In Toy Story 5, Woody, Buzz, Jessie and the gang are up against a new challenge: Bonnie’s tablet. Even Rex the toy dinosaur is worried about going extinct again.
The storyline reflects a broader shift in childhood. Traditional toys increasingly share space with digital devices as part of children’s everyday play experiences.
There is substantial evidence showing a decline in traditional free play and an increase in digital play among children around Bonnie’s age (eight to ten years). Research has suggested that children in this age group spend an average of four hours per day on screens. This has approximately doubled compared to previous studies from 2009 to 2010, which mainly focused on traditional TV and video viewing for children of similar ages.
Play is essential in early childhood. It promotes cognitive, emotional and physical growth. Through play, children have opportunities to develop language and self-regulation skills.
It is important to recognise that digital play is still a form of play. While defining play can be challenging, it is often described in terms of how and why someone engages in an activity to have fun rather than solely by the activity itself.
Some experts argue that play is defined more by a child’s motivation and mental attitude than by the specific activity taking place. This means that using a tablet or smartphone can still be considered play, depending on how children interact with it.
Different – but still play
In 2002, play theorist Bob Hughes developed a framework categorising 16 distinct forms of play. These ranged from imaginative and socio-dramatic play, where children create stories and act out roles, to creative play, exploratory play and rough-and-tumble play.
More recently, other scholars have examined the place of digital play within this framework. The findings suggest that all forms of play, except two previously defined types – “recapitulative play” (play that involves re-enacting aspects of human history, such as building dens or making camps) and “rough and tumble” – can be adapted to the digital context. The authors contend that it is not necessarily the type of play that changes when screens are introduced, but rather the nature of the play experience itself.
Another study compared tablet play with traditional toy play by observing 98 different activities, both digital and non-digital. The authors concluded that tablet play was more likely to involve exploration, problem solving and skill acquisition. Traditional play involved more imagination and fantasy-based activities. Both forms of play may be important for development.
Play focused on exploration and problem solving (epistemic play) can support learning and skill acquisition. Imaginative (ludic) play can help children develop flexibility in their thinking, understanding of symbols and emotional processing. Rather than one form of play being better than the other, research suggests that different play experiences may provide different developmental opportunities.
A recent study randomly assigned children to play with either dolls or a tablet featuring open-ended creative games. The results indicated that children who played with dolls exhibited greater social understanding compared to those who interacted with tablets. This suggests that traditional imaginative play may provide opportunities for children to practise empathy and perspective taking.
Read more:
Dolls beat screens for building children’s social skills, study finds
Research has also raised questions about whether digital play may displace other forms of play. A large study found that greater screen time in young children was associated with less playtime with peers. This, in turn, was linked to developmental outcomes, including motor, communication, social and cognitive skills.
At the same time, research suggests that some forms of interactive digital play may support aspects of language development, executive function, memory and problem solving. Educational games and apps can provide opportunities for exploration and learning, particularly when children are actively engaged and supported by adults. The benefits of digital technologies often depend on factors such as the content being used, the child’s age and whether parents are involved in the activity.
Not all screen time is equal
These findings highlight why, in our research, we are moving beyond simple measures of screen time. A child passively watching videos for long periods is having a very different experience from a child creating digital artwork, solving puzzles, exploring an educational app or video-calling family members. Understanding how children engage with screens may be just as important as assessing how long they spend using them.
Setting time limits and designating screen-free periods can provide children with a better balance between free play and digital play. However, it is important to note that the decline in play is not solely due to children’s choices.
For instance, fewer opportunities for free play – child-led play that is unstructured and directed by children’s own interests and imagination – may contribute to this shift. Limits on children’s free play are often linked to concerns about neighbourhood safety. It is important to recognise that children have not lost their ability to engage in free play and, if given the opportunity, will do so.
Read more:
How to give children the freedom to play all across the city – not just in playgrounds
While Toy Story 5 may treat the tablet as the antagonist, the truth is more complicated. The use of electronic devices is a regular part of growing up now, and some forms of digital play can actually build useful skills. At the same time, traditional imaginative play continues to provide significant opportunities for social and emotional development.
The challenge may not be about choosing between toys and tablets. Instead, it may be about ensuring children have opportunities to experience a wide range of play experiences.
Amy Hughes receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant number 159040. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Liane Beretta de Azevedo receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant number 159040. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.