The dust has finally settled. I think. A few weeks ago, a paper I published with several other researchers on Disney Princesses was published in Child Development, the top peer-reviewed journal in my field. Briefly, we found that engagement in Disney Princess culture increased young children’s adherence to feminine gender stereotypes. Once the press got a hold of the findings, headlines about our research popped up everywhere. It was covered in the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Slate, Huffington Post, The Skimm, and countless other media outlets. Many headlines were inaccurate and misleading (e.g., “Disney Princesses Damage Girls”) and incited anger in fervent Disney fans (none who actually read our published paper, I can assume…). The online comments were scathing and painful to read (yes, I made the mistake of reading some). My co-author got a nasty anonymous letter in her office mailbox, attacking our research topic. Our research was even touted as “generating nationwide controversy“! We were inundated with requests for radio and print interviews. I did some interviews, but cautiously, fearing my words would be misquoted and our results misinterpreted. However, one such interview was with the Boston Globe, and it was a surprisingly positive experience. The author did a wonderful feature on “professional princess” parties, incorporating our research and my comments. This was application of our research at its best! Here also is a brief easily digestible summary of our findings and conclusions. If you take the time to read these articles, the controversy and anger seem terribly misplaced, and hopefully the take home message is clear: Talk to your children about what they view, expose them to a variety of media models, highlight the character traits you value as a family, and go ahead and enjoy the magic of princess culture!
I was tired this morning, and it is not because yesterday was a jellybean, chocolate bunny overload day. Rather, it is because Peaches, age 12, had a strong fear response to a television program, which resulted in a mostly sleepless night for both of us.
We were at an Easter gathering with friends, and the television was on with a sporting event. Apparently the game ended at some point, because when I went to retrieve the kids at the end of the evening, I found Peaches with a group of tweens watching a supernatural crime show (rated TV-14). There was a brief discussion in the car ride home about the appropriateness of what was on the screen, but said it was no big deal. Fast forward a few hours…the lights were out and the fear set in.
When it comes to violent television, most of us have heard the concerns about its effects on viewer aggression. But another well-documented effect of media violence- fear- is much less spoken about.
Fear reactions to media are surprisingly common. Research by Joanne Cantor reveals that 76% of school-aged children report having been frightened by media. However, these responses are not confined to childhood, and are also likely to occur during adolescence and adulthood. Cantor found that 90% of college students she surveyed had experienced a strong fear reaction to the media at least once in their lifetime. These responses were intense and enduring- 35% of the students reported that the effects had persisted for a year or more after the exposure, and 25% reported they still felt an emotional impact of the media exposure. Students were also able to vividly describe the frightening media, despite the fact that the average time since the exposure had occurred was 6 years. Common fear reactions include fear of one’s own bedroom or bathroom, fear of being alone or in the dark, sleep and eating disturbances, preoccupation with the frightening material, nervousness, depression, and feelings of dread of specific events and situations.
Personally, I recall at least three major fear reactions to the media from my childhood. First, viewing Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein at school (?!) in first grade. This led me to check my closet every night before bed for what seemed like years. Second, watching an especially creepy episode of Fantasy Island during a sleepover. That incident resulted in me viewing my dolls as sinister and evil, rather than as beloved playthings. Third, I saw the original Halloween movie some time during adolescence. I pretty much never wanted to babysit again after that one.
Parents should be aware that not only are fear reactions to media quite common, but that the types of media depictions that result in fear vary by age. Children’s typical fears are linked to their cognitive development. Therefore, parents cannot rely on their own opinions of what is frightening when judging the potential scariness of a program to their children.
According to Cantor, these are the main age differences in fear reactions:
- Before age 8, children are most frightened of scenes with a strong visual component, rather than scenes with suspense or implied threats. Typical fears during this age period include animals, the dark, sudden noises, strange-looking things, and transformations (e.g., the Incredible Hulk). In fact, very young children are much more likely to be scared of a grotesque, but kind, character than a beautiful, but evil, character.
- Between the ages of 9-12, children typically become more concerned about harm to themselves and loved ones. As a result, they tend to be most fearful of depictions of injury, physical destruction (e.g., natural disasters), and personal crime.
- Beyond age 12, children have acquired abstract thinking, so they now typically develop fears in response to media depictions of hypothetical situations (e.g., nuclear war) and scenes that contain implied threats (e.g., a serial killer might be on the loose).
