The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Too Much TV?

9 Comments

July 21, 2010 by Ethan Watters

Like many parents, Linda Pagani, a psychologist at the University of Montreal, long suspected that watching too much television might not be the best thing for the cognitive and emotional development of children. For years the rule for her three children has been no TV between Sunday and Thursday nights. Now, whenever her kids grumble about the prohibition, she has some startling research of her own to show them.

In a study of 1,300 children from Michigan and Montreal, Pagani and her colleagues recently documented that watching TV at age two shows a troubling connection with an array of behaviors and outcomes when the child is reassessed at age 10. The more television the toddler watched, the greater the likelihood, several years later, that he or she would perform worse in math, consume more soda and junk food, have a higher-than-average body mass, engage poorly in class, and be bullied at school.

In the first few years of life, the human brain explodes with growth, its neurons making vital connections that will shape cognition into adulthood. That too much TV might hinder this development is common sense, Pagani says; unfortunately that understanding doesn’t seem to translate into action. While the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children older than two watch less than two hours of TV a day, surveys show that more than 40 percent of two- and three-year-olds watch more than that amount. “Because it seems so inocuous and entertaining,” Pagani and her coauthors write in the study, “a population-level understanding of the developmental risks associated with television exposure remains a challenge.” Pagani hopes that by highlighting the damage overexposure to television in early childhood can cause, she can wake people up to the problem.

If you are already thinking, “Yes, but my toddlers only watch educational television,” Pagani has bad news. According to her research, it's the passive nature of watching television that is harmful, not the content of the programming. "Sitting in front of the television is a sedentary intellectual and physical activity," Pagani says. "We’re talking about a time of life when your brain is tripling in size and your neural networks are coming together and your fundamental brain circuitry is being wired. It's critical that young children spend this time of development engaging in physical activities and interacting with others."

She sees little difference whether toddlers watch pseudo-educational programs like Dora the Explorer or mindless silliness like Sponge Bob Squarepants. “There is no problem-solving when you are in front of the set. Everything on television is handed to you on a platter. Your child’s brain will get much more stimulation by taking a bath and playing with water toys.”

Perhaps the most interesting finding from the study is that early TV watching is linked to being teased, assaulted, insulted, and rejected by peers later in life. Fellow researcher and co-author Eric Dubow, of Bowling Green State University in Ohio, suspects that by watching television so early, toddlers aren’t learning the basics of socializing with others. “The nature of television isn’t interactive,” says Dubow. “If you are employ that same passivity in relationships with others, you leave yourself open to being bullied.”

Pagani’s study has caught the attention of media and other researchers around the world, so much so that she has had to clear much of her schedule to field calls from the press. “I knew it would get a certain amount of attention but I didn’t think it would go on for days and days,” she says. “In the end I’m gratified. I think if we can get the message out, we’ll be helping a lot of people.”

Other researchers have lauded the study both for the sample size and for the work Pagini and her fellow researchers did to factor out confounding variables, like a child’s temperament and family structure. The causal connection she has shown between early television and poor outcomes and unhealthy habits later in childhood is startlingly clear.

Pagani’s own household rules about television have been in place since her children were toddlers. She established the limits as much to maintain strong family bonds as to address her suspicions about neural development. “Both my husband and I work, so I just didn’t see where we would fit in picking them up from school, having a nice long supper together, getting a bath, and doing homework on top of watching hours of television,” she says. “In the end, you need a certain amount of sleep.”

Pagani admits that it’s often difficult as a parent to hold the line. Her eldest of three children is now 12 and lobbies for time online. (“That’s still ‘screen time’” Pagani says of the online world, “and it can be just as sedentary as watching television.”) Her study has only strengthened her resolve to bar the door in her household to constant media consumption.

“From Sunday night to Thursday night there is absolutely no excuse to watch television,” she says. “That even goes for ‘American Idol,’ which is a family favorite. We tape it and watch it together on Friday.”

Ethan Watters is a frequent contributor to The New York Times Magazine, Wired, Discover, and other magazines, and is the author most recently of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche, which was published in January by Free Press.

9 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• July 25, 2010 by lee825

  Interesting - but I'm bothered some that Pagini seems to have set out to prove her hypothesis (and justify her restrictions on her kids' TV viewing) with the results of her study, rather than going into it not looking for a particular result. It is crucially important to understand that proving a correlation between A and B does not mean that A *causes* B; sometimes it means that B causes A, or that a third factor C that wasn't studied affects both A and B. So that perhaps sedentary non-thinkers are drawn to watching TV, rather than TV thwarting cognitive development. Although it seems logical that routinely spending large chunks of the day watching television is unhealthy, in moderation watching TV (including routine sitcoms and dramas, not just "educational" programming) can be beneficial for children. Watching these shows can teach kids how to navigate common social situations, deal with conflict, make and keep friends, and learn other crucial skills - skills that can then be further developed by interaction with family and friends. I speak as someone who wasn't allowed to watch much TV as a child (or simply didn't have the opportunity since I didn't usually have an accessible TV set); the hours spent at home with my family as a preschooler left me completely unprepared with how to interact with new people and develop new relationships with people I had never met.

