"For every 1 hour of television viewed per day by preschoolers, their likelihood of developing concentration problems and other attention-deficit ‘disorders’ by the age of 7, increases by 10%"The page screamed...
I decided to hunt down said study:
A total of 1278 children had data from age “1” (mean: 1.8 years; SD: 0.6), and 1345 had data from age “3” (mean: 3.8 years; SD: 0.6). Children watched an average of 2.2 hours (SD: 2.91) of television per day at age 1 and 3.6 hours (SD: 2.94) per week at age 3.
Ten percent of children for whom data were available at ages 1 and 3 had attentional problems on the basis of our definition derived from the BPI.I'm no statistician but looking at the graphs, the average TV watched was a couple of hours - but a not insignificant proportion of infants watched anything from 4-16 hours! The researchers found 10% had attentional problems (note NOT clinically diagnosed ADHD) and if this is directly linked to amount of viewing (as the authors found) those who displayed attentional problems must have watched an awful lot of TV if 2 hours per day was the average at a year old?
The authors also go on to say:
We cannot draw causal inferences from these associations. It could be that attentional problems lead to television viewing rather than vice versa. However, to mitigate this limitation, we exploited the longitudinality of the data set and focused on television viewing at 1 and 3 years of age, well before the age at which most experts believe that ADHD symptoms are manifest.32,39
It is also possible that there are characteristics associated with parents who allow their children to watch excessive amounts of television that accounts for the relationship between television viewing and attentional problems. For example, parents who were distracted, neglectful, or otherwise preoccupied might have allowed their children to watch excessive amounts of television in addition to having created a household environment that promoted the development of attentional problems.
Finally, we had no data on the content of the television being viewed. Some research indicates that educational television (eg, Sesame Street) may in fact promote attention and reading among school-aged children.24 Others have disagreed and posited that even such programming can be detrimental.40 If exposure to certain kinds of programming is beneficial, even at a very young age, then our results represent conservative estimates of the risks of television as a medium in general because some proportion of the programming may have moderated the detrimental aspects of others and deviated the results toward the null. However, more research is needed on the effects of varying content of television, particularly for children who are preschool age.
Why am I rambling on about TV viewing - am I suggesting you all go flick the box on and plop your darlings there for the rest of the day. Of course not.
The trouble is that how on earth are mothers supposed to do everything? Gone are the days of communities, where there was always an older sibling, sister, aunt or mother to help out - instead many families are nuclear, one or both parents out for most of the day working, or one at work whilst the other takes care of the baby.
Lob a "high needs" infant into that, older siblings - breastfeeding, cleaning, washing, ironing, cooking healthy meals and of course "quality time" and can we really blame mothers for needing the help of that flashing babysitter every once in a while?
Even if this isn't the case - what happens if you have more than one child? Maybe you have a four year old who wants to watch say Sesame Street, you as a parent want to also watch and interact with the older child. Do you blindfold and pop ear muffs on the baby? Sling them on your back so they can't see?
My eldest was a glue baby, I hadn't heard of good slings (and who even knows whether she would have gone in one anyway) she was very "high needs" and quite often by late afternoon I would realise I was starving, and I hadn't even been able to put her down long enough to get something to eat. It wasn't that I was a purist against baby swings or bouncers - she simply only tolerated them for a few minutes. Fast forward a few months to her starting solids and I had various options:
1. Leave her to scream whilst I prepared her some decent home cooked food
2. Attempt to hold her and cook, not good with a wriggly infant.
3. Feed her something quick - food from a jar or packet
4. Find something to keep her busy for 10- 15-20 mins (depending on the day and her mood!) that would engage her enough she would be happy with me in the adjoining kitchen.
Given it usually ended up on the floor, perhaps I should have rethought! Anyway....
I didn't really go for the flashing, boinging, singing LOUD programmes that generally are kids TV and so I played, wait for it, shock horror a Baby Einstein DVD! (ok shoot me now) With number two I had no hesitation in pulling it back out if required - which was generally less often given he was a far more chilled out baby generally, usually loved his sling; and of course when the eldest was at home she was far more entertaining than any flashing box.
I'm sure by now some (perhaps those who have discovered slings, or have a baby who actually naps somewhere else other than on you, or are generally a relaxed temperament) feel I'm trying to justify my own Baby Einstein secret - or so a friend who in response proudly told me she has no TV (yet downloads episodes to her PC?!?) suggested. I didn't dare point out that in reality I thought Baby Einstein was probably the least of my early parenting concerns, I'm personally far more worried about the hours of "pick up put down" that followed reading the Baby Whisperer - but hey that's one for another day....
PS - if you're not quite ready to toss the television, Dr. Dimitri Christakis at Seattle Children's Hospital (often quoted for their research into the effects of TV viewing on children) suggests parents can manipulate viewing to turn it into a useful tool? click here to watch his presentation....