CHAPTER SEVEN

Television and Children's

Executive Function
Angeline S. Lillard*,1, Hui Li*,†, Katie Boguszewski*
*Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
†
School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, PR China
1
Corresponding author: e-mail address: lillard@virginia.edu

Contents
1. Introduction 220
2. Executive Function 220
3. Children and Television Media 221
4. Long-Term Media Influences on Executive Function 222
5. Short-Term Studies of Television and Executive Function 224
6. Processing of Television 226
7. Our Studies 228
8. Modeling How Fantastical Television Might Influence Executive Function 237
8.1 Attention 239
8.2 Encoding/Processing 240
8.3 Arousal 241
9. Conclusion 242
Acknowledgments 243
References 243

Abstract
Children spend a lot of time watching television on its many platforms: directly, online,
and via videos and DVDs. Many researchers are concerned that some types of television
content appear to negatively influence children's executive function. Because (1) exec-
utive function predicts key developmental outcomes, (2) executive function appears to
be influenced by some television content, and (3) American children watch large quan-
tities of television (including the content of concern), the issues discussed here comprise
a crucial public health issue. Further research is needed to reveal exactly what television
content is implicated, what underlies television's effect on executive function, how long
the effect lasts, and who is affected.

Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Volume 48 # 2015 Elsevier Inc. 219
ISSN 0065-2407 All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.11.006
220 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

1. INTRODUCTION
Young children watch a good deal of television. There are some indi-
cations that television might influence the development of a very important
construct called “executive function.” Executive function is an umbrella
term for processes that underlie our ability to plan and execute actions
directed toward a goal (Carlson, Zelazo, & Faja, 2012). For example, one
executive function process is working memory, or our ability to keep infor-
mation in mind and operate on that information. Another is inhibitory con-
trol, or the ability to stop ourselves from engaging in an action, or even
thinking about something that we do not (on an “executive” level) want
to engage in or think of. Another executive function process is changing
mind sets or operating by new rules when the situation we are in changes.
If watching television early in life impairs these abilities, it is cause for public
health action. This chapter reviews the concept of executive function and
children’s media use before discussing studies of both the long-term and
short-term influences of television on executive function. It ends with a
model of how television might exert such effects and calls for further
research into understanding this relationship.

2. EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
Executive functions are the suite of processes that underlie goal-
directed self-regulatory behaviors, including attention, planning, and inhib-
itory control (Miyake & Friedman, 2012; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson,
Witzki, & Howerter, 2000). These abilities have been shown to be highly
correlated and to constitute a unified construct, but they are also separable
and distinct. The developmental trajectory of these abilities relies heavily on
the development of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which exhibits an extended
maturation progression when compared to other areas of the brain (Mueller,
Baker, & Yeung, 2013). Very early aspects of executive function are observ-
able within the first year of life; however, a great amount of development
occurs during the preschool years (Best & Miller, 2010; Diamond, 2013;
Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Between 3 and 5 years, observable compe-
tencies are gained in all distinct executive function abilities. For example,
longer delays can be handled on working memory tasks, and larger degrees
of conflict can be managed on inhibition tasks. Continued maturation of
these skills is seen throughout later childhood and adolescence.
Television and Children's Executive Function 221

Executive function is beneficial both immediately and prospectively, as it is

predictive of positive long-term outcomes across several life domains. Exec-
utive function skills have been shown to undergird positive social (Eisenberg
et al., 2004) and cognitive function (Blair & Razza, 2007), and executive func-
tion is strongly associated with success in school and life (Blair & Razza, 2007;
Bull, Espy, & Wiebe, 2008; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Duncan et al., 2007; Espy
et al., 2004; Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Ponitz, McClelland,
Matthews, & Morrison, 2009). A large-scale study showed that childhood
self-control predicts myriad health, wealth, and criminal behaviors at age
32 (Moffitt et al., 2011). Due to both the short- and long-term positive out-
comes associated with executive function abilities, any common activity
affecting this construct is of interest. One activity that appears to influence
executive function is modern media, including television.

3. CHILDREN AND TELEVISION MEDIA

Television is, of course, a common pastime for young children.
A recent survey found that at both 2–4 and 5–8 years of age, children spend
an average of about 2 h/day watching television, DVDs, and videos
(Rideout, 2011). Some television programs have positive effects
(Linebarger & Vaala, 2010). For example, children have been shown to learn
some Spanish words from watching Dora the Explorer, and low-income chil-
dren who watched Sesame Street were more school-ready than were those
who did not watch the show (for review, see Anderson & Kerkorian, in
press). Despite some positive findings, developmental psychologists have
long been concerned about children watching television. One theoretical
reason for this concern is the passivity of the medium. Passivity is a concern
because, as Piaget (Flavell, 1963), Montessori (Lillard, 2005), and others
have pointed out, children develop through acting on the environment.
A child who passively absorbs stimuli is thought not to absorb them as well.
Beyond this theoretical concern, many studies show associations between
television and negative child outcomes. For example, children who watch
more television show increased obesity, aggression, stereotyped cognitions
and other misconceptions, and worse academic performance than children
who watch less television (Andersen, Crespo, Bartlett, Cheskin, & Pratt,
1998; Anderson et al., 2003; Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, &
Wright, 2001; Schmidt & Vandewater, 2008; Sharif, Wills, & Sargent,
2010). As noted earlier, this chapter addresses another negative outcome
with which more television has been associated: poor executive function,
222 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

including problems with attention. We first discuss evidence of these asso-

ciations, before turning to short-term experimental studies that suggest the
relationship might be causal.

4. LONG-TERM MEDIA INFLUENCES ON EXECUTIVE

FUNCTION
There has been much discussion of associations between television and
long-term or trait-level attention problems. Most, although not all, of the
published studies report that television viewing is associated with lower
attention skills concurrently and/or over the long term (Anderson &
Pempek, 2005; Ferguson, 2011; Foster & Watkins, 2010; Johnson,
Cohen, Kasen, & Brook, 2007; Jolin & Weller, 2011; Landhuis, Poulton,
Welch, & Hancox, 2007; Mistry, Minkovitz, Strobino, & Borzekowski,
2007; Obel et al., 2004; Pagani, Fitzpatrick, Barnett, & Dubow, 2010;
Russ, Larson, Franke, & Halfon, 2009; Stevens & Mulsow, 2006; Swing,
Gentile, Anderson, & Walsh, 2010; Thakkar, Garrison, & Christakis,
2006; Zimmerman & Christakis, 2007). Furthermore, these negative effects
of television do not only result from children intentionally viewing television
programs. One recent study showed that exposure to adult-directed back-
ground television at age 1 and overall household television use at age 4
predicted low executive function at age 4 (Barr, Lauricella, Zack, &
Calvert, 2010). Another study showed that earlier exposure to both back-
ground and foreground television was related to poorer executive function
ability, even when the content was child directed (Nathanson, Alade, Sharp,
Rasmussen, & Christy, 2014). Additionally, total television and video game
exposure in middle school was found to be related to attention problems
13 months later, controlling for earlier attention (Swing et al., 2010).
Johnson et al. (2007) obtained similar findings with adolescents: the amount
of television watched at age 14 predicted later attention problems.
Various theories have been proposed to account for these findings. One
is that they relate to time use. According to this theory, it is not that the tele-
vision impairs attention, but rather, that time spent watching television is
time away from other activities, such as reading, that train executive capac-
ity. Another is that the rapid scene changes and high levels of sensory stim-
ulation associated with television—especially entertainment and violent
content television—interfere with attentional capacities. According to this
theory, television during time periods when attentional capacities are devel-
oping might be particularly detrimental.
Television and Children's Executive Function 223

