Screen media that helps: pacing, repetition, participation and co-viewing

Background: why the design of a video matters

Most debate about screens is about quantity. For a parent choosing a short video to help a child through a hard moment, a second question matters as much: what is on the screen, how it is paced, and what happens around it. A two-minute cartoon about going into class is very different from an hour of autoplay.

Researchers have studied children's learning from television for more than fifty years. A widely cited review concluded that well-designed, age-appropriate educational programmes can benefit preschool children, that content matters, and that children under two seem to learn better from real-life experience than from video (Kirkorian et al., 2008). This review looks at the design features that the evidence links to learning and wellbeing: prosocial content, pacing and fantasy, repetition, invitations to take part, familiar characters, and, most consistently, an adult who watches and talks with the child.

How the research has been done

Three kinds of study dominate this field.

• Short laboratory experiments. Children, usually aged 4 to 6, are randomly assigned to watch one of two clips for a few minutes (for example fast or slow, fantastical or realistic) or to play, and are then tested straight away. Many of these studies measure executive function: the mental skills that let a child hold information in mind, stop an impulse and switch between rules, tested with games such as waiting for a treat or pressing a button only for some pictures.
• Field and long-term studies. Children who do or do not watch a programme are followed over weeks or years, sometimes in natural experiments where access depended on where a family lived.
• Meta-analyses. These pool many studies into an average effect size, a standard measure of how big a difference is. A value of d = 0.2 is conventionally called small, 0.5 medium and 0.8 large; correlations (r) of around 0.1 are small.

Outcomes are usually comprehension, vocabulary, school-readiness skills, prosocial behaviour (helping, sharing, kindness) or executive function. Very few studies measure how children cope with a feared situation, the outcome that matters most for Cala Luna. Most samples are US preschoolers.

What the reviews and trials found

Educational and prosocial content can help

Sesame Street. A meta-analysis of 24 studies with more than 10,000 children in 15 countries found positive effects of watching the programme, with an overall effect size of d = 0.29: small but consistent. Effects ranged from d = 0.19 for social attitudes to d = 0.34 for learning about the world, such as health and safety knowledge, and were found in low-, middle- and high-income countries (Mares & Pan, 2013). A natural experiment using differences in broadcast reception when the programme launched in 1969 found that children with better access did better at school, especially boys, although long-term estimates were imprecise (Kearney & Levine, 2019).

Prosocial television. A meta-analysis of 34 studies (108 effect sizes, 5,473 children) found consistent moderate benefits of prosocial content in experiments, across social interaction, altruism, aggression and stereotyping. Effects were largest for programmes showing altruism, mainly because these explicitly modelled the desired behaviour. In the few studies where prosocial messages came wrapped in aggressive content, effects were strongly negative (Mares & Woodard, 2005). A later meta-analysis of 72 studies also linked prosocial media with more prosocial behaviour and empathy and less aggression, with effects varying by age, media type and study design (Coyne et al., 2018).

The message has to be understood. When 64 kindergarteners watched an episode meant to promote acceptance of a disabled character, most children misunderstood the moral and did not generalise it beyond the plot. In the original version, where the character was feared before being accepted, children who better understood the characters' goals and emotions were less likely to get the message; in a version with the fear edited out, children who followed the story better were more likely to get it (Mares & Acosta, 2008). In a follow-up with 128 children aged 4 to 6, episodes that showed hostility before friendliness had no benefit, or even a negative effect, on inclusiveness unless short explanatory inserts were added (Mares & Acosta, 2010). These findings fit the capacity model of educational television, which proposes that young viewers have limited working memory to share between following the story and taking in the lesson, so a lesson that is integral to the plot is easier to absorb than one that sits beside it (Fisch, 2000).

Pacing and fantasy: a live debate

In a widely reported experiment, 60 four-year-olds were randomly assigned to watch a fast-paced cartoon or an educational cartoon, or to draw, for nine minutes; those who saw the fast-paced cartoon did worse on executive function tasks (Lillard & Peterson, 2011). Because the fast show was also full of impossible events, pace and fantasy were confounded. Three follow-up studies found that fast, fantastical shows lowered executive function in 4- and 6-year-olds, and that in a direct comparison only fantastical shows, regardless of pacing, had this effect (Lillard et al., 2015).

