Background TV is bad for young children's development, says study

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
Background TV is bad for young children's development, says study


Having the TV on in the background reduces the quality and quantity of play in young children and may slow their development, according to researchers who studied children playing with and without background TV.

The researchers said it was a surprise that children were affected by an adult programme to which they appeared to be paying no attention. The long-term effect on a child's development is not yet clear, but the researchers advise parents not to have the TV on even if a young child is not watching it. "I would advise parents to be more cautious about background TV and turn it off when the child is in the room," said Dr Tiffany Pempek, a child psychologist at Georgetown University in Washington DC who worked on the study, reported in the journal Child Development.

"This is one of the first studies to look at background television," she added. "I think it can have a negative impact, but to say what the scope of that is yet, I think we need further research."

The team studied 50 children in total, aged 12, 24 or 36 months. The researchers watched the children playing in the same room as their parents for an hour. For half that time an adult gameshow was playing on the TV. Parents were asked to ignore the child unless it demanded their attention. The researchers compared the quality and quantity of play when the TV was on and when it was off.

The children appeared to pay little attention to the TV, glancing at it just 5% of the time, but the researchers found that when it was on the children's play episodes were on average 30 seconds shorter and they spent less time in focused play. These episodes, when the child is most attentive, were nearly 25% - about five seconds - shorter.

"We know from past research that focused attention, being able to focus like that, is an important predictor for [later development]," said Pempek.

The American Academy of Paediatrics, a professional body for paediatricians, recommends no exposure to TV and computer screens for children under two, but in the UK the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has no official policy on the issue.





James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday July 15, 2008
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
 

Munkey

DW Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
179
Interesting article. The TV is never on in the background in our house but we do use it as a babysitter on occasions :(
 

witchy

Banned for good!
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
332
How did any of us ever survive!

How many here had a tv on in the background as they grew up?

More nonsense.
 

Munkey

DW Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
179
How did any of us ever survive!

How many here had a tv on in the background as they grew up?

More nonsense.

Why nonsense? Isn't it common sense that anything in the background would distract you? We didn't need a report top tell us this (but then again The Sun is our national paper)
 

witchy

Banned for good!
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
332
Who pays for these researchers and why do they even bother in the first place?

There are many millions of doctors, surgeons and rocket scientists who grew up watching tv or with the background noise of a tv playing away, so what exactly is the point of this study?

It's bullshit.
 

Munkey

DW Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
179
Who pays for these researchers and why do they even bother in the first place?

There are many millions of doctors, surgeons and rocket scientists who grew up watching tv or with the background noise of a tv playing away, so what exactly is the point of this study?

It's bullshit.

They're Americans so they are entitled to spunk money on such studies.

Do you have any kids and if so do you allow the TV to be on in the background?

We play classical music in the background, probably some American study told us it would make us smarter (or was that smart asses?)
 

mozr

Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
205
Aye munkey, smart asses.

It's snobbery dressed up as sceince.

Fucking 'play episodes'?

Jesus.
 

witchy

Banned for good!
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
332
Do you have any kids and if so do you allow the TV to be on in the background?

5 kids mate, TV is never off, kids all have TV's in their bedrooms, even the babies :)

Oldest daughter is 18 and at uni training to be a nurse, she grew up on a diet of Sky Tv and heavy metal in the background. :)
 

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
I don't understand the reactions - it seems like a perfectly reasonable study to make.

The argument, "it didn't do me any harm", doesn't hold up: I'm a smoker and, have been for many years, it doesn't appear to do me any harm - have I therefore proved the scientists wrong?
 

Munkey

DW Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
179
It's snobbery dressed up as sceince.

My therapist told me that listening to classical music would help me relax and help me quit smoking copious amounts of marijuana.

LOL I forgot you had 5 kids from the MPV rant Witchy. Congrats on your daughter doing well.

I still think there is something in that study. Having the TV on in the background is a distraction, as to how it effects the people in the room that must vary with the individual.
 

witchy

Banned for good!
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
332
I don't understand the reactions - it seems like a perfectly reasonable study to make.

The argument, "it didn't do me any harm", doesn't hold up: I'm a smoker and, have been for many years, it doesn't appear to do me any harm - have I therefore proved the scientists wrong?

