I’ve read a lot about the negative impact on kids’ behavior when they are allowed to watch TV for more than one hour a day.
My question is that when I let my kid watch only Educational cartons (Magic English) and Baby Einstein series which they are tailored for very young kids, is this stuff the same as ordinary TV programs which they are said is bad for watching? I mean,
when they say do not let your kids watch more than one or two hours, maybe they are referring to all sorts of TV programs and not the ones I mentioned. So how’s that, isn’t there any difference?
And, how worrying is really to let a baby / kid watch TV for more than one hour? Is two hours too much? What’s the limit?
From experience with my kids, I think the quality of the show matters. By this I mean what the kids are exposed to. You as a parent can choose the amount of sex or violence acceptable.
I also think you’d have to see if it’s 2 hours a day all in a row, or broken up.
Lastly I would be concerned if the child seems to be using TV as a crutch. If he is not seeking out friends or involved in anything else, that is bad. If TV is just a part of his life, fine, but the level it’s involved with the child is more important than the actual amount.
Whatever programs it is, it is not good to have your child plonked down in front of a TV for too much of their day. It is too much of a passive, non-interactive form of entertainment, even if it is supposedly “infotainment”.
On the other hand, kids survive much worse things than watching too much TV. This is very far from the worst thing you can do to them. It may not be ideal for their cognitive development, but it is not going to kill them, or even turn them into morons. Thereis no need to avoid TV altogether. Just try not to overdo it.
I offer an answer based on my rudimentary understanding of the developing brain. I’m more than sure there are others on this board with much deeper knowledge of this subject** Reza**, but I may be able to give you a bit of information you may not already have.
Language awareness starts in the womb; talking and singing to the unborn promotes these developing language skills. Around 4-6 months of age the “babbling” starts - practice of the sounds and rhythms of speech. During this stage, babies mirror early language skills, and you are probably able to interpret what your son is communicating (as unintelligible as it is!) It’s all part of the socialising process, and the competent use of speech. Paying attention, and repeating words he seems to be trying to say is an important to his learning.
Neural connections in babies have plasticity; so any stimulus impacts emotional and mental development. Repeated exposure will basically either set up, or deprive the brain of particular neural pathways.
So at under 12 months, interactive play, and one-on-one communication enhances brain development; passive participation does not. Babies of your son’s age are at a stage of wanting to investigate their three-dimensional world. Television offers “academic” (and non-interactive) learning. Manipulative play is critical for his developing brain circuitry, his understanding of the complexities of language (micro facial expressions, tone etc) and later problem-solving techniques.
Personally, I think that unsupervised television watching is unnecessary at this age, in that without personal interaction I doubt he would actually be “learning” anything. If you were watching it with him, repeating the words, and encouraging some kind of interaction then it becomes positive stimulation.
1-2 hours a day seems a lot to me though; 20 minutes is probably long enough for him to maintain interest.
For what it’s worth, the American Acadamy of Pediatrics recommends that children under 2 years of age should not watch any television, and that children over 2 be limited to 1-2 hours per day. Knowing this, I still let my first child watch some TV from about 9 months of age.
7 months old? Having raised a now 13 and 16 year old, I wouldn’t (and didn’t) do it. My oldest watched no TV under a year, at which point we bought The Many Adventure of Winnie the Pooh. He would watch one (about 20 minutes) segment now and again. That being said, my younger one watched more TV and at a younger age than her older sibling did, just by virtue of being in the same house and room that her brother was. But as a less-than-one year old? Not much, if any TV.
My feeling is that it’s not the TV watching, per se, that’s so bad. It’s what they’re not doing while watching TV instead that they’re missing out on that’s the problem. One mom’s opinion.
That’s also the main logic behind the AAP position statement. That’s two hours of the awake day not having real human to human interaction and/or movement based play (both gross and fine motor). Those activities are key drivers of development. “Educational” TV is just not even in the same ball park.
IMHO the “no TV” position is a bit extreme though. A few minutes here and there is not replacing human to human or motor play. As a parent I would say that it is instead a tool that allows us a few minutes “off” and able to then reengage with the toddler with much more high quality play than probable without that breather. Yeah it is an electronic baby sitter; and what is wrong with admitting that as parents we need a little of that during the course of the long day, if just to allow us to be more psychologically available during the rest of the time?
I think the key word there is toddler. At 7 mos old I put him in his crib/play pen with some toys for those few minutes. That being said, the question isn’t zero vs a few minutes. It’s two hours for a 7 month old. A few minutes? Sure, no harm. 2 hours… Well…
As I said, all bets are off with the second one! She was allowed to do so many things earlier than her brother did!
Well, at some point you do have to go to the bathroom. I think it’s silly to say “no TV at all!” when frankly it can be a useful tool to allow you to get a few things done. 2 hours seems like a lot, I admit.
My girl, who turned 3 yesterday, gets 25 minutes of TV downstairs on her own nearly every day(assuming she has good behaviour). She usually plays with dolls, but sometimes sits with her babies and watches it.
