蜜桃影视

For years, the screen time recommendation for children under age 2 has been simple: They shouldn鈥檛 have any. 

But as surveys of parents have revealed that young children are increasingly exposed to digital media, it鈥檚 become clear there鈥檚 a disconnect: Families aren鈥檛 following the guidance.

Not only do the youngest children in the U.S. have some exposure to screens, many of them are getting   鈥� and for an average of about . 

鈥淭here鈥檚 a huge gap between what the experts say should be happening and what parents report is happening,鈥� noted Kris Perry, executive director of the nonprofit Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. 

Survey data tells us this is true at all ages, but the divide is easiest to measure for babies and toddlers under age 2, for whom any amount of screen time deviates from evidence-based recommendations.

For years, leading organizations focused on child well-being have cautioned that excess could impede . Research has shown that children under age 2 do not benefit from most types of digital media use, and in some cases, can actually be harmed. Studies have found possible links between screen time and , ,, , and more. 

Screen time also high-quality, engaging, in-person interactions, which babies and young children need to thrive. 

鈥淓very hour a child spends watching a show or an app comes at the expense of time spent doing something else 鈥� being physically active, being cared for and played with by a loved one,鈥� said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and of numerous research publications on screen time in early childhood. 鈥淭here are developmental costs associated with that. Children that age need laps, not apps, to develop appropriately.鈥�

There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that very young children are getting screen time. It鈥檚 often on display in public spaces, such as restaurants and airplanes. 

Common Sense Media, an education nonprofit focused on children鈥檚 technology and media use, in 2024 that children under age 2 were getting an average of 1:03 hours of daily screen time, with more than half of that time spent watching television or videos. By age 2, the group found, 40% of children had their own tablet.  

Supreet Mann, director of research at Common Sense, pointed out that 鈥渦nder 2鈥� is a very wide age band; there are massive developmental differences between a 3-month-old baby and a 23-month-old toddler, for example. 

Mann believes that the era of personal devices, such as tablets and smartphones, has made short-form videos (think TikTok and YouTube Shorts) more accessible to children, even as these devices are less conducive to co-viewing with a parent or caregiver, a practice that has been woven into expert guidance for years. It鈥檚 also harder for caregivers to monitor what a child is seeing and whether autoplay serves them something developmentally inappropriate. 

Still, she thinks parents should not live in fear of being scrutinized about how they use screen time with their children. 

鈥淲e talk about the 鈥榙igital babysitter鈥� in a way that鈥檚 demeaning to parents who need that extra bit of help,鈥� Mann said, noting that some families may turn on a device for a child when they need to make dinner, take a shower or focus on that child鈥檚 sibling. 鈥淚 certainly do think we need to give grace to parents who are using media for adaptive reasons.鈥�

In May 2025, Pew Research Center conducted a to understand how parents of children under age 13 approach technology use and screen time with their kids. About 82% of parents with children under age 2 said their child ever uses TV, while 38% said that about smartphones. 

Another 62% of the same population said their child ever watches videos on YouTube, while 35% said their infants and toddlers watch it every day. 

鈥淥ne of the most striking things from this study is the finding that screens start young for children today,鈥� said Colleen McClain, senior researcher at Pew and author of the report on family screen time. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 not just occasional use. For some, it鈥檚 daily use.鈥� 

In focus groups, McClain said, parents expressed a variety of feelings about their use of screens with their children. Some felt judged. Some felt guilty. Others said it was a tool they used to get through the day, to get everything done. Others didn鈥檛 think much of it.

鈥淭hey have other kids. They鈥檙e working. They need to keep their sanity,鈥� McClain said, summarizing what she heard in focus groups. 鈥淭he human element really comes through. These parents are trying to do the best for their kids.鈥�

Both researchers noted that families have to navigate an extremely complex technology environment today, and with minimal guidance or guardrails. 

Perry, the executive director of Children and Screens, believes the biggest problem with children鈥檚 digital media use has little to do with family dynamics. The real culprit, she said, is the companies creating content for 鈥� and marketing to 鈥� children. Many parents are almost defenseless against the addictive qualities embedded in children鈥檚 media, driven by a business model that profits off children鈥檚 time and attention. 

For children under age 5, Perry said, 鈥淭heir brains are under construction.鈥� They cannot resist short-form video, compelling characters, infinite scrolling, unnatural colors and high frame rates (measured by the number of still images that appear in a frame each second). 

鈥淭heir ability to stop is almost nonexistent,鈥� she said of early learners on devices. 

For children age 2 and older, it鈥檚 important to reduce time on screens, and to choose high-quality programming if possible, Perry added. She identified four quality markers for children鈥檚 media. 

First, it should promote active engagement. Second, it should avoid distracting ads and gaming features. Third, it needs to connect the child鈥檚 learning with real-world experiences. And finally, it should encourage social interaction. 

Mister Rogers鈥� Neighborhood was an excellent example of that, Perry said. But for the most part, the shows and apps families are turning to today are not hitting any of those criteria, she said. And some advocates fear that cuts to public media funding could make it harder to produce quality children鈥檚 programming with those characteristics.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 being pushed out there is fast-paced, loud, stimulating, full of ads and not educational,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e know what the standard is, but it鈥檚 often not being met.鈥�

For the last decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been the 鈥済old standard鈥� for families on how to use screens with their children, Perry said. 

In 2016, the AAP released a policy advising that children under age 2 avoid screens altogether, with the exception of video chatting with family members. The World Health Organization and other groups have a similar approach. 

But the AAP, just last month, released around 鈥渄igital ecosystems,鈥� which encompasses all digital media a child may encounter, from smartphones, tablets and TVs to apps, video games and AI. The new policy statement, which replaces prior recommendations, does not include duration-based screen time limits. 

Dr. Tiffany Munzer, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at the University of Michigan and lead author of the new AAP policy, said the guidance reflects a more comprehensive body of research and evidence that looks at not just how digital media affects children, but also at factors such as the design embedded into those technologies and a family鈥檚 psychosocial context. 

For example, if a child lives in a neighborhood where they cannot safely play outside, the use of digital media for entertainment is perhaps a safer alternative. If a family cannot access child care, 鈥渟ome families may need to use digital media to just get some work done at home,鈥� Munzer said. 

鈥淚nstead of thinking of it as a screen time limit, per se, we thought about it as boundaries for families to set,鈥� Munzer said, referring to the group that drafted the policy. 鈥淓very family is different.鈥� 

The new policy statement contains nuances and gray areas, putting the onus on families 鈥� many of whom are giving their children screens because they already feel overwhelmed 鈥� to sit down, read it, digest it and decide how they want to apply it to their own lives. It鈥檚 impractical to expect most caregivers to do that. 

鈥淚 think when you give a clear, black-and-white recommendation, it鈥檚 so much easier to file that away in your brain, instead of having all these messages,鈥� Munzer said. She recommended that families who are seeking specific, actionable guidance around screen time talk to their child鈥檚 pediatrician about it or reference the AAP鈥檚 .

As for the use of digital media with children under 2, even though the new AAP policy statement doesn鈥檛 explicitly state that it should be avoided, that鈥檚 still the underlying message. 

鈥淚nfants under 18 months struggle to transfer information from a screen to the real world because of immature cognitive processing,鈥� one part of the statement reads. Asked to elaborate, Munzer acknowledged that research is still pretty clear about infants and screens. 

鈥淜ids who are under 2, it鈥檚 just harder 鈥� from a cognitive processing standpoint 鈥� for them to get a lot out of digital media,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a lot of flashing lights to them. It鈥檚 hard to transfer to real life.鈥