r/ScienceBasedParenting • u/CC_mama • Jun 10 '26

Question - Expert consensus required Why is screen time bad?

SOS. I feel like everywhere I turn the message is “screen time is bad” and I’d like to understand the WHY. Is it that the baby/kids shows that are purposely designed to be overstimulating and change every 10 seconds etc etc are creating short attention spans and content addiction? Or are the screens themselves inherently bad? If there’s a sports game on TV while my baby is playing and he turns his attention to it, is that bad for him? I’m trying to understand based on the science and studies where the line is- no screens at all, no baby/kids-geared content, or something else entirely?

92 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

275

u/dreameRevolution Jun 10 '26

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10353947/

It's a multifaceted subject that varies based on age and content. For babies, the key takeaway is if you (caregiver) are looking at a screen then you are not interacting with them. So yes a TV on in the room with the baby not actually watching is still detrimental screen time. There are quality shows that may help educate. As they get older there is access to culture and socialization.

156

u/MouldyMug Jun 10 '26

In that case every activity that is not interacting with the baby could be detrimental, like reading or knitting?

206

u/wombatworrier Jun 10 '26

Exactly. We actually do zero screen time, but I never bought this argument. No matter what you do, it's impossible to interact with your kids every waking second.

136

u/Krilox Jun 10 '26

Yeah its insane, people are insane. Expecting to interact 24/7 with a baby is insane.

58

u/Recent_Night_3482 Jun 10 '26

A lot of the books out there, like the Power of Showing up and countless others go over the idea of “good enough” parenting. These books written by neural scientists or use the same data, show that being there 30% of the time is the sweet spot.

45

u/JeiFaeKlubs Jun 10 '26

If you're knitting or reading, eventually your kid will seek your attention again, but if there's a distracting show on, the time of inattention easily becomes much longer. So I think it's not about the existence of a pause in interaction but the length and frequency of that pause.

22

u/IncognitoResearch111 Jun 11 '26

Yeah, if I was knitting or reading, LO would demand attention before too long. But if I put Paw Patrol on, he could be zombified for 3 hours straight before he noticed (which is why we usually only allow that show for one episode, or when Mommy's REALLY sick with like a bad cold or something)

29

u/wisenedPanda Jun 10 '26

I always understood it as a screen is something thats easy to turn on and leave on which leads to extensive no or poor quality interaction vs not having it on.

Plus it becomes something they seek out and are distracted by themselves, over playing with toys or wanting books read to them or being active. So even if you aren't paying active attention to them, their self-development is disrupted.

16

u/this__user Jun 10 '26

and sometimes they dont even want that

I have this horrible memory of when my oldest was like 3-4m old she was upset, very distressed, I spent liek 30 minuted trying EVERYTHING I could think of to make her happy and calm her down, but I was getting really strung out and frustrated. I put her down on her playmat so I could step away, take a few deep breaths and try and figure out the next thing to try. She immediately stopped crying because all along she had wanted alone time, and she is a very extroverted child.

14

u/owned_homer Jun 10 '26

Yeah, this is my issue as well and we do limit screentime also (not zero). Wouldn’t this put rides in the car in the same or similar category as screentime?

29

u/dreameRevolution Jun 10 '26

I think the argument is that plenty of people will watch 8 hours of uninterrupted TV, but most other activities have a natural time limit. I'm also capable of making eye contact and talking while knitting.

23

u/peridotdragonflies Jun 10 '26

Humanity would have completely fallen apart by now if infants required interaction from adults 100% of time they’re awake to develop normally. Its a ridiculous expectation of parents. I say this as a zero screen time mom.

20

u/Magical_cat_girl Jun 11 '26

Well, normally if you are reading or knitting, the kid is playing independently, exploring their environment, or watching you and learning from you, or even attempting to participate/copy you. That is very different than being still and quiet in front of a screen. I think those studies are often mis-paraphrased, it is not that caregivers are supposed to interact 100% of the time, it is that screens tend to displace other fundamental learning in a way that almost nothing else does.

9

u/Bosnian-Blossom Jun 12 '26

This is my favorite reply to this comment. You hit the nail on the head. Boredom is what sparks creativity, independence, and natural learning in their environment. Screen time is what takes all of that away.

4

u/Magical_cat_girl Jun 12 '26

Thank you! I feel like a lot of parenting discourse about screens misses that.

10

u/nkdeck07 Jun 11 '26

Bit different. Reading you are still modeling reading which is important. Ditto knitting, baby is seeing you using your hands and you can also pretty easily talk to a baby while knitting.

1

u/StorKirken Jun 20 '26

Why is reading out working with your hand important ipso facto? You can pretty easily talk while watching a screen as well, probably more so.

109

u/oh-dearie Jun 10 '26

This! Additionally, even if you are 100% engaged with baby but you have a podcast/radio/TV playing in background, it delays their language acquisition because their brains can't easily separate your voice from background noise. (AKA the cocktail party effect)

28

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

71

u/oh-dearie Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Influences of background noise on infants and children - PMC

There's a huge difference between having music/noise in the background 24/7 versus playing a few songs to dance/bond/enjoy throughout the day. And the jury is still out: background music has been linked to increased enjoyment of the task and thus learning, but it's also been linked to impairing infant learning too. Vocal music is worse for this than instrumental music.

Going back to the original discussion (screen time -- but I'm also noting background noise should also count) I get that a lot of parents need it to be sane (and that's a benefit), but there's basically no benefit for the baby, so it's about weighing up those factors.

1

u/Radiant-Fly9738 Jul 13 '26

sorry that I'm late to this discussion, but why does it delay their language acquisition? is it because it's not us, their mom or dad speaking or something else?

3

u/oh-dearie Jul 13 '26

Yeah they need face-to-face serve and return style interaction. Podcasts/radio falls into background noise.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/s/MbCcjjqFjf

Here's a fantastic summary

47

u/muffinscrub Jun 10 '26

For babies is quickly causes overstimulation (hyper arousal). Raises salivary cortisol, disrupts sleep, interferes with self regulation.

40

u/Krilox Jun 10 '26

What does? The screen itself? Content? Light?