Got a blog tip? Contact us
« My New Favorite Thing: Ubuntu Linux | Main | How (not) to advertise baby videos »
Study: Baby Vids make you dumber
We blogged a while back about how the makers of Baby Einstein and their ilk make ridiculous claims about the educational value of their products.
BabyFirstTV "Encourages children to develop language through introduction to words, signs, and languages from around the world."
Baby Einstein "foster(s) the development of your toddler's speech and language skills."
Finally, someone has formally studied the effects of baby vids on language development and, as we suspected, the results aren't pretty. The study, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, infants ages 8 to 16 months who watched baby vids were found to have significantly reduced vocabularies; and the more they watched, the less they knew. For every hour per day spent in front of the tube, the infants scores on a language text dropped precipitously. (Download a pdf proof of the study here.)
The study, based on a survey of 1,008 parents, didn't measure causal relationships. So it's possible that parents who allow their infants to watch videos are less involved and less communicative than those who don't. No connection between videos and vocabularies was found among an older group, kids 17 months to 24 months.
Still, the drop in language skills was so strong among infants that the study should give pause to those who think propping up little Sophie in front of the tube is going to come without costs. Considering the cost of education these days, a real live babysitter may be cheaper than they think.
(Via Campaign for a Commercialfree Childhood)
Posted by carrie on 08/07/2007 | Permalink
Comments
Of course, “Baby Vids Make You Dumber” is a more compelling headline (and that’s what it’s all about, right all of you who complain about shallow journalism?) than something more thoughtful and nuanced. Still, it does a disservice to a complex study in which the authors themselves are quick to point out shortcomings and caveats.
I’m not a research expert, but here’s what I take away from reading the entire Media Viewing/Language Development study.
1) Development overall can’t be measured by a single aspect, and while development proceeds in a relatively standard progression for all children, the pace varies widely. Vocabulary may be an easily monitored indicator of cognitive development, but the authors note that it is “only partially predictive.”
2) All baby DVDs and videos are lumped together into one category, and described with generic formal features; however, each brand has its own format and curriculum. Even within one line, episodes may have different learning goals. One might assume, as with all media content, that the level and quality of research behind each product varies widely.
It appears that the study didn’t ask specifically which baby videos the children were watching and whether they were intended to promote vocabulary growth, or explore whether the videos accomplished their unique goals.
3) The authors emphasize that they found a correlation, not causality. They note carefully that parents who are concerned about their children’s development may be more likely to turn to outside products, or that parents who use baby videos may do so because they are less motivated or feel less able to promote their child’s learning themselves. The authors recognize that this is a self-reporting measure, and so less attentive parents may be more likely to under-report vocabulary.
4) While there is a deficit at 8-16 months, it has turned to a mild positive by 17-24 months. The author notes “the impact of baby DVDs/videos on development may be transient.”
5) Other forms of media don’t show the same negative correlation with vocabulary among the youngest children. In fact, children who watch movies and non-educational TV are most similar to those with parents who tell their children stories at least once a day, and just behind those whose parents read to them. Should we recommend that an hour of cartoons promotes vocabulary? (Or perhaps babies who are exposed to non-educational programs and movies are more likely to be co-viewing with older siblings?)
6) If I am reading the table correctly, the second most powerful negative coefficient among the younger children is for parents who allow no media viewing. Also, there is a reasonably positive relationship between frequent parental co-viewing and vocabulary.
In the real world, parents *do* let babies and toddlers have access to media. Some do it because they believe there's a positive benefit; some do it because they don't know what else to do; some can't afford other resources; many if not most do it to get a short break. Is a child better off with 20 minutes of a baby video or 20 minutes with a stressed-out parent, who will do a much better parenting job after a shower, conversation with a grown-up, or rest?
Since they’re watching, isn't it better that they watch something age appropriate? In the LA Times coverage of this study, Dmitri Christakis said kids would be better off watching "American Idol" than baby videos, because there's be some chance their parents would watch with them. That makes a great newspaper quote (again), but wouldn't it have been more helpful to say one of these two things:
· "The key is parental involvement and interaction. If you let your baby watch TV or videos, watch along and talk about what you're seeing"; or
· "A limited amount of carefully selected, age appropriate media, especially when supported with interaction from an adult caregiver, is fine for most kids."