Waste of money IMO I'm afraid, even if it was American dollars and not our tax money :)

And do we really need these researchers to tell us that background noise such as a TV isn't as good for our concentration as silence?

Pointless waste of cash IMO.

BTW, this isn't a dig at your post Hamba, I love your news posts, you're our own Trever McDonald :)

I'm only commenting on the news story, not the fact that you posted it.

:Cheers:
 

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
BTW, this isn't a dig at your post Hamba, I love your news posts, you're our own Trever McDonald

I'm only commenting on the news story, not the fact that you posted it.

Too late - you've upset me now!

:) :) :) :)
 

madmanc

Inactive User
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
33
Location
manchester
im with witchy a total load of tripe......... ill give an example.

if you was reading this article and your wifes where harping on about hair ands she finished by saying

'what do you think then?' in all honesty youd ask her to repeat it as you wasnt paying attention....... did it stop you on your pc or not??

attention concentration and stimulation are what affects what you do, you decide what your interested in playin or watchin tv.

another reason why yanks are dumb fat cunts
 

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
im with witchy a total load of tripe......... ill give an example.

if you was reading this article and your wifes where harping on about hair ands she finished by saying

'what do you think then?' in all honesty youd ask her to repeat it as you wasnt paying attention....... did it stop you on your pc or not??

attention concentration and stimulation are what affects what you do, you decide what your interested in playin or watchin tv.

another reason why yanks are dumb fat cunts



The study is about small children and points towards the view that background television results in "less focused play".

The importance of play in child development has long been established.
 

madmanc

Inactive User
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
33
Location
manchester
The study is about small children and points towards the view that background television results in "less focused play".

The importance of play in child development has long been established.

my issue isnt about importance to play.

its like saying mum making dinner on the dog playing or dad farting is resulting in less focused play,

life dont stop cos a kids playing mate and like metioned before , has it actually been proven to have ruined a childs life?

also no 2 people are alike so how can there experiment be valid or even worth speaking about? its just silly really.:banana:
 

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
my issue isnt about importance to play.

its like saying mum making dinner on the dog playing or dad farting is resulting in less focused play,

life dont stop cos a kids playing mate and like metioned before , has it actually been proven to have ruined a childs life?

also no 2 people are alike so how can there experiment be valid or even worth speaking about? its just silly really.:banana:


Television is a bit different to mum making the dinner etc.

Also how can anything be proved to have any effect without study?

The team studied 50 children in total, aged 12, 24 or 36 months.
 

hamba

Elite Member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Down Here
whats different? noise is noise ???


They did a study and found:


"when it (the TV) was on the children's play episodes were on average 30 seconds shorter and they spent less time in focused play"

I'm prepared to believe them - why shouldn't I?

But then I have studied child development and play theory and worked quite a lot with children.

I'm also prepared to believe that the moon is a globe rather than a small shiny disk in the sky even though it looks like a small shiny disk to me.
 

mozr

Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
205
Hehe.

Nice anti-science (well that the people in this thread who see the study as pseudo science are anti-science) jab there.

1. Has the test been replicated?

2. There does not appear to be another constant variables set (which leads me to believe that t hasn't been replicated yet), such as ethnicity, social background, nationality etc?

3. There is a correlation with the the 'play episodes' but causality hasn't been established. I would need to read the entire study.

4. Is 30 seconds significant? I would want to see individual differences, as to whether the results were skewed by a minority of subjects.

5. My issue is not the concept of 'play', more the schematizing of scientists whose funding lives and dies on exciting findings.

6. TV is bad for you! No its not. It is probably THE cultural invention of the 20th century, but it is still besmirched by some people, who have an almost puritanical fear of it. I would want to see the same tests performed with a radio on in the background, a recording of a conversation, random beeps, classical music etc, flashing lights, different coloured rooms etc.

My proposal is that 'evil' TV is not harming development, and any environmental factor will affect play, as it affects all other behaviour.
 

sneaker

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
3,505
Oldest daughter is 18 and at uni training to be a nurse, she grew up on a diet of Sky Tv and heavy metal in the background.

Yeah but without the noise in the background she'd have been a rocket scientist lol. :)
 
TEST
Top