Study: teens spending seven hours a day in front of TVs, computers
By Tralee Pearce
July 19, 2010

Researchers say growing trend likely to take toll on physical, mental health
For parents who fret about the amount of time their kids devote to electronic media, consider this: In Ontario, hundreds of thousands of teens spend nearly seven hours a day staring at a computer or TV screen.

The number surprises even researchers familiar with this growing trend and is likely to take a serious toll not only on adolescents' physical health, but on their emotional and mental well-being as well.

"That's a lot of time spent in front of a screen being sedentary," said Robert Mann, a senior scientist at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, whose study revealed the new screen-time data. "That's almost a third of the day."

Public health officials such as the Canadian Paediatric Society recommend no screen time for children under two years of age and a maximum of two hours for children older than two.

The new statistic - 9.7 per cent of kids in Grade 7 to 12, or about 327,000 students, spend at least seven hours a day in front of a TV or computer - was released Monday as part of CAMH's annual Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey. (The drug data was released in November.) Dr. Mann, the study's co-principal investigator, says he was surprised by the results of the screen-time question, the first time it was included in the survey.

The study does not make a direct causal link between screen time - or "sedentary behaviour," as it sometimes calls it - and health issues. But in an interview, Dr. Mann said it's no coincidence that various indicators of physical health are simultaneously on the decline.

The survey found that the number of students who rate their health as poor has increased significantly over the past two decades, to 14.5 per cent from 8.9 per cent in 1999. More than a quarter of the students are either overweight or obese. And 8.5 per cent of students reported no physical activity in the seven days before the survey.

The study also did not connect screen time and long-term effects on mental health and cognitive function. But Dr. Mann noted that many of the students who logged long hours in front of a screen expressed feelings of unhappiness and experienced loss of sleep.

Other recent studies have linked screen time to adverse effects on social skills and attachments to peers and parents. (Speaking of parents, they're not in the clear either - emerging research has found that parents' use of technology is creating negative emotional effects in their children.) Just last week, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found TV and video-game use is associated with attention-span problems in schools.

There may also be a parallel between extreme electronic-media use and Internet addiction, says screen-time expert Dimitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine. The 10 per cent of adolescent heavy users is about the same percentage as estimates of North Americans who suffer from true Internet addiction, he says.

While there are social taboos around other addictive substances, such as alcohol and drugs, there's no such constraint on technology.

"If there is a genetic predisposition, which there probably is, because we're reaching a level of such high saturation ... we are going to in fact ensure that everybody's who's susceptible goes on to develop an addiction," he said.

But researchers admit science is having a hard time tracking these risks, because the technology is moving so fast. (Dr. Christakis's current research is looking at whether changing the television diet of preschoolers can affect their behaviour and levels of aggression.) "We're not able to keep up with it. It takes us years to get a study funded, then years to conduct it and in the meantime, Twitter comes out," he said.

Nevertheless, he says, the emerging picture does give parents a reason to be cautious about how teens use media and to question exactly what they're not doing while they're staring at a screen. Chances are, it's connecting with their families, reading books, being active and getting enough sleep.

Yet parents and researchers alike have to resist lumping all technology use together. Texting is not the same thing as playing World of Warcraft, says Dr. Christakis.

There's nothing wrong with teenagers communicating with each other, he says. Much of the research on negative cognitive effects of screen time is linked to the pacing of the media; more stimulating, rapidly sequenced content is associated with delayed attention spans across the age spectrum.

"If you're writing long e-mails online, if you're penning 10-page love letters, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just displaced putting pen to parchment," he said. "That's fundamentally different in the way that it engages your brain and the effects it has than playing four hours of StarCraft."

All of which makes it a challenge when it comes to both parenting and public policy.

In a way, it would be easier if it was all bad, says Dr. Christakis. "If media were like cigarettes, we could just say, don't do it. But we can't."

"Understanding the Generations"
By Dr. Karyn Gordon
June 23, 2010

Before you dive in let me highlight 3 key things.

(1) Think continuum not 4 boxes
Think of the 4 generations on a continuum rather than as 4 distinctive boxes. I find this healthier and more effective. For example if a person is 64 years old they are technically a Boomer but because of their age they will have many attributes of the Traditionalist.

(2) Parenting makes a difference
While I will be describing many common attributes of the different generations below, don't underestimate the power of parenting. For example, I know many Gen Y's who don't have any of the most common attributes because their parents intentionally raised them counter-culturally. So while generalizations can be helpful, they can also be misleading when they are applied inappropriately.

(3) No generation is perfect
Remember that no generation is perfect – no one has 'got it'. We all have our strengths and areas we need to work on. So instead of a 'me vs. them' attitude let's change our attitude to 'What can we learn from each generation'? This attitude is one of equality rather than superiority, which is a key component in Emotional Intelligence.

Traditionalist (Ages 65-88 years old)

Cultural Shapers
When I study generations there are 2 main areas I look at. First - what were the cultural shapers? What happened in that person's lifetime that impacted their development? Second – how did those shapers impact their development? What is their generational DNA? For Traditionalists – their generation grew up in incredibly scary and turbulent times. They were raised during the aftermath of the Depression & World War II. The key cultural shaper is that they produced 4.1 children. To replace the population – you need only 2.1. This drastic population increase would strongly impact the generations that followed. Also, traditionalists lived in an employee's market, as there were many jobs after the war since it was a time of rebuilding.

Generational DNA
As a result this generation is extremely hard working, loyal & conservative.
What Can We Learn From Them To respect all people! While other generations believe 'I'll respect you if you respect me' - Traditionalists believe one should respect all people (even before it is earned).

What Can We Learn From Them
To respect all people! While other generations believe 'I'll respect you if you respect me' - Traditionalists believe one should respect all people (even before it is earned).

Boomers (Ages 46-64 years old)

Cultural Shapers
This generation grew in a very vibrant time. This was the time of drugs, sex, rock & roll! However, there were 2 times more people than in previous generations, and in addition the economy shifted to an employer's market – there were fewer jobs. So think logically about what would result from this. When I do training sessions for especially Gen X's & Y's they find this part very interesting. It's easy to point fingers and criticize other generations. However when we see life through the lens of another (this is called empathy and it's a key component of Emotional Intelligence) we begin to truly understand people and are less judgmental. For many Boomers they learned that the only way to get and keep a job was to work extremely hard. Yes, they invented the 60 hour work week but to them it was a means of survival.

