Fast-Paced Cartoons Like SpongeBob May Harm Children’s Brains

[Spongey34]

Children who watch fast-paced cartoons like SpongeBob SquarePants perform worse when asked to follow rules or delay gratification than kids who spend time drawing or watching slower, educational programs, a study found.

The 4-year-old children who watched nine minutes of SpongeBob on Viacom Inc.s Nickelodeon channel performed only half as well on tasks as those who spent the same amount of time drawing or watching Caillou, a Public Broadcasting Service educational program about a 4-year-old boy, said Angeline Lillard, lead author of todays study in the journal Pediatrics.

Programs that are fast paced and feature unrealistic events may over-stimulate the brain, making it harder to trigger executive function, a process used to complete tasks, Lillard said. Children may also mimic the characters after the show ends and not concentrate. Parents need to consider how frenetic a show is, as well as its content, when deciding what their young children watch, she said.

We dont know how long this effect lasts, Lillard, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in telephone interview. It may be that children recover quickly. Certainly, immediately after, there was a strong impact particularly on the most challenging tasks.

Animated Sponge

In the study, 60 4-year-olds were split into three groups. One group watched a truncated episode of a very popular fantastical cartoon about an animated sponge that lives under the sea. Another saw a truncated episode of a realistic PBS cartoon about a typical U.S. preschool-aged boy. The third was given paper, crayons and markers and spent the time drawing.

The children were then asked to perform four tasks such as playing games that involved following rules and an activity in which they had to delay having a snack. The researchers measured how well each child performed.

Those who watched SpongeBob performed the worst on all tasks, while overall those in the drawing group and the Caillou group
performed about the same, the findings show.

These childrens brains were actually tired from all of the stimulation, and then the expectation that they focus on something became a challenge for them, said Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle
Childrens Research Institute, in a telephone interview.

Appropriate Television

Not all TV is the same, he said. Its not about no television, its really about appropriate amounts and appropriate types of television.

A typical preschooler spends about 4.5 hours a day watching television or DVDs, said Christakis, who wrote an accompanying commentary in the journal. Children today start watching TV at 4 months of age compared with 4 years of age in 1970, he said.
More studies and larger trials are needed to replicate these findings and determine the long-term effects on children, he said.
Ari Brown, a pediatrician in Austin, Texas, and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media, said there are questions about the long-term effects on children based on the amount of television they watch, the types of shows and how the shows are structured.

Technology is great, but we also want to explore how does that impact our kids, said Brown, who wasnt an author of todays study, in a Sept. 9 telephone interview. If in fact there is some impact from chilling out, watching a fun show on immediate executive function afterward, my message to parents would be get your kids to finish their homework first before they sit down and watch TV.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/fast-paced-cartoons-such-as-spongebob-may-harm-kids-brains-study-finds.html

 

[Spongey34]

Study: SpongeBob causes short-term attention problems in young kids

CHICAGO The cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is in hot water from a study suggesting that watching just nine minutes of that program can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.

The problems were seen in a study of 60 children randomly assigned to either watch SpongeBob, or the slower-paced PBS cartoon Caillou or assigned to draw pictures. Immediately after these nine-minute assignments, the kids took mental function tests; those who had watched SpongeBob did measurably worse than the others.

Previous research has linked TV-watching with long-term attention problems in children, but the new study suggests more immediate problems can occur after very little exposure results that parents of young kids should be alert to, the study authors said.

Kids cartoon shows typically feature about 22 minutes of action, so watching a full program could be more detrimental, the researchers speculated, But they said more evidence is needed to confirm that.

The results should be interpreted cautiously because of the studys small size, but the data seem robust and bolster the idea that media exposure is a public health issue, said Dr. Dimitri Christakis. He is a child development specialist at Seattle Childrens Hospital who wrote an editorial accompanying the study published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics.

Christakis said parents need to realize that fast-paced programming may not be appropriate for very young children. What kids watch matters, its not just how much they watch, he said.

University of Virginia psychology professor Angeline Lillard, the lead author, said Nickelodeons SpongeBob shouldnt be singled out. She found similar problems in kids who watched other fast-paced cartoon programming.

She said parents should realize that young children are compromised in their ability to learn and use self-control immediately after watching such shows. I wouldnt advise watching such shows on the way to school or any time theyre expected to pay attention and learn, she said.

Nickelodeon spokesman David Bittler disputed the findings and said SpongeBob SquarePants is aimed at kids aged 6-11, not 4-year-olds.

Having 60 non-diverse kids, who are not part of the shows targeted (audience), watch nine minutes of programming is questionable methodology and could not possibly provide the basis for any valid findings that parents could trust, he said.

