Cited by 28Child Development and Digital TechnologyLanguage Development and DisordersEarly Childhood Education and Development

Longitudinal associations between screen time and children’s language, early educational skills, and peer social functioning.

Open access
Gath, Megan, Horwood, L. John, Gillon, Gail, McNeill, Brigid, Woodward, Lianne J.·2026·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

Children's high and increasing levels of screen time are of growing concern to parents, health professionals, and researchers. With the growing availability and use of devices such as smartphones and tablets, it is important to understand the impact of children's screen use on development. Prospective longitudinal data from 6,281 children (48.3% female) in the Growing Up in New Zealand study were used to examine relations between the extent of screen exposure in early childhood (2-4.5 years) and later language development, early educational skills, and peer social functioning at ages 4.5 and 8 years. Higher levels of screen exposure were associated with lower levels of vocabulary, communication, writing, numeracy, and letter fluency and higher levels of peer problems. These associations were reduced after controlling for confounding family social background factors but remained significant. Results indicate that more than 1.5 hr of daily direct screen time at age 2 was associated with below average language and educational ability and above average levels of peer relationship problems at age 4.5. Exposure to more than 2.5 hr of daily direct screen time was associated with higher than average peer relationship problems at age 8. Findings indicate that high levels of screen exposure during early childhood are negatively associated with children's later language, educational, and social development. Such information is critical to help inform policy guidelines, health care, and…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/dev0001907

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large New Zealand study found that more digital media time at ages 2-4.5 predicted lower language and academic scores at ages 4.5-8.

    “One study with a large sample size in New Zealand found longitudinal associations between greater digital media duration at ages 2 to 4.5 years and lower language and academic scores at ages 4.5 to 8 years.77”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 28

Authors
Gath, M., Horwood, L. J., Gillon, G., McNeill, B., & Woodward, L. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Canterbury (NZ)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2026-03
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
638-652
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W4406217300
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 4
FWCI
85.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • New Zealand Ministry of Social Development
  • University of Canterbury
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
screen time, early childhood, language development, vocabulary, educational skills, numeracy, writing, phonemic fluency, peer problems, social development (developmental psychology), Growing Up in New Zealand study
MeSH terms
Screen Time, Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Language Development, Longitudinal Studies, Male, New Zealand, Peer Group

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review