Parents 'mostly' agree: gaming "mostly hurts" young children, TV "mostly helps"
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ May 25th 2006 at 5:25PM }
Today's New York Times National Report features a telling graph (pictured) that details the results of a recent survey conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The survey was conducted by phone and uses data collected by parents with children ages 6 months to 6 years. Eight focus groups of mothers were also involved.Dr. Stanley Greenspan, a child psychiatrist, says that the survey's results suggest that "[parents] are being misguided by societal messages." Given this assessment, the graph's data is hardly surprising, since societal views about video games tend do be more negative than those about television. Could this trend change over the next few decades as more gaming lifers start to spawn? We think so. But that's not to say we believe plopping our toddlers in front of a television set with (or without) a joystick is a good substitute for proper childcare.
[Graph: courtesy of The New York Times.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff @ May 25th 2006 5:36PM
Bit of a misleading headline - 38% is not "most" parents, so to say "parents 'mostly' agree" that TV is beneficial is not really correct.
The fact is parents "mostly" agree that, in fact, TV does *not* mostly help. They mostly agree that it either hurts or has not much effect. Which is the exact same truth regarding video games.
The percentages break out differently, sure, and not in gaming's favor, but the truth is the majority feels the same way about both mediums.
I realize this does not make for a dramatic headline, but I'm still not sure such liberties should be taken when reporting the news. It's a slippery slope from there to local TV-style "what you don't know about germs on your game controllers could kill you!"
Momus @ May 25th 2006 5:40PM
Still, I remember when TV was even more demonized than that by parents. So, you can hope for something else to come along and steal video games' thunder in the next decade or so.
Jon K @ May 25th 2006 5:42PM
I find it quite obscene that PLAY can be considered bad for a child, while sitting and absorbing the pre-determined world of television is considered negative.
What kind of topsy-turvy world are we living in?
LK @ May 25th 2006 5:43PM
I "mostly" support the poll, and I "mostly" think the poll is highly accurate and factual.
Jon K @ May 25th 2006 5:43PM
*EDIT* - not considered negative. Pah, long day.
cringer8 @ May 25th 2006 5:44PM
Wow. This is hilarious. It goes to show that the only people who take phone surveys are unemployed, under-educated, morons (the literal definition of a "moron" is an adult with the brain capactiy of a 12-year-old)
Phone surveys produce useless data. Why? It eliminates a HUGE sector of the survey. Namely, intelligent people who have better things to do than try to earn a "free" cruise by answering some simple questions.
Video games incorporate hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills, memorization, visualization, communication, etc.
TV stimulates merely the visual and audio proccessing parts of the brain. It's common sense: (a)stare at an image or (b)control an image, which would be better for the brain? Christ this is dumb.
Also, james wiley (what an ironic last name), what do you picture a parent doing with their child that could be called "proper parenting?" Do you HAVE kids? Obviously not, or you would know better. Let's just wait to see how socially adjusted Tom Cruise's kids are going to be.
This post should have never happened. IT'S A PHONE SURVEY. Not a study out of MIT.
Paul P. @ May 25th 2006 5:45PM
Just wondering are you guys going to post the Reggie news? It has been hours.
Momus @ May 25th 2006 5:50PM
Holy shit, the Regginator's President of NOA now.
cringer8 @ May 25th 2006 5:50PM
People should divert their attention from this post to Christopher's post about the study that was done on surgeon's who played video games as children.
LK @ May 25th 2006 5:58PM
Seriously, parents today are doing "mostly" a good job and have "mostly" good judgements.
Sabre @ May 25th 2006 5:58PM
I have another study that says parents "most" nowadays are complete idiots. Guess where I got the information? Watching TV and just watching them doing everythings during daily life.
...and computers "mostly" help when compared to video games? WTH? It is WAAAY easier to find harmful and LIFE THREATENING things using a computer then video games.
@ cringer8:
"It's common sense: (a)stare at an image or (b)control an image, which would be better for the brain? Christ this is dumb."
Bingo dude...you just summed up this entire "survey" with that statement.