  What's more, Pagini is trying to use the results of her study to further justify keeping her kids from spending time online. For someone presenting herself as a serious researcher to write off computers as "still screen time" and not see the immense difference between the two mediums is rather scary. Notably, being online is *not* a passive experience like watching television; rather; it involves the interaction and creativity that results from crafting responses to web forum or instant-messaging queries, writing and maintaining blogs, interacting on social-networking sites, even devising strategies to outmanoever competing players in an online video game. It is nothing at all like the completely passive, spoon-fed nature of watching TV.

  Also, why is television so often singled out as being harmful to children? Is watching a movie in a theater any less passive or sedentary than watching TV? Or for that matter, reading a book? Spending hours holed in a library or in one's bedroom reading books doesn't allow for any more original thought, social interaction, or physical exercise than watching television, yet books never seem to be treated with the same derision that TV so routinely is, despite the presense of lots of great television and lots of trashy books. Indeed, reading is unequivocally *encouraged* without much regard to subject matter. I don't get it.

  Reply

• September 5, 2010 by Danny Anderson

  I am trying to figure out where to buy a wall mount bracket for your F20LCTE television? I live in Charlotte NC

  Reply

• September 8, 2010 by meg

  I grew up without TV and indeed see the difference between kids grownig up hooked to TV. These tend to be shallow in their thinking,undiscerning, superficial in relationship even anti-social. Regardless of the content everything on TV is virtual end extremely biased. It creates unrealistic expectations and because everything is served on a "plate" doesn't encourage the spirit of mental and phisical exploration which is the base of our cognitive development. It is also crippleing in the area of relationship. These kids do have a lot of difficulty relating to other kids and people because virtual "relationship" are uncensored, where in real life we don't have that luxury. I beleive it also alters personal identity up to the point of loosing it altogether - it leads to such a fake society that almost any trace or reality is erased. Another dimension that is virtually manipulated is our will and conscience. And when these are lost the trust which is the base of a normal human living is gone too. While indeed in the animal kingdom A triggers B and B triggers C because their behavior and rational is instint driven when it comes into human we should be driven by conscience. But when a society is in a colective induced conscience crisis one could only wonder: how far are we from reaching the "carnage" stage?

  Reply

• September 13, 2010 by shawn bell

  my son has been taking care of his child every sence she was born.The mother move out take the baby and he cant see her.The courts tell hime with out a DNA he does not have any rights to his child but the courts tell him they cant do any thing unless he is paying child support.And the other way is for him to get a lawyer he dont have the money for and he is worried about her but cant get no help.I dont think the courts help the father stay in kids life.

  thank you,

  Reply

• September 14, 2010 by Louise Todd

  I think you have put together an exceptionally usefull and good internet networking tool for parents, teens, kids and grandparents. It appeals to diverse groups of people from all walks of life. It's well presented in terms of font size, color, lay-out and readability. I will be very likely to return to it again. I am very suprized that is sponsored by an insurance company. It's more than just a gimmick to get people to buy insurance. It has something to offer with no particualr obligation expected. However; it will probably make a much greater contribution than any insurance commercial on television because of it's interactive nature and civic content. Way to go guys!!

  Reply

• October 3, 2010 by alskfhja;lsdjf

  my samsung 54 inch is blinking red over standby temp and green over timer and lamp what does that mean cause it will only stay on for about thirty seconds

  Reply

• December 8, 2010 by AriF IQbaL

  I grew up without TV and indeed see the difference between kids grownig up hooked to TV. These tend to be shallow in their thinking,undiscerning, superficial in relationship even anti-social. Regardless of the content everything on TV is virtual end extremely biased. It creates unrealistic expectations and because everything is served on a "plate" doesn't encourage the spirit of mental and phisical exploration which is the base of our cognitive development. It is also crippleing in the area of relationship. These kids do have a lot of difficulty relating to other kids and people because virtual "relationship" are uncensored, where in real life we don't have that luxury. I beleive it also alters personal identity up to the point of loosing it altogether - it leads to such a fake society that almost any trace or reality is erased. Another dimension that is virtually manipulated is our will and conscience. And when these are lost the trust which is the base of a normal human living is gone too. While indeed in the animal kingdom A triggers B and B triggers C because their behavior and rational is instint driven when it comes into human we should be driven by conscience. But when a society is in a colective induced conscience crisis one could only wonder: how far are we from reaching the "carnage" stage?

  AriF IQbaL

  Reply

• February 4, 2011 by Andrew D

  I read that TV can contribute to people mimicing the characters and learning how to compete with others (for finantial, egotistical and esthethical gain) to boot.

  I too had much TV and I always performed better when my older brother turned it off. I wish I'd had the will power back then to see the larger picture of how the sub conscious sees the TV shows as real and manufactures dreams that reflect the waking hours.

  It also congures up painful memories of my childhood (I was also bullyied and abused in numerious ways) and interferes with my current progress if I watch too much of it.

  Thanks for listening and I wish you well in your efforts to bring this to light.

  Reply

• June 14, 2011 by Samantha Walsh

  Outdoor activities--not television--are a necessity in children's lives. I have three boys, all ranging from 6 to 18, and they all are very active in everything from basketball to football. I constantly make my boys stay active, because many of their friends are overweight from playing video games all day in front of the television. I think the downfall to sports involvement in families are the costs, on everything from baseball gear to the little things like big and tall socks for soccer games. I think this discourages parents from keeping their children active, because sports involvement is just so expensive these days. However, video games and televisions are even costlier, so it makes more sense to have healthy, smart, carefree children outdoors instead of teased, overweight children who only expand their minds as far as the antenna reaches.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.