Supernatural events (e.g., hauntings), border both fantasy and reality, and tend to be frightening at all ages (even in adulthood!). There are also individual differences in both sensitivity to scary media, as well as in specific fears.
To read more about this topic, I strongly recommend Joanne Cantor’s book Mommy, I’m Scared. She also offers great suggestions of what to do to help mitigate fear responses in children if they are exposed to frightening media.
I never did find out what exactly happened in the program that frightened my daughter, because she didn’t want to talk about it during the darkness of night. I hope that tonight the fear will have faded, and we all can get a good night’s sleep, but the psychologist in me knows that this is probably wishful thinking.
Last week I was invited to give a brief talk at a forum on early childhood brain development. The audience was comprised of foster parents, educators, and clinicians who work with children ages 0-5. I thought I would post a summary of my main points:
Our children are being raised in front of screens. In 1970, the average age child began watching television at 4 years of age; today the average child begins viewing at 4 months. The first generation raised with smartphones and tablets are still in elementary school, so researchers do not yet know the long-term effects of these new media on development. The digital landscape looks much different today than it did in the past, but most parents do not have a map of how to navigate this new territory.
Based on current research, these are the 10 things every parent should know about media and early development:
- Background television and parent media use negatively impact play and parent-child interactions, which are essential for healthy development.
- Early exposure to entertainment and violent media is associated with decreased language development and increased attention problems.
- Children under the age of 5 are extremely vulnerable to the effects of advertising.
- Screen time has negative effects on physical health, included increased obesity and sleep problems.
- There is overwhelming evidence of significant negative effects of violent media.
- The majority of parents fall prey to what psychologists call the “third person” phenomenon—“Media violence affects other people’s children, but not my own.” This is a dangerous myth.
- We do not yet know the impact of screen time during the infant and toddler years on brain development.
- Screen addiction is a real problem, and media habits before the age of 5 predict media use later in life.
- High quality educational media, used in moderation, can have some benefits for some children under certain conditions. However, most media that is marketed as “educational” does not actually have any benefits.
- Children under the age of 5 do not need any media to have optimal, or even normal, development. The things they most need for healthy development- love and human interaction- cannot be found on a screen.
For more information on the research behind these recommendations, feel free to contact me!
Here are my picks for media toys to just say “no” to this holiday season:
1. Hello, Barbie ($74.99, Mattel)
Considered to be one of the hottest toys of 2015, it has developmental psychologists extremely worried. See here for all the reasons not to buy this toy.
2. Violent video games
There is ample scientific evidence of the negative effects of violent video games. Here are the most violent games of 2015 and suggestions of what games to buy instead.
3. Dareway Revolution 12 Volt Powered Ride On ($249.99, Toys R Us)
An outrageously expensive gift that encourages your child to plug in AND get places while expending as little energy as possible.
4. Kidzoom SmartWatch DX ($64.99, VTech)
Ensures that your child will never have a moment without media. As one reviewer said, “I can hardly get my 6 year old to put it down on the weekends to eat lunch and dinner.”
5. Bright Beats Smart Touch Play Space ($60, Fisher Price)
This bells and whistles “toy” for infants makes claims of developmental benefits that aren’t supported by research.
Christmas shopping is tough, especially when kids are in late childhood/early adolescence and are harder to please. So what types of things will be under our tree this Christmas morning? (Shhh, don’t tell!) A model car kit (for Sparky), a DIY doll house kit (for Peaches), ice skates, a scooter, adult coloring books and markers (for me too!), a 1,000 piece puzzle (a family tradition to complete over holiday break), board games that appeal to adults and kids alike, and a Pley subscription (think Netflix for Legos!). Maybe these gifts are “old fashioned”, but I can guarantee my kids will be thrilled and we will have no shortage of fun in our house. What will you be giving this year?
I don’t need to tell you that texting while driving is a dangerous phenomenon that occurs at high rates . We have all seen it, and it is terrifying. We see another person who is clearly texting while driving next to us on the freeway or traveling through an intersection and we think “What if…” and shudder.
26% of teens in the U.S. say they have texted while driving, but this is not solely a teenage problem. In fact, statistics suggest that young adults are slightly more likely to text while driving than teens. However, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in the U.S. among youth ages 15-19, and because this blog is about youth, I want to highlight the unique processes underlying this dangerous behavior in teen drivers.
