Disney is expanding the refund program for its Baby Einstein videos, the AP reports. The move comes in the wake of a campaign led by psychologist Susan Linn that questioned some of the educational claims by the company, for instance that babies could learn words from the videos. On its website, the company said: “We strongly believe that, unlike Linn, our consumers find value in our product, and rather than continue to fight with her, we decided it to leave it up to those consumers. That is why we extended a refund policy that was already in place.” Baby Einstein’s upgrade/moneyback guarantee program offers cash refunds, exchanges or product discounts for DVDs bought from June 5, 2004 through Sept. 4, 2009. The offer runs through March 4, 2010.
Featured Video
Realite: Reality TV justice!
Worthy winners on ''Runway,'' ''ANTM''; just desserts on ''Top Chef'' and ''SYTYCD''; bonus Kris Allen!
More 
Today's Most Popular
-
-
-
-
Photo Gallery 20 TV classics' best seasons ever? -
Special Coverage
'Twilight' Saga: 'New Moon'
It's almost here! Get all the latest news, photos, video, and fan commentary leading up to the big premiere
More
Comments (1-30) of 74 Add your comment
This b%#&* needs to understand that kids and babies learn in different ways and that visual and auditory learners benefit highly from Baby Einstein. I’m glad that Disney retaliated by standing behind its claim and offering refunds. With parental interaction, these DVDs can be very beneficial.
Wow, are you the the marketing manager for Baby Einstein or something?
I’m assuming no, that Michael is just speaking the truth.
I have to agree with him. Someone can’t be dumb enought to think that sitting a baby in front of the TV will make the baby learn. However, if a parent actually SITS with the baby and talks to it about what’s being watched you get a completely different outcome. I’ve noticed this with my child, who’s two now, and has been watching the videos (with me by his side explaining things) for a few months now. I didn’t really want to start him before he turned one.
Yes, kids and babies learn in different ways. But study after study after study suggests that babies do NOT learn from Baby Einstein videos. Do you have evidence, Michael, to support your claim that “visual and auditory learners benefit highly from Baby Einstein.” Where’s the evidence of that? Is this based on an empirical study published in a peer-reviewed journal? If not, it’s hogwash. If it’s based on anecdotal evidence from one or two kids, it’s hogwash. And what is your definition of “benefit highly?” I’m a professor of children and media and I can tell you I’ve seen nothing to show a benefit for these kids. Anybody using generic terms like “beneficial” is suspicious to me. Here’s one benefit I know of: they help keep kids occupied so parents can do other things. And as a parent of a 4-year old, that is no small accomplishment!
Actually, there’s no evidence for any of the Baby Einstein claims. Linn is an accomplished child psychologist talking based on science and research. Michael seems to be talking based on…well, anything but that.
If you’ve ever seen a child watch Baby Einstein, then you would understand that there are in fact benifits to the child. Linn does not like the series, thus she attacks it. Simple.
For the most part, babies learn through physical interaction. The age level for which most of baby einstein is intended from, have not reached higher concept thinking like being a real auditory or visual learner. I think that you are right that all children may be different and do learn differently, but I think that Disney did the right thing to offer the rebate. They initially made rediculous claims when they launched the brand that it will teach your kid to speak. Its another observation of corperate america whorring themselves out to ususally unknowledgable and guillible main street america.
Sorry, but real scientists don’t really consider psychiatry a science. This woman has the credibility of any random person – despite any perceived expertise granted by a degree. Linn is a crackpot (much like those schister doctors that hawk diet pills on the TV). It’s nice to see a company taking the high road for a change, but it’saggrevating to the nth degree that they have to deal with this nonsense.
While I think that Linn’s claims are mostly baseless, I also find it slightly disturbing that you try to draw a line between “real” scientists and people who study human behavior.
Why? Most actual scientists and MDs hold the same view. Psychiatry is typically far more helpful than pyschology because it is, at least in part, based on solid medical acience, but is still incredibly hit or miss.
Psychiatry is a science. Psychiatrists are medical doctors with advanced training. You’re thinking of psychology, which doesn’t require a medical license to practice it. I don’t have an opinion on Baby Einstein since I’ve never used the product, but given that Disney caved so quickly, I think there might be some basis to Susan Linn’s allegations.
