Short answer: screens have a small link to how kids feel. It is real, but it is tiny, not big. What seems to matter more is what the screen time replaces, like sleep, play, or time with family and friends. No study has proven that screens themselves are what makes kids feel worse.
A lot of parents worry that screen time is quietly hurting their kid's mental health. Nine different research teams have tested that idea directly, in kids from 6 months old to 18 years old, in the US, UK, China, Ireland, and the Gulf states. Every team found the same thing: the link is real, but small. It stays that same small size no matter which age group or country you check. What actually predicts trouble is something else, not the number on the clock.
Here is what the research actually found, why the small number matters so much, and the one real exception we found, which is not even about teenagers.
The study built to settle this
In 2019, two researchers at Oxford noticed a problem. Most studies pick one way to measure "screen time" and one way to measure "how a kid is doing." They run the numbers once and publish whatever they get. But change those choices even a little, and the answer can swing wildly. A single study might say more about the choices the researchers made than about kids.
So instead of picking once, these two researchers ran the test every fair way they could think of, over 40,000 different ways for one big survey alone, across three separate surveys of teenagers in the US and UK. More than 355,000 kids in total.
No matter how they ran it, the answer came out the same: screen use explained, at most, 0.4% of the difference in how teens said they felt.
That is not zero. It is a real number. But it is nearly invisible next to everything else that actually shapes how a teenager is doing.
The detail almost nobody repeats
Here is the clever part. The same researchers ran the exact same test on other things too, things that obviously should not matter, just to use as a comparison.
- Getting enough sleep helped kids up to 44 times more than screen time hurt them.
- Eating breakfast regularly helped up to 30 times more.
- Being bullied hurt kids about 4 to 5 times more than screens did.
- Wearing glasses, something with no reason to affect a teenager's mood at all, showed up more connected to low mood than screen time did, in one of the three surveys.
- Listening to music showed an even stronger negative link than screens did, in another survey.
Nobody thinks wearing glasses makes a kid unhappy. That is the whole point of testing it. When something we know does not matter shows a number just as big as screen time's number, that tells you screen time's number probably is not a real, special signal either. It sits in the same pile as background noise.
Think of a coin that is very slightly unfair, landing on heads just a tiny bit more than half the time. Flip it ten times and you would never notice. Flip it ten million times and you could prove, with total confidence, that it really is unfair. But that does not mean the coin suddenly became a big deal. It is still barely tilted. The huge number of flips just let you see a real but tiny thing that was too small to see before. That is close to what happened with screen time. Testing 355,000 kids let researchers detect a real but very small link, the same way millions of coin flips can detect a real but very small bias. It is real. It is just not big.
A different, earlier study of 120,000 English 15 year olds found something similar, a different way. The link between screen time and how kids felt was not even a straight line. It curved. A little screen time looked fine, sometimes even a bit better than none at all. Only a lot of screen time looked worse. Even then, the researchers were careful to say:
the possible harmful influence of screen time on young people is fairly small, even if one assumes that our correlational data indicate direct causal relations
In plain words: even if you assumed every bit of this was screens directly causing harm, which the researchers could not actually prove, the harm would still be small.
It's not just one study
Here is the part that is easy to miss if you only read one headline at a time. This is not one study's opinion. It is the same small link, showing up again and again, at every age researchers have actually checked.
Toddlers and preschoolers, ages 6 months to 5 years, in a huge US survey of nearly 49,000 kids. Elementary school kids in Shanghai, over 17,000 of them, and in Ireland, nearly 900. Middle schoolers followed for two years, to see if today's screen time predicts tomorrow's mood, not just whether the two happen to move together. Teenagers, in three different countries, using three different methods. Nine separate research teams, none of them working together, all landing in the same small range.
And that curve keeps showing up too, not just in teens. In one big US study of preschoolers, kids getting less than an hour a day actually did a little worse than kids getting exactly an hour. "Zero screens is the safest choice" is not quite what the data says either.
So why does it feel like a crisis?
Here is why this still feels scary, even though the numbers are small. One thing in all of this is completely real: teen depression, anxiety, and suicide rates in the US genuinely rose sharply starting around 2010, especially among girls, right as smartphones went from rare to everywhere. That is not a myth. No study here says otherwise.
