Can using a T.V. to babysit my kids be bad for them?
Posted by Josh McGee | Education, Random Riffs | October 27, 2009
YES!
Well, at least we can agree there are no benefits. To me this seems like a no-brainer, but the ever growing amount of money spent on baby media products (approaching $225 million annually) like those offered by Baby Einstein indicates some parents think otherwise. Now Disney, who bought Baby Einstein in 2001, is admitting its baby media products do not make kids smarter, and is offering a full refund on products purchased since 2004. Here is a NY Times article with more details about the recall.
Remember when then President Bush hailed the founder of Baby Einstein as the embodiment of “the great enterprising spirit of America.” Here is a good Slate article from the day after that State of the Union address.
UPDATE: Here are some more interesting articles on this topic: CNN, Time 1, Time 2.
As it turns out, actually interacting with your children is better for them that any video ever could be. Here is a strong statement to that effect from the American Academy of Pediatrics from a 2006 memo.
Research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other caregivers for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. These infant videos are marketed under the guise of being educational. The company names alone, Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein, are proof of the marketing strategy. There is no current evidence to prove that these videos help infants and toddlers in an intellectual or developmental way. Parents should know that their babies will develop just fine without watching these videos.
Check out this Baby Einstein video. I don’t know about educational, but it sure is mesmerizing.
UPDATE: Read what Dan Willingham has to say about this topic here.
Well, I don’t know. Nothing I read in that article convinced me there was any actual evidence that they didn’t work. And, while I haven’t read any of the studies that claim that tv is bad for toddlers, I imagine it is like most research and is generalizing from an average effect. That doesn’t mean that some kids don’t benefit.
On another note, did you read the terms of the refund? They’re refunding four per household, at $15.99 a piece. I can get a pack of 26 of them on ebay right now for less than fifty dollars. How is it that the prices on ebay haven’t spiked yet?
Arbitrage!
It seems entirely unreasonable to me that someone could sue because some videos have not been proven to make kids smarter. Axe deoderant doesn’t make young women throw themselves at guys either. Do all of the disappointed adolescent boys have a claim?
I don’t think anyone sued. A consumer group filed a complaint with the FTC which resulted in no enforcement action. From what I can tell Disney is simply refunding money to buy good will.
Here is the FTC closing letter.
Two points…I think that BKisida is harnessing the true American enterprising spirit of the day and;
Harry Harlow. He did some studies with rhesus monkeys between 1957 and 1963 measuring maternal separation. He fashioned two “surrogate” mothers for the baby rhesus (rhesi?) – one covered in terrycloth and one made of wire with an added bottle of milk for food. He wanted to see if the baby monkeys were more likely to attach to the terrycloth surrogate, which felt more like their true mother…or to the wire surrogate, which provided food like their real mother. Turns out the babies would snuggle with the terrycloth surrogate until they got hungry and then they would stretch out to the wire surrogate and drink the milk.
The moral? Well, first, I bet these baby rhesus monkeys grew to be pretty effed up (assuming they were not slaughtered after the experiment – remember, it was the 50′s & 60′s), and second…you cannot replace mom and dad with surrogates. Even when it is a televised broadcast of musical genius.
now…where is my ebay account login…
Good will?
This was absolutely based on a lawsuit threat and the refunds are being labeled a “settlement.”
From the NYT:
“Last year, lawyers threatened a class-action lawsuit for unfair and deceptive practices unless Disney agreed to refund the full purchase price to all who bought the videos since 2004. “The Walt Disney Company’s entire Baby Einstein marketing regime is based on express and implied claims that their videos are educational and beneficial for early childhood development,” a letter from the lawyers said, calling those claims “false because research shows that television viewing is potentially harmful for very young children.”
The letter cited estimates from The Washington Post and Business Week that Baby Einstein controlled 90 percent of the baby media market, and sold $200 million worth of products annually.
The letter also described studies showing that television exposure at ages 1 through 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7.
In response, the Baby Einstein company will refund $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009, and returned to the company.
Lawyers in the matter refused to comment on the settlement.
Last month, Baby Einstein announced the new refunds — or “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee” — but made no mention of the lawyers’ demands.
The suit you speak of would be the very definition of frivolous and un-winable. Since when has a company with Disney’s resources been afraid of such a thing? I think both you and the NYT reporter overestimate how scared Disney is of a law suit. Disney is more afraid of a consumer backlash (ill will).
We have to think of substitution, though. Would the baby watching “Baby Einstein” otherwise have been reading a book with its parents? Or would it just be stuck in a crib while someone fixes dinner or takes a shower?