Humans constantly develop new ways of doing things that become progressively incorporated into a population’s stock of skills and knowledge, generating ever more sophisticated repertoires. This cumulative culture pivots on the cognitive engines of imitation (copying what others do) and innovation (developing new ways of doing things; Legare & Nielsen, Reference Legare and Nielsen2015). The contention that childhood, as a human autapomorphic life stage (Bogin, Reference Bogin1990; Bogin & Smith, Reference Bogin and Smith1996), has been a key to the emergence of cumulative culture (Nielsen, Reference Nielsen2012) fits with the thesis outlined by Lew-Levy and Amir: childhood is an evolutionary adaptation characterised by its own independent cultures that afford opportunity for innovative, norm-altering behaviours to emerge. However, whereas arguments that children form their own cultures are convincing, the contention that these cultures have lasting meaning that facilitates true cultural change seems flimsier.

Let us take supernatural belief systems as an example. Most of the world’s population adhere to a system of this kind, many of which fall under the moniker of organised religion. Yet while there are thousands of supernatural agents to believe in, most individuals will choose the same one(s) as their parents or, at the very least, that of their immediate cultural in-group (Smith, Reference Smith2020). As Hitchens (Reference Hitchens2007) wrote: “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” This inclination children have to adopt the normed religious attitudes of those around them can be best seen in the realm of rituals.

In a series of recent studies, Zhao and colleagues (Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Fong, Whiten and Nielsen2024a, Reference Zhao, Fong, Whiten and Nielsen2024b, Reference Zhao, Fong, Whiten and Nielsen2025) documented the willingness of young children to adopt an adult’s costly novel ritualised actions. In Zhao et al. (Reference Zhao, Fong, Whiten and Nielsen2024b), children could win stickers by inserting tokens into a tube within a given time: the more tokens inserted, the more stickers won. Half the children observed an experimenter model an approach that incorporated the initial placement of the tokens on the floor in a measured flower-like pattern, whereas the other half watched the experimenter model only the essential steps. Children in the ritual condition replicated the experimenter’s approach faithfully, despite the consequence of retrieving fewer stickers. Lew-Levy and Amir allude to the strong inclination children have for imitating, but that children do so to the extent outlined here seems misaligned with a framework in which children are creating their own lasting, meaningful cultures. If childhood cultures are meaningful, why are children not less inclined to worship the God(s) of those around them (indeed, why don’t they develop, and keep as real, their own)?

One domain where lasting change might be evident is in new technology. In the space of a single generation, the digital landscape has shifted dramatically (Munzer, Barr, & Nielsen, Reference Munzer, Barr and Nielsen2025). Children now have ready access to devices that their parents would have at one time thought of as fanciful. A recent survey (Mann et al., Reference Mann, Calvin, Lenhart and Robb2025) found that 40% of children have their own tablet by 2 years of age, with that number increasing to 60% by 4 years – remarkable given that the iPad was only made commercially available in 2010. Alongside the proliferation of device types are changes in programme availability, with, for example, a growing proportion of screen media time spent on YouTube, with slightly less than one-fifth of children under 2 years accessing online videos (Henderson et al., Reference Henderson, Bailes, Sturza, Robb, Radesky and Munzer2024). What this change might lead to is a shift in how screen media is perceived and processed.

In Fong and colleagues (Fong et al., Reference Fong, Imuta, Redshaw and Nielsen2021), children aged 4 to 6 years observed a videotaped model demonstrating the use of two tools in retrieving a sticker from a novel apparatus. Both tools could functionally complete the task, but one was more efficient and easier to use. The model incentivised use of the inefficient tool (“everybody here uses this”) while disincentivising the efficient tool (“or you could use this, but nobody here uses this”). Surprisingly, children who viewed the demonstration on a laptop displayed stronger tendencies to select the inefficient but socially sanctioned tool than those in a live condition. Children reverted to selecting the instrumental tool when the demonstration was projected from a mini-projector onto a small whiteboard, suggesting that experience with the medium may be altering perception of screen-based information. Fong and colleagues speculate that contemporary digital environments are leading children to interpret the detail they provide as normatively valuable. If this contention is valid, screens are becoming reliable sources of cultural detail and are viewed as not just passive sources of information and entertainment but as engaging, active guides to what is socially valuable. Screens might potentially become more relevant than live peers. When those who are presently children become adults, it may not only be the way they engage with screens that is manifestly different from how it is now, but also the ways they engage with each other. If we take our interpersonal cues from someone on a screen rather than someone in our immediate physical space, cultures will surely change.

One of the single most defining features of any cultural group is its supernatural belief system. Children appear highly adapted to saturate themselves with the one they are most prominently exposed to, regardless of any alternative perspective they might develop with their peers. In this way, childhood cultures appear not to impact the broader cultures they sit within. Conversely, the landscape of screen technology is rapidly changing, and with it comes new approaches to interacting with others. The ways screens are engaged with are becoming embedded early in developing minds in ways that engender change. This suggests childhood cultures do have the potential to impact the broader cultures they sit within. In their target article, Lew-Levy and Amir present a new way to consider childhood, one that will catalyse new empirical and theoretical endeavours. Endeavours that will be richer once we can identify the extent to which they are enduring and manifest in meaningful change.