The issue that got under my skin today is how sensationalism sells and how this has misled us and distorted “news.” As more of us rely on screens and social media to alert us to important world issues, yellow journalists are setting up fake virtual offices to create inflammatory, sharable articles. Each click-through brings money into their pockets from ads. That means a gullible public pays cons to misinform us. The cons recognize the more outrageous the claim, the more attention they get, and the more money they make. They have learned that repeating inflammatory statements over and over can lead to their adoption as facts. Does an intentionally groomed and misled public threaten American democracy?
The First Amendment
Our founding fathers created our governing system with the expressed intent of rule by the people. To protect the freedom and power of the people to be informed and vote, they wrote the first constitutional amendment protecting the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
They believed that the free flow of information to the American public from a press that serves as a credible watchdog keeps powerful officials in check. This was considered critical to American freedom.
Sensational Headlines
I started GetKidsInternetSafe (GKIS) because, despite being somewhat tech-savvy with great personal and professional resources, I was struggling to create a workable plan for managing my children’s technology use. I’d take a stab at this and that but either get distracted along the way because the plan was too cumbersome or become completely frustrated and throw up my hands. Ultimately I’d end up doing very little and feeling chronically guilty.
My anxious search was exasperating partly because the Internet is flooded with sensational headlines that exaggerate risk! Even responsible reporters sometimes bypass credible experts in favor of interviewing somebody willing to be provocative rather than factually responsible.
Then another article would counter-react with the opposing but also exaggerated viewpoint. Furthermore, sometimes even credible experts are inaccurately quoted. I was so frustrated trying to get sensible information that had persuasive evidence backing it, that I’d just give up in defeat.
As I turned to my family, friends, and colleagues, they just looked blankly back and said, “Yep! Exactly! I’m paralyzed too. Tracy, if you can’t do it with your expertise, then we’re doomed.”
Doomed? No way, not when it comes to kids. So from there, I sought out the smartest, most creative, most energetic hotshots I knew and launched GKIS. I decided to do the hard work and comb through the psychology research, news articles, academic theories, and tried-and-true parenting strategies to create a comprehensive, easy parenting course that works.
Religion and the Internet
As I was researching for my book Screen Time and Mean Time and my GKIS parenting courses, I ran across an article titled, “America’s Less Religious: Study Puts Some Blame on the Internet,” by Elise Hu on NPR. The article states that as Internet use has grown, people have become less religious. A study by computer scientist Allen Downey reportedly “found a causal relationship among three factors – a drop in religious upbringing, an increase in college-level education, and the increase in Internet use.” A causal relationship? They were saying that less religion causes more internet use and more education. That makes no sense. I’ll tell you why that’s a false claim.
The Experiment
I teach my university students that the only type of study that yields evidence about a causal relationship is an experiment. An experimentis conducted in the laboratory where you take two groups of subjects and expose one to the experimental variable (the independent variable) and then measure the outcome for both groups (that measurement is the dependent variable). If the groups’ outcomes are the same, your independent variable did not have an impact. If they are more different than could happen by chance, then your independent variable did have an impact. You have to do other things to make sure your experiment is high quality, but the main point is that you have to act upon your subjects – not just survey or observe them.
Observational studies only suggest that there may be a relationship, but they cannot rule out unidentified outside (extraneous) variables that may contribute to the relationship between the study variables. More to the point, because they’re observational, these studies have no way to determine which – if any – of the variables they’re studying is causing the outcome and which is being affected. Causal claims are impossible to support if you have not conducted an experiment.
Yet this NPR article suggests that, since Downey can’t think of that third variable, there must not be one. And with a logistical regression method, voila! He can claim Internet use has killed religion! Pffft. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the data. Yes, based on the statistics those three variables appear to be related. But we don’t know if increased Internet use led to less religion or if less religion led to increased Internet use. A fourth unrecognized variable may have led to both, like maybe Internet use led to more screen time which led to more Facebook which led to more overwhelm which led to less leaving the house which led to less religiosity. I mean honestly, we don’t know until we integrate all variables or, better yet, design an experiment!
In this case, it is unclear to me if the researcher made these irresponsible claims or if the reporter misreported, but the article is flat wrong in its conclusion and misleading to the readers.
Dr. Rochelle Tractenberg
As a social scientist, I was irritated. So, in my ranting mood, I sought out my friend brilliant Georgetown double Ph.D. biostatistician Dr. Rochelle Tractenberg, and asked her to give us a quick and informed comment about her reaction to the NPR story about this study. You can’t get a more credentialed expert with statistics than Dr. Tractenberg. She responded:
My friend and colleague Tracy Bennett asked me to contribute some comments in response to the frustration she felt – and felt she needed to share with you! – after reading the media coverage of what seems, based on this coverage, to be a very weak study. I am a scientist myself, and I coach other scientists in the design and write-up of their work. I completely agree with Tracy about this media coverage!
