Swapping screen time for books boosts language skills in preschoolers

A new analysis suggests that replacing time spent on digital devices with shared reading offers measurable developmental benefits for young children. Published in Computers in Human Behavior, the research indicates that swapping screen time for books correlates with improved language and emotional skills. These benefits appear to persist regardless of whether the screen content is educational or recreational.

Families today navigate a daily environment filled with televisions, tablets, and smartphones. This digital ubiquity forces parents to make constant choices about how children spend their waking hours. Because a day contains only twenty-four hours, time spent on one activity inevitably subtracts from time available for another. This concept suggests that the impact of screen time is not just about the exposure itself, but also about what activities are being displaced.

Shifeng Li from Northwest Normal University in China led a team to investigate these time trade-offs. The researchers sought to understand how reallocating specific blocks of time affects child development. They focused on the “opportunity cost” of media consumption. Their work moves beyond simple correlations to model what happens when a child swaps one activity for another.

The team recruited 202 kindergarten students aged three to six years from Lanzhou, China. They also enlisted the children’s parents to track daily routines. The researchers collected data on household demographics, including parental education and income. Parents provided detailed reports on how many minutes their children spent playing with them, reading together, or using screens.

The researchers categorized screen time into distinct types to allow for a nuanced analysis. They differentiated between educational content and recreational viewing. They also tracked whether the child used the device alone or co-viewed content with a parent. This distinction aimed to see if parental involvement mitigated the potential downsides of screen time.

To assess the children’s development, the team administered a battery of standardized tests. They measured language skills through tasks involving phonological awareness, such as manipulating sounds in words. Another test evaluated orthographic awareness, which involves understanding the visual patterns of written characters. Rapid naming tasks assessed how quickly children could identify familiar objects.

Socio-emotional skills were measured using a series of interactive tasks. Children viewed pictures of faces and named the emotions depicted, such as happiness or anger. They also listened to short stories and identified how a protagonist would feel in various situations. One specific assessment, the “Disappointing Gift” task, tested the children’s understanding of social display rules by asking how a character might hide their true feelings to be polite.

The researchers employed a statistical technique known as the isotemporal substitution model. This method mathematically estimates the effect of replacing a specific amount of time from one activity with another while keeping the total time constant. Instead of simply asking if screen time is bad, the model asks: What happens if a child reads for fifteen minutes instead of using a tablet for fifteen minutes?

The results indicated that parent-child reading was the most beneficial activity for the measured skills. Children who spent more time reading with their parents displayed better phonological and orthographic awareness. They also performed better on assessments of socio-emotional competence. Conversely, higher amounts of total screen time correlated with lower scores in these areas.

When the researchers applied the substitution model, the trade-offs became clear. Swapping screen time for an equivalent amount of parent-child reading was associated with observable gains in language and emotional skills. The reverse was also true. Substituting reading time with screen time predicted measurable declines in those same skills.

A finding of particular note involved the category of educational screen time. Many parents assume that “learning” apps or educational programs provide a safe harbor for development. However, the data showed that replacing parent-child reading with educational screen use still resulted in negative outcomes for language and emotional skills. The device itself, regardless of content, did not replicate the benefits of shared reading.

The study suggests that the interactive nature of reading offers something screens cannot easily match. The authors posit that books provide richer exposure to written text and phonological patterns. Furthermore, the act of reading together fosters emotional bonds and provides opportunities for parents to explain complex feelings.

Co-viewing, where parents watch screens with their children, also failed to outperform reading. While previous research suggests co-viewing is better than solo viewing, this study found that swapping reading for co-viewing still led to lower developmental scores. The shared focus on a screen does not appear to generate the same quality of interaction as the shared focus on a book.

The researchers also analyzed the impact of parent-child play. Unexpectedly, the study did not find a positive link between parent-child play and language skills in this specific group. In fact, replacing reading with play was associated with lower orthographic awareness. The authors suggest this may be due to the age of the participants.

By age three to six, children often shift toward peer play at school rather than relying solely on parents. Additionally, the authors noted that parents might play more frequently with children who are already showing signs of developmental delay. This could create a statistical artifact where higher play time correlates with lower skills.

The negative association between screen time and socio-emotional skills was consistent across different types of media. Whether the content was recreational or educational, substituting it for reading or play time was linked to poorer emotional understanding. The passive nature of watching a screen may reduce the opportunities for social input that are vital for learning to read emotions.

The authors emphasized the importance of “proximal processes” in development. This term refers to the enduring, reciprocal interactions between a child and their immediate environment. Parent-child reading serves as a prime example of a high-quality proximal process. It invites questions, responses, and joint attention in a way that digital media often fails to do.

Digital devices frequently utilize built-in feedback mechanisms. An app might cheer when a child gets an answer right, or buzz when they get it wrong. The authors suggest this feature might encourage parents to disengage, leaving the device to do the teaching. This reduces the rich verbal and emotional exchanges that occur during human-led activities.

There are limitations to this research that require consideration. The study utilized a cross-sectional design, meaning it captured a snapshot in time rather than following children over years. This makes it difficult to definitively prove that screen time caused the lower scores, only that they are related.

Additionally, the data relied on parents reporting their own habits and their children’s activities. Self-reported data can be subject to memory errors or the desire to present oneself in a positive light. Parents might underestimate screen time or overestimate reading time.

The study also focused on the quantity of time spent on activities, not the quality. It did not measure how engaging the parents were when reading or how interactive the play sessions were. Future research would benefit from observational data to assess the nuances of these parent-child interactions.

Despite these caveats, the implications for families are practical and clear. The findings suggest that when parents have a choice between handing a child a tablet or picking up a book, the book is the superior option for skill building. Even educational apps do not appear to be an adequate substitute for the linguistic and emotional richness of reading together.

The study reinforces the idea that family practices matter deeply in a screen-saturated world. While complete avoidance of screens may be unrealistic, prioritizing interactive, literacy-rich engagement offers a protective buffer. Simple shifts in daily schedules to favor analog interactions can yield developmental dividends.

Future investigations should explore these dynamics in older children and across different cultural contexts. Longitudinal studies could help clarify the long-term effects of these early time-use decisions. For now, the evidence points toward the enduring power of the printed page shared between parent and child.

The study, “Screens or books? Isotemporal substitution of different home activities on language and socio-emotional skills in preschool children,” was authored by Shifeng Li, Lin Chai, Lihong Ma, Shuyue Gu, Tao Wang, Li Wang, and Jianhua Zhou.