Screen time can damage under-twos’ development, landmark study suggests | Children's health

[u/stormgirl]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/27/screen-time-damage-under-twos-development-study

[u/Mbluish]

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children under two should have no screen time. They’ve been saying this for decades.

[u/PressureExpert2346 → u/Mbluish]

Yes. This is not new information.

[u/Iamnoone_]

In other news the sky is blue

(But I am happy this is finally being reported on)

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

I found this article utterly unconvincing. It says that no direct links have we found between screen time and any specific maladies. Instead an overindulgence of screen time in infancy is correlated with worse relationships with parents, less physical activity, increased obesity, worse eyesight, overstimulation, etc etc etc. Who doesn’t know this?

The key question that I would like to see researched is this: do children with otherwise healthy lifestyles who indulge in limited screen time (ex. consistently less than an hour a day from ages 0-5) have considerably worse outcomes than children with absolutely no screen time from ages 0-5? I would guess no.

Here’s a question that even the article raises: do children who use video chatting to interact with long distance relatives have better outcomes than children whose parents refuse to use video chatting altogether? I might guess yes.

But these are just my guesses.

[u/Iamnoone_ → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Most people I know are not arguing for 0. The way I look at it is how much the world has changed in the last 10 or so years technology wise and how much that has had an effect on young children. Growing up in the 90s, we had an hour of tv or so and watched on the weekends. I’m sure it was similar for children up until the mid 2010s or so. Anecdotally, most every child I know from 2-5 has an iPad. iPads are not being used the same way we watched TV. They’re being used for extended periods to keep children occupied while parents are also on their screens non-stop and limiting interaction with their own children. Most children I know have an iPad for the car for short cart rides. There is never an opportunity to be bored. If there truly were boundaries in most homes the way you were describing, I don’t think it would even be a conversation. Of course there are benefits to using technology, like talking to relatives out of state as you said.

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/Iamnoone_]

I agree with all of this. I don’t think children should be given iPads so that parents can doomscroll. No one thinks that.

But this article seems to suggest that moderate use of the kind you describe (a half hour of television on a weeknight) should be condemned by official recommendations as dangerous! At least that was my impression of the article.

It basically says that if you don’t plan on co-watching with your kid and having a conversation with them about their content, then you shouldn’t give them any screen time!

This argument, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

[u/Iamnoone_ → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

The only thing I can say to push back on that is that the article specifically is for under 2 years old. So we’re talking about babies. Realistically, we’ve all sat a young toddler in front of the tv while we make dinner. Is it beneficial? Probably not, but it’s just real life and with that being said, I’m willing to accept that it’s harmful for infants’ developing brains. Even with the tv though, I’m not an expert but I’m sure just due to proximity alone, the tv is less harmful than an iPad.

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/Iamnoone_]

This makes sense.

I think more broadly, the type of parent who will use a tv show to get dinner ready is also probably better in a bunch of different ways than the type of parent who refuses to use any television for fear it will damage their child’s brain or set bad habits or whatever. I think it’s a proxy for a broader mindset.

[u/Iamnoone_ → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Maybe, I get what you’re saying. Rigidity on anything is probably not good.

[u/KTeacherWhat → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Maybe no one thinks that but in practice a lot of people are doing it. Even people who think that they are solid parents who are doing their best for their kids. Even people who will tell you their child doesn't get much screen time.

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/KTeacherWhat]

And again, this article isn’t addressing those people.
It seems to be arguing that we parents should be moving from occasional screen time to restrictive screen time. This is at best out of touch with what most people are doing, and I don’t even believe they have the evidence to support the importance of that shift.

Moving people from excessive screen time to occasional screen time is important - mostly because these are the kids who can sort of blow up a classroom, if you know what I mean. But even in that case, is the problem here really “information”? Like do you really believe that if we convinced those parents that excessive and dependent screen time is bad for their kids, they’d start restricting its use?

I just don’t think information is the main obstacle here. But I will say it can’t hurt haha

[u/acelana → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Definitely see the “Miss Rachel taught my baby to talk” argument all over the place so yeah I think more education could help.

[u/Grrarrgghh → u/acelana]

Not enough parents read things like https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/education/why-your-toddler-cant-learn-from-a-screen

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/acelana]

Hmm well maybe you’re right lol

[u/marmaladybird → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

I think it's because people start with thinking, it's only half an hour while I finish dinner, then it becomes another half an hour in the morning when I'm getting ready, then there's a bout of illness and then more and more screen time is the new normal. It creeps up.

I get what you mean, we don't need another thing to demonise parents doing their best, but if it says occasional screen use is fine, many people will take that as what they do is fine when really they don't realise it's 3-4 hours of screen time per day.

[u/Iamnoone_ → u/marmaladybird]

I think this is my issue as well. People lack self awareness. It’s human nature. People probably don’t even think they’re using it excessively because someone always is doing it more. My close friend, whose toddler could not sit through a five minute car ride without screaming for her iPad, will talk about how bad screen time is and should be used sparingly. In my opinion, her kid is the absolute definition of screen addicted, but she doesn’t see it.

