Screen time not consistently linked to poorer development, decade-long study finds

Screen use alone may not be a reliable predictor of children’s emotional, behavioural and social development, with a decade-long study finding few consistent associations between time spent on screens and poorer psychosocial outcomes.

A longitudinal study following thousands of children from five to 15 years of age has challenged assumptions that greater screen use is consistently associated with poorer developmental outcomes.

Published in JAMA Network Open, the research found screen use was not consistently associated with poorer emotional, behavioural or social development after researchers accounted for family functioning and other factors.

One notable exception emerged during adolescence, when very high levels of electronic gaming were associated with greater psychosocial difficulties.

The findings suggest the relationship between children’s screen use and development is more complex than time alone, adding to calls for research and guidance to consider what children are doing on screens, as well as the context in which they are using them.

Researchers analysed data from the Growing Up in Scotland longitudinal study, following children at five, 10 and 15 years of age.

The analysis included 3,786 children at five years, 3,126 at 10 years and 2,598 at 15 years.

At five and 10 years, caregivers reported children’s screen use outside school hours, allowing researchers to calculate average daily screen time.

At 15 years, adolescents reported their own use, with researchers considering television, films and videos, electronic gaming, and social media and messaging separately.

Children’s psychosocial development was assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, which measures emotional difficulties, conduct difficulties, hyperactivity, peer difficulties and prosocial behaviour.

The analysis also accounted for a range of factors that could influence the relationship between screen use and children’s development, including family functioning and parent–child relationships.

Children’s screen use increased as they grew older.

Median daily screen use outside school hours rose from two hours at five years to three hours at 10 years.

At five years, around one quarter of children spent three or more hours a day using screens. By 10 years, more than half did so.

By adolescence, patterns varied according to the type of digital activity.

At 15 years, 28.4 per cent of participants reported spending at least three hours a day using social media and messaging, while 21.1 per cent spent at least three hours gaming.

The researchers noted that the digital environment changed substantially over the period covered by the study, meaning the platforms and devices available to children also evolved.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, researchers found no significant association between screen use and an above-average total difficulties score at either five or 10 years.

Longer-term analysis produced a more complicated picture.

Children who spent at least five hours a day using screens at five years had 2.68 times the odds of recording an above-average difficulties score at 10 years compared with children using screens for less than one hour a day.

However, the association was not evident at 15 years and was not consistently reproduced in sensitivity analyses.

The findings did not, therefore, demonstrate a consistent pattern in which greater screen exposure during early childhood was associated with poorer psychosocial development later in childhood and adolescence.

Importantly, this does not establish that high levels of screen use have no consequences for children. Rather, the findings indicate that screen duration alone did not consistently predict the psychosocial outcomes examined in this study.

One of the clearest associations emerged when researchers examined different forms of screen use during adolescence.

At 15 years, participants who reported gaming for at least five hours a day had 2.61 times the odds of recording an above-average total difficulties score compared with those who gamed for less than one hour a day.

The association remained after adjustment and correction for multiple statistical comparisons.

Comparable associations were not consistently identified for television, films and videos or social media and messaging.

The finding does not establish that very high levels of gaming caused the difficulties observed. The relationship could potentially operate in either direction, or be influenced by other factors not captured by the research.

The study raises questions about relying on screen duration alone when considering children’s digital experiences.

The researchers did not examine the content children engaged with, the circumstances in which screens were used or the extent of caregiver involvement.

These distinctions are particularly relevant in early childhood education and care (ECEC), where digital experiences can vary considerably in purpose and quality.

A child engaging with an educator during a digital learning experience, communicating with family members by video or passively viewing content may spend the same amount of time on a screen, but the nature of those experiences is substantially different.

The researchers argued that future work should examine characteristics including content, timing, location, device type and caregiver participation to develop a more detailed understanding of how screen use relates to children’s development.

The researchers cautioned against interpreting the results as evidence that screen use is universally harmless.

Screen-based activities can intersect with other areas of children’s health and wellbeing not examined by the study, while digital environments can expose children to risks including inappropriate content and online harms.

The study also had several limitations.

Screen use was reported by caregivers during childhood and by adolescents themselves at 15 years, potentially introducing reporting error.

The research measured the duration and broad type of screen use but did not capture the specific content children encountered or the quality and context of their digital experiences.

The cohort was predominantly White, and children from some disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to remain in the study through follow-up, potentially limiting the extent to which the findings can be generalised.

Rapid technological change is another consideration, with data collected between 2010 and 2020, during which children’s access to devices, platforms and digital content changed substantially.

For educators and families, the findings add to a more nuanced understanding of children’s relationships with digital technology.

Rather than establishing a simple threshold at which screen use becomes harmful, the study found that associations with psychosocial development varied according to age, level and type of use.

For ECEC professionals, the research does not provide a basis for disregarding existing screen-use recommendations. It does, however, reinforce the importance of considering the quality, purpose and context of children’s digital experiences alongside duration.

The researchers concluded that further evidence examining these factors will be important in developing guidance that better reflects the complexity of children’s increasingly digital lives.

The study, Screen Use and Emotional, Behavioral, and Social Development in Children, was published in JAMA Network Open.

The News-Medical report provides an overview of the research, while the original study in JAMA Network Open contains the complete findings and methodology.