How Is Children's Play Affected by the Television - Essay Example

Television and its Effects on Children’s Play Human being is the social animal of the highest strata. It is the most complex and advanced creature of this gamut. To survive in the society, it had made many understandings with his creative spark and inculcated many issues to deal with. The most primitive remote accessed audiovisual issue is the Television. The origins of what would become todays television system can be traced back to the discovery of the photoconductivity of the element selenium by Willoughby Smith in the year 1873, followed by the invention of a scanning disk by Paul Gottlieb Nipkow in 1884, and Philo Farnsworths Image dissector in 1927. Mastermind behind this visionary invention was the 20-year old German university student Nipkow, who proposed and patented the first electromechanical television system in 1884 (Okamura 1994). And Nipkows spinning disk design is credited with being the first television image rasterizer. This is how the idea was born and from the crudest of its state to today’s ever changing and never stopping technically upfront, state of the presentation of the communication has made further contributions to society. Apart from scientific, educational and many other issues, television has made a high voltage social issue this time; that is the effect on the juniors of the society itself, whose ancestors made this very communication system. Henceforth, the paper deals with the objections and agendas of the television and its effects on children’s play. Pondering on the contemporary society, gone are those days when young ones used to ask elders about the pros and cons of this system device and how to connect oneself with the communication of distance. And at further younger level; their childhood pals, green meadows under the open sky, lonely allies, community parks and playing fields were much dearer and used to beckon them. Coming back to the hardship of present time, those empty spaces have become shorter and it is seldom the fat old middle class will find a garden in front of the house. Society has become much more confined and rejecting the horizon it has chosen the vertical limit of dwelling as it climb their dreams up. With the rapid expansion of the city life the living space is becoming smaller for most. That is why the existing younger of the families is coming under the background effect of television when it is watched by the elders. In fact, back home the most voluntarily done act of the most of the elders is ‘watching TV’. Studies in pediatrics have long advised that children under two years of age should not be exposed to television, while children above two should have their tube time limited to one to two hours a day. A new study reveals that children under three years old are getting affected even when theyre not watching the television shows themselves. Background noise may disrupt their play and stop them from developing attention spans. According to new researches, it is leading to increased risk of behavioural issues like Attention Deficit Disorder. The recommendation coming from the study is that the television should be turned off most of the time when small children are in the room. That will give them the free attention to play and learn, and will give elders attention to them as well. The secret of Children’s way of thinking at 19-20 months is quit different typical of them. At that stage they enjoy playing mostly alone, but near adults dressing up and pretending to be an adult, and activities like swings and walks.  The study can remind the parents of the facts about the childrens early learning: 1) Brain development is very vulnerable to environmental influences. 2) The influence of early environment is long lasting. 3) During the first years, the infant needs to learn to focus attention and interact (City News 2008). The background and the effects of television are not limited to the toddlers. As a child grows on he develops more complexity in the internal psyche. Children make themselves more engaged in the viewing activity and try creating their own ambient and understanding towards the programme. As, at this stage the TV effect is not a bad background but rather taken the children at the midst of it. Up until age seven or eight, children have great difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality and lurch with their ability to comprehend nuances of behavior, motivation or moral complexity. This special vulnerability of children necessitates increased vigilance to protect them from potentially negative viewing influences. Parents are ultimately responsible for monitoring and controlling their child’s viewing habits; though, parents cannot be omniscient in their children’s lives. To be logical parents need assistance in protecting their children from unhealthy exposure to violence. Therefore, limits must be placed on the content of programmes aired to children which in turn becomes responsibility of the production houses to contribute in controlling the social and juvenile degeneration. Restricting violence in children’s programmes should not be considered censorship, or rather protecting children from exposure to pornography (Carlsson, Paige & Levin 1990). It is a matter of overall taste that will construct a prudent mind set among the young brains. Likewise, industry standards to limit violence in children’s programmes should be developed as action taken in the public interest. As children grow in the television background environment an escalation happens in the horizontal axis of their learning curve. They grasp more and apply their illusional senses that they conjure from their viewing practice. Research consistently identifies three problems most associated with heavy exposure to television violence. Firstly, Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Gradually they won’t be left with any room for fellow feelings. If this happens, it will be an absolute curse for a society where four legged animals have feeling among themselves but the most successful human race is suffering from brain damage. Secondly, they may become more fearful of the world around them. This is possible due to their exposure to make shift environment arranged and directed by the makers of the programmes. Last and thirdly, they may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways towards others. By nature they become unrealistic and