I dont know what your thinkin of when u say that Psychiatry proffesionals receive a MD and Psychology proffesionals dont. neither of the two proffesions receive an MD. both do however receive a PhD. wich is a type of doctorate. its jus like sayin oh the doctor on the tv said it was ok to take a medicine that helps me sleep so im going to get that then 3months later its recalled because u now have some side effect that they didnt plan for. if u believe every statement made by some one with a degree… then have fun fallling off the edge my little lemming!
Pshychology is a pseuodo-science at beast, and psychiatry, half-based in psychology, is only marginally better. If you understood the methodology and statistics of psychology, you’d know what I mean.
You’re mistaken about psychiatrists. All are MDs or DOs (it’s a specialty, just like family practice or oncology or any other). Many also choose to concurrently receive a PhD by doing research during their residencies.
And even if you *did* mistake psychology for psychiatry, both are valid, reliable sciences.
And how on Earth is DISNEY more valid than a PhD?
Because “DISNEY” didn’t make up the things in the video, they came from other people with PhD’s. I’ll take the say-so of the many over the complaining of one.
Well, that’s the point, right? Reliability is the missing factor. Psychiatry sits at the interface of psychology, medicine, and pharmacology. The approach is scientific, but often the results lack rigor. Any good psychiatrist will tell you so. Psychology is just… very unreliable and not very reproducable – and any good psychologist (and I know many) will also tell you YMMV.
Psychiatry and psychology are two different fields. “Real” scientists, psychiatrists, and psychologist know the difference. And others know the difference as well.
Actually, it’s the same field, despite what your so-called “others” say. And it’s a “real” science as well.
Sorry, I feel the need to clarify. What I meant to say it’s the same field (or subject) of study, just different degrees. Regardless however, it’s still a science.
Actually, my shrink told me psychiatrist can prescribe drugs to patients and psychologists can’t. But they’re basically the same field.
Sorry, P, I’m aware of the difference, and like most ‘real’ scientists, we find the methodology, reproducability, and statistical relevance sorely lacking. Can psychology be helpful to individuals? Sure. Is it a science? Not really. Sorry.
Did you just step out of the Church of Scientology? From your “psychiatry is not a science” declaration it sure sounds like it. Sorry to burst your bubble but psychiatry and psychology are both real sciences important and instrumental in studying and understanding emotions, thought, behavior, and social interactions and phenomenon. I can’t say for certain that these videos work or not but your comment was too insane to ignore.
Sorry, not a Scientologist (I loathe them), but there’s a difference in saying that psychology isn’t useful and that it’s not really a science. It’s not. A sociological approach is more valid, but it’s still on the edge of actual reliability (depending on the exact methodology and veracity of the model statistics). To say otherwise is simply not accurate. Psychiatry can be useful for some, but a science? No. When psychiatrists can do their testing in triplicate with acceptable p-values, then we’ll talk about ‘real’ science.
I don’t know who this Susan Linn is, but there are several researchers in the area of children and media as well as child development who have done empirical studies on Baby Einstein type videos and published them in peer-reviewed journals. THAT is the only research that scientists of any kind will trust. And they repeatedly show that Baby Einstein videos do produce learning effects. This is not to say that they HARM kids, but they do not teach them things, as they claim, which is FALSE ADVERTISING.
By “real scientists” do you actually mean “scientologists”?
No, it’s just that pesky scientific method that reqires repeated experiments with valid statistics. Psychology isn’t useless, but it’s far from a science. And honestly, what does Tom Cruise and a cult have to do with understand what rigorous application of the scientific method requires?
Oh, and BTW, there is actual scientific evidence to back up some of the language claims that Baby Einstein makes. While I do not believe that any of their products claim to ‘teach children to speak’, ther eis evidence that children that are exposed to the phonemes of foriegn languages before the age of 2 have a significantly easier time later in life learning that language, and have a much easier time learning to speak that language like a native.
Where is this scientific evidence published? Seriously, I’m a professor of media and kids and I’ve never seen evidence to back their claims. My students’ major assignment is a debate on this very topic – so if there is scientific evidence (published in a peer-reviewed journal, otherwise it means nothing), can you give me the authors or the citations? Truly, it would help our debates out if they weren’t so 1sided. Thanks!
Kwise – this isn’t my field, but I have come across 2-3 papers, and one of the groups was continuing on to study 4-6 year olds. I saw then about 5 years ago when I was evaluating the videos for purchase for my neice, so that time range might help.
