in partial fulfillmenl of the degree of

in partial fulfillmenl of the degree of

Theimpactofbackgroundtelevisiononatlentionandlearningactivities (reading a

book and assembling a puzzle) was investigated in the present study. In the presence of

background television, three-year-olds looked off-task more frequently and fora greater

duration than preschoolers who did not experience the background television, indicating

thatbackgroundtelevisiondislrnctedthethree-year·oldsfromthetasks.However,the

presence of background television did not infiuenceall measuresofperfonnance;only

one out of the four measures ofperfonnance(verbal recall of story detail) sufferedinthe

presence of background television. Additional variance in task perfonnance was

explainedbyexecutivefunctioning.Overall,thestudygivessomeinsightintotheeffect

ofbackgroundtelevisiononthree-year-olds'perfonnance

Throughout the two and a half years it took to complete this project, there have

Courage. As my supervisor she has helped in countless ways, from the development of the study to editing the end result. Secondly. I would like to thank mysupervisory

like to thank Avery Earle for all the troubleshooting of the video equipment and forthe

progrnmsusedtocodethevideos. AdditionaUy,IwouldliketothankKathleenHousefor

her assistance in the early stages oCthe study. Finally, I would like to thank all the

parents who agreed to take time out of their day to bring tbeirthree-year-oIds into

participate. Without them this research would not have been possible.

Figure I A picture of the Kid K'nexSesameStreel building set used inTaskl assembled as it would be in lhe sequence reconslrUclion Figure 2 A picture of the train puzzle used in the initial practicephaseofTask2

Figure 4 The research room where the study was conducled Figure 5 The dUfation of looks on· and off-task during Task I as a funetionof

Figure 6 Thedufationoflookson-andoff.taskduringTask2asafunclionof gender

AppendixBQuestionnaircsUsedinStudy

App;ndixC Information LeUer and Consent Form

age child may watch as much as 5.39 hours of television per day. Considcringmost parenls are unaware of the cxact time spent at activities in their chiid's preschool, it is unlikeiy that they have included limespcnt viewing at preschool with inlheirestimatesof

cxample,53%ofchildrenundersix-years·oldoflcnconsumesnacks or meals in front of

ofyoungchildrenremainstableforatleasttwoyears.lnaddition,Hustonetal.notcd

programs within the same category as they initially preferred. For instance, children who

proportion of educational programs atfive-andsevcn·years-old. The same was true for

Backgroundtelevision,ontheotherhand,involves programs that are norrnallynot

engaged in an activity with thetclevision providingstimulation that has the potential to

andlhere is evidence lo support lhis view. Studies investig:ning the impaclofchildren's

children have the abilily lo leam from television (Ball & Bogalz, 1970: Linebarger, 2001;

Linebarger, Kosanic.Greenwood,& Doku, 2(04). For example, children seem adept at leaming vocabulary from television (Anderson&Pempek,2005: Krcmar, Grela. & Lin, 2007: Linebarger&Walker. 2005). Take for iostance, LinebargerandWalker's study of infanlS·televisionviewinghabilSandlanguagedeveiopmenl.Television viewing diaries were completed by parenlS every three months from six months to 30 months of age Linebarger and Walker then compared the shows watched

10

various measures of language development. Al 30 months,watching programs such as Dora the Explorer, Blue'sCllles,andDragonTaleswasassociatcdwithlargervocabulariesoompared to not walching lhese shows. with effecl sizes rangingfromd=.49

lod=.55.

Moreover, vicwingcertaineducalionalshowsasa young child has been found to prcdicthigher

showsthalchildrcnunderthreeyearsofagedonolleamaswcllfromvideoaslheydo from individuals who arc prescnt with them (Krcmarel al" 2007: Kuhl.Tsao, & Lui.

2003). This"videodeficil"(Anderson& Pempck.2oo5) is moslcommonlyobservedin infanlS and toddlers and lends lo decrease with age. Forinstance.BarrandHayne(l999)

successfully imitated under those circumstances. Inaddition.repelitionofavideo

television content 10 higherrales of aggression iscorrelationaiinnature(e.g.,Hopfetal.,

manipuiated exposure to violent and aggressive television content (e.g., Bandura el aI.,

piclure of the relationship between leievision viewing and aggression. Theex.perimental

1975). The dislinction belween correlational andexperimenlal research is an importan

t

&

McCarty, 2004; Landhuis, Poulton, Welch,

&

Hancox, 2007; Ozmert. Toyran.

&

2.2 hours,SD=2.91) in viewing time per day at one-year-old increasestheprobabilityof

attention problems has received considerable attention, it should be noted that other

attention problems (e.g.,

Fost~r&

Watkins, 2010; Obel et al., 2004; Stevens& Mulsow,

andauentionproblems. To address this issue, Foster and Watkins (2010) reanalyzed the

in lhis age group by approximately five hours per day. Moreovcr,anyrelalionship

2010). Analtemativeexplanationfortherelationshipbetweenviewinglargeamountsof

participants had attention problems. These five items belong to the hyperactivity scale of

mayleadtoa reduced ability to attend to various age-appropriate games and activities in

They also made no attempt to clarify which elements of the programs Iead the children in the fast-paced program condition to spend less time on-task compared to the slow-paced group.Soitispossiblethatcharacteristicsotherthanpaceoftheshows,such as the story

seven-year-olds, the ability to visually orient to stimuli was affected by only 3.5 minutes

of television exposure. The children in the fasl·paced programcondition were slower

10

orienland made more errors when orienting than did the children who viewedlheslow- pacedtelevisionprogram.lnadditiontoaffectingaltcntion.higher amounlS of Ielevision viewing have been linked to lower scores on measures of cognitive funcl ioning.suchas reading reeognition and comprehension and memory (Zimmennan & Christakis. 2005).

