the gift-wrapping their present came in. And they’ll learn a lot more through this more active exploration than they would by watching a video. Why not introduce a baby to Mozart with an audiotape, so that he can learn something with his hands at the same time? Or teach her about art with picture books that she can look at, turn upside-down, and turn over? Or with a sculpture that she can feel as well as see? There’s plenty of time later for media exposure, and for many other reasons, it’s good not to let your child become too much of a media fan too early.
This is an excellent question. It’s one that I hear from many parents who are confused about the mixed messages they are receiving about their babies and the media. On one hand, the American Academy of Pediatrics and many child development experts have recommended that children not watch any television before the age of two, (and I heartily agree with this recommendation.) On the other hand, more and more media products are being targeted toward this age group, with names (like “Baby Einstein”) that suggest they will make children smarter.
First of all, there is no scientific evidence that babies and children benefit from exposure to media before the age of two. And media products such as Baby Einstein were not created by child development experts. According to its web site, Baby Einstein was developed by a mother who wanted to share her love of art, classical music, language and poetry with her infant. While this is indeed a worthwhile goal, doing this by exposing babies to videos is not the most developmentally appropriate method.
The American Academy of Pediatrics argues that infants and children up to the age of two need to spend the bulk of their time in interactive activities that promote brain development, including talking and playing, singing and being read to. What young children need the most is to interact with real people and with real objects in the real world. Baby Einstein’s web site argues that their videos are designed to promote parent-child interaction. However, sitting on a parent’s lap while she reads a book to you and shows you the pictures is a lot more interactive than watching a video together, and it provides a great deal more essential cognitive learning. To the extent that video watching displaces other more interactive activities, it should not be beneficial.
But as a researcher focused on child development and the media, I believe there are other potentially detrimental effects of infants’ exposure to media. As I argued in my parenting book, “Mommy, I’m Scared: How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them,” a great deal of learning goes on in the first and second years of life, and the best way for an infant to discover the world is to interact with it directly. Videos stimulate the senses of sight and hearing, but do not engage the sense of touch (or taste or smell). Young children learn an incredible amount in the first few years by picking things up in their hands, turning them over, and dropping them, for example. They learn that they can exert control over objects, and they learn certain essential facts of the physical world. For example, they learn “object permanence,” which means that if you cover your toy rattle with a blanket, it’s still really there and you’ll find it when you pick the blanket back up. They also learn that if you let go of your rattle while holding it out, it will fall to the ground. These are important learning milestones about the laws of physics. But if you look at TV, these laws don’t apply: Something can appear and disappear in a flash, and a chair can fly through the air for no reason. Time and space on TV also do not follow the rules young children are struggling to learn. So it seems to me that we ought to delay children’s exposure to the “magical” world of media until after they’ve mastered these real basics.
There is no evidence, as of yet, that Baby Einstein products are actually harmful to kids. No controlled research has yet appeared in the scientific literature on this product. There is scientific evidence, however, that another popular media product targeted to the under-2 age group, “Teletubbies,” which is shown on public television, is associated with delayed language learning.
I don’t mean to alarm parents into thinking that they’re ruining their children’s chances for success if they let them watch these videos at a young age. But I do think that young children are just as fascinated by colorful age-appropriate toys that they can manipulate in their own hands, or ordinary items you can find in any home, like a box with a top on it or the gift-wrapping their present came in. And they’ll learn a lot more through this more active exploration than they would by watching a video. Why not introduce a baby to Mozart with an audiotape, so that he can learn something with his hands at the same time? Or teach her about art with picture books that she can look at, turn upside-down, and turn over? Or with a sculpture that she can feel as well as see? There’s plenty of time later for media exposure, and for many other reasons, it’s good not to let your child become too much of a media fan too early.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
What to do about scary movies on airplanes
A few weeks ago I was interviewed for an article (see the New York Times, September 1, 2007, p. A1) about how some children are being traumatized by the movies that are being shown on airplanes. Apparently many airlines have relaxed their standards and are now showing R-rated, violent movies, even though it means that many children will not be able to avoid seeing violent images. Violent movies like "Shooter" and "Fracture" have recently been shown. Many parents reported that their children were extremely anxious after seeing only a few images and some ended up tending to their children's nightmares afterwards.
My own research confirms that children can be extremely scared by pictures seen only briefly, especially those that are intensely violent or show creepy images or characters with distorted features. And often the resulting anxiety and sleep disturbance can drag on for weeks, months, and even years.
What's a parent to do when you're stuck at 30,000 feet and your the images are thrust in your child's face? Blindfold him? Spend the entire flight distracting her?
One parent mentioned in the article has started a web site, Kidsafefilms.org, to advocate Federal legislation to restrict violence shown on airline flights. He has created an online petition that starts with the sentence:
"We demand that the United States Congress act immediately to put an end to un-rated and violent films being shown to children on commercial flights operating in United States airspace. " (Movies shown on planes do not receive Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings. They are edited by separate companies for in-flight use.)
Given the high stakes for children's well-being and mental health, I think it's very important that we find ways to protect children from being ambushed by these images. But is Federal legislation the way to go? Would such a solution be too harsh and unfairly limit the viewing of other passengers? Are there other ways to protect children that would work in this situation? I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this.
I look forward to your comments.
My own research confirms that children can be extremely scared by pictures seen only briefly, especially those that are intensely violent or show creepy images or characters with distorted features. And often the resulting anxiety and sleep disturbance can drag on for weeks, months, and even years.
What's a parent to do when you're stuck at 30,000 feet and your the images are thrust in your child's face? Blindfold him? Spend the entire flight distracting her?
One parent mentioned in the article has started a web site, Kidsafefilms.org, to advocate Federal legislation to restrict violence shown on airline flights. He has created an online petition that starts with the sentence:
"We demand that the United States Congress act immediately to put an end to un-rated and violent films being shown to children on commercial flights operating in United States airspace. " (Movies shown on planes do not receive Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings. They are edited by separate companies for in-flight use.)
Given the high stakes for children's well-being and mental health, I think it's very important that we find ways to protect children from being ambushed by these images. But is Federal legislation the way to go? Would such a solution be too harsh and unfairly limit the viewing of other passengers? Are there other ways to protect children that would work in this situation? I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this.
I look forward to your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)