Longitudinal associations between screen time and children’s language, early educational skills, and peer social functioning.
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Technical Report (2026) · cites this paper as [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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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