11

I'm aware that TV should be avoided at all, if possible.

However, my daughter likes it and when she watches TV we have the chance of doing some cooking, housekeeping, etc.

So, what's an acceptable amount of TV for a 4yo child?

Timur Shtatland
  • 5,303
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50
Jack V
  • 680
  • 2
  • 6
  • 10
  • Are you looking for opinions or research studies? – Kevin Apr 20 '11 at 20:24
  • Not necessarily scientific studies, but sourced information would be great. – Jack V Apr 21 '11 at 10:06
  • I vote to close this. As it is currently phrased, the question is too subjective and doesn't outline any objective criteria with which to provide an answer. – J.J. Apr 21 '11 at 19:47
  • Our pediatrician suggested no more than 60 min per day of any electronics –  Jun 11 '14 at 19:16
  • I get a strong impression that even among professionals the answers you get are driven more by pre-existing beliefs than by actual evidence. This was a live question back when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, when "Watch With Mother" was derided as "Watch While Mother Cooks Dinner". I don't think we are actually any further forwards in the debate, beyond the observation that civilization didn't collapse when the first "TV Generation" grew up. I suspect the same is going to happen to the Internet Generation. – Paul Johnson Aug 31 '20 at 09:44

6 Answers6

14

I'm aware that TV should be avoided at all, if possible.

You're totally right. The best answer is:

None.

Just do it-- you won't be sorry. Also, support Screen Free Week this week.

We don't have a TV by choice. During meal prep my kids

  • draw a picture
  • read a story
  • help with dinner
  • set the table
  • sing a song
  • play a game
  • make a pretend dinner
  • etc

It can be done! TV makes your kids vapid consumers instead of the delightful people you want them to be.

Nathan
  • 375
  • 1
  • 5
  • I tend to agree with Nathan. My wife and I enjoy movies, so we've always had a VCR/DVD player or (more recently) a widescreen computer monitor for that. But as far as cable or satellite TV, we've never had it and we don't miss it. – Daniel Standage Apr 21 '11 at 11:15
  • 4
    -1 Sorry, but I just hate answers like this. The question started off with "I'm aware that TV should be avoided at all, if possible." The specific question was "If I do allow TV, how much is acceptable". Yes, Nathan, we get that you are opposed to children watching TV at all. I am, too. However, that opinion is not productive towards the context of this particular question, and your answer amounts to nothing more than soap-box preaching. –  Apr 21 '11 at 11:31
  • 2
    @Nathan, I upvoted your answer. But Beofett does have a point. I think a small edit of changing "We don't have a TV and my three kids are awesome. During meal prep they" to "We don't have a TV, so during meal prep my three kids:" would make your answer less "preachy" – Kevin Apr 21 '11 at 13:31
  • 1
    @Kevin, he'd also have to remove the "don't settle for the stupid box. It makes your kids vapid consumers..." part as well. In fact, the whole concept of Q: "I know this isn't ideal, but I want to do x. How should I do x?" A: "Don't do x! It's bad" is preachy, no matter how you phrase it. The format of SE is question and answers, not topic and opinions. For reference, please see: http://meta.parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/123/what-should-we-advise-when-one-disagrees-with-the-premise-of-a-question –  Apr 21 '11 at 14:41
  • @Beofett, @Kevin, I've toned it down a bit in response to your suggestions. It's okay with me if people don't agree and vote the answer down, but I wanted to strongly state a case against any TV. – Nathan Apr 21 '11 at 19:42
  • @Nathan I appreciate you toning it down. However, I still feel it inappropriate to use this to state a case against TV. Answering questions with opinions that contradict the question can easily lead to this becoming a hostile environment. –  Apr 21 '11 at 19:49
  • By way of example, before I discovered this site, I looked up "at what age can you start the ferber method" while doing some pre-natal research. The leading result was on answers.yahoo.com, where a bunch of ill-informed people drowned out the person asking the question in a pile of criticism, abuse, and misinformation, all the while repeating the ironic mantra of "Do your own thinking", which really meant "let us do the thinking for you". I'd hate for this site to ever become like that, no matter which side of an opinion you are on. –  Apr 21 '11 at 19:53
  • @Beofett/@Kevin ... Suppose the question were "I realize I shouldn't smoke around my child, but it is too hard to totally quit .. how many cigarettes are OK?" Would an answer of None still be inappropriate? – tomjedrz Sep 12 '11 at 05:15
  • @Tomjedrz If the question is "I plan on smoking in front of my kid, how many cigarettes are ok?" (I intentionally used a different wording than your hypothetical because it makes it a closer analogy), then yes, an answer of none is still inappropriate. When someone asks "I want to do x; how should I [manage some aspect of doing x]", and you think no one should ever do x, don't answer, since saying "don't do x" isn't an answer to what the OP is asking. –  Sep 12 '11 at 12:32
  • @Beofett ... I see your point although I disagree. I don't just answer for the original questioner, I answer for all those who might happen across the question later. – tomjedrz Sep 12 '11 at 14:29
  • @Tomjedrz We've re-opened the meta discussion on the topic. Please feel free to voice your opinions there, as I would like to see some more feedback from the community on that proposal. –  Sep 13 '11 at 18:54
  • I didn't read all the comments, but I agree with @Beofett. The question wasn't about why shouldn't my kids watch TV?. I also disagree in part with the basic idea that TV is bad. It's not, not always. I personally think it greatly depends on your situation - how available you are as a parent, how well you explain things, how impatient you are, etc. My parents weren't around a ton when I was a kid. Many lessons I learned that guided me to be who I am were learned through (some) TV programming. It's incredibly ambiguous in any case, and you don't answer the question IMO. -1 if I could. – Chris Cirefice Jun 12 '14 at 20:09
9

