{"id":11046,"date":"2026-09-14T08:43:35","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T06:43:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/advances.in\/psychology\/?p=11046"},"modified":"2026-09-14T08:43:37","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T06:43:37","slug":"special-issue-social-media-bans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/advances.in\/psychology\/10.56296\/special-issue-social-media-bans\/","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Bans: Unpacking the Complexities of Social Media Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Deadline: <\/strong>February 28, 2027 (earlier submission is encouraged)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nearly 30 years ago, Robert Kraut and colleagues (1998) proposed that online communication decreases psychological well-being, and a decade ago, Morten Tromholt (2016) concluded that quitting Facebook leads to higher well-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In line with these statements, there is increasing public debate about the possible detrimental consequences of social media for individuals and societies, with particular concern about its effects on young people and other potentially vulnerable groups. Accordingly, many countries are in the process of implementing or have already implemented social media bans. For instance, since late 2025, Australia has required social media platforms to prevent usage by people under the age of 16. However, while some point to considerable harm caused by social media, the platforms\u2019 sustained popularity and pronounced significance also suggest beneficial effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the debate on social media regulation often focuses on a simplified dichotomy of \u201cban versus no-ban,\u201d from an empirical research perspective, the topic is more complex:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social media does not provide uniform exposure across all platforms and all users, young people are not a homogeneous population, and effective regulation can be more than a single intervention in the form of a ban. The consequences of social media use, and of its regulation, are likely to vary across platforms, individuals, contexts, and outcomes, whether mental health-related, political, or social. Consequently, broad claims about whether social media use or its regulation is \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d are of limited scientific value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aim of this Special Issue is therefore not to advocate unconditionally for or against social media bans. Rather, it is to establish a more differentiated empirical basis for deciding which forms of regulation may be appropriate, for which platform, for whom, under which conditions, and with what intended, and unintended, consequences. Further, we aim to interrogate basic, often implicit, assumptions underlying regulation and to identify feasible procedures for evaluating policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Special Issue \u2013 edited by Moritz B\u00fcchi<\/a> <\/strong>(Zurich University of Applied Sciences) and Cornelia Sindermann<\/strong><\/a> (Charlotte Fresenius Hochschule – University of Psychology, University of Stuttgart) \u2013 invites empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions that clarify the conditions under which social media use and its regulation produce beneficial or harmful outcomes. Confirmed contributions include work by Sander van der Linden<\/strong><\/a> (University of Cambridge), Stephan Lewandowsky<\/strong><\/a> (University of Bristol), Christian Montag<\/strong><\/a> (University of Macao), and Jon D. Elhai<\/strong><\/a> (University of Toledo). We especially welcome work that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n