As a person who sees “scientific articles” every day of the week, I am frustrated by how any “science” gets talked about in newspapers, on TV, blogs, “the Internet,” and radio. Probably the most common problem is that people outside of the field of science often believe that, if a scientific article made it through to publication, then it must be good, true, or right. That is just not true! Just because a paper was published in a “peer-reviewed” journal doesn’t make it good, correct, or meaningful.
I think a wider problem is that
_____________________________________________
journalists should not be trusted to sift through what was published to bring “what matters” to the public’s attention.
_____________________________________________
Just because a news outlet covers a paper’s having been published doesn’t mean the paper is accurate or even interesting. You might not know that new scientific papers are published every second of every day; probably TWO others were published in the same week on the exact same topic, with the opposite <maybe even the same!> results as whatever paper the media are covering that day. The question the reader must ask is, WHY WAS *THIS PAPER* CHOSEN FOR THIS REPORT? Very probably it was chosen because “it sounded interesting!” The CHOICE to cover a particular paper reflects the journalist’s interest and not the importance of the paper – not for its field and not for the public.
The purpose of scientists in publishing their work is usually to test theories and contribute new knowledge, but journalists’ purposes are to attract readers (if you have ever read a scientific paper, you can see plainly that it was NOT written to attract readers!).
_____________________________________________
That means that people who get their “science” from journalists do not actually get “science.”
_____________________________________________
Science moves in truly small steps and very few newsworthy “breakthroughs” ever occur, although news media make non-scientists believe that they happen often. Exceptions may come from fields like archeology or astronomy – where observations and not experiments are reported; if a new dinosaur was discovered and reported in the general media then it probably IS important!
Scientific papers follow very specific rules – including that they must consider the work that was done before and how their new results fit with those older results (whether the new results agree or disagree with the dominant theories). They must also always describe the limitations of their work and suggest what more might need to be done in future research.
Media coverage follows very different rules; the article Tracy found was probably chosen because it is provocative – it could not have been chosen for the NPR story because it is true (impossible to tell!) or well done (it wasn’t). I would go so far as to say that all that a reader really can “learn” from a news story on something scientific is that “that research is going on.” A reader should NEVER infer from a news story about research that something important for daily life has been learned.
Rochelle E. Tractenberg, Ph. D., M.P.H., Ph.D., PStat®
Director, Collaborative for Research on Outcomes and -Metrics http://crom.gumc.georgetown.edu Associate Professor
Neurology, Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Biomathematics, and Psychiatry
Georgetown University Medical Center
Even if you are the parent who wants to wait to introduce technology to your child, America’s elementary school system has embraced technology in the classroom. Despite the risks that GetKidsInternetSafe highlight in covering this very important topic, it is irrefutable that technology is an incredibly rich resource when interfaced with traditional teaching methods. Today’s blog is an acknowledgement that when done well, technology’s interface with elementary education is a great thing!
One thing I’ve learned as a business owner, and in life, is the importance of knowing the limitations of my scope of expertise, and to outsource to those who are experts when I have an unanswered question. One of my favorite parts of the GetKidsInternetSafe project is consulting with a multidisciplinary team of experts in order to best inform you about the challenging topic of kids and Internet safety. It’s impossible for one person to be an expert in all of it. So I’m pooling the best there is so you don’t get lost in the search, like my husband and I did at first when trying to get our kids Internet safe.
For the record, I have a doctorate in clinical psychology, not education. All it took to learn my limitations was a few volunteer field trips as a parent when the teachers gave me the little ones who were a “hand-full.” The teachers and I laughed as I thanked them for their everyday expertise. Phew! An hour of clinical session is a WHOLE different ballgame than an hour with 20 little rugrats!
My admiration for educators is one of the reasons I’m so excited to watch my oldest daughter pursue her lifelong dream of being a kindergarten teacher. Although she is still in college and thus still in the exploratory process, she is starting to dive deep now and recently volunteered in a second grade classroom. She was so jazzed by the experience; she told me all about it in an hour-long phone call yesterday. It was inspiring to learn how technology is being resourced in those classrooms where the teacher goes the extra mile. I want to share some of what I’ve learned with you so you too can celebrate what opportunities technology is creating for our kids. Astounding really!
