I don't like SpongeBob SquarePants.  I generally regard any parent who does like SpongeBob SquarePants with suspicion and derision; they probably watch "Real Housewives of Fresno" or whatever city that show is down to now.

So when I see an article claiming SpongeBob is bad for kids and I may have a reason to ban that porifera from the house, it has a certain truthiness to it and so I let my confirmation bias run free.

But is it good science?  It seems obvious that a lot of television for very young kids is a bad idea - I can't prove it, no one can, and certainly no one can prove a particular show is bad, we usually rely on common sense.  We don't want 4-year-olds watching "Kill Bill" or shows with steamy sex for obvious reasons - heck, progressive busybodies like Rob Reiner think smoking in media should be banned or at least rated X.  SpongeBob is a different, because he is a cartoon character who is not violent or having conjugal relations with other porifera, he is just annoying and I don't want my kids to be annoying.

The researchers behind the study in Pediatrics wanted to see if watching SpongeBob made a difference in the executive functions of pre-schoolers; things like patience, learning ability and  behavior that will be crucial when they get to school. Why pick on SpongeBob?  Apparently to be certain to get in my blog and that of millions of other parents who don't like the show.  They had 60 kids either draw or watch a 'slower' show ("Caillou" - the kind of show psychology professors like because it is slow and on public television so it must be better than shows kids actually want to watch) and one third watched SpongeBob.  Presto, the kids who watched SpongeBob for nine minutes scored worse on tests than the kids who drew or watched the PBS show.

While television over the long haul is likely a negative, the researchers feel like they have shown a short-term effect. It's 60 kids split into three groups who then took a test, that has to be good science, right?  

Nickelodeon, which is not funded by the government and so has to produce shows kids actually want to watch, is not buying it.  For starters, the show is not designed for 4-year-olds, they note. They put the ratings on there for a reason and there is a substantial difference between a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old, much less a 10-year-old.

They wrote CNN, "Having 60 non-diverse kids, who are not part of the show's targeted demo, watch 9 minutes of programming is questionable methodology. It could not possibly provide the basis for any valid findings that parents could trust."

"Young children are beginning to learn how to behave as well as how to learn," said lead investigator Angeline Lillard, a psychology professor in U.Va.'s College of Arts&Sciences. "At school, they have to behave properly, they need to sit at a table and eat properly, they need to be respectful, and all of that requires executive functions. If a child has just watched a television show that has handicapped these abilities, we cannot expect the child to behave at their normal level in everyday situations."

So even if the study is too small to be valid, the truthiness is worth considering.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which published Pediatrics, says parents should "limit children's total media time (with entertainment media) to no more than 1 to 2 hours of quality programming per day" and "discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years." If you are a conservative, that makes total sense, even if the science is unclear.

Citation: Angeline S. Lillard and Jennifer Peterson, 'The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children's Executive Function', Pediatrics 2011; peds.2010-1919; published ahead of print September 12, 2011, doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1919