Generational DNA
Boomers are extremely hardworking, goal oriented & extremely skilful at navigating work politics!

What Can We Learn From Them
To strive for an outstanding work ethic and focus

Generation X (30-45 years old)

Cultural Shapers
Gen X experienced 2 recessions growing up. Many saw their parents devote their lives to an organization and then lose their jobs. Also in the 80's, 75% of Canadian families had both parents working outside the home. Many women were entering the workforce during this period and so the term 'latchkey kids' started. The market also stayed relatively the same – it was an employers market.

Generational DNA
Gen X's tend to be highly independent like their Boomer parents but are different in a few key respects. They decided that there was more to life than work and started the entire 'Work Play Balance" movement. So while some may see them as disloyal to organizations – Gen X wants to 'Work to live' not 'Live to work'. They will still work hard but they will likely want to leave by 5pm!

What Can We Learn From Them
To strive for balance – work hard but play hard too!

Generation Y (10-29 years old)

Cultural Shapers
I've worked closely with this generation for 14 years so I could easily write a 100 page document but I'll give you a short overview. If you take a step back and look at all the systems that have been at work during the lifetime of Gen Y's you start seeing a very powerful pattern of instant gratification. We see this clearly in the educational system – educators were discouraged to use red markers for fear of how it would impact a child's self esteem.

Sport coaches were encouraged not to disqualify anyone off the soccer team, but to instead make 'everyone a winner'. When I train educators across the country one of their greatest frustrations is not being able to penalize or fail students for late assignments. I think the fact that the educational system wants to help students build self-esteem is exciting and important (my first book was on how to build self esteem). The key though is to use the right strategy. If we make things too easy and rescue students from experiencing failure, they learn to fear failure and this reduces their 'resilience muscle' as I call it. A key component of successful leaders is not to fear failure but to learn from it and realize it is part of the process. Within families, I hear many parents of Gen Y's admit that they overindulged their kids (buying them too much stuff or rescuing them from failure) because of either their own guilt or fear. From a financial perspective, marketers quickly noticed that this generation had an enormous amount of money (not just their own but also the ability to influence family spending). Banks started focusing more on this younger generation, giving credit and encouraging a 'Buy now pay later culture'. If that wasn't enough, the technology booms of the last few decades means that everything is happening faster and faster! Meantime, the job market has been slowly shifting back towards an employee's market, just as many Gen Y's are looking for work. Although we're still in an economy hiccup (as I call it) – it's only a matter of time before there will be a surplus of jobs and too few people to fill them. So if you take a step back you start noticing a powerful pattern of instant gratification, however this is not their fault. Children cannot control what generation they are raised in. So as the adults we need to take a serious look at our responsibility in this.

Generational DNA
Overall, Gen Y's are extremely media savvy, passionate, and relational (they love collaborating). Although this generation has many names (Millennial, Nexters, Echo Boomer), I call them the 'Heart Generation' because they tend to feel things so deeply. They are the creators of Free the Children and have the best developed social conscience compared to other generations. On the flip side, many Gen Y's struggle with anxiety and failure (which is often what happens when people are rescued and micromanaged). They may appear to get bored easily but the key is to learn how to engage them!

What Can We Learn From Them
Like all generations we can learn a lot from Gen Y. One area in particular that we can learn from is to look at how we can be more socially aware and environmentally friendly.

Why teens love to sink their teeth into vampire books, movies
June 18, 2010

An English lecturer has examined why teenage vampire books and movies have gripped youngsters' imaginations nowadays and taken the crowd by storm.

Jolene Zigarovich, Cornell visiting lecturer in English, says, "The reasons for the teen vampire craze are multifold. There is a Shakespearean, tragic element, in the sense that not only is young love forbidden in teen vampire films, but also that love and death are conjoined. Sacrificing oneself for love seems to be a perpetual, human theme.

"The addition of the supernatural and the promise of immortal love that the vampire symbolizes, complicates this very human trope. Love goes beyond teen angst and tragedy in these films; it is literally soul wrenching and otherworldly.

"I believe that the common thread is the Gothic literary tropes of the Byronic, anti-hero, sexual threats, and the disruption of gender stereotypes. In these scenarios, there is typically an attractive social other pained by his immortal plight and doomed to prey on innocent, female victims who find him a tragic, irresistible figure.

"The archetypal plots often revolve around male crusaders 'saving' women from the sexual liberation and corruption the vampire invites, and conclude with the reassertion of traditional gender roles through the violent destruction of the threat. Screenwriters like Joss Whedon and novelists like Stephenie Meyer take these scenarios a step further by creating female 'slayers' and inserting rivalries within the supernatural cast, such as that between the vampires and werewolves."

When asked whether the craze might ever recede, she says "Absolutely not. The vampire has persisted in literature since the Romantic era, and in our own technologically driven, postmodern world, the fad will continue to evolve as the teen vampire finds a variety of media outlets. We already see this evolution in video games, manga, social networking sites, and so on. Just as Stoker's 'Dracula' quickly learns to assimilate and navigate London, there will be no lack of cultures or media formats for the vampire fad to adapt to or inspire." (ANI)
 

Parental enforcement, exercise help kids cut 'screen time'
June 16, 2010
By Ann J. Curley
CNN Medical Assignment Manager

Children whose parents keep consistent rules about how much screen time their children are allowed are less likely to exceed the recommended limits, a new study has found. The study also found that children and teens who were involved in physical activities were at lower odds for going over the limits for screen time. The findings are published in the June 14 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

Previous studies have had mixed results about the effects of physical activity and this study found consistent benefit between involvement in physical activity and the amount of time kids spent in front of the screen.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers studied data from a telephone survey that included 7,415 children and 5,685 parents, including 1,513 families that had two or more children. The families participating in the study were part of the Youth Media Campaign Longitudinal Survey, which tracks a group of children and their parents who were judged to be representative of the U.S. population. The purpose of the study was to be evaluated by the CDC VERB campaign, which sought to encourage tweens to be physically active every day.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children older than 2 watch no more than two hours per day of quality screen time, which includes television, non-homework-related computer time and video games  for children and teens.

