Is a Smartphone Bad for Babies? In an Era Where 72% of 9-Month-Old Babies Look at Screens Daily, Simply Saying "Don't Show Them" Doesn't Solve the Reality of Parenting

Screens Becoming a Part of Babies' "Daily Life"

"It's not good to let babies look at screens." Many parents have probably heard this saying. However, the reality has moved beyond mere idealism. The UK's Education Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed data from the UK government's longitudinal study "Children of the 2020s" and found that 72% of 9-month-old infants were exposed to some form of screen daily. The average time was 41 minutes per day. Screens have become a part of the living infrastructure, widely integrated from infancy, rather than being a topic limited to certain special households.

Looking at these numbers alone, one might hastily conclude, "It's dangerous" or "It's parental negligence." However, the same analysis reveals a more complex reality. Most infants either have "no screen time" or "less than an hour," with only 2% exceeding three hours, making them a minority. Thus, the discussion should focus on the fact that "most infants watch something daily" and that "extremely long usage is rare but cannot be ignored."

Differences Arise from Sibling Presence and Family Situations

What stands out in this analysis is that screen usage is not merely a matter of parental awareness but is related to family structure. In particular, only children are more likely to be exposed to screens daily, with the article stating that the percentage reaches 80%. Additionally, infants in single-parent households averaged 47 minutes per day, compared to 39 minutes in households with two parents. While there was no clear trend between income and "whether they watch," among those who do watch, a correlation between income level and viewing time was suggested.

What emerges here is the danger of simplistic moral arguments like "Good parents don't let their kids watch" or "They watch for a long time because of low awareness." In environments close to single-parenting, amidst chores, caring for siblings, and the fatigue or isolation of the caregivers themselves, there are indeed moments when one needs a break, even if just for a few minutes. The issue of screen time is connected not only to child development but also to the social support for parenting and the disposable time within families. This is not something that can be resolved by blaming individual parents.

Is the Real Issue "Watching" Itself?

The original article is important because it does not uniformly label screens as "bad." Dr. Tammy Campbell from EPI suggests that the discussion should shift from "how much was watched" to "what was watched," "why," and "how it was used." Is it an interactive use where parents and children watch together and talk, or is it passive, with the screen left on for long periods? This difference is significant.

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also considers screen use for those under 2 years old to be very limited, while interactive uses like video calls with family or viewing with a parent who explains the content are seen differently. The AAP states that young children learn best from interactions with adults and exploring the real world, but if they do watch, it's preferable to enjoy high-quality content together with a caregiver.

In other words, the issue is not merely the fact of "watching a screen." The problem is when passive long-term viewing pushes aside foundational developmental activities like conversation, outdoor play, reading aloud, singing, and imitation play. While it is risky for screens to take the lead role, if they serve as a supporting role to parent-child interactions, the perspective changes.

When Screen Time Exceeds Three Hours, the Shadow of "Replacement" Emerges

EPI's analysis found that infants with more than three hours of screen time per day participated less frequently in activities like going out, reading aloud, and singing. For example, the percentage of infants going out daily was 80% for those with zero screen time, 76% for those with less than two hours, and dropped to 60% for those with more than three hours. A decline in reading aloud was also observed starting from around two hours. The key point here is not that showing a little screen time is immediately out, but that when it becomes prolonged, it tends to replace other experiences.

This point resonates with a government-related study of 2-year-olds published in January this year. Among 2-year-olds, 98% watched screens daily, averaging 127 minutes. The group with the longest screen time could only say an average of 53% of the words in a 34-word vocabulary test, compared to 65% for the group with the least screen time. The study does not establish causality but reports a correlation between long screen time and limited vocabulary.

The important thing here is not to sensationalize the numbers but to discern what the research is saying and what it is not. The research does not prove that "screens directly deprived vocabulary." There may be multiple intertwined factors such as the amount of conversation at home, the mental health of caregivers, the pressure of life, and how play is conducted at home. However, at the same time, it serves as a heavy warning that "passive long-term viewing should not be taken lightly."

WHO is Strict, but the Reality is More Complex

The WHO does not recommend screen time for infants under 1 year old, advises against it in principle for 1-year-olds, and suggests keeping it under an hour for those over 2 years old. Instead, it advocates for floor play, reading aloud, adequate sleep, and physical activity. The guidelines are very clear, strongly emphasizing that the foundation of development lies in "face-to-face interactions."

However, the issue parents face is not a lack of awareness of the correctness of the guidelines. Rather, it's the difficulty of implementing them despite knowing them. Work, chores, dealing with siblings, sleep deprivation, loneliness, illness, handling during travel—there are days when the ideal cannot be realized. At such times, the mere fact of "having shown it" can easily become grounds for blaming the parent. The background to the strong reaction to this report is this "frustration of knowing but not being able to adhere."

The True Feelings Erupted in SNS and Parent Communities

Online reactions to this theme are largely divided into three categories.

The first is the voice that says, "Relying a little is realistic." In parent communities, posts such as "I showed it only while taking a shower," "It helped only while making dinner," and "It's unavoidable for the younger child to naturally be exposed to what the older child is watching" are prominent. Some even say, "Videos were necessary to get them to eat," and "I don't regret it." These reactions indicate that screen use is being employed as an emergency measure in the tightrope walk of parenting, rather than as "entertainment."

