This morning I turned on the news and found this headline: “Pediatricians’ group finds fault with ‘SpongeBob‘” published by Reuters. In the article, the Reuters reporter states:

And Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics will take aim at the 12-year-old Nickelodeon show, reporting a study that concludes the fast-paced show, and others like it, aren’t good for children.

From the title and the content of the news article, you could conclude that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is taking a position against the cartoon. I was initially shocked and wanted to see why the AAP would take such as drastic policy statement. After all, the AAP only takes positions on issues that have been extensively studied, such as their position against corporal punishment.

But I rapidly realized that the AAP was not taking any position against SpongeBob at all, and that the AP article was entirely misleading (most likely because the reporter may not know how the AAP publication process works).

At issue is a small study that will be published this week in the journal Pediatrics, which is the main journal of the AAP. The AAP PR office sent a press release this weekend about the study, just as they do about many of the studies to be published this week. Such a press release is simply an attempt to get publicity for the journal but does not at any level imply that the AAP itself endorses the results of the study as conclusive.

Let me explain, the journal Pediatrics simply publishes the results of carefully conducted studies that are supposed to advance our knowledge of an issue. Then scientists can review the study and try to replicate it or improve it. That is, other scientists try to conduct the same experiment and try to get the same results. In many cases the findings are replicated and we can start to draw some narrow conclusions about the issue, but in many, many cases the findings are not replicated.

I have not read this specific study because it has not been provided to scientists yet (I hate that the AAP provides information of studies to journalists before it gives it to the scientific community). But from another AP report, it seems that the authors compared 4-year-old kids who completed 3 tasks: 1. Watch Spongebob for 9 minutes. 2. watch another slower-paced cartoon, or 3. draw pictures. After this experiment, the kids completed a task of “inhibitory control,” in which they had to wait before they could eat candy.

The results suggested that those who watched Spongebob were more impulsive (aka ate the candy sooner) than the kids in the other two groups. I may make additional comments about this study once I read it, but this is not entirely surprising given that SpongeBob is fast-paced and would increase physiological arousal, which in turn will decrease inhibitory control. I am surprised that the comparison group was not an active one, such as having the kids run around or make jumping jacks. In such a case, I would predict that the kids doing exercise would also have difficulty waiting for the candy and would perform similarly to the kids watching SpongeBob. Would you then conclude that exercise is bad for kids?

Despite the media’s sensationalistic statements, it seems that the conclusions by the authors were pretty appropriate. They stated to the AP that the study suggests that parents should not have young kids watch SpongeBob or any other fast-paced TV show immediately before they need to do activities that require concentration, such as going to preschool or kindergarten. This makes sense, just as it makes sense that kids should not be running around before going to bed.

So the issue is not really about SpongeBob, but about the simple phenomenon that  ”excitement” can reduce inhibitory control.

I say, give SpongeBob a break.

Cheers, Nestor.

Post to Twitter

6 Responses to Give SpongeBob a break!

  1. Jamie Lowy says:

    I am also curious about the research as a matter of design. The press releases typically leave out how the study was conducted, how many participants were excluded, etc. At the heart of this study, in my opinion, is the comparison of pre-test results to the post test. This is followed by looking at how long does it take for the effects of the excitement phase last before the brain returns to normal. If these issues were not covered in the research article, the release to the journalists was primarily to promote and sell the idea to the public, possibly to seek out additional funding.

    • Hi Jamie, no doubt that the press release was intended to get publicity for the Journal. That’s the job of the AAP public relations office. Although I think it is innapropriate for them to release the study to journalists before they release it to scientists, the real problem here is how the media ran with the story. Now, regarding your other comment, the pre to post test results may not be as relevant if the kids were randomly assigned to the 3 different conditions (spongebob, coloring, other tv show). In such a case, the randomization would “take care” of any group differences in their pre-task levels of inhibitory control.So that any differences between the groups after the task would be attributed to the tasks and nothing else, at least theoretically. In many cases you can’t do a pre and post task assessment because the pre task would bias or affect the post task performance (via practice effects), and thus randomization is a better method to compare the effect of the intervention (in this case the effect of the TV show).

  2. Will says:

    It seems some people in certain professions will look into any excuse to point the finger when they are unsure of the root cause. Great article.

  3. Dee says:

    I don’t need a degree to know spongebob can have a negative effect on young children who watch it. I see it with my own eyes when kids behave like sponebob when playing all crazy with a lot of screaming and craziness. I also don’t need a degree to know that spanking is an affective deterrent to disrespectful behaviour when used sparingly and properly. Typically only a few spankings are actually needed in the period from 3 to 6 years old that the threat of one is all that is needed (the threat is affective even in the later years up to 8 to 10).

  4. rusty says:

    Seems like a much more rational response than the “Should parents ban TV” article I just read (Psych Central).

  5. Guess dodge ball before the big math test might not be such a great idea. Curious. Then again concentration or rather exertion of any kind, physical or mental has been shown to reduce self-control, these studies often involving sugary treats as well. So basically concentrating all day at school then sitting down to Sponge Bob spells trouble.

    I’m much more concerned about a demanding day at school followed by too much homework, hockey practice and piano then any fall-out from a cartoon character.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + eight =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.