ReviewThe British journal of developmental psychology2026
Conceptualizing age-appropriate social media to support children's digital futures.
Review in The British journal of developmental psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptualizing age-appropriate social media to support children's digital futures.The British journal of developmental psychology · 2026Review
- Digital Media Use and Psychosocial Health among Adolescent Boys and Young Men.Current psychiatry reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Is there really a 'right age' for social media? As governments rush to regulate children's digital lives, age-based bans and 'age-appropriate' design regulations are gaining international momentum. However, these are often based on theoretically dated 'ages and stages' models and blunt age thresholds. This article examines three seemingly divergent yet surprisingly convergent approaches. First, emerging regulatory frameworks are embedding 'age-appropriate' design and bright-line age limits. Second, social science research on children's digital experience, offers valuable documentation of developmental variability across ages but provides limited policy-ready guidance and often lacks developmental theory. Third, a normative child rights framework grounded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's principle of 'evolving capacities' urges a balance between protection and participation rights in ways that take into account children's variable capacities and increasing autonomy. Given the often fraught and contested nature of the debates over digital policy, we call on developmental psychologists to scrutinize proposed age thresholds, map developmental evidence to diverse contexts, and bring contemporary theory and robust evidence to inform policy. Without this input, decisions that matter to children's digital lives will be left to political expediency and corporate interests, overlooking or even undermining children's rights and developmental needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.