Babies and the TV, Baby Einstein, etc. - NOT SO BAD AFTERALL??

Early Learning Early Learning General Discussions
1

The topic of the effects of TV on babies has been discussed many times before on this Forum, for example:

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/baby-einstein-dvd's-bad-or-good-for-baby/

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/does-the-dvd-like-baby-einsteinbrainy-baby-help-children-to-learn-english/

http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/the-baby-einstein-videos/

We also have an article written on this topic at BrillBaby:

http://www.brillbaby.com/early-learning/watching-television.php

A lot of the discussion centered around a 1997 University of Washington study done on DVD programs like Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, with the result of the study summarized as being that for every hour per day spent watching the DVDs, babies learnt six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who had never watched TV.

I recently stumbled upon this article which challenges that study, and which I find a very interesting read:

http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070823.html

Here’s an excerpt:

First, the study is small. Although the researchers touted the inclusion of 1,008 children in the study, only 384 children were between the ages of 8 months and 16 months. Only 215 of those engaged in any TV, DVD or video viewing. It’s not clear how many children watched baby DVDs, but the answer is likely fewer than 215.

The number watching for one hour or more per day is likely fewer still. Next, the validity of the raw data is questionable. Data on viewing habits were collected by a telephone poll of parents. The researchers didn’t observe or validate any of the data collected and parents may easily have over- or underestimated their children’s actual viewing habits.

It’s also quite possible the data are biased, potentially skewing study results, since they weren’t collected from a representative sample of the general population. Study subjects were drawn from limited geographic area on the basis of telephone number availability.

Telephoned parents could decline to participate. Moving past the study’s questionable data, the researchers’ technique for measuring child language development also is problematic. While the so-called MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory, or CDI, seems to be a reliable assessment tool for older toddlers, its application to 8- to 16-month-olds is not so reliable, according to a study published in the journal Child Development (March-April 2000).

Again, see here for the full article:
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070823.html

These are my thoughts:

Firstly, what we must remember is that the issue isn’t whether TV is ‘bad’, as some people seem to lump it all together. TV is just a medium, just like computers, just like books. What’s key is the CONTENT (even books can be ‘bad’).

On the subject of Baby Einstein, and speaking from my own experience, I felt that most of the DVDs didn’t hold Felicity’s attention, and I didn’t feel they had too much educational content. (One exception I would mention is the multi-language one which I thought was good, and where I ripped out the audio track and played it often to Felicity even when in utero.)

HOWEVER, I didn’t feel that they were ‘bad’ either and I do question myself whether it’s really true that these DVDs could have a direct effect on decreasing a child’s vocabulary.

Of course, I think it must be the case that if we let our child spend a lot of time doing one non-interactive activity like passive TV/DVD watching instead of interacting with that child, then the child’s vocabulary would suffer. But then, that argument would also apply to playpens, ‘solo’ playing in general, or any activity where there isn’t any verbal interaction. Should we frown on playpens and playing too then?

I think the lesson which we SHOULD take from this study is that whatever we do with our children, we should always try our best not let that activity be a substitute to our interacting and spending time with them, or at least to reduce it to as little as practically possible.

I know often it can be very convenient for us busy and tired parents to use the TV (and playpens etc) as a babysitting tool (and I will be the first to put up my hand as someone who has been guilty of having done that!), but we just need to be mindful of it and not let it get out of hand and to reduce it to a bare minumum. And also, if we’re going to use the TV or DVDs, then we should at least try to choose the ones with the most educational value.

2

Wow, why would they have a “study” where most of the kids didn’t even watch the baby DVDs, and a telephone poll seems like it would be one of the least reliable ways to collect information like that.

3

I don’t find it surprising that there is an article challenging the study. It seems like this happens with everything nowadays…a study proves something is good and then another proves it is bad (coffee and chocolate come to mind!). I had a similar experience with the Baby Einstein DVDs in that they didn’t hold my daughter’s attention for very long. I would sit there with her and talk about all the animals and do the signs for the animals so she got a bit more out of them. But after awhile I just stopped because she was more interested in doing things with me. I haven’t even put them in for my second daughter.

I agree that content is important if you are going to put your child in front of the TV. For example, I really like the LeapFrog Letter Factory and Word Factory DVDs. I think they do a great job of incorporating visuals with each alphabet letter to make them more memorable, along with the repetitive audio for each sound.

