that television isn’t the healthiest of activities. Yet, like
cigarette smoking in the 1970s, it’s one of those harms we continue to
whitewash or worse — exposing our children to it as though it were as
innocent as playing with Tinkertoys.
Yet as today’s Boston Globe reminds us, TV is not this
passive device you sit your children in front of with no ill effects.
Decades worth of research have shown the harmful effects of TV on your
child’s development. Most child psychologists and child development
experts recommend no TV whatsoever for a child before
the age of 2 or 3. None. Yet a whopping 43 percent of parents plop their
toddler down in front of the television set, apparently blind to the
consequence of their actions.
But don’t take my word for it. Look at the research:
Countless studies have documented the inverse link between devotion to
the boob tube and achievement in school. Researchers at Columbia’s
College of Physicians and Surgeons concluded in 2007, for example, that
14-year-olds who watched one or more hours of television daily “were
at elevated risk for poor homework completion, negative attitudes
toward school, poor grades, and long-term academic failure.’’ Those
who watched three or more hours a day were at even greater risk for
“subsequent attention and learning difficulties,’’ and were the least
likely to go to college.
In 2005, a study published in the American Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that the harm caused by TV watching shows up even after correcting the data
to account for students’ intelligence, family conditions, and prior
behavioral problems. The bottom line: “Increased time spent watching
television during childhood and adolescence was associated with a lower
level of educational attainment by early adulthood.’’
The baleful effects of TV aren’t limited to education. The University of Michigan Health System notes on its extensive website that kids who watch TV are more likely to smoke, to be overweight, to suffer from sleep difficulties, and to have high cholesterol.
There are also the studies that show that teens who watch more sexual content on TV are twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy
over the next three years than their peers. Imagine an illicit drug was
resulting in twice the amount of teen pregnancies and how quickly
parents would be an uproar to stop the peddling of that drug in their
“Ah,” but you argue, “I grew up on TV and I came out okay!” Sure,
personal anecdotes and analogies are great, but not a great way to
inform public policy or carry on a serious public health debate. What
works for a single individual at a single point of time in a single
household doesn’t carry the same weight as a scientific study that
examines data across families and neighborhoods, studies that were
carried out over time and with attention to possible alternative
explanations (such as the fact that maybe in your household, TV
time was more strictly limited than you remember, or the content in the
programs themselves was very different than today’s content).
The upshot — we Americans watch way too much TV and we raise our
children on TV, somewhat oblivious to its negative effects on our
children’s development. While TV isn’t evil, it is a powerful
media that has a well-understood impact on a child’s or teen’s
development. Like the Internet, it should be allowed with clear rules
and conditions, and time doing it should be monitored and limited. What
the “right” number for you and your family will vary, but it should not
be “whenever they want” and “as much as they want.”
Read the full article: Silence that idiot box!
Throughout this course, you will be analyzing the arguments and
reasoning of authors on different issues in psychology. Review the
article by Dr. John M. Grohol, The Debilitating Effects of TV on Children,
listed in the fourth study of Unit 2, and use your understanding of
critical thinking skills and the Argument Analysis Worksheet to analyze
the author's position. In this discussion, address at least one of the
main arguments along with the supporting evidence used by the author.
Also, consider what the author is assuming to be true in order to uphold
the argument. Finally, identify the author's conclusions and the
resulting implications. In other words, if we accept the author's line
of reasoning, what consequence does the author's argument have on our
understanding of current research and/or theory? If we reject the
author's line of reasoning, then what consequence does rejecting the
author's argument have on our understanding of current research and
Please give proper credit to authors of information used to support your arguments using APA citations and references.
Include the following elements in your main post to the discussion:
- Discuss one of the main arguments made by the author to support his
position and include evidence used to support the author's argument.
- Discuss any assumptions the author makes.
- Discuss the implications or conclusions of the author.
keep all responses in the discussion room professional and support all
of your views with published research. Personal attacks are not
tolerated and will be reported to the administration. Some questions
call for your opinion or your own experience, so please remember not to
disclose sensitive personal information in the courseroom. This is not a
confidential environment and information posted is kept and stored for a
number of years.