Additionally, various other negalive cognitive outcomes have also been foundto be related to television viewing. Concern has been rnised that television viewing takes lime away from other important activities, such as reading (Anderson & Evans, 2(01) While preschoolers cannot read themselves. having an adult rcad

10

them is acritical activilyas it promoles literacy development (Bialyslok. 1995: Justice&EzelJ.2(00). For childrcnundersix·years-old,increasingamounlSoflelevisionviewing are associated with lesstimebeingreadtobyparenlS(RideouletaJ.,2oo3:Vandcwatcr,Bickham,Lee, Cummings,& Rideout, 2(05). There is also a concern that lelevision viewing reduces physical aClivilyand promotes a sedentary Iifeslyle. Numerous studies demonstrale a significanl posilive relationship between television viewing andobesityinolderchildren (Danner, 2008; Delmas el al.. 2007; Raynor, Phelan, Hill. & Wing, 2006). Giventhe stabilityoftelevisionviewingpaltems, it is critical

10

avoid beginningasedentary lifestyle comprised ofasignificant amount of lime viewing lelevis ion as a preschooler

In infants and youngchiJdrcn, the presence of lelevision has been observed to reduce the amouni of lime spent engaged in toy play (Courage. Murphy, Goulding.&

Setliff,2010: Schmidt. Pempek, Kirkorian. Lund.&Anderson. 2(08). Children as young

as six mOlllhswill look less al toys in the presence of television compared to when the

television is off(Courageet al .. 2010). Notonlydocstelevisionreducethedurnlionof

arousaValertness, visuospatial orienting, object recognition. andendogenousauention.

EachofColombo's systems corresponds to a specific function of attention. Thefirst system ofarousaValertness can be conceptualized as a state of readiness

0

rpreparedness

orienting/investigative system and higher level controls system. In the orientinglinvestigalivesystem,arousaValertnesswouldbemoreofaninvoluntary response to stimulation. ArousaValertnessinthehigherlevelcontrolsarealsolargely involuntary. but may also be

in

response to internal motivation. Colombo'ssecond syslemofauention is visuospatialorienting. This system is equivalent 10 the orienling portion of Ruff a.:nd Rothbart's orientinglinvestigalive system. The third system proposed by Colombo is object recognition. As suggested by its name. this syslem is responsible for the identification offealures of objects for the purpose of their idenlification.The funclionsoftheobject recognitionsyslem are subsumed under RuffandRothbart's orientinglinvesligativesystem. The final system in Colombo's framework forlhe dcvclopmcntofatlCnlionisendogenousatlention. Thissyslempermitsinternal motivation to guide attention and allows the child 10 inhibit or maintainaltentionloa

endogenousaltelltionandbotharesyslemsofexecutiveattenlion.Jnthefirsttwoyears

auention 10 atteOlion governed by the higher level controls system (Ruff&Rothbart,

1996;2(01). Thesetransilionsoccuratapproximately2.9to 12. and 181024 months

supcriorcolliculus.respeClively(Posner&Petcrson.I990}. EachofLhesecomponents takes a different dcvelopmenlal course, with all being fairly well eslablishedby approltimatelysiltmonlhs(Colombo.2001}

Visual auention undergoes anotherdcvelopmenlal ttansilion at around ninetol2 months(Ruff&Rolhbart.I996;2001}whenrudimentaryinhibition(Diamond,1985;

1998} and intentionalityofaetion are first observed. These abililies areduelothe emerging mOlorskills and changes occurring in lhe lateral region of the prefronla1cortex (Diamond&Goldman-Rakic.1989).

It

is this point near the end of the first year of life

AccordingroColombo(2001}.cndogenousanenlionpennilsinlcmalmolivation

loguideattentionandtheabilityloinhibilormaintain~menliontoaSlimulus.

Areas

dorsolatcralprefronlalcortclt,medialceltecutivealtention(Funashi,Bruce,Goldman- Raki. J989; GuitLon. Buchtel,& Douglas, 1985: Posner

&Pclcrson. 1990}. Fronlalareas

oflhebrain possess abidircctional linkwilh many oLher areas ofthe brain including Ihe areasresponsibleforvisuospalialoricntingandobjeclrecognition.Thisallowsfrontal regions to receive inpul from these lower brain regions and to coordi nate them (Colombo,

Theeltecutiveattenlionsyslemundergocsconsolidationduringthe second year of

life(Ruff&Rothbart.1996;2001}. lnparticular,thereisanoliceabledevelopmental

lransitionatapproltimalely18monthsLhathasqualil.aliveaspectsthatsupport the

development ofeltecutive anention. Specifically, the development of symbolic

represenlalion and self-referenlial abilily are an importantaccomplishment al this age.

Thcse new abilitics allow for greater inhibitory control Ihrough linguistic and symbolic means, as well as the ability to plan and pursue goal-directed action. Similar 10 the

By24 months. the elementary executive attention seen in the later part ofthefirst year has developed into a functional regulatory mechanism that allowsgreater levels of inhibition. self-control. and attenlion regulation in general (Ruff&Rothbart. 1996:2001) The emergence of the executive auention system means that the lower levelprocesses associated with the orientinglinvcsligative system are, in some way. being facilitated or inhibitcd. These changes are associated with the continued maluration of the prefrontal cortcx.Furthermalurationoftheprcfrontalcortexallowsexecutivealtentiontoconlinue 10 develop with further refinement and increasing control ofattentionduringthe preschool years. Children now demonstrate Ihe ability to plan ahead andaresubjecledto

AccordingtoColombo(200I)andColomboandChcmham(2006),executive

attcnlion is based in the intcgrationofmemorysyslcms with lhencural palhways that

support alertness. oricnting. and object recognition. The link bel weenauentionand

mel1loryisdemonstraledbyOakes, Kannass, and Shaddy (2002) and Oakes and

Tellinghuisen(I994).Theybothnotedthatthelalencytoturntowardanextraneous

stimulusisdependentonfamiliarilywiththeobjectbeingexamined.This illustrates that

l1lemoryforanobjectil1lpaclSwhetherornotauentionwillbemaintainedon an object

largclydcterminedbyexogenousfactorssuchassalientstimuli,butnearthecndofthe

There is a general trend for distractibility to decrease with age. Take, for

forms in the later portion of the first year of life and continues to develop over the

The typical paradigm used to study distractibility involves presentingthechild with a task to complete. such as examining objects or completing asequenceofactions.

with a distractingstimwus that is external to the task presented at random intervals (Kannass.Oakes,& Shaddy, 2006). Sometimes, the distractor may also be continuolL'i such as when the television oninthe background while the child iscompleling a task.