The second-grade class Morgan observed has integrated iPads in their everyday learning. For example, in a lesson about business and finance the teacher tasked her students to come up with a business idea, a product, a budget, and a public relations campaign. Throughout the month they were able to earn dollars for academic tasks that they could spend in a student store during “shopping week.” Morgan said their creativity and enthusiasm was amazing, with one boy selling Lego classes and another girl painting nails. She said the variety of products was awesome and the kids were super into it. She particularly loved how the dollars were kept in a pile on the teacher’s desk and the children would simply walk up and collect their dollar for each task with total accountability. That day, she observed the kids had each made a sales page collage and emailed the product to their teacher for grading. All on the iPad!! Second grade!!
Another task Morgan observed was language arts and reading comprehension. Each day the teacher would read a book aloud to her students. For those who preferred to read alone or with a partner, they simply left the room and went into the library to check out a book at their reading level on their individual iPad. After completing the story, they would answer five reading comprehension questions from the book. The next story, customized to their reading level, would then be made available for checkout. That means each child was reading and tracking at their individual reading level with independence. Morgan was amazed to see children that ranged from first grade reading level to eighth grade reading level all engaged in the task. No kids left behind indeed!
And the third task I wanted to share doesn’t even involve technology, but simply good citizenship. Morgan was delighted to see how the teacher provided facilitation, but required the kids to do their own social problem solving. The example she shared was when one boy left a game for his friend to cleanup, the teacher simply brought the boys together and challenged them to negotiate a solution. Morgan said the teacher didn’t lead them, but would simply reinforce skills with comments like, “That’s excellent sharing from your heart Johnnie,” and “Now what can Michael do to make it up to you so you’re not resentful and your friendship can be as good as ever?” Morgan said the boys worked it out and left with a clear and mutually agreed upon solution. Oh my gosh! As parents we can take a page from this teacher’s playbook for sure.
In closing, I wanted to sprinkle some positives into this week. Just remember when you get discouraged about the dangers of technology use, don’t forget that the benefits are transformative as well. Black and white thinking is not the answer to a complex problem. Please join the dialogue with comments after this blog and on our GetKidsInternetSafe Facebook page! How has technology helped your students in the classroom?
Thanks for your support and, as always, please share this blog link with anybody else you think has an opinion about kids and Internet safety.
I’m the mom psychologist who will help you GetYourKidsInternetSafe.
Like Tracy Chapman crooned, “Talking about a revolution sounds like a whisper.” Each day I am inspired by experiences that seem divinely connected. I hope today’s article, which includes some TED talks and a wacky story about how I met my husband, triggers in you the inspiration to be a smarter parent in the digital age and join the GetKidsInternetSafe (GKIS) Parenting Revolution. It is time!
You know those days when the universe hands you experiences that somehow connect? And when that happens, you feel compelled to DO SOMETHING? It’s as if you’ve just received a gift and must decide whether to unwrap it and delve into something deliciously important or simply fold laundry and carry on with your day?
This morning the universe handed me two TED talks, a psychology ethics and law conference, and a scary clinical story of the week. Morgan referred me to the first TED talk after she saw it in a college education course (embedded at the bottom of this article). In this award winning presentation (2013 TED Prize), educational researcher, Sugata Mitra, describes his brilliant experiment where he placed a computer in a hole in the wall facing a slum in India with no instruction and no supervision. After a few weeks, researchers returned to the computer to find that groups of children had taught themselves, and each other, complex theory, even when it wasn’t in their own language! When he repeated this experiment with an adult standing by to provide praise (still no instruction), the children performed even better! He argues that our education system is outdated and argues for reform. Mr. Mitra’s experiment highlighted some important variables discussed within GetKidsInternetSafe. Specifically, technology is an excellent motivator and learning tool for our children, and adult affection and supervision remains essential for our children’s healthy cognitive and emotional development. He also highlights the need for analysis and redesign to educate our children in the digital age. OPPORTUNITY.
In regard to the clinical situation that struck me this week, ethics restraints inhibit me from describing it in detail. But let me just say it involves two vulnerable adolescents who acted out sexually at school in a way that was clearly inspired by pornography exposure. These types of situations are extremely distressing for all involved and happening at a frequency I’ve never before seen in my 20-year clinical career. CONCERN.
I also attended a law and ethics conference this week. Although my colleagues and I sometimes dread these conferences due to the discussions about informed consent and computer firewalls, I always leave energized make a difference as a psychologist. HARD WORK.
The second TED talk I included illuminates the courage needed to start a movement and touches upon the importance of, not just the movement’s creator, but also the first follower. As a get-to-know-each-other piece, I’ll tell you a story about how I learned that my most comfortable role is first follower and why, although initially irritated about it, I eventually learned to embrace this aspect of my personality (and snag my awesome husband). After all, my leadership style is what pushed me to start a much-needed revolution in parenting in the digital age when I wasn’t seeing enough of us was stepping up to lead. I’m hoping that it will inspire you to analyze what leadership role best fits you and to join the GKIS PARENTING REVOLUTION!