In the survey, children and parent were asked about whether they had rules and limitations for how much television and video game time they were allowed to use, and the children were asked whether they agreed with the rules. Children also were asked to report all of the physical activities they participated in, including sports, physical activity lessons, or playing actively with their friends. PE classes and recess activities were not included.

The survey found that the chances of exceeding screen time limits were higher in boys than in girls, were higher according to age, and were lower for lower-income parents. Black and other racial and ethnic groups were more likely to report exceeding screen time limits compared with whites. The largest differences in screen time were associated with age, with children aged 14 to 15 years reporting the highest screen times. Fewer than half of the parents reported they always or often placed limits on screen times. Children whose parents reported having rules about screen time and who reported agreeing that their parent had rules had the lowest chance of exceeding screen time limits. Kids who reported physical activity, or being involved on a sports team, were less likely to exceed screen time limits.

The study authors conclude that programs that concentrate on developing parental limit setting for screen time, and that promote physical activity, may have positive results in decreasing the amount of time that kids aged 9 to 15 spend in front of the screen. Study author Janet Fulton, who is a lead epidemiologist with the CDC, says that there are three things that parents can do to limit their kids' screen time: Know the recommendations on how much time children should spend in front of the screen, be consistent about limiting screen time, and encourage children to be active every day. She also notes the importance of health care providers, nurses, medical practitioners and schools to make sure parents are well informed about the importance of setting screen time limits.

From cardboard 'celebrities,' teens learn to covet fame
By Elizabeth Wellington
May 19, 2010

No doubt, today's teenagers are technologically savvy.

They can upload a picture from their cell phones to Facebook in the time you can say, "Can you hear me now?" Like true spin doctors, they can spit out all the pop culture buzzwords: Damage control, epic fail, and teachable moment all are part of their sophisticated-beyond-their-years lexicon.

And the seemingly mundane minutiae of what they are doing and who they are doing it with aren't really real until the world knows about it. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. Take your pick.

Experts say this behavior is a direct result of watching reality TV. After all, the generation known as the Millennials never consciously existed without it: Today's 21-year-old was just 3 when MTV's The Real World debuted in 1992.

"Their expectations are much different than those from previous generations," said David Morrison, CEO of King of Prussia-based Twentysomething Inc. "So many kids today believe they have an inalienable right to be famous. Kids used to say, 'I want to be a designer, or an athlete or a writer.' Now they just say they want to be famous."

Aiming for fame has its upside. Those born after, say 1985, are much more confident, willing to take more risks and more comfortable in the limelight than those born in previous generations, Morrison said. With role models bent on shocking their audience, these kids don't have a problem challenging tradition.

But the reality television infiltration has seemingly more negatives, Morrison said. Foremost, this impressionable age group has witnessed countless acts of bad behavior get rewarded.

Nobody was ruder than The Apprentice Season 1 mean girl Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth. She, like most reality stars, used her debut to secure appearances on additional shows, including NBC's Fear Factor. She also was interviewed by Oprah. The message: It pays to go on reality TV, no matter your behavior.

That "opens more doors for you," said Candace Mercer, a 25-year-old saleswoman for a Center City Sprint store who interviewed - unsuccessfully - for a spot on The Real World and the Oxygen channel's Bad Girls Club. "It puts money in your pocket. I mean, what am I going to do when I don't work for the cell phone company?"

Even though TV shows of previous generations portrayed people leading desirable lifestyles (What Generation Xer didn't want to be a part of the Brady or Huxtable clan?), they were clearly billed as fantasy. When kids today watch millionaire friends Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie bop through New York in limos wearing the latest sparkly stilettos, they consider that lifestyle attainable.

And, according to Tina Wells, owner of Vorhees-based Buzz Marketing Group, teens believe eating at the chicest restaurants, talking on the latest cell phone, driving a Hummer - even just drinking Starbucks coffee - is their birthright.

"I think [reality TV] is affecting teens in the way they don't understand the difference between the good things it takes to be a celebrity and the bad," Wells said. "The danger in that is they don't have an issue compromising their morals for the purpose of celebrity and everything that celebrity brings. In their minds, the end justifies the means."

An extreme example: the Bling Ring. Last year party-hopping teens and twentysomethings in Los Angeles were charged with stealing more than $3 million in clothing and jewelry from celebrities including Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Rachel Bilson.

Not all teens say they are susceptible to the reality hype.

Take Dani Elle Fitzgerald. Sure, the 17-year-old senior at Friends Select School dreamed of a fantastical Sweet 16 like those she saw on MTV. (Think parties with splashy cars, designer dresses, makeup artists, and performances by Chris Brown and Miley Cyrus.) But she knew the likelihood was nil.

"I saw how cool those parties were," said Fitzgerald, who eventually settled on inviting 30 of her friends to a local hall. "And yes, I get a little jealous of the people on the show, but I know it's not me."

Ironically, while many teens admire the lifestyle of celebrities, they don't seem to respect them. And that has everything to do with how celebrityhood has gone from a chosen few with a repertoire of talent to, well, anybody who can pick a fight on TV.

"All you have to do is make a fool of yourself to be a celebrity," said 19-year-old Mitzi Smetanka of Marlton, a student at the Fashion Institute of Technology. Smetanka, who watches few shows other than reality TV, says her favorite is Real World: Road Rules Challenge.

"I think celebrities are people who don't really have any talent," she added. "Celebrities now are like a catchall for people on TV, not people who have done anything."

But this makes fame seem all the more within reach.

After all, besides having money, what can celebrities do that teens can't?

"Teens see themselves in the same mediums as celebrities," Morrison said. "They Tweet with them and they see images of themselves on YouTube. How are their lives much different?"

They text. So does Ashton Kutcher. They videotape themselves at a party and immediately post it online. So does Jessica Simpson. And they think they can gain similar notoriety.

Days after a YouTube video was posted of 7-year-olds gyrating to Beyoncé's "Single Ladies" as part of a California dance competition, their parents were appearing on the morning-show circuit, including CBS's The Early Show. One post on YouTube (and countless media stories later), and the first graders are instant celebrities. Just like the Balloon Boy. Or Luann Haley, who called President Obama a hottie - to his face.