Raikage @ May 25th 2006 6:07PM
This survey is probably true, but that dosen't mean I like it. Actually I hate it, It's always the new medium that is hated like T.V. and radio were hated in the early years. It's really stupid to think that video games are worse for you than T.V. Just look at the basic interaction, Doing instead of just watching. There ya go, right there is the simplest form you can get, not to mention the things you have to do in a video game. I would think that parents would have the thought process to figure that out...but I'm a teenager so I know everything right? (sometimes I wonder :P) Not to disrespect parents but they just hate it because it's new and too difficult to get into with out starting at the basics...like most of us have.
Even if they want to play they cant because of the complicated controler. Thats why I believe that the Wii "may" be able to give parents the chance to get into games and see that they don't involve overly complicated controls or need to require a huge amount of time(which I think that parents have the biggest problem with)...so I'm rooting for the Wii not out of fanboyism, it's because I like all games and I hope everyone has the chance to like them too.
Share the wealth eh?
The Raikage
jabbertrack @ May 25th 2006 6:19PM
Kaiser is really trying to focus on early childhood development. I really applaud them for that. TV 'learning' products for very young children are being marketed like CRAZY and as a new father (next month) I need to be educated on these products as well.
I have seen how babies will strain their neck just to fix their eyes on a screen full of colors, and yet nobody has been able to measure any sort of development or positives from these programs or DVDs. Only negatives thus far.
I certainly won't be using TV as a sitter in my child's life but there comes a time... and I will decide when that time is... when I will guage the amount and content of video entertainment that is right for my child.
I think all Kaiser wants parents to do is to "take a look" and take a more active role instead of just not thinking about it and sitting a kid in front of a Baby Einstein video and walking away.
My wife and I are in the Kaiser system for her pregnancy and we do like what we see with their new philosophies.
Disposable Hero @ May 25th 2006 6:22PM
Because anybody with a child is immediately a grade-A qualified parent. Why do you think we see so many drug addicts and whores and all around dirt bag lowlifes that have no aim or goals in life and will amount to nothing more than a lower class stain on society that does and possibly traffics drugs, cant keep a job if they can even find one, and has no morals or personal truths or anything that could give them dignity or honor, and yet they still feel they're perfectly qualified to have children.
Pablo Gomez @ May 25th 2006 6:31PM
The funny thing is that those parents who think TV doesn't hurt and videogames do, have probably been so affected that TV, that when they watch the news and hear videogames are bad, they believe it.
Andy S. @ May 25th 2006 6:35PM
I find it interesting how "computers" (such a generic term) are considered more helpful than TV or video games, despite the fact that parents seem to fear exposing kids to nudity or even the *suggestion* of sex, at least where video games are concerned, yet computers are the easiest, most accessible way to unearth great heaping mounds of porn.
Let's check the scoreboard, shall we?
Pixellated boobs, whether in or out of a sexual context: BAD.
Twelve-minute internet video of two naked and woefully hairy German girls making out and then dropping a deuce on some guy's face: A-OK.
gozirah @ May 25th 2006 6:38PM
I think the common perception is that kids should be playing sports to get all the hand-eye coordination, and interacting with other kids in person to get all the uh, socialization skills. Also all the simulatd killing, running over people, and "sex" seems to be turning parents off to the idea of video games being helpful. And if the competition is TV, well at least the kids seem more docile when they're passively watching power rangers-- instead of screaming while button-mashing.
So it's pretty obvious the mainstream, and elder generations don't appreciate it.
You could argue there are life lessons, and fine-motor coordination training if you want, but games are built for entertainment after all. I'm not saying that educational games would be big money makers. However, I've always wondered if games could be both academically educational AND addictive/fun.
What if parents did approve? What if teachers approved? What if learned skills in gaming carried over to real life? At least the Wii-mote plausibly could help you with sports. Could Oblivion help you with physics? Could the Da Vinci code game help with history? I dunno. I thought Carmen San Diego was pretty lame.
jgrey @ May 25th 2006 6:44PM
This survey is more about stereotype though, isn't it.
jeremy @ May 25th 2006 7:01PM
#3 "I find it quite obscene that PLAY can be considered bad for a child, while sitting and absorbing the pre-determined world of television is considered negative.
What kind of topsy-turvy world are we living in?"
Umm, the last time I checked, aren't videogames a "pre-determined" world, isn't almost every communication medium have some "pre-determination to it?"