In the early 1990s, with four years of clinical psychology coursework out of the way, I started my hard-won internship at the local Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital. Within the first month, I signed up to participate in a 4-day Tavistock conference. The mission of this conference was to join an assortment of other mental health professionals to learn about group process. Essentially, the conference participants were tasked to form small groups and interact with each other while trained staff interpreted unconscious process. With this structure, participants learned what role(s) they took in a group by analyzing their own and other’s behaviors during prescribed tasks.
People often ask my husband and me how we met. It is always a fun story to tell them that we met and fell for each other during this weird and wonderful conference. (This is also where my husband says it was a nude conference – which it wasn’t.)
The attended with my friend, Pam, who was a mother of two and the wife of a fundamentalist minister. Being in graduate school, she was exploring all parts of her personality and impulsively attended the conference wearing a leather jacket and smoking cigarettes. (Graduate school made us all a little crazy, ha-ha.) She and I ended up in the same small group as a tall, bearded psychiatry resident from UCLA named Dan. It wasn’t long into the first day when I found myself seeking him out during the breaks. I remember becoming intrigued by his rebellious spirit and when he made some sort of Greek mythology reference, I swooned because I found him brilliant, sexy, and Tracy-level nerdish.
So to make a long story short, despite my efforts to pretend I was a consummate professional and not lusting on this mysterious psychiatry resident, Dan and I ended up co-leaders to the weirdest assortment of characters at the conference. Normally, I would have bailed on this group of wacky strangers in favor of joining friends, but I didn’t want to leave Dan, and he didn’t want to leave me. So fresh out of the Navy and disgusted with our hippy ideas, Dan shook his head as we voted for a “tribal leadership” style. This meant we took turns leading based on the group we were meeting, including my friend Pam’s group who wore crowns of leaves, called themselves “Athena,” and would only acknowledge the women in our group. See? Crazy town.
Just to touch on some highlights of our weird conference, let me say that many people dropped out from the stress. Our group took double lunches and was the only group to refuse staff support. By the end the conference, our group was voted the most in need of psychological intervention. (I exaggerate, but it’s mostly true.) Also by the end of the four days, Dan and I were half out of our minds with weird psychology process and attraction for each other. We learned so much about how we tend to lead as individuals, and this knowledge inspires me to step up when I see a need and to enlist support to make a real difference. As Dan and I walked to our cars to go home the last day, he became the first (and last) man I ever actually asked out. And, true to what we learned in the conference, we teach our three kids that being a leader is a gift that must be developed.
My anxiety about what I was seeing in practice and in my own home inspired me to start www.GetKidsInternetSafe.com. It is evident from the feedback I am getting and the learning along the way that we more than education, WE NEED A GetKidsInternetSafe PARENTING REVOLUTION!
The “Hole in the Wall” TED talk pointed out that our kids have mind-blowing learning opportunities if we embrace it with them! My clinical experiences tell me that some real damage is being done because we aren’t doing our best parenting, and the time to act is NOW! And the ethics conference reminded me that putting work into a new project is intimidating and sometimes difficult, but doing the right thing always outweighs the easy thing. And finally, the “How to Start a Movement” TED talk confirmed that it is time we take the reins in this Wild West time of unsupervised/unregulated technology. I’m up dancing people, grab your jazz hands and run to the grassy knoll. We have some real work to do!
There are lots of inspiring posts on my GetKidsInternetSafe Facebook page. Please give me some “likes” by connecting with the grey social media buttons on the side bar and recommend www.GetKidsInternetSafe.com to those you would grab by the hand to join you for an inspired interpretive dance! Time to get the GKIS PARENTING REVOLUTION launched!
I’m the mom psychologist who will help you GetKidsInternetSafe.
Last week’s article “Should Babies Be Allowed Screen Time?” offered hard guidelines for parents of babies and toddlers. I went right into the WHAT to do in response to the concerns parents come to me with. For some, that is sufficient. But for others, they want to know more WHY in order to feel confident about my recommendations.
This article offers a developmental psychology review/crash course outlining the developmental tasks children are trying to master between the first two years of their lives. With this information you can decide for yourself if screen time would enhance, be neutral, or interfere with your child’s development.
Brain Development
Brain imaging and recording technology has improved dramatically within the last decade, increasingly providing detailed evidence of brain changes throughout the developmental process. In general, the brain continues its remodeling process from infancy to adolescence, with different brain areas showing dramatic progressive change (neuronal growth) and later regressive change (neuronal elimination). This fine tuning results in more sophisticated abilities with age. (Brown).
