I’m in the middle of reading a great book titled Consuming Kids by Susan Linn that addresses the issue of advertising and marketing to children. I can’t say enough about how good a read this is, but here is a quote to give you an idea:
The problem is that while parents are trying to set limits, marketing executives are working day and night to undermine their authority. For parents raising children who are innately more impulsive, or more likely to take risks, the stakes are even higher. These are the children who are eager to explore the world and who are more likely to test limits – which means that adhering to the advice of “pick your battles” is difficult even under normal circumstances.
She examines how psychologists today are employed by marketers to make sure the advertising is as effective as possible – trying to create a loyal consumer from the cradle to the grave, as they say. She adds this sad fact to the discussion:
The 1992 Ethical Principles of the American Psychological Association include one titled “Social Responsibility,” which stated, among other things, that psychologists should “apply and make public their knowledge of psychology in order to contribute to human welfare.” I was dismayed, however, to discover that in the new version of the principles, effective June 2003, the APA eliminated that sentence – and the entire Social Responsibility Principle – from the document.
I’m enjoying her approach to the issue – gather facts and question the messages marketers are sending out to children and parents. She asks if children are born with an innate fear of technology (such that they need software and toys that gently introduce them to tech), or if they are born with a deficit in their ability to play (such that they need toys to help them be creative). As I get further into the book, I am beginning to think that it really should be mandatory reading for anyone raising a child in today’s advertising-drenched, media-enhanced world.
I then came across a study from this month (May 2006) that examines electronic media and children in the US. I haven’t had a chance to read through it all yet, but the article mentions such sad numbers like
In many homes, parents have created an environment where the TV is a nearly constant presence, from the living room to the dining room and the bedroom. One in three (33%) children this age has a TV in their bedroom (19% of children ages 1 year or younger, 29% of children ages 2-3 years, and 43% of those ages 4-6 years).
I’m saddened by the fact that 1 in 5 children under the age of 1 has a television in their room. I’ve always likened myself a closet Neo-Luddite, but the combination of this book and the study only make me dislike some technology even more.
You have time to read and ‘come across’ studies?
You must be plunking Marley down in front of a TV or something to keep her busy?!
I wonder if the TVs in the infants’ rooms are for the infants or for their breast-feeding moms.
Skepticism aside, I’ve always been a little leery of the always-on TV. I’ve known people with small children who left it on constantly in the centre of the house, and it was often the centre of the kids’ attention. Interestingly, though, those kids, now a bit older, seem more interested in playing for real than in watching TV.
A friend of mine who grew up without being allowed to watch too much TV wondered if it was best to let kids watch a bit so that they can learn to manage it. She said that when she moved out of her parents’ house she got completely hooked for years, and she thought it was because she hadn’t figured out how to fit it into the rest of her life.