Lillard said 4-year-olds were chosen because that age is the heart of the period during which you see the most development in certain self-control abilities. Whether children of other ages would be similarly affected cant be determined from this study

Most kids were white and from middle-class or wealthy families. They were given common mental function tests after watching cartoons or drawing. The SpongeBob kids scored on average 12 points lower than the other two groups, whose scores were nearly identical.

In another test, measuring self-control and impulsiveness, kids were rated on how long they could wait before eating snacks presented when the researcher left the room. SpongeBob kids waited about 2 1/2 minutes on average, versus at least four minutes for the other two groups.

The study has several limitations. For one thing, the kids werent tested before they watched TV. But Lillard said none of the children had diagnosed attention problems and all got similar scores on parent evaluations of their behavior.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/7602146-418/spongebob-causes-short-term-attention-problems-in-young-kids-study.html


'Spongebob's' Latest Tormentor: The American Academy of Pediatrics

First it was the far right, which signaled out "Spongebob" for promoting a gay and global-warming agendas.

And Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics will also take aim at the 12-year-old Nickelodeon kids series, reporting a study that concludes the fast-pace show, and others like it, aren't good for children.

Using what it calls a "controlled experimental design," the AAP said its study found that preschool-aged children " were significantly impaired in executive function immediately after watching just nine minutes of a popular fast-paced television show relative to after watching educational television or drawing."

That show, of course, is "Spongebob Squarepants."

According to an individual with knowledge of the AAP's press strategy, the organization's Monday announcement will be picked up by ABC, NBC and Associated Press.

Nickelodeon didn't have a comment on the matter, but did release this statement, questioning the sea-worthiness of the study: "Having 60 non-diverse kids, who are not part of the show's targeted demo, watch nine minutes of programming is questionable methodology and could not possibly provide the basis for any valid findings that parents could trust."

A key issue for Nickelodeon officials: "Spongebob" is targeted to kids 6-11, but the study focused on 4-year-olds.

An individual close to the network said the program's broad awareness among parents has been leveraged before to gain noteriety and spur funding.

In 2005, James Dobson, head of the Christian Right group Focus on the Family, said the cartoon's tolerance themes were really code for gay-agenda promotion.

And just last month, Fox News personalities Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson got on the series, as well as the U.S. Department of Education, for allegedly promoting global-warming science.

As for its study, officials for the American Academy of Pediatrics were unavailable for comment Sunday.

"People do studies all the time about the effects of media. This one will stress out parents unnecessarily," said an individual close to Nickelodeon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/11/idUS403526533420110911

 

[Steel_Sponge]

Those guys are like, seriously?

 

[Spongefifi]

Man, this is all over the news, what da... but the thing people are missing is simply the fact that SpongeBob is not for little kids! Of course they ignored the big "TV-7" rating. And people still can't get that through their thick skulls. It's not supposed to be educational, and it IS supposed to be silly and well, dumb. (in a good way..for older kids...and adults) :roll:

 

[RedSoxFan274]

And they're surprised at these results? They're FOUR-YEAR-OLDS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SpongeBob's rating Y7? At least, it used to be. I personally get sick and tired of this new generation of thirtysomething parents blaming everything that goes wrong in children's society on a little yellow sponge. :mad:

Oh, and for the record, Caillou may certainly be a quieter show than SB, but have you seen that kid's personality? And the thing is, the way he acts sometimes, if Caillou were a real-life four-year-old, who would get the blame for his acting out? Poor Mr. SquarePants.

Oh yeah, and, um, far right people? Don't you know that the creator of the show has clearly stated time and time again that SpongeBob is not homosexual? And that isn't good enough for you? Jeez, do your research, far right. Oh, and what is wrong with global warming advocacy? What, just because you yahoos refuse to believe in it means that it's a crime for kids to be aware that it's actually happening? I seriously think you'd rather have a world without SpongeBob where little kids are dropping litter in the street instead of vice versa. Good Lord, far right. You never fail to exasperate me. Why don't you go back to drawling in your Texan and Alaskan accents about how social security's a ponzi scheme like you're supposed to be doing and get the heck out of our hair.

[/rant]

Sorry you had to see that. It's truly sad when a simple article about a harmless children's cartoon gets people to spill out all their fiery-tempered political views. :(

 

[spongygirl92]

Um, don't they have better things to report on the news than this nonsense?

Videos from ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.co...oblems-14500138
http://abcnews.go.co...laylist=1363742

 

[DadMom AngryPants]

I have a lot to say about this, and will come back with my full, long, rant later when I have more time to write it.