sub-consciously isolate themselves from the natural environment (National Institute of Mental Health 1982; Singer & Singer 1984, 1986; Singer, Singer, & Rapaczynski 1984; Rule & Ferguson 1986; Simon 1989). Exposure to media violence leads children to see violence as a normal response to stress and as an acceptable means for resolving conflict. It develops a barbaric meaning of an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth. With this kind of mind frame, society will lose ground of mutual understanding and enter into the battle of evermore, they will ask for any thing and the social infrastructure will have everything. Of great concern to early childhood educator’s is the negative effect of viewing violent programs on children’s play. The importance of children’s imaginative play to their cognitive and language development is well documented (Piaget 1962, 1963; Johnson, Christie & Yawkey 1987). The habit shuts all the doors of perception and instead of expanding the thought process the child develops shrinking thoughts and looks at issues. Research demonstrates that watching violent programs is related to less imaginative play and more imitative play in which the child simply mimics the aggressive acts observed on television (National Institute of Mental Health 1982). In addition, there are many media production houses that regularly depict violence also promote program based toys, which encourage children to imitate and reproduce those acts in their play as the actual behaviours seen on television or in movies. In these situations, children’s creative and imaginative play is undermined and it goes dormant, which eventually may die if measures are not taken to revive and retain the natural self. Thus, the other side of the society is robbing the children’s benefits of play, for their self development and mental growth (Carlsson, Paige & Levin 1990). In their play, children imitate those characters reinforced for their aggressive behavior and cherish the character’s scripts without any creative or reflective thought, which can set any meaning to their deeds. Children, who repeatedly observe violent or aggressive problem-solving behavior in the media, tend to apply what they see in their play and imitate those behaviors in real life encounters. Though one does understand the empty status of these behaviours, but it becomes too late to fetch any help to retrieve oneself from the false commitments of the tinsel town and to comprehend the nature which is null and void. (Huesmann 1986; Rule & Ferguson 1986; Eron & Huesmann 1987). In short, children who are frequent viewers of media violence learn that aggression is a successful and acceptable way to achieve goals and solve problems; they are less likely to negotiate with the creative and imaginative play as their natural means to express feelings, overcome anger, and to gain self-control. The self regulating code of the National Association of Broadcasters (1980) was a responsible position of the television industry towards young children. Asanimmediateaction, laws prohibiting the adoption and the practice of such voluntary standards as violations of anti-trust regulation should be repealed in order control the industrial dos’ and don’ts of programme broadcasting. Industry standards should also limit advertising during children’s programmes in understanding children’s inability to distinguish the advertising from programme content and also should wash out the acts of aggression or violence by separating the consequences of the intervening commercials. The Broadcasting standards should also prohibit product based programmes and feature length programmes whose primary and main purpose is to sell toys, especially when those toys facilitate imitation of violent or aggressive acts that can be seen on television. Children are not in a position to evaluate the quality and the value that can be derived on playing of such kind of products as depicted on the television. Programme based advertising creates an insatiable desire in children for these single use toys as children start to believe that they can not play without the specific supports seen on television (Carlsson, Paige & Levin 1990). Today’s children are unique in many ways from past generations, but perhaps the most influencing on the young children today is Television advertisements. In 1997, the USA’s estimated 34 million children, age 12 years and under have spent or influenced spending of a record $500 billion (Horovitz 1997). This could happen for the changed social structure and values and mostly due to the changing recognition pattern in today’s kinship. Unlike yesteryears, children also play a considerably significant role in a contemporary family setup. In accordance with the age of the child, the level of involvement in the decisive matter differs. But when it comes to their own play issues, children take the front row to understand that how it is satisfying their interest. Parents like it or dump it; their children are smart enough to slip in to the matter that has been aired broadcasters to build up their own comprehension of their own activities. In today’s overly communicated society with all other activities children rush to absorb the TV effects and in jiffy, they mostly get victimised by the perennial ill effects of television. Through and through negative impacts of television on children’s play has been discussed. But apart from this very point of view the effect of Television on children’s play has a far reaching impact in the society. The moral policing for the society have drifted away the attention from another very important stream of the society. Talking about the national economy, it shows a significant contribution due to the social and buying pattern of the families. Children dont just have to, as their parents buy their toys, but they make purchases of their own. Childrens spending has roughly doubled every ten years for quit a few decades, and has tripled in the 1990s. Children between 4 to 12 years have spent $2.2 billion in 1968 and $4.2 billion in 1984. By 1994, the figure climbed to $17.1 billion and by 2002, their spending exceeded $40 billion. Children’s direct buying power has exceeded $51.8 billion by 2006 (Snyder 2003). There are not many people in the world today that would disagree with the fact that children are the future. Children are the forerunner of the family traditions and will continue to build and develop new public projects