Ultimately, teens say their addiction to the shows stems merely from wanting to be entertained. Reality TV is largely scripted, and that's what makes the train wrecks so much fun to watch, they say.

"[Teens] generally have two opinions on reality TV shows," said Tim Nooney, a 16-year-old sophomore from Beverly. "Either they are really stupid and they don't want to watch, or they are really stupid and the fact that the people are so stupid makes it funny."

"Maybe girls are better equipped to deal with environmental stress. They just biologically respond differently."

The study included 723 adolescents and analyzed sleep habits, BMI, depression risk, socioeconomic background, average daily activity and other factors. The researchers found that, adolescents — boys in particular — who got fewer than the recommended 8.5 to 9 hours of sleep each night tended to be at higher risk for overweight, high BMI and obesity compared with those who got sufficient sleep. This correlation was evident even when adolescents only skimped on sleep by an hour or half hour, NPR points out.

Additionally, the researchers found that, while the link between poor sleep and obesity risk was evident in early adolescence, it was less so during high school, but returned again later in life.

Girls abandon dolls for Web-based toys
April 13, 2010

Lini S. Kadaba
The Philadelphia Inquirer
PHILADELPHIA— Paige Gabriele loved her dolls—once.

At age 8, however, she has largely abandoned them. Even Barbie gets slim face time, and the single American Girl doll, a gift from her grandmother, sits pretty on her bureau —untouched.

Playing with dolls "gets boring after a while," said Paige as she passed by the well-stocked aisles full of Barbie, Moxie Girlz, Liv, and other fashion dolls at a nearby Target. She was more interested in a basketball, and gushed about social Web sites such as moshimonsters.com, where she nurtures pet monsters.

It used to be that dolls held girls' interest at least through elementary school. But these days, girls are dropping such playthings at ever younger ages, largely replacing the childhood mainstay with technology-driven activities, even as the toy industry battles to attract the coveted market with new products.

According to the NPD Group, U.S. doll sales have declined by nearly 20 percent since 2005 — and older girls are the least likely to have such toys. In 2009, 18 percent of dolls sold went to girls 9 and older, but 37 percent landed in the hands of 3- to 5-year-olds, the "sweet spot" ages, said Anita Frazier, NPD toys and video games industry analyst.

Jeff Holtzman, third-generation head of dollmaker Goldberger Co., based in Manhattan, said his business used to make dolls for children from birth to 12. Nowadays, Goldberger focuses on children younger than 3.

"By the time they hit 4 or 5, they want a cellphone," Holtzman said. "We're replacing dolls sooner."

One reason is that older children have more options, said Frazier. "With more choice comes time fragmentation," she said.

But ditching doll play says just as much about the erosion of childhood—as well as imagination and attention spans, argue some—as it does about the multitude of gadgets and activities that vie for children's spare time.

Lindsey Peppel, 12, of Phoenixville, Pa., hasn't played with the fashionable figures for a while, instead favoring online sites, including Barbie.com, and Barbie video games (when she's not reading books).

"I don't think I'm good at making up imaginary things," she said. "I didn't know what to do with dolls."

Consumer psychologist Kit Yarrow, who chairs the psychology department at Golden Gate University and wrote the book Gen BuY, agrees that children nowadays need lots of stimulation to keep their interest.

But she said, that's not necessarily a negative. "Maybe," she argued, "this is preparation for exactly what they need when they grow up. The world these kids are going to be adults in is more souped up."

Others, though, say loss of doll play is a sign of the Microsoft speed at which children mature.

"Girls don't play with dolls as much or for as long anymore because they are being socialized by media culture to grow up faster," said Patricia Leavy, an associate professor of sociology at Stonehill College in Easton, Mass., who has witnessed a lack of interest in dolls in her own 9-year-old daughter.

After all, 5 is the new 10, and 10 is the new 15.

Often, young girls, called tweens by marketers, are pushed to act and look like teens, whether that message comes from the latest Hannah Montana TV shows, outfits at the Limited Too, or virtual playlands. Playing with dollies has little place in this world.

Tween culture "is transforming the lives of girls," Leavy said, and often to the detriment of self-esteem, she argued, with its emphasis on idealized images of beauty.

To understand why this matters, consider the role of traditional doll play in socialization.

"When little girls play with dolls, they're practicing being a mommy, practicing tending and nurturing," said psychologist Yarrow.

Although some say an avatar fills the role just fine, Leavy disagrees, calling online diversions "a different level of intimacy and connection. It doesn't have to be dolls, but I don't think it's going to come from a Web site."

Music and youth identity
Posted by: Matthew Johnson
April 1, 2010 

In this special guest blog, MNet intern and University of Ottawa criminology graduate Aaron Bawn looks at the importance of music to youth identity.

The famous comedian Bill Cosby once said, “Nothing separates the generations more than music. By the time a child is eight or nine, he has developed a passion for his own music that is even stronger than his passions for procrastination and weird clothes.” Cosby was certainly correct about the power of music, but he may have failed to recognize that characteristics youth become ‘passionate’ about may not actually be separate from their musical affiliations.

Recent studies have made numerous conclusions regarding the influence and power of music, more specifically the large amount of power music has over youth identity. A 2009 paper entitled “Musical Taste and Ingroup Favouritism” explains how musical taste can be seen as a social ‘badge’ or a means for individuals to categorize themselves within society; for youth, “the distinctiveness of young people’s musical affiliations appears to contribute to their social identity,” as Dominic Abrams puts it in his article Social Identity on a National Scale: Optimal Distinctiveness and Young People's Self-Expression Through Musical Preference. One theory explaining the tendency of youth to self-identify based on their musical preferences focuses on the stages of human development. The term self-schema describes the internal cognitive portrait of one’s self, in other words the “who I am” part of the human psyche; as a youth passes through the various stages of childhood, his or her self-schema is developed. During the development of one’s self, youth use musical subcultures as role models and guides to determine how they should create their own self-schema.

Not only do we use music to define our own identities, but we often use musical tastes as a key to how we see others, stereotyping fans of different musical genres to social categories or labeling them with particular psychological characteristics. This can sharpen the importance of our own musical tastes in defining our identities: see what happens when a 14-year-old “punk” is referred to as “emo,” a mistake any musically literate teen or tween can tell you would be considered identification blasphemy.

