Your child has outgrown their screen time. You look at the parental timer, you count down the minutes, and worry mounts: is this number that explains his anger, his anxiety or his difficulties with others? A Scottish study published on August 3, 2026 in JAMA Network Open invites us to nuance this reading. In this secondary analysis of a Scottish cohort followed at 5, 10 and 15 years, the researchers took into account numerous family and socio-economic characteristics. They concluded that increased screen time was not consistently associated with poorer psychosocial development.
This result does not mean that the screens would be without risk. Rather, it reminds us of a very concrete thing for parents: duration remains a benchmark, but it is not enough to understand what a child is going through.
Does screen time really explain the difficulties?
The study is based on the cohort Growing Up in Scotland. The researchers analyzed data from 3,786 children at 5 years old, 3,126 at 10 years old and 2,598 at 15 years old. At each age, they compared the use of screens outside of school time with questionnaires on emotional, behavioral and social difficulties.
Important point: the analyzes took into account numerous family and socio-economic factors. Once these elements were integrated, associations between total time spent in front of screens and psychosocial difficulties emerged.
limited and inconsistent. At ages 5 and 10, total screen time was not significantly associated with an overall difficulties score.
In other words, a high meter doesn’t tell the whole story. Two children can spend the same amount of time in front of a screen, but not do the same things there, not sleep as much, not benefit from the same support, nor use screens for the same reasons.
Why do video games at 15 call for caution?
The study nevertheless identifies a signal during adolescence. An association with a higher difficulties score at age 15 was only found with very intensive video game use, and not for other forms of screen use. Early and intensive use of screens was associated with more difficulties at 10 years, but this association was no longer significant at 15 years.
But this result must be read with caution. Video games and difficulties were measured at the same time. The study therefore does not allow us to say that games cause these difficulties. It is also possible that a teenager who is already in difficulty will turn more towards games.
The main methodological reservation is here: this is not a trial where screens were removed from certain children to observe the effect. Difficulties are assessed by questionnaires completed by parents, not by medical diagnosis, and the follow-ups used were carried out between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020.
What to watch at home, beyond the timer?
The study doesn’t give a green light to unlimited screens, but it highlights the limitations of current recommendations that focus solely on screen time.
Rather, these results help shift the question: what is your child doing on the screen? Is he watching age-appropriate content? Does he play alone for hours? Does he use his phone to communicate, learn, entertain himself, or avoid sleeping?
The second question is that of the space taken up by screens. Do they interfere with sleep, homework, physical activity, meals, family discussions or time without stimulation? The same amount of time does not have the same meaning if it systematically replaces bedtime or if it is part of a balanced day.
Health Insurance recommends setting family rules, supervising usage, adapting content to age and preserving screen-free time, particularly at the table and before bed. She also advises avoiding screens in the bedroom at bedtime.
The good reflex is therefore not to abandon the watch, but not to give it all the space. Duration remains a useful signal. It must be supplemented by attention to content, the family context, sleep, other activities and, above all, how the child is doing.