and will continue to learn and expand the knowledge of the human race. With that said, it is important to understand that children are also future consumers. And the existing market is trying to understand the future needs of its future customer. This way the market research bureau can make a historical data for its perusal. Gaining their involvement now will create a foreground for the up coming market analysis. These young customers are the engines that will drive the economy for the next generation; for advertisers the future is now. Advertising to children has long been a very successful way to build a solid consumer base that will win the minds of children in order to secure a lifetime of consumer purchasing. It may sound heartless but the fact is, it works, and advertising to children is big business as this also enables the marketer asses a brand loyal set of segment and each customer’s lifespan, thus the total projected sales value and the perpetual review of organisational turnover. As researchers say that the effect of such high intensity media exposure is unclear though, but what is clear is that even less than 6 months old are becoming far more media savvy than anyone expected. But the generation has really changed. And based on what have been now found with the 6 months to 2 years old, if the researchers do this kind of study again, they would probably go down to birth (Washington post 2003). Precisely, this is a high voltage situation shouting for polarity where on one end a discipline of social science is vehemently opposing the exposure of children’s play to television effects; and on the other end another discipline of social science is projecting national growth and development with its futuristic studies. Based on the discussed issue it is hard to get any answer without relativity. There are two very opposite sides of this issue. The media who market the violent television programme, video games and other forms of entertainment; argue this to be a safe entertainment and the others argue that violence promotes violence. This road has got no end. Current research tends to agree with the proponents who argue that violent media is associated with aggressive behavior. Risky behavior by children and young adults can include violence against others; lack of remorse for consequences for the violence has made them dry and sarcastic. The type of illusionary and faulty thinking creates stressors in children which can lead to the onset of many different symptoms of psychological disorder. Children who view media violence are more likely to have increased feelings of hostility, decreased emotional response to the portrayal of violence and injury that lead to violent behavior through imitation, as they get used to it. An example here would be the television show called Jack Ass. There have been several accidents related to young men attempting stunts, were on the show. The act of imitating what they have seen on a television show causes injury to themselves or others around them while they tried in their real life scenario; and has fallen prey to the tricks of the trades. The instance that cast a spell of worry of violence in media is the Columbia chapter was the mentally lost and logically disoriented by-product of the media violence. The two young men that committed this act of violence were said to have a childhood past where they played numerous hours of violent video games. Their exposure to violence is said to have been the cause since the children involved, came from secure home environments with active parental influence. As with Michael Carneal, from Kentucky, who in 1997 shot and killed three of his classmates. He too was also said to have been a video game fanatic. Michael Breen an attorney in the case against Michael Carneal stated in court; “Michael Carneal clipped off nine shots in a 10-second period. Eight of those shots were hits. Three were head and neck shots and were kills. That is way beyond the military standard for expert marksmanship. This was a kid who had never fired a pistol in his life, but because of his obsession with computer games he had turned himself into an expert marksman” (Ivory 2001). These kinds of instances in a long run may be small evidence however, but proves that violent media play a role of mental transformation leading to such violence. Another view from researchers study indicates that performing violent acts in video games may be more engaging and contributing to childrens aggression than passively watching violent acts on television. According to this view, the more children practice violent acts, the more likely they are to perform violent acts (Cesarone 1994). Instead of watching and inculcating the matter inside the brain, video game is much more engaging and performance oriented. Here a child will taste the success and recognise the activity only through practice that leads to result. In most video games, women are usually portrayed as persons who are acted upon rather than as initiators of action, in the extreme they are depicted as victims. This social omen brings about the gender bias and takes back the thought process to hegemonies of the Dark Age. Game such as, Grand Theft Auto, promotes prostitution, theft and violent behavior. This game encourages males to act out these behaviors to move further along in the game. The movie, “Matrix” for example was said to be the triggering factor to the violence with the high school students that wore trench coats. They were eventually arrested for trying to play out their role as “The One.” Research has found that males play video games more often than women which may be the brainchild for producing factor of such violence in video games. It is believed that acting out such violence as opposed to just viewing the violence causes the children to become more familiar with how to act out violence without consequences. And as the children are practicing the social violence right from the beginning, the approach of their adolescence is building up an unsaid tension in the society that the attack may come from any side and at any time where the place to spot is hardly known (Tompkins 2003). At the verge of this problematic situation the society must react in the most balanced way where both the levels of mentors should have their presence. Like parents are the internal force; teachers are the external to extend the monitoring when the children are away from their parents out in the