The researchers found that children who spent two hours or more a day watching television or playing on a computer were more likely to get high scores on the questionnaire, indicating they had more psychological difficulties than kids who did not spend a lot of time in front of a screen.
Even children who were physically active but spent more than two hours a day in front of a screen were at increased risk of psychological difficulties, indicating that screen time might be the chief culprit.
Earlier studies have found that while more time spent in front of a screen led to lower well-being, physical activity improved one's state of mind. That led researchers to believe that upping physical activity levels could counteract the negative impact of watching TV or playing on the computer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101011/wl_uk_afp/healthmindchildrentelevisioncomputer
Even with all the reality shows on now? :?
It's kinda funny, if you think about it. In futuristic sci-fi shows and movies, there is never any televisions, and I'm waiting for the general popuation to get tired of it. I mean, how long can this primitave taking picture box hold peoples attention? Am I being sarcastic? I don't even know anymore...
Quote from: Cuddlefist on October 11, 2010, 09:10:09 PM
It's kinda funny, if you think about it. In futuristic sci-fi shows and movies, there is never any televisions, and I'm waiting for the general popuation to get tired of it. I mean, how long can this primitave taking picture box hold peoples attention? Am I being sarcastic? I don't even know anymore...
As long as it exists. As long as it offers escapism.
Could it be that the TV doesnt cause the problems but that people with psychological/emotional issues already turn to it?
QuoteEven children who were physically active but spent more than two hours a day in front of a screen
This implies that someone found a child somewhere who didn't spend at least 2 hours in front of a teevee screen every day. I call bullshit! Their control subjects were Amish - it doesn't count!
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on October 11, 2010, 10:48:18 PM
QuoteEven children who were physically active but spent more than two hours a day in front of a screen
This implies that someone found a child somewhere who didn't spend at least 2 hours in front of a teevee screen every day. I call bullshit! Their control subjects were Amish - it doesn't count!
:lulz:
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 11, 2010, 10:17:53 PM
Could it be that the TV doesnt cause the problems but that people with psychological/emotional issues already turn to it?
Any properly designed Analysis of Variation (ANOVA) will reject the null hypothesis, rather than affirming anything. In other words, studies can only confirm that there's not <i>not</i> a correlation.
And... if it hasn't been repeated enough... correlation does not equal causality.
Children who spent at least 2 hours in front of a tv screen aren't spending as much time interacting with actual people. They aren't spending as much time interacting with reality. 2 hours a day, 14 hours a week, 728 hours a year means these kids are getting 30 1/3 days less interaction with reality. After 12 years (Ages 3-15) they have officially spent one less year of interaction with actual reality then a child who had not simply sat in front of a tv in a state of cognitive cruise control. And we know that even the most minute delay in cognitive development has logarithmic effects for future growth. So, what's the cumulative effect of an adolescent who finds himself one year behind his peers intellectually when the most formative moments of his social understandings are being formed?
In other words, yes, I agree TV is to blame for psychological issues later in life. I just took the scenic route?
Any kid who isn't watching at least 2 hours of TV a day also probably has parents enforcing that as a rule. IE, the parents are working hard at raising the kid. So what *else* are those anti-TV parents doing that might help?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 12, 2010, 03:59:53 AM
Any kid who isn't watching at least 2 hours of TV a day also probably has parents enforcing that as a rule. IE, the parents are working hard at raising the kid. So what *else* are those anti-TV parents doing that might help?
I think it's too much of a blanket statement to simply say "sitting in front of a screen." While "educational programming" is hardly a substitute for real experience, there should be some consideration in this study for the content of the programming being viewed for 2 or more hours a day.
My own kid is 4 right now; he's incredibly curious about the world, and I use media (TV, interwebs, etc) to stoke his curiosity and pose questions to him that make him think about things. As a result he has catapulted past his peers, not only in terms of simple factual 'book knowledge,' but real intuitive understanding of nature and awareness of and empathy for other people.
He already knows why the sky is blue, why grass is green, why the sun goes down and comes up, where the Moon came from, who the first President was (and the current one as well, much to the chagrin of my bigoted father-in-law), and lots of other stuff. And it isn't just reciting memorized words, but he can actually discuss this stuff. And I don't believe it would be possible to this extent without a
lot of "infotainment" and "educational programming" on TV and the Internet.