For now I will just say that normally I laugh at their digs on Spongebob ("he's gay", "he makes kids fat", "he's pushing a global warming agenda"), but this time I'm actually angry and upset.

 

[abney317]

I saw this on ABC News last night... to me it's hard to really determine these things
I kind of think it's ridiculous
like Tom Kenny was quoted saying last night on ABC, something along the lines that it's a kids show for entertainment and the educational shows are "boooring"

 

[PhilipB]

I'm amazed by the fact TV shows in America have on-screen ratings. We don't, it's just up to the parent to decide what to watch, but usually, shows that are not for children are shown after the 9pm watershed (when swearing is allowed, and nudity after 11/12), no need for ratings for every single show.

Plus the fact you have to actually put another logo on screen for the whole programme to tell you its educational ("e/i" IIRC), surely you'd know from the description in the guide or by watching it previously.

 

[DadMom AngryPants]

This "study" is total *dolphin chirp* and the media have completely blown it out of proportion. What started off as a vague, inconclusive bit of pseudo-science has turned into "Spongebob causes ADHD". "Spongebob shown to cause learning difficulties". "Spongebob makes kids stupid".
NO.
NOWHERE in this study is it shown that watching Spongebob makes kids stupid, never mind induce a mental illness! How can anybody possibly take this study seriously? The kids weren't tested beforehand, so there is no proof whatsoever that they performed poorly in the tests because they had been watching Spongebob. The results DO NOT give any evidence that kids were any "stupider" after watching Spongebob than before. Where is the control group in this study? To draw any sort of conclusion this test would need to be conducted on at least 100 kids, and even then you're pushing it.

It makes me angry, and actually kind of scared, that so many people are lapping this up without thinking about it for themselves. Even though it's not the first time SB has been attacked by the media (for being a gay, anti-Christian global warming peddler) this is the first time that he's been the "baddie". Who in their right mind would stick up for an evil little guy that "causes learning difficulties?" The trouble is, only people like us who take the time to do the research find the huge gaping holes in these incriminating statements. The vast majority of parents will just read the headline and it will stick with them. Then it will get passed on - "Oh, did you hear they did a study that proves Spongebob is bad for kids?" Everybody just accepts it as fact. Like if you heard that a guy on your street was arrested as a murder suspect; even if he was proven guilty, you'd still be wary of him. So even if they did a further study that showed Spongebob actually ain't all that bad, who is going to care? That's not a headline they can spash across the newspaper.

Basically, the damage is done, and Spongebob has another battle scar. I just hope they can find a bandage big enough to cover this one.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/walt-handelsman-1.812005/spongebob-s-in-trouble-1.3164370

 

[Piper]

I just found a loophole against Lillard and his group of anti-entertainment ninjas. Aren't shows like that contain junk like "Where's the Apple?" or "Can You Find My Dog?" Just as fast paced? It seems like they are JUST waving the finger at SpongeBob. A show I dislike, Fairly Odd Parents, feels more faced paced in my opinion, Timmy wakes up, wishes for something crazy a minute after, and everything instantly changes. Blues Clues is an example of a "Can You Find-" show, but that's a show for much younger kids. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SpongeBob's rating Y7?" I think it is, yes. Okay, I will admit a few episodes are a little faced paced ( ex,Grandpappy the Pirate ) But many short episodes have done well in paced factors, (Waiting, The Donut of Shame) So what, really, is the point of this article? If this "Lillard" guy has made a article more ridiculous than this, I'd like to know.

 

[RedSoxFan274]

That is INCENSING. :mad: Wait, is "incensing" a word? I don't care if it's not a word, if it isn't a word I'm going to submit it to the Merriam-Webster people and call it incensing ANYWAY.

(For you newer members around here, this hasn't come up in awhile, but I have the habit of--rightly or wrongly--being infuriated and offended by basically any cartoon drawing that uses SB with a negative fashion. For example, this one.)

And thank you, DMAP, for echoing my sentiments when I actually was afraid I'd get slapped with a suspension for straying off course and into an area of discussion that really should belong in The Salty Spittoon. :P

 

[DadMom AngryPants]

Bob Flynn's response. (For those who don't know, he's writes and draws Spongebob comics from time to time.)

It's nice to know that there are still some people on his side. Although, I guess we won't know how much damage has truly been done until we see next Saturday morning's ratings. (And possibly those for the new eps on Friday).

 

[spongygirl92]

The cartoon doesn't deserve all this negative nonsense. I'm not surprised the media bothered to search even the "smallest" thing going on with SpongeBob since it's such a successful cartoon. Are they doing this to bring down the show and it's popularity? Could be so.