Considering distractibility reflects the ability to resist orienting to thedistractor and to mainlainauentiontothetargeltask,lookstoand from the lask are the main index of distractibility.lfachiidisnoldistracledfromlhetask,heorshewill conlinue 10 look at

anyoff-Iask looks loward thedistraclor are considered evidence ofdistractibility.For

measureofdistraclibility.Furthermore,laskperformanccmayalso serve as an index of dislraClibilily. If a child is abletoperfoml a lask al a specific levcl when no distractions arc present and lhis performance changes when a distTactor is inlroduced.lhenilcanbe

Thestlldy by Dixon and Salley (2007) in which lwenty-tw<rmonth-oldswere given Ihc task of Ieaming nove1 words exemplifies a Iypical distractibilitystudy. For

children's book out loud or Ihe presence ofa dancing toy. Children who had experienced

thedistrnctors were not able 10 generalize the novel words to situations beyond the initial

learning phase. Children in the no dislraClion condition. on lheolher hand. were readily able to generalize Ihe new words to new situations. Thus.lhepresenceofadiSlractor significanl1yimpairedtheabilityof22-month.oldstogeneralizenovelwords

Distraetibilityis largely dependent on the ability to inhibit responding 10 the distractorinfavorofmaintainingattenliontothelaskathand.lnhibilionis anattentional process that is present in rudimentary fonns at the end of the first year of life and improves significantly as executive attention develops over the preschooI years (Ruff&

important 10 distractibility.

As

mentioned earlier. execuliveattention is attention that is govemedprimarilybyinternalmotivalionrathcrthanexlemalstimul:ltion (Colombo.

2(01).wilhgoal.direcledbehaviorsandplanningasimportanlaspeClsofexecutive attention (Ruff&Rothbart. 1996;2(01). The development of executive attenlion implies lhat there is self-regulation of attention. which in tum allows for the inhibition of response to a distractor. Fortoddlersandpreschoolers.themotivalion to engage in intrinsically interesting tasks is a contribuling factor to their ability 10 resist distraction

In their discussion of distractibility. Ruff and Rothbart (1996:2(01) concluded

lhatfromapproximatelythreemonthsofageonward.childrcnhavctheabililyloresisl

distraction under the right circumslances.

It

is at lhree months of age that infanls begin

remaining alert for extended periods. which gives lheorientinglinvesligativesyslemmorc

opportunity to operalc. Al this point, infants begin showing visual preferencesthatguides

them 10 look at certain objects and patterns and not at others. Fromapproximalclysix

that lapses between distractor onset and the beginning of the child's headlumawayfrom the targeltask toward the distractor(Tellinhuisen,Oakes.& Tjebkes.I 999)

The level ofattentional engagement to a given task is an important factor that influences distractibility. Children engaged in focused auenlion to a task or stimulus react differently to a dislractor than those engaged in casual attention. When engagedin

Capozzoli. 2(03) and when they do look at thedistractor. the latency to tum is much longer (Oakes. Tellinghuisen. & Tjebkes, 2000; Ruff & Capozzoli,2003; Tellinghuisen&

Oakes.I997)thanwhennotengagedinfocusedattention.lnaddition,asthedurationof looking at the task increases. the latency to tum toward thedistractor increases (Anderson. Choi. & Lorch, 1987; Richards & Tumer. 2(01). Also. the probability of tumingtoward the distractor decreases as the duration of looking at the task increases (Richards & Turner, 2(01). The critical duration ofa single look at the task seems to

be

15scconds(Andersonetal.,1987).OncealookcontinuesbcyondI5seconds.the probabililythe child will look toward the dislractor is greatly reduced (Andersonetal..

Capozzoli (2003) found that, depending on age, certain typesofdistractors are more effective at gaining attention. The lO·month-olds in Iheirstudy were most distracted by

provedtobehighlyeffectiveindistractingthe26-month-olds.whilethe42-month·olds

were most dislracted by the visual-onlydistractor. Thus. depending on the age of the

child.cert:lincharacteristics promotedislractibility more than others . Similarly.Oakeset

al. (2000) and Tellinghuisen and Oakes (1997) observed infants to be more distractedby a checkerboard visual display than a solid rectangle display

A final factor that has been implicated in influencing distractibility isthe characteristics of the task from which the child is being distracted. According to Oakes et al. {2(00),childrentumedtowarddistractors less when playing with amuh i-component toy versus atoy made upofa single part. Additionally. Doolittle and Ruff (1998) noted thateight-month..Qld infants had slower distraction latencies whenexaminingnoveltoys comparedtofamiliarloys.Oakesetal.(2002)andOakesandTellinghuisen{1994)have also noted familiarity with the target stimulus 10 be an importalll influence on

Dislractibility reflects an inability to control attentional processes andmainlain focus on Ihe target task.

It

is the development of specific neural mechanisms responsible forexeculiveattentionthatprovidesyoungchildrenwilhlhealtenlionalmechanisms necessary to resist distraction, and Ihese mechanisms improve aschildrengctolder Howevcr,anintcraclionbelwcenmultiplefactorslhatdetcnnineswhether a dislractor will becffective in gaining a child's attenlion. These factors range from endogenous faclors, such as auentionalcontrol,toexogenous faclors, such asdistracloralldlask characlcristics.Thesefactorscombinewilhlhedevelopmclllalstage oflhe child to

Given the evidence Ihat both foreground and background lelevision are a

pervasive part of the lives of most children loday. the potentially distraclingeffectsof

lelcvision on three·ycar·olds' auention as they engaged in leaming activilies were investigated in the present study. Although there is evidence that televisiondistracts young children during toy play (Cournge et a1.,2010, Schmidletal..2008), liuJe is known about the impact ofthesedistraclions on youngchildren'sabilityto learn during

In the present study three questions were investigated. The first was whether background television would distract three-year-old children during an adult-child interaction. The second question was whether background television wouldimpairthree- year-olds'performanceoncertaincognitivetasksthatweretaughtduringtheinteraetion.

