Are screens bad for kids' cognitive development?

What about fast-paced TV shows?

Hi! I’m Jacqueline Nesi, a psychologist and professor at Brown University, co-founder of Tech Without Stress (@techwithoutstress), and mom of two young kids.

Today at Techno Sapiens we’re kicking off *Myth-Busting March*, a multi-week series where we’re getting to the bottom of common claims about kids and screens. Know someone who might be interested? Share this email so they can join 20,000+ readers and get in on the fun.

---

8 min read

I’ve got good news and bad news. The bad news is that social media is rife with pseudoscience when it comes to kids and screens.¹ The good news? I love me some alliteration. I thus bring you a very special Techno Sapiens series:

Myth-Busting March (!!!)²

For the next few weeks, we’ll be tackling some common, social media-propagated myths about kids and screens. We’ll break down sciencey-sounding terms like “hyperarousal,” “dopamine,” and “overstimulation.” We’ll dive into the research. We’ll emerge smarter, more informed, and ready to roundhouse kick those myths right where it hurts.

Also, sorry, but we’re chanting. Not because we want to, but because we have to. So, get that Wheel of Fortune voice ready and let’s… 

BUST. THOSE. MYTHS!³⁴

Today’s Myth: Screens are rotting kids’ brains

Are screens making kids dumber? Are they impacting skills like attention and memory? What about video games, or really fast-paced shows (insert the great Cocomelon debate of ‘21…and ‘22, and ‘23)?

A common claim when it comes to screens is that they’re negatively impacting kids’ executive functioning. Executive functions are cognitive skills required to control behavior and work toward goals. Kids get better at these skills over time, as they get more practice and their brains (especially the prefrontal cortex) fully develop. These skills include things like: attention, working memory, self-regulation, and behavioral inhibition (stopping ourselves from doing things we shouldn’t).

When we find our kids in a trance, eyes glazed over as the Paw Patrol theme song rattles their tiny eardrums, it seems to serve as confirmation that executive functioning must be taking a hit: yes, this is definitely rotting their brains.

But is this true?

The short answer

Do screens destroy kids’ executive functioning? In short: no. Some types of screen use (in particular, non-educational, ‘fantastical’ shows) may have short-term impacts on attention, memory, or inhibition. But these effects don’t seem to be long-term, unless screen use is excessive and interfering with other important activities. And some screens (educational apps, certain video games) may actually improve executive functioning skills. 

Now, if you’re just looking for practical tips on what to do with this information, scroll to the end.

If you’re looking for the research, well, put on your wetsuit, strap on your oxygen tank, and get those flippers kicking⁵…we’re doing a deep dive.

Short-term vs. long-term effects

The studies of screens and executive functioning have typically been done in one of two ways:

1. Experimental studies: Some kids get randomly assigned to watch a certain show, or play a certain game. Other kids get assigned to another condition (either a different show/game, or a non-screen activity like reading). Afterward, researchers measure their executive functioning via tasks (like card-sorting and rule-following games). These studies are good for telling us whether screens have short-term impacts on kids’ executive functioning. 

2. Observational studies: Researchers measure how much kids are using screens, and also, kids’ executive functioning (either via parents’ reports or behavioral tasks). They do this either all at the same time (cross-sectional), or over the course of a year or two (longitudinal). These studies give us some information about longer-term impacts, but it’s very hard to sort through whether the screen us is actually causing the impacts on executive function.

So, what do they find?

In general, the experimental evidence finds that some types of screen use can have a short-term impact on skills like attention, inhibition, and memory. For example, studies have found that playing on a tablet (versus with toys) briefly reduces inhibition, and that watching certain types of TV (compared to reading or playing) lessens attention and working memory. 

Long-term, the evidence is mixed. Many studies find a small negative impact of screen use on executive function, but others do not. These effects could very well be explained by differences outside of screen use (e.g., pre-existing differences between kids who watch more versus less TV). Studies do show, though, that excessive or disordered screen use—like, many, many hours per day, at the expense of lots of other activities—is associated with executive functioning problems. 

