Recently the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that no child under the age of 2 watch television. I'm curious what reactions Tipsters might have to this recommendation. My initial reaction is that while much of what they say (as reported in the news media) makes sense, few of the supporting arguments are based on the notion that there are direct adverse consequences of watching TV (e.g., traumatizing children through graffic depictions of violence). Rather, many of the arguments seem to be based on the notion that there are indirect adverse consequences (e.g., watching television reduces active play, or watching television reduces the amount of human interaction). Since active play and amount of human interaction can conceivably be varied independently of television watching, It makes me wonder if the focus should be on the evils of watching television or the benefits of promoting active play and human interaction. It also seems to me that the quality and appropriateness of the TV show are relevant variables. "Blue's Clues" for example certainly encourages "active viewing" in that the audience is addressed directly and encouraged to respond. It seems to me that one must also define what is meant by watching TV. Does it refer to all commercial television, adult television, children's television, or any video presentation. In this context, I am reminded of a video tape our developmentalist showed me that was designed to encourage the cognitive development of children under the age of 12 mo. It consisted of a variety of geometric shapes that would move in various patterns, sometime predictably, sometimes not. Is the American Academy of Pediatrics telling us that watching such a video is harmful rather than beneficial to the child? Just curious in the reactions of others. Buddy Grah Dep't of Psychology Austin Peay St. Univ. Clarksville, TN 37044