Most people believe that the problem is due to the fact that adolescents are less skilled than adults at estimating all types of risks, including the dangers of texting while driving. This belief is perpetuated by findings such as this: 77% of young drivers are very or somewhat confident that they can safely text while driving.
However, this statistic is somewhat misleading in that it suggests that the problem is that adolescents underestimate the risks of texting while driving, and therefore the solution is simply to educate them about the risks of this behavior. While this certainly might be the case for some individuals who text and drive, it is not consistent with research that indicates that adolescents are actually quite good at estimating risk (despite the fact that they indeed do take more risks!). So why this discrepancy between adolescents’ cognitions and behaviors? We can blame their brains…
The human brain is not fully developed until at least age 20, and during adolescence there are major changes occurring in the areas of brain involved in reward and decision-making. (For a more detailed explanation of these changes, read this fascinating article). Contrary to popular belief, adolescents are quite good at estimating risk, but their desire for rewards, especially immediate rewards (such as responding to the “ping” of an incoming text) is more powerful than at any other point in their development. As a result, adolescents are more likely to engage in risky behavior (such as texting while driving!), despite their knowledge of the risks. Ironically, adolescent brain research Laurence Steinberg made the following analogy: “The teenage brain is like a car with a good accelerator but a weak brake. With powerful impulses under poor control, the likely result is a crash.”
This problem is exacerbated when teens are in the presence of friends. A compelling example of this is seen in a study conducted by Steinberg in which adolescent and adults participants were observed while playing a driving game. When they were alone, both adolescents and adults took equal risks (e.g., going through a yellow traffic light), but adolescents took significantly more risks compared to adults when they played the same game while a peer was watching. As Steinberg explains, the explanation lies in our powerful desire for social contact and acceptance, a desire that is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history and is at its peak during adolescence.
In light of this research, consider this: 40% of all teens 12-17 say that they have been in a car while the driver was using a cell phone in a way that placed the passengers in danger (Pew Research, 2009), yet youth (especially males) ages 18-20 are less likely to speak up than older adults if they are a passenger in a car and the driver is texting. I suspect that the explanation for these statistics lies in the power of social rewards for teens, which makes them less likely to speak up even when they feel unsafe.
What can we do as a society and as parents? As always, there are no easy answers to this question. I suggest two broad solutions- one is an immediate solution for families and the other is a long-term societal solution.
Immediate solution = Reduce the temptation
Something that you can do today to increase the safety of everyone in your family is to reduce the temptation for reward seeking while driving. How? There are many apps available for all types of phones that deactivate specific phone features (such as text notifications) while driving. For youth who are horrified at the social consequences of not responding immediately to a text (that is an issue for another blog post!), there are even apps that will notify the sender that the receiver is driving and can’t currently respond. To increase buy-in, discuss with your adolescent the information in this post. Chances are, your child already has a realistic appraisal of the risks of texting and driving, and you may even discover that your teen is relieved to have an app to reduce the temptation.
Long-term solution = Change the norms
I was recently at a media conference and attended a lunch panel on this topic. Among the issues discussed was the widespread acceptance of texting while driving. In order for our society to see a significant decrease in this behavior, norms have to change. A parallel was drawn with driving while intoxicated; whereas once upon a time people would casually joke or brag about driving drunk, this is less likely to occur today because this behavior is now stigmatized by our society. We can’t rely on legislation or the automotive industry to be the solution; rather, we have to loudly proclaim, with both our words and our actions, our abhorrence of driving while in-text-icated to our friends and family. We are not there yet as a society, but the recent increase in PSA’s focused on texting while driving (Note: viewer discretion advised) have me hopeful that change is coming. I just hope it doesn’t get worse before it gets better. Please share this post– you could save a life!
I just returned from 3 days at the National Academy of Sciences conference on Digital Media and the Developing Mind. I gathered with other researchers and practitioners in the fields of psychology, sociology, medicine, neuroscience, and education to discuss what we know, what we don’t know, and what we most desperately need to know about the impact of media on the development of children and adolescents. It was an exciting event, and I left both invigorated and exhausted.
I attended the conference as a researcher, but I also processed the information as a parent. One of the central questions of the conference has both professional and personal ramifications: “Based on the current state of scientific knowledge, what are the best parenting practices in a media-saturated society?” This is perhaps one of the most difficult and important questions that I grapple with every day as parent.
