« Department of Uh-Oh, The End of the Mortgage Agencies | Main | Why are governors in small states so popular? »
Do economists think TV is good for you?
In a nutshell, yes:
The variation Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro exploited was the timing of the introduction of TV into different cities. Television began taking off in the U.S. in 1946, after a wartime ban on TV production was lifted. But the Federal Communications Commission stopped granting new commercial television licenses from September 1948 to April 1952 while it made changes in allocating broadcast spectrum. There was a long lag between when some cities got television and when others did.
The economists then looked at results of a survey of 800 U.S. schools that administered tests to 346,662 sixth-grade, ninth-grade and 12th-grade students in 1965. Their finding: Adjusting for differences in household income, parents' educational background and other factors, children who lived in cities that gave them more exposure to television in early childhood performed better on the tests than those with less exposure.
The economists found that television was especially positive for children in households where English wasn't the primary language and parents' education level was lower. "We don't exactly know why that is, but a plausible interpretation is that the effect of television on cognitive development depends on what other kinds of activity television is substituting for," says Mr. Shapiro, 28.
Here is much more. And yes the "Mr. Shapiro" is in fact Wunderkind Jesse Shapiro, a familiar figure to MR readers everywhere. You'll find two versions of the paper here.
Addendum: Here is Alex's excellent post on the topic.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 6, 2008 at 06:34 AM in Television | Permalink
Comments
From the WSJ article:
Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro note that they studied the effects of 1950s-era shows and caution that today's television, with its vastly different content, may affect children differently.
A study from 1950s to present would be very interesting.
Posted by: chug at Sep 6, 2008 9:26:38 AM
Eliana La Ferrara from Bocconi and her coauthors have a couple of working papers on related issue. Here is a link to one of them http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=6785, on the impact of Brazilian soap operas on the fertility choices. They also have one where they look at the impact of soap operas on kids education and performance.
Posted by: ElP at Sep 6, 2008 9:44:51 AM
The economists found that television was especially positive for children in households where English wasn't the primary language and parents' education level was lower. "We don't exactly know why that is, ...
The kids learned English watching television. Duh. I pretty much learned English watching Married ... With Children while the two years of bilingual education I sat through taught me squat.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Sep 6, 2008 10:58:05 AM
Hei Lung Chan: Sure, but the second part about parents with lower education is less simple.
I know that my parents really felt that TV suddenly broadened their world, showing them places and subjects that people had never thought about, especially if you came from a modest background.
Posted by: Zamfir at Sep 6, 2008 11:21:43 AM
The general positive statistical association between television exposure (not hours watching) and eductional attainment has been giving various educationists conniptions for some decades. Still, it is nice to have the basic facts nailed down so cleverly and solidly.
Posted by: David Heigham at Sep 6, 2008 1:16:25 PM
Admitting I have read naught of the article linked here, but wasn't there one or more studies on how "TV affected autism rates"? Would these exams be the types of exams someone with "mild autism", say Asperger's, would do well on? Just curious.
Posted by: AZ at Sep 6, 2008 11:22:55 PM
I agree there is a positive correlation with television and education. Test results confirmed that children exposed to more television have a tendency to score higher on standardized tests. Television, whether it be the local news, a game show, or a comedian, exposes children to real-life events. The local news keeps everyone current with major events. The newspaper as we all know is a dying commodity. The internet and electronic media such as the television are much more targeted to today’s youth. A game show such as Jeopardy challenges people’s intellectual ability and promotes thinking. Finally, we can all see how cartoons can educate our youth. I have watched The Simpsons for as long as I can remember. This show has taught me of international relations with other countries, political theories and much more. Television is now used in classrooms everywhere across the country. It is such a vital educational tool, local cable company’s offer these services free to public school systems as “Cable in the Classroom”.
Posted by: walker at Sep 7, 2008 7:06:35 PM
Television is a good medium for global information. However too much information may lead to people's dominant behavior.
Posted by: San Antonio Lawyer at Sep 10, 2008 7:03:29 AM
Give you a 中古車|二手車,which one you will choice,i like all.
Posted by: 租車 at Oct 2, 2008 10:10:49 PM
If you have to buy FFXI Gil, please come to our company.
Posted by: buy FFXI Gil at Jan 2, 2009 1:39:54 AM
Posted by: 花蓮租車 at Feb 3, 2009 8:35:16 AM
花蓮旅遊地圖
花蓮租車資訊
花蓮租車
花蓮租車旅遊-TTA租車公司-旅遊租車
Posted by: 花蓮包車 at Feb 3, 2009 8:36:32 AM
Replica Gucci Jewelry
Gucci Replica Jewelry
Tiffany Jewelry
Replica Tiffany Jewelry
Tiffany Replica Jewelry/a>
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 4:47:52 AM
This is absolutely fascinating...for years, everyone stressed how bad television was. But when you think about it, it makes sense. If your parents do not speak English well, or for that matter, at all, television would help you to understand English better.
Posted by: Dayton Lawyers at Jun 18, 2009 5:25:44 PM
Posted by: 家教 at Aug 17, 2009 12:40:21 AM
Truely a nice blog and excellent anylasisi. I like your blog and the style you talk! Thanks for your great work, faithfully.
Posted by: cheap nike shoes at Nov 18, 2009 8:00:24 PM