TV, ADHD and Doing Useful Things

WebGangsta writes "USAToday (and others) are reporting that too much TV, at an early age, can cause ADHD in children. They say that there should be no TV watching for children under 2. Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%. Kids watching about three hours a day were 30% more likely to have attention trouble than those viewing no TV. The researchers accounted for many factors beside television that might predict problems concentrating, but the TV-attention link remained. I imagine that in 10 years we'll be seeing studies about how too much Internet/computer/video game use will also result in ADHD. See PEDIATRICS magazine for more information."

Comments

TV==bad, Computer==good

[illuminatedwax]

Say what you want about TV causing ADHD - its fast switching topics are designed for short attention span, and as such will cause children to adapt to its style, causing inability to focus. However, video games (for children, especially learning games) demand focus from children and are probably beneficial in the same way that mobiles and toys and other baby things are. Having a computer will also get them used to dealing with technology, something which nowadays is vital. I remember I had a Commodore 64 when I was 5 and would just love to sit there and program on it and play video games.

The difference really is that television is aimed at consumers, and consumers are really at heart people with ADHD with lots of money to spend. Video games on the other hand are an involved activity, no more dangerous than solving the Junior Jumble or pushing blocks through holes - provided that you give the children children's software. Don't let your kid end up like this.

--Stephen

Causal relationship?

[Bazzargh]

The paper doesn't actually claim a causal relationship:

"Early television exposure is associated with attentional problems at age 7. Efforts to limit television viewing in early childhood may be warranted, and additional research is needed." (my italics, from the abstract)

Without any evidence of a causal pathway it could be that, eg the constantly changing images are appealing to children who eventually develop ADHD. There have also been studies showing that children watching television in preschool has a beneficial effect on their teenage school performance.

Given conflicting advice, surely parents should follow the advice of their doctors or health board and not jump on the first research bandwagon that rolls through town.

Re:Causal relationship?

[fireduck]

they address this exact issue in the text of the paper:
Third, 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 ... 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.

Same paragraph goes on to talk about how some shows might be good for children, such as Sesame Street, and promote reading, etc.

So, while the researchers can't claim that TV viewing causes ADHD, there is a very strong correlation between the two, and one that obviously deserves further study. Plopping a 1 year old down in front of a TV and having that entertain him for several hours every day just can't be all that good for him. There's just gotta be more constructively entertaining avenues available.

Re:Causal relationship?

[awtbfb]

Without any evidence of a causal pathway it could be that, eg the constantly changing images are appealing to children who eventually develop ADHD.

Have you ever watched Blues Clues? It has got to be the slowest moving show on the planet (insert CSPAN joke here) but little kids adore it. There was a comment in the paper this morning that someone at Sesame Street questioned if there would be a difference for educational shows. Having watched some of these shows, I'd bet Blues Clues and other slow moving and psuedo-interactive ("You see a clue? Where?") shows may be different.

Meh.

[JMZero]

I imagine that in 10 years we'll be seeing studies about how too much Internet/computer/video game use will also result in ADHD

I don't think that's a fair extrapolation. If "the Internet" is going to cause ADHD, then I suppose "reading books" will too. Or "folding paper". Origami is creating a nation of obese ADHD'ers!

Internet use is sometimes like TV - but it also involves reading, decision-making, and much more concentration. Maybe it'll lead to a generation of smart kids with balanced lives?

I tried to read it

[scumdamn]

But it got boring so I looked at my fingers for a while and forgot what I'd been doing in the first place. Then I saw some lint on the desk and cleaned it up for a few seconds...

What were we talking about again?

Children only?

[Strange Ranger]

I'd like to see this study done on Adults.

I don't know if it's more of a cause or effect, but anecdotal personal experience shows a trend that the more in tune with the TV an adult is (knows scheduling, can talk about specific episodes of all their favorite shows) the shorter and less rewarding a conversation with them is is likely to be.

While on the other hand, the folks that I know who are very discriminating television watchers can hold an in depth conversation, stick to topic, and not get impatient.

Sort of a chicken and egg question with adults. Do these anecdotal adults with a greater attention span enjoy TV less and so are much more discerning with that they watch? Or do they have a greater attention span because it hasn't been stunted by the flashing box?

Re:Children only?

[blamanj]

I'd like to see this study done on Adults.

That makes no sense. The reason this is significant is because the children are under age 3. That's when the brain is undergoing a significant development phase.

It's long been understood that the brain is much more "plastic" in young children. It's one of the reasons that it's some much easier to learn an addition language as a child than as an adult.

What this study is saying, is that there may be developmental effect when very young children are exposed to a lot of TV.

TV vs. Computers

[michaelredux]

"You go to your TV when you want to turn your brain off.
You go to your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
Those are not the same."

-- Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple

ADHD is a myth

[parvenu74]

I need to lookup where I heard this first, but there was a study done back in the 70's (I think) about the correlation of attention span and television.

