Action Potential

I'll skip over the criticisms of the parenting skills of those who use these videos. I'll just say that some people probably can't sit and talk to their child 24/7, and perhaps giving them some entertainment that is educational and stimulating rather than nothing at all or a random TV show isn't such a bad thing.

Now, on to this study. I'm not a scientist, but I think perhaps a phone interview is a fairly poor way of determining things. Shouldn't children be objectively examined in a controlled setting? Would you normally gather scientific findings based on the subjective perception of a number of people who are largely uneducated in the field?

Even further, it seems that people assume that Disney didn't do any sort of research in the creation of Little/Baby Einstein. I would bet good money that they did, and their results probably directly contradict these findings.

This is all to say, maybe they/we/you are jumping the gun a bit on this. I'm sure the program isn't perfect by any means, but I don't think they're making your kid stupid.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a Disney fan or employee, but that just seems like bad science to me. "We talked to some people and we've all determined that your videos aren't good. Quick Jim! Write a press release! We need that new grant!")

Makes perfect sense to me. Einstein couldn't talk until he was eight and teachers suspected that he was retarded. This is probably the first time Disney ever got anything historically accurate.

F.

Jeremy,

Pretty good scientific evidence indicates that having children do precisely nothing is quite good for them, and much better than Baby Einstein. Mindless television is a problem, but letting the children free play without external stimulation is very, very good. See "Buy Buy Baby" for a good survey of literature and studies (although much stronger and more compelling studies have come out since).

It is also well documented that no research was done prior to the creation of Baby Einstein. It was created by a mother, without any scientific training, in her spare time, miraculously skyrocketed in popularity, and was bought by Disney. So I'll take your bet.

I'll skip over the criticisms of the parenting skills of those who use these videos. I'll just say that some people probably can't sit and talk to their child 24/7, and perhaps giving them some entertainment that is educational and stimulating rather than nothing at all or a random TV show isn't such a bad thing.

Except that assumes that the entertainment provided by these videos is educational and stimulating. According to what I've read, the contents are abstract animation sequences with little or no language content. Pretty pictures, but no speech. Watching Sesame Street would be better.

If I remember correctly, one of Disney's beefs with the article was that the study lumped together all of these semi-instructional videos, and did not look specifically at Baby Einstein.

If this is the case (I can't get to the article from campus), this may be a very valid point, and to single out Baby Einstein for scrutiny would actually be rather irresponsible.

(note: I'm a grad student, not a Disney employee)

Disney did not create this, a woman did using very cheap and lazy video camera techniques, followed by awful General MIDI renditions of classical music over dubbing the video. She even puts her kids in, and didn't bother to edit the bad takes.

It's been shown in many studies that the young learn from facial expressions and interaction with people. All these DVDs do is play dumb footage of some cheap toys, a few nature clips recorded by others. Even an idiot can see they're nothing more than cheap babysitters.

It is unrealistic to not let your child under 2 watch ANY tv. In the real world parents have to make dinner, take baths, answer telephone calls, tend to another child. The american pediatric society is lame. Good parenting comes from common sense, not a freakin study.

I think Disney was probably right to be a little ticked. Frankly, if the study did not attempt to analyze the effects of specific Disney products, calling those products out by name, even if its just an example, will have a deleterious effect on Baby Einstein sales. Its like saying "drinking a lot of beer, such as Bud, will lead to hangovers" even if in fact Bud does not lead to hangovers. The problem is the study does not find out for sure, its just giving an example of a beer.

I'm not an expert but it seems to me that this study is demonstrating a correlation, but not causation. A strong correlation is not proof of causation, no matter how strong that correlation is.
The trouble is that in language terms, the difference between a sentence stating a correlation and one stating causation is very slight, so it is really easy to get misled. For example, the statement "People who eat X are far less likely to get Y" is very different in meaning to "IF you eat X then you will be far less likely to get Y"

So when a study like this appears, the media and the public can easily misinterpret it, and in no time at all it becomes common knowledge that TV is bad for your children.

I don't like the Baby Einstein videos much, but I think that a little bit of those kind of videos is probably good for a childs development. They definitely give the parents a breather, and less stressed parents is good for the child!
The thing that worries me is the fashion for fast edits and wobbly camera movements on regular TV these days. It is too much even for my adult brain to handle, so I do worry a lot about the effect they may have on my child. When some commercials come on I put my hand in front of her eyes!

I agree with Jeremy on every point. We let our child watch Baby Einstein every couple of days from about 8m to now that she is 16m. She has a full vocabulary, interacts with us and other people a lot. In fact she used to ask for Einstein by name. Of course we play with our child and interact with her constantly since my wife stays home with her. Unless they were giving a 3 hour interview of questions that detail all of the background of how a child is raised I don't know how the survey could produce accurate data. I would like to see the questions to make that decision.

The abuse of research to hype silly "edutainment" products is not new. As a foreign language teacher, I especially despise the products that supposedly teach foreign languages. This stuff is snake oil. It's OK to use these videos to entertain. They're probably more tolerable than the average TV cartoon... but as for boosting IQ? That's a joke. If TV made anyone smarter we'd be a nation of Einsteins.

My 2 1/2 year old daughter watched Baby Einstein videos and coupled together with personal interaction from both her father and me during the videos she was speaking and reading way ahead of her piers. By the time she was 1 she had more than a 50 word vocabulary and by 1 1/2 she was reading over 300 words. I don't think that Baby Einstein alone will educate your children, parents need to take an active role. In addition, every child is unique and learns in their own way. I can't get my 1 1/2 year old son to sit still long enought to watch anything and he hardly speaks 5 words.

Thats because disney spends billions to get kids trained to watch there videos, no reason to wait till they are 3 or 4.
Is it a big surprise throwing your baby down in front of a tv wont help it develop as fast as maybe spending time with them, taking them out, talking to them.