The third and final qucstionexamined in the present study was whether the maturityof children's execuliveauention processes is relaled lodistractibility and task performance in the presence of background television. The beuera child's executivefunctioning skills, Ihe beuer he or she is expected to perform on the tasks

There are several possibleoulcomes for the firsl two questions. II may be that the

presence of background lelcvision WQuid distracl the children and interfere with their

nbility to pcrfonn the lasks. lnthat case, thethree·year-olds might make l1lore errors

andlortake longer to complete the tasks compared to children who were instructed

without Ihe presence of background television. Altematively, lhree·year-olds maybe

able

10

resist the distraction provided by the television or "muhitask" such Ihat they can

succeedonthetasksaswellasperiodicallyauendtolhetelevision.This suggests that

they are able

10

successfully deploy auentional resources belween ongoing activities and

television viewing. They are auending to both and neither suffers al the expense of the

other. Thismightbeexpectedastheconslantpresenceoftelevisioninthelivesofyoung

children may have enabled them to ignore or lO habituate to the background stimulation provided by television. If this were the case, it wouldbcexpcctedthal children in the

pcrf"ormance with or without the presence of background tclevision In the presenl study, three-year-old children were engaged in two leaming tasks

child constnteting a toy from pieces that had to be assembled in a particularserialorder The child was expected to reca!l certain details oftheSlory and also tobc able to reconstntet a real model of the lOy depicted in the story. The second task involved the participants putting togelher a puzzle such that it was identical in all aspccts loa model puzzle. TosuccessfullycompletethePuzzleTask,thechildhadtoleamlovisuallyrefer tOlhemodelpuzzleasilwasbeingcornpleted.ThcPuzzleTaskwasoriginallyderived

measureofexcCUlive functioning and anention regulation in preschool children (Davis, Burns,Syndcr,Dossett,&Wilkerson,2004;Harris,Robinson,Chang.& Burns, 2007)

backgrollnd during lhe imeraclionand for the olher halfofthech ildren the television was

Fifty.sixlhree-year-olds(M=3.32years.SD=O.IO)compleledthesludy. Within

thesamplcthcrewere23boysand33girls.Sevenaddilionalparticipants were nOl

included in thc final sample due to nol completing lhe tasks (n =3). parentalimerf"erence

(,,=I).andproceduralerrors(,,=3).Allparticipantswererecruitedfromanexisting database of parents who gave birth at the Janeway Children's HospitaI,St.John's, Newfoundland,and who had expressed interest in participating in research. A brochure (see Appendix A) describing the study was sent out by mail tomakcsubsequentcontact

appointment. Six hundred and fifty brochures were sent out. but the majority of these molherswereunabletobereachedbyphone.

It

is estimated that about 50% of the molhers who were reached agreed to participate (wilhjust ovcrhalfoflhem actual Iy participaling),withlheother50%declining.TheparenlSofpreschoolerswho participated{45 mothers; II falhers) were Caucasian and predominately of middie

Dooley (2007). For the purposes oflhecurrent study, a book was created to excludclhe possibililylhat the participants had previous exposure to a comOlcrciaIly available book

and another with a little boy us the main character. Both versions consisted of colored photographs and a brief story depicling either the girl or boy performingasequenceof

pieces. The photos inlhestorybookwereofa"Kid K'nex Sesame Street Oscar"buiIding

sct being assembled in five steps. This building set has 14 pieces and is appropriate for

Puzzle Task. The PuzzleTask,adapted from Wertschelal. (1980),requiredlhe

FigureJ,ApictureoftheKidK'nexSesameStreelOscarbuildingsetusedintheBook

Task assembled,as it wouldbein the sequence reconstruction

••

Figure 2. A picture of the train puzzle used inthc initial practice phaseofthePuzzle

Task. The puzzle on the right is the model and the one on thc left is the child's puzzIe

Figure 3. The truck puzzle

used

in the Puzzle Task. The puzzle on the left is the child's

puzzle and the one on the right is the model puzzle.

executive functioning skills are important perquisites to successful completionofthetwo

transfonncd into a tscore and a percentile rank. A total score is derived throu

gh

combining the scores for all 63-items. The total score can also be transfonned intoat score and a percentile. In addition to the five domain rnwscores and the total score, combining two of the five domains forms three other indiees of executive function : the Inhibitory Self-Control Index (ISCI) is a combination of the Inhibition and Emotional Control scales and represents the ability to control behavior; the FlexibilityIndex(FDis fonncd through the addition of the Shift and Emolional Control items and is an index of flexibilitytochangebetweenaseriesofactions;thefinalcompositeindex is the Emcrgent Metacognition Index (EM I), which is a product ofthc Working Memory and PlanlOrganize scales and represents a child's ability to effectiveIy pursue future-oriented

with theCronbach's alphavaluc'srangingfrom.80(PlanlOrganize)to.90(lnhibil).Thc total score has aCronbach's alpha of.95. The BRIEF-P also shows goodlemporal stability over a period of approximately 4.5 weeks. Correlations between two administrationsrangefrom.78(PlanlOrganize)to.90(lnhibit),withthetotalscore having r=.90 (lsquith,Gioia,

&

Espy, 2004)

Language development was assessed usinglhe MacArthur-BatesCommunicat ive

Development Inventory: Level III (COl III: Dale. 2(01) (see Appendix B). The COl III

semantics, syntax, and comprehension in 30-to 37·month·olds and is considered to be a generalmeasureofcognitiveabilityinthisagegroup.hisbasedonthestandardized MacArthur-BatesCommunicationDevelopmentlnventories\VordsalldGes

Illresand

WordsalldSenlellcesthathavebeenusedextensivelywithinfantsandtoddlersfrom8to

Television Viewing and Dernographic Information Questionnaire (seeAppendix B) is an It.itemquestionnairedesignedspecificallyforthecurrcntstudy.Thisquestionnaire gathers demographic information about the family and assesses the tclevision viewing

ThestudytookplaceinaresearchroomatMemorialUniversily. The room was set up

10

approximate a typical family room, with a child-size table and chairs in the center of the room (see Figure 4). The child sat on a chair cenlcrcd III thetablc, facing the front of the room. Another child-size chair was positioned to therightofthetableforlhe researchcr.Theparentwasseatedonaehairintherearlcftcorneroftheroom.A21- inch television was locatcdon a76cmhightable in the front righlcomeroftheroom The child's table was approximmely73 em fromthc television table. OneSanyodigital colorCCD video camera was positioned on the cenlerofthe television table to record the

Participants were randomly assigned to either the TV-On condition or the TV-Off

condition. with an approximately equal number of boys and girls incachcondition. The

Figure 4. The research room where the study was conducted

from the story in random order. All verbal recall questions wereopen-ended,withoneor

two word answers. If a child seemed shy or did not answer the questions for the

verbalrecallqucstionorcompleledlhelastactioninlhesequence,depcndingontheorder

to complele the verbal recall,and a time to finish the sequence. Timing for the Puzzle

Categoriesofcodingincludcdlookslolhetask,lheresearchcr,theIclcvision,andother

anythingthalwasnotincludedinoneoflheabovecategories.[nmoSlcase,thiscategory

As looks 10 the model puzzle during the praclice and Ihetest arc indicativeof understanding how 10 successfully complete the PuzzleTask,thenumber of looks to the