What is the difference between “punk” and “emo” music, and how did these subcultures of music evolve? Out of the undifferentiated “rock and roll” of the 1950s – which was itself an offshoot of Blues music – came a dizzying array of subgenres, each of which valued some different aspect of the music. The earliest example of this was the division of rock fans into “rockers” and “mods” (though the Beatles attempted to bridge this schism by declaring themselves “mockers.”) In the 1970s, in reaction to the perceived excesses of disco and “prog rock,” the “punk” genre presented itself as a return to the basic values of homemade rock, with “hardcore punk” as one of its own subgenres. This too divided into multiple genres, with one being called “emotional hardcore” – later shortened to “emo”, the term it is referred to today. (Similar subgenres of punk include “Screamo”, “Skate punk” and even “Christian Hardcore Punk.”) Nearly all genres of popular music have a similar spectrum of subgenres: rap, for instance, can be divided into “Gangsta Rap” to “East Coast Hip-Hop” to “Dirty South Chopped-N-Screwed” among many others, and like punk music each subgenre has its own self-identified fans who belong to related subcultures.

Author Daniel J. Levitin helps explain how we as a culture discriminate between the different subgenres of music in his 2006 book “This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession”. As Levitin explains, categories are formed around prototypes, cases or examples we consider to be the fundamental specimens of a particular thing. (For instance, researchers found a particular shade of red that all their subjects agreed was the “most red red”; this was the prototype of the colour red.) New forms of music, then, are judged in comparison to the prototypical band or example of the genre. The catch however is that there need not be any attribute that is the same amongst all the bands in the genre; rather, they only need to be comparable to the prototype. Surprisingly enough, in Levitin’s studies “people appear to agree as to what are prototypical songs for musical categories, such as ‘country music,’ ‘skate punk,’ and ‘baroque music.’” An unusual example of a music prototype that has created its own categorization is the band Insane Clown Posse. Unlike most subcultures, which self-identify based on their preference for a genre of music, the term “Juggalos” refers specifically to those loyal to this particular group, which has inspired a subculture that is recognizable based on similar interests, attire, and the slang language used.

Musical subcultures have the power to bring individuals together, set fashion trends, influence language and, as seen recently in Ohio, inspire hatred. As Bill Cosby explained, musical interests are powerfully developed at a young age; they can explain both how youth are viewed by society, and how individuals view themselves, both of which can influence a person’s behaviour. As musical genres continue to proliferate, and the lines between them continue to blur, so too will the lines between musical subcultures become less distinct. It is hard to say what implications further distortion may have towards youth; perhaps as musical groups reposition and redefine themselves within the different genres listeners will have trouble self-identifying, abandoning the process entirely – or perhaps listeners will embrace this distortion simply create more and more new subcultures.

Kids and advertising: Mommy, that's my bestest brand
By Zosia Bielski
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
March 2, 2010

Whether it's McDonald's or Mitsubishi, children as young as three are quick to identify a brand and decipher its message
Give me back that filet-o-fish, give me that fish. What if it were you hanging up on this wall? If it were you in that sandwich, you wouldn't be laughing at all.

Sung by a blue, wall-mounted fish, the jingle comes from a McDonald's ad, one Liz Gumbinner's daughters, two-and-a-half-year old Sage and four-and-a-half-year old Thalia, know by heart.

The girls also like Kia Sorento ads - the ones with the giant sock monkey - and know the Disney castle logo because it appears at the start of their DVDs.

"Right now, thanks to commercials, they're asking for a trip to Disney World, the new Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland movie and a bunk bed [from] the Pottery Barn catalogue, complete with Star Wars sheets. Also, those old horrible recalled Aqua Dots, because the ads are saved on DVR with some old episodes of Yo Gabba Gabba," says Ms. Gumbinner.

The New York-based freelancer calls it karma: She makes ads. Ms. Gumbinner has worked for Cabbage Patch Kids, Universal theme parks, Old Navy, Foot Locker, Ray Ban and Mitsubishi.

Although Ms. Gumbinner isn't surprised, parents may be cautioned by new research that suggests children as young as three recognize brands and what they symbolize, a much younger age than was previously theorized - seven and eight.

The study, published yesterday in the journal Psychology & Marketing, found that children between the ages of three and five show an "emerging ability" to use ads to judge which products will be the most "fun" and make them popular - even though they can't read yet.

"Not only do they understand what the brand is, they understand that this is something they can use in their day-to-day lives. Their understanding helps them to negotiate the environment," says study author Bettina Cornwell, a professor of marketing in sport management at the University of Michigan.

In the first part of the study, the researchers showed 38 children logos for 50 brands as disparate as Coca-Cola, Looney Toons and Band-Aid and asked, "Have you seen this before?" and "What types of things do they make?" as well as other questions about the products' value.

The average recognition rate was 39 per cent, and the most commonly recognized brand was McDonald's (93 per cent), followed closely by toys such as Lego (75 per cent) and soda products.

Fast food was described by the three to five-year-olds as "fun, exciting and tasty." Cola brands were fun because "the bubbles are fun" and "lots of people like them."

The researchers also showed another 42 children a board featuring brand logos, including McDonald's, and asked them to pick out images associated with the company - a French fry box, "drive thru" sign and Hamburglar. Many children could match the images with the logo, probably because they'd seen it each time they dug into a Happy Meal or pulled up at the restaurant, Prof. Cornwell believes.

"There's a ton of branding specifically designed for that pre-school audience," says Josh Golin, associate director of Campaign for a Commerical-Free Childhood, a Boston-based organization that raises awareness about kids' marketing.

"Obviously, a customer formed at that age is worth more to a brand."

Prof. Cornwell and her co-authors want lawmakers to take a closer look at fast food branding aimed at young children.

"From a policy perspective, we need to recognize that this is not being lost on the very young. The under-six, under-seven, under-eight crowd is very capable of understanding brand messages and utilizing brand information in their lives."In the UK, laws prevent companies from advertising during times of day when children are most likely to watch television. In Quebec, laws prohibit advertisers from marketing to children under the age of 13. The law looks at "the nature and intended purpose" of the goods advertised and the time and place the ad is shown.