A perennial problem with studies showing that something at Time 1 pre-

dicts something at Time 2 is determining causality. Perhaps children with
manifest or even latent attention problems choose to watch more television,
and the exposure to television has nothing to do with the attention prob-
lems. Ideally one could randomly assign children to watch television or
not, then examine them for attention and executive function problems sev-
eral years later. Of course, there are many impediments to such a study, from
the fact that few parents would willingly have their child assigned to either
group, and parents cannot perfectly control children’s television exposure
regardless. Mice parents and baby mice are much more controllable, and
recently a study was conducted using a mouse model.
This study was carried out by Christakis and his colleagues, who posit
that it is not any early television exposure, but rather that it is exposure
to particular television content within a sensitive developmental period
(Lillard & Erisir, 2011) that impairs the developing attention system
(Christakis, 2009; Thakkar et al., 2006). In their study, for 6 h each day,
from postnatal day 10 and continuing for 42 days, mice had Cartoon
Channel audio (at normal loudness) piped into their cages, while a photo-
rhythmic modulator programmed LED lights in each corner of the cage to
change color and intensity in concert with audio changes (Christakis,
Ramirez, & Ramirez, 2012). Ten days later, when tested on a battery of
behavioral and cognitive tests (e.g., open field, mazes), the experimental
mice performed worse, were hyperactive, and failed to show species-typical
caution, when compared to control mice. The rapid changes in visual and
auditory stimuli during a sensitive period of rapid synaptic growth and prun-
ing were thought to explain these subsequent behavioral effects. However,
one might argue that these effects are specific to mice; human brains are
much more complex, and humans have a good deal of other complex input
even when they watch a great deal of television.
Although long-term associations between attention and television have
been established for humans, there has been very little investigation of
immediate impacts or possible mechanisms by which television might
impact executive function. If certain television content makes children less
able to concentrate and follow rules immediately afterward, then repeated
viewing of such content might lead to longer term impairment. One could
also argue the opposite—that repeated viewing might build an attention
“muscle” (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). However, this seems unlikely,
at least at usual levels of viewing. This is because of a lack of positive lagged
associations between television and attention. If repeated television viewing
224 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

builds an executive function muscle, then there should be reports showing

that the more television watched in early childhood, the greater one’s exec-
utive function later. Instead, existing reports show either a negative impact
or no impact over the long-term.

5. SHORT-TERM STUDIES OF TELEVISION AND

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
Aside from those conducted in our laboratories (which are described
later in this chapter), we have located five studies of the immediate influence
of television on executive function; one was conducted with adults and four
with preschoolers. With adults, one study showed that after 30 min viewing
either a highly arousing clip from the movie Doom or a banal tennis match,
Doom viewers performed worse on a test of attention in which they were
required to hold rules in mind and mark symbols according to those rules
in a timed test (Maass, Klpper, Michel, & Lohaus, 2011).
Four earlier studies involved preschoolers. Two of these found an influ-
ence of television on executive function and two did not. Geist and Gibson
(2000) showed preschoolers 30 min of PBS or network television shows,
specifically Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood or Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers,
then coded their behavior for 30 min in a playroom. The control group
went straight to the playroom, which had seven activity centers, such as a
water table and a table of math games. Relative to controls, children who
had watched Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers switched activity centers more
often and spent less time at each, whereas children who watched Mr. Rogers’
Neighborhood behaved no differently than children in the control group.
Similar findings were obtained over 30 years ago in a short-term longi-
tudinal study in which children watched aggressive (cartoon versions of Bat-
man and Superman) or prosocial (Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood) shows over
4 weeks in preschool. Classroom behaviors were coded at baseline and dur-
ing the viewing period. Over 4 weeks, children who watched aggressive
television became less patient (waiting for teacher attention) and obedient,
whereas those who watched prosocial television became more patient for
teacher attention and engaged longer in tasks (Friedrich & Stein, 1973).
Although selected for specific features like aggression, in both of these
studies, the shows that had negative effects on executive function abilities
also differed in other ways. One other way they differed is what is termed
“pacing” in the television literature. Pacing has been defined in myriad ways
(see Table 1).
Television and Children's Executive Function 225

Table 1 Some Prior Operationalizations of Television Pacing

Anderson, Levin, and (a) Frequency of camera or editing actions,

Lorch (1977) (b) frequency of changes to an essentially new visual
scene, (c) percentage of active motion,
(d) frequency of auditory changes (e.g., change from
voice to music), (e) percentage of lively music,
(f ) percentage of aroused, active talking, and
(g) segment length
Cooper, Uller, Pettifer, Frequency of camera angle changes
and Stolc (2009)
Huston et al. (1981) (a) Variability (rate of changes to scenes not
previously shown in the program) and (b) tempo
(rate of changes in scenes previously shown in the
program plus the rate of character change)
Lang, Geiger, Strickwerda, Related cuts
and Sumner (1993)
Lang, Bolls, Potter, and The number of times a structural feature known to
Kawahara (1999) elicit orienting in attentive television viewers occurs
McCollum and Bryant (2003) (a) Frequency of camera cuts, (b) frequency of
related scene changes, (c) frequency of unrelated
scene changes, (d) frequency of auditory changes,
(e) percentage of active motion, (f ) percentage of
active talking, and (g) percentage of active music
Watt and Krull (1974) Frequency of verbal utterances and set changes
Watt and Welch (1983) Visual dynamic complexity: the unpredictability, or
difference, in light levels on the screen over time

In one study (McCollum & Bryant, 2003) that coded some of the
involved shows (among many others—85 popular children’s shows in
all), pacing was defined as frequency of scene changes (related and
unrelated), camera cuts, auditory changes, talking, music, and motion.
Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers was among the fastest paced shows with a
score of 41.90 and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood was the slowest, with a score
of 14.95. Batman (it is not clear whether this was the cartoon or real
version—the study mentioned earlier used the cartoon) scored 25.85. In
addition, then, to differing in terms of aggressive content, the shows used
in these two studies happened to also vary in pacing, with faster-paced shows
associated with increases in behaviors associated with poor executive
226 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

functioning. In the adult study, even without formal study, it seems that the
tennis match was more slowly paced than Doom. This raises the possibility
that fast television pacing causes poor executive function.
Two other studies controlled for content but systematically varied pac-
ing. Cooper et al. showed 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds fast- or slow-paced (with
pacing defined only as camera cuts) 3.5-min clips of an adult reading a story
(Cooper et al., 2009), then administered the Attentional Network Task,
which tests for the executive function skills of alerting, orienting, and resolv-
ing conflict. Afterward, 4-year-olds who saw the slow clip oriented better
on the Attentional Network Task, but for 6-year-olds the findings were
the opposite: those who saw the fast clip oriented better. Across the whole
sample, there were fewer errors made by those who saw the fast clip, perhaps
due to increased arousal. There were no differences on alerting, conflict, or
overall reaction time based on pace. However, as will become clear later, it is
possible that despite the differences in pacing, the content (a person reading)
presented little encoding challenge, at least in the short presentation period
(3.5 min) used in this study.
A second study that controlled pacing, also conducted over 30 years ago,
created two 40-min episodes of Sesame Street by splicing together fast- or
slow-paced bits from four episodes (Anderson et al., 1977). (At that time,
the program was in magazine format and composed of several self-contained
mini-stories termed “bits.”) In this study, pacing referred not only to camera
angle changes but also to factors such as voice changes (see Table 1). Pacing
was found to have no effect on preschoolers’ subsequent impulsivity and task
persistence (tested immediately after viewing), which with other findings
suggested that television pacing is not problematic for subsequent executive
function (Anderson et al., 2001). However, it is possible that even the fast-
paced episode was not particularly challenging to encode, in that even fast-
paced bits of Sesame Street 30 years ago were not fast by today’s standards. The
show’s rate of camera cuts doubled from 1980 to 2000 (Koolstra, van Zanten,
Lucassen, & Ishaak, 2004), yet even around 2000, it was one of the slowest
paced children’s television programs on the air (McCollum & Bryant, 2003).