Have I put my children in front of the TV to keep them quiet while I make dinner? Yes. But I try to keep it to a minimum and if possible sit and watch with them to help with understanding and even expand on what they’ve watched. We are planning on building a sandbox soon, which I know will keep my girls busy for hours (and is better than TV)! That’s a win/win in my book. :slight_smile:

4

Thanks for your input, Karianne - good to see you here! :wink:

5

I have to say you guys have a good point, TV in another media, like computer…etc.We need to organized our time to be able to interact more with our kids, I guess is not only about tv , because if we are busy in the phone hours and then cooking and then in internet…we are not giving enough time for our kids, I read this book" What’s Going on in There? : How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life by Lise Eliot " where she says: to raise a smart children parent need to spent time with them,play with them for hours and hours, interact with them. Forget about work,tv,chores…etc. It is diffcult!! But at least give them quality of time if we don’t have all this time in hours hands.

6

Thanks KL! :slight_smile:

I think people struggle with balancing work and home and technology…at least I know I do. One reason, I believe, is because many more people are able to work from home (thanks to technology!) than back in the ‘old days’. This sounds like a good thing, but really it can be very difficult to separate home life from work life since it is all done from the same location. It all merges together and before you know it you can be doing email or talking on the phone for work at the dinner table. It’s almost easier when work is one place, you drive away, and it can stay there until the next day.

Another thing is that technology can easily take over our lives if we let it. Like you said PY…phone, TV, internet, etc. can keep us occupied for hours and time can slip away easily. For example, I can go on to check email and think it will take 5 minutes, but by the time I get done responding and doing a couple other things I didn’t expect, 20 minutes can go by.

Technology has made things easier in many ways, but I also believe it has brought us another set of challenges…at least where family life is concerned.

7

I’m not sure if I want to open a new topic (once this have not been posted in more than 120 days)… but I dont want to loose what you’ve said here.
I am really concerned trying to investigate if there is a real damage that television can cause in babies younger than 3 years old. I have read several articles of the American Association of Pediatrics and, other than pointing out that the contact with other people benefits the baby more that the television, I cannot find information related to specific damages.
I’m worried because up to now I put my 6 monts old baby in front of the TV at least 5 times per day (10 minutes each) to follow the routines of his programs of language development, and some cartoon that I consider of benefit. I follow my common sense, but I am not expert, do you have information of researches backed up scientifically about this, where I can learn about damages and/or benefits of television (and DVD’s) in specific (talking about educational TV)?
Besides the time that my son and I dedicate to his language programs (reading, signs), we distribute our time between games and walks.
Another concern (following Karianne), is that I work from house (paid and not). This is sometimes a trap because if I don’t watch over with attention the time that I dedicate to mi computer, it easily extends, limiting the time that I pass with my son (and I have to say I feel guilty). It is not easy, it’s already known, to be a working (paid or not) mother (we mothers always work, but we are not always paid).
Any one?
Janette

8

I think it’s really up to the parents and to the children. But I think that the more you give the children early on, the more they’ll ‘need’ television and their watching time will increase.
I started my daughter at 7mo with little pim, very limited amounts, maybe 10mn a day, and increased slowly throughout her first year, she would watch for example YBCR 15 mn in the morning, LP 15mn in the afternoon at 18 months, maximum.

We were also using the computer so that definitely counts as screen time.
These days at almost 2 and a half 1 hour would be a maximum per day, and not in one sitting. Some days no tv at all, some days a little cartoon then an educational dvd at the end of the day.

9
Baby DVDs and videos weren’t associated with reduced vocabulary development among the study's 17- to 24-month-olds. For the older toddlers, watching baby DVDs and videos correlated with a similar positive effect on vocabulary development as story-telling and music-listening.

Did the alleged adverse effect of baby DVDs and videos disappear with age or was it entirely bogus to start with?

I found this section the most intriguing as it was certainly not promoted as a result of the original study.

Wow, why would they have a "study" where most of the kids didn't even watch the baby DVDs, and a telephone poll seems like it would be one of the least reliable ways to collect information like that.,

They need to be able to compare the children who do watch and the children who don’t watch in order to understand their results. Telephone surveys have their positives and negatives - one positive is people tend to be more honest over the phone, especially about things that may be perceived negatively, like letting your child watch educational programs. Having said that this particular study was lacking many things that a good psychology 1st year student could pick out and only got the attention it did because people love to hype up a negative and certainly put down anything that could possibly mean one person might end up with an advantage over another - like teaching children early.

Technology is a great medium for teaching - it’s multi-sensory for a start so a good quality program is highly valuable at any age. Just as bad quality programs are useless and sometimes detrimental at any age. I use television (well video) in acrobatics and dance training all the time and have found it to be of great benefit to students of all ages especially when combined with my guidance.

Every family needs to make their own choices based upon their own lifestyles and needs. However, these decisions should not be based on fears created for hype or based on research of no substance.