The mind is a collection of mental modules (specific mental faculties tuned to particular types of environmental input). Each module must be stimulated in order to progressively develop. Therefore, nature (the child’s inherited brain hardware) develops in relation to nurture (experience of the environment). Developmental psychologists call this nature via nurture.
Along with the increased number and variety of brain cells that grow during infancy, myelination will also continue throughout adolescence (Brown). Myelination is the process of sheathing axons (brain cells) with white matter to insulate them and allow them to conduct the electrical impulses that create “thinking.”
In regard to the sequence brain structure maturation, remodeling appears to go from phylogenetically older to newer brain structures.
As higher brain structures develop, we see neonatal reflexes disappear while others develop into more complex strings of behavior.
In the first two weeks, babies are developing healthy respiration, circulation from the umbilical cord to the lungs, body temperature regulation, and feeding and elimination processes.
From three weeks to twelve months, babies are acquiring self-regulated skills of locomotion (crawling and walking), manipulation (hand skills), and self-feeding with solid food. They are beginning to establish a sleep pattern and maintain a sleep–wake cycle, explore sound production in preparation for speech, and establish initial sensorimotor schemes and mastering object permanence. Over time, sleep and behavior patterns change and the baby will develop increasingly complex skills such as visual scanning, reaching and grasping, social smiling, self-soothing, crawling, and walking.
Cognitive & Motor Development
The work of developmental psychologists demonstrate that during the sensorimotor stage of development (0-2 years old), children must physically manipulate objects in a complex environment while simultaneously receiving instruction and stimulation from loving caregivers. With the child’s biological blueprint for learning already in place, environmental enrichment allows the baby to transition from being a reflexive being to mastering purposeful, goal-directed behavior. Parents show the baby how and what to think, slowly building the complexity of teaching with a delighted dance between baby and parent.
Research demonstrates that children learn better in collaboration with others rather than alone. For example, children are more likely to engage in symbolic play if they are playing with somebody else rather than by themselves. The more sophisticated the child’s tutor in advancing the complexity of the play, the quicker the child’s skills advance. Working with another person increases the child’s motivation to learn, requires the child to articulate ideas, allows the child to build upon another’s increasingly complex cognitive strategies, and teaches the child how to understand the beliefs and feelings of others (build empathy).
It has been hypothesized that babies have mirror neurons in multiple parts of the brain that facilitate imitation and learning. A mirror neuron fires both when an action is observed and when the action is actually executed. In other words, the neuron mirrors the other person’s behavior as if it was actually being carried out. Mirror neurons are thought to be a genetic advantage that allows us to anticipate and understand the actions of others prior to learning the activities ourselves, as if the baby was genetically primed for specific types of learning. Researchers believe that mirror neuron systems develop before 12 months of age and proactively facilitate the learning of empathy and language (Falck-Ytter).
Language Development
In order for young children to develop all aspects of language, they must have frequent conversational engagement with caregivers. Research shows that parents tend to create a supportive learning environment, starting with parentese (short, simple, high-pitched, repetitive sentences that is awesome at getting baby’s attention), with the parent gradually speaking with longer and more complex sentences just ahead of the child’s ability.
Intonational prompts by the parent are often successful at affecting a baby’s mood and behavior.
Children of parents who frequently expand, recast, and otherwise extend their children’s speech acquire complex speech more quickly.
During their first year, a baby’s burgeoning familiarity with the phonological (sound) aspects of language is laying the foundation for language development.
Newborns show preference for mom’s voice over any others.
At 2-3 months, infants can distinguish consonant sounds.
By 7 months, they have learned the first rule in pragmatics (social language) to not interrupt and wait for your turn to talk.
By 8-10 months, babies use gestures and facial expressions to communicate and eventually pair with words and then sentences.
Babies are active, rather than passive, learners and, therefore, thrive with interactive stimulation.
Emotional Development
Parental interaction has a profound impact on how emotions develop and what strategies are employed for emotional self-regulation. The better the “fit” between parent and child, the more secure the attachment and the better the child learns to regulate emotion.
Babies develop various emotions in their first two years of life, all of which are highly influenced by how parents react. Young children gradually shift from relying on caregivers for emotional regulation to self-regulation.
By 6 months old, infants have learned some regulation by turning away or seeking objects to suck with boys being more likely to elicit soothing from caregivers than girls.
At 12 months, infants will rock, chew on objects, or move away to soothe.
By 18-24 months, we see toddlers requesting action from caregivers, distracting themselves, and actively suppressing anger or sadness.
There is even evidence that 12-month olds avoid and react negatively to an object that elicited a fearful reaction of an adult on TV. Watch out parents, even teeny-tiny ones are affected by programming choice!