6. PROCESSING OF TELEVISION
Other studies have looked at the effect of pacing on ongoing attention
to and processing of television, which might have implications for its influ-
ence on executive function immediately after viewing. Wright and col-
leagues systematically varied television pacing (defined as scene and
Television and Children's Executive Function 227

character changes), and found more gaze shifts during fast-paced programs,
implying that bottom-up attention (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne,
2011) was grabbed by salient features of the shows (Wright et al., 1984).
In addition, fast pacing in television shows was found to negatively impact
memory for show sequences, suggesting processing overload. Faster pacing
also impairs adults’ processing of television (Lang et al., 1999; Lang, Zhou,
Schwartz, Bolls, & Potter, 2000). Increased reliance on bottom-up attention
(rather than top-down attention) and difficulty processing television could
both lead to lower levels of executive function subsequent to viewing.
Lang has shown that processing television is a function of resources allo-
cated to processing the message, minus resources consumed by processing it
(Lang, Kurita, Gao, & Rubenking, 2013). If one uses more resources than
were allocated, then one runs out of resources and cannot process the mes-
sage. Allocation of resources is increased with increased orienting responses,
caused in part by cuts and other structural features of the program being
watched. Use of resources is determined by the amount of new information
introduced, such as new objects, changes in existing objects, and other similar
situations. Perhaps for both of the studies that showed no effect of pacing on
children’s executive function, faster pacing increased the resources allocated
to processing television, and there was relatively little new information
introduced. As a result, the stimuli were not challenging enough to cause
a processing overload that would have then impaired executive function.
This proposed relationship will be further explained below.
Thus far, we have focused on pacing as a cause of information processing
and executive function problems during exposure to fast-paced television.
There is also some support for the view that the content of television pro-
grams causes these difficulties (Huston & Wright, 1983). Content presenting
fantastical or physically impossible events1 could be specifically problematic
for subsequent executive function performance. When Coyote chases after
Road Runner until he is suspended in a cloud, where he remains for an
impossibly long time before dropping down (“Zoom and Bored” episode),
physics have been violated; the event is fantastical. Doom, Batman, and
Superman also show physically unrealistic events. In contrast, events in
television shows like Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street are typically realistic, at

1
Fantasy can also refer to cartoons or to humanized animals. Although children do not learn as well from
cartoons as from more realistic pictures, they do learn to some degree from cartoons (Ganea, Pickard, &
DeLoache, 2008). Regarding humanized animals, children appear to readily accept them, even inter-
preting pulsating blobs as having human-like goals or intentions (Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007).
Fantasy in our discussion refers to physically unrealistic events.
228 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

least in physics terms. In an earlier era, presentation of such violations was

largely confined to magic shows, but moving pictures easily present fantas-
tical events.
Why might observing fantastic events lead to lower executive function?
Humans are theorized to possess a “naı̈ve physics,” an innate representation
of the laws governing physical events (Spelke, 1994). Even if those represen-
tations are not innate, they do appear very early in life, such that by age 4 one
has strong expectations of how physical events should occur (Shtulman &
Carey, 2007). In one view, physically ordinary events are “scaffolded” by
expectations formed over ontogeny and phylogeny; human beings are
“prepared” to represent them (Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009). In Piaget-
ian terms, ordinary events can be assimilated to existing cognitive structures,
whereas one’s cognitive structures need to be altered to accommodate to
novel events. Accommodation clearly takes more processing resources than
assimilation, since it must require neuropil alteration (for example, new den-
dritic spines).
Based on our studies with fantastical television shows, we hypothesize
that events that violate these innate or at least well-rehearsed representations
are more difficult to process, and thus require more cognitive resources than
events that adhere to the physical laws of reality. It might also be the case that
we allocate more resources to such events, because they are “attention-
grabbing.” This possibility is compatible with our hypothesis. Repeatedly
needing to allocate more cognitive resources to novel events in fantastical
shows is hypothesized to deplete cognitive resources over the course of
10–20 min of viewing time.
Fantastical events can be regarded as “new information” in Lang’s model
(described above), because they violate expectations of how things should
happen; such events might therefore require more processing resources.
The processing demands of fantastical events have not to our knowledge
been a focus of television research. A prior analysis of children’s television
shows (Huston & Wright, 1983; Huston et al., 1981) mentions
“incongruity” and “visual tricks,” but did not focus on these features.
Results from our studies of television, discussed next, suggest that the fan-
tastical events contained in television programs might be very important.

7. OUR STUDIES
In our first experiment to test whether fast and fantastical television
shows might influence later executive function, Jen Peterson and
Television and Children's Executive Function 229

I randomly assigned sixty 4-year-olds to watching SpongeBob, watching

Caillou (a slow-paced cartoon about a young boy, devoid of fantastical
events), or free drawing in a laboratory testing room for 9 min (Lillard &
Peterson, 2011). Pacing was roughly determined by counting scene changes
per minute; by this measure, SpongeBob was three times faster than Caillou.
Each child was given four posttests of executive function. One was the
Backwards Digit Span (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001), in which children
are read increasingly long lists of numbers, and must repeat them backward.
Another was a child-friendly version of the classic Tower of Hanoi, in which
people need to move objects according to specific rules in order to match a
pattern. The third task was Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS) (Ponitz
et al., 2008, 2009), a Simon-Says like game in which children must do
the opposite of what is asked. The fourth test of executive function was
the classic Delay of Gratification task (Mischel et al., 1989), in which chil-
dren need to wait to receive a larger food reward, or can ring a bell to get a
smaller reward sooner.
In addition, we thought that there might be something good about
watching SpongeBob, namely that it might increase creativity. Our thinking
was simply that when watching SpongeBob children see reality changed in
myriad ways, and this might lead them to think more creatively afterward.
To measure this, we administered the Alternate Uses task, in which people
are asked to think of all the uses they can come up with for each set of every-
day objects (Dansky, 1980). Interestingly, there is some controversy regard-
ing whether creativity is best when one has high or low executive function.
Some that one must inhibit the typical uses in order to think of new ones
(Diamond, 2013), whereas others find that people are more creative when
they are poor at inhibition—thus, theoretically, at inhibiting unusual uses
(Thompson-Schill, Ramscar, & Chrysikou, 2009). It seems likely that both
processes operate in creativity and that what might be essential is cognitive
control: exerting or removing inhibitory processes as needed.
While children were watching the shows and taking these tests, their par-
ents completed a media survey of how much the children watched television
and what programs; and “Strengths and Difficulties,” a scale addressing
attention problems (among other things) that is related to the widely used
but longer Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (Goodman, 1997, 2001).
To examine possible experimenter effects, half of the children in each
condition were tested by a posttest experimenter who was blind to the study
hypotheses. This will not be discussed further, because it had no impact on
results (in fact, effects were larger with the blind tester).
230 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

