Credit: Foto: DNB, Stephan Jockel

Race, gender, and LGBTQIA+ topics have been at the forefront of book banning dialogue in the United States since 2021, with countless state officials, politicians, advocacy groups, and community members calling for restricting minors’ access to an increasingly large roster of book titles. According to the American Library Association (ALA), there were 729 attempts to ban books in public and school libraries in 2021 and 1,269 attempts in 2022; combined PEN and ALA data suggests that 34 percent of book bans are initiated by parents, 31 percent by pressure groups (e.g. Moms for Liberty), 12 percent by library administrators, 9.6 percent by library patrons, and the remainder by elected officials, teachers, librarians, and others.

While those in favor of book bans believe children should be protected from content perceived as inappropriate or abusive, those opposed worry about the societal consequences of censoring information and ideas, the infringement of First Amendment rights, and the negative impacts on authors and publishers.

Researchers Uttara M. Ananthakrishnan, Naveen Basavaraj, Sabari Rajan Karmegam, Ananya Sen, and Michael D. Smith set out to examine how bans at the district level affect consumption at the national level, sharing their results in “Book Bans in American Libraries: Impact of Politics on Inclusive Content Consumption,” published online in Marketing Science via Articles in Advance on March 14, 2025.

Out of a data set of 468 titles across 939 local-level ban events, the main focus was the 25 most repeatedly banned by public school districts and city libraries between July 2021 and June 2022. The assumption was that these 25 titles would be the most likely to reach state and national attention via media and social media sources, presumably driving up interest for some while dissuading consumption for others. Of the total 468, 80 percent were banned only as part of a mega-ban, multiple-title event, whereas the top 25 titles were banned in 85 percent of the 939 ban events. These books were more likely to be banned on their own, and to be banned simultaneously across multiple states.

Book circulation data from January 2021 to June 2022 across 38 states was assessed, and book banning events were found to increase the library circulation of banned books in states where they were banned by 12 percent, and by 11.2 percent in states where they had not been targeted. Both Republican- and Democrat-majority banning states saw an increase in banned book circulation.

The top 25 banned books were found to have received more attention from news sources and across social media than other banned books. On Twitter specifically, titles written by less experienced authors, as measured by number of books written prior to the banned book, had the most impressions. Additionally, books with low Twitter visibility did not see an impact from ban events, whereas books with high Twitter visibility saw a significant increase in circulation following bans. This highlights social media’s potential to drive sales following a ban event, especially for less experienced authors.

Data from Goodreads, an Amazon-owned book cataloging site with 90 million users, showed that top-25 books were 46 times more likely to be added to a “banned-book shelf” than the rest of the banned books, and were shelved by Goodreads readers on school-related shelves (e.g. “K–8” and “read with kiddos”) significantly more often than the rest of the banned books. This suggests top-25 books are being read by and to young readers. Additionally, after ban events, Goodreads showed an increase in the average rating of banned books relative to those used as controls, and an increase in the number of reviews mentioning book bans.

Non-identifying age data from the Seattle Public Library and student checkouts from Seattle Public Schools were also used to assess young readership. Child patrons were split into content readers or non–content readers based on whether they had checked out books dealing with race and/or gender identity in the past. The results indicated that the increase in banned book circulation was driven by non–content readers, meaning that book ban attention helps expose new child readers to topics of race and gender. This result strengthens the authors’ belief that banning books, rather than suppressing their readership, instead increases their reach and impact.

Overall, books with race, gender, and LGBTQIA+ issues were found to be the most likely to have increased readership after a ban, and are also the most likely to be targeted by politicians. To assess the impact of politician rhetoric around diversity and inclusion, emails sent to potential donors from 245 unique email IDs were analyzed, and found to increasingly reference book banning over time. While politicization of book banning was linked to higher donations for Republicans relative to Democrats in conservative states, politicians should consider that they may be inadvertently boosting the sales of books they hope to suppress.

There is certainly a risk that repeated book banning initiatives could discourage authors and publishers from collaborating on diverse and inclusive projects, or discourage librarians and educators from ordering or assigning books they perceive as having a high potential to be banned. However, this study suggests that there is a wide audience for banned books beyond school and library circulation, and that a book’s banning can result in increased overall sales, especially if social media and news coverage are attained. The article’s authors noted that the study did not include data on family demographics that might provide additional insight on children’s ability to access those titles outside of their schools or libraries, whether by purchasing them or other means.

The authors’ hope is that their research encourages further study, particularly of the potential long-term effects of book bans. Ananthakrishnan shared some final thoughts with Library Journal: “Political consumerism—voting with one’s wallet through boycotts and buycotts—is increasingly significant (exemplified by recent Target boycotts). We study this in the context of book bans in America. Polarizing events can have a chilling effect or a spotlight effect. We find that in the case of book bans, the spotlight effect dominates. Social media (and traditional media) play a critical role in shining a light on banned books, leading to increased awareness and demand.”