When did I say "sitting in front of the screen"?
Actually I didn't mean to quote you, just add to the convo. I'm heavily drugged at the moment.... lol. sorry
My kids watch TV and play video games and yeah, I'm sure there are days they spend more than 2 hours doing so. Hell a movie is almost that time. I'm really curious as to what they should be doing in 10 degree wet disgusting weather? As a parent is it being thought that it is my job to what? Entertain them? Assign them reading material? And that should be what? The bible?
I call bullshit. My children are not psychologically damaged from fucking tv and video games. All three are good students and actively involved in school and sports.
I want to see how socioeconomic status plays into this.
do poor kids watch more or less TV than rich kids?
I have a good friend that I was really best friends with in 8th grade all the way to undergrad--she and I roomed our first 2 years of university together.
She had no tv where she grew up in Big Bear, couldn't get it, and when her family could get the cable, they no longer wanted it. They rented movies, etc. instead. Deeply religious family, by the way, as well, so all movies were PG and below.
Now, while she read a lot of literature, listened to the radio, etc., she missed out on a LOT of essential ties to her own culture, and when she interacted with her peers, it was with extreme awkwardness. I'm not advocating total wipe out of all activity, exclusive of TV, not at all. But walling your children out of their own peers' experiences makes them seem like freaks at a time when it's hard enough to fit in (jr. high and high school). I dunno, I dislike not giving kids an advantage.
And like it or not, tv media actually give people common ground. Without that common ground, there's a sort of culture shock that happens, and the one that hasn't experienced it is odd man out.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 05:13:13 PM
The researchers found that children who spent two hours or more a day watching television or playing on a computer were more likely to get high scores on the questionnaire, indicating they had more psychological difficulties than kids who did not spend a lot of time in front of a screen.
Even children who were physically active but spent more than two hours a day in front of a screen were at increased risk of psychological difficulties, indicating that screen time might be the chief culprit.
Earlier studies have found that while more time spent in front of a screen led to lower well-being, physical activity improved one's state of mind. That led researchers to believe that upping physical activity levels could counteract the negative impact of watching TV or playing on the computer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101011/wl_uk_afp/healthmindchildrentelevisioncomputer
Even with all the reality shows on now? :?
Interesting study, but I'm sort of skeptical about their criteria. These kids could have issues regardless of screen time.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 12, 2010, 03:15:57 PM
I want to see how socioeconomic status plays into this.
do poor kids watch more or less TV than rich kids?
I'm poor. My kids are still involved in everything I can get them into as long as their grades don't fall. Will they choose the xBox over a good game of street football in good weather? HELL NO!!
Yet they still play the game. Explain to a kid that when he goes online for Halo that he can only play for 30 minutes and let me know how well that goes over yanno? Hell a good game of Madden takes about 30 minutes. I just think this is bullshit on the time (2 hours). Would their sitting online watching stupid youtube or updating their bebo pages be time better spent?
Quote from: Jenne on October 12, 2010, 03:28:14 PM
I have a good friend that I was really best friends with in 8th grade all the way to undergrad--she and I roomed our first 2 years of university together.
She had no tv where she grew up in Big Bear, couldn't get it, and when her family could get the cable, they no longer wanted it. They rented movies, etc. instead. Deeply religious family, by the way, as well, so all movies were PG and below.
Now, while she read a lot of literature, listened to the radio, etc., she missed out on a LOT of essential ties to her own culture, and when she interacted with her peers, it was with extreme awkwardness. I'm not advocating total wipe out of all activity, exclusive of TV, not at all. But walling your children out of their own peers' experiences makes them seem like freaks at a time when it's hard enough to fit in (jr. high and high school). I dunno, I dislike not giving kids an advantage.
And like it or not, tv media actually give people common ground. Without that common ground, there's a sort of culture shock that happens, and the one that hasn't experienced it is odd man out.
I agree with the whole statement, however, the bolded part applies to adults as well I think. I have co-workers that the only thing I can talk to them about (unless I want to sit and listen to them bitch and moan) is the news or a tv show.
Stupid media will promote stupid thought and stupid actions. Regardless of what medium it is transmitted by.