Here, any look the child made to Ihe model puzzle during these portions oflhe puzzle

believedthatteJevisiondoesnotaffecteitherplayorsociaJinteractions.Additionally, 7.4% indicated that television only interferes with toy play and another 7.4% indicated

Frequency and Duralion of Looks during the Book Task and lhe Puzzle Task The first goal of this study was to examine whether the presence of background teJevision distracted thechiJdren during the leamingand perfonnanceof the tasks. In order to test this, the frequency of their looks away from the tasks andthe total duration

(Condition:TV-On.TV-0ff)x2(Sex:boys.girls)mixedanalysesofvariance

(ANOVAs) with children's looks-on-taskand looks-off-task as the within-subjectfactor

and with condition (TV-On versus TV-Off) and gender as the

between~sllbject

factors

were conducted. The composite dependent measure looks where(onor off task) was

selccted for analyses rather than the moredirecL measureofdistractibility looks fO the

televisioll because the frequency and duration of those measures inthe TV-off group was

zero and not appropriate for an analysis of variance. These results arc describedbeJowfor

the Book Task followed by those for the Puzzle Task. Whenevernecessary.thepvalues

forlhe follow-upt-tests were corrected (Bonferroni) for the number

0

fcomparisons

F(l.51)=145.26.p=.OOO.partial'1

²

=.74indicatingthatthechildrenspenta

WherexCondilioninteraction:F(I.51)=12.20.p=.OOl.partiaI112=.19 thnt is shown

Meall FrequencyalldDllratiolJojLooksOll-alJdOf!-TaskDllring the Book Task

TV

TV Researcher Other Condition

30.15 30.15 16.70 10.30 30.15 57.15

(12.41) (17.33) (13.18) (4.91) (12.41) (23.50)

18.00 0.00 23.21 14.39 18.00 37.61

(8.63)

(O.OO)

(13.11) (7.11) (8.63) (18.29)

Mean (SD) duralion (in seconds)

322.03 129.34 37.57 51.46 322.03 218.38

(38.52) (89.67) (34.92) (43.76) (38.52) (85.89)

359.59 0.00 57.43 112.51 359.59 169.94

(54.12)

(O.OO)

(32.53) (86.15) {54. 12) (81.85)

Book Task (story recall)

Direction of looking

Figure 5. This figure shows the significant Condilion x. Looks Whereinl

eractionfof dUrlllion oflookingon-task and off-lask during Ihe Book Task

= 109.15.p=.OOO. p<lrti<ll Tl2=.68 indicmingthat the children looked off-t<lsk(M=47.20

106. parti<ll Tl2

=.50rne<lningtherewas<l trend for children to look off-task more when

OOO,partiaITl2 =.92. This indicates th<ltthechildren looked on-t<lSk(M=274.90 secs,

p=.OI3 p<lrtial Tl2

=.12.Anindependent samples t-test indic<lted that children in the TV-

Condition TV Researcher Other

23.26 16.56 4.85 74 23.26 22.15

(13.57) (15.59) (7.23) (1.46) (13.57) (15.42)

6.36 0.00 3.36 89 6.36 4.25

(5.37) (0.00) (5.67) (2.85) (5.37) (8.15)

Mean (SO) duration (in seconds)

285.53 55.16 5.36 6.92 285.53 67.44

(56.50) (68.93) (7.39) (29.63) (56.50) (70.42)

264.65 0.00 4.20 6.54 264.65 10.74

(79.23) (0.00) (8.37) (27.58) (79.23) (35.00)

Puzzle Completion Task

o.uon=ta.LSk:.LM-o""""nta..Las--'-k:

F---"Off""-tas.l-k:.l-M-o=fft'-=ask~:

F Direction of looking

there was a

Looks

Where x Sex interaetion: F(J. 51)=6.27,p=.OI6,partial 11

²

= .11. A

Condition x Sex interaction: F(I,51)=8.90.p=.004,partialn2=.15. Follow-up

partial 11

²

=.18. As with the frequency data from the Book Task. the children had a

lelevision dislr::teted the children during the Book Task and the Puzzle Task was the

of the dur::ttion of time required 10 complele the Book Task and each oflhe BookTask tcsts (story recall; sequence recall) is displayed in Table 3. ThercsuIts of an independent samplcsHest indicaled that the total time required to complete lheentire Book Task did

lhe IWO recall tesl phases of the Book Task also did not differ in the TV-On and TV-Off

and lheTV-Offconditions required approximately lhe same amounl of lime to complete thesequence.t(54)=IAO,p=.166.Thus.lhepresenceoflhetelevisiondid not affect thc time required forthree-year-oldsto finish Ihe Book Task and its Iworecall tests

Table 3. The presence of background tclevision did affeci to totallimetocompletethe

Puzzle Task.

It

look lhethree-year-olds in the TV-On condition significantly more lime

10 complete the lask Ihan the children in the TV-OffcOllditiol1. t(54)=3.09.p=.OO3

TV-On

- M - - S D - - M - - S D -^TV-Off

lime required for the three year-olds in the TY-On condilion to completetheentirepuzzle task and the puzzle task test demonstrates that the television did distract them during this

Summary. Television did not have the same effect on the Book and Puzzle Tasks in tenns of the time taken to complete each task. For the Book Task. thechildreninthe TY-On and TY-Offgroups took equally long to complete the task and the tests However. the presence of television did distraet them during the Puzzle Task as the

three-

year-olds in the TY-On condition took significantly longercomparedtothoseintheTY-

The second goal of this study was to examinechildren's perfonnanceon tw

0

cognitive tasks with and without the presenceofbnckground television.Todothisa

recallofthcsequenceinwhichtheOscartoywasreconstructedinthe Book Task Children's performance on the Puzzle Task was assessed with ANOYAs and Chi Square

affectedchildren's performance on the test portions of the Book Task. un ivariateanalyses of variance (ANOYAs) were conducted on the verbal and serial recall of task perfonnance.A2(Sex)x2(Condition:TY-On,TY-Off)ANOYAoftheproportionof verbal recall queslions answered corrcctly revealed a significant rnain effect of condition.

F(I,52)=4,15,p=,047.