There were no group differences in parent ratings of attention problems

nor in the amount of television or specifically SpongeBob typically watched
by the children. Cronbach’s alphas showed that performance on the Delay of
Gratification task did not correspond to performance on the other executive
function tests, which is a finding consistent with other studies (Diamond &
Lee, 2011; Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006). Because a single test
of executive function is not as reliable as a composite score (Wiebe et al.,
2011; Willoughby, Wirth, & Blair, 2011, 2012), we summed Z-scores of
responses to HTKS, Backwards Digit, and Tower of Hanoi (to put them
on the same scale, equally weighted), and compared these sum scores across
the groups. Thus, three executive function tasks were analyzed together (as a
sum of the Z-scores), and responses to the Delay of Gratification task was
analyzed separately. Both using a standard ANCOVA (with age covaried)
and regression (with age, attention problems, and television-per-week
entered at a first step), and both for the Delay of Gratification measure
and the executive function composite, the children who watched SpongeBob
performed worse than those who drew or watched Caillou. We had
expected that SpongeBob might increase creativity, but it did not. Although
there are many differences between our experimental conditions, we
hypothesized that the combination of fast pacing and fantasy in SpongeBob
caused the effect. This is because the fantasy events are difficult to process
(we hypothesize), due to the child having no existing scripts or schemas
to which to assimilate them, and because these difficult-to-process events
are also arriving in rapid succession.
In our second study to test whether fast pacing and fantasy might be at
issue, we examined children’s executive function following: (1) a new epi-
sode of SpongeBob, (2) a different fast and fantastical cartoon (Fan-Boy and
Chum Chum), and (3) a different slow, realistic cartoon (Arthur). We also
changed the control condition to playing instead of drawing, and checked
to see if 6-year-olds’ executive function was also influenced by these expe-
riences. Furthermore, we used full 11-min episodes of the shows (often two
11-min episodes are paired for a 30-min television slot, with commercials.)
In all, 160 children were shown an episode or played, followed by a similar
battery of executive function tests; their parents completed the same surveys.
Again, there were no a priori differences in attention or media exposure
between the conditions. A two-way ANOVA with age group (4 and 6)
and condition (SpongeBob, FanBoy, Arthur, Playtime) showed a significant
effect of condition, F(3, 159) ¼ 3.34, p ¼ 0.02; post hoc t-tests revealed that
children who had watched the fast and fantastical shows performed worse
Television and Children's Executive Function 231

on the executive function composite than children who had played. The
performance of children in the Arthur condition was intermediate—worse
than players, but better than children who watched SpongeBob. This is similar
to the Caillou children in the initial study. There was no significant
Age " Condition interaction, suggesting that the effect does not wane signif-
icantly from age 4 to 6.
The second follow-up study used a 2 " 2 factorial design to examine the
separate contributions of fantasy and fast pacing to executive function. Pac-
ing was determined by a computer program called Scene Detector, a movie
editing tool that uses percentage of pixels changed to determine when a
scene has changed. The four shows were Little Bill (slow, realistic), Little
Einsteins (slow, fantastical), Phineas and Ferb (fast, realistic; the only fantastical
feature in the episode, a talking platypus, was edited out), and a different
episode of SpongeBob (fast, fantastical) than we had used in the previous
two studies. Eighty 4-year-olds were given pre- as well as posttests of exec-
utive function, and parents completed the short form of the Child Behavior
Questionnaire or CBQ-SF (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006).
There were no preexisting group differences on the CBQ-SF subscales
most relevant to executive function or on our pretests executive function.
An ANCOVA with age and pretest executive function score as covariates
showed a significant effect for fantasy, F(1, 75) ¼ 5.04, p ¼ 0.03, but not
for pacing. Follow-up tests showed that children did as poorly on the exec-
utive function tests after Little Einsteins (slow, fantastical) as after SpongeBob
(fast, fantastical), but did equally well after Phineas and Ferb (fast, realistic) as
after Little Bill (slow, realistic). From this study, it appears that fantastical
events, but not pacing, are responsible for children’s poor executive function
skills following certain television shows.
We were also interested in whether educational television might have
similar effects. To examine this, Eve Richey conducted a third follow-up
with 60 4-year-olds. She tested whether a fast, fantastical PBS show designed
to teach children vocabulary, Martha Speaks, would be as problematic as
SpongeBob. Pacing (judged by Scene Detector) and fantasy content (the num-
ber of unique physically impossible events) were similar in the two shows. In
the episode of Martha Speaks, for example, a child’s school desk dropped
through the floor, emerged from the school, and flew through the air. Con-
trol group children read a book version of Martha Speaks, with the reading
taped and signals in the tape indicating when to turn the page; the reading
and the videos each lasted about 22 min. Unlike the television show, Martha
Speaks books do not portray physically impossible events.
232 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

We again found that fantastical television, even when intended to teach

vocabulary, significantly impaired executive function: F(2, 59) ¼ 5.51,
p ¼ 0.007; follow-up tests showed that children in both video conditions
performed worse on the executive function tests than children in the book
condition. The vocabulary words were not learned with either Martha
Speaks presentation.
To summarize our research so far, we have found four television shows
that negatively impact executive function relative to control (play, art, and
reading) conditions and/or other shows (see Table 2). These effects were
seen in children of ages 4 and 6. Fuxing Wang (unpublished raw data) also
conducted a study in our laboratory at the University of Virginia with
undergraduates, having them watch either SpongeBob or Bob’s Burgers, a
funny cartoon without fantastical events. Afterward, they completed a bat-
tery of computerized tests of executive function, such as the Wisconsin Card
Sort. In undergraduates, there was no evidence that the fantastical events
impaired executive function. This suggests the effect disappears sometime
between the ages of 6 and 20 (although these authors feel depleted after
watching fantastical shows!)

Table 2 Executive Function Results and Some Characteristics of Shows Used in

Studies 1–4
Show
Diminished Producer's “Commonsense
Executive Fast Intended Media” Target
Function? Show Paced Fantastical Audience Age Age
Yes SpongeBob x x 6–11 6
Yes Little Einsteins x 4–6 4
Yes FanBoy & x x 6–9 7
ChumChum
Yes Martha Speaks x x 4–7 4
No Little Bill 4–6 4
No Caillou 3–6 3
No Arthur 4–8 5
No Phineas and x 6–11 5
Ferb
Television and Children's Executive Function 233

As can be seen in Table 2, fantasy (in the sense of physically impossible

events) appears to be more important than pacing for subsequent executive
function. Another variable that could be responsible for the effect is the fact
that some shows are aimed at an older target age than was tested (thus,
message complexity/comprehensibility might have caused the effect).
Although the intended age range and the age recommendation of a
respected parent media website (Commonsense Media) were similar for
some shows that did and did not cause the effect, it is possible that some-
thing about comprehensibility of the story line is responsible; we have not
firmly established that fantasy is the reason for our finding. Besides intended
audience age, future research might look at themes of a show, identification
with show characters, and children’s level of arousal while viewing as pos-
sible causes.
In other research, we have examined whether Chinese children would
show the same effects as American ones. Chinese preschoolers are known to
have higher levels of executive function than their American counterparts
(Lan, Legare, Ponitz, & Morrison, 2011; Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson,
Moses, & Lee, 2006), which might render them impervious to the negative
influence of television on executive function found with the samples of
American children. In China, there is little research on children’s television,
and there are no official recommendations regarding children’s television
viewing. In collaboration with other Chinese colleagues, we investigated
both the association between cartoon viewing and executive function,
and the immediate influence of two different cartoons (educational vs.
entertainment) on children’s executive function.
We first employed a parent survey to examine current and predictive
relationships between television viewing and executive function from ages
2 to 5. The parent survey was given three times, 6 months apart. Executive
function was measured with 15 items intended to tap inhibition, shifting,
emotional control, working memory, planning, and organizing; these were
adapted from sample items on a published survey (Isquith, Gioia, & Espy,
2004). Example items included, for example, “When asked two things to
do, remembers only the first or last” and “Has trouble in concentrating
on games, puzzles, or play activities.” Parents rated each item as not true,
somewhat true, and certainly true of their child; these scores were converted
to 3, 2, and 1, respectively, and were added to create an index of EF (ranging
from 15 to 45). This 15-item scale was pretested on 855 preschoolers,
and the results suggested good statistical properties (e.g., Cronbach’s
alpha ¼ 0.82).
234 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Children had watched a total of 867 television shows, many of which