Personally I like the TV programs I watch, or else I wouldn't watch them.
Quote from: Cain on October 12, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
Stupid media will promote stupid thought and stupid actions. Regardless of what medium it is transmitted by.
Personally I like the TV programs I watch, or else I wouldn't watch them.
Sheesh guys, don't shoot the messenger here. I found it rather humorous is all.
Merely pointing out a fact which seemed to have been overlooked in the thread. Which is more damaging: letting a kid watch Adam Curtis documentaries on the TV, or letting them sit down with Ann Coulter's greatest literary hits of historical revisionism? It is always going to depend on the subject matter.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 12, 2010, 03:46:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 12, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
Stupid media will promote stupid thought and stupid actions. Regardless of what medium it is transmitted by.
Personally I like the TV programs I watch, or else I wouldn't watch them.
Sheesh guys, don't shoot the messenger here. I found it rather humorous is all.
Yeah, I don't think we're talking about you, Hawk--you did a solid by bringing us the latest pop-psych built on a shoestring theory shinanigans from the Ivory Tower.
See, the pendulum swing of the great literaries can usually be depended upon to show up the masses as idiotic mouth-breathers. I grew up with a lot of TV, I mean, A LOT...and I don't think I'm a mouth-breather. Idiotic is still up for review, however.
I just think that it's another case of, along with everything else, "Everything in moderation." Of course a kid who doesn't interact with his peers and shuts himself in all day is going to have social problems. Of course a kid who doesn't go and play is going to be unhealthy. But this would be the case if they were in front of a screen, playing tiddlywinks, etc.
It's one of these studies, much like autism and vaccinations, that I find tries to show up the populace as inadequate parents. And the truth is, most are adequate ENOUGH. I figure as long as you GIVE a shit as to where your kids are and what they are doing, they are probably going to be just fine. TV is not the issue here (and gaming/computing are being fingered here as EVOL as well), it's parents who don't give a shit where their kids are and what they're into.
Yeah, not giving a shit and using the TV as babysitter do have high correlation.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 12, 2010, 03:46:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 12, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
Stupid media will promote stupid thought and stupid actions. Regardless of what medium it is transmitted by.
Personally I like the TV programs I watch, or else I wouldn't watch them.
Sheesh guys, don't shoot the messenger here. I found it rather humorous is all.
I didn't even think this in any way in regard to you Hawk. I'm sorry, don't take it personally. I was mad at the article/study idiots. Shit like this really hits a nerve for me, especially since my kids really don't spend a lot of TV time but if I add it up, yeah it is probably more than 2 hours a lot of days.
Damn, I should have put :lulz: in my last post. :lulz:
For good or bad TV is a large part of our culture. It's just like every other thing in life, a little balance goes a hell of a long way.
I'm having trouble finding the text of the original paper. Anybody on a university connection with access to an academic database?
Should be in the November edition of the American journal Pediatrics
author is Dr Angie Page of the University of Bristol's Centre for Exercise
Khara, just because your kids are okay doesn't mean that the study is BS. Their results are based on surveys of 1013 kids - studies like these report on trends and averages and are not necessarily predictive of any individual child.
Not Khara, but: ...I guess my problem is the diagnostics combined with the fact that they may have selected a group of kids with "other" factors that weighed into what the results showed. They used a questionnaire that showed "psychological problems"--ooook...I know I sure as shit wouldn't trust just a 25-question survey to tell me if my kid was cuckoo.
It's just all too easy to take a study like this, done for someone's grad thesis, and turn it into alarmist stuff that gets spread everywhere. The trend is a no-brainer, but this will be used as filler against parents who DO give a shit. I know I'm parsing this thing to death, but I see a LOT of this type of thing in PTA. It bugs me.
that's why I want to take a closer look at this survey. Odds are it's not a survey they invented, but one that's commonly used to assess "mental problems". I wish there was more specific language there, but we've gotta go to the source text to see what they used & what they're really talking about.
My husband uses a survey with observation and reports of behavior as observed by parents and teacher when assessing these things. So the survey alone just seems suspect, plus the fact that telling someone their child has psychological problems just because they watch TV for 2 hours a day just seems a BIT of a stretch...
