The games kids no longer play

Experts say the more creatively children play, the less lucrative it is for toy makers. They advocate returning to the games kids no longer play.

Photo: Tony Avelar/TCSM Illustration: John Kehe/Staff
Relearning how to play: For toddlers to tween, there should be more roughhousing and fantasy feeding development than screen time and hovering parents, say experts. This article is part of a cover story project in the Jan. 23, 2012 issue of The Christian Science Monitor magazine.

Once upon a time, a typical gift for a child was a set of blocks. Plain old blocks with no batteries or screens, no electronic voice asking to be friends, no game of Angry Birds somehow embedded in their cubic walls.

No longer.

As anyone who braved toy stores this past holiday season knows, the bulk of gear for children these days is far more technologically decked out, with everything from flashing lights to 3-D computer screens to disembodied voices. And this, say child development experts, is turning into a massive problem.

High-stimuli toys, even many of those advertised as "educational" or "interactive," actually serve to diminish children's creativity, many experts say. Instead of using their minds to imagine how to use a toy – how to build a castle with blocks, say – they simply push a button or watch a flashing light. The toy is doing the work, which is the reverse of what researchers say is ideal.

"The best toy is 90 percent child and 10 percent toy," says Susan Linn, a Harvard University psychiatry instructor and cofounder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "The [perfect] toy's meaning and its use changes at the child's behest."

At the same time, a large percentage of children's toys are based on media characters – Transformers, for instance, were top sellers this past holiday season. The problem with this, says Diane Levin, an education professor at Wheelock College in Boston, is that when a child plays with a toy that already has a character description, the play tends to be limited; the child doesn't invent the figure's personality or actions because those characteristics are already determined.

"Play material is very important," Ms. Levin says. "When they have something that is just something they saw on TV, they will use it the same way. They will imitate."

And of course, there is the issue of screen time. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 8-to-18-year-olds now spend 7.5 hours a day in front of one or more screens. This, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, is too much. It recommends no screen time for children 2 years old and younger, and no more than two hours a day for older ones.

But some top-selling toys this past season – including infant toys – were screen-based. (Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children's Entertainment named a tablet computer for babies the worst toy of the year; a similar device was in the Toys "R" Us Top 15 Christmas gifts for 2011.)

Many of these screen toys advertise themselves as educational, tapping into parents' desire to help children get ahead in a technologically focused world. In a December Monitor TIPP poll, for instance, two- thirds of Americans agreed with the statement "the earlier a child can use technology, the better off he or she will be." Yet numerous studies have found no educational benefit – and possibly some harm – in early screen time.

It comes down, child advocates say, to money.

"One of the reasons that creative play has been diminishing in the United States is that it's not lucrative," Dr. Linn says. "Companies make less money when children play creatively. Children who play creatively need less stuff, and they can use the same thing over and over again – mud, water, blocks, dolls that don't do anything."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.