Actually the only peer reviewed study that really looked at this showed that infants ONLY learned the new phonemes and had the ability to differentiate them when exposed to a live person speaking the language. Babies who were only exposed to a video of the person speaking the language where no different in their ability to recognize and learn different language phonemes than babies who had no exposure at all.
Neuroscience has also shown that the non interactive nature of these videos over stimulates the visual cortex and does not advance verbal learning. Small doses won’t hurt your baby and can give a parent a needed break, but there is zero support for the idea they help in learning.
Actually, I’ve seen a couple studies on this, and there was indication in 4-6 year olds of improvement in phoneme recognition. The same group was working on (and had positive indications for)improved speaking ability (because if you cannot hear the difference in some non-native phonemes, you cannot reproduce them). The Baby Einstein video that exposes children to the phonemes is a logical way to start this path. This isn’t my field, so I can’t evaluate the methodology, but it was logical. Have a look again in the literature.
I probably own all the baby einstein videos. My children love them. I have let them watch them since age 2 months. My oldest is at the top of his class… Do I credit Baby E? No, nor do I think it was harmful. I do thank it for soothing a fussy baby more than once. Add to that my thanks for it introducing my children to clasiscal music. Whenever they hear a piece by Mozart or others, they are able to name it and are excited to hear it. That alone is worth the $20
Baby Einstein Momma– I couldn’t have put it better myself!
That’s not the point though, is it? The point is whether they do what Disney claims they do, which is advance speech. If they don’t, and parents purchase them based on those claims, then they are being cheated. If they are buying them to expose kids to Mozart and to give themselves a break, and not because of those claims, then they can turn down the refund.
Agreed, Baby Einstein Momma! If Disney’s claims were over the top, that’s irresponsible. But the use of classical music, words, colors, soothing images – very helpful. Most of the videos are short. I used them in the morning for my daughter in her high chair while I got dressed. Better than most TV. I used the CD’s for her while she slept and at age 4, she still requests Baby Mozart.
me like milk
Those of you suggesting that neither psychology nor psychiatry is a science might benefit from having a small chat with your local University’s faculty in either Department. Such individuals typically adhere to rigorous scientific methods in their extensive research (particularly at certain Universities and academic settings) and have extremely competitive doctoral and residency training programs that accept only a small fraction of the highly talented developing scientists applying to join research in this area each year. The study of human behavior and intervention and prevention programs meant to alter or aid such behavior are extremely challenging to conduct and therefore are inherently open to layperson criticism suggesting that such research is inadequate on the basis of the fact it is, by its very nature, difficult to conduct in a highly controlled setting. Regardless of the fact that these ARE sciences with high quality researchers in each domain, just like in any field – there are many that poorly represent the area or are comfortable publicizing premature results. Or, perhaps worse, practicing and/or publicizing untested interventions and methods to the public. Unfortunately, neither APA (Psychiatric or Psychological Association) has gotten behind an effective way to police or regulate such claims as private organizations, allowing a public that rarely knows much about the fields to be forced to make decisions about empirical claims. Okay – I am ranting, but wanted to do my best to correct the misinformation I was seeing posted.
Good post, Beanergirl. A few more things:
1. Psychology is huge field that encompasses far more than therapy. Therapy is one component of it, but many disciplines within psychology are research-oriented and study how humans think and why they do what it is they do. You can consider that branch of psych a social science or a hard science, but there’s no doub that the research done is credible and very well-controlled.
2. Psychiatry is a medical discipline that deals with brain chemistry and its influence on behavior. It is very, very much a real science.
As for Baby Einstein, I don’t doubt it helps children in some ways, but the effectiveness of most products like this disappears after a few years compared to other children. It may speed development in some ways, but it will not actually make your child smarter or better.
Well, considering that I went to grad school with a bunch of sociologists and psychologists and am well versed, I’m completely fine with my assessment that the reliability and statistics are not there to call it a science. Is psychology useful in some (or even many) cases? Sure. But is it a science? Sorry – I don’t see sufficent reproducability or stats. I’m sure if you asked a physicist (or chemist), they’d just laugh. They have trouble enough with rigorous biology, let alone psychiatry!