Takeaway: Some types of screen use seem to have short-term impacts on executive functioning, but unless screen time is excessive, these effects likely do not extend long-term.

Does the type of screen use matter?

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: all screens are not created equal. 

Some screen use has even been found to improve executive functioning. When it comes to video games, for example, this landmark 2018 meta-analysis finds that playing action video games, which involve critical thinking, spatial reasoning, and other skills, is associated with cognitive abilities like attention and perception.

Educational content likely makes a difference, too—one exemplary study that assigned kids to either use an educational app or watch cartoons found that the app actually improved kids’ working memory and ability to delay gratification.

Takeaway: Yes, the type of show or game matters somewhat when it comes to executive functioning. Some may even have positive impacts.

What about fast-paced shows?

Social media is rife with claims that “fast-paced” shows cause more attention and memory problems. Is this true?

“Pacing” is a somewhat squishy term, but in the kids’ media research, the definition of “fast-paced” generally includes frequent changes in color, motion, and sounds, plus quick camera movements and cuts.

Think Cocomelon (fast-paced) vs. Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood (slow-paced).

Early research found some evidence that fast-paced shows had more short-term impact on executive functioning (i.e., reduced attention and memory) than slow-paced shows. But here’s the thing: many “fast-paced” shows have other relevant elements, too—they’re less educational, they’re cartoon-y and not realistic, they’re more targeted to younger kids, etc.

With that in mind, more recent evidence suggests pacing probably doesn’t make much difference. For example, an oft-cited experimental study of almost 300 4- to 6-year olds found that the pacing of a TV show mattered less than whether it contained “fantastical” elements (i.e., things that are physically impossible, like, say, Spongebob suddenly sprouting four extra arms). “Fantastical” shows (regardless of pace) reduced immediate performance on executive functioning tasks.

A recent review theorizes that this is because “fantastical” events are surprising, so they require lots of cognitive work and attention to process, exhausting kids’ attentional resources (so there’s not much left to give after the show ends).⁶ 

This research isn’t definitive, so it’s still possible that show pacing plays some role in executive functioning. But no matter what the cause (pacing, fantastical events, or something else), there’s not much reason to think this would have any long-term effect. Yes—if kids are spending all day focused on cartoons, with no attention left for other activities, this would be bad. But if the above explanation is true, a short-term stint with a cognitively-demanding activity that drains attention is not necessarily a bad thing. Math tests do the same thing.

Takeaway: Pacing doesn’t seem to matter much when it comes to executive functioning. “Fantastical” content might matter more. Either way, short-term effects aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

What should I do with this information?

Based on this research, here’s what you can do:

1. Keep screens in moderation

As with most outcomes in the kids and screens research (mental health, language development, behavior), the place where we see more consistent associations between executive functioning skills and screens is when screen use is excessive.

Excessive use means that screens are consistently getting in the way of other opportunities to develop executive functioning skills—that kids are always using screens instead of doing things like sleep, reading, playing with toys, spending time with friends and family, and going outside. So, as with anything else, it makes sense to balance screen time with all the other important things they need to be doing.

2. Consider post-screen activities

Given potential short-term effects of some screen use on executive functioning, you might want to avoid cognitively-demanding tasks immediately after screens. This might not be a good time for homework, say, or for reorganizing toys. 

It might also not be your child’s best moment, behavior-wise. “Good” behavior requires many executive functioning skills. They need to pay attention when you say “Put down the scissors.” They need to regulate their emotions. They need to reign in the impulse to sing the Pokemon theme song as loudly as possible in their brother’s ears.⁷⁸ 

So, you might want to give them a few minutes of a non-demanding task (going for a walk, having a snack) before transitioning to the next activity.