Other teams found a more mixed picture. In a UK study of 70 children aged 2 to 4½, the same four-minute story film edited with many more camera cuts led children to switch between toys more often afterwards (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2017b). Yet when the same group varied pace and story realism separately with 187 four-year-olds, unrealistic stories improved response inhibition, the opposite of the earlier pattern, and pace affected attention only in combination with realism (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2019). Studies with 5- and 6-year-olds have found poorer executive function after fantastical clips (Rhodes et al., 2020), but in one trial with 120 children the effect on inhibitory control disappeared when testing was delayed by ten minutes (Keşşafoğlu et al., 2024).

The best summary so far is a 2025 meta-analysis. Across 19 studies (1,431 children aged 1½ to 10), pace had no reliable effect on attention or executive function (d = −0.12, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.09). Across 16 studies of fantasy (1,297 children aged 1½ to 6), children did somewhat worse immediately after fantastical than realistic media (d = −0.24, 95% CI −0.44 to −0.05). Results varied so widely that, depending on conditions, effects could be negative, positive or absent (Hinten et al., 2025). Why fantasy might tax young viewers is debated (Lillard, 2026). An earlier systematic review of 76 studies reached a similar overall judgement: content and editing pace may matter, effects depend on the child and the family context, and it is unclear whether short-term effects last (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2017a).

Repetition helps comprehension

When 3- to 5-year-olds watched the same Blue's Clues episode on five consecutive days, their attention stayed high (it dropped only among 5-year-old boys), they answered and pointed at the screen more, especially during educational parts, and their comprehension improved (Crawley et al., 1999). Experienced viewers also interacted more with new episodes and even with a different series, suggesting children learn a style of viewing (Crawley et al., 2002). A summary of the programme's research reported a positive effect on cognitive development in regular viewers compared with similar children who could not receive the programme (Anderson et al., 2000). Several authors of these studies worked on the programme, including one of its co-creators, which readers should weigh. In an Australian study, 4- to 6-year-olds who watched an animated film five times understood it, and its main character, better than children who watched once (Skouteris & Kelly, 2006).

Invitations to take part, and familiar characters

Pausing to invite the viewer to answer is a signature of programmes such as Dora the Explorer. In an experiment with 187 preschoolers (mean age 4.35 years), removing these participatory cues from an episode made no overall difference to comprehension. Children who already knew the programme well, however, understood most when the cues were present (Piotrowski, 2014).

Children also learn more from characters they care about. A review of research with under-6s argued that children's relationships with on-screen characters (parasocial relationships) shape learning as much as their understanding of the screen does (Richert et al., 2011). In experiments with toddlers, 48 children aged 21 months learned a sequencing task better from a socially meaningful character than from a less meaningful one (Lauricella et al., 2011), and toddlers who had watched and played with a character for three months beforehand learned from its video demonstration better than controls, while toddlers shown an unfamiliar character did not (Howard Gola et al., 2013). These studies involve children much younger than Cala Luna's audience.

Co-viewing and talk: the most consistent finding

The strongest experimental evidence concerns what adults do. In a trial with 81 parents and their 3-year-olds, parents were trained to pause storybook videos, ask questions and let the child tell parts of the story (dialogic questioning). After four weeks their children scored higher on story comprehension and vocabulary than children whose parents only paused and commented, or did nothing different. A version with an on-screen actress asking the questions fell in between (Strouse et al., 2013). With 88 children aged 30 months, a parent modelling how to respond to the screen increased word learning, while making the on-screen actress responsive did not (Strouse et al., 2018). Presence alone may not be enough: in the Australian repetition study, mothers who were asked to co-view did not, by being there, improve their children's comprehension (Skouteris & Kelly, 2006).

The same pattern appears for social and emotional content. When 127 children aged 2 to 6 watched ten episodes of Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood over two weeks, gains in empathy, self-efficacy and emotion recognition appeared among children whose parents frequently talked with them about what they watched, especially younger children and those from low-income families (Rasmussen et al., 2016). In a single-case study, two 5-year-old autistic children improved at trying new foods and stopping play politely only after watching episodes that modelled those skills (Dotson et al., 2017). In a meta-analysis of 42 studies (18,905 children) reporting associations, co-viewing (r = 0.16) and educational programmes (r = 0.13) were associated with stronger language, and more hours of screen use with weaker language (r = −0.14) (Madigan et al., 2020).