This indicated that three-year-olds in the TV-On condition

(M

significant. Overall. performance on lhe pairs of targel actions measure was10w with the males(M=1.6Ipairs,SD=I.44)andthefemales(M=1.67pairs,SD=1.34) performingal the same level regardless ofwheLher lhe television was on

(M

= 1.64 pairs,

PuzzleTaskperform'?rnce. Therewasaceilingeffec~ in JJerformanceon Lhe Puzzle Task test. Twenly-eight three-year-olds correclly placed all six pieces. making it inappropriatetoanalyzeLhesedatawiLhanANOVA.Thus,lheparticipantsweregrouped on an alJ or none basis: those who inserted all six puzzle piecescorreclly versus Lhose who inserted less Lhan six pieces correctly. Thisresuhed in two equal groupsof28.A Chi Square analysis revealed Lhat Lhedistribulion of the children who compleledthe puzzlecorrectlyandLhosewhocompleledilincorrecl1ydidnotdifferinthe TV-On and TV-Offgroups,i=.oo,p>.05.Thisindicateslhatlheprescnccofbackground tclevision did nOl affecl children's performance on the puzzlecomplelion in thc Puzzle

A critical component of successful Puzzle Task performance was the children's ability to monitof lheirown performance by checking their puzzle with that oflhe model

successfully complele the puzzle test, a2(Condilion: TV-On, TV-Off)x2(PuzzleScore

Corrcct,lncorrect)ANOVAonthefrequencyoflookstothemodelpuzzleduring the

puzz)c lCSl was conducted. The analysis revcaled ollly significant maincffectsof

Condilion:F(1,51}=7.45.p<.OlandofPuzzleScore:F(1.51}=8.64.p<.006. No

Comparisollo!BRJEF.PRawScoreso!ChildrellwhoCompletedthePllUIe Task Correctlyor/"correclly

BRLEF-PscaJesand Correct

indices

~~

Emergent

Metacognition

Global Executive

Composite

provide some further insight into a possible reason forlhe variance in lask perfonnance.

models.

JOllmalo!AbllonnalalldSocial Psychology,

66. 3-11

Barr. R..

&

Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in imitalion from televisionduring infancy.

Child

Developmellt,

70.

1067-1081. doi:lO.ll 1111467-8624.00079 Barr. R.• Muentener, P., Garcia, A.. Fujimoto, M..&Chavez. v. (2007). The effect of

repetition on imitation from television during infancy. Developmelllaf

PsycllObiofogy.49,196-207.doi:lO.lOO2ldcv.20208

Bialystok,E. (1995). Making concepts of print symbolic: Understanding how writing

representslanguage.FirstLallgllage.J5,317-338

Bushman. B.J.(1995). Moderatingroleoftrailaggressivenessinthe effects of violent media on aggression. JOllmalo!PersollalityalldSociaIPsychology, 69,950-960

televised violence in ice hockey and subsequent levels of personal aggression

Jounllli o!Sport Bellavior, 4. 157-162. Relrievedfromhttp://web.ebscohost.com!

child care programs: A national survey.

Coml111micolioll Reporls, 19,

111-120

Christakis.D.A,&Zimmennan, F. J. (2006). Viewinglelevisionbeforeage 3isnotlhe same as viewing at ageS.

Pedialrics, 118.

43S.doi:IO.I542/peds.2006-0798

tclevision exposure and subsequenl auentional problems in children.

Pediatrics,

Colombo.J. (2001). The development of visual auenlion in infancy. A

III111alReviewo!

aucntionin infancy and early childhood. InK. Kail(Ed.).Advances in Chi Id Development and Behaviour (pp. 283-322). Amsterdam, The Nelherlands'

Coopcr,N.R..U1ler.C..Peuifer,J.,&Stolc,F.C.(2009).Condilioningancntionalskills Ex:amining Iheeffects of the pace of Ielevis ion cdiling on children's attention

Cournge.M.L.,Murphy.AN.,Goulding,S.G .. &Selliff,AE.(2010).Whenlhe

lelevisionison:Theimpactofinfantdirectedvideoon6-andI8-month·olds'

attenlion during toy play and on parent-infant inlernction.

IfI!atlt BehaviorOlld

Danner,F. W. (2008). A national longitudinalstudyoftheassociation between hours of TV viewing and the trajectory of BMI growth among US children. lollrnalof PediarricPsychology,33,1IOO-1107.doi:lO.l093/jpepsy/jsn034 Davis.D.W.. Bums,B.,Synder,E.,Dosseu.D.. &Wilkerson.S.A.(2004).Parent-child

interaction and auention regulation in children

born

prematurely.

1011

malfor Specialists ill PediarricNllrsillg,9. 85-94.doi:lO.lllllj.I547-5069.2004.OOO85.x Delmas, C.. Platat c., Schweitzer,

B.,

Wagner, A.,Oujaa,

M ..

& Simon, C.(2007)

Obes;ty.J5.2495-2503.doi:JO.J0381oby.2007.296

Diamond,A.(1985).Developmentoftheabilitytouserecalltoguide action. as indicated by infants' perfonnance on AB. Child Developmelll. 56. 868-883

Diamond,A.(1998). UnderstandingtheA-not-Berror: Working memory vs.reinforced response, or active trace vs. latent trace. DevelopmellralScience, 1,185-189

monkeys on Piaget's AB task: Evidencefordependcnccondorsolateralprefrontal cortcx.ExperimelltaIBraiIlResearch,74,24-40,doi:IO.1OO7/BFOO248277 Dixon,W.E.,&Salley,B.J.(2007)."ShhlWe'retryin'toconcenlrate:"Auentionand

Psycilo{ogy.J67,393-414.doi:l0.3200/GNTP.167.4.393-414

Doolinle. E.J., & Ruff. H.A.(1998). Distractibilitydumginfants 'examiningand repetitive rhythmic activity.

DevelopmellralPsychobiology,

32,275-283.

problems.

Child Developmem,

8/, 365-375. doi:lO.ll Il/j.1467-

Friedrich.L. K.,&Slein,A. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial lelevision programs and the natural behavior of preschool children.

MOllographsojlheSocietyjor

cffeClsofverballabelingandroleplayingonleamingandbehavior.

Child Developmell(,46,27-38.doi:1O.2307/1128830

Funahasi,S., Bruce,

C.