One well known 2018 study looked at that rise and argued screen time was the cause. It pointed to numbers that moved almost perfectly together, year by year: as more teens got phones, more teens reported feeling depressed.
But here is the part worth knowing. That same study's own numbers, at the level of one individual kid, were the same small size as everyone else's. The big, scary looking numbers came from a different kind of comparison. Instead of comparing individual kids to each other, the researchers compared national averages, year by year. That is a much weaker kind of evidence, closer to noticing that ice cream sales and drowning deaths both go up in the summer. They move together, but ice cream is not causing anyone to drown. Hot weather causes both, more swimming and more ice cream, at the same time.
A separate team later tested that exact idea directly. They checked whether the link between technology and mental health had actually gotten stronger over time, as apps got more designed to grab attention, across 26 years of data. They found no evidence it had. In one case, it actually got a little weaker.
A review published two years after the original study explained the size of the effect in the clearest way we found anywhere in this research:
[The original study] reported on a correlation that accounted for <1% of the variation in depressive symptoms; that is 99.666% of the variation in adolescent's depressive symptoms was due to other factors
In plain words: even taking that study's own numbers at face value, more than 99 percent of why one teen is depressed and another is not has nothing to do with screen time at all.
The same review pointed out something else worth knowing. Other researchers looked at that exact same group of teens later and found the link between social media and depression had actually gotten weaker between 2009 and 2017, even while teens were using social media more and more. Same numbers. Very different headline, depending on who was telling the story.
None of this means the teen mental health crisis is not real. It is real. It just means the honest answer to "is it the phones" is: probably not mostly, and it has not been proven.
What actually moves the needle
If screen time is only a small piece of the puzzle, what is a bigger piece? One study measured several things side by side, in a group of over 17,000 kids, and it points to a clear answer: sleep.
Kids sleeping less than 9 hours a night were more than twice as likely to have poor mental health. Screen time over 2 hours a day raised the risk too, but by less than sleep did. When researchers worked out the best way to split a kid's day between sleep, activity, homework, and screens, the answer was always the same: protect sleep first, then activity, then homework. Screen time is the first thing that should give up its share.
A separate study of nearly 900 kids in Ireland found something that points the same way, from another angle. Kids under 2 hours of daily screen time scored better on four different measures of how they were doing, except one. The one measuring something closest to actual mental health showed no difference at all. The things that did improve were things screen time plausibly gets in the way of: being active, spending time with family, doing well in school, spending time with friends. The one thing that did not improve was the thing closest to what "screen time hurts kids" is usually supposed to mean.
Put together, the pattern is simple: it is not the screen. It is what the screen takes the place of.
Here is one more wrinkle, because it makes the easy version of this advice more complicated. In one big study of 9 and 10 year olds, followed for two years, the screen activity most connected to later sadness was not gaming or social media. It was video chatting, the most obviously "social" of the activities they tested. Nobody fully knows why. Maybe lonely kids lean on video calls more. Maybe it is something about the activity itself. Either way, "social screen time is automatically the safe kind" does not quite hold up either.
The one real exception, and it's not about teenagers
One study in this research asks a totally different question, and it is about preschoolers, not teens: what actually decides whether taking a screen away turns into a meltdown?
Researchers studied 654 families and tested the obvious guesses. Does the child's own self control matter? Tested directly. No effect. Does more family time together help, more reading, singing, or drawing together? Also tested directly. Also no measurable effect.
What did matter, by a wide margin, was whether the child had real, rich play with actual toys. Kids who got bored of a new toy the same day, who could only play with one kind of thing, who could not play alone for even ten minutes, those were the kids who melted down hardest when the screen came away. Kids who played richly with real toys handled it far better, no matter how much family time they got or how much self control they had shown before.
Here is how the researchers explained it:
The fact that children demonstrating advanced play are less prone to painful screen time transitions might be explained by the engrossing alternative to media which is available to them... play has certain characteristics other activities... are deprived of.
In plain words: it is not the rule, and it is not willpower. It is whether the kid has something else genuinely worth doing.