Why very young children learn less from video than from a live person (the video deficit) is covered in our article on cartoons and real video.

For whom and under what conditions

Age, and what the guidance says

Age is the clearest moderator, and guidance draws its lines by age. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises no screen media other than video-chatting before 18 months; if media are introduced at 18 to 24 months, high-quality programmes watched together; and, for ages 2 to 5, an hour a day or less of high-quality programming, watched together, avoiding fast-paced programmes, which young children understand less well. It advises against using media as the only way to calm a child, and against screens at meals and in the hour before bed (AAP Council on Communications and Media, 2016). The World Health Organization recommends no screen time for infants or 1-year-olds and no more than one hour a day for children aged 2 to 4, with less being better, and encourages reading and storytelling with a caregiver when children are sitting still (World Health Organization, 2019).

In the UK, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health declined in 2019 to set an overall time limit, finding the evidence for any threshold weak, and asked families to judge whether screens displace sleep, activity and time together (Viner et al., 2019). In March 2026 the UK government published screen-time advice for parents of under-5s: avoid screens under 2 except shared activities such as video calls; about an hour a day at 2 to 5; slow-paced, predictable content with simple stories, few scene changes and characters who speak slowly; and watching and talking together (Department for Education, 2026). The expert report behind it reviewed 63 systematic reviews, found the evidence that fast-paced content harms attention to be mixed, noted that most underlying studies were cross-sectional, and said it took a precautionary approach where evidence was lacking (Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group, 2026).

For school-age children, UK guidance focuses on whether screens displace sleep, activity and family time rather than on fixed limits (Viner et al., 2019). None of these documents addresses a single short video used with an adult for a specific purpose, but their principles apply: brief, calm, high-quality, watched together and talked about.

Other moderators

• Family circumstances. Effects of Sesame Street in low-income samples were positive (d = 0.41) (Mares & Pan, 2013), and the Daniel Tiger gains were strongest for younger and low-income children (Rasmussen et al., 2016).
• Familiarity and explicitness. Children who know a programme's format respond more to its invitations (Crawley et al., 2002), and prosocial effects are largest when the behaviour is shown clearly (Mares & Woodard, 2005).
• Autistic children. Programmes that model a specific skill can work like video modelling, though evidence comes from very small samples (Dotson et al., 2017).

What this means in practice

• Watch together, then talk. This has the strongest support. Pause, ask open questions ("What do you think she'll do?"), and let your child retell the story (Strouse et al., 2013). Simply being in the room may add little (Skouteris & Kelly, 2006).
• Link it to your child's life. Ask "When could you try that?" Regular talk about programmes goes with greater social-emotional gains (Rasmussen et al., 2016).
• Rewatching is fine, even useful. Repetition improves understanding and invites participation (Crawley et al., 1999).
• Choose calm, clear content with one message. The case against fast pacing is weaker than often claimed, but calm content is a reasonable precaution and is what guidance recommends (Hinten et al., 2025); (Department for Education, 2026).
• Say the lesson in words. Young children often miss a moral that is only implied; name it afterwards (Mares & Acosta, 2010).
• Keep screens in their place. Short, purposeful viewing, not at meals or before bed, followed by a real step (AAP Council on Communications and Media, 2016).

What this means for short personalised cartoons

This research suggests several design choices for a short cartoon meant to prepare a child for a hard moment. They are the principles Cala Luna works from; we present them as plausible, not tested.

• Calm pacing and few cuts. A precaution consistent with guidance, rather than an established necessity (Hinten et al., 2025).
• One idea, built into the story. The coping step is the plot, not a lesson added at the end (Fisch, 2000).
• No frightening build-up, and an explicit resolution. Showing a fear at length before resolving it can confuse young viewers; a plain statement of the lesson helps (Mares & Acosta, 2008); (Mares & Acosta, 2010).
• Built for rewatching, with room to pause and invite the child to answer (in the video or by the parent), while recognising that such cues helped mainly children who already knew the format (Piotrowski, 2014).
• A character the child cares about. Children learn more from characters they have a relationship with (Richert et al., 2011). Whether seeing a cartoon version of oneself adds to this is discussed in our review of personalisation.
• An adult conversation afterwards. Each personalised cartoon comes with a parent guide suggesting where to pause, what to ask and which small real step to try.

