The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 151, Issue 4 , Pages 334-336, October 2007

First Do No Harm: Why Have Parents and Pediatricians Missed the Boat on Children and Media?

  • Victor C. Strasburger, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Victor C. Strasburger, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, MSC 10 5590, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131.

Professor of Pediatrics, Professor of Family and Community Medicine, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Article Outline

AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics

 

As a society, we are engaged in a vast and uncontrolled experiment with our infants and toddlers, plunging them into home environments that are saturated with electronic media.1

See related articles, p 364 and p 369

Media are like the weather. Everyone talks about the media. Everyone is affected by them. But no one wants to talk about how they are changing and how they can influence us in sometimes extraordinary ways. Just as people—and politicians—seem to be ignoring the threat of global warming, they also seem blithely willing to ignore the impact of media on children and adolescents.

Make no mistake about it: the media are changing; in a few short years, your child may be able to click on a pizza commercial on your TV screen and order a pizza directly or go to a website for more information about the shampoo that looks so good. As your teenager passes a McDonald’s restaurant, she may receive a text message on her cell phone with a $1 off coupon for that particular day and store. Ten years from now, your wristwatch may actually be a 5-gigabyte computer that can talk to you. There will be no further need to memorize Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or the death scene from Romeo and Juliet. Your watch will be able to recite them, probably with an appropriate Midwestern or Royal Shakespearean Company accent, respectively. For interactive toys, the future is now: as of 2000, 60% of the new toys produced by Fisher-Price had a computer chip in them, and toys like Barney Actimate encourage children to play and sing songs along with the TV program that is signaling it2—not to mention your child’s or teenager’s exposure to the current escalation of violent content, sex and sexuality, and smoking in the media.3

The average American child spends >6 hours a day with a variety of different media,4 yet parents and pediatricians seem unwilling or unable to deal with the issue.5, 6 For parents, media seem to rank near the bottom of the list of things to be discussed, negotiated, fought over, and regulated. For pediatricians, discussing media seems to rank far below car seats, bicycle helmets, vaccinations, and household safety. Few residency programs teach about the impact of the media.7 Nor do continuing medical education courses include, or even mention, the media in discussions of broad child health issues like violence, bullying, or drugs. Yet the media may play a significant role in virtually every concern both groups have about children and teens—sex, drugs, obesity, eating disorders, hyperactivity, school performance, aggressive behavior, and suicide.6 Research indicates that for aggressive behavior, for example, the media may contribute 10% to 30%.8 A young teen exposed to a heavy diet of sexual media is twice as likely to begin having sexual intercourse at a young age.9 A child exposed to R-rated movies is twice as likely to begin smoking cigarettes.10 Like the weather, the media are certainly not quiet companions who exert little or no influence.

In this issue of The Journal, Zimmerman and Christakis11 extend our knowledge to young babies and once again demonstrate the power of the media and the importance of the basic principle of medicine: “first do no harm.” Baby videos are now a $100 million business, with a myriad of unsubstantiated claims being made about how they will improve intelligence and school readiness.12 Yet Zimmerman and Christakis found highly significant language delays in babies 8 to 16 months old who were exposed to such videos. As they soberly assess, this may not be a cause-and-effect situation, but it is certainly one that demands caution in exposing babies to videos and much more research to elucidate who may be harmed, how, and why. Despite the lofty claims of the producers of baby videos, there is very little evidence that babies <2 years old can learn anything positive from TV,1 and there is significant evidence from 3 other studies that harm is possible: two studies of children under 2 years old watching Sesame Street also found delays in language development,13, 14 as did a large study of 1900 Japanese infants viewing 4 hours or more of TV per day.15 This is not to say that Sesame Street is not one of the finest prosocial programs ever produced for children. It is; but “to everything there is a season,” and the season for Sesame Street appears to be 2 years and older.1, 16 Why? Television is a complex medium and requires brain maturation and cognitive skills to decipher. Ordinarily, this does not occcur until age 2 or 3 years.16 At birth, the infant brain is “plastic” and develops in response to genetic and environmental cues.17, 18 Numerous studies indicate that a human face is far more effective in “teaching” an infant than a face on a TV screen.16

A second study in this issue by Barradas et al19 reinforces what the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been saying for a long time: parents need to control the TV set (and other screen media) and serve as role models in using media. Parental TV viewing correlated with child TV viewing, and parents who set rules and “obeyed” the AAP recommendations had children who viewed less TV.19 Unfortunately, several studies show that this is hardly the case. There is nearly a complete disconnect between what the AAP recommends and what parents and pediatricians do6:

AAP Recommendation: Parents should control the TV set. Real world: The 2005 Kaiser study found that more than half 8- to 18-year-old children report no rules about TV.4 However, if you ask only parents, you will probably get a very different rendition, as several studies have shown.