According to the AAP children should be limited to a maximum of 2 hours of quality TV per day.

  • 5
    There's no such thing as quality TV. – Nathan Apr 21 '11 at 02:10
  • 3
    @Nathan - There is definitely a lot of quality TV around. – Nikita Barsukov Apr 21 '11 at 06:50
  • 6
    @Nathan the American Association of Pediatrics disagrees. Sure, 99% is garbage, but educational programs, particularly with a parent interacting with the child, can at least provide the child with useful information. However, in the context of my answer, "quality" really means "don't sit your kid down in front of a bunch of Disney cartoons simply for a bit of quiet; instead try to make sure the shows you select at least make an effort to be educational". –  Apr 21 '11 at 11:29
  • There are other great answers. I'm accepting this one because it links to information from a professional source. – Jack V Apr 21 '11 at 20:48
  • 2
    Two hours is an ETERNITY .. chances are the child is only awake 12 hours a day .. 2 hours is 15% of that. I suspect the AAP 2 hour number is a compromise that they thought is achievable in today's family rather than a sincere "best practice". – tomjedrz Sep 12 '11 at 05:07
3

We do at most 2 hours per day for our 5 year old, but they CANNOT be continual hours, he can do at most one hour at a time then needs to take at least a 30 minute break. Of course this also means being a good distance away from the TV as well. If your daughter is old enough why not try to have her help you during the chores...there is another thread on that here as well.

MichaelF
  • 3,491
  • 1
  • 15
  • 20
3

Accompanied or unaccompanied makes a difference too. If it's TV that you're watching as well, discussing with them so the two (or more) of you are interacting, then you're probably able to get away with more.

Just dropping a child in front of the TV and wandering away is what we all sometimes do, but has to be less!

Unsliced
  • 708
  • 3
  • 7
3

I would agree with Michael that no more than 2 hours per day is an acceptable limit; studies have shown that pre-schoolers do benefit from educational programming (just google search it, there is a lot of interesting research going on), especially in the area of literacy. Television programs like Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer work on teaching letters, numbers, and vocabulary, and are among the less obnoxious shows. Anything that promotes violence, bad manners, or discourteous and disrespectful behavior should be avoided.

However, I also liked Michael's answer because it gets at the point that television is not a babysitter. Your four year old will learn much more if they are cooking or participating in household chores with you than anything they could learn in front of the tube. I completely understand that you need time to get stuff done, but I would encourage you to include your child in as many home activities as possible; this can encourage a love of creativity and a sense of responsibility.

Kate
  • 307
  • 2
  • 4
3

We have a general rule of one hour a day, of TV/DSi/Computer playing. To be frank, we're trying to wean them off as it's just too easy to let the TV become the defacto nanny when you're busy. However, there are some good programs for them to watch, which are intelligently directed at forming 'good citizenship'. You just have to find them.

I am not averse to allowing kids to watch TV, but it does have to be restricted, as they forget how to actually play, how to interact, and how to behave.

Anecdotal, I know, but one child will go and play wonderfully when the TV is turned off, but the other will throw a paddy.

Hairy
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 14