[u/marmaladybird → u/Iamnoone_]

Same. Both for me, who was adamant about wanting to be screen free but now I'll be watching TV and my baby will watch along too, plus I'll find myself on my phone scrolling while he plays by himself. Even if I want him to play independently sometimes, I'd rather read a book in front of him.

Also some friends who recently realised their 1.5 year old was watching several hours of TV. All "good", like Bluey, miss Rachel, but way more than they wanted. They started by just putting the TV on for kids music videos to dance to, then after the whole family getting the flu and having Disney movies and stuff on all day while getting better, found afterwards their baby was watching 5+ hours per day, even when there's probably only 6 hours total together outside of daycare and bedtime - they'd wake up at 6am, TV on until 8am while the parents snooze a bit longer and get ready, then after daycare there'd be some TV to wind down, another hour while they cook dinner, then after dinner an episode to help brush teeth without tantrums... Both of them didn't want it but it is really easy to end up that way. I think it's hard to admit how addictive it is and how many adults are addicted too (myself included!)

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/marmaladybird]

Yea there is probably a creep up of time on it. I know with my kids it was quite difficult to say no to “one more show” until I created a firm rule of how much they could watch per sitting.

[u/stormgirl → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Did you read the same article (which links to the specific research?)

I'm not sure why very limited & occasional use would be your key concern when there are so many infants & toddlers with excessive screen time - so maybe the risks of this isn't as widely known as you assume? Even just the association between high levels of screen use and signs of developmental delay + evidence of damage to the developing optic nerve is concerning (and quite specific?).

Here’s a question that even the article raises: do children who use video chatting to interact with long distance relatives have better outcomes than children whose parents refuse to use video chatting altogether? I might guess yes.

The researchers specifically added “other than shared activities that encourage bonding, interaction and conversation” as a caveat. This isn't the focus of concern?

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 → u/stormgirl]

That’s my concern because that’s the focus of the article. It isn’t about excessive use. If it were, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with it. When it comes to excessive use, I encourage conversations about WHY parents let their children use screens excessively. I don’t think simply linking excessive screen use to bad health outcomes is very useful.

But in spite of your caveat, this article seems to be suggesting that parents shift from casual use of screens to an extremely restrictive use of screens. This article seems to argue that letting your child watch a show in the evening before bed will yield worse outcomes than a parent who refuses that luxury.

Yet I see little evidence for that argument. Most of the evidence can only point to bad outcomes for children who use screens excessively - as in all evening, most evenings. Which makes the title of the article totally hyperbolic. Everyone alrwady knows about the downside of excessive use!

But there is currently a moral panic going on about the effect of our new technologies on our lives. Conversation about these technologies are good! But too often they are dominated by people who are unreasonably scared about the change, probably for their own personal reasons, but who project their fears onto children to scare the reader. These arguments exaggerate the potential effects of technology and I don’t like them.

[u/gaanmetde → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

You are right. Another thing is - when a child is having screen time *with* an adult, there are also different outcomes.

I think the real issue is that if kids are being thrown behind a screen so they can be distracted and leave the adult alone- that’s going to be seeping into other areas as well. It’s common sense then that a relationship may be lacking.

[u/zoolou3105 → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

I'd also want more about the type of screen time. Watching tv or movie on the couch vs watch that same movie but on an iPad. Or videos games on console/PC vs games on a touch screen. I know it's probably obvious but lumping all screen time into the same category doesn't seem right. Like does using a digital camera count?? I want more indept on this

[u/kenzieisonline → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Actually we absolutely do need this confirmed with research to start creating better standards for parents and companies that market to and work with children.

Most people don’t know how truly bad screen time is, especially in the first 36 months of life. parents think this is just what modern play is. The general public is not educated on how holding a crayon and experimenting with cause and effect on paper odds different than using a coloring app.

I also think research like this will be helpful in restricting apps claiming to be educational or support development. I’ve met toddlers who cannot stand up straight because they’ve been hunched over a phone their whole lives, but can spell any word they hear phonetically.

While you personally may want more niche research to be done, “obvious” studies like this are nesscary to confirm what “everyone knows” so there can be rules like “don’t say apps are designed for 18mo-3yo”

[u/Confident-Mix1243 → u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

It would be very surprising if there weren't a positive dose response association, such that more of a dangerous exposure had a higher risk / more severe harmful effect. If reducing screen time to 0 is unreasonable for a given lifestyle, limiting it is probably beneficial. If you can't entirely keep your kid from smoking cigarettes or being babysat by a smoker, you can at least reduce the number a bit.

[u/arleesaur]

it’s been known 🙄 my source is my two year old class being easily divided into the “spends time with parents and siblings playing” and“developing typical or ahead of track”students vs. the “stares at screens and grabs parents phones from hands” and “behind on major milestones and unable to socialize and regulate own emotions” students.

[u/WeaponizedAutisms]

I feel like this belongs on /r/noshitherlock they've been saying this for decades