Posted by: David Kleeman | Aug 9, 2007 12:26:36 PM
Dude, Carrie, it seems like you're being targeted by industry PR people. If they're not industry PR people, they seem disturbingly preoccupied with giving industry an excessively fair shake. None of the above 564-word rebuttal to your 244-word post addresses the doubtless unscientific but nonetheless trenchant, bottom-line general criticism that, contrary to the quoted claims, "infants ages 8 to 16 months who watched baby vids were found to have significantly reduced vocabularies." That and the (also unscientific, but, come on!) assumed opinion that the makers of these videos care a whole lot less about children and learning than about the sweet income stream to be diverted from those "stressed-out parents" who opt for videos to keep their sanity. Plus the insidious way this primes the youngest, most psychically vulnerable among us to prefer viewing (rather than doing, trying, talking, looking, thinking) as a pastime and to accept it as a gateway to consuming (let's face it, even beloved Sesame Street is only a gateway to cybernetic Elmos). Our 14-month old has yet to watch any length of TV, and not only does he have a big and increasing vocabulary, we are also saved from watching his jaw slacken and his eyes glaze in the glare of an "educational" video. Any way you look at it, TV is a drug—I'd give several fingers of my left hand to have the time I've wasted in front of it back—and peddling it to babies is wrong. Still, I have to give this poster credit for cleverly co-opting the language of media literacy in the opening sentence and for a seemingly close reading of the ("entire") study (I didn't read it). Much better than the person who defended the "popular" credit-card wrappers.
Posted by: John | Aug 10, 2007 12:00:38 AM
>> "TV MAKES KIDS DUMB" is a more compelling headline (and that's what it's all about, right all of you who complain about shallow journalism?)... <<
That headline has become a trope on the blog ever since I wrote about Steven Johnson's "TV is Good for You," which we take every opportunity to mock. (For example) It was by no means intended as journalism.
>> While there is a deficit at 8-16 months, it has turned to a mild positive by 17-24 months. The author notes --the impact of baby DVDs/videos on development may be transient <<
The positive is so mild that it's statistically insignificant: "No other form of media exposure that we measured, and none for children age 17 to 24 months, is associated with either better or worse outcomes."
Same goes for those other comments you made based on your reading of the chart.
No one here is saying that this study is definitive, or that more research isn't needed. This is hopefully only the first of several formal studies on the matter.
>> In the real world, parents *do* let babies and toddlers have access to media. Some do it because they believe there's a positive benefit; some do it because they don't know what else to do <<
If parents are showing baby videos to infants because they believe it helps them learn, isn't knowing whether that belief is true kinda important? Shouldn't we allow parents to make informed decisions? Your line of questioning here seems to suggest that even the question is verboten.
On the other hand, if parents are using baby videos because they need a cheap babysitter, let's call a spade a spade.
It's one thing to understand that people show these videos because they're strapped for time and money, and to not personally judge them for it. But it's another matter entirely to advocate selling baby videos for this purpose. Truth is, Baby Einstein (et al) would sell a lot fewer videos if they advertised the product as a babysitter than as an educational tool.
>> Is a child better off with 20 minutes of a baby video or 20 minutes with a stressed-out parent, who will do a much better parenting job after a shower, conversation with a grown-up, or rest? ...Since they're watching, isn't it better that they watch something age appropriate?<<
This is the argument you hear from the baby TV PR squad. If you HAVE to punch me in the eye, wouldn't I rather have you punch me in the left eye than the right one, because that's my good side? ... oh, wait, I actually don't need an eye-punching at all.
>> "The key is parental involvement and interaction. If you let your child watch TV or videos, watch along and talk about what you're seeing, even with babies"<<
A friend of mine who used baby videos with her infant stopped because her baby would pay more attention to the screen than to her. This "suggested viewing" (which the baby tv industry actively promotes) is, as we all know, practiced by *very* few parents. Other tools (books, toys, etc.) are better suited for interacting.
David, you didn't address the matter of the baby video companies promoting their products as educational and beneficial based on zero evidence. That okay by you?
Also, I have to ask: do you work for baby media?
Posted by: carrie | Aug 10, 2007 12:30:34 PM
Carrie,
I just noticed that you replied to my posting here, as well as on the ACME listserv. So, I'll paste below my reply from there.
In answer to your question whether I "work for baby media," I am President of the American Center for Children and Media, an executive roundtable and professional development center for the children's media industry broadly -- public and commercial, production and distribution, large and small. I've been a vocal and passionate advocate for excellence and responsibility in children's media since I began studying the field in the 1970s.
Oh, and for John who posted above, note my comments below about an "N of 1." I fully support your decision not to let your child watch TV, but I wonder why you're so eager to impose your parenting choices on others? And, as for giving the industry an "excessively fair shake," I wasn't aware that fairness -- thoroughness, honesty, critical analysis, informed discussion -- was subject to excess.
Onward to my reply to Carrie:
>The positive is so mild that it's statistically insignificant: "No
>other form of media exposure that we measured, and none for children
>age 17 to 24 months, is associated with either better or worse
>outcomes."
My point exactly. Any deficit disappears quickly.
>No one here is saying that this study is definitive. This is
>hopefully only the first of several formal studies on the matter.
I agree completely! Every study contributes something to our knowledge about children and media, and can be of help to everyone involved -- parents as well as those seeking to engage in best practices in media production for children. I love new research; I just want it to be done and reported thoughtfully.
