The influence of information technology on cognition, social behaviour, and the self
Communication is complex and emotional. “Language is symbolic. A word does not have a meaning until it is given one, and that association between the word and its meaning is accepted by the communicators involved” (Connolly et al., 2016, p. 35).
When working at the London-based studio Normally (2019/2020), I deep-dived into the mission to understand data-driven services’ social and environmental consequences.
I have been part of a team where we illustrate an idea about how services like Instagram might make design decisions that dramatically reduce the energy use, and carbon costs of their service, as well as have consumers reflect on their digital behaviour. Additionally, being part of teams for projects such as .Coda and The Gendered Web made me think further about data biases, who are forming our opinions, and what the consequences of increased digital consumption and stimuli do to our humanness. Below are some answers I found, which naturally sparked new questions.
Computer-mediated communication vs face-to-face communication
Computer-mediated communication “encompasses all communications that use computers as a medium” (p. 31), including other forms of communication (language, music, images, graphics, and videos) online, such as via mobile devices (Connolly et al., 2016).
In comparison, computer-mediated communication has a) similar emotional content to face-to-face communication and b) uses paralanguage, which has been extended to digital communication (Connolly et al., 2016). “For example, the inclusion of a full stop after ‘OK’ can indicate frustration or anger in the writer in response to a request from their communication partner (the absence of the full stop indicates a more amicable acceptance of the request)” (Connolly et al., 2016, p. 35).
However, offline communication differs from online communication through a) non-verbal cues that do get lost in digital-only communication and b) the use of abbreviations, acronyms and emoticons through which we try to indicate emotional expression (Connolly et al., 2016).
“Associated with technological developments that impact modernization, information technology is the fastest growing and direct influence on the level of civilization” (Adhiarso et al., 2019, p. 35). Emphasized digital usage in the last decades has led to cognitive functioning and social behaviour changes.
The influence of technology on cognition
Firth et al. examined several hypotheses on the influence of technology on cognition (2019), concluding that digital consumption may influence attention capacities, memory processes, and social cognition in positive and negative ways. The Internet “has introduced, for many, the necessity and opportunity to learn a myriad of new skills and ways to interact with society, which could bring about neural changes. For example, even simple interactions with the Internet through the smartphone’s touchscreen interface have been demonstrated to bring about sustained neurocognitive alterations due to neural changes in cortical regions associated with sensory and motor processing” (Firth et al., 2019, p. 119).
The increasing use of digital devices harms cognitive and brain development. For example, “the exposure to screen time on the developing brain of infants and children shows that “structurally, increased screen time relates to decreased integrity of white-matter pathways necessary for reading and language” (Small et al., p. 181).
In their article about brain health consequences of digital technology use, Small et al. (2020) write that “functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research tracking neural activity during simulated internet searches suggests that simply searching online may represent a form of mental exercise that can strengthen neural circuits” (para. 3).
However, constant multitasking with digital technologies has been shown to impair cognitive performance, and studies also linked frequent screen time with symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Small et al., 2020).
Small et al. (2020) concluded that “frequent use heightens ADHD symptoms, interferes with emotional and social intelligence, can lead to addictive behaviours, increases social isolation, and interferes with brain development and sleep. However, specific programs, video games, and other online tools may provide mental exercises that activate neural circuitry, improve cognitive functioning, reduce anxiety, increase restful sleep, and offer other brain health benefits” (p. 186).
The influence of technology on social behaviour
“The behaviour of society is formed from the environment in which it lives” (Adhiarso et al., 2019, p. 36), which means, in this context, that with the flow of information accelerating so drastically, making it to a large scale impossible to filter, it already started to affect patterns of behaviour, influencing communities and cultures at large (Adhiarso et al., 2019; Rosen et al., 2015).
Small et al. (2020) wrote about the influence of screen time on the development of language, a human’s primary communication tool. “Just as language use pervades social life, the elements of social life constitute an intrinsic part of the way language is used” (Oguntayo et al., 2020, p. 1)
The exact influence that digitalization may have on our brain structure and social functioning remains a central topic of more in-depth analysis. We are due to understand the global impact of technology on “psychological well-being and brain functioning across entire populations” (Firth et al., 2019, p. 127).
Walther’s hyperpersonal computer-mediated communication model suggests, for example, that we can potentially develop stronger relationships in an online environment than in offline interactions (Connolly et al., 2016). We disclose more through social communication channels than face-to-face, and according to Ewoldsen (2021), positive relationships are built through more disclosure.
Food for thought: Instagram and the cognitive body image
“The way you think about your body is your cognitive body image” (NEDC, n.d.). A study published in 2019 showed that “the frequency of Instagram use is correlated with depressive symptoms, self-esteem, general and physical appearance anxiety, and body dissatisfaction” (Sherlock & Wagstaff, 2019, para. 1).
Psychological theory: The priming theory explains how media psychologically affects related thoughts in the audience’s minds and how information influences a person (Businesstopia, 2018).
Applied to the impact of Instagram on body dissatisfaction, the theory suggests a significant correlation between thin-ideal priming, which happens when consuming social content related to body ideals, and body concerns by the audience (Markis & McLennan, 2011). By design, the app capitalizes on users’ biological drive for social belonging — and nudges them to keep scrolling, consuming content fed by an algorithm.
I am studying to earn an MSc in Applied Psychology, exploring the intersection of psychedelics and technology. I have 15 years of experience in design research, strategy and brand, and I hold an MA in Applied Imagination from Central Saint Martins, London.
References
Adhiarso, D., Prahastiwi, U., & Hastjarjo, S. (2019). The Impact of Digital Technology to Change People’s Behavior in Using the Media. Digital Press Social Sciences and Humanities, 2. https://doi.org/10.29037/digitalpress.42256.
Businesstopia. (2018, February 15). Priming theory. Businesstopia. https://www.businesstopia.net/mass-communication/priming-theory
Connolly, I., Palmer, M., Barton, H., & Kirwan, G. (2016). An introduction to cyberpsychology. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Ewoldsen, D. [Academic Institute]. (2021, March 10). CMC and Media Information Processing [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/OmmZ0AL1BCU
Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J. A., Steiner, G. Z., Smith, L., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C. J., & Sarris, J. (2019). The “online brain”: How the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 18(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20617
Markis, T. A., & McLennan, C. T. (2011). The effect of priming a thin ideal on the subsequent perception of conceptually related body image words. Body Image, 8(4), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.05.001
NEDC (National Eating Disorder Collaboration). (n.d.). Body image. https://nedc.com.au/eating-disorders/eating-disorders-explained/body-image/
Normally. (2020). The carbon cost of data. https://normally.com
Oguntayo, R., Opayemi, R., & Oyeleke, J. (2019, January). Psychology of language: communication and social behaviour. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330556665_PSYCHOLOGY_OF_LANGUAGE_COMMUNICATION_AND_SOCIAL_BEHAVIOUR/stats
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2015). The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology and Society. Wiley-Blackwell.
Sherlock, M., & Wagstaff, D. L. (2019). Exploring the relationship between frequency of Instagram use, exposure to idealized images, and psychological well-being in women. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(4), 482–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000182
Small, G. W., Lee, J., Kaufman, A., Jalil, J., Siddarth, P., Gaddipati, H., Moody, T. D., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2020). Brain health consequences of digital technology use . Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 22(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/gsmall
