ReviewPsychology research and behavior management2026
The Impact of Digital Platform Rules on the Mental Health of Minors and the Response of Chinese Law: An Analysis Based on Therapeutic Jurisprudence.
Review in Psychology research and behavior management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adopting Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) as its theoretical framework and employing the methods of literature analysis and normative analysis, this paper conceptualizes the rules of recommendation algorithms, quantitative feedback, open social connectivity, and automated review procedures as structural arrangements that shape the psychological experiences of minors, and examines their potential mental health implications. The analysis suggests that these rules may affect the mental health of minors along four dimensions-autonomous will, self-perception, relational trust, and procedural trust-and that, in operation, these rules are interwoven and mutually reinforcing. However, China's current regulatory model places disproportionate emphasis on content governance and usage management, while the regulation of designated platforms and the Minor Mode likewise face obstacles in implementation, making it hard to respond effectively to the structural shaping of minors' psychological experiences by platform rules. By examining pioneering governance experiences at the international level, this paper compares the normative functions of different institutional instruments in the protection of minors' mental health and the conditions of their application. On this basis, the paper argues that the normative objectives of safeguarding minors' self-determination, maintaining reasonable trust, and realizing procedural justice should guide the construction of a psychologically friendly digital normative environment for minors, and that institutional arrangements covering the entire process of platform use should be established, encompassing psychological impact assessment, proactive identification and default protection, and restorative protection of rights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.