Australia Restricted Social Media for Under-16s—Why Are Most Teens Still Using It?

More than eight in ten Australian teenagers were reportedly still using social media three months after the country’s under-16 social-media restrictions took effect.

Australia introduced the policy because of concerns about the possible effects of social-media platforms on young people’s mental and physical wellbeing. However, early findings indicate that many teenagers continued accessing platforms and that the frequency of use among children aged 10–15 had not changed substantially.

The Event in 30 Seconds

The platforms had previously reported restricting access to approximately 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to under-16 users. However, account removal does not necessarily mean that young people have stopped accessing social-media content through other accounts, devices or methods.

What Psychology Is Visible Here?

1. Psychological Reactance

Psychological reactance occurs when people feel that their freedom of choice is being restricted.

A teenager may interpret a prohibition as:

“Someone is controlling what I am allowed to do.”

That perception can increase the desire to regain freedom by:

• finding alternative accounts;

• changing an entered birth date;

• borrowing another person’s device;

• moving to a different platform;

• hiding usage from adults.

This does not mean every teenager will resist the rule. It means that highly controlling messages can sometimes produce opposition—particularly during adolescence, when autonomy and independence become increasingly important.

Behavioural pattern

Restriction → Perceived loss of freedom → Resistance → Circumvention

2. Habit Loops

Social-media use is often embedded in a daily habit loop.

A legal restriction may remove an account without removing the underlying cues, routines and psychological rewards.

Teenagers may therefore search for another way to obtain the same experience.

Key insight

Removing access is not always the same as changing a habit.

Effective behaviour change may also require:

• attractive offline alternatives;

• better sleep and phone routines;

• family agreements;

• digital-literacy education;

• supportive peer environments;

• safer platform design.

3. Variable Rewards

Social-media feeds provide unpredictable rewards.

A user does not know whether the next scroll will reveal:

• a funny video;

• a message from a friend;

• social approval;

• breaking news;

• an emotionally intense post;

• something personally relevant.

Because the reward is uncertain, people may keep checking.

This is called a variable reinforcement pattern. Similar principles can sustain repeated behaviour because the next rewarding experience might appear at any moment.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that every social-media user is “addicted.” Frequent use, problematic use and clinically significant behavioural addiction are not interchangeable terms.

4. Peer Norms and Social Belonging

For many teenagers, social media is not merely entertainment. It can function as part of their social environment.

It may be used for:

• friendship-group conversations;

• school-related communication;

• humour and shared references;

• identity exploration;

• community participation;

• event coordination;

• maintaining relationships.

When most friends continue using a platform, leaving it can create a perceived social cost.

The psychological calculation

This helps explain why an individual may continue using a platform even while understanding some of its risks.

5. The “Forbidden Fruit” Effect

Restricted things can sometimes become more attractive because they appear exclusive, adult or difficult to obtain.

For some young users, bypassing an age restriction may create:

• curiosity;

• excitement;

• a sense of competence;

• social status among peers;

• the feeling of entering an adult space.

This does not mean restrictions always increase use. It means that the way a restriction is communicated and enforced can influence how people psychologically respond to it.

6. Optimism Bias

Some teenagers may believe:

“Negative effects happen to other people, not to me.”

This is related to optimism bias—the tendency to underestimate one’s own vulnerability to harm.

A young person may recognise that social media can contribute to cyberbullying, sleep disruption or unhealthy comparison while still believing that they personally remain in control.

Adults can display the same bias in relation to driving, financial risk, privacy and health behaviours.

7. Social Comparison

Social-media platforms expose users to carefully selected images of other people’s:

• appearance;

• achievements;

• relationships;

• travel;

• popularity;

• lifestyles.

People may compare their ordinary daily experiences with someone else’s edited highlights.

This can produce upward social comparison, in which another person appears more successful, attractive or socially accepted.

Possible psychological responses include:

• motivation;

• inspiration;

• inadequacy;

• envy;

• dissatisfaction;

• pressure to perform.

The effect varies considerably by person, platform, content, context and existing vulnerability.

Research does not support treating every type of social-media use as psychologically identical. Social media can also provide connection, belonging, information and peer support.

8. Secrecy and Reduced Parental Awareness

Early reporting indicated that parental awareness of some children’s social-media habits may have declined following the restrictions.

One possible psychological explanation is behavioural displacement.

When a visible behaviour becomes prohibited, it may not disappear. Instead, it may move into a less visible form.

For example:

Open use → Restriction → Concealed use → Lower adult awareness

This creates an important policy question:

Is the goal simply to reduce visible accounts, or to reduce exposure to harmful experiences?

These outcomes are related, but they are not identical.

Why Rules Alone May Not Change Behaviour

A policy usually works best when several conditions support it.

A small qualitative study of Australian young people found that participants actively interpreted, tested and negotiated age-verification systems rather than behaving as passive recipients of regulation. Because that study involved only 15 participants, it should be treated as exploratory rather than representative of all Australian teenagers.