My goal of this blog is to reflect on parenting experiences within the context of scientific research on media effects. As a result, the empiricist in me hesitates to express my opinions and concerns if I do not have research links to back up my reflections. Tracking down research links for the science that I know exists takes time, and accounts for the scarcity of my posts. So I decided to deviate from my usual format, and instead simply reflect on what I heard over the past 3 days, without taking the time to provide research links. Over the next few months, I will delve more deeply into some of these topics, at which point I will supplement my thoughts with research.
As I read through my 25 pages of notes on the conference, I highlighted the statistics, findings, and questions that struck me the most—not as a researcher, but as a parent. Some of these were new, some were old. But the juxtaposition of all of these findings overwhelmed and alarmed me, which was surprising, given that I have been studying media and child development for well over 15 years. Here is what I heard during this conference that I think is most important for parents to reflect on; although there will undoubtedly be differences in opinion regarding what these findings means for parenting, I think most of us will agree that they must mean something for parenting:
- In 1970 the average age a child starting watching TV was 4 years; today it is 4 months.
- Consumption of entertainment programming in early childhood is associated with a 60% increased risk for later attention problems, whereas violent content is associated with a 110% increased risk.
- Virtual reality devices are coming on the market very soon, likely within a year, and we have no idea what the impact of this technology is on children.
- 73% of teens have access to a smartphone (up from 33% just a few years ago), and 25% of teens report that they use smartphones “almost constantly”.
- 92% of adults in multiple countries say they concentrate best when reading print media, rather than reading on a digital device.
- People in the iGeneration report that they attempt to pair (by multitasking) 84% of the everyday activities they were asked about.
- Preference for multitasking is one of the best predictors of low school grade point average.
- College students who report that they are high multitaskers experience intense anxiety within minutes if told they cannot touch their phones.
- Digital multitasking is associated with deficits in cognitive abilities, and may change the structure of the brain in negative ways.
- In a series of 11 studies, when left alone in a room for 6-15 minutes, many people would rather self-administer electric shock than be alone with their thoughts.
- 3 out of 4 fatal car crashes involve driver distraction; driving while “in-text-icated” is widespread and will get worse before it gets better.
- 73% of parents report that they use devices during mealtimes.
- 89% of Americans say they took out phone during their last conversation; yet 82% know it deteriorated the conversation.
- 8% of youth in the U.S. meet the diagnostic criteria for video game addiction.
- 30% of youth in South Korea meet the criteria for smartphone addiction.
- The “ping” of a cell phone releases dopamine (the “feel good” chemical) in the brain.
- 18% of adults surveyed in the UK admit they have interrupted sex to answer a text.
- Between 50-90% of U.S. teens are not getting enough sleep; teens today get an average of 2 hours less sleep per night than teens 100 years ago.
- Screen time is associated with increased sleep problems in children and adolescents, which in turn leads to serious behavioral and neurological problems.
- E-readers suppress the release of melatonin (an important precursor of sleep) by about 90 minutes.
- Children consume about 1/3 of their daily calories while in front of a screen, and eat much more when in front of screens compared to eating without distraction.
- Interviews with adolescents about their thoughts about technology yields comments such as these:
- “I’m glad I don’t have anything controversial to say, because I would have to put it online and then it isn’t private.”
- “We can always be perfect on our phones, because we can always edit.”
- “My generation is the first that never has to be bored.”
Many thoughts and questions are now swirling through my head, with a greater intensity than they were before this conference. Some of these questions were posed by conference participants, whereas some are my own. Here are the top 3 questions that have been occupying my thoughts:
#1: How can children develop self-control in a society that values instant gratification?
#2: What will the development of empathy and interpersonal skills look like in the current generation, which is the first to be raised since birth with an abundance of digitally mediated interpersonal communication?
#3: How can I modify my own media habits and my parenting practices regarding media use for the betterment of my family?
I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I will continue to work with other researchers and parents to try to find the answers. Our children are depending on it.
It was just a matter of time, I guess. Fisher Price has just released the iPad bouncy seat for infants.
Although there is currently no published research on the effects of iPads on infant development, the research on infants and television has led psychologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend no screen time for children under the age of 2.
Despite this recommendation, screen time for infants is the norm. According to national surveys, 40% of babies are viewing television by 3 months of age, with the median age of first viewing at 9 months. Infants under the age of 1 year watch an average of 49 minutes of television per day, and 30% have a television in their bedroom. These statistics are several years old, so these numbers are likely even higher today.