J.,&Goldman-Rakic, P. S.(1989). Mnemoniccoding of visual space in monkey'sdorsolateral prefrontal

cortcx.JollrllalojNeltrophysiology,6/,

331-349. Rctricvcdfromhnp:/Ijn.physiology.orglcgi/contcllilabstractl61/21331

on four and five yearolds abililyto attcnd to educnlional lusks.JourII01oj

IIlS(nlCliOlllllPsychology,

27,250-261. Relrievedfromhttp://web.ebscohost com.qe2a-proxy.mun.calehostldetail?vid=l&hid=8&sid=92e9b6ae-be33-4351- b67c314ecaaO%6O%4OsessionmgrI2&bdala=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGI2ZSZzY2

Gioia.G. A.. Espy. K.A.,& Isquilh.P. K.(2003). BehaviorRlIling/nvenloryoj

F.(2004).EffectsofviewingvideosofbullfightsonSpanishchildren.Aggressive

Guitton, D.• Butchel, H. A., & Douglas, R. M. (1985). Frontal lobe lesionsinmancause difficuhiesinsuppressingreOexiveglancesinandgeneratinggoal-direCled saccades.Expen·melllaIBrainResearch.58.445-472.doi:IO.lOO7/BFOO235863

during childhood wilh pooreducalional achievement. Archives ojPedialricsand

assn.orglcgiJconlcnt/abSlract/159n/614

Harris,R.C.. Robinson,J. B., Chang. F.,& Bums. B. M. (2007). Characterizing preschool children's atlenlionregulation in parent-child interactions:Therolesof

behaviorsamongpreschoolers:Parcms·pcrceplions.AmericlInJollnlaloj

Higgins. A. T..&Tumure, J. E. (1984). Distraclibility and concentrationofauenlionin

children·sdevelopment.ChildDevelopmen,.55.1799·1810.doi:lO.2307/1129927

Hopf,W. H., Huber. G., &Wei6,R. H.(2008). Media violence and youth violence JOllmalofMediaPs)'cilolagy,20,79-96.doi:IO.I0271l864-1105.20.3.79

between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977·1992. Developmelltal Ps)'chology, 39,201-

Huston. A. C., Wright.J. c., Rice, M. L.,Kerkman. D., &St. Peters, M.(l990) Developmentoftelevisionviewingpauemsinearlychildhood:Alongitudinal investigation. DevelopmelltaIPs)'chology. 26. 409-420.doi:10.1O37/0012-

Isquith. P. K., Gioia, G. A.,& Espy. K.

A.

(2004). Executive function in preschool

Nell,apsycilolog)',26,403-422.doi:IO.1207/s15326942dn2601_3

viewing and aggressive behavior during adolesccncc and adulthood. Sciellce,295,

through home·based parent intervention. Amer;call JOllmalo!Speecli -Langllage Patliology.9,257.269.Retrievedfromhttp://ajslp.asha.orglcgilcontent/abstract/

Kannass.K.N .• Oakes,L.M.• &Shaddy,D.J.(2006).Alongitudinalinvestigationofthe

development of anent ion and distractibility. Jounwlo!Cog"itionalld

Developmelll.7.381-409.doi:1O.1207/s15327647jcd0703_8

Kuhl.P.K.• Tsao,F.-M.,&Liu,H.-M.(2003).Foreign-languageexperienceininfancy' Effectsofshort-termexposureandsocialinleractiononphoneticleaming ProceedittgsojtheNatio"aJAcademyojScieflcesojtheUttitedStatesojAmerica,

Ancxperimenlalapproach.MediaPsyc1loJogy.JO,4J-63

television viewing lead to anenlion problems in adolescence? Resuhsfroma prospectiveiongiludinalstudy.Pediatrics,J20,532-537.doi:IO.J5421peds.2007-

ojDevelopmenraIPsyc1lology, 27, 123-143.doi:l0.13481026J51008X401336

rourthand fifth grade children. JOllmal ojAppliedDeveiopmelltal Psychology,2J,

Lewis,T. L.,Maurer.D .• & Brent.H. P. (1989). Optokilleticnystagmus in normal and visually deprived children: Implicalion for cortical development. Calladian JOllmalojPsychology, 43. 121-140.doi:IO.10371h0084225 Linebarger, D. L. (2001). Leaming

10

read from lelevision: TheeffecIS of using caplions

andnarralion.JoumalojEducatio"aJPsychoJogy. 93, 288-298

Linebarger, D. L. Kosanic, A. Z., Greenwood. C. R.• &Doku.N.S.(2004). Effects of viewing the television program Belweell Ihe Liofls on the emergent literacy skills of young children. JOllntalo!Edllcaliollal Psychology. 96.297-308

Linebarger. D. L., & Walker, D.(2005). lnfants' and toddlers' television viewing and language outcomes. Americall BelzavioralScielllisl. 48. 624-645

to children's comprehension of television. ClrildDevelopmem, 50, 722-727.

Oakes. L. M., Kannass, K. N.,&Shaddy, D. J. (2002). Developmenlal changesin endogenouscontrolofauention:Theroleoftargelfamiliarityoninfants' distraclionlatency.ClzildDevelopmell/,73,1644-1655.dOi:IO.ll11/1467-

Oakes.L.M.,&Tellinghuisen,D.J.(1994).Examiningininfancy:Doesitrefleclactive proccssing?DevelopmenlaIPsychology,30,748-756.doi:IO.1037/0012-

Oakes,L. M.,Tellinghuisen, D. J.• &Tjebkes.T. L. (2000). Compel ilianforinfants'

characleristics.lll!allcy.J,347-36I.doi:10.1207/SI5327078INO I03_4 Obel.C., Henriksen,T. B., Dalsgaard,S., Linncl,K. M.. Skajaa.E.• Thomsen,P.H .. &

Olsen.J. (2004).

Does

children's walchingoftclcvisioncauseattenlion problems?

RetestingthehypothesisinaDanishcohort.Pediarrics./14.1372-1373

Ozmert. E., Toyran. M.. &Yurdak6k. K.(2002). Behaviornlcorrelatesoflelevision viewing in primary school children evaluated by the Child BehaviorChecklist ArchivesofPediarricsalldAdolesceIllMedicille./56,91O-914.Retrievedfrom http://archpedi.highwire.orglcgilcontentlabslractlI56191910

bchavior: A meta-anaiysis. Commllllicarioll Research. 21,516-546.