No commercial TV. Just short DVD’s. When it is done, we have her say “thank you for the TV” to us and require that she not complain that it is over.
A child 7 months old does not need television at all, and while a little isn’t harmful, 2 hours a day is way over the top.
Here’s the thing with those ‘educational videos’–they have no science behind them. None. They are not actually educational at all.* While they are better than watching KISS videos, they are certainly not as good as real life. There is no such thing as educational TV for babies–it’s very important for babies to experience the real world. Nothing on a screen can improve on life for a baby.
So what you’re pretty much doing there is denying an infant 2 hours a day of actual interaction and play, and giving just about nothing in trade. That’s a lot to take away from a baby.
Mahaloth’s scenario sounds much healthier. It’s not necessary, but it’s not unhealthy either–it’s just a little fun. No worries from my perspective.
*For some science writing for laypeople on educational videos and infants, take a look at the book Nurtureshock, which IIRC has a section on it. Other books on children and commercialism and science do too, but I don’t remember any other titles.
I parent by the “Best Odds” mentality. I try to do, most often, what will give my kids the best odds of doing well.
Will TV destroy their brain? No. But will limiting it probably give them better odds? Probably and with little downside. Does that mean we never watch too much TV- of course not. But for the most part, it’s limited.
Same thing with diet- will letting them eat sugar and HFCS destroy their bodies? No. But limiting junk foods and artificial stuff will probably give them the best odds of growing up healthy and there is no real down side. Do we sometimes have pancakes and syrup for dinner? Sure. But in general, I’ve always tried to limit he junk in their diet and emphasize the good stuff.
My personal opinion is that at this age, the less - the better. Its more of a cumulative effect in that the more they watch television the more they become wired to ‘taking in their world’ in this way. Not only does that develop unhealthy habits, a skewed sense of reality, lack of interaction, etc., but it inculcates the ‘scripts’ in place of the physical, real world.
When I was young I got an extremely limited amount; not because my parents were aware of its effect on me later but because of other issues. Having to find something to do activates imagination and breeds a sense of independence. So regardless of the reason, I’m glad I didn’t. Unfortunately, in an attempt to “do better” by my kids, I let them see more and wish I hadn’t. Although I can’t conclusively draw some of their problems nowadays back to watching too much TV, I’ve got my suspicions. Oh, and it’s not just the programming, there are commercials too; which opens up an even worse can of worms in the damage that can be done.
I’d suggest looking at it kind of like sugary soda; where its ill effects are progressive along a scale - no single OK point and no single “OMG ARMAGEDDON” point.
It’s not so much that television is bad, but if they’re watching TV they are not doing something else that is essential for development. Kind of like breathing helium–it’s not particularly toxic but it creates oxygen deprivation.
I’m going to chime in with a different opinion. I have 2 kids, one in elementary and the other in middle school and both are perfect ;). Before they went to school (ages 0-5), I let them watch about 1-2 hours of tv per day and I really think they learned a lot from it.
My husband and I went back and forth on this…mainly because my parents were tv nazis (no tv, except an educational program once in a blue moon) and his parents were the polar opposite (he was allowed to watch endless hrs of cartoons, Gilligans Island, the Brady Bunch, etc). Both of us turned out to be highly functional and successful adults. (yes I realize this is completely anecdotal and unscientific)
At any rate, our kids, even as babies ,seemed stimulated by Baby Einstein and Sesame Street and as they got older, seemed to learn a lot from tv programs (we didn’t have them watch anything but educational tv or videos). Also, at 7 months it’s not like your kid can go play outside or build lego structures and there are times when you have to do the dishes and take a shower. I personally think it is just fine.
I’ve done some work on early cognitive development.
I agree that it’s like candy- there is no “good” and “bad” point, just a continuum. And TV is just a small part of a very big picture.
In general, you want to provide a complex, varied, rich environment for your kids. The absolute most complex and varied thing on this earth is, of course, human interaction. The more you can talk, play, read, and read with your kid, the better. The next best thing at that age is manipulating objects, which can teach things like cause and effect.
TV doesn’t really teach much about the world around you- especially at that age, when you are unable to really hold abstract thoughts. It’s basically the equivalent of sitting around staring into thin air. So that isn’t the worst thing in the world, but not a great use of development time.
Widget is headed for two and a half and never sees TV - not a deliberate decision on our part, it never got as far as a decision, because the TV’s in a room where we spend basically none of the daytime. She gets about half an hour a day of screen time - games on my mother’s ipad, or YouTube stuff (videos of Imelda May - she’s hugely into Imelda May - clips from Monsters Inc). All of it involves lots of discussion, singing along, dancing along, etc.
I wouldn’t feel good about letting her spend any serious amount of time staring at a screen without that interaction with us, whatever the material was, simply because it’s too passive a way of experiencing the world.
I think of it like chocolate. Harmless and fun as the occasional treat, but that doesn’t mean it would work as a major part of her diet.
She was allowed to do so many things earlier than her brother did!