A critical contributor to healthy attachment is the bidirectional, synchronized routines that parents and infants establish over the first few months of the baby’s life. Even as young as two months, babies will show distress by a parent’s lack of emotional responsiveness. (Is it fair to think the child would be distressed watching a nonresponsive character on a screen?) With the coordinated, consistent dance between parent and child, babies learn how to trust the world and build self-regulation. Babies use animated social and verbal expressions, like smiling and crying, to communicate as well as to respond to caregiver expressions and verbalizations. This skill is called social referencing. Babies do best with attentive, delighted, patient caregivers who are present and consistently engaged. The more practiced the dance routine, the better the caregiver and baby get at interpreting each other’s signals and making necessary adjustments, eventually blooming into a mutually satisfying strong reciprocal attachment. The more quality time a caregiver spends developing the dance, the healthier the attachment.
Attachment occurs in four phases:
0-2 months – undiscriminating social responsiveness (baby orients to all humans),
4-5 months – discriminating social responsiveness (recognizes familiar people and becomes anxious with strangers),
7 months – active proximity seeking (actively seeks contact with familiar people),
3 years – goal-corrected partnership (has learned to predict the behaviors of primary caregivers and adjusts own behavior to maintain physical closeness) (Bowlby).
Inconsistent caregiving due to depression or other caregiver characteristics (history of abuse, unhappy marriage, poverty-stricken, overwhelmed, substance abuse, etc.) are more likely to result in resistant attachment and a child who is clingier, cries, and gets angry in his effort to get emotional support and comfort. Other unhealthy attachment styles result from rigid, self-centered caregiving characterized by impatience, unresponsiveness, and negative feelings about the infant or from overzealous parents who provide too much intrusive stimulation (avoidant attachment). Disorganized/disoriented attachment (also unhealthy) results when the child has experienced neglect or abuse. And to make things even MORE complicated, child temperament and the “fit” between mother and child is the primary contributor to how the insecurely attached child responds to his caregiver.
The more secure the attachment, the better the child is at complex and creative problem solving and symbolic play, demonstrates more positive emotions, and is judged by others as more attractive.
During toddlerhood, children are learning to develop autonomy versus shame and doubt. During toddlerhood, we see primarily parallel play with peers (playing next to each other rather than with each other) progressing into more complex interactive socialization. With play, toddlers explore personal boundaries and are starting to develop a conscience.
It’s been awhile since most of us had a developmental psychology class. There’s no better time to review this information than while you’re in the middle of shaping your perfect, tiny little human. I hope this justifies your heroic efforts to manage screen media effectively with your family. I know it gets harder by the year! If you know other caregivers who may like a brush-up, do me a favor and pass it on! To get the free article download “Three Powerfully Effective Ways to Get Your Kids Internet Safe”, click here.
I’m the mom psychologist who will help you GetYourKidsInternetSafe.
Mumme, D., & Fernald, A. (2003). 12-month olds avoid and react negatively to an object that elicited a fearful reaction of an adult on TV. Child Development,74(1), 221-237.
Piaget, J. (1952). The childs conception of number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Despite recent recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to discourage media use for children younger than 2 years old, little ones are spending on average one hour a day in front of screen media, with daily use consistently increasing (American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media Executive Committee; Common Sense Media). Does this pose a real risk, or is this discouragement along the lines of just not optimum?
Last weekend on a getaway with my husband, we saw a group of women enjoying an afternoon glass of wine while their toddlers sat strapped into strollers gazing at iPads. What initially struck me was how these women could afford the sedative effects of wine with babies so young. I remember my toddlers draining every ounce of energy I had by the afternoon. As much as I would have loved it, day drinking would have rendered me useless for mothering. Upon reflection, I perhaps should have been more concerned with the fact that developing babies were passively staring at screens instead of crawling on the grass between delighted mommies.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not judging. If I would have had an iPad available during that stage, I’m certain I would have used it. But I’d have felt guilty about it and craved guidelines about how much was OK and why. Credible authorities like the AAP recommend no to little screen time for infants and toddlers, but the why is a harder question to get at with research still in its infancy.
As a university professor, I’m compelled to give this advice about babies and screen time: “No screen time AT ALL. The frequent synchronized dance between parent and child is key to healthy cognitive, motor, language, emotional, and social development and must not be interrupted. An infant’s brain has a critical window for learning. Mutually interactive input during this phase of development should be optimized. Furthermore, despite a large number of screen media education programs for infants and toddlers on the market, educational merit of such programs remain unproven (American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media Executive Committee). Parents, hold off on allowing your children to view screen media until they reach preschool age. And perhaps more importantly, keep your own use at a bare minimum. Attend to your developing babies instead.”