But you're right--the study itself may have a deeper analysis than the actual article on it shows.
The entire survey is suspect. Were demographics, economic status, and pre existing conditions even considered? Also the kids self reported their usage.
shit damn fuck the hoarding of scientific research
you have to be a member to get the real paper
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-1154v1?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Page&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
but you can get the abstract for free:
Children's Screen Viewing is Related to Psychological Difficulties Irrespective of Physical Activity
Angie S. Page, PhD, Ashley R. Cooper, PhD, Pippa Griew, MSc, Russell Jago, PhD
Centre for Exercise, Nutrition, and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
Objective We hypothesized that greater screen use would be associated with greater psychological difficulties and that children with high levels of screen entertainment use and low levels of physical activity would have the most-negative psychological profiles.
Methods Participants were 1013 children (age, mean ± SD: 10.95 ± 0.41 years), who self-reported average daily television hours and computer use and completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Sedentary time (minutes per day with <100 cpm) and moderate/vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (minutes with 2000 cpm) were measured by using accelerometers. Multivariate regression models examined the association between television viewing, computer use, sedentary time, and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores, with adjustment for MVPA, age, gender, level of deprivation, and pubertal status.
Results Greater television and computer use were related to higher psychological difficulty scores after adjustment for MVPA, sedentary time, and confounders. However, sedentary time was inversely related to psychological difficulties after adjustment. Children who spent >2 hours per day watching television or using a computer were at increased risk of high levels of psychological difficulties (television, odds ratio [OR]: 1.61 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–2.15]; computer, OR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.32–1.91]), and this risk increased if the children also failed to meet physical activity guidelines (television, OR: 1.70 [95% CI: 1.09–2.61]; computer, OR: 1.81 [95% CI: 1.02–3.20]).
Conclusion Both television viewing and computer use are important independent targets for intervention for optimal well-being for children, irrespective of levels of MVPA or overall sedentary time.
Key Words: television • computer • physical activity • sedentary time • children • psychological well-being
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval • IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation • MVPA = moderate/vigorous physical activity • OR = odds ratio • SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
And I'll go off in a different direction here as well--the powers that be are looking into integrating more and more web-based teaching. They feel that students RELATE better to material that they can download and manipulate, so they are offering an avenue of teaching that closely resembles how students choose to spend their free time. This not only gives the students that don't have them web-based skills to move into the future, but also gives those students who DO have the skills a better chance at classroom "survival." (This all has negative AND positive ramifications, of course.)
So, is this going to "psychologically damage" the students? This is definitely increased "screen time." Is this not what the study proposes children cut back on?
You see the mixed message here? We are trending toward a society that simultaneously loathes and feeds that which it's changing into. The midpoint will probably be passed over for a breaking point, somewhere along the line. So this particular pendulum swing in the study is juxtaposed to the pendulum swing that is moving "forward" or progressing towards "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
...and here's the data on the survey they used, called The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
http://www.sdqinfo.org/a0.html
basically, it broadly evaluates the degree of:
1) emotional symptoms
2) conduct problems
3) hyperactivity/inattention
4) peer relationship problems
5) prosocial behaviour
it's used for clinical assessment -- meaning that if you take your kids to a psychiatrist to have them evaluated for any number of psychological issues, this may be the survey they take.
The SDQ has a number of papers written about it. From my scanning of abstracts, it looks fairly reliable. By that I mean its results are highly correlated with other surveys which look for psychological issues in children.
It's probably the same survey my husband uses. BUT, you can't use it to make a diagnosis by itself. You have to interview and observe, and gather reports.
It's an interesting concept, though...I just think it's more of an indicator of possible issues rather than concrete proof of them.
They're not making a diagnosis though, they're looking for broad indicators. And no psychologist is going to claim concrete proof of causality, all psych studies do is examine corollaries.
So in layman's terms... they collected a lot of data about these kids. They measured the distance that the kid moved over a period of time, how many hours that the kid watched a screen, and their results on the SDQ, which measures things like emotional, conduct, attention, and peer relation issues. And they compared all of these things to tease out how they are connected.
There were two main findings they learned from their sample of 1013 kids
-high screen time means a higher score on the SDQ
-low physical activity means a higher score on the SDQ
Higher amounts of physical activity do not cancel out the effects of high screen time.