Pecora,N.,Murray,J.P.,&Wartella,E.A.(Eds.)(2007).Chifdrellolldrelevisioll:Fifty

comprehensionofauditoryversusvisualinfonnation.ChifdDevelopmeIll. 54,

Pingree. S. (l986). Children's aClivity and television comprehensibility.Commu1Iicariol1

Posncr,M.I.,&Boies.S.J.(1971).Componcntsofnltention.Psychologica/Review,78,

ReviewofNeurosciellce,J3,25-42.doi:IO.11461annurev.ne.13.030190.000325

Posner.M.I.,&Rothbnrt,M.K.(2007).Edllcarillgrhehllmallbraill.Washington,DC:

Poyntz.L.(1933}.Theefficacyofvisualandauditorydistractionsforpreschool children.

Pribrarn.K.H.,&McGuinness,D.(1975}.Arousal.aClivation.andeffortin theconlrol of anention.Ps)'cJrologicaIReview.82.116·149.doi:lO.1037/hOO76780 Raynor. D.

A.,

Phelan. S., Hill,J. 0.,& Wing, R. R.(2006).Televisionviewing and long-

tenn weighl maintenance: Results from the national weighl conlrol registry.

Richards. J.E. (2008). AUention

in

young infants: A developmental psychophysiological perspective.lnC.A.Nelson&M.Luciana(Eds.).Halldbookojdevelopmelltal cogllitivetlellrosciellce(pp.479-497}.Retrievedfromhttp://sile.ebrnry.com.qe2a.

proxy.mun.callib/mernoriaUdocDetail.action?doclD=10236045

from six

10

twenty-four months of age.Child Developmelll, 72,963-972

Rideout, V. (2007). Parellls.childrell,alldmedia. Relrievedfromhttp://www.kfLorgl Rideout. V.

&

Hamel. E. (2006). Themediajamily: £lecrTOnicmedia

ill

the lives oj

illjallts,toddlers,preschoolers,afldtheirpareflts.Retrievedfromhnp:/lwww.kff

ojinjants,roddlers.andpreschoolers.Rctrievedfromhttp://www.kff.orgl

(J989).Comparativeeffectsofibotenicacid-andquisqualicacid-inducedlesions

fortheroleofthecholinergicneuronsofthenucleusbasalisincognitive processes. Behavioral Braill Research. 35. 221-240. doi: 10. 1016lS0166-

Ruff. H.

A.

(1986). Components of attention during infants' manipulative exploration.

ChildDevelopmell/,57,IOS-114.doi:10.2307/1130642 Ruff.H.A.,&Capozzoli,M.C.(2003).Developmentofattentionanddistfactibilityin

Ihefirst4 years of life. DevelopmelltaIPs)'c"ology. 39. 877-890

Ruff,H.A .• Capozzoli,M.,&Saltarelli,L. M.(I996). Focusedvisualanenlion and distraclibilityinlO-month-oldinfants.t1ljatltBeilOviorcmdDevelopmellt.19,281-

youngchildrenduringfreeplay. DevelopmelltllIPs)'chology, 26.8S-93.doi

Sahakian.

B.J.,

Owen. A. M., Morant,N. J., Eagger.S.

A..

Boddington. S.• Crayton.L..

Levy.R. (l993). Further analysis of the cognitive effects of

tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA) in Alzheimer's disease: AssessmentofauentionaJ

andmnemonicfunctionusingCANTAB.Ps)'chophannoc%gy,//O.395401.

Wright.J. C.• Huston,

A.

c., Murphy, K. c., St. Peters. M.• Pinon. M., Scantlin, R.,&

Kotler,J. (2001). The relations of early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families: The Early Window Project.

Child Deveiopmem, 72, 1347-1366.doi:lO.lllI/1467-8624.l01-1-00352 Zill. N. (2(x)()). DoesSesameSlreelenhanceschoolre3diness? Evidencefromanationa)

survey of children. InS. M. Fisch

&

R.J.Truglio(Eds.)."G"isjorgrowing TIlirtyyearsojresearchotlchildrenandSesameStreet(pp,lt5-130). Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.comlliblmemoriaVdocDetail.aclion?docLD=JOt 18426

cognitive outcomes: A longitudinal analysis of national data. ArclJives

0

j

htlp:/Iarchpedi.highwire.orglcgilcontentlabstractlI59n/619

BRIEF:'P BehaviorRating

Inventory of Executive Function-

Preschool Version~

H.ATIN"G FOR.M

GerardA.Gioia,PhD,KimberlyAndrewsEspy,PhD,andPeterK.lsquith,PhD

.D...

~

Relationshipto Child;

o

Mother

o

Father OTeacher"'

DOther* l

Howwelldoyouknawthechild? ONotWell

o

Moderately Well OVeryWell·Haveknown the childfor_O months D)'e:

lYemoaetslOsmaJ~

---~~ - I

II.,~~ ^,%

.,~"""""o""'"

,_ ...

holiday

gatherings)

5 0

"'":':

lSjlly,span

II",

.mmingpoolj

~

MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory-III ~CD'i

Person completlnQ form (relationship to chlld): _

91~

0 ...'-,'

I 0'""

then

.:"y I o

today

"-".'

I o

~sterday

~

...

^thel.

^-::...J

o

tricycle

o

they

10

yOOB"

I o

about

.. "~.,,.c.L ^o -

^away

,,""~t""S.".(

....

^~ . .!w....

I 0"·",, 0"'''

^I

o

ontopof

'~-""".

';-'.

101"m" I o

every

I 5.1,youasbd:.yourchlld':'Wtlatls.horHr.cou$d~.answw'''an

12. Can your child answer questions such as '"what do you do when yOtJ arehunQryrand"whatdo you do when you are tlred7" with appropriate answers such as NQetfood.""eat...Qotosleep...

and/or "take a nap"7

,W«ArttNI...S.tesC"""""lftk."... O""/optNIltttwHtoq-ltt C~02007~COlA<tvlIOlYBolInl-Alrlqht1r~

DollDlr~. . .lttloutpermlulonolP... H.SrookesPullli1hiIlqCo.·HlOO-638-377'5· ..fO-337·9580· .._.~illitNl-'Gm

TelevisionViewingandDemographiclnfommtionQucstionnaire

I On an average day how much time does your child spend watching TV?

The Whole Most of About Half Not at

Time the Time the Time All

3 When someone is at home

in

your household. how often is tbeTV on, even if no one is actually watching it?

5 In your view is children's TV programming most effective for

Interfere with Play

8 How many times has your child watched this particular episode of

l1,e BlIckyardigll1ls?(Giveyourbestestimate) _ _

Several Timcs

a Week

10 What is your highest level of education?

" I

I

COlTlle,ed.

The effect of background television on attention and leamingin 3-year4oldchildren