Oh, sorry, change the last word in the last post to ‘psychology’. Psychiatry is far more ’scientific’, but even then, any decent psychiatrist will tell you that they struggle for reproducibility in a complex system. That’s just the way the biology shakes out.
Thanks for that additional post, AWC. Unfortunately, the treatment side of psychology and psychiatry research is by its nature the most difficult to conduct and achieve sufficient adherence to the scientific method. But, across these broad and multi-faceted disciplines, there are 1000s of examples of amazing, high-quality and well-replicated investigations.
I used baby einstein’s 20 minute videos to allow me to take a much needed shower or whip up dinner and it worked like a charm. There was no harm and in fact my son is well above averages in all areas, especially math. So he watched a video for 20 minutes instead of screaming his head off. He was exposed to classical music and calming video and we we allowed time to perform necessary family functions.
This is the value of Baby Einstein videos. Baby Einstein allowed us to do basic things that needed to get done. So, I love the product.
That said, this is not what the Disney people advertise. If their claims are bogus, they shouldn’t make them. I wonder how many DVD would they sell if they are called “Baby Pacifiers” …
I use the videos for the same reason. I think the problem is that some people actually believed the claim that infants watching this video (as opposed to other videos or playing with mom and dad) would improve intelligence. I never believed that, but thought the music and images were a nice way to entertain my baby when I needed 15 minutes to prepare dinner.
i would hope parents buy baby einstein’s for the child to enjoy, not b/c they want a super baby…if so, it is not the company that needs to be looked at twice
I agree that the company’s initial marketing campaign claims were outrageous, but I don’t think they make any assertions about being “educational” anymore (at least not on any of the packaging I have in my house.) And I’m with Sarah and Baby Einstein Momma in finding the DVDs a great alternative to “regular TV” for my 1-year-old when I need time to get some work done around the house. Watching them may not make my little guy any smarter, but it keeps him entertained and me sane without me having to worry about the content that he’s being exposed to. For that reason alone, they’re fantastic. If he learns anything, that’s just a bonus!
Regardless of what Dr. Linn said, I doubt Baby Einstein is harmful. Quite frankly, I think the children who are exposed to these videos come from parents who are smart and well-educated and want the same for their children. Therefore the children do well in school, not because of the videos, but because of other learning in the household as well. The videos just may well be complementing what they learn from their parents, not a direct contributor of their growing intelligence.
Do you have to have a receipt?
If I return my Baby Einstein video, I’ll have to hire an ACTUAL babysitter to take care of my little ones! NO WAY!
But what about those mutant babies from the IT’S ALIVE! movies? Will these videos work for them?
This is the first I’ve heard of all this, but we loved the Baby Einstein videos. I’m pretty sure I never expected my son to “learn words” from them. That’s what I’m for (among other things).
Remember when PLAX originally claimed that you’d reduce your plaque by 300% and when asked to prove it, the company said “oops we can’t.” Plax is now “clinically proven to remove more plaque than brushing alone.”
It could have been anyone asking for proof of the claim. It doesn’t really matter whether the psychologist/psychiatrist can demonstrate that the claims are false. Disney needs to prove the claims are true.
I have a niece who is 1 yr, 10 months old and since earlier this year she had been able to state individual words with clarity. She even comprehends some of the sentences we say to her. She also watches Dora the Explorer among others programs with or without members of my family to guide her. So for Dr. Susan Linn and her peers to dismiss television in a blanket statement is wrong.
I also feel Disney is wrong with their marketing strategy. Baby Einstein is one of those 1 in 10 Test scenarios that should not have been presented in a blanket statement in advertising.
Disney and Dr. Linn’s mistake is that they generalizing infant psychology. The last I check, no teo human infants are born the same. Some are born with strong intellect and others not so strong. It depends on the environment they are raised.
Baby Einstein just made parents feel good about leaving their kids in front of the tv. It’s amazing what parents can rationalize.
While I don’t think the Baby Eistein series is necessarily bad for kids, I would have to agree that anyone who believes a program on the television is a substitute for personal interaction is seriously misled. As a pediatrician, I don’t recommend any TV exposure prior to age 2 (also the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics). Babies learn words from the people around them, and if the time spent watching the video was instead spent on one-on-one interaction with the child, I’m sure there would be a much greater benefit.