Because infants do not have the motor skills to touch and control iPad screens, they cannot be an interactive device. Therefore, putting an infant in front of an iPad is comparable to putting them in front of a television, and there is reason to believe that the effects of an iPad will parallel the effects of television on infant development. As such, the research on television is useful for discussing both why the iPad bouncy seat will likely be extremely popular, as well as why it is a terrible idea.
Several years ago, Zimmerman and colleagues conducted a study in which they surveyed parents about the use of TV and DVDs with their infants. When asked why they had their babies view, many reasons were given. Here are the top 3 reasons (in order), along with the research-based counterarguments.
Parent Belief #1 = “It is good for their brains”
FALSE. Research has demonstrated that children under 1 year of age cannot learn from screens, even if they are watching programs aimed at infants, such as Baby Wadsworth. Researchers have coined the term “video deficit” to describe the inability in experimental settings for infants to learn even simple imitation from 2-D representations such as videos. (They also can’t learn language from screens). Similarly, very young children don’t understand content of videos, indicated by their equal preference to view distorted (e.g., played backwards) and non-distorted clips from popular children’s programs.
Although there is no evidence of cognitive benefits of infant screen time, there is accumulating evidence of harmful effects. Here are just a few:
1. Zimmerman & Christakis (2005) found that TV viewing before age 2 was associated with decreased vocabulary, digit span memory, and reading skills.
2. Barr et al (2010) found that infants exposed to adult TV programs scored lower on cognitive tests and school readiness at age 4.
3. Zimmerman et al (2007) found that each hour of viewing of baby videos was associated with a significant drop in children’s verbal skills.
Parent Belief #2 = “It is enjoyable for my child”
FALSE. Parents assume that if an infant stares at a screen and cries when it is removed, that they must be “enjoying” it. In order to understand why this is a false assumption, one needs to know a little bit about the infant brain. Infants brains are very reflexive; that is, many infant response are automatic, rather than controlled responses. For example, until the motor cortex of the brain develops, the movement of the arms and legs is primarily a reflex controlled by the lower areas of the brain. Infants’ attraction to screens is driven by the visual-orienting reflex. Our brains our wired to respond to novelty, especially bright colors, loud sounds, and flashing lights. This is basically a startle reflex, and it accounts for why infants stare at video screens. It does not mean they are enjoying the stimulation- rather, they are slaves to their own reflexes and actually do not have the control to look away. This can actually be stressful to infants, and may have harmful effects on a developing brain that has not evolved to tolerate all this stimulation. For example, although there is not conclusive evidence that early screen time leads to the development of attention problems, it also has not been ruled out as a possibility. At this point in time, we just don’t know the effects of all this stimulation on the developing brain.
Parent Belief #3 = “I can get things done”
TRUE. Yes, the iPad bouncy seat will work as a babysitter. Strap them in, and you can have hours of time to get things done. But remember who the babysitter is, and what potential harm might result from it. For thousands of years, parents have managed to get things done without gadgets such as an iPad bouncy seat. Yes, it may be harder, but no one said parenting was easy.
An additional concern about screen time under the age of 2 is that it displaces parent-infant interaction time. No gadget or program will ever be better for an infant than face-to-face interaction with a human. Experimental research has demonstrated that even having a screen on in the background diminishes eye contact, infant-directed language, and play quality between parents and their babies (for example, see this study). Media exposure changes the physical and social context of baby’s development by reducing both the quantity and quality of parent-child interactions. So please, just say “no” to plugging your baby into the iPad bouncy seat. And spread the word to parents of infants that you know.
[EDIT on December 9: Looks like there is also an iPad potty seat for toddlers as well. It just got named the worst toy of 2013 by the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood.]
I don’t need to tell you that television is ubiquitous. According to a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, there is an average of 3.8 televisions in homes that have a least one child between the ages 8-18. For most families, this outnumbers the number of people in the home. Our family has just 2 sets- and one of these is in our guest room. How many television sets is in your home and what you view should be a personal decision. But recently, I found myself frustrated yet again by my inability to escape the plethora of screens in public places.