There was something I got from the abstract which I didn't see in any of the articles about it... but they did differentiate between TV and Computer time. And that it looks like TV is slightly more related than computers to your SDQ score. And also that low amounts of physical activity are more related to SDQ score than high amounts of television.
Possible Confounds:
A survey of 1013 kids is a pretty large sample size, but they are all from one region, Bristol. If you think 8-13 year old kids from the UK are significantly different from kids in your region, your mileage may vary.
Socioeconomic status still sticks out in my mind, but I might be confusing the SDQ results with academic achievement. I know that socioeconomic status is correlated with achievement, but I don't know if it's correlated with emotional problems, conduct problems, attention problems, etc.
It also depends where in Bristol they are from. St Pauls, for example, is an economically deprived area with lots of drug use and other behaviour which could also help raise the score on the SDQ.
@Cram: Yes, all of what you said I can agree with--but my point is that this study is never meant (or shouldn't anyway) to be an indicator that all parents who allow their kids 2+ hours/day of screen time are lousy and will have fucked up kids.
But it's being advertised that way.
Data like this should not be taken into the layperson's world and analyzed outside of anything other than another indicator that you need to make sure you know wtf your kids are doing.
Yeah -- I think this is an issue of bad science reporting, not bad research.
Their conclusion is pretty straightforward:
QuoteBoth television viewing and computer use are important independent targets for intervention for optimal well-being for children, irrespective of levels of [activity] or overall sedentary time.
ie:
High degrees of physical activity do not shield your child from the negative effects of television/computers.
...but this is what happens with this type of research...all the time.
And like I said--the trend in "progressive" (and that can be taken however you will!) education research seems to be moving more TOWARD more "screen time" not away from it.
It just reminds me of the class size reduction stuff of the 90's.
Again I'd like to stress that content should be a major consideration, and so should parental involvement. I expect most of these "adverse effects" take place in kids who are just plopped down in front of a screen and ignored or left entirely to their own devices - and the same adverse effects probably occur among kids who are left without adequate guidance and supervision in any activity (or lack thereof). The key in my own experience is developing a relationship with your child where you are the mentor and he/she is the pupil, fostering creativity and curiosity, and using whatever media (tv/web/games/books/etc) to whatever extent as a tool in a larger activity, not as the direct object of the activity.
It may not be the case, but it seems like the wording of this study indicates the people conducting the study leave "computer use" and "television viewing" at that, as if three hours watching brainless funnies on YouTube is the equivalent of three hours watching something educational and thought-provoking, as if there is some magical radiation emanating from these devices that results in stupidity and developmental problems universally across all content and uses, which I don't accept.
content is definitely a good topic for a follow up study.
My hypothesis is that interactive media (like forums and social networking sites) are more mentally engaging than passive entertainment (like youtube and hulu). But I haven't seen any research which differentiates between the two. I guess it gets fuzzy though because you can use forums/facebook passively, only reading and not interacting.
and games too - I'd love to see them distinguish between game playing and other forms of internet use. When I was 13 I was playing D&D by e-mail and had a number of pen pals. By the time I was 15 I was learning QBASIC and surfing on dial-up BBSs. I don't think people do that so much anymore, but my brain sure was getting a work out!
Quote from: Jenne on October 12, 2010, 04:44:19 PM
Not Khara, but: ...I guess my problem is the diagnostics combined with the fact that they may have selected a group of kids with "other" factors that weighed into what the results showed. They used a questionnaire that showed "psychological problems"--ooook...I know I sure as shit wouldn't trust just a 25-question survey to tell me if my kid was cuckoo.
It's just all too easy to take a study like this, done for someone's grad thesis, and turn it into alarmist stuff that gets spread everywhere. The trend is a no-brainer, but this will be used as filler against parents who DO give a shit. I know I'm parsing this thing to death, but I see a LOT of this type of thing in PTA. It bugs me.
You have to consider what the questionnaire does. For one kid saying 'the results here means he has a 10% chance of having x' is pretty useless. When you apply it to a thousand kids, you get more useful results. Sort of an opposite of statistics mean nothing to the individual.
Cram, how the heck do I interpret those numbers, I've never seen a confidence interval before.