3. Choose content wisely

Ultimately, there’s little evidence that any type of average screen use (as long as it’s age-appropriate and used in moderation) has much long-term impact on executive functioning. So, really, you can’t go too wrong—if your kid loves a certain cartoon and you’re not seeing any issues with it, there’s no evidence here that would tell you to stop.

However, if you’re noticing issues with your child’s behavior or attention after a show/game/app, or if you want to minimize potential short-term impacts on executive functioning, you might consider more educational content. Check out Common Sense Media’s lists of educational shows, apps, and games.

Look out, myths. It’s March.

Alright, we’ve taken down the “screens rot kids’ brains” myth. We’ve punched it right in the throat, poked it in the eye, given it the most uncomfortable wet willy imaginable…⁹

Next week, we’ll be back for the second installment of Myth-Busting March. So get ready to—oh, you thought we were done chanting?—

BUST. THOSE. MYTHS!

---

Stuff sapiens might like

A few things I’m reading, listening to, and loving this week. I think you’ll like them, too!

• How to Feel Alive.

  Catherine Price
  ’s Substack is all about finding screen-life balance and prioritizing fun. It’s well-researched, offers great advice, and has the added benefit of making me giggle. Right up Techno Sapiens’ alley.

• Amazon towel hooks. Remember the 12-year debate my husband and I were having about how to hang up our towels? $15 and 2 days (for shipping) later, it has been resolved.

• Daniel Tiger singalong book. It’s no secret I love Daniel Tiger. And judging by the feedback on this post, it seems many of you do, too. This book has all the classic “strategy songs”—great for reinforcing learning. But proceed with caution: I’ve had “If you have to go potty, stop and go right away” stuck in my head for weeks.

---

A quick survey

What did you think of this week’s Techno Sapiens? Your feedback helps me make this better. Thanks!

The Best | Great | Good | Meh | The Worst

1. At this point, my Instagram feed is almost entirely parenting-related content. Punctuated, obviously, by the occasional air fryer recipe.

2. I know you’re wondering why I’m not making more MythBusters references, and the answer, shamefully, is that I’ve never seen the show. Certainly seems possible that this oversight has had a negative impact on my executive functioning.

3. It brings me great joy to imagine fellow techno sapiens around the world staring at their screens right now, quietly (but aggressively) mouthing “Bust those myths!”

4. And by “bust myths,” I mean dig into the research to provide a more nuanced perspective on which aspects of these issues are supported by the data, and which are not. (But that was less catchy).

5. Research deep dives, by the way, are the only type of deep dive I will be doing in the foreseeable future. The idea of scuba diving terrifies me. I think it starts with the general attitude toward oxygen, which is far too casual for my liking. Oh yea, my tank was running low so I just shared with my diving partner…Oxygen!!! The thing that keeps you alive!!! And you just have it sitting there in a little tube? Hoping all goes well? No, thank you.

6. A note on “fast-paced” shows: we’re talking specifically about the research on executive functioning here. It is possible that, for some kids, fast-paced shows may have short-term effects on behavior or mood for other reasons (i.e., high levels of sensory stimulation or arousal). We’ll cover that in a future myth-busting post (stay tuned!)

7. My husband grew up the youngest of three (very energetic) boys. He relays the story that he once sang the Pokemon theme song over and over again, despite his brother’s protests. When he didn’t stop, his brother eventually threw a toy at his face. I believe this led to stitches and a lifelong scar. In case you needed more evidence that kids’ executive functioning is not yet fully developed. Also, my mother-in-law is an angel.

8. Update: after my husband’s review of this post, I have learned that the Pokemon incident did not lead to stitches, but merely “lots of a blood and I think a deviated septum.” I was confusing it with a different toy-related incident that led to stitches. Again, my mother-in-law is an angel, and I fear what’s in store as my sons grow older.

9. Does the wet willy reference make it obvious that I’ve never physically fought anyone or anything?