What does not transfer: the Sesame Street and Blue's Clues effects came from full-length episodes watched repeatedly, often over months, not one two-minute video, and most outcomes were knowledge and vocabulary, not coping. Nobody has tested whether a short cartoon of this kind changes how a child manages a real moment.

Limits of the evidence

• Most pacing and fantasy studies test children minutes after a single clip in a laboratory; one trial found the effect gone after ten minutes (Keşşafoğlu et al., 2024).
• Results are highly heterogeneous, and definitions of "fast" and "fantastical" vary (Hinten et al., 2025).
• Much evidence on co-viewing and educational content is correlational, so families who co-view may differ in other ways (Madigan et al., 2020).
• Some influential studies were run with programme makers.
• Samples are mostly US preschoolers; children aged 6 to 9, and children with anxiety, are rarely studied.
• Screen-time guidance rests largely on observational evidence and expert judgement (Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group, 2026).

Open questions for research

• Does a short video of a child coping with a specific situation (a haircut, the school gate) reduce distress or avoidance at the real event more than the same story read aloud?
• Does an adult's guided conversation after a short cartoon add to its effect, as it does for comprehension and vocabulary, when the outcome is coping behaviour?
• Do participatory pauses help when a child sees a format for the first time, or only after it becomes familiar?
• Is the short-term effect of fantastical content relevant to calm, story-led animation for 5- to 9-year-olds, or only to fast, impossible events?
• How many viewings before a hard moment are optimal, and when should the last one be?