Does my son watch tv? Absolutely. Does he use the computer? Absolutely. Does he play outside? Absolutely.

Did tv delay my child’s speech acquisition? Well he’s 2.5 and has an average sentence length of 6 words and he tells stories with beginnings and middles and ends so i would say definitely not.

Everything in moderation. A good balance between books and narrations, films and documentaries, inside and outside play, group and individual play…etc etc etc.

All of our lives have their own balance point and this should be by what we judge our actions.

Hypatia’s daughter watches an hour maximum a day - there would be parents here who would think that’s an outrageous and disgusting amount and there would be parents here, like myself, who have no such limits and don’t think twice about it. Hypatia has found her balance and it works for her and I have found mine and it works for us.

What are my tv rules? I don’t believe in rules - the world changes constantly, so do the rules so we live day to day and make our choices based on what needs to happen at the time (sorry big concept to try and fit into one sentence and I’m not particularly eloquent right now)

However we have some general guidelines…If the sun is up the tv is off…(mostly there are exceptions, like 40 degree heat etc). Content is our driving factor but once again balance is the key and as a result he does not watch only educational programs - because I believe imagination is the most important aspect of intelligence he watches a variety of program genres but all have been pre-watched by one of us to determine if it is appropriate at this time for our son at this stage in his life.

Just realised how long this is - didn’t mean to rave, sorry. :blush:

10

Hi Janette,

I don’t have any studies to quote from but I do have my own experiences. Before my eldest son was born, I had read that TV under the age of two was not recommended and tried very hard to abide by that rule. Since we live with my in laws and my FIL is a couch potato, it was impossible to stop my son from watching the TV. It started with stuff like Animal Planet, Nat Geo, and stuff like that which I felt was acceptable. Then one day, my FIL turned on the Play House Disney Channel for my son and it never went back after that.

Although, many of the parenting books I have read all advise against TV at such an early age, my eldest son had a steady diet of Play House Disney and Thomas and Friends DVDs. Aside from that, we also watched Signing Time and Your Baby Can Read. We also played games on the computer (albeit educational ones). Add it all up and that’s a lot of screen time for someone under two.

Based on how my son has turned out, I have found myself questioning those studies touting the negative effects of TV on really young children because my eldest son’s speech was precocious. I would have parents from the play gym asking me how old he was based on all the words they heard him use. When I told them, they would be really surprised. He’s nearly four now and he’s very articulate for a child his age. I find it hard to see how TV has negatively impacted him.

That said, I spent an enormous amount of time dedicated to him. When he watched TV, I always sat with him. Sometimes I would mute the sound and read out the subtitles to him. Other times I’d talk to him about what we were watching. The rest of the time, I’d sit quietly beside him either nursing him or hugging him. When we weren’t watching TV, we were playing together - blocks, Lego, trains, whatever he fancied. We read books together and I would even read my own books aloud to him.

Despite the enormous amount of TV he has had (now less than before), he hasn’t become addicted to TV. There are times when he tells me, “Mummy, I had enough TV.” And he’ll turn it off himself. He loves to read and can read by himself. He loves to play outside and will beg to go out even when it’s raining. He’s still a well-balanced child.

So based on my case study of one, I can’t really see how TV has negatively impacted my son.

That said, there is another factor I would like to add though. After having my second son and observing their polar opposite personalities, I do think sometimes that the effect of TV and the types of programs you watch also depend on your child. Different children will react differently to different stimuli. So perhaps TV affects individual children differently?

11

Thank you all for your contributions…
Indeed I believe that it’s necessary a much more structured investigation that can bases any result like TmS says.
Meanwhile, I experience is our best ally in this, I wish more parents could share in this forum theirs, that would allow us to generate more references.
For now I think we have:
• TV (DVD’s, computer, etc), is not harmful for children younger 2 years old.
• To see programs of regular TV doesn’t cause an improvement in infant’s language.
• Although they are not an alternative for language development, they do are a tool we can take advantage of.
• Cartoons are not thought for little babies, it’s better to look for educational DVS and software.
• The results in language development are outstanding if TV time is accompanied by parents.
Am I right?
Hypatia has very organized her TV time… ShenLi and TmS are more flexible, so… the most important thing is to observe and follow every baby’s reaction and keep it balanced, but definitively I believe there is no reason at all for not taking advantage of this tool.
Thank you all, I feel more relaxed!

12

I find that TV is not bad for 2yr olds and younger if it is limited and you are selective. I watch educational things with my son and I have watched him learn a lot over the last 18 months. Personally I don’t like all of the Baby Einstein videos but that is just my preference.