were American shows with Chinese language dubbed in; average viewing
was between 7 and 8 h per week across the testing points. The great majority
of shows were for entertainment, as educational television is rare in China.
Multilevel modeling was used to examine the development of executive
function across the three time points. The most striking result was a decrease
of 0.012 points on average in children’s executive function for each addi-
tional hour per week of viewing television, after age and gender were
accounted for. Although this in some ways seems small, our scale was of lim-
ited range (15–45), and even small differences can be quite meaningful at the
population level.
Our second Chinese study attempted to establish whether a similar
relationship between television viewing and executive function could
be found after short-term exposure in Chinese children. Ninety pre-
schoolers (ages 4–6) were randomly assigned to either an entertaining car-
toon group which viewed Tom & Jerry, an educational cartoon group
which watched Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, or a no television group that
played freely in their classrooms, using a 3 " 3 between-subjects design.
Scene changes occurred at a similar rate in the two videos, as measured
by Scene Detector. Mickey was agreed by a panel of judges to be educational,
and was shown by objective coding to be less fantastical, although it still
showed 17 fantasy events lasting a total of 107 s. Tom & Jerry was judged
by the panel to be an entertainment show, and coding revealed that the
stimulus showed 46 fantasy events, lasting 218 s. For a subset of the chil-
dren, a Tobii T120 eye tracker recorded eye movements during viewing to
determine whether increases in attentional processing could be responsible
for any effects on executive function.
Next, children in all three groups completed three executive function
tasks. These were Backward Digit Span, as in the prior studies; Day–Night
(Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994), in which children must say “Night”
to a picture of a sun and “Day” to a picture of a moon; and the Flexible
Item Selection task ( Jacques & Zelazo, 2001) in which children must
change the criteria by which they categorize a set of items. These are
thought to mainly assess working memory, inhibitory control, and set
shifting, respectively. A composite executive function score was created
from the sum of standardized scores on the three tasks. Parent-report mea-
sures of the amount of television children typically watched each week, the
content of those television programs, and the child’s attention level were
used as control variables.
Television and Children's Executive Function 235

The eye tracking results showed significant differences in how children

in the two television exposure groups viewed the videos. Children viewing
the entertainment program had significantly shorter average fixation dura-
tions during viewing than did children who watched the educational pro-
gram, t(16) ¼ #3.68, p < 0.005, Cohen’s d ¼ 1.72. The average number of
fixations per minute in the entertainment group was significantly greater
than in the educational group, t(16) ¼ 4.93, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d ¼ 2.29.
Shorter average fixation durations meant children sustained their attention
on one stimulus for shorter periods of time; the greater number of fixations
suggests that children shifted their attention more frequently.
There were also significant age effects on executive function, F(2, 87) ¼
14.48, p < 0.001, ηp 2 ¼ 0:25. Because of this, an ANCOVA with age as the
covariate was used to analyze whether there was a main effect of condition
on executive function. The results indicated that there was a significant con-
dition effect, F(2, 86) ¼ 6.99, p < 0.005, ηp 2 ¼ 0:14. Post hoc Tukey’s tests
indicated that children in the entertainment television group had lower post-
test executive function scores than children in the educational television
group, t(58) ¼ # 2.56, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.66, and the control group,
t(58) ¼ #2.95, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.76. The latter two groups did not
differ. Study 2 suggested increased orienting responses occur during an
entertainment show. More direct readings of children’s neural activity while
watching the shows could be useful to determine the cause of the detriment.
A third study was conducted in China to better investigate the cause of
the negative influence of television on executive function found in the two
studies just described. We tested activation of the PFC during children’s
viewing of the same shows used in the prior study, using fNIRS to reveal
successive changes in the concentrations of oxygenated (O2Hb) and deox-
ygenated (HHb) blood during children’s viewing. Data collection with
fNIRS is particularly well suited for child participants, because it has far
fewer body movement restrictions and is noiseless (Moffitt et al., 2011).
Twelve laser optodes (connected to 24 laser sources through bifurcated
cables with cables of 690 and 830 nm paired and combined into one laser
optode) were used and evenly assigned to subjects who watched the video
simultaneously. This allowed us to more directly examine the internal activ-
ity of children’s PFCs while viewing the television shows. HomER
(Hemodynamic Evoked Response) software was used to analyze the changes
in oxy-Hb, which were assumed to be a more sensitive reflection of cogni-
tive activation than deoxy-Hb changes (Hoshi, Kobayashi, & Tamura, 2001;
Strangman, Culver, Thompson, & Boas, 2002), because previous research
236 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Figure 1 Time course for concentration of oxy-Hb in the prefrontal cortex during the
first 6 min of viewing.

has indicated that cerebral blood flow increases in response to neuronal acti-
vation (Fox & Raichle, 1986).
Figure 1 shows the level of oxy-Hb in the PFC for each group during the
first 6 min of viewing the shows. Summing across the entire 6 min of view-
ing, the fNIRS results showed no significant group differences in levels of
oxy-Hb in the orbitofrontal cortex during viewing. However, visual inspec-
tion of the figure reveals four clear epochs in which one group exceeded the
other to some degree in prefrontal processing. During the first 74 s of view-
ing, the level of prefrontal processing was higher for the entertainment
group, t(19) ¼ 2.05, p ¼ 0.05, Cohen’s d ¼ 0.94. For the next 35 s, although
it appears to be higher for the educational group, the difference was not sig-
nificant. For the next 120 s, from 112 to 225 s, there was also significantly
higher activity in the PFC for the entertainment group, t(19) ¼ 2.32,
p < 0.05, Cohen’s d ¼ 1.06. Finally, during the remainder of the recorded
viewing time (226–410 s), the educational group generally showed higher
activity; statistical analysis showed this was a trend, t(19) ¼ 1.87, p ¼ 0.07,
Cohen’s d ¼ 0.86. Thus, it appears that, overall, activity was higher for
the entertainment group for approximately the first 4 min of viewing,
and then the activity dropped off.
Television and Children's Executive Function 237

We see two ways to interpret these results. One possibility is that the
increased orienting required by the entertainment cartoon increased
processing to a point (the first 4 min of viewing). After that, the system
became overloaded and prefrontal processing shut down. In support of this,
although not directly examining neural activity, Lang and her colleagues
showed that adults’ allocation of processing resources to television messages
becomes taxed when camera angle changes become excessive, reaching cog-
nitive overload (Lang et al., 2013).
The second possibility hinges on the element of fantastical events rather
than orienting responses. It is possible that when first shown fantasy events,
children attempt to process them (using cognitive resources) and then,
because fantasy events are incomprehensible, they stop trying to process
them. This would also render the PFC less active for the remainder of view-
ing, and also for subsequent executive function tasks. Although we know of
no literature on how children process fantastical events, we do know that
children have difficulty filtering out irrelevant events, which can then over-
load processing (Ridderinkhof, van der Molen, Band, & Bashore, 1997).
Perhaps the fantasy events are similar to irrelevant events: they do not fit
the standard schematic narratives of how things happen in the world. In
sum, according to this second possibility, cognitive resources are initially
allocated to process fantasy events (and notably, the educational cartoon
did have some fantastical events in the first minute), but the processing sys-
tem becomes overloaded by them (particularly with the entertainment car-
toon, which shows fantastical events throughout) and ceases to attempt the
processing.
It would be useful in future research to compare clips with defined, occa-
sional fantastical events with realistic clips that require repeated orienting
responses, to see whether processing reliably decreases during or after fan-
tastical events. Such research could tease apart the two possibilities just
mentioned.