What this research can't tell you
Worth saying plainly.
None of this proves screens play zero part in the real crisis among teen girls. A small, real link at the individual level and a real, scary trend at the population level can both be true at the same time. The small link just cannot show screens are the whole reason on their own. That gap is honest, not solved.
Almost everything here comes from watching, not testing. Nobody can fairly assign some kids to years of heavy screen time and other kids to years of almost none, then watch what happens. That would be the only way to really prove screens cause anything. Every single source in this research says so about itself, without being asked. That is the one thing every side of this debate agrees on.
Nobody has good numbers on truly heavy use. The highest amounts directly tested topped out around 4 to 5 hours a day. If your kid's real weekend number goes well past that, this research has not actually measured that far. Not disproven, just not tested.
The kind of screen time matters, and almost none of this research can tell the kinds apart. The video chat finding above is the clearest proof that "screen time" as one single number hides real differences. Most studies, including this one, cannot tell building something apart from scrolling through something.
Where we land
If a family reads all of this and decides the right choice for them is to keep screens out completely, that is not a worse choice than the one this research points toward. Connection, and the effort a parent puts into it, is the greatest thing here, full stop. Nothing in this research says keeping screens away, paired with real presence, is the wrong call. If anything, the families doing the most protective thing this research actually found, enough sleep, enough activity, real time together, a parent who is genuinely there, are doing it whether or not a screen ever enters the house.
If that is your family, and RiseOhana is not the right fit because of how it uses screens, we mean this sincerely, not as a sales pitch. We wish your family every blessing and every success.
What we did with it
RiseOhana is an app, but the quests are not something a kid does on the screen. They are real things to do out in the world, building a fort, learning a bike trick, cooking something, going on a hike, trying a new sport. The screen is where a parent and a kid plan it together. It is not where the activity happens. So this research is not neutral for us. It is the question we had to actually answer before building anything.
The finding we leaned on hardest was not "screens are fine." It was the preschooler study's finding: what decides whether screen time goes well is not the rule, it is the alternative. Our mission is to help parents partner with their kids to build activity plans that are actually fun, without the frustration of coming up with ideas alone or spending hours discovering what to do next. That planning is real work for a parent, and it is the work we built the app to take off their plate. A kid with a real, exciting plan for the afternoon needs a lot less convincing to put the screen down than a kid staring at nothing to do.
Here is what we did not build: a points system that treats every minute on a screen the same, or a design meant to keep a kid staring at an app for longer. This research is clear that screen time by itself is not the villain everyone assumes. But it is just as clear that what gets pushed out matters most, and a family's sleep, activity, and time together always come first. Ours is built to point kids back outside, not to keep them in front of a screen longer.
References
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the Goldilocks hypothesis: quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173–182. doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1
Vuorre, M., Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2021). There is no evidence that associations between adolescents' digital technology engagement and mental health problems have increased. Clinical Psychological Science, 9(5), 823–835. doi.org/10.1177/2167702621994549
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376
Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. (2020). Adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 336–348. doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13190
Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., Li, X., Ip, P., Ho, F., Jiang, Y., Sun, W., Zhu, Q., Zhu, W., Zhang, J., Zhao, H., Wang, G., Shen, X., & Jiang, F. (2017). Daily time-use patterns and obesity and mental health among primary school students in Shanghai: a population-based cross-sectional study. Scientific Reports, 7, 16200. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15102-4
Belton, S., Issartel, J., Behan, S., Goss, H., & Peers, C. (2021). The differential impact of screen time on children's wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9143. doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179143
Nagata, J. M., Al-Shoaibi, A. A. A., Leong, A. W., Zamora, G., Testa, A., Ganson, K. T., & Baker, F. C. (2024). Screen time and mental health: a prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. BMC Public Health, 24, 2686. doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20102-x
Kwon, S., Armstrong, B., Wetoska, N., & Capan, S. (2024). Screen time, sociodemographic factors, and psychological well-being among young children. JAMA Network Open, 7(3), e2354488. doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.54488
Gavrilova, M., & Veraksa, N. (2024). Not EF skills but play with real toys prevents screen time tantrums in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1384424. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1384424