Besides politics between the university and the large media corporation, I just hope we shall have fair scientific analysis and results to be shared among parents who deserve the information. It would be very unfortunate if we end up with politically twisted study from either of the sides.
The sad thing is, as original posting pointed out, that Disney seems to be rejecting the study completely without any constructive or fair efforts. It sounds like they might have threatened the professor and/or university without fair reasons, too. If the corporate end up seizing any related studies that way, it is so sad to see how American icon has became.
Speaking of any video material for babies, I think that there are good reasons why AAP and many other professionals are *not* recommending TV for babies and children under certain age. By watching my own baby, I can see all of their attention can be easily gained by TV programs and video materials, however I have to say that I saw much less activities while he's staring at the screen silently. It's our personal preference but we would love to have him play with toys and objects. It is even better if we could let him interact with real baby friends and families. Why he does so, he just looks much happier.
To be fair, my family actually has one of DVDs from the series; "My First Signs" (sign language demonstrations and instructions for babies and parents). I actually enjoyed and appreciated the material to learn about sign languages. Marlee Matlin's special appearance and her sign performance are notable. That said -- I'm bit surprised and annoyed when I realized that there are sequences of Baby Einstein toys appearing during the video. It actually comes with a special chapter just about the toys... After all, I felt that we were watching carefully crafted marketing material for the toys. After realizing the DVD content design, Disney's argument didn't seem that much compelling unfortunately.
Disney and the university should re-conduct the study with materials that is not contaminated with product marketing. Babies and parents must deserve open and fair research results. I'm suspecting that such study can end up with neither of the side, but simply dependent on individual baby's preference about their learning and interaction styles.

Either 3 things, you child is lower than avg, avg or smarter than avg.

I dont really think watching a tv show for kids will even help them. They dont even know who you guys are till they are 2 so does it matter. Let them eat cry & poop till they are 3.

Then pound the subjects into their heads.

Wow, I'm having a blast reading all of this dialogue! For the few of you who still don't see your posts, please remember that we will only post comments with a name and email address when you write your comments (the email address will not be revealed except to the moderators). Sorry, no "fully" anonymous posts.

I liked your comments too, so feel free to email me with your email address, I'll add it to your comment record in our system, and post it straight-away!

Our daughter is now 2 and has an incredible vocabulary. (Actually, a rather disturbingly full vocabulary... Watch what you say...) Both her mother and I are writers and journalists and obviously stress communication.

Our daughter grew up with Baby Einstein - 2 per day; one before her morning nap, and one before dinner.

I think this study was, in a word, bogus. First, phone interviews are anecdotal at best. Second, other environmental factors will play a more important roll. (Is the child in front of a TV for four hours per day? Is she being stimulated by active play? Is she being otherwise socialized?) Lastly, and most importantly, every child is different. Baby Einstein might be the best thing that ever happened to some kids - for others, the worst. A phone interview will not establish a child's fundamental character and personality make-up.

Honestly, this is Disney bashing - and I really don't like Disney Corp.

Brendan

Just a small comment.
A phone interview called survey - not research.
As we all know the questions asked (or in this case were not asked - like "how much time did the baby spent playing and reading with a grownup" and such) that matters, so untill real reasearch is done on the matter, I wouldn't choose a side...
Just don't overdo it, small doses of those videos, and large doses of real life interaction...

As a business consultant who uses the statistical techniques employed in this research, I have to say that this study is a complete joke. It almosts borders on academic fraud.

The results were based on a very weak sample and the data was collected in a phone survey, which just does not pass the credibility test right out of the gate.

Disney rightly pointed out that the study only focuses on a narrow age group, and is at best an anomalous statistical result and at worst simply shoddy research.

I have reviewed the regression formula and it fails to control for the amount of interaction a parent has with the child. This is such a horrendous methodological gap as to be unconscionable. It is quite possible that parents who do not spend time interacting with the child park them in front of the TV. This I can believe. But under such circumstances is it the video that limits language development or the lack of parental attention? The fact that this study cannot answer that question, yet claims to in the press release smacks of a desire to publish anything that will get picked up in the mainstream media. They then offer caveat after caveat once the bold claim in the headline is out there.

The result effectively claims that placing the child in front of a plain white wall with no stimulus is better for development than seeing a baby video. The very suggestion is, on its face, absurd. Yet we are asked to trust this on the basis of weak methodology and poor statistical control variables.

The researchers have thus far refused to post their data, which tells you something. My guess is they ran several hundred regressions and left out the right variables to sieze on a statistical anomaly to get a cheap headline. If they released the data, this would be obvious, but they have not. Hmmmmm.

Shame, shame, shame. The bar for "research" is as low as it has ever been and this proves it.

I'll tell you what kept Einstein smart, but you would NEVER believe it:

It was his so-called stupidity:

Sometimes the smartest people can be mistaken for being really slow, when in fact their genius is developing in the womb of the mind--and scientific geniuses need special environments so they can thrive. They learn in a singular fashion.

It was his...

*His daydreaming like a fool
*His not doing well in school
*His not talking at an appropriate age
*His not being able to tie his shoes [that one may or may not be a rumor]
*His Love of the Psalms, Faith in God, Creativity, and Spiritual Devotion.

He had what I call: Prophetic Scientific Ability. The myth is that Science must be opposed to faith, but Einstein knew better: Reason without Faith, only stunts scientific potential.

Rachel Eagle Reiter

An update on this story can be found here. Apparently Disney, despite fighting the study intensely, has gone ahead and removed any indication on their website that the products are educational.

Avoiding any potential lawsuits perhaps, regardless of whether or not the DVDs stimulate vocabulary?

dear sir/madam,

how do I boost my boy's potential?