To wonder why screens aren’t investigated as a cause of childhood behaviour issues?

[Peony1897]

We now know that screens, and in particular tablets, have really horrific effects on young children and their emotional/social development - in particular speech, regulating anger, sensory issues and how they interact with their peers.

So why is it whenever we see a thread where a small child has some or all of the above issues, and the OP clearly mentions tablet use or ‘all they are interested in is screens’, the answer is nearly always an autism assessment rather than removal of screens?

Genuinely curious as to why such a clear risk factor is never picked up on.

I was on a train recently and nearly everyone in my carriage was on a screen. Fair enough, people may have work to do or want to be entertained on a long journey.

But I was also looking at people waiting on station platforms and going through several stations, I'd say 99% of the people of all ages were waiting on the platform looking down at their 'phone.

That's how extreme it is. That people can't wait for a few minutes for a train without being entertained (or enraged) by a screen.

And don't get me started on the bus rides I go on where a parent props up a 'phone in front of a buggy to entertain a toddler for a journey of just a few minutes.

As I said upthread, it's not just children, it's insidiously everywhere across all ages and effects emotional regulation, attention spans, mental health and wellbeing.

Thank you, that's kind!

It's an interesting subject - I should also perhaps say that DS is very like me, just dialled up to 11, and it was suggested that I should be assessed as well and I 'passed' the triage and am on the waiting list and this is not uncommon. Obviously as I'm in my late 40's, mobile phones and tablets weren't an issue when I was a child, instead I read a lot - and I mean a lot, enough to drive teachers to suggest I read too much.

YANBU. Too many people these days say their child has autism and/or ADHD and therefore lots of screen time is necessary as it helps keep them calm/regulated or whatever, but they seem to have completely overlooked the very real possibility that having far too much screen time as a replacement for human interaction from a very early stage of their mental and social development might be the reason they have ended up presenting as ADHD and/or ASD, not the solution to managing it.

YANBU - I used to work in Health Visiting and 99% of the kids I used to see with behaviour concerns or speech delays were on screens for hours a day.

With our support the ones who cut down the screen time saw improvements and the ones who said "it's too hard, they just cry"... Well, their kids continued to not listen to them, have a million tantrums a day and grunt at them rather than speak. Was pretty obvious to me what was causing the problem but parents just couldn't be bothered to deal with it. One mum even told me she was "too busy" to put in place the simple speech development methods (literally basic stuff like speaking face to face, naming objects, trying not to respond to non verbal communication and encourage speech instead). I mean, wtf - why did you even bother to have your kid?? It was easier for her to let the iPad "teach" her daughter to speak (yet ignoring the fact it clearly wasn't)

And this was busy cleaning and stuff in the house, not working 50hrs a week before anyone gives that excuse!

I know an anecdote doesn't make data but my 5 year old who is being assessed for autism has had less than 50 hours of screen time outside of school/childminder in his life. And any screen time is always a specific video or educational game curated by myself.
ND conditions are not the same as delays or behavioural issues although admittedly if you can mask well then you are less likely to get diagnosed.

I just wanted to give an example of why I sometimes give my eldest a screen in a restaurant.

I’m a SEN parent, and like any parent, I get exhausted. My 5-year-old is autistic, and she goes to bed late, so when we go out there are already a lot of challenges. I have to consider so many things—her sensory needs, the environment, the noise, the lighting—and often restaurants just aren’t suited for her. But we still need to eat.

I always try to get my kids to wait patiently. I talk to them, help them calm down, and bring out colouring books or small activities. But once that’s done, if the food is taking ages, they get bored—and that’s when things can escalate. They might start disturbing others around us, and I really don’t want that.

I try so hard to keep my daughter calm. I remind her to sit still and be quiet, but it really depends on how she’s feeling. If she’s under- or overstimulated, or dysregulated, I have to become a detective in the moment, trying to work out what she needs. It’s constant.

And then people start staring, and I feel so bad. I know others just want to enjoy their meal. But my daughter might be getting louder, reacting intensely, or needing to move around because sitting still in a cramped space is really difficult for her.

