Fantastical content, not editing speed, depletes children’s cognitive resources

A new analysis of existing research indicates that the speed of television programming does not inherently harm children’s thinking skills. The findings suggest that the fantastical content of a show, rather than its pacing, is more likely to result in temporary reductions in attention and executive function. This research was published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.

Parents and educators frequently express concern regarding the impact of screen time on cognitive development. A primary worry centers on the intensity of modern children’s media. Many popular programs feature rapid scene changes and intense audio-visual stimulation.

The “overstimulation hypothesis” proposes that these features tax a child’s mental resources. The theory posits that the brain becomes exhausted by processing rapid changes, leaving fewer resources available for focus and impulse control immediately after viewing.

This line of inquiry gained significant traction following a widely publicized 2011 study. That experiment compared outcomes for children watching the fast-paced cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants against those watching the slower-paced Caillou. Children who watched the faster show performed worse on subsequent cognitive tasks.

However, the two shows differed in more than just speed. One was realistic, while the other featured surreal, fantastical elements. This confounding factor made it difficult to determine if the pacing or the content itself caused the performance deficit.

Free daily newsletter

The authors of the new study sought to disentangle these variables. They aimed to determine if media pace and media fantasy have distinct effects on a child’s immediate cognitive abilities.

To do this, they utilized a statistical technique known as a meta-analysis. This method allows researchers to aggregate data from multiple independent studies to identify robust patterns that might be invisible in smaller samples.

“I first heard about this topic from my doctoral supervisor and co-author, Associate Professor Damian Scarf. This was an interest topic of his which, luckily for me, previous members of his research lab had passed up,” explained study author Ashley Hinten, a research fellow in the Faculty of Arts and Education at the University of Auckland.

“Reading past studies, I was fascinated by how researchers had designed their studies and how varied the findings were. It is a topic that hooks people in – everyone has a perspective or anecdote to share, or shows from their childhood that they look back on fondly.”

The researchers conducted two separate meta-analyses. The first focused specifically on media pace. This analysis integrated data from 19 studies involving a total of 1,431 children. The participants ranged in age from 1.5 to 10 years old.

In these experiments, researchers typically compared the performance of a group that watched fast-paced video content against a group that watched slow-paced content. The definition of pace usually involved the rate of camera cuts or scene changes per minute.

The second analysis focused on the element of fantasy. This review included 16 studies with a total of 1,297 participants between the ages of 1.5 and 6 years. The study defined fantastical media as content featuring events that violate the laws of physics or reality.

Examples include animals that talk, objects that fly, or magical transformations. This type of content was compared against realistic media that depicts events possible in the real world.

The results regarding media pace provided evidence that speed alone may not be detrimental. The aggregated data revealed that media pace did not have a statistically significant effect on children’s overall cognitive performance.

There was no consistent pattern suggesting that watching fast-paced shows led to lower scores on attention or executive function tasks compared to slow-paced shows. This challenges the assumption that rapid editing is inherently overstimulating to the point of cognitive depletion.

However, the analysis of media fantasy yielded different results. The researchers found a significant negative effect for fantastical content. Children who watched programs featuring impossible events tended to perform worse on attention and executive function tasks immediately afterward.

This deficit was observed when compared to children who watched realistic programs. The effect size suggested a moderate reduction in performance capabilities following the viewing session.

“Children performed similarly on cognitive tasks directly after viewing regardless of whether they watched slow- or fast-paced shows,” Hinten told PsyPost. “However, children who watched fantastical media (i.e., shows with more unrealistic or impossible content) scored lower on cognitive tasks post-viewing than children who watched comparatively realistic media (i.e., shows that reflect the real world). This effect is thought to be short-lasting so, for example, children might struggle to follow instructions straight away after watching.”

The researchers suggest a cognitive mechanism to explain this distinction. Fantastical events are novel and often defy a child’s existing understanding of how the world works. Processing this information requires the brain to work harder to make sense of the on-screen action.

This intense cognitive effort may deplete the mental resources that are otherwise used for executive functions. In contrast, children may be habituated to fast pacing through regular exposure to modern media. They may possess enough “media literacy” to understand rapid cuts without expending significant mental effort.

The researchers also examined whether specific variables influenced the strength of these effects. The researchers tested potential moderators such as the child’s age, gender, and the duration of the video exposure. They also looked at the origin of the media to see if familiarity played a role.

For the most part, these factors did not alter the main findings. The negative impact of fantasy appeared consistent regardless of whether the child was a boy or a girl. It also did not seem to matter if the child was a toddler or of primary school age.

One moderator that did show an influence was the specific type of cognition being measured. Within the pace analysis, the researchers found that attention and inhibitory control were more negatively affected than higher-order executive functions.

Higher-order functions include complex skills like planning and problem-solving. This suggests that while pace might not hurt overall cognition, it could have specific, localized effects on a child’s ability to filter out distractions.

The researchers noted significant heterogeneity in the data. This means that the results varied considerably from study to study. While the overall trend for fantasy was negative, some individual studies found no effect or even positive effects.

This variability indicates that other unmeasured factors are likely at play. The context in which a child watches a program could determine whether the experience is beneficial or draining.

“While we found a notable difference in performance between children shown fantastical versus realistic media, the difference was not especially large,” Hinten explained. “This might be driven by the fact that findings differed greatly between studies – some studies reported that watching fantasy led to lower cognitive performance, while others found watching fantasy led to higher cognitive performance instead.”

“Other researchers found no difference in performance between children shown fantastical versus realistic media. This hints at the complexity of this research area, and the number of factors at play.”

As with all research, there are caveats to consider. The meta-analysis relied on laboratory experiments where children watched videos for a brief period. This setting is artificial and does not reflect typical home viewing habits.

In a natural environment, children often choose their own content and watch for longer durations. They may also interact with siblings or parents during viewing. These social interactions can buffer against potential negative effects or help children process what they see.

“In the past, there has been a tendency to make strong conclusions, such as ‘SpongeBob SquarePants is bad’ or ‘Fantasy in children’s media is bad,'” Hinten noted. “We think it is important not to do this because the way the experiments have been conducted does not reflect children’s real-world watching behavior or context.”

“For example, in the experiments, children do not get to choose what they watch, how long they watch for, or who they watch with. More research is needed to understand whether media factors like pace and fantasy have different impacts in different contexts for different children.”

Future research could address these gaps by examining media effects in more naturalistic settings. The authors recommend investigating how repeated, long-term exposure to these media features influences development. They also suggest that future studies should separate the audio-visual features of screen media more rigorously.

“We are continuing to prepare research from my doctoral thesis for potential publication in research journals,” Hinten said. “One of the studies uses data from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study to look at the effect of repeated exposure to specific children’s media in toddlerhood on executive functioning in later childhood. My current role is in a different field, although I hope to return to media research in the future.”

“We are excited to present the first meta-analysis of this research,” she added. “The purpose of this research was not to reignite concerns around children’s screen media exposure. Instead, we wanted to better understand the effects of media pace and fantasy rates. I would hope these findings would encourage readers to take an active role in the media use of children in their lives, such as taking notice of what they are watching and talking to them about it.”

The study, “Meta-Analytic Review of the Short-Term Effects of Media Exposure on Children’s Attention and Executive Functions,” was authored by Ashley E. Hinten, Damian Scarf, and Kana Imuta.