As a mother, I’m compelled to say: “Pffft. Technology is not the enemy. YOU try to keep a little one stimulated every second of the day and tell me a break here and there isn’t warranted. Yes, no use during infancy; but how about occasional 10-minute sessions for toddlers ages 1-2 years when mom and dad are desperate to eat more than three bites at a restaurant. Lighten up and incorporate limited screen time when necessary to an already enriching day.”
******
And finally, as a psychologist I suggest moderation. Without question, frequent parent-child interaction is irreplaceable as a support to all types of healthy development. The mother’s and child’s brains are designed to be exquisitely responsive to each other for progressive learning. Hours of eye gazing and verbal and nonverbal encouragement is an intricate dance that builds mutual attachment and teaches the child about the responsiveness and safety of the world. With caregivers soothing and modeling, the child builds self-regulation skills; learning that builds brain structure and will affect him throughout his lifespan.
Furthermore, if the infant is seeking interaction, it is reasonable to believe that watching a person talk AT him without response may be confusing and even distressing to the child, perhaps contributing to attachment problems research has demonstrated with nonreactive, depressed mothers. The child should be reinforced for interactive behaviors, not ignored because the audience is an actor on a screen. We certainly don’t want a child to slow down or stop trying to elicit interaction because of a learning history with failed attempts.
On the other hand, children are resilient and typically participating in a variety of stimulating activities. Occasional, brief parent time-outs are unlikely going to result in catastrophic learning gaps. Furthermore, interactive technological like Skype and FaceTime may give the child access to attachment figures and stimulating activity of pure reciprocal joy they might otherwise have to go without. Just remember that like infants, toddlers are demanding of attention for excellent reason – they need it for healthy development! Also, parents lose time (and don’t realize it) when they get lost in the vortex of technology, so moms and dads need to keep an eye on their own screen media diet as well.
In conclusion, research has demonstrated that excessive screen time use by young children may result in developmental delay. Anecdotal evidence suggests with the explosion of new handheld devices available, more children may be getting negatively affected than ever! Furthermore, educational merit of little ones using screen media remains unproven. The less young children are in front of screens instead of interacting with the real world and real people, the better. Screen media’s inability to read and respond to infant response is a significant handicap and one could imagine how confusing, and perhaps influential, that may be to a young child. However, if parents occasionally allow use of television, phones, or tablets to entertain a child with appropriate content for a short period of time, such as Skype or FaceTime, the baby will probably not experience significant negative effect.
I suggest these sensible GKIS guidelines:
With the exception of occasional interactive media use with parent monitoring, no screen time before one year old. And once your child is 1-2 years old, limit screen exposure to short intervals with appropriate content. This means 10 minutes a day max. 3D toys they can hold and manipulate are better, and person-to-person contact is best!
Choose interactive (Skype, FaceTime) rather than passive screen media whenever possible.
Get used to saying “no” to your child and meaning it. Just because the baby reaches for it, doesn’t mean it’s in her best interest to have it. If you are an awesome parent, you’ll be saying “no” for the next 18 years…a lot! Get used to it.
Model a healthy media diet yourself. Your energy is best spent chasing babies in and out of blanket forts than day drinking with your girlfriends. Remember that infants and toddlers are laying down extensive neurological hardware that needs quality support. As the parent, you provide the necessary scaffolding for development. Despite efforts to “erase the video deficit” (the one-way nature of screen media) by installing questions and pauses in children’s television programming, only a parent has the exquisite sensitivity to respond to a child’s ever-changing cognitive and emotional needs.
If you’re feeling guilty because you’re attending too much to your screen media instead of your child, listen to that inner voice and make adjustments. Infancy flies by and critical learning windows close. You’ll miss it when it’s gone, and your child may too in the form of developmental delay. Soak in all you can before they get to school age. You’ll have plenty of time for day-drinking once they’re grown.
Set up conservative media guidelines from the get-go by considering how your rules may change in the future. I see parents get into trouble, because they are too liberal while their children are young, then get resistance when they later try to scale technology use back as the children become more sophisticated in their ability to seek inappropriate material. Rather than giving a lot of rope and pulling it back in response to a crisis, instead gradually dole it out as your child develops. That means very little media time with young children. If they grow up with rules, it is less likely that they will resist it later. Imagine the gradual opening of a funnel. Start by allowing a little and increase screen access as they gain impulse control.
Use good judgment with screen media content as well as exposure time. There is evidence that, just as a lack of stimulation is harmful to development, so is overstimulation with screen media. Brain research shows that screen media stimulates the pleasure center in the brain (dopamine in the nucleus accumbent) much likes drugs of addiction. While your littles are building their neurological framework, overstimulation may change brain structure. We aren’t yet sure how, but do you want your baby to be the guinea pig?
