Technology, Cognition and Meaning-Making: A Psychoanalytic Framing of Technology in our Virtual World
Introduction
The experience of technology is pervasive, not only with regards to our ability to access information or execute tasks; but also in the interface for relationships and social connection. OpenAI’s Chat GPT, a Large Language Model (LLM) with over one hundred million weekly active users, leverages information scraped from across the internet and uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to provide answers to user prompts (Porter, 2023). This extends beyond merely providing information like Google Search: ChatGPT can now write code and generate detailed images based on simple text prompts; all complex cognitive tasks that two years ago would have required a human individual or even a team. Like Google Search, ChatGPT has quickly risen in cultural perception as a tool to empower workers in a variety of fields (Kalla & Smith, 2023).
Instagram and TikTok fulfill a similarly scaled experience of social connection, promising to connect individuals with other people and “build community” (Instagram, 2023). According to researchers, digital technologies not only provide augmentation to “cognitive activities,” but also “satisfy many of our affective urges” (Wilmer, et al., 2017). Although there are many important innovations that support modern day life (Gudka, et al., 2023), technology also has been shown to have negative impacts on well-being (Twenge, 2020; Lukoff, et al., 2018). With such widely adopted technologies, it is important to understand how human psychology interacts with this virtual world.
Psychoanalytic Framing
In 2004 Sherry Turkle wrote about the advent of personal computers and the ubiquitous connection to the internet, discussing the challenges and opportunities for psychologists to integrate psychoanalytical theory with this new world (Turkle, 2004). Almost twenty years later, most of her assertions remain true and the lives of humans are even more intertwined with technology; with over 65% of Americans with access to the internet via cellular devices (Greenberg-Worisek, et al., 2019). Turkle points out the dissonance between the intention of software and hardware designers to “create a useful tool” and the perception of individuals using these tools: we believe that technology is part of us, our world and who we are (2004). More recent research has confirmed this, showing that individuals perceive technology as an extension of their self through both functioning and identity (Lin, et al., 2023; Ross & Beyer, 2021; Harkin & Kuss, 2021). Humans have developed tools and technologies since our earliest days to ensure our survival; and also employed ritual technologies to help us generate meaning (Goodwyn, 2017). The technological innovations of the twenty-first century represent a new iteration of technology as a tool for survival; however these innovations pose a challenge to meaning-making, as explored in this paper.
Turkle argued that these technologies we rely on and interact with have become “evoking objects,” a new term derived from psychoanalytic object relations theory, to argue that technology is not only an extension of our psyche, but also becomes an actor in our world (Turkle, 2004). This is similarly theorized by researchers looking at today’s digital technologies; for example, with the idea that TikTok fosters engagement through interaction with an “algorithmized self;” in essence TikTok engages users through presenting versions of themselves back to the users through a recursive algorithm (Bhandari & Bimo, 2020). The devices and applications we use do not merely become internal objects that we project upon, but they evoke responses from us as if they were another individual (Turkle, 2004). In her own words, Turkle says,
“the computer that does things for us has another side, it is also a subjective computer that does things to us”
(Turkle, 2004). While the designers of these products view them with a utilitarian perspective, requesting inputs from users and supporting them to achieve the desired output; users do not share this internal perspective when using the products. One simple example focuses on the many competing “voices” we encounter while using our smartphones: interruptions within the same device caused up to four times delay in the completion of a primary task due to notifications and nudges from various non-related applications (Leiva, et al., 2012). These devices also demand our attention in the physical world: one study found that simply hearing a notification sound decreased focus and performance, especially with cognitively demanding tasks (Thornton, et al., 2014).
Turkle says that we interact with digital technologies the same ways that we interact in relationships, through conversations and gestures (Turkle, 2023). This can be exemplified in our two examples: the interface to ChatGPT is a text chat thread, signaling to the user that they are talking to someone on the other end. Text chat has been widely studied (Suler, 2011) and the fact that ChatGPT uses this interface means that users inherit the expectations and nuances of written dialogue. Indeed, in an interview with a ChatGPT user, the author found that they named the LLM “Chad.” Social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn and X (Twitter) “engage” (evoke a response in) users by sending them notifications that prey on our relational instincts: “What is happening in your network,” or “See reels liked by other users similar to you.” Push notifications have been shown to create a level of expectation, inducing an anxiety response (Pielot & Rello, 2017). More directly giving credence to Turkle’s claims, researchers found that there was evidence of emotional dependence when using a social chatbot called “Replika;”
…users began mimicking human relationships in which they acted as if the technology had emotional needs…
(Laestadius, et al., 2022). Turkle says that when these digital technologies and media are used or even remain on in the background, we are left waiting for that “evoking object” to reach out to us. We lose our ability for conscious choice in the communication or relationship with the object, an idea that is confirmed by Thornton’s research (2014).
Our evolved relational dynamics are primarily emotionally driven. As we relate to technology, this can be observed through emotional regulation strategies. The urge to pick up the phone or respond to a notification could be seen as a form of emotional coping; where a user wants to alleviate the emotional demand or quell anxiety around need for a response (Pielot & Rello, 2017). Indeed, increased anxiety, neuroticism and attachment issues predict social media usage (Blackwell, et al., 2022; Chen, et al., 2020); and interpersonal conflict led to increased usage of social media in avoidant people (Longua-Peterson