>If parents are showing baby videos to infants because they believe it
>helps them learn, isn't knowing whether that belief is true kinda
>important? Shouldn't we allow parents to make an informed decision?
>Your line of questioning here seems to suggest that even asking the
>question is forboden.
I definitely believe that parents deserve to make informed decisions about media, and that no line of questioning should be forbidden. But that means truly informed decisions -- balanced reporting of the complete studies, not shock-value headlines or exploiting only the findings that suit your cause.
I don't question the motivation or choices of individual parents, whether that is to allow or not to allow media use. We all do the best we can with the children we have, the resources we have, and our own beliefs.
>>Since they're watching, isn't it better that they watch something
>>age appropriate?
>
>This is the argument you hear from the baby TV PR squad. If you HAVE
>to punch me in the eye, wouldn't I rather have you punch me in the
>left eye than the right one, because that's my good side? ... oh,
>wait, I actually don't need an eye-punching at all.
You can't really believe that, can you? I didn't say that children NEED to watch TV; I said parents CHOOSE to let their children watch TV. A better analogy, therefore, would be that people (not just kids!) DO eat cookies (they don't NEED to), so shouldn't there be cookies without transfats?
>A friend of mine who tried baby videos with her infant stopped
>because her baby would pay more attention to the screen than to her.
>This "suggested viewing" (which the baby tv industry actively
>promotes) is, as we all know, practiced by very few parents. Other
>tools (books, toys, hands, etc.) are better suited for interacting.
N = 1. As above, I'd never question any family's decisions, but I do question those who believe their choice should be right for everyone.
>David, you didn't address the matter of the baby video companies
>promoting their products as educational and beneficial based on zero
>evidence. That okay by you?
Nope. What I want is for everyone to stop exploiting parents' guilt. That includes media producers trying to convince parents that their kids will never make it to Harvard without their product, and activists trying to convince parents that any child who passes within the orbital gravity of screen-based media will be a dullard.
Hope this clarifies.
David
Posted by: David Kleeman | Aug 16, 2007 3:04:08 PM
Mr. Kleeman,
I've never head of the American Center for Children and Media. I have, however, noticed that you seem to write letters to the editor every time a newspaper somewhere in the US writes something critical about baby TV (from the Chicago Parent's Paper to the Washington Post and the LA Times). If you have a financial interest in promoting baby TV, I would think that would be worth noting, in the interests of disclosure.
Regarding your rhetorical question about "If babies are going to watch TV" and my eye-punching metaphor, you appear to have missed the point. My point is simply that your question assumed something that doesn't need to be assumed.
That said, I don't mind your cookie metaphor. It suggests that TV is unhealthy but pleasurable; it's a treat and should be seen as such. On that count, even a little trans fat every once in a while won't kill you.
Posted by: carrie | Aug 16, 2007 4:00:14 PM
Carrie,
I am careful to list my affiliation whenever I write a letter or article, or provide an interview. I do so on a wide range of topics, not just "baby TV."
I'm sorry you haven't heard of us -- e-mail me where you are located, and I'll let you know about upcoming activities. Our screenings of children's TV from around the world (drawn usually from PRIX JEUNESSE, the global children's TV festival, for which I chair the advisory board) are both fun and enlightening!
Our website is under reconstruction and should be up soon, but it's not difficult for anyone to find information about the ACCM and myself. I never claim to be a grassroots or citizens group (as suggested by your "astroturf" link); I use the same terms I used here -- executive roundtable and professional development center for the children's media industry.
If you don't mind one more round on the eye punching metaphor, "If babies are going to watch TV" is not an assumption, it's a fact. It's well established by Kaiser Family Foundation research, and if the U Washington study had not turned up any parents that allowed their children to watch TV or videos, we wouldn't be holding this dialogue!
So, let's stick with the cookie metaphor. You can call cookies/TV "unhealthy but pleasurable" and I'll call them "elements in a varied diet/life."
I appreciate that our exchanges have been measured and respectful; sadly, that's not always the case.
David
Posted by: David Kleeman | Aug 16, 2007 5:20:15 PM
The name of your center and your description of it suggests nonprofit, whether you see it as astroturf or not.
Media companies have, for over a decade, promoted TV as educational and beneficial for infants without any evidence for such claims. The number of parents who use these products on their babies would be lower if that were not the case.
If you want to argue that companies should be allowed to sell baby dvds whether or not they're educational, that's one thing. My point is that the companies who do so should not be allowed to advertise them as educational or beneficial when these claims have little or no basis in fact. It's like advertising Coca Puffs as part of a healthy diet (or, if you prefer, "elements in a varied diet/life".) I believe the proper term is "bullshit."
Posted by: carrie | Aug 19, 2007 5:38:51 PM