Frequently asked questions

References

1. Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young children's learning. The Future of Children, 18(1), 39–61. doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0002 · PubMed
2. Mares, M.-L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children's learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 140–151. doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001
3. Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2019). Early childhood education by television: Lessons from Sesame Street. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(1), 318–350. doi.org/10.1257/app.20170300
4. Mares, M.-L., & Woodard, E. (2005). Positive effects of television on children's social interactions: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 7(3), 301–322. doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0703_4
5. Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Holmgren, H. G., Davis, E. J., Collier, K. M., Memmott-Elison, M. K., & Hawkins, A. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, and empathic concern: A multidimensional approach. Developmental Psychology, 54(2), 331–347. doi.org/10.1037/dev0000412 · PubMed
6. Mares, M.-L., & Acosta, E. E. (2008). Be kind to three-legged dogs: Children's literal interpretations of TV's moral lessons. Media Psychology, 11(3), 377–399. doi.org/10.1080/15213260802204355
7. Mares, M.-L., & Acosta, E. E. (2010). Teaching inclusiveness via TV narratives in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 4(3), 231–247. doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2010.486127
8. Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63–91. doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0201_4
9. Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children's executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), 644–649. doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1919 · PubMed
10. Lillard, A. S., Drell, M. B., Richey, E. M., Boguszewski, K., & Smith, E. D. (2015). Further examination of the immediate impact of television on children's executive function. Developmental Psychology, 51(6), 792–805. doi.org/10.1037/a0039097 · PubMed
11. Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., & Simpson, A. (2017a). The relationship between television exposure and children's cognition and behaviour: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 44, 19–58. doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.12.002
12. Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., Gossmann, A. M., Barber, K. J., & Simpson, A. (2017b). Differential effects of film on preschool children's behaviour dependent on editing pace. Acta Paediatrica, 106(5), 831–836. doi.org/10.1111/apa.13770 · PubMed
13. Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., & Simpson, A. (2019). Disentangling the effects of video pace and story realism on children's attention and response inhibition. Cognitive Development, 49, 94–104. doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.12.003
14. Rhodes, S. M., Stewart, T. M., & Kanevski, M. (2020). Immediate impact of fantastical television content on children's executive functions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 268–288. doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12318 · PubMed
15. Keşşafoğlu, D., Küntay, A., & Uzundağ, B. A. (2024). Immediate and delayed effects of fantastical content on children's executive functions and mental transformation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 248, Article 106067. doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106067 · PubMed
16. Hinten, A. E., Scarf, D., & Imuta, K. (2025). Meta-analytic review of the short-term effects of media exposure on children's attention and executive functions. Developmental Science, 28(6), Article e70069. doi.org/10.1111/desc.70069 · PubMed
17. Lillard, A. S. (2026). Why does fantasy in screen media deplete children's executive function? Developmental Science, 29(2), Article e70143. doi.org/10.1111/desc.70143 · PubMed
18. Crawley, A. M., Anderson, D. R., Wilder, A., Williams, M., & Santomero, A. (1999). Effects of repeated exposures to a single episode of the television program Blue's Clues on the viewing behaviors and comprehension of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 630–637. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.630
19. Crawley, A. M., Anderson, D. R., Santomero, A., Wilder, A., Williams, M., Evans, M. K., & Bryant, J. (2002). Do children learn how to watch television? The impact of extensive experience with Blue's Clues on preschool children's television viewing behavior. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 264–280. doi.org/10.1093/joc/52.2.264
20. Anderson, D. R., Bryant, J., Wilder, A., Santomero, A., Williams, M., & Crawley, A. M. (2000). Researching Blue's Clues: Viewing behavior and impact. Media Psychology, 2(2), 179–194. doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0202_4
21. Skouteris, H., & Kelly, L. (2006). Repeated-viewing and co-viewing of an animated video: An examination of factors that impact on young children's comprehension of video content. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 22–30. doi.org/10.1177/183693910603100305
22. Piotrowski, J. T. (2014). Participatory cues and program familiarity predict young children's learning from educational television. Media Psychology, 17(3), 311–331. doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.932288
23. Richert, R. A., Robb, M. B., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Media as social partners: The social nature of young children's learning from screen media. Child Development, 82(1), 82–95. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01542.x · PubMed
24. Lauricella, A. R., Gola, A. A. H., & Calvert, S. L. (2011). Toddlers' learning from socially meaningful video characters. Media Psychology, 14(2), 216–232. doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.573465
25. Howard Gola, A. A., Richards, M. N., Lauricella, A. R., & Calvert, S. L. (2013). Building meaningful parasocial relationships between toddlers and media characters to teach early mathematical skills. Media Psychology, 16(4), 390–411. doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.783774
26. Strouse, G. A., O'Doherty, K., & Troseth, G. L. (2013). Effective coviewing: Preschoolers' learning from video after a dialogic questioning intervention. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2368–2382. doi.org/10.1037/a0032463 · PubMed
27. Strouse, G. A., Troseth, G. L., O'Doherty, K. D., & Saylor, M. M. (2018). Co-viewing supports toddlers' word learning from contingent and noncontingent video. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 310–326. doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.005 · PubMed
28. Rasmussen, E. E., Shafer, A., Colwell, M. J., et al. (2016). Relation between active mediation, exposure to Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, and US preschoolers' social and emotional development. Journal of Children and Media, 10(4), 443–461. doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1203806
29. Dotson, W. H., Rasmussen, E. E., Shafer, A., Colwell, M., Densley, R. L., Brewer, A. T., Alonzo, M. C., & Martinez, L. A. (2017). Evaluating the ability of the PBS children's show Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood to teach skills to two young children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10(1), 67–71. doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0134-z · PubMed
30. Madigan, S., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., Eirich, R., & Christakis, D. A. (2020). Associations between screen use and child language skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(7), 665–675. doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0327 · PubMed
31. AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), Article e20162591. doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591 · PubMed
32. World Health Organization. (2019). WHO guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. World Health Organization. apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311664
33. Viner, R., Davie, M., & Firth, A. (2019). The health impacts of screen time: A guide for clinicians and parents. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
34. Department for Education. (2026). Screen time guidance for under 5s. Best Start in Life, UK Government. beststartinlife.gov.uk/screen-time-under-5s/
35. Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group. (2026). Screen use by children aged under 5 [Independent report]. Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care. www.gov.uk/government/publications/screen-use-by-children-aged-under-5

Spotted an error, or know a study we should add? Email hello@calalunakids.com. Every study we draw on is in the research library; research terms are explained in our methods glossary.