Abstract
In recent years, the rapid rise of smartphones and social media platforms has fueled intense public debate about the risks and benefits of digital engagement, particularly for children. As digital technologies are already central and might become even more central to young people’s lives, understanding how society perceives children’s smartphone and social media use is crucial for shaping effective policies and interventions. The question of when children should be allowed to own smartphones or access social media is not only a matter of parental discretion, but also one that involves broader societal, educational, and concerns about state regulations. Despite widespread discussions, the way in which information—especially information about risks and benefits—shapes public opinion on these issues remains underexplored. This study aims to fill that gap by investigating how different informational framings influence attitudes toward children's digital media use, with a particular focus on age-related thresholds, parental responsibility, and support for government regulations.
Using data from a nationally representative study conducted in Germany in January 2025, this research will take advantage of an experimental design to explore how framing different aspects of smartphone and social media use (risks, benefits, or a balanced view) affects individuals' opinions. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of four groups: a negative information group exposed to negative framing focusing on highlighting the risks of digital media (such as cyberbullying and harmful content), a positive information group exposed to positive framing focusing on the benefits (including educational opportunities and digital skill development), a group receiving a neutral, balanced perspective, and a control group with no informational treatment.
We formulate the following research questions, each exploring a different dimension of how framing affects attitudes toward children’s smartphone and social media use:
RQ1: How does the type of information (risks vs. benefits vs. neutral vs. control group) influence the age threshold at which respondents think children should own a smartphone or use social media?
This question examines whether the presentation of risk or benefit-oriented information affects individuals’ views on the appropriate age for children to engage with digital technologies:
For the negative information treatment, we hypothesize that respondents who were informed about the risks of internet and social media use for children are expected to propose a higher age threshold for children’s ownership of smartphones or use of social media compared to the control group. For the positive information treatment, we hypothesize that respondents who were informed about the benefits of internet and social media use for children are expected to propose a lower age threshold for children’s ownership of smartphones or use of social media compared to the control group. For the neutral information treatment, we hypothesize that respondents who were informed about both the benefits and risks of internet and social media use for children are expected to propose a middle-range age threshold compared to the other treatment groups.
In addition, we expect the group differences (i.e., interactions): Individuals with higher education levels may be more sensitive to the risks of social media and internet use, which could influence their assessment of the appropriate age for children to own smartphones or use social media. They may also possess more prior knowledge about social media and, therefore, be less influenced by the treatment compared to respondents with lower education levels. Individuals who are highly active on social media or spend considerable time online may have different perceptions of the risks and benefits of smartphone and social media use. They may rely more on personal experiences than on the information provided in the experiment. Respondents with significant personal experience on social media are expected to react less strongly to both positive and negative information treatments. Respondents with limited personal experience are expected to respond more strongly to the information treatments, as they may lack personal experiences to draw upon. Individuals with strong positive or negative attitudes toward social media and internet use are likely to show less responsiveness to the information treatment compared to those with neutral attitudes.
RQ2: How does the type of information influence perceptions of responsibility of parents, schools, and policymakers in protecting children?
For the negative information group, we hypothesize that respondents are expected to attribute greater responsibility to policymakers and schools in protecting children from the dangers of smartphones and social media compared to respondents in the control group. For the positive information group, we hypnotize that respondents are expected to attribute less responsibility to policymakers and schools in protecting children compared to respondents in the control group. For the neutral information treatment, we hypothesize that respondents in this group are expected to fall between the negative and positive groups.
In addition, we expect the group differences: We hypothesize that higher education / more social media or internet experience / stronger (positive or negative) attitudes toward social media and internet use for children are expected to lead to less responsiveness to the treatments in the assessment of responsibilities. In addition, we anticipate that the respondents' concept of the state influences the outcomes. Those who support less state regulation are expected to attribute less responsibility to policymakers, even when exposed to the negative information treatment group, compared to respondents who support greater state regulation.
RQ3: How does the type of information influence attitudes toward state regulations of children’s smartphone and internet use (e.g., smartphone bans in schools, mandatory school lessons about responsible use)?
Possible government interventions are a) smartphone bans or b) mandatory school lessons about responsible use).
A) Smartphone Bans: For the negative information treatment, we hypothesize compared to the control group, respondents who received information about the risks of internet and social media use for children are expected to show stronger support for government regulations limiting children’s use of smartphones and social media (especially so, if they want to prevent children from using smartphone or social media usage in general). For the positive information treatment, we hypothesize compared to the control group, respondents who received information about the benefits of internet and social media use for children are expected to show less support for government regulations limiting children’s use of smartphones and social media (especially so, they are generally in favor of children using smartphone / internet use).
B) Mandatory School Lessons: For the negative information treatment, we hypothesize compared to the control group, respondents who received information about the risks of internet and social media use for children are expected to show stronger support for government regulations like mandatory school lessens for children about responsible use (especially so, if they are in favor of children using smartphones / the internet). For the positive information treatment, we hypothesize compared to the control group, respondents who received information about the benefits of internet and social media use for children are expected to show more support for government regulations like mandatory school lessens for children about responsible use (especially so, if they are in favor of children using smartphones / the internet).
In addition, we expect the group differences: Higher education / more social media or internet experience are expected to lead to less responsiveness to the treatments in shaping attitudes toward government regulation. In addition, we anticipate that the respondents' concept of the state influences the outcomes. Those who support less state regulation are expected to attribute less responsibility to policymakers, even when exposed to the negative information treatment group, compared to respondents who support greater state regulation.
The findings of this study will contribute to a deeper understanding of how public opinion on children's digital media use is formed, particularly in relation to the information individuals receive. This research is expected to have significant implications for policy debates surrounding digital media regulation, parental guidance, and educational programs aimed at mitigating the potential harms associated with children’s use of smartphones and social media. By highlighting how framing effects shape attitudes toward digital engagement, this study will provide valuable insights for both policymakers and educators working to navigate the complexities of children’s digital lives.
Please note: We can confirm that as of the pre-registration date on 4 February 2025, we had not accessed any data or received any information regarding the data. Although fieldwork was conducted during the weeks of 13 January 2025 and 20 January 2025—and it is our understanding that data collection has since concluded—we had no knowledge of the sample size, data collection progress, or preliminary results at the time of pre-registration. In addition, we have obtained written confirmation from the external research institute responsible for the fieldwork that, as of the pre-registration date, no data or related information had been made available to us.