Anyways, you have to take this survey from a parents perspective, and know, a majority of them are not morons, nor are they from MIT, and (gasp) there are some that have an IQ of 100!!! From a parent's perspective there are tv shows that have some redeeming educational/"scientific" value, there is also an innumerable amount of websites where you can go to get educational resources, but when it comes to videogames, there is not a lot of educational resources, other than Brain Age for the DS, or Sudoku (games that are *explicitly* "educational" in the traditional sense.)
Platinum_Skeet @ May 25th 2006 7:23PM
My only problem is with this survey is that it says only 8% of parents think computers are mostly harmful. Has every parent surveyed forgot how easy it is to access pron on the internet? Statistics show parents are more strict to sex then violence anyday and they completely left that out.
I think the 8% on the computer side are the only parents out there that are smart. They had the since enough to know the computer gives access to the bads of all three media.
It feels to me that they just went and asked a lot of soccer moms that blame bad parenting on Video Games...
Sabre @ May 25th 2006 7:52PM
"Anyways, you have to take this survey from a parents perspective, and know, a majority of them are not morons, nor are they from MIT, and (gasp) there are some that have an IQ of 100!!! From a parent's perspective there are tv shows that have some redeeming educational/"scientific" value, there is also an innumerable amount of websites where you can go to get educational resources, but when it comes to videogames, there is not a lot of educational resources, other than Brain Age for the DS, or Sudoku (games that are *explicitly* "educational" in the traditional sense.)"
Umm...if you are going to go that route then at least be fair about it. Having an IQ above 100 doesn't make you a good parent either nor does it make you "smarter" in everything (it's called street smarts vs. book smarts.)
From an IGNORANT parents perspective there are plenty of "educational" and "redeeming" programs on TV or on the computer/internet. Besides a game doesn't need to be "edutainment" in order to be educational or safe for kids.
Besides...there are WAAAAAAY more harmful things to kids on TV and on the computer/internet then video games. Only the idiot parents think that video games have no redeeming value.
nintendo fan @ May 25th 2006 8:00PM
Whats this people who have no idea what they're talking about think video games are bad for children? Unheard of!!
cringer8 @ May 25th 2006 8:46PM
Let me elaborate on my previous post, since what I thought was obvious is getting misinterpreted.
This survey is about helping or hurting learning. A video game doesn't have to incorporate math problems to help with learning. Using as many different parts of the brain as possible stimulates blood flow to those parts of the brain which in turn helps develop the brain.
You can play Metroid and help your brain at the same time. Every time you try to remember where you went before to get to a certain area, you use the "visualization" area of your brain to create a picture that isn't in front of you (same benefits of reading).
The testing on the benefits of video games for hand-eye coordination had already been done. Video game players make better drivers. That's been proven.
As far as socialization, kids play video games together. That's all it takes. Kids need to interact with other kids. If your classmates are all playing video games, but your mom won't let you, she's only helped to alienate her kid.
One of the most important things for young children to develop is fine motor skills; the ability to manipulate tools such as pencils and scissors. Why do you think you were doing those stupid projects in Kindergarten? "Learning" isn't as important at that age as "developing." Video games help children develop important skills.
The only one that has been left out for years has been activity. They do need to move around. Hopefully their school isn't one the hundreds across the country to eliminate recess.
My comment on the "morons" was merely aimed at the people who take phone surveys. Not people who ban video games in the home. They're just ill-informed.
We, the gaming generation, owe it to the generations below us to eliminate this negative perception of gaming. Maybe if you self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers dropped a couple twenty pounds and got a tan, it would help a bit.
Exbzurg @ May 25th 2006 9:06PM
Actually, neitheir one is better or worse than the other.
Both can be positive.
For instant both can cause the illusion of social interaction.
Also both can spark new and unique ideas within the gamer/viewer.
Both can be negative though. Gamers can get into repettive behaviour doing the same tasks over ans over again. Viewers watch rerun after rerun.
Also both have the junk food factor...
Theres also more to it, btu i dont feel like typing right now. Basically both have the same impact both negative and positive.
Sirus @ May 25th 2006 9:07PM
The parents fail to see how much fun it can be to go through a game like suikoden 5 where each turn you make you are forced to think about the concequences that your actions will have on your diplomatic relations with the other cities in the game world. It might be a little hard for the kids to absorb the death of different characters in most japanese rpgs but they could still have a lot of fun and learn to read or what not. I know ive learned a ton of different vocabulary words from my gaming time that i would never have known otherwise and that has helped me on the SATs.
