Babies under two should have no intentional screen time, a major study warns. The most comprehensive review yet of global research on the subject, conducted by a team of UK academics, says that deliberately exposing infants to smartphones, tablets and other digital devices “compounds risk without any meaningful benefit” and is linked to long-term negative effects on health and quality of life.
The review, led by researchers from the University of Leeds, Leeds Trinity University, Loughborough University and Aston University, is emphatic that “no under-twos should receive regular intentional screen time”. While passive exposure to screens is “societally unavoidable”, the team argues that any deliberate use adds to the dangers facing the youngest children at a critical point in their development.
Developmental harms laid bare
The study catalogues a wide range of potential harms associated with screen time in infancy. Among the most significant are reduced opportunities for babies to bond with parents and caregivers, less time for physical play with other children, and limited language development. There is also evidence that screen use at such a young age may increase overstimulation and difficulty sleeping, have implications for eye health, and contribute to childhood obesity. Researchers also express concern that infants are turning to digital devices for comfort and soothing rather than to a parent.
Longitudinal data from a study of 502 children tracked from age one to eight found that screen exposure at 12 months had the largest negative effect on future working memory and learning outcomes, with infancy identified as the highest-risk window. High levels of screen viewing during the first year displace critical face-to-face, reciprocal learning interactions that are essential for brain development, a phenomenon known as the displacement effect.
Further evidence from the UCL-led “Children of the 2020s” cohort study shows that two-year-olds in England watch an average of two hours of screen content daily – double the World Health Organisation recommendation. Those who spent the most time on screens – around five hours a day – scored significantly lower in vocabulary tests, identifying on average 53% of test words compared with 65% for children who watched the least (44 minutes a day). The same research found that toddlers who spent the most time on screens were twice as likely to have emotional and behavioural difficulties: 39% of high-use children showed such problems versus 17% of low-use children.
The UCL study also revealed a clear social pattern: toddlers from families facing more challenging socio-economic circumstances tend to use screens more than those from advantaged backgrounds. Meanwhile, research commissioned by the 1,001 Critical Days Foundation found that one in ten babies regularly falls asleep with a screen. The review did not establish direct causal links between screen use and specific developmental conditions, but its authors say the weight of evidence is strong enough to justify an urgent policy response.
Guidance under scrutiny
The findings place the government’s recently published screen time guidance for under-fives squarely in the spotlight. That guidance currently recommends avoiding screen time for children under two, but adds a caveat: “other than shared activities that encourage bonding, interaction and conversation”. The new study argues this exception could be misinterpreted by parents and caregivers as indicating safety or even encouragement of regular screen time. The research team recommends that any official guidance pointing under-twos towards “shared screen time, screen time for learning, screen time for communication and/or screen time for children experiencing disabilities/learning difficulties should be reconsidered”. They warn that the current wording “could potentially lead caregivers to believe that screen time for the under-twos is without developmental harm, which may result in an exacerbation of developmental delays and isolating behaviours for those who are already at greater risk”.
To address this, the team is calling for a “baby screen-time risk assessment” to help services provide targeted support for families where developmental vulnerabilities may be emerging. The researchers note a “baby blind spot” in policy at a time when screen use has become deeply embedded in everyday parenting. Rafe Clayton, a senior lecturer in media and communication at the University of Leeds and co-lead of the research, said parents – lacking guidance on their own screen use – were “inadvertently teaching children and babies to develop unhealthy habits and relationships with screen devices”. He added: “This has to change.”
The lack of professional advice is stark: 85% of parents report receiving no screen time guidance from midwives, GPs or health visitors. Carmen Clayton, professor of family and cultural dynamics at Leeds Trinity University and co-lead of the study, said: “The government must consider how to engage with families better about problematic screen use, whilst being sensitive to the fear of judgment that many parents face when opening up about such issues.”
Andrea Leadsom, the former Conservative minister and founder of the 1,001 Critical Days Foundation, described the review as “a wake-up call”. She said the evidence increasingly suggests that screens offer limited benefits for babies and may carry significant risks during the first 1,001 days – “the most important period of human development”. She stressed that parents should not be blamed for a problem they did not create, and that every family should have access to a Best Start family hub where they could get trusted advice and practical help. She also called on technology companies to act: “Parents should not be presented with content that is labelled or promoted as suitable for babies when the evidence points to the contrary.”
The children’s commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, who helped draw up the government guidance, said it was intended to support – not replace – parental judgment. “For children under two, the recommendation to avoid screen time is clear, but acknowledges the realities of our world today and that some shared screen use in a limited number of circumstances, such as video-calling relatives or supported learning, is perfectly normal.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We’re proud of our first-of-its-kind screen time guidance for parents of under-fives, which provides clear, trusted support on an issue we know can be challenging for families.” The government is also developing wider guidance for parents of children aged five to 16, covering smartphone readiness, social media, sleep and learning, and has announced plans to ban under-16s from social media, modelled on Australia’s approach with additional restrictions on livestreaming and communication with strangers. Ofcom will enforce the ban, with social media companies facing significant fines for non-compliance.
Not all research points in the same direction: a US study of nearly 12,000 children aged nine to 12 using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study found no evidence that screen time impacted brain function or well-being – but that work focused on older children and relied on self-reported data. For infants, the iADDICT team’s review leaves little room for doubt that the safest course is no screens at all.