So yes, I sometimes give her a screen—not because I’m lazy, but because I want to give her peace, give others peace, and honestly, I just need a moment to breathe. I think that’s why many parents resort to screens: because they’re trying to hold everything together in a very public space.

"That's how extreme it is. That people can't wait for a few minutes for a train without being entertained (or enraged) by a screen."

I'm sympathetic to a lot of the points on this thread, but I'm not sure that staring blankly into space on a tube platform, as we used to do, is somehow better than checking the news or messaging a friend.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the future, spinal and neck problems become a significant issue, given the number of people, particularly children and teenagers, who are hunched over phones and screens. Can’t be good for growing and developing bodies.

It's not the screens, it's the parenting.

Children under 2 should not be using screens at all. Not even TV.

Kids upto age 5 should have no more than 1 hour.

It's lazy and easy parenting to stick kids on screens.

Autism has been around far longer than screens. My DS is autistic and would spend all day on a screen if he could.

My best mate is so lovely but the TV is always on in her house and the kids just sit in front of it, then go on tablets. They all have speech and development issues.

I’m pretty sure I read a book on this once. I definitely listened to a Dr Chatterjee podcast on it. Apparently, it is good for us to not be consuming media all day every day and just allowing our brains to ‘think’ rather than consume. I know I try not to take my phone out at every opportunity. But it is hard as they’re so addictive!

I think your post proves how nuanced this all is.
On an individual level, it’s impossible to tell by looking at a snapshot of someone’s life whether the screen is being whipped out as a default, or as in your case, it’s a last resort because you still all need to live your lives as a family and sometimes need an aid in doing that.
It really is a complex issue.

I remember as a child being very frustrated that all my family were avid readers. My Mum devoured novels, my Dad read absolutely everything from technical manuals to teletext. My grandparents always had books and newspapers out. I was always wanting to do something else and couldn't understand why everyone was content reading.

Not having screen time doesn't necessarily relate to how sociable children are. But I've never heard anyone suggest that a child could be autistic because their parents read too much. Although I do think it is probably a factor in my poor social skills as a child...

Having done the assessment I can only agree. We were quite amazed at the way she viewed his interaction with her as "textbook ASD". I didn't necessarily disagree, but it all seemed very keen and quick.

There is plenty of research about screen time and various behavioural issues. The problem is it's hard to do a really good comparative trial because children have so much exposure to screens that you can't realistically isolate children and say OK, this group will only watch Peppa Pig for 4 hours per day, that group will have 30 minutes of Numberblocks and the third group have nothing at all. It's impossible to enforce that, or people drop out of the trial unless they get assigned to the thing they would have done anyway, and so the data becomes messy and you can't infer very much from it.

And if you base research on how much screen time children are watching when they're not in any assigned research group, then the problem is very similar to researching the impact of breastfeeding/formula feeding - the two groups (more screen time vs less screen time) are not the same, they differ in many other ways too so you can't easily tease out what's the effect of screen time vs demographics, parents' income/education, parenting style etc.

ADHD is the major behavioural issue I know the most about, and according to Russell Barkley who is a leading ADHD expert, screen time is not thought to be causative for ADHD, but there is a correlation between amount of time watching screens and ADHD, which he puts down to "ADHD children are more interested in screens than non ADHD children".

I think screens are a bit of a bogeyman TBH. Parents have been neglecting children (which seems to be behind a lot of the headlines about the various things children in reception classes are turning up not able to do) for a lot longer than there has been 24/7 access to screens. If you're an involved parent then you'll probably be aware of the effect screen time has on your children and adjust it accordingly (whether that's time or content) and if you are literally sticking them on it 12 hours of the day every day so you don't need to interact with them, well nobody thinks that is good parenting, surely.

If anyone would like to have a go at parenting my (diagnosed) ADHD 6yo without resorting to screens you are welcome to come and try but you'll need the patience of a saint, the imagination of a literary genius and the energy of a three year old.

We had a little ‘wtf’ at a teen out walking the dog.

The dog lead was strapped around the teens’ waist ( I think usually an aid for running with your dog), except it was being used to help with hands-free dog walking whilst the teen watch something on her phone and text.