Games are also just so much easier to controll then tv because tv you can have the kids watching all sorts of inapropriate things in the commercials even though they could be watching some program you approve of. On the other hand, if you take an active roll in what your kids play on their game consoles, its easy to make sure that they arent playing something that is inapropriate for them.
Ryuukuro @ May 25th 2006 9:26PM
This will change in a few years. Maybe five. Maybe ten. Hopefully not twenty. As the kids who were raised playing games grow up to become healthy, responsible adults you'll see those numbers switch.
I won't say that games are as healthy as reading or sports and exercise or art projects but, given the right titles you can do two or, someday, all three of those activities at the same time.
We'll change the numbers when we become parents. But for the rest of them its up to game producers to pump out more titles for kids that encourage healthy activites and thinking, not just typical edutainment titles or the same old kiddie fare.
zsavior @ May 25th 2006 11:26PM
You Know what the problem is with these surveys, and polls. The problem is they are right, and the gamers of today are to elitist to take time and actually try and do something about it. I don't mean to call you out, but this pretty much sums up why gaming is demonized.
"The parents fail to see how much fun it can be to go through a game like suikoden 5 where each turn you make you are forced to think about the concequences that your actions will have on your diplomatic relations with the other cities in the game world." -sirus
Suikoden 5 is a videogame RPG rated "T" for teen, you see how this gets started right? You rated a game you thought was good for you, and recomended it for a parent looking towards their younger child. You see the problem is gamers aren't thinking about anybody else other than their kind. Parents don't start parenting when the child is in their teens. Secondly the demographic that makes up the largest part of the videogame audience now is 18-35 males. We all know damn well they don't care about the educational factor of videogames. We also know damn well the videogamer does not like when game compaines cator to kids, so why don't we cut the high and mighty b.s. and get off the high horse.
Gamers foster these stereotypes we ostrizie ourselves and tell, parents, casual gamers, kids, to screw off if they do want to listen to us. Then when they demonize our past time, because we didn't take the time to explain it we tell them they are "crappy parents". Just look at how we react to systems that are made towards anybody else other than the "Hardcore gamers" and you can see why they think something is wrong with us.
Gamers vilify and downgrade nintendo for reaching out to the causals, and parents. They then try to steer those same people towards the systems that only offer those violent games, because WE see them as shining brillance, we are then shocked and amaze when they turn around and accuse us of deceiving them. The fact is gaming is being demonized because the people outside of the industry are looking at the fans of the industry and all they see are bad examples.
The movie industry does it, so does the television industry, but when videogames try to cator towards children and a family atmosphere, there fans go ape and scream how they have sold out. When I was younger I watched G.I. Joe but I also saw Mr Rogers and Sesame street, there isn't the same open choices in videogames.
So right now I am going to own up to part of that survey. Right now if you are a parent and you were to do a side by side comparison TV looks a hell of alot healthier than games do for your child, may not be true but on looks yes I agree. What I will not do though is act like this is some sort of elaborate hoax, and games, gamers have been reaching out to parents and kids to join them, because that is a load of smoldering hot BULLSHIT.
Jonn @ May 25th 2006 11:37PM
It's nice to see parents are willing to seek out information on their children's media intake, in order to form a rational decision.
Insomnia Bob @ May 25th 2006 11:38PM
tr5xc5r6ext85tsr7
The above line of text was me smacking myself in the head with my keyboard.
TV= good.
Intarwebs= better.
Gaming= bad.
Seriously, folks, how much longer is this sensationalist bullshit going to last? This is the same crap we went through with the radio, television, rock and roll, and yes, even PRINTED BOOKS.
You introduce a new form of technology/entertainment, and instantly people decry it for it's evils.
Please, mankind, stop bing scared of the dark. We've explored space and mastered the atom. It's time to stop wetting ourselves in fear of change.
Ectarth @ May 26th 2006 3:54AM
It's a matter of time. In 10 years, most of the parents will be gamers. The thing is, parents need an external demonic force to justify their educational mistakes. People are not ready to admit that the problems in education (and, consequently, the problems we face every day in society) are due to THEIR problems with education. "My son is a bastard, I'M a GOOD father, so... it must be videogames". Or television. Or the Internet. Or german gay porn.