Although Ms. Gumbinner believes some industry regulation is needed, she says the "ultimate gatekeepers" are parents, not advertisers.

"My [daughter] cannot walk herself to the McDonald's and buy a Big Mac without my help," says Ms. Gumbinner, who is also editor-in-chief of CoolMomPicks.com, a shopping and design blog for parents.

Thanks to Ms. Gumbinner's occupation, her children have the inside track: "I tell them that my job is to write commercials, that there are people writing those things, and that our job is to get people to like the product. And that that's why they need to get information about those products from places other than the commercials. They understand that."

Still, label-consciousness and cable-control aside, parents acknowledge that the final say often lies with their children's peers at daycare or kindergarten.

Prof. Cornwell recalls the day her four-year-old son David came home from preschool and demanded Pokémon cards: "I just know I need to have some." .

"Other children had them and, in order to be involved, he needed to have some."

Boys Feeling Pressure to Have Sex
Melissa Henson - www.thechurchreport.com
February 12, 2010

Seventeen magazine and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 78% of teenage boys feel there is “way too much pressure from society” to have sex.  Respondents cited teen-targeted TV shows as a major source of that pressure. "People watch shows like Jersey Shore and Real World or listen to music that makes it a big deal. People are surrounded by it,” said one seventeen-year-old who participated in the survey.  

It is little wonder teenaged boys are feeling so much pressure to be sexually active when the messages communicated in media specifically targeted to them suggest that promiscuous sex is not only okay, it’s what’s expected of them.  The basic cable channel Spike (owned by MTV Networks Entertainment Group) unabashedly targets high school and college-age boys with programs like MANswers, which addresses such topics as, “Who puts out the most, blondes, brunettes, or redheads?” and its latest offering, Blue Mountain State. 

“In the vein of Animal House,” Spike boasts, Blue Mountain State “follows three incoming freshman in a big-time, Midwestern college football program.”   Except that the series is less about football and college life than it is about the sexual exploits of these characters.  This program is especially pernicious because their exploits -- which so far have involved strippers and a transvestite prostitute -- are far outside the range of normal behavior experienced by most college freshmen, but are presented as unexceptional, even typical.

As bad as this is, it appears we can expect things to get worse.  According to USA Today, the new Starz series, Spartacus: Blood and Sand will feature “full-frontal male nudity, heterosexual, homosexual and group sex.”  The problem, of course, is that increasingly premium cable channels are repurposed for basic cable, and sometimes even for broadcast TV.  HBO’s The Sopranos can now be seen on A&E, Sex and the City first moved to TBS and is now in syndication on WB affiliates across the country.  HBO’s Entourage airs next to Blue Mountain State on Spike.  Showtime’s Dexter ran briefly on sister network CBS.  As these programs migrate from premium to basic cable, they drive standards even lower on competing cable channels, and ultimately on broadcast TV too. 

It’s a childish game of one-upmanship, with TV writers, executives, and producers inserting increasingly risqué content just because they can.  Spartacus co-executive producer Robert Tapert is quoted in the USA Today story, "The whole thing was pushing the boundaries on pretty much every level... Once we wound up on (premium pay cable), we were able to really push the envelope."

One TV executive likened TV’s slide into the sewer to an “arms race.”  But where does this leave our children, who are fighting against tremendous temptation, peer pressure, and a media culture that urges them to do what feels good, rather than what they know is right? 

The same USA Today story quotes Fordham University’s Paul Levinson, “It sounds radical, but this is healthy for popular culture... Mainstream TV has been frozen in a very puritanical position by Congress, the FCC and the Supreme Court — all who don't seem to understand the First Amendment. Sex is part of life. If people are offended, there's a simple remedy: Don't watch."

What a foolish and dangerous argument to make.  Yes, sex is part of life -- but is bestiality?  Are adult-child sexual relationships part of life?  How about sex with prostitutes?  Because increasingly, that’s what our children are seeing on TV, far more often than they see sex in the context of a healthy, monogamous relationship, let alone in marriage.   As a consequence, children are experimenting sexually earlier than ever before.  Exposure to bizarre sexual scenarios on television on the Internet and elsewhere is interfering with their normal sexual development.  They are imitating the language and behaviors they observe in the media they consume, and developing unrealistic, misleading, and even harmful attitudes toward sex and male-female relationships. 

After decades of declines, teen pregnancy rates are on the rise; school teachers in Britain are reporting five- and six-year-olds simulating sexual behavior; reports of sexual assaults in schools – not by adults, but by other children – are more frequent.  Mr. Levinson, please explain how this is healthy for popular culture.

Generation Internet: That’s Anyone Under 30, Not Just Teens
By Liz Gannes
Feb. 4, 2010
 
Though it’s fun to talk about the digital habits of kids as if they were a separate, SMS-crazed species, what happens when teens hit 20? Do they turn the page on their youth and assimilate into adult Internet use? Maybe not. It’s starting to look like online teens may actually have a lot in common with young adults. In two recent surveys by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, many categories of usage saw a high degree in overlap between teens and 18- to 29-year-olds. In fact, it was the over-30 crowd that was the odd man out.

Here are some findings from Pew:

In the overall U.S. adult population, 74 percent of all adults go online. However, if you narrow that to those aged 18-29, it’s 93 percent. Ages 12-17 — also 93 percent.

Direct from a joint report write-up on social networking: “Young adults act much like teens in their tendency to use these sites. Fully 72% of online 18-29 year olds use social networking websites, nearly identical to the rate among teens, and significantly higher than the 40% of internet users ages 30 and up who use these sites.”

While blogging has increased among older adults, it has fallen among 18-29ers. In 2009, 15 percent of them maintained a personal blog, as did 14 percent of online teens. Both the younger demographics have experienced drops in blogging activity in the past few years — which I’d surmise is related to a migration to personal updates on places like Facebook.

To be sure, there are always going to be fads and trends. For instance, virtual worlds are more popular with young teens, while young adults favor Twitter far more than other groups.

Maybe this is really just about near-native web usage, with the generation under 30 having grown up using the web. If that’s an accurate reading of the data, as young people age into the over-30 category all the usage habits across all ages will start to blend together.