The findings suggested that TV causes shortened attention spans by physically altering pathways in the brain. The effect is similar to muscle memory (you can all type your 28 character password in 1.5 seconds without needing to actually look at the keyboard, right? That's muscle memory.) and can either be reinforced by watching lots of TV or reduced by not watching TV and reading books instead. Because the nature of the medium of television is such that topical changes occur very fast (approx every 30 seconds) and more or less without end (until you turn it off), you are physically training the brain to deal with shortened periods of time on which to concentrate. This might explain why after watching MTV for a few minutes you might find yourself saying "my brain hurts!!!"

With children, this is especially problematic because the habits (physical and otherwise) they form will be with them forever. If they *learn* to have a 30 second attention span through the dominant medium in their life, then they will will end up having great difficulty concentrating for periods of time longer than what is normally required of them. Consequense? They are diagnosed as "having ADHD" (which I think is just a scam invented by shrinks and the drug companies... why discipline or educate your child when you can say they are 'disabled' and just medicate them instead?).

Re:ADHD is a myth

[Sgt York]

Myth? Probably not.

Overhyped? Oh, hell yes

There is a real syndrome ADHD, and people with that syndrome require treatment. It is not, however, as prevelant as the statistics may suggest. Parents with "problem children" want an easy way out and a way to not have to blame their kid. Pharmaceutical companies aren't going to turn down sales and will market to these parents, and doctors will get pressured by both sides. It's safe! My kid needs it!

A similar thing happened with dyslexia in the 1970s. My mother was an elementary school teacher at the time, and she still gets infuriated about the overdiagnosis at the time. A kid would have trouble in school, and the teacher would suggest some parent/kid study time. Parent would read about dyslexia in the paper, and become convinced their kid had it. Because it couldn't possibly be beacuse they don't spend enough time with their kid...it couldn't possibly the the kid's, or.....God forbid!....the parents' fault! They'd find a shrink and shop until one "gave" their kids dyslexia. And now evrybody has an excuse.

It happened then, and I think it's happening now, too. Some people really do have ADHD, but the majority of those labeled with it probably do not.

Not that it's a bad idea to pull your kid out from in front of the TV. Besides, it's a helluva lot more fun to take them outside and look for bugs than anything else you could possibly want to do.

Wrong view

[Mad Quacker]

Everyone is making a fundamental but somehow questioned assumption here:
That the change in children is bad, and the lack of focus on rudimentary tasks is bad.

I see it the other way, we are more used to sensory input. As a result the mundane bores us more. Yes sometimes when I should be focusing I'm not, but that's because it's so _boring_. Nobody is measuring how many tasks I can pay attention to at once, and no one is measuring how well I can focus in these situations.

I've noticed this difference between generations between myself and my dad using a computer. He can't tolerate more than one window open at a time, just gets confused. On the other hand I have between 10-30 different windows running on at least two screens at all times, not including vnc sessions into other boxes.

However in the machine that the public school system is supposed to be - cranking out automatons that must be satisfied with their jobs no matter what - require people to pay attention to boring things. For example manufacturing and retail jobs. This is the philosophy that public schools have followed for a very long time. Perhaps the information overload at an early age is countering this conditioning, I like it.

Re:Wrong view

[grunthos]

As a result the mundane bores us more. Yes sometimes when I should be focusing I'm not, but that's because it's so _boring_.

Yes, life is full of boring things. I want stimulation. I want instant gratification. I want sugar and movies on demand and Britney Spears and overnight delivery and instant downloads and on and on and on.

Ever since our ancestors 10000 years ago stopped eating every fruit and seed they found, and started planting some of them in the ground and waiting half a year instead, life started getting more boring. The basis of civilization is the deferment of gratification.

Try looking up "panem et circenses". On the other hand, don't bother; it'll be too boring. How about this one: "Here we are now, entertain us". Interesting how you can go from Juvenal to Kurt Cobain, and see there is still nothing new under the sun.

For what it is worth, I have ADHD. I don't watch TV precisely because I get sucked in and suddenly I find it is three hours later and that's three hours I'm not getting back ever again. I don't need any further excuses for asocial behavior; I start out with enough of that without TV to boost it.

Cut-n-paste from adequacy.org

[gaj]

Nice f'ing cut-n-paste, you lazy twit.

I don't necessarily disagree that these "diseases" are over-hyped, but I don't think there's much question that they exist. Just because a condition has a treatment or behavior that can mitigate it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Does berry-berry not exist because people could get more Thayamine and drink less alocohol?

Does scurvy not exist because people could get more Vitamine C?

I suppose malaria doesn't exist, only people stupid enough to live where there are mosquitoes?

Twit.

as a "burnt out Professional"

[stupidsocialscientis]

I am a psychologist who works for a school district. I cannot speak for all of my peers, but I can address my experiences/observations. Some children are signficantly less attentive and more active than their same-age, same-gender classmates in the same situation. The causal factors are of course hotly debated, but I think it is silly to debate the existence of ADHD. IMO it is not frequently overdiagnosed, but I do believe that it is often over-medicated. To some degree, we need to appreciate that some kids function in this manner, and they need to learn compensatory and adaptive skills to cope with it so that they can function in the "real world." Despite this difficulty.