vulnerable society. Voluntarily, parents need to be aware of the fact that much of what their children watch on television is not specifically intended for children. It has been estimated that only 10% of children’s viewing time is spent watching children’s television; whereas the other 90% is spent watching programs designed for adults (Dyck 1983). Parents can assist children in finding alternatives to viewing adult television, which in turn again will serve their natural child like interest. In addition, parents can use videotapes of high quality children’s programmes to give them a home made customised viewing pattern and allow public television for children viewing when commercial alternatives are not on. As consumers, parents should recognize and use their influence with sponsors of children’s programs as the primary purpose of commercial television is not to entertain or to educate children but to buy air time and sell products. As professional responsibility, early childhood educators should share their knowledge of child development and the effects of violent media viewing with legislators and sponsors of children’s programmes to let them understand outcome of their deeds. Teachers need to recognise that media is also a powerful teacher in the society that can and should be used constructively among children. Shunning the popular belief, it needs to be understood that television viewing is not a passive activity; children are mentally active during television viewing (Anderson & Collins 1988). The use of media as an educational tool should not be rejected because much of commercial television currently lacks educational value or promotes violence which projects vast scope to induce more concepts media learning instead of media violence. Thus, early childhood professionals should advocate for policy that eliminates violence and improves the educational value of media, and should use media constructively in their work with children. The prevalence of violence in the global society is a complex social problem that will not be easily solved. Violence in the media is only one manifestation of the society’s larger fascination of violence. However, media violence is not just a reflection of violent society; other way round it is also a contributor. If a nation wishes to produce future generations of productive adults who reject violence as a means of problem solving, one must reassert the vital role of government in protecting its most vulnerable citizens and, together, work to make media part of the solution. Any research conducted on the issue could prove either positive or negative long term outcomes of violent media. The fact is that parents should monitor and be more attentive to their children. In the act of a busy life, all tend to forget the real life issues. The paper suggests that in this society most parents get too wrapped up in their own lives than to be concerned about what their children are doing. Raising a child is hard enough in these days; and adding all the outside media violence, makes it ten times harder to steer the child in the right direction. But does that really mean violent media causes children to be violent? It is unbelievable that the children will get bored and will be limited to the types of media entertainment they are exposed to. All that can be done as volunteers of a sane future society is to pay attention to the children and stay involved in their lives before it is too late. Reference Anderson, D & Collins, P 1988, The impact on children’s education: Television’s influence on cognitive development, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. Carlsson, P N & Levin, D 1990, Who’s calling the shots? How to respond effectively to children’s fascination with war play and war toys, New Society Publishers, Santa Cruz, CA. City News 2008, Toddler’s Attention Spans Affected by Background TV, Viewed 14 August 2008, . Carlsson, P N & Levin, D 1990, Who’s calling the shots? How to respond effectively to children’s fascination with war play and war toy, New Society Publishers, Santa Cruz, California. Carlsson, Paige, N & Levin, D 1990, Who’s calling the shots? How to respond effectively to children’s fascination with war play and war toys, New Society Publishers, Santa Cruz, CA Dyck, V. 1983, Families and television. Television & Children, Vol.6, no.3, pp. 3-11. Eron, L & Huesmann, L 1987, Television as a source of maltreatment of children. School Psychology Review, Vol.16, pp. 195-202. Huesmann, L 1986, Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 42, pp. 125-140. Horovitz, B 1997, "Cashing in on kids Retailers in search of customers for life," USA Today, December 18. Ivory, J D 2001, Video Games and the Elusive Search for their Effects on Children: An assessment of Twenty Years of Research, Viewed 15 August 2008, . Johnson, J; Christie, J & Yawkey, T 1987, Play and early childhood development. Glenview, IL National Institute of Mental Health 1982, Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress for the eighties. Vol 1: Summary report, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Okamura, S 1994, History of Electron Tubes. IOS Press. Amsterdam. ISBN 9051991452.  Piaget, J 1962, Play, dreams, and imitation in children (Gattegno, C; Hodgson, F M & Trans.). Norton, New York. (Original work published 1951). Piaget, J 1963, The origins of intelligence in children. (Cook M & Trans). Norton, New York. (Original work published 1936). Rule, B & Ferguson, T 1986, The effects of media violence on attitudes, emotions and cognition. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 42, pp. 29-50. Singer, D & Singer, J 1984, TV violence: What’s all the fuss about? Television & Children, Vol. 7 no.2, pp. 30-41. Singer, J L & Singer, D G 1986, Family experiences and television viewing as predictors of children’s imagination, restlessness, and aggression. Journal of Social Issue, Vol. 42, pp. 107-124. Singer, J; Singer, D & Rapaczynski, W 1984, Journal of Communication, Vol. 34, no.2, pp. 73-89. Simon, P 1989, Coming soon: An act that should reduce television violence. Newsday, August 21. Snyder, A 2003, Bowling Green State University, TV Advertising and its effect on children, Viewed 15 August 2008, . Toledo Blade 2003, Under-6 set tunes in TV’s not books, Washington Post October 29, 153(302), PA 1/5 Tompkins, A 2003, AllPsych Journal, “The Psychological Effects of Violent Media on Children”, Viewed 15 August 2008, . Read More