13

An article from Brainy child on the matter. They have a great monthly newsletters with links to great articles.
http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/TV-affects-children.shtml

and solutions:
http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/TV-habits.shtml

14

LIFELONG BAD HEALTH: One of the biggest and most important problems with TV/DVD watching: the horrible habit of spending too much time (more than half an hour a day) SITTING in front of ANY passive entertainment device AND the bad health that will result. Many, many studies show how highly detrimental a sedentary life is for any age person. And plenty more studies link these life styles back to TOO MUCH PASSIVE ENTERTAINMENT (TV) per week (more than a few hours TOTAL).

Obesity is a real life long threat and can always be traced back to a passive, sedentary life style. Heart disease, diabetes, depression all start somewhere.

Always remember that EVERYTHING you do with your child at such a young and impressionable age may effect them for the rest of their lives: books OR video…video OR exercise…they will usual take the easier and less educational/healthy way!! (We don’t even have a TV and we still worry a great deal about any video watching - which is mostly all passive watching even when they are reading along - silently or out loud…)

15

I have to say that that is a very very naive and narrow standpoint - would you call sitting and reading for more than half an hour a passive entertainment that was detrimental to my health, no because you see it as educational but sitting and reading all day will make you just as obese and unfit as sitting and watching television.

I exercise for hours everyday (teaching dance) and prior to having a baby would often watch a movie and a doco and maybe a half hour tele show daily in order to relax and give my body timeout.

Watching televesion is not going to create obese children - not exercising and eating poorly creates obesity.

Is the time I spend watching dvds of dancers to analyze choreography and expand my repertoire etc detrimental?

The TV is not an evil medium that creates life problems.

People create life problems by being self indulgent and instead of doing things in moderation doing them in excess or without balance.

Yeah if watching tv and sitting in front of a computer is all you did then you are living a life of bad health but it’s not caused by the television or the computer it’s caused by your own laziness and poor life choices.

As for they’ll take the easier/less educational/less healthy way simply can’t agree with you there - my son chooses his own and pretty much gives each equal choice between educational tv and imaginative tv (which should he decide to follow a career in film would be considered educational any way) as do my five nephews and all six boys love to read and can often be seen lying on the trampoline relaxing with a good book.

If you don’t want your child to be obese go out and kick the footy with them and take an active part in encouraging them and teaching them that exercise is joyous.

But don’t blame an inanimate object for the general state of laziness amongst the human race - blame bad parenting and parents who aren’t involved enough in their children’s lives or are too lazy themselves to get out there and climb monkey bars with their kids or if they can’t do that at least give their kids the opportunity to do so.

Teach your children balance - teach them to appreciate the tv as a medium from which they can learn many things, or can take them to wonderful fanciful places and then take them outside and show them that their imagination can do the same thing and to enjoy exercise.

Much the same as teaching them that you can’t live on junk food but that a lolly once in a while isn’t going to turn them into a lolly eating fiend.

All things in moderation.

16

I couldn’t agree more with TMS.

17

Interesting article that helped me make a decision that was best for my family:http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
This tends to be a very touchy topic, and honestly to each their own, but here is my humble opinion. While moderation is the key to just about everything, it tends not to happen, maybe in your household but it certainly isn’t guaranteed when others are watching your child(ren), at play dates, etc. Taking an objective look at my personal TV viewing, I have to agree with a lot of the things the aforementioned article stated. It tended to be a waste of precious time to me, and I don’t want to put that habit on my son if I can help it. FCC also reports that by the time children get to 1st grade, they would have watched 3 school years worth of TV. As a personal preference, I would rather say that by the time my little one got to 1st grade, he had spent his time in various other ways than watching TV. Again to each his/her own. Slowly backs out of thread

18

Thank you for such an interesting link: http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htm
I will like some coments on what I read:

‘TV can be entertaining and educational, and can open up new worlds for kids, giving them a chance to travel the globe, learn about different cultures, and gain exposure to ideas they may never encounter in their own community.’
I agree with that assesment but you have to know which programs are those. I personally like some of baby Einsteins.

‘Spending time watching TV can take time away from healthy activities like active play outside with friends, eating dinner together as a family, or reading. TV time also takes away from participating in sports, music, art or other activities that require practice to become skillful.’
We prefered to watch TV before going to bed and not take time from sports or other activities except maybe reading time which we also do.

‘Social interaction is critical to a baby’s healthy development. ‘
This is so important for babies.

‘On average, children ages 2-5 spend 32 hours a week in front of a TV—watching television, DVDs, DVR and videos, and using a game console.’
I was surprise to see the average so high for 2-5 yrs old.

I think the article about TV effect on 0 to 6 years is also very interesting:
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Zero-to-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-Preschoolers-PDF.pdf

Thanks again