Does Social Media Cause Poor Mental Health?

The responsible answer: the relationship is complicated.

Research has identified associations between certain patterns of social-media use and outcomes such as:

• psychological distress;

• disrupted sleep;

• social comparison;

• body-image concerns;

• cyberbullying exposure;

• loneliness;

• symptoms of anxiety or depression.

However, association does not automatically prove direct causation.

Several relationships may operate at the same time:

1. Heavy or harmful social-media experiences may affect wellbeing.

2. Young people already experiencing distress may use social media differently or more frequently.

3. Family conditions, school pressure, discrimination, economic insecurity and offline relationships may influence both social-media use and mental health.

4. Different platforms, activities and users can experience very different outcomes.

Experts continue to disagree about how much of the youth mental-health crisis can be directly attributed to social media and whether broad age bans are the most effective solution.

What the Early Results Do—and Do Not—Tell Us

The results may suggest:

• age checks can be circumvented;

• removing accounts may not eliminate access;

• established habits are difficult to change rapidly;

• peer-group behaviour strongly influences individual behaviour;

• platforms play a central role in enforcement;

• policy must account for real human behaviour, not only formal rules.

The results do not yet prove:

• that the entire policy has permanently failed;

• that restrictions cannot reduce harm over time;

• that all teenagers use social media in the same way;

• that all social-media use is harmful;

• that social media alone causes mental-health problems;

• that account ownership and actual platform exposure are identical.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner is conducting a longer-term evaluation, with findings expected to be released progressively. Early measurements should therefore be viewed as one stage of an ongoing assessment.

A Better Behavioural Approach

A psychologically informed digital-safety strategy could combine regulation with:

Platform design changes

• safer default settings for minors;

• reduced unwanted contact;

• limits on harmful recommendations;

• clearer reporting systems;

• less intrusive notifications;

• stronger age-appropriate privacy;

• rapid responses to bullying, sextortion and self-harm content.

Family-level practices

• non-judgmental conversations;

• shared household rules;

• device-free sleep periods;

• curiosity instead of immediate punishment;

• discussions about algorithms and persuasive design;

• gradual development of self-regulation.

School and community support

• digital-literacy education;

• accessible counselling;

• offline clubs and social opportunities;

• peer-support programmes;

• education about cyberbullying and image-based abuse.

Youth participation

Young people can be included in designing policies that directly affect their:

• friendships;

• privacy;

• education;

• identity;

• safety;

• participation in digital society.

Listening to teenagers does not mean abandoning boundaries. It can help make boundaries more realistic, legitimate and effective.

The Larger Lesson

Australia’s experience demonstrates a basic principle of behavioural psychology:

Human behaviour does not automatically change when a rule changes.

People respond to:

• habits;

• social rewards;

• perceived fairness;

• peer expectations;

• convenience;

• identity;

• emotional needs;

• enforcement;

• available alternatives.

The central question is therefore not only:

“How do we keep teenagers away from social media?”

It is also:

“How do we create digital and offline environments in which young people can connect, learn and develop without being exposed to avoidable harm?”

HEXASPEAR Takeaway

The psychology behind the news:
Australia’s under-16 social-media restrictions reveal the interaction of psychological reactance, habit loops, peer influence, social belonging, variable rewards, optimism bias and behavioural displacement.

What policymakers can learn:
Rules may establish boundaries, but sustainable behaviour change usually requires credible enforcement, supportive relationships, safer product design, meaningful alternatives and cooperation from the people affected.

What families can learn:
Punishment and surveillance alone may encourage secrecy. Calm communication, consistent boundaries and gradual digital self-regulation may provide a stronger foundation.

Responsible Reading Note

This article explains psychological concepts visible in a developing public event. It does not diagnose individual teenagers, parents or social-media users. The early Australian findings do not provide a final judgment on the long-term effectiveness of the policy.

Social-media experiences differ substantially between individuals. Anyone experiencing serious emotional distress, cyberbullying, exploitation or self-harm-related thoughts should seek support from a qualified mental-health professional, an appropriate safeguarding service or local emergency assistance.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for educational, informational and public-awareness purposes only. It uses established psychological concepts to interpret patterns that may be visible in a current news event. It does not claim that every person involved thinks, feels or behaves in the same way.

The psychological explanations presented are general interpretations, not clinical diagnoses or definitive conclusions about any individual, group, organisation or government. Human behaviour is influenced by many personal, social, cultural, technological and environmental factors.

News events and early research findings may change as new evidence becomes available. Readers should consult the original sources and updated official information before drawing conclusions.

This content is not a substitute for professional psychological, medical, legal or policy advice. Anyone experiencing serious emotional distress, cyberbullying, exploitation or safety concerns should contact a qualified professional or an appropriate local support service.