This past weekend, I decided to take Sparky (age 6) on a weekend mommy-son getaway. Peaches was at camp and Hubby was out of town, so it was a great opportunity for some one-on-one bonding time with my boy. After a day of fun that included a trip to an aquarium, scootering on the boardwalk, and skee-ball at an arcade, we headed to dinner. I was looking forward to being able to give Sparky my undivided attention and really talk to him about whatever he wanted to. His only request for dinner was french fries, so we headed into the first bar and grill we saw. We walked in, and saw giant televisions everywhere, all projecting a Budweiser commercial. Sparky’s eyes went directly to the screen and immediately glazed over. (His simultaneous fascination/repulsion with media will be the topic of another post….). I knew this was not the atmosphere we wanted, so we left and headed down the street. Our second attempt was no better. This restaurant had individual flat-screen television sets in every booth! At this point, we were both starving, our choices within walking distance were limited, and the menu fit the bill, so I figured I would make the best of it. I requested a table in the back, away from the rest of the customers, and turned our TV screen off (much to Sparky’s dismay). We ordered our food, but I was soon distracted by Sparky’s inattention as his eyes flitted back and forth between me and a screen across the room. When I mentioned it to him, he admitted he didn’t want to watch it because it was scaring him, but he was having a hard time looking away. So, we switched seats so that he couldn’t see any screens. Success! Well, only for a minute. Into the booth behind us slid a couple with a baby, who decided to watch South Park during their meal. Sigh. I spent the rest of dinner speaking as loudly as possible, in an attempt to prevent Sparky from hearing the highly inappropriate content that was clearly within earshot. He couldn’t take his eyes off the cute cartoon characters at the table next door. Fast forward to the next morning, when we headed downstairs to enjoy our free breakfast at the hotel. The breakfast room was crowded with families. A giant television mounted on the wall was tuned into the local morning news, announcing every horrific event happening locally and nationally. Most of the people in the room were staring at the screen, so asking that it be turned off didn’t feel like an option. When I suggested we eat our food elsewhere, Sparky looked noticeably relieved. So that is why there is maple syrup on the floor of room 326 in a small hotel on the Oregon coast.
This is not the first time I have been frustrated by an inability to escape media in public places. Almost every time we fly, there is an inflight movie (usually PG-13 or R) projected on the screen in plain sight of all the passengers, and most contain graphic images. “Just tell your children not to look”, says the flight attendant. Uh huh, and also don’t look at that car crash the next time you drive by, right?
Everyone should have the right to make their own media choices. But in today’s media-saturated world, it is very hard to leave home and do so. What a shame.
I have spent quite a bit of time on this blog discussing why I don’t rely on the ratings systems for any type of media. It is my hope that research will eventually lead to an improved, universal rating system, but it is not likely to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, here are other suggestions on how to more effectively monitor your child’s media content.
1. Don’t completely ignore the ratings, but do use caution.
Yes, you can’t be sure that the latest rated G-rated movie to hit the big screen will not frighten your 6-year-old, but you can be certain that you should stay clear of that R-rated Oscar nominee for best picture.
2. Preview media whenever possible.
I say this because this is what I am “supposed” to say, but come on, who really has time for this? And do you have to skill to get past the first screen of the latest M-rated video game to see what it contains? Not likely. But congrats if you have the time (and skill) to do this regularly.
3. Let someone else do the previewing.
This is what I do. Every time. There are tons of fabulous online resources that give you detailed content-based reviews of every type of media imaginable. Your child has a fear of snakes? Concerned about the glamorization of teen pregnancy? Don’t like the f-word? You can read about details such as this in less than 10 minutes. My favorite websites are kids-in-mind.com and commonsensemedia.org. The latter reviews movies, TV shows, books, websites, and even smart phone apps. Reviews are done by child development experts, parents, and kids themselves, so you can get a variety of perspectives. Rather than saying, “I don’t want you to see this movie because it is rated PG-13, and you are only 12, you can instead state specific reasons why the content is concerning to you, which is more likely to lead to a meaningful discussion with your child. You can even involve your child in the review process. Peaches herself decided she did not want to see a movie after we read and discussed a review of it together. She concluded that she didn’t want to see the movie she was clamoring for after reading reviews of it written by kids her age, many of who said they were frightened by it.
4. Co-view, and talk, talk, talk.
There is abundant research indicating that active mediation, the process of consuming and discussing media with your child, can reduce the negative effects. However, this is only effective IF you talk about media depictions with your child. (So sitting in silence next to your teen while they watch Texas Chainsaw 3D is not what I am suggesting). Here are some resources for general tips on how to talk to your children about violent media, sexual media, and advertising. If you want conversation-starters for a particular movie, TV show, video game, or even song lyrics, commonsensemedia.org gives specific discussion topics for each media product they review. So start talking!