YANBU. My son has ASD, ADHD and FASD(ARND) - no amount of screen restriction will “fix” any of these diagnoses but it certainly has a huge impact on his behaviour and ability to regulate.

Our general rule for him (8yo) is no mindless screens - so watching YouTube etc. He can watch a bit of CBBC in the mornings once he is ready for school. We are pro-gaming because it supports the development of lots of executive functioning skills for him, but it is balanced with plenty of extra curriculars out in the real world.

Cutting out YouTube has been life changing for us all.

What an eloquent and well thought out post. Love it. This makes a lot of sense

Unless you’re a social scientist or work in child development I don’t think you can really interpret the studies better than their conductors. This isn’t just a few minor studies - there is now a wealth of information on how screens negatively impact children’s brains, with the highest risk screen behaviours being children with access to more than 1 device (ie both TV and a tablet, or tablet and phone).

They will have adjusted where possible for confounding factors and as such I don’t really recognise the way in which you’re hand waving it all away because you’re assuming the issue is too complex for any meaningful interpretation.

I feel like the neurodiversity lobbies are always going to poo poo any concern about screen time, because their default position is that neurodiversity is inherent and immutable and not something that can be exacerbated or caused by external factors. Only, we know this to not to be true. And seeing as many ND people are avid gamers, respect for the lobbies would be lost if they were seen to turn on tech and make life harder for parents by advocating its removal.

can I ask whether your son has used TV/tablet from a young age and when his ADHD symptoms started?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10214027/

My SIL was a teacher in schools in deprived areas, for most of the 35 years I knew her. She was saying 30 years ago, that children were coming to school, who at 5 couldn't put a sentence together, because their parents never spoke to them, except to give orders.

Likewise, they couldn't use cutlery, because at home, they ate with their fingers food like chips, pizza, chicken nuggets, etc.

A third of her class had SEN, and six children needed statements (the predecessors to EHCPs).

Screens are just a symptom of some parents, who would in the past before screens, neglected their children anyway!

Also to add on the neglect front. Yes, children have been neglected since forever. But it’s only recently this neglect looks like allowing children to sit cooped up on tablets for hours on end. Neglect used to be turfing your 7 year old out of the house to let them run feral with other kids - which involved fresh air, socialising, and social skills they probably didn’t realise at the time. Now it looks very different and is far more isolating and sedentary.

So there’s no meaningful conclusion to be drawn by saying ‘well children have always been neglected and these issues only started recently’.

My kids have never watched YouTube so I don’t know how the algorithms work and what is so uniquely bad about it although I hear this from a lot of parents. Given I use YouTube to watch documentaries mainly, can anyone explain please?

I just can’t fathom giving kids screens in restaurants. It’s a social setting, they should be socialising, or being engaged with by doing activities like colouring in.

Studies are often conducted longitudinally so I imagine in the future there will be more research evidence widely available. Children are probably being studied over a longer time period and comparisons made between how long each group have access to screens for and the type of screen (e.g. watching TV which is passive compared to playing games which involves more interaction). I imagine it's hard to control all variables as there will be so many other factors at play (siblings, age of parents, household income, whether parents work full time/part time, age of exposure to screens, other factors such as diet if considering behaviour and so on).

"default position is that neurodiversity is inherent and immutable and not something that can be exacerbated or caused by external factors. Only, we know this to not to be true."

Some forms of neurodivergence can be acquired under the broader definitions of the term - for example FASD, cPTSD and acquired brain injury - but the vast majority of neurodivergence is inherent, largely hereditary and noticeable from infancy. In fact, there is great progress in things like eye gaze technology being able to predict, with high accuracy, which tiny babies will be diagnosed with autism in later childhood.

You keep saying that "we know" certain things, but the fact is that we all know a lot less about these things than we think we do.

I definitely think more profound types of autism are present from birth, and I know screen time won’t cause that. But I’m hesitant over milder forms - the type where the parent had no idea until their child was 5/6/7. We do know excessive screen time and in particular multi device screen use causes sensory, speech and emotional regulation difficulties, which are all indicative of autism. I don’t know why there is such a pushback when Mumsnet is usually a fan of a good study.