All blanket statements are wrong (including this one). The BE videos are not intended to be used as an electronic babysitter. People, please go to the BE website and do your reading first. Many of the assertions you are making about what BE claims are patently false. Susan Linn falls into this category. I don’t know whether BE helped my six-year-old develop into who he is today. I do know that BE is the only thing that consistently calmed down my nine-year-old Autistic son. In fact, it’s the only thing that STILL WORKS. Hey, I don’t like Disney any better than the next person. They are in it for the money and notoriety (just like Susan Linn, I might add). But with the proliferation of Pokemon, Power Rangers, and all the other mindless, senseless, mind-rotting junk on TV these days, I am hard-pressed to believe that BE will damage my child’s intellect, especially when “used as directed”. Tell me, if nothing else, how can a child be damaged by listening to classical music, or being exposed to a variety of art forms? It’s nice to see fanaticism is still alive and well.
We bought several of the Baby Einstein DVDs and were satisfied with them. No single product will ever be a primary reason for good child development, but they certainly can be a tool. In my opinion, holding my daughter and seeing her focus intently on the video (Baby Galileo) was enough to make it worth the purchase. Did it make her smarter? Don’t know, don’t care. It was a great bonding moment for us.
Once my kids had moved on from Baby Einstein, I sold them on ebay–I got about $100 for about 12 used videos. So, I already got my money back, and whatever benefit they had on my kid’s development to boot! I’m wondering where the founder of the series is in response to all this controversy…Julie Aigner-Clark??
The reason Baby Einstein is being targeted is because it’s distributed by Disney. There are plenty of other “tools” out there that flat out say they will teach babies to read faster and nobody calls them out.
Also, Julie Aigner-Clark lives near our neighborhood and has said that she never claimed her concept would make babies smarter. It was supposed to be a tool to help parents. They could watch it with their baby and say “Look, there’s a puppy! Etc.”
Love Baby Einstein videos. My kid loves them. Never thought they’d make her a genius. It’s as simple as that.
You know, I don’t have any problem with Baby Einstein. However, if they are marketing them as a learning tool, and giving parents the belief that it is GOOD for babies and toddlers to be in front of the television then they should offer refunds. It’s like cigarettes marketing based on health benefits. It’s total lies. But my daughter (15 months) watches no tv… so I guess I shouldn’t even be posting here.
Baby Einstein??? I hear that for the first time actually! thanks for the info!
I love the videos! My son learned at a very early age baby sign language, numbers, shapes, ect…I think they are a much better product for their little minds than some of the shows out there now! I am keeping my Baby Einstein videos and look forward to spending time watching them with my new baby when he is old enough and teaching him sign, ect…
This has been a fascinating debate to read. I never knew there were people out there who didn’t believe that either psychology or psychiatry were not real sciences (these might be the same people who think global climate change is not real because it is not as hot when they walk outside.)
My concern from the posts, though, is that there are parents and caregivers who would use these videos as a babysitter. I cannot fathom leaving a child in front of a television and then taking a shower! Or using it as a substitute for talking with our child while they eat breakfast. We all have crazy, hectic lives, but let’s remember to put safety and effective child development first.
So, parents should call in a real babysitter when they need to shower, is that what you are saying? Ten minutes of video watching to clean the kitchen dose not mean the videos are raising the children. Lighten up!
does
Let me get this straight…so every moment your child is awake should be spent with a parent fully engaged with that child? No ten minute shower…no bathroom breaks…no time spent working from home…no letting the dogs out…no letting the child explore toys, shapes, etc. on his own, no laundry or food prep…just 100% parent child interaction from 6am wake up to 7:30pm sleep? Are you outta your mind? Concerned citizen…get real. While I do not think that these videos teach speech, I do think they offer a valuable means of occupying a child for short stints in a safe environment. Do they make me feel better about plopping my child in front of the TV? Yes. I don’t have to worry about advertising or inappropriate programming, the music is nice, and they are bright and colorful. And no, I do not leave my son unattended. I am always in the room with him or he is in the doorway of the bathroom in a jumperoo. Gimme a break.
Really people,…you can’t honestly think a nobel literary prize will result from watching ANY video? Kids love them because they are colorful, fun and entertaining and nothing more. It’s up to parents to teach their children,..and if a parent or some medical “expert” truly is stupid enough to expect any child to learn only from a video,..then someone needs to call protective services,..as that child is being neglected. Get real! This is rediculous!