AAP recommendation: Children <2 years old should not be watching TV.20 Real world: A 2004 survey of 100 parents of infants found that infants were watching 2 hours of TV per day.21 The larger 2003 Kaiser study found that more than half of 1-year-old children watch TV, for an average 68 minutes per day.22 More recently, that figure has risen to nearly an hour and a half per day in 2 national studies.23, 24

AAP recommendation: Children and teens should not have TV sets in their own bedrooms. Real world: In the most recent study, nearly one-fifth of babies had a TV set in their bedroom, as did >40% of all 3- to 4-year-old children.24 Nearly two-thirds of teenagers have a TV set in their room.25

AAP recommendation: Pediatricians should take a media history. Real world: Less than one-third of pediatric residency programs teach about media effects.7 Despite most pediatricians agreeing with the AAP recommendations, only one-fourth always discuss these recommendations with parents.5

What should we do about this sad state of events? First and foremost, both pediatricians and parents need to appreciate the power of the media—to educate, to entertain, and to harm. The research is increasingly compelling. Second, the federal government and private foundations need to fund research to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. To date, for such an important influence on child development, there is precious little money available to researchers. Third, the federal government needs to take its responsibility seriously. According to the United States’ Communications Act of 1934, which first established policies for television broadcasting, the public owns the airwaves, and they are leased back to the networks to produce programming in the public’s best interests. Is that really what is currently happening? Fourth, pediatricians must understand the role that media currently play in their young patients’ lives. Asking 2 media questions in a well-child or well-teen visit would only take a minute: How much time do you spend watching screen media per day? Is there a TV set in your bedroom?6 Fifth, the entertainment community needs to realize that the research has become far more sophisticated since the 1950s and accept that they have a public health role to play in producing prosocial programming. Finally, advertisers and manufacturers of toys and baby videos need to recognize that they, too, have a responsibility—to make prosocial products, to avoid making claims that can not be substantiated, and to limit their advertising aimed at young children.26

Sadly, few parents and pediatricians observe the AAP recommendations about children and media. These 2 new reports and numerous other recent studies27 seem to indicate that they do so at their own—and babies’ and children’s and teens’—peril.

Back to Article Outline

 

The author acknowledges the help of Professor Daniel R. Anderson with the preparation of this manuscript.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Anderson DR, Pempek TA. Television and very young children. Am Behav Sci. 2005;48:505–522
  2. Anderson DR, Evans MK. Peril and potential of media for infants and toddlers. Zero to Three. 2001;22:10–16
  3. Strasburger VC. Risky business: what primary care practitioners need to know about the influence of the media on adolescents. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2006;33:317–348
  4. Rideout V, Roberts DF, Foehr UG. Generation M: media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2005;
  5. Gentile DA, Oberg C, Sherwood NE, Story M, Walsh DA, Hogan M. Well-child visits in the video age: pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidelines for children’s media use. Pediatrics. 2004;114:1235–1241
  6. Strasburger VC. “Clueless”: Why do pediatricians underestimate the media’s influence on children and adolescents?. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1427–1431
  7. Rich M, Bar-on M. Child health in the information age: media education of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2001;107:156–162
  8. Comstock GA, Strasburger VC. Media violence. Adolesc Med Clin. 1993;4:495–509
  9. Brown JD, L’Engle KL, Pardun CJ, Guo G, Kenneavy K, Jackson C. Sexy media matter: exposure to sexual content in music, movies, television, and magazines predicts black and white adolescents’ sexual behavior. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1018–1027
  10. Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Gibson JJ, Titus-Ernstoff LT, Carusi CP, et al. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1183–1191
  11. Zimmerman FJ, Christakis DA, Meltzoff AN. Associations between media viewing and language development among children under 2 years old. J Pediatr. 2007;151:364–368
  12. Garrison M, Christakis D. A teacher in the living room? (Educational media for babies, toddlers, and preschoolers). Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2005;
  13. Nelson K. Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1973;(1-2, Serial 149).
  14. Linebarger DL, Walker D. Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. Am Behav Scientist. 2005;48:624–625
  15. Tanimura M, Okuma K, Kyoshima K. Television viewing, reduced parental utterance, and delayed speech development in infants and young children. (Letter) Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:618–619
  16. Wartella E, Robb M. Young children, new media. J Child Media. 2007;1:35–44
  17. Anderson DR. A neuroscience of children and media?. J Child Media. 2007;1:77–85
  18. In:  Shonkoff JP,  Philipps DA editor. From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000;
  19. Barradas DT, Fulton JE, Blanck HM, Huhman M. Parental influences on youth television viewing. J Pediatr. 2007;151:369–373
  20. American Academy of Pediatrics. Media education. Pediatrics. 1999;104:341–343
  21. Pierroutsakos SL, Hanna MM, Self JA, Lewis EN, Brewer CJ. Baby Einsteins everywhere: the amount and nature of television and video viewing of infants, birth to 2 years. 2004;Paper presented at the Biennial International Conference for Infant Studies, Chicago, IL, May.
  22. Rideout VJ, Vandewater EA, Wartella EA. Zero to six: electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2003;
  23. Rideout V, Hamel E. The media family: electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers and their parents. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2006;
  24. Vandewater EA, Rideout VJ, Wartella EA, Huang X, Lee JH, Shim M. Digital childhood: electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1006–e1015
  25. Roberts DF, Foehr UG, Rideout VJ, Brodie M. Kids and media at the new millenium. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 1999;
  26. American Academy of Pediatrics. Children, adolescents, and advertising. Pediatrics. 2006;118:2563–2569
  27. Strasburger VC, Wilson BJ, Jordan A. Children, adolescents, and the media. 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008;In press

PII: S0022-3476(07)00491-X

doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.040

Refers to article:

  • Associations between Media Viewing and Language Development in Children Under Age 2 Years , 08 August 2007

    Frederick J. Zimmerman, Dimitri A. Christakis, Andrew N. Meltzoff
    The Journal of Pediatrics October 2007 (Vol. 151, Issue 4, Pages 364-368)

  • Parental Influences on Youth Television Viewing , 28 August 2007

    Danielle T. Barradas, Janet E. Fulton, Heidi M. Blanck, Marian Huhman
    The Journal of Pediatrics October 2007 (Vol. 151, Issue 4, Pages 369-373.e4)

The Journal of Pediatrics
Volume 151, Issue 4 , Pages 334-336, October 2007

Article Tools