How Will the Apple Tablet iPad Change Our Kids’ Lives?
www.wired.com
January 28, 2010

There has been much speculation about what Apple will be announcing today. Will it be a glorified book reader? An iPod Touch/iPhone on steroids? We will find out very quickly here, and then we can all envision how we could use the device. Will it help you at work? Will it be the perfect commuting partner? Will you use it as the mother of all television remotes? Consider this, though. How will it affect our children? How will they use the tablet?

If your children are anything like mine, they will want to play with it the moment it comes out of the box. They will be amazed at how large their favorite iPod Touch apps look on the larger screen. And the screen will be large enough that they can both play with it at once.

In our house, though, the Apple tablet will be used a great deal for education. I have a plethora of .pdf files to use for homeschooling that are just inconvenient to use on a desktop computer, or even on a laptop. On a tablet, the files could be sitting next to us at the table, just like a text book. The kids could mark up the pages as if they were writing in a workbook. We could watch videos from the internet or do interactive educational websites (I’m looking at you, BBC) without leaving our school table. When we go on a trip, we could bring our entire homeschool library with us. Of course, we’d have to have two tablets, since we have two children.

More than that, though, the tablet will completely integrate education and technology, allowing for easy access to e-textbooks and online teaching. In the regular education world, imagine if each desk had one of these tablets. No longer would students have to crane their necks or squint from the back row to read what is being written up on the board. It will automatically show up on their desk’s tablet. You wouldn’t need to take any notes, since it would all be emailed to you at the end of the class, or automatically beamed to your own personal electronic device.

Children will be designing their own apps from an early age. Since the tablet will be such a part of their lives, they won’t be intimidated by the technology. Since the larger tablet size will allow for more than one person to sit around it (but perhaps only two people), the children will probably design two player games. Or whole rooms of tablets can be instantly networked to allow for multiplayer games, or even educational activities like a group tour of the pyramids or Machu Picchu.

The possibilities are really endless, limited only by our imaginations. We shall see how the tablet really affects us, but children will instantly invite this technology into their lives. Watch how they use it, and you’ll learn new areas to develop. Inevitably, children invent new ways to use technology, so pay attention. You might learn something.

The Bite Stuff
How the Twilight cast is tough enough to beat up the Potters and sensitive enough to make abstinence look fun

Peter Saltsman,  National Post
January 5, 2010

Vampires have had a startling resurgence of late, crawling out of the coffin-like obscurity of black-and-white filmography to terrorize contemporary popular culture. Television series such as True Blood and Vampire Diaries have become hugely popular, to say nothing of the uncontested lord of neo-Nosferatu culture -- Stephenie Meyer's book-turned-movie series, Twilight.

This year, the second film instalment of the series, New Moon, came out to record-breaking box-office numbers. But it didn't just contribute to the usual teenage pop consumption; the frustratingly reserved girl-meets-vampire love story gave teens a valuable lesson: don't have sex.

It's a message that parents have been trying -- and failing -- to instill in their children for years, but Twilight is the first abstinence-education teaching tool the kids can relate to.

Meyer writes fantastical romance novels -- without any physical contact. Bella and Edward are in a purely hands-off relationship. That might have something to do with the fact that Edward doesn't want to kill his human girlfriend if their necking gets too heated. But it also might have to do with the fact that they're supposed to make abstinence look like fun.

And the scary part? Science has proved that it's working.

A University of Missouri study on the female response to Twilight shows that the "No Means No" message of the series just makes sense to a lot of fans.

"They really saw an example of abstinence that seemed cool," says Melissa Click, assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri and one of the authors of the study. "Teen girls use romances like this to imagine what relationships will be like when they find that right person."

And whether this is positive or not, it's been reinforced financially, as New Moon grossed over US$26-million on its opening midnight show alone.

We've been told that with the fourth book, things will be different (spoiler alert: vampire babies are coming, apparently). But for now, in the wake of New Moon, it's safe to say that millions of teenage girls can't possibly be wrong. Abstinence is so, totally, in.

Parents' Sex Talk with Kids: Too Little, Too Late
By Alice Park
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The sex talk is never easy. It's not comfortable for anyone involved — parents are afraid of it, children are mortified by it — which is probably why the talk so often comes after the fact. In the latest study on parent-child talks about sex and sexuality, researchers found that more than 40% of adolescents had had intercourse before talking to their parents about safe sex, birth control or sexually transmitted diseases.

That trend is troublesome, say experts, since teens who talk to their parents about sex are more likely to delay their first sexual encounter and to practice safe sex when they do become sexually active. And, ironically, despite their apparent dread, kids really want to learn about sex from their parents, according to study after study on the topic. (See pictures of teenagers in America.)

"The results didn't surprise me," says Dr. Mark Schuster, one of the authors of the new study, published in Pediatrics, and chief of general pediatrics at Children's Hospital Boston. "But there's something about having actual data that serves as a wake-up call to parents who are not talking to their kids about very important issues until later than we think would be best."

The study involved 141 families enrolled in the Talking Parents, Healthy Teens program, organized by the University of California Los Angeles/Rand Center for Adolescent Health Promotion and overseen by Schuster. Parents and their children, aged 13 to 17, responded to questions about 24 issues regarding sex and sexuality, including how women become pregnant, body changes that occur during puberty, how to use condoms and birth control, as well as issues around homosexuality. (See the top 10 teen idols.)

Researchers asked both parents and their children, separately, when they had first discussed each topic, and compared that information to teens' self-reports about their engagement in three specific categories of sexual behavior — hand-holding or kissing; genital touching or oral sex; and intercourse. Families were surveyed four times, once at the beginning of the study, then again at three, six and 12 months.

By the end of the study, more than half of the parents reported that they had not discussed 14 of the 24 sex-related topics by the time their adolescents had begun genital touching or oral sex with partners. Forty-two percent of girls reported that they had not discussed the effectiveness of birth control and 40% admitted they had not talked with their parents about how to refuse sex before engaging in genital touching. Nearly 70% of boys said they had not discussed how to use a condom or other birth-control methods with their parents before having intercourse. Yet only half of the boys' parents, by contrast, said they had not discussed condom use or birth control with their sons. (See pictures of the evolution of the college dorm.)

