Why can’t we stop scrolling? What neuroscience tells us about social media and its algorithms

Social media has become an inherent part of daily life for most young people, but its current design and intentions can be questioned. Many platforms operate through business models designed to keep users engaged in order to increase profits. As countries around the world implement age restrictions, we should question whether these bans are only temporary solutions to deeper-rooted issues inherent in the design of these social media platforms.

This question was recently tested in the United States, where a coalition of states reached a proposed settlement with Meta after accusing the company of using ‘psychologically manipulative features’ to keep children engaged. Meta denied the allegations, arguing that no concrete evidence links its platform to addiction or harm. The settlement brings greater attention to the role of platform design, but Meta’s defence also exposes a wider problem in current research on young people and digital platforms. Recent findings in neuroscience suggest that there are reasons to be concerned, but researchers still struggle to find hard proof and concrete causal links.

Bans may restrict access, but they fail to close the evidence gap or fix underlying design issues.

The case for changing social media shouldn’t lead with the assumption that it is completely harmful. In fact, it offers many opportunities for adolescents to make friends, unleash their creativity, create helpful communities and serve as a source of information. A survey published by the UK government of more than 9,000 people aged 10-21 found that 82% felt that social media helped them connect to others and 71% said it made them feel included. Many also recognised that the current platforms need to change. A sensible approach would be to maintain the benefits while addressing the harms, without necessarily enforcing blanket bans.

Designed to keep us engaged

The main concern about social media lies in how algorithms actively hook attention to maximise screen time. Features such as likes, streaks, push notifications, personalised feeds, and the possibility of endless scrolling all contribute toward this goal.

Although we don’t have the data to fully understand how they work, neuroscience can in some ways help to explain why these designs are so engaging.

Dopamine, often misconstrued as a mere ‘pleasure chemical’, helps the brain learn when an action is worth repeating. Its response is particularly linked to unexpected success, which is when an outcome turns out to be better than anticipated. When you scroll on social media, you never know whether you’re about to see an exciting video, a new comment or whether a post will receive likes. This uncertainty may help explain why users keep opening the app in search of the next rewarding outcome.

In addition, the information the algorithms collect from the repeated checking helps curate personalised feeds. Every interaction acts as a data point that systems use to adjust future content. This further drives engagement on the platform as the content is tailored to keep the user scrolling and watching for longer.

Research has also shown that adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity in which peer relationships and social acceptance are more meaningful, and social media appears to tap into this. Features such as ‘likes’ and ‘views’ turn this natural need for approval into figures that are difficult to ignore.

While this doesn’t prove that social media causes harm or addiction among teens, it gives us a good reason to question how these algorithms are built. Companies should be using what we know about science to design safer platforms, rather than building apps where profit is the principal objective.

What science can and cannot tell us

The media often talks about social media harm as a proven fact, but the science is less certain. Existing research in neuroscience is not yet strong enough to prove causal relationships between social media and adolescents’ mental health. Findings in studies show small and inconsistent associations that aren’t enough to prove either side of the argument. This makes it hard to prove that a complete ban would positively affect the well-being of young people.

There are several reasons why neuroscience results have been inconsistent. In recent years, research has relied on screen time metrics, which don’t reflect how young people actually use apps. In addition, everyone’s online experience is different. Researchers have also had limited access to data that big companies are gatekeeping. Independent researchers can’t examine how the algorithms actually function, and they need that data to build more accurate studies.

The scientific field acknowledges the current lack of evidence, and several projects are trying to provide clearer answers. For example, the Cambridge-led IRL Trial will test whether daily limits and night-time restrictions affect adolescents’ sleep, anxiety and well-being. Nevertheless, the quality and effectiveness of these studies will be restricted if platforms continue to limit and control access to useful data and algorithms.

Addressing the underlying issues

The Digital Services Act is a regulation created by the European Union to improve technological transparency by requiring large tech companies to give qualified researchers access to their data. In October 2025, the European Commission found that Meta and TikTok had failed to provide access to this data. These are preliminary results, but they demonstrate that transparency rules must also be effectively enforced.

A similar challenge can be seen in Sitra’s study on algorithms and democracy. It found that young people’s political social media feeds were unpredictable, difficult to control and often opinion-based, rather than factual. These findings highlight the importance of access to data and information about algorithms. Without a clear understanding of how these apps curate information, it is difficult to evaluate their real-world impact or hold the platforms accountable.

Social media bans may provide temporary protection, but not necessarily long-term solutions. They risk shifting the blame onto children and responsibility away from these companies. The fundamental issues will endure if the algorithms remain opaque, unchecked, and unchanged. Instead of restricting access, we should use the same knowledge that makes social media engaging, in order to make it safe. The goal should be to maintain the positive aspects of these platforms while reducing the negatives. With more research and better access to data, neuroscience could help design safer apps and healthier guidelines for the benefit of all.