Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40650402›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of developmental psychology2026

Conceptualizing age-appropriate social media to support children's digital futures.

Sonia Livingstone, Kim R Sylwander

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sonia LivingstoneDigital Futures for Children centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Kim R SylwanderDigital Futures for Children centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4733-6487

Funding

5Rights Foundation
6 · The paper itself

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

Child DevelopmentSocial MediaAge FactorsChildHumanschildren's rightscognitive developmentcomputers/technologydevelopmental theorymediapublic/social policysocial/emotional developmentsocial media

Identifiers

PMID40650402
PMCPMC13155263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.