BUT, think about it...the SpongeBob cartoon is like a celebrity. I mean, do other cartoons get this much attention from the media (besides upcoming animated films, of course)? Most likely not. Pushed that aside, DMAP explained all my opinions in her incredible rant. The political cartoon just proves how surprisingly-random SpongeBob's image is in the media.

I just hope this...this "insignificatant bull::dolphin noise::" study backfires publicly in the news by people defending this show.

UPDATE: Here's what Nickelodeon had to say on Monday:

[font="Arial][size="2"]"Having 60 non-diverse kids, who are not part of the show's target demographic, watch nine minutes of programming could not possibly provide the basis for any valid findings that parents could trust."[/size][/font]

"'[font="Arial][size="2"]SpongeBob' is intended to be viewed by kids of age groups 6 to 11".[/size][/font]

http://www.newjersey...amages-children

 

[hasfarr]

The media are agog with reports about a new study critical of everyones favorite cartoon invertebrate, SpongeBob Squarepants. Headlines scream Spongebob Squarepants causes learning problems and Watching Spongebob Squarepants makes preschoolers slower thinkers yikes! Could the little yellow fry-cook with the annoying laugh be so dangerous?

Maybe. But the study certainly doesnt show anything so dire. In fact, it barely shows anything at all. As usual, the media over-hyped a small, mundane report whose logical conclusion should be barely a yawn.

As an aside: the actual study doesnt explicitly mention SpongeBobthe authors refer to a very popular fantastical cartoon about an animated sponge that lives under the sea. Were assuming it was SpongeBob, but that could be unfair. Maybe it was a different sponge cartoon.

The authors, from the University of Virginia, recruited 60 four-year olds (not 64 year oldsthough it would have been funny to see what they thought of the cartoons, too.) 20 kids watched 9 minutes of Spongebob (presumably), 20 kids watched 9 minutes of a realistic Public Broadcasting Service cartoon about a typical U.S. preschool-aged boy widely reported as being Caillou, who the authors failed to mention is much balder than a typical child. The 20 remaining children played with crayons.

Immediately afterwards, all of the children undertook four different tests of attention and focus. One was a sort of Simon-says, touch your body part game; one other test determined if the children were able to wait a few minutes before eating a snack, or if they chose to eat it immediately. In all four tests, the SpongeBobbers did more poorly than children watching bald Caillou or doodling.

Interesting, but hardly surprising. SpongeBob is not a show for four-year-olds its for school-aged kids. What if the children were shown other types of programming that wasnt designed for them, like Dancing with the Stars or the local news? Caillou is soft and slow and gentle. SpongeBob is frantic. Should it surprise anyone that it got preschoolers keyed up?

Furthermore, only 20 children actually watched Spongebob. Such a small study might be interesting, and might pave the way for further research. But its hardly a large enough sample to lead to grand conclusions.

And, most importantly, how would these same kids do after an hour or so? Its very possible likely, I think that after a little while, the kids would settle down. Does Spongebob, as the media headlines indicate, really cause learning problems or slow thinking?

Many children do watch too much TV and excessive television has been linked in good studies to poor school performance, behavior problems, and obesity. I think most children would probably be healthier if they watched less TV. But based on this study Im not so convinced that 9 minutes of Spongebob, specifically, is going to cause significant or long-term problems.

Posted by: Roy Benaroch, MD, FAAP at 11:12 am

TL;DR The article is bogus.

 

[RedSoxFan274]

When something creates this big of an outcry, someone's got to start voicing opinions from the other side eventually! Mega high-five to whoever wrote this!

 

[RedSoxFan274]

Hurrah! Somebody turned the lights on today! That's three quotes/articles/cartoons/etc./whatever I've seen coming from our side!

The Bob Flynn drawing is absolutely heartbreaking, but I'm very glad to see somebody finally got some sense in their head about this.

 

[spongygirl92]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/fast-paced-cartoons-children-14510387?tab=9482931&section=1206835&playlist=1363742

Hrmm, I see they made some sense in the end right thar.

 

[SimbaObsesser]

I saw this on ABC News last night... to me it's hard to really determine these things
I kind of think it's ridiculous
like Tom Kenny was quoted saying last night on ABC, something along the lines that it's a kids show for entertainment and the educational shows are "boooring"

Me too! I saw this whole thing on the news 2 days ago! I remembered that part and I think it's ridiculous too.

 

[Bugs Bunny]

Ah, another smurt person.

This reminds me of the people who saw Family Guy and criticized it's content due to thinking it was aimed towards children >_>