I hope this helps with your decision about whether to allow your 0-2 year old access to screen media. Nothing is better than making an educated decision and attending to your loving instinct. After considering the developmental variables, what is your opinion about infant/toddler use of screen media? Please pass this information on to any friends or family with young children. If you’d like some step-by-step instruction on how to get started on the right foot, check out my Connected Family Online Course. In 10 easy steps you can stage your home so your kids get the best learning enrichment from screen time while avoiding risk!
I’m the mom psychologist who will help you GetYourKidsInternetSafe.
“Managing Media: We Need a Plan.” American Academy of Pediatrics, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 May 2014.
“Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years.” American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media Executive Committee, Pediatrics, Vol. 128 No. 5, November 2011.
“Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America.” Reviews & Age Ratings. Common Sense Media, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 24 May 2014.
Summer has arrived and parents everywhere are alight with anticipation and dread. It’s your job to be a good-enough parent, not a perfect one. Here are 7 GetKidsInternetSafe guidelines to help.
We are a week into summer at our house, and it has started already; that nagging guilt I feel to keep my kids happy while juggling my job, marriage, friendships, and sanity. The dreaded “bored” word hangs over my head like a dead tree limb ready to snap. Help!
There are always the über moms who had it together two months ago and scheduled Cantonese class, violin lessons, and sailing camp. Having a twenty year-old and being in session with the übers, I am over the fantasy that I am that mom. And frankly, I’m happy to say so, because that impossible expectation leads these beautiful, ambitious souls to have two gigantic glasses of wine every night and chases their husbands into the garage, as her resentment poisons the room. The sadly ironic fact is that a mother’s love for her children inspires her intensity. One or two activities at a time, please. Unscheduled time is valuable for healthy development.
And please know, writing these pieces makes me gag a little. Because I am the first to say I’m a good-enough mom, but far from perfect. I do and say things often that I have to apologize for and wish I could take back. But there are other times when I grin at myself because my babies are giddy little souls who wrestle puppies, build sky castles of hot lava on their computers, and climb trees.
My GetKidsInternetSafe guidelines should be read as they are intended; to give you permission to be happy outside of your parenting role while being proud and delighted with what you do pull off. And know that these are guidelines. Adopt what you want, how you want. Nothing is more valuable than your organic parenting instinct.
Practice mindfulness.
Stop, attend to the present, breathe from your diaphragm with a 6-second exhale, and fill your heart with the love of your children. This will help you set your priorities and keep you from becoming a screeching, bossy lunatic.
DJ.
Nothing gets the house rockin’ like some Elton John and a parent who sings badly. A little Earth, Wind, and Fire also inspires the spirit to soar through clumsy interpretive dance. As my dad used to say while we happily hustled around his knees, “It isn’t dancin’ unless your shoulders are movin!”
12:00-3:00 no screen time.
Be warned, the first couple days they will sit on the couch moaning in agony and run through every manipulative strategy they have in their brilliant cognitive toolboxes. Don’t cave! Eventually they will climb trees, read books, and wrestle until lamps break, as kids should. <note Brady Bunch reference>
One educational lesson a day.
It doesn’t have to be a kill and drill workbook though. Maybe 10 minutes on an educational or exploratory app like Google Earth or a TED talk. My kids like TED talks, and they give us something to discuss other than “kid stuff” that makes my eyes glaze over.
Kids need sun and run.
Schedule a nature event at least once a week, if not every day. Maybe you can’t pull off the beach or the mountains, but you certainly can take a walk around the block or visit a park to have a picnic.
When they beg not to go with, make them anyway.
We went to a concert in the park last night with our kids sulking in tow, and heck if they didn’t have a wildly fabulous time sitting on the blanket, playing tag, and eating chicken tostada salads and popcorn. Glow sticks, not to mention the horror of your parents dancing with a clumsy herd of friends in front of EVERYBODY, were a bonus. By the end they were spinning and hopping with us as well. My heart burst a bunch of times and my soul paid rapt attention and soaked it in. These moments are precious, but they sometimes have to be staged.
Treat the word “bored” as a cuss word.
It’s not allowed in our house and will immediately result in a consequence. Because first of all, that’s not MY problem. And secondly, the stinkin’ thinkin’ will make them miserable. So nip it in the bud.
Make sure you’ve subscribed to www.GetKidsInternetSafe.com for your free copy of “The Top 10 Mistakes Parents Make With Internet Safety (and How to Recover!). And please share your summer ideas with the GetKidsInternetSafe village. Cheers to making sunbaked, juicy life memories with your babies. (That tree pic is my son in the tree before school. I took it from my bedroom window). 🙂
I’m the mom psychologist who will help you GetKidsInternetSafe.
Rochelle E. Tractenberg, Ph. D., M.P.H., Ph.D., PStat®
