Many parents would baulk at the thought of allowing their children to watch the horror film 'Poltergeist' or the gangster epic 'The Godfather', but few would think twice about playing the video of 'The Lion King' for the thirteenth time.

The reality is your child is just as likely to be disturbed watching little Simba grow into a big lion who leaves his uncle to hungry hyenas as he or she is watching a child consumed by evil spirits or people shot to smithereens at their local Italian restaurant.

Most children under the age of seven generally can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. What's more, early experiences of disturbing and violent images can leave long-lasting scars. There's even firm evidence that a heavy diet of television violence can lead to violent and criminal behaviour later in life.

That's according to research by media and psychology experts into what's good and bad for children to watch on television and at the movies.

Commissioned a few years ago, by the Film and Publications Board (FPB) to have a close look at whether South Africa's film-classification system is appropriate for children, they came up with some astonishing results.

Most significantly, they found that the authorities that decide what's good or bad viewing material for our children have largely overlooked pre-schoolers. Instead of protecting our children, television stations and broadcasting authorities are, in many instances, unwittingly exposing youngsters to harmful material on air.

What's bad for our kids?

Contrary to popular opinion, it's not just the beatings and killings in life-like dramas that cause nightmares and agitation. Frivolous cartoon characters that thump their rivals to a pulp can also cause psychological harm to young viewers.

Dr Jane Stadler, a University of Cape Town specialist on the effects of media on children on the FPB research panel, says young children under the age of six are "most susceptible to screen violence".

Frightening children this age most, says Stadler, are "strange appearances and large, looming figures, like clowns and Santa Claus" — and telling them these fictitious creatures aren't real won't quell their fears.

Often more disturbing than seeing baddies do bad things, she says, is when the good guys metamorphose into bad ones, because small children just can't make the connection between the two characters — so the genial Bruce Banner who repeatedly transforms into the powerful and ugly green Hulk will be more terrifying than the constantly evil Cruella de Ville in '101 Dalmatians'.

Stadler says that at this stage in children's mental development they're less conscious of the fantasy/reality distinction or the motives and justifications for violence. They haven’t yet "sorted out what’s real and what's not".

"If a child doesn't know whether a character is real or not, then he or she won't be able to discriminate whether it's something to copy."

The oversized spiders in Harry Potter are part of their world, and Tom and Jerry are just as real to them as anything in a real-life documentary or news clip.

Also not to be underestimated are the special effects, like sounds and lighting, that accompany the visuals. These can be just as terrifying for small minds as seeing their favourite hero or heroine befall hard times.

Ingrid Bruynse, who advises the SABC on children's programming and was also on the FPB research panel, says that as children reach eight years, their thinking "undergoes a major turning point, where their thought more clearly resembles adult thought".

The importance of how characters look diminishes as children begin to take motives into account, reason more abstractly and understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

How violent films affect children

The more violence children see, the more likely they are to become aggressive individuals later on, says Dr Andy Dawes, a child development expert with the Human Sciences Research Council and head of the FPB research team.

"It's a cumulative effect. It's not just one programme that will lead to this and the media isn't the only factor. However, there is research that suggests viewing violence is linked to aggressive behaviour in the long-term."

In a study in the US in which more than 550 people were studied from childhood into adulthood, a strong link was found between high TV-violence viewing and spousal abuse, physical aggression, criminal activities and driving violations in early adulthood. Men and women who watched lots of gory and violent action on television as youngsters were also more likely to respond to insults by shoving and punching.

In South Africa, where children are exposed to violence at home or in their neighbourhoods as spectators and victims more than in many other countries, the effect of witnessing all this behaviour on- and off-screen affects youngsters far more than we realise.

Children are victims of murder, attempted murder, assault, rape and abduction every day. Television violence exacerbates the consequences of their own violent experiences. While some children become hypersensitive to violence, many appear immune, or desensitised, to the violence, "which in itself is worrying", says Dawes.

Sex in the movies

Concerns about sex and bad language dominate parents' complaints to television stations and the FPB, but there's little evidence to suggest that sex is more harmful than violence.

Scientists can't study this in detail as it's unethical to test the effects of sexual images on children, points out Dawes, but a body of psychological theory suggests strongly that it's not as bad as violence.

"It wouldn't harm teens to be exposed to the connection between romance and sexuality or sex as part of love. The danger comes in where violence is linked to sex," he says.

The SABC, which conducts limited tests on children's content in focus groups, has found that sexual innuendo — sexy hints or subtle jokes — is not picked up by younger children. While sexually explicit material hasn't been tested, carnal suggestions "go right over the heads of little kids".

"Sex just isn't in their frame of reference. It doesn't mean anything," says Bruynse. In fact, many psychologists believe it’s a good idea for children to view loving relationships.

"They need good examples of loving relationships. If you ban anything to do with relationships, and if parents don't kiss in front of kids, they won't have good role models," she says.

Protecting your children

For Nana Makaula, chief executive officer of the FPB, a major problem area highlighted in the new research is that categories aren't clear enough when it comes to suitability for children.

An 'all ages' classification doesn't mean a film is suitable for a child — it just means there's no harmful material for children. So an A-rated film could be a complex art movie of no interest to a child, but is free from bad language, nudity and violence.

There could also be a further classification for pre-schoolers, as the '10' category seems, on the latest evidence, to be too wide for the range of mental maturities of children below this age.

"We believe the under-10s need more of our protection. We seldom receive complaints about movies suitable for over 18s, but, after all, we’re not here to protect adults," she reflects.

Another problem area is the 'parental guidance' (PG) rating, which suggests parents should view a film first to decide on its suitability for their children or watch the film with their children so that they can help offset the negative effects during viewing. But few parents have the time or inclination to do this. And, in a movie house, it’s not realistic or fair on other viewers for parents to hold a running commentary with their children.

What parents can do

Makaula emphasises that laws governing broadcasters mean the regulatory body has little control over what's shown on television. Media experts and broadcasters agree it's essential that parents play the leading role in regulating television consumption for children.

Regardless of all the ratings and timing of programmes, shock AMPS statistics show that 60 percent of children with a television in the home are allowed to watch whatever they like at whatever time they like.

Says Bruynse, "No-one knows how much television is a bad thing, but we do know it's not a good idea for the television to be a babysitter. It's not just about quantity; it's quality." Good television can reinforce good behaviour, she adds.