My question is: what this demonic force will be for our generation? I propose Hip Hop and Bollywood.
SuicideNinja @ May 26th 2006 9:59AM
I agree with #1. The "Mostly Helps" vs "Mostly Hurts" is about even for TV. However, it can be seen that the opinion of "Helping" is double that for video games.
This argument is so assanine. Television is completely mindless. It requires little thought, little action, and very little energy.
At least with video games the brain has to process information and react. It can teach problem solving skills and can, as the age-old saying goes, "improve reflexes". Television cannot do any of that as it provides next to no interaction.
What sounds more helpful for children's minds: solving a difficult video puzzle or watching Spongebob prance around like an idiot?
SuperChuck @ May 26th 2006 10:10AM
Leave it up to a bunch of psychiatrists to "study" what people THINK is better.
This makes the Coke/Pepsi taste tests sound vaguely scientific!
shivr @ May 26th 2006 10:16AM
This PLAY idea is a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes it kids and gaming. Yes, I agree it is more engaging to DO something than to merely passivly observe it, but thats also precisly why a lot of parents don't like it. They are presented with the logic that if a child is actually "performing" a violent action with a controller, it is more damaging than them just watching a violent action on TV. This could also apply in a positive sense: watching a show where characters are trying to solve a puzzle or read a map and "actually" trying to do these things in a video game would be more positive/educational on the video game side.
The problem therein is parental perception, what a lot of you are decring as at least misinformed and at most the ignorant ravings of whores and drug dealers (???). Most modern parents of 6 month- 6 year olds probably grew up with TV more than playing video games, and probably still watch TV in their homes with their children. But they do not have a lot of first hand experience with video games, and likely do not play video games with thier children. Its a strange, forign media which looks violent and might procure a lot more energy and reaction out of their child(ren) than the TV. So, they feel like they know TV because they grew up with it, and understand better the effects it might have on thier children because they already know how it effected (and effects) themselves, but video games are newer and by virtue of that, unknown and dangerous, allowing for a more negative perception.
Another factor in the negative perception is the shift in gaming that occured with the playstation generation, that changed many people's overall perception of games from "toys for children" to "entertainment for teenages/adults". Most games in the American public eye are now FPS's and GTA, not mario and katamari. Games are still made for children in the 6-and-under age group, but a lot of these aren't any good (Stewart Little games or those educational CD-ROMs) and probably aren't requested, and probably still contain some form of violence (the Spyro games are cute and safe, but your still running around headbutting things and setting sheep on fire). Games in general are no longer perceived as "safe" for small children, because they aren't -for- small children anymore (again, in a GENERAL sense). This goes along with zsavior's post too: we as gamers know what good games are and think they're harmless because we've experienced them, but you have to think about WHO these games are FOR, and how the industry is changing, at least perception-wise, towards what WE demand as teenage or adult consumers.
To those that think all of this will be "fixed" when the gamer generation becomes parents, I will remind you 1) not everyone in your generation plays or understands games, nor do they all think most games are unharmful to young children (I certainatly don't), 2) the previous generation grew up with television and 31% of them -still- think TV is mostly harmful for thier young children's development, and 3) As a media/um evolves and changes with the times, it will often go in directions that the origional consumers do not necissarily like or approve of. The video games of 10 years from now may be something gamer parents do not approve of for thier children, just as the TV of now is not something a lot of TV watching parents approve of for thier kids, because it has changed from what they once knew and approved of.
Video games in reality probably have both positive and negative effects on kids, from improving motor, spacial-reasoning, and certain social skills to desensitising against violence and inhibiting other social skills, and being a good parent of a kid that wants to game means doing some research into the unknown and trying to control what and how much content reaches your 6-year-old. Calling the whole thing completly negative or completly positive is foolish, but changing perceptions and informing parents about gaming and children and learning is going to take some time and effort on both sides.
SuicideNinja @ May 26th 2006 10:20AM
This argument is so assanine.
Television requires very little thought, very little interaction, and very little energy. How is that helpful?
Video games can teach problem solving skills, burn calories (DDR), and as they always say, "improve reflexes and motor skills".
The real question:
What sounds more helpful: solving a series of puzzles, or watching Spongebob prance around like an idiot?