The second is the voice that says, "The guilt just keeps growing." On Mumsnet, there are posts reflecting on having shown a lot of screens to toddlers in the past, saying, "The guilt still doesn't go away," and "I can't help but wonder if it affected my child's future." This reflects not only the fear of the research results themselves but also the atmosphere where modern parents find it hard to be appreciated no matter what they do. Screen time tends to become a receptacle for that anxiety.

The third is the cautious voice that says, "Passive long-term viewing is indeed dangerous." In another thread, many opinions suggest, "It's definitely a problem to keep them in front of the TV or iPad for hours," and "Without boundaries, it becomes a habit." On the other hand, in the same place, there are voices saying, "If there's enough outdoor play, reading, and conversation, there's no need to overly fear a little TV," indicating that the real exploration of "how much is acceptable" continues, rather than a simple for-or-against stance.

Interestingly, what is common among all these perspectives is the interest in "balance" rather than "complete prohibition." Parents are not indifferent. In fact, they care deeply. Therefore, instead of headlines that stir vague anxiety, practical information such as "where is it easy to extend screen time," "what is being replaced," and "how can we adjust while reducing the burden on parents" is more needed.

What is Needed Now is "Design" Rather Than "Prohibition"

The UK government plans to publish its first screen time guidance for ages 0-5 in April 2026. Evidence collection was already conducted in February, and the policy is now at the stage of "how to communicate it to families." What is crucial here is whether it becomes a practical guide that can be used in reality, rather than a document that adds guilt to parents.

For the guidance to be truly helpful, it should not end with just a number like "how many minutes per day." Suggestions at the action level are needed, such as avoiding screens during meals or before bed, not leaving them on continuously, showing them in short segments, connecting viewing to conversation or play afterward, not letting it become a tool to "silence" children, and caregivers not continuously looking at their smartphones. This is precisely the direction indicated by EPI and AAP.

Towards a Society That Increases Parent-Child Time Rather Than Blaming Parents

The debate over screen time for infants ultimately boils down to the question of "what do we want to give to children." What is needed is not to find and condemn parents who have shown screens. It's about how to increase the time children spend conversing, listening to songs, reading picture books, going outside, and making eye contact with someone. For that, it's about how to protect the time and energy of parents.

Screens are convenient. They can sometimes be a lifesaver. However, for babies, the best educational material to understand the world is still a human face, a voice, a hug, and repeated conversations. Therefore, the conclusion does not become extreme. There's no need to overly blame oneself for showing a little. But it's also not okay to leave it to screens for too long. What is needed in parenting is not the correctness of "zero or 100," but the accumulation of small adjustments to bring human interaction back to the forefront of daily life.

Source URL

1. Independent (72% of 9-month-olds are exposed to screens daily, averaging 41 minutes, differences due to being an only child or family structure, government to publish guidelines in April)
   https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/babies-children-toddlers-screen-time-b2938981.html
2. Education Policy Institute (Analysis underlying the Independent article. Using "Children of the 2020s" data, showing 77% have "none" or "within an hour," 2% exceed 3 hours, etc.)
   https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/babies-and-screentime/
3. GOV.UK "Early years screen time and usage" (Confirmation that the UK government plans to publish screen time guidance for ages 0-5 in April 2026 and conducted evidence collection in February)
   https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/early-years-screen-time-and-usage
4. WHO "To grow up healthy, children need to sit less and play more" (International guidelines confirming non-recommendation of screens for under 1 year, generally non-recommended for 1 year, under 1 hour for 2 years and older)
   https://www.who.int/news/item/24-04-2019-to-grow-up-healthy-children-need-to-sit-less-and-play-more
5. American Academy of Pediatrics "Screen Time for Infants" (Supplementary information that infants learn from exploring the real world and interacting with adults, and if they watch, it should be high-quality content with a caregiver)
   https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health/qa-portal/qa-portal-library/qa-portal-library-questions/screen-time-for-infants/
6. GOV.UK "Children of the 2020s: second survey of families at age 2" (Entrance to the overall government-related survey at age 2. Reports on screen time, language development, family environment, etc.)
   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-of-the-2020s-second-survey-of-families-at-age-2
7. GOV.UK PDF "home learning environment and screen time at age 2: research brief" (Confirmation that the relationship between screen time and development in 2-year-olds is a correlation, not causation)
   https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695fc42241ddb40d13f76527/COT2020s_-_home_learning_environment_and_screen_time_at_age_2_-_research_brief.pdf
8. Guardian article (High screen group of 2-year-olds scored 53% on vocabulary test, low screen group 65%, 98% watch daily, reported as correlation not causation)
   https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/11/excessive-screen-time-limits-vocabulary-of-toddlers-experts-warn
9. Mumsnet "If you let your under 1 have screen time, do you now regret it?" (Examples of parent community reactions. "A little is realistic," "Don't regret it," "Hard to avoid with older siblings," etc.)
   https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/parenting/5337408-if-you-let-your-under-1-have-screen-time-do-you-now-regret-it
10. Mumsnet "Screen time long term guilt" (Referenced as a specific example of long-term guilt over "showing too much")
    https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/parenting/5014710-screen-time-long-term-guilt
11. Mumsnet "To have massively failed my toddler (screen time)" (Referenced as a specific example of the debate dividing into "concern over long hours" and "balance is important")
    https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/parenting/4529960-To-have-massively-failed-my-toddler-screen-time?flipped=1&page=1