8. MODELING HOW FANTASTICAL TELEVISION MIGHT

INFLUENCE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
Here, we present a new theory—hinted at in the preceding pages—
regarding why certain television shows deplete executive function. Our
thinking is grounded in information processing theory and research on adult
television processing (Lang, 2000; Lee & Lang, 2013), attention (Petersen &
Posner, 2012), and executive function (Diamond, 2013). The basic premises
238 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Top-down
W. Memory

Attention (Sensory receptors/store) Encoding Processing

Bottom-up

Figure 2 Information flow during television viewing.

are that: (1) information processing resources (such as neurotransmitters

and/or perhaps glucose) are limited, (2) some shows use more processing
resources than others (Lang, 2000), and (3) those resources are needed to
perform our executive function tasks. Taking these premises into account,
then, to the extent that the resources are depleted by a show observed just
prior, performance on the executive function tasks suffers. Arousal also
interacts with this system, as it has an upside-down U-shaped relationship
to information processing (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908): too little or too much
impairs it. Below, we will spell this theory out more fully (Figure 2).
Watching television entails attending to and encoding messages in audi-
tory and visual streams, processing those messages in working memory, and
storing and retrieving them dynamically in order to continuously interpret
newly arriving messages (Lang, 2000). Attentional processes direct sensory
receptors (eyes and ears) to attend to particular locations or sounds in a
top-down fashion, and bottom-up responses (orienting responses to visual
stimuli, and alerting responses to auditory ones) also control the allocation
of attention resources. Attended stimuli enter the brain through the sensory
receptors and are held briefly in the sensory store, from which some of the
information is encoded. Encoding involves selecting information from the
sensory store, which is then passed to working memory for processing.2
These same processes are also important to maintaining attention and per-
forming executive function tasks. Our hypothesis is that watching fantasy
events quickly exhausts attention and/or processing resources, making them
unavailable for the subsequent executive function tasks. This results in the
immediate, short-term impairments we record in most of our studies. How-
ever, repeated viewing leads to so many of these short-term impairments that
it disrupts the normal development of the information processing system.

2
Although conventionally discussed as if different levels were locations, this is for some levels metaphor-
ical, and a more true description might involve neuron or connection state.
Television and Children's Executive Function 239

First, consider how these processes are entailed in performing the exec-
utive function tasks. For every executive function task, a child must pay
attention to instructions and keep attending to those instructions (in work-
ing memory) while carrying out the tasks. For example, for HTKS, a child
must attend first to instructions (“When I say touch your head, I want you to
touch your toes”) and then, holding those instructions in mind, must attend
to the commands (“Touch your head”) and monitor their own behavior to
handle the conflict inherent in doing the opposite of the instructions. For the
memory span task, a child attends to instructions to repeat a string of words,
and then must attend to what those words are, holding them in memory to
repeat (and for backward tests, while reversing them). In contrast, for a delay
task, a child must attend to, encode, and process instructions to wait, but
while waiting might not continuously monitor those instructions; children
who perform best often reimagine the circumstances or the desired objects
(Mischel et al., 1989). The Tower of Hanoi puzzle task also involves attend-
ing to instructions, keeping them in mind, and envisioning how disks (or in
our child-friendly version of the task, monkeys) relate to one another while
conforming to the rules and adjusting the relationships between puzzle
pieces to meet a goal. Our hypothesis is that either fantasy events, and/or
repeated orienting responses, on certain television programs quickly deplete
these resources, rendering them less available for subsequent executive func-
tion tasks. Because we are focused mainly on the influence of fantastical
events, next I explain how observing fantasy events on television might
deplete these same resources. Although our evidence suggests that fantasy
events are the main source of the problem, perhaps when such events are
shown in rapid succession (as when shows are fast-paced, and thus more
likely to require repeated orienting responses), it is particularly problematic.

8.1. Attention
Both initially (in ontogeny) and perennially (across life) attention is con-
trolled by bottom-up circuits originating in the visual/auditory cortices
and extending to the temporal cortex (object identification) and parietal cor-
tex (object locations) (Mechelli, Price, Friston, & Ishai, 2004; Sarter,
Givens, & Bruno, 2001). By 4 years of age (Ruff & Rothbart, 1996), atten-
tion is also controlled by top-down resources that originate in prefrontal
areas (Lang, 1990; McMains & Kastner, 2011; Mechelli et al., 2004).
Fast-paced shows present many stimuli that capture attention in a
bottom-up fashion, via both auditory and visual changes. Surprising
240 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

events—which include fantastical ones, because unreal events are typically

unexpected—capture attention as well. Orienting responses increase
resources available for television processing to a point, after which the cog-
nitive system is overloaded and incoming messages are not processed (Lang
et al., 2013). This is consistent with research showing that children compre-
hend television better when there are more attention-grabbing sound effects
(Calvert & Gersh, 1987), but at some point (and we cannot say at this time
exactly what this point is) processing likely becomes overloaded and com-
prehension declines.
In research to test this theory, use of attentional resources during televi-
sion viewing could be monitored in at least three ways: eye movements,
heart rate (HR), and skin conductance (SC). Increased eye movements
while looking at the screen suggest increased bottom-up orienting
responses; our Chinese study supports that preschooler’s attentional
resources were particularly used while watching a fantastical entertainment
show (as compared to a less fantastical educational show). Although visual
attention can also be voluntarily assigned to a stimulus using top-down pro-
cesses, young children’s television especially (Goodrich, Pempek, & Calvert,
2009; Huston et al., 1981) captures attention in a bottom-up fashion via
changes in sound and light that reflect pacing. Young children’s attention
to television also increases with cuts and movement (Schmitt,
Anderson, & Collins, 1999) that are accompanied by sound and light
changes. A child looking away from the screen likely indicates inattention,
which could stem from boredom or lack of comprehension. When televi-
sion messages are scrambled or foreign dialog is inserted, making the message
incomprehensible, preschoolers look away from the television (Anderson,
Lorch, Field, & Sanders, 1981).
Based on prior research by Lang et al. (2013), we would expect that up to
a certain level, bottom-up attention (orienting responses) should increase
processing resources available. When a television show becomes too chal-
lenging (i.e., elicits an excessive rate of orienting responses), however,
resources become insufficient and executive function is compromised.
Reduced attention to the screen (looking away) would also lead to failure
to encode show content.

8.2. Encoding/Processing
The process of encoding entails getting the message from the sensory store
into working memory. Encoding of television is compromised when pacing
Television and Children's Executive Function 241

or message complexity exceeds information processing capacity (Lang et al.,

1999, 2013). Although cuts evoke orienting responses, when a cut is
followed by unrelated information, the new information is poorly encoded
(Lang et al., 1993). Once information is in working memory, it can be
processed and stored, making it available for retrieval; it can then be used
both for interpreting later parts of the show and for recall after the show
is over. Research with adults has shown that there is an inverted
U function for memory and cuts, such that up to a point more cuts (faster
pacing) improves memory, but beyond that number, memory is diminished
(Lang et al., 1999). The reason for this appears to be that the cuts increase
orienting responses, which increases resources allocated to processing; but
once processing becomes overly challenging (because the information is
too difficult), then the information is not encoded (Lang et al., 2013).
In our experiments so far, we have not examined whether encoding
and/or processing are disrupted by the television shows. Further research
might examine this in at least two ways. First, one might examine encoding
by testing for recognition memory of still shots of key show events (along
with distractors) after viewing (a method used by Lee & Lang, 2013). Mes-
sage difficulty would be expected to interact with recognition (see, for
example, Thorson & Lang, 1992). Specifically, if encoding is at issue, rec-
ognition memory would be fairly constant for events occurring early and
late in the easier shows, but memory for events in difficult shows would
decline from the first to last minute of viewing due to overload. To test
whether television stimuli create problems at the level of processing, chil-
dren could be asked to arrange scrambled sets of still shots from the show
to reflect their ordering in the show (an approach used by Wright et al.,
1984). Children might conceivably do well on the first task, recognizing still
shots, suggesting information was encoded, yet do poorly on the second
task, suggesting they lack sufficient processing resources to commit the nar-
rative sequence to memory for later recall.

8.3. Arousal
In addition to examining effects at the levels of attention or encoding/
processing, future research should examine arousal, which has overall effects
on processing of television (Lang, 1990; Lang, Dhillon, & Dong, 1995; Lang
et al., 2000). Arousal stems from the reticular system signaling one to pay
attention (Ravaja, 2004). High arousal is associated with challenge and
excitement. To a point, increases in arousal improve message processing;
242 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

at higher levels arousal leads to processing decrements (Lang et al., 1995;

Pourtois, Schettino, & Vuilleumier, 2012). Levels of arousal could be indi-
cated in future research on television’s effects on children’s executive func-
tion with measures of SC and HR.

