March 26, 2026

expert reaction to guidance from the Department for Education for parents on screentime for children under 5

Scientists comment on Department for Education guidance on screentime for children under 5. 

Prof Peter Etchells, Professor of Psychology and Science Communication, Bath Spa University, said:

“The scientific evidence regarding screen time effects is still underdeveloped and paints a mixed picture. But while there is no strong evidence for hard screen time limits as a function of age, it’s clear that parents and carers need greater levels of support in managing behaviours around screen-based technologies. Focusing on screen time being a shared activity is sensible and supported by evidence from developmental psychology. As parents and carers, it’s also important for us to consider our own technology use, and how we model healthy behaviours to our children, so I am heartened to see clear guidance supporting that here. The real value in this advice, to me, is in helping parents to take a smarter approach to screens in early years – for example, encouraging careful thinking around what sort of content we want our children to watch, creating protected time for families to bond, and generally thinking about our digital technology use in a more intentional way. “

“The report is thoughtful and measured. It acknowledges the limitations of the research base, while constructively thinking how to best apply what we currently know about screen time effects. The authors do a really good job of rationalising the guidance that they’ve suggested – particularly around why they’ve made the recommendations about screen time limits that they have.”

Prof Chris Ferguson, Professor of Psychology, Stetson University, said:

“Most government (or advocacy group) guidelines for screens tend to fall flat.  Unfortunately, they can make things worse for parents with scary language like “constant battle with screens”, or “Parenting in a digital world can feel relentless.”  These kinds of messages can be extremely stress and guilt provoking for parents, most of whom will ultimately fall short of utopian guidelines few will be able to realistically follow.

“The good news is, despite constant fear messages from government, activists and some scholars, the overwhelming conclusion from actual research is that screens have little to no impact on youth outcomes.  The main thing for parents is to provide a loving, stable home and engage with their kids, which can include on screens.  Parents should feel free to make any screen decisions that seem right for their family, but the reality is most of these decisions just won’t matter.  The two things to keep in mind are: kids, even very young kids, who abstain from screens altogether tend to have some of the worst outcomes.  And overuse of screens in adolescence can sometimes be a symptom of other problems (though not caused by the screens).

“These types of recommendations are not new but have been around for decades and have been rightfully criticized for often doing more harm than good.  That is particularly true for parents who, in modern society, are often made to feel stressed and inadequate due to utopian moral messages.”

Link to the full recommendations: https://beststartinlife.gov.uk/screen-time-under-5s/

Declared interests

Prof Peter Etchells: COI statement: PE is the author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better). 

Prof Chris Ferguson: “I have no conflicts to declare.”