That difference highlights a primary problem in the parent-child dialogue about sex. "A lot of parents think they had a conversation, and the kids don't remember it at all," says Dr. Karen Soren, director of adolescent medicine at New York Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital. "Parents sometimes say things more vaguely because they are uncomfortable and they think they've addressed something, but the kids don't hear the topic at all."

It's incredibly difficult to broach the topic of sex, admits Soren, who has three children of her own. "Your kids look at you like you're crazy, and you feel like you want to run," she says. "But it's important because we know good parent-child interaction gives kids better resiliency later on in life."

As the latest study shows, parental talks about sex and sexuality need to occur much earlier than they do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that parents have only one shot at getting it right. To make things easier, and to take some of the pressure off the situation, say experts, parents should think about sex talks as an ongoing dialogue, rather than one uncomfortable discussion that they must cross off their list. And they should keep in mind that they've probably internalized the same discomfort and avoidance that their own parents displayed in talking about sex — but sex talks needn't be so fraught. Experts also say that parents should discuss certain issues with their children at age-appropriate times, and that the discussion should evolve as children mature. "A 12-year-old will look at sex very differently than a 15- or an 18-year-old," says Soren. "For kids between 10 and 13, the idea of sex grosses them out. So you're probably not going to tell a 13-year-old necessarily all about different methods of birth control."

Instead, the conversations should focus on what the child is capable of absorbing, and what the child asks about. Parents should also take advantage of every excuse to broach the difficult subject — a mention of sex or sexuality on a TV show, a pregnancy in the family, sex-education classes in school or a visit to the doctor around the time of puberty. "If you just get over the hurdle of starting, then once the conversation gets going, you often find it's easier than expected," says Schuster. "So use any excuse you want, but just get over the initial hurdle and start talking to your kids, because it's really important."

Survey: 15 percent of teens get sexual text messages
By John D. Sutter, CNN
December 17, 2009
(CNN) -- Nearly one-sixth of teens who own cell phones have received nude or nearly nude images via text message from someone they know, according to a new survey on "sexting" from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The national telephone survey confirms parent and teacher worries that young people are using cell phones to send out and receive sexually explicit images of themselves and of romantic partners.

The 800-person survey, released Tuesday by the nonprofit research group, found 15 percent of cell-phone-owning teens ages 12 to 17 had received nude or nearly nude photos by phone. Four percent of the teens said they had sent out sexually explicit photos or videos of themselves.

Older teens were more likely to send sexual images through text messages than younger teens. Four percent of 12-year-olds reported sending sexually suggestive images by text message, while 8 percent of 17-year-olds reported texting nude or partially nude photos.

The Pew survey suggests teens who pay their own cell phone bills and who have unlimited text messaging plans are more likely to engage in sexting than those who use phones owned by their parents or have restrictions placed on how frequently they can text.

However, teens whose parents searched through their cell phones were no more or less likely to send and receive sexually explicit text messages than those whose phones were kept private, the report says.

Boys and girls surveyed were equally likely to say they engage in sexting.

The survey results were paired with focus-group interviews of 74 teens in three cities to create Tuesday's report, titled "Teens and Sexting." The report is not the first to try to quantify teenage sexting, a practice that is still so new and little understood that it's difficult to say if it is on the rise or decline among teens.

Teenage sexting usually is done as part of a relationship or would-be relationship between teens, the Pew focus groups found.

Some teens send sexts only to people with whom they are in a relationship; but those messages often are forwarded to people outside the relationship, especially after a breakup, according to the interviews.

"It doesn't take that many people creating these images for a lot of people to see them," said Amanda Lenhart, a senior research specialist at the Pew Internet & American Life Project and author of the sexting report.

Lenhart said the focus groups highlighted the fact that teens look at sexting in a range of ways. Some teens interviewed by Pew said sexting was no cause for concern.

"I only do it [sexting] with my girlfriend b/c we have already been sexually active with each other. It's not really a big deal," one high school boy wrote in a Pew focus group.

Others said sexting is part of teenage culture -- partly because it can be more convenient or less intimidating than traditional dating.

"Most people are too shy to have sex," another high school boy told Pew. "Sexting is not as bad."

Still others quoted in the report acknowledge the dangers of sexting -- including the fact that recipients of naked pictures can easily forward them to friends or post them on the Internet to fuel a grudge.

"This girl sent pictures to her boyfriend. Then they broke up and he sent them to his friend, who sent them to like everyone in my school. ... It ruined high school for her," one older high school boy wrote in the survey.

Bill Albert, spokesman for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said it's that fine line between private and public that's least understood, but should be of the most concern for teens and their parents.

"Things go from private to global in a nanosecond in this world," he said.

Albert's group published a survey in 2008 that found 20 percent of teens age 13 to 19 said they had texted or posted online sexy photos or videos of themselves.

The number of kids who are sexting should concern parents enough to make them talk to their kids about the dangers of sexting, but should not cause them to panic, he said. Any behavior, including sexting, that contributes to a culture of casual sexual encounters should be of concern to parents, he said.

He urged parents not to blame cell phones for the trend.

"To me, blaming the technology is like blaming an automobile for drunk driving," he said. "It is not the product, it is not the technology that is the problem. It is the judgment of the people using the technology."

The prevalence of sexting coincides with greater cell phone use among teens in general. In a 2004 Pew Internet survey, 18 percent of 12-year-olds said they owned a cell phone; in a 2009 follow-up, 58 percent of kids age 12 reported having their own mobile device.

The Pew report on sexting also underscores the complicated legal climate surrounding teenage sexting.

Teens in some states, like Florida and Pennsylvania, have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution on child pornography laws because they sent out nude images through text messages, the Pew report says. Ohio is considering legislation to criminalize sexting between minors; Vermont and Utah have downgraded penalties for first-time sexters, the report says.

Parents should concentrate on making their kids aware of the potential legal and emotional ramifications of sexting, Albert said.

Avery Murphy, an 18-year-old member of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy's youth leadership group, said the increasing popularity of phones with cameras seems to be behind the sexting trend as much as anything.

She suggested parents talk to their teens about appropriate cell phone use when their kids first get cell phones. But don't overdo it, she said, because teens generally understand the dangers of sexting.

"Parents think it's happening more than it actually is," she said. "It's not seen as very normal by teenagers."