9. CONCLUSION
In sum, we hypothesize that certain television shows impair subse-
quent executive function because viewing the shows and performing the
executive function tasks both draw on the same information processing
resources. More attentional resources are allocated to the television shows
with increased bottom-up pacing features (camera cuts). Top-down atten-
tional resources and processing of the information in the television shows
also use those resources. If processing the show is very challenging,
resources are depleted and unavailable for the executive function tasks just
after stimuli exposure. Content is more difficult to process when more new
and unexpected information is presented. Impossible events are difficult
because the human brain is not used to processing such events; novelty
requires additional resources relative to familiar stimuli. At a point, how-
ever, those resources become unavailable, possibly because they are
depleted, or possibly because the system makes a “choice” not to allocate
resources to an impossible task. Arousal can improve these processes to a
point, but if a child becomes overly aroused by a show, processing
will suffer.
Repeatedly experiencing difficult shows early in development could
impair the development of processing networks, resulting in long-term
executive function problems as suggested by Barr, Christakis, and others.
But even short-term impacts are important because children do not function
well when their executive function processes are depleted. Knowing what
kinds of television cause this depletion will be helpful to those overseeing
children’s television viewing, and by extension, to children who can benefit
from higher executive function in many situations. We believe this line of
research can provide valuable information to those who produce television
content and also will have public policy implications. In addition, we hope
that further research can experimentally determine whether the short-term
negative impacts we observe translate into the long-term difficulties seen in
some of our and many other laboratories’ research on the important issues of
television and executive control.
Television and Children's Executive Function 243

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by NSF grant 1024293 and a Brady Education Foundation grant to
A. L., and a China Scholarship Council grant and the Excellent Doctorial Dissertation
Cultivation grant #2013YBZD06 from Central China Normal University to H. L., and a
National Natural Science Foundation of China grant #31300864 to Fuxing Wang. We are
grateful to Fuxing Wang and the other members of the Early Development Laboratory for
their support, as well as to the parents and children who participated in our studies.

REFERENCES
Anderson, D. R., & Kerkorian, H. L. (in press). Media and cognitive development. In L. S.
Liben & U. Mueller (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Cognitive
processes Vol. 2 (7th ed.). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Andersen, R. E., Crespo, C. J., Bartlett, S. J., Cheskin, L. J., & Pratt, M. (1998). Relationship
of physical activity and television watching with body weight and level of fatness among
children: Results from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 279, 938–942.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D.,
et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 4, 81–110.
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001).
Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66, 1–147.
Anderson, D. R., Levin, S., & Lorch, E. (1977). The effects of TV program pacing on the
behavior of preschool children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 25,
159–166.
Anderson, D. R., Lorch, E. P., Field, D. E., & Sanders, J. (1981). The effects of TV program
comprehensibility on preschool children’s visual attention to television. Child Develop-
ment, 52, 151–157.
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48, 505–522.
Barr, R., Lauricella, A., Zack, E., & Calvert, S. L. (2010). Infant and early childhood expo-
sure to adult-directed and child-directed television programming: Relations with cog-
nitive skills at age four. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 21–48.
Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., & Tice, D. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351–355.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child
Development, 81, 1641–1660.
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false
belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Devel-
opment, 78, 647–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and
executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achieve-
ment at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228.
Calvert, S. L., & Gersh, T. L. (1987). The selective use of sound effects and visual inserts for
children’s television story comprehension. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8,
363–375.
Carlson, S. M., Zelazo, P. D., & Faja, S. (2012). Executive function. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 1. (pp. 706–743). New York: Oxford.
Christakis, D. A. (2009). The effects of infant media usage: What do we know and what
should we learn. Acta Paediatrica, 98, 8–16.
244 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Christakis, D. A., Ramirez, J., & Ramirez, J. (2012). Overstimulation of newborn mice leads
to behavioral differences and deficits in cognitive performance. Scientific Reports, 2, 1–6.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and
internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
Cooper, N., Uller, C., Pettifer, J., & Stolc, F. (2009). Conditioning attentional skills: Exam-
ining the effects of the pace of television editing on children’s attention. Acta Paediatrica,
98, 1651–1655.
Dansky, J. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of the relationship between play and associative
fluency. Child Development, 51, 576–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1129296.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 1–34. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750, Advance online publication.
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). How can we help children succeed in the 21st century?
What the scientific evidence shows aids executive function development in children
4–12 years of age. Science, 333, 959–964. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529.
Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., et al.
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43,
1428–1446.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., et al.
(2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and
adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–46.
Espy, K., McDiarmid, M., Cwik, M., Stalets, M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. (2004). The con-
tribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 465–486.
Ferguson, C. J. (2011). The influence of television and video game use on attention and
school problems: A multivariate analysis with other risk factors controlled. Journal of Psy-
chiatric Research, 45, 808–813.
Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co.
Foster, E. M., & Watkins, S. (2010). The value of reanalysis: TV viewing and attention prob-
lems. Child Development, 81, 368–375.
Fox, P. T., & Raichle, M. E. (1986). Focal physiological uncoupling of cerebral blood flow
and oxidative metabolism during somatosensory stimulation in human subjects. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 83, 1140–1144.
Friedrich, L., & Stein, A. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial television programs and the natural
behavior of preschool children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
38, 1–64.
Ganea, P. A., Pickard, M. B., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Transfer between picture books and
the real world by very young children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9, 46–66.
Garon, N., Bryson, S., & Smith, I. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review
using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31.
Geist, E. A., & Gibson, M. (2000). The effect of network and public television programs on
four and five year olds ability to attend to educational tasks. Journal of Instructional Psychol-
ogy, 27, 250–261.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and
action: Performance of children 3½-7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test. Cognition,
53, 129–153.
Goodman, R. (1997). Strengths and difficulties questionnaire. The Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Goodrich, S. A., Pempek, T. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). Formal production features of infant
and toddler DVDs. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163, 1151.
Television and Children's Executive Function 245

Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature,
450, 557–559.
Hoshi, Y., Kobayashi, N., & Tamura, M. (2001). Interpretation of near-infrared spectros-
copy signals: A study with a newly developed perfused rat brain model. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 90, 1657–1662.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in exec-
utive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44,
2017–2036.
Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1983). Children’s processing of television: The informative
functions of formal features. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understand-
ing of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 35–68). New York: Academic
Press.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Wartella, E., Rice, M. L., Watkins, B. A., Campbell, T., et al.
(1981). Communicating more than content: Formal features of children’s television pro-
grams. Journal of Communication, 31, 32–48.
Isquith, P. K., Gioia, G. A., & Espy, K. A. (2004). Executive function in preschool children:
Examination through everyday behavior. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 403–422.
Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The flexible item selection task (fist): A measure of exec-
utive function in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 573–591.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2007). Extensive television viewing and
the development of attention and learning difficulties during adolescence. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 480–486.
Jolin, E. M., & Weller, R. A. (2011). Television viewing and its impact on childhood behav-
iors. Current Psychiatry Reports, 13, 122–128.
Koolstra, C. M., van Zanten, J., Lucassen, N., & Ishaak, N. (2004). The formal pace of Ses-
ame street over 26 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 354–360.
Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Ponitz, C., & Morrison, F. (2011). Investigating the links between the
subcomponents of executive functioning and academic achievement: A cross-cultural
analysis of Chinese and American preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 108, 677–692.
Landhuis, C., Poulton, R., Welch, D., & Hancox, R. (2007). Does childhood television
viewing lead to attention problems in adolescence? Results from a prospective longitu-
dinal study. Pediatrics, 120, 532–537.
Lang, A. (1990). Involuntary attention and physiological arousal evoked by structural features
and emotional content in TV commercials. Communication Research, 17, 275–299.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Com-
munication, 50, 46–70.
Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R. F., & Kawahara, K. (1999). The effects of production pacing
and arousing content on the information processing of television messages. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 451–475.
Lang, A., Dhillon, K., & Dong, Q. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal and valence on
television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 39, 313–327.
Lang, A., Geiger, S., Strickwerda, M., & Sumner, J. (1993). The effects of related and
unrelated cuts on television viewers’ attention, processing capacity, and memory. Com-
munication Research, 20, 4.
Lang, A., Kurita, S., Gao, Y., & Rubenking, B. (2013). Measuring television message com-
plexity as available processing resources: Dimensions of information and cognitive load.
Media Psychology, 16, 129–153.
Lang, A., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P. D., & Potter, R. F. (2000). The effects of edits on
arousal, attention, and memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit can an
edit be too much? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 94–109.
246 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Lee, S. J., & Lang, A. (2013). Redefining media content and structure in terms of available
resources: Toward a dynamic human-centric theory of communication. Communication
Research, Advance online publication.
Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lillard, A. S., & Erisir, A. (2011). Old dogs learning new tricks: Neuroplasticity before and
after critical periods. Developmental Review, 31, 207–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
dr.2011.07.008.
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on
young children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128, 644–649. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1542/peds.2010-1919.
Linebarger, D. L., & Vaala, S. E. (2010). Screen media and language development in infants
and toddlers: An ecological perspective. Developmental Review, 30, 176–202.
Maass, A., Klpper, K. M., Michel, F., & Lohaus, A. (2011). Does media use have a short-term
impact on cognitive performance? A study of television viewing and video gaming.
Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23, 65.
McCollum, J., & Bryant, J. (2003). Pacing in children’s television programming. Mass Com-
munication and Society, 6, 115–136.
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III technical manual. Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
McMains, S., & Kastner, S. (2011). Interactions of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in
human visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 587–597.
Mechelli, A., Price, C. J., Friston, K. J., & Ishai, A. (2004). Where bottom-up meets
top-down: Neuronal interactions during perception and imagery. Cerebral Cortex, 14,
1256–1265.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children.
Science, 244, 933–938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056.
Mistry, K. B., Minkovitz, C. S., Strobino, D. M., & Borzekowski, D. L. (2007). Children’s
television exposure and behavioral and social outcomes at 5.5 years: Does timing of
exposure matter? Pediatrics, 120, 762–769.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences
in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
21, 8–14.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter, A. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex ’frontal
lobe’ tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al.
(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7),
2693–2698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108.
Mueller, U., Baker, L., & Yeung, E. (2013). A developmental systems approach to executive
function. In R. M. Lerner & J. B. Benson (Eds.), Embodiment and epigenesis: Theoretical and
methodological issues in understanding the role of biology within the relational developmental system
(pp. 39–66). New York: Elsevier Academic Press.
Nathanson, A. I., Alade, F., Sharp, M. L., Rasmussen, E. E., & Christy, K. (2014). The rela-
tion between television exposure and executive function among preschoolers. Develop-
mental Psychology, 50, 1497–1506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035714.
Obel, C., Henriksen, T. B., Dalsgaard, S., Linnet, K. M., Skajaa, E., Thomsen, P. H., et al.
(2004). Does children’s watching of television cause attention problems? Retesting the
hypothesis in a Danish cohort. Pediatrics, 114, 1372–1373.
Television and Children's Executive Function 247

Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., & Dubow, E. (2010). Prospective associations
between early childhood television exposure and academic, psychosocial, and physical
well-being by middle childhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164, 425.
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years
after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 73–89.
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., &
Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral reg-
ulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 141–158. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004.
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured
observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 605–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015365.
Pourtois, G., Schettino, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Brain mechanisms for emotional influ-
ences on perception and attention: What is magic and what is not. Biological Psychology,
92, 492–512.
Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the
children’s behavior questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 102–112.
Ravaja, N. (2004). Contributions of psychophysiology to media research: Review and rec-
ommendations. Media Psychology, 6, 193–235.
Ridderinkhof, K. R., van der Molen, M. W., Band, G. P. H., & Bashore, T. R. (1997).
Sources of interference from irrelevant information: A developmental study. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 65(3), 315–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1997.2367.
Rideout, V. J. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. San Francisco: Common
Sense Media.
Ruff, H. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1996). Attention in early development: Themes and variations.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Russ, S. A., Larson, K., Franke, T. M., & Halfon, N. (2009). Associations between media use
and health in us children. Academic Pediatrics, 9, 300–306.
Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of
executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. pre-
schoolers. Psychological Science, 17, 74–81.
Sarter, M., Givens, B., & Bruno, J. P. (2001). The cognitive neuroscience of sustained atten-
tion: Where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain Research Reviews, 35, 146–160.
Schmidt, M. E., & Vandewater, E. A. (2008). Media and attention, cognition, and school
achievement. The Future of Children, 18, 63–85.
Schmitt, K. L., Anderson, D. R., & Collins, P. A. (1999). Form and content: Looking at
visual features of television. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1156.
Sharif, I., Wills, T. A., & Sargent, J. D. (2010). Effect of visual media use on school perfor-
mance: A prospective study. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 52–61.
Shtulman, A., & Carey, S. (2007). Improbable or impossible? How children reason about the
possibility of extraordinary events. Child Development, 78, 1015–1032.
Spelke, E. (1994). Initial knowledge: Six suggestions. Cognition, 50, 431–445.
Stevens, T., & Mulsow, M. (2006). There is no meaningful relationship between television expo-
sure and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 117, 665–672.
Strangman, G., Culver, J. P., Thompson, J. H., & Boas, D. A. (2002). A quantitative com-
parison of simultaneous BOLD fmRI and NIRS recordings during functional brain acti-
vation. NeuroImage, 17, 719–731.
Swing, E. L., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2010). Television and video
game exposure and the development of attention problems. Pediatrics, 126, 214–221.
Thakkar, R., Garrison, M., & Christakis, D. A. (2006). A systematic review for the effects of
television viewing by infants and preschoolers. Pediatrics, 118, 2025–2031.
248 Angeline S. Lillard et al.

Thompson-Schill, S. L., Ramscar, M., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2009). Cognition without con-
trol when a little frontal lobe goes a long way. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18,
259–263.
Thorson, E., & Lang, A. (1992). The effects of television videographics and lecture familiarity
on adult cardiac orienting responses and memory. Communication Research, 19, 346–369.
Watt, J. H., & Krull, R. (1974). An information theory measure for television programming.
Communication Research, 1, 44–68.
Watt, J. H., & Welch, A. J. (1983). Effects of static and dynamic complexity on children’s
attention and recall of televised instruction. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Chil-
dren’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 69–102). New
York: Academic Press.
Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J. M., Clark, C. A., Chevalier, N., & Espy, K. A. (2011).
The structure of executive function in 3-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 108, 436–452.
Williams, L., Huang, J., & Bargh, J. (2009). The Scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes
are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 39, 1257–1267.
Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R., & Blair, C. B. (2011). Contributions of modern measurement
theory to measuring executive function in early childhood: An empirical demonstration.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 414–435.
Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R., & Blair, C. B. (2012). Executive function in early childhood:
Longitudinal measurement invariance and developmental change. Psychological Assess-
ment, 24, 418–431.
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Ross, R. P., Calvert, S. L., Rolandelli, D., Weeks, L. A., et al.
(1984). Pace and continuity of television programs: Effects on children’s attention and
comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 20, 653–666.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.
Zimmerman, F. J., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). Associations between content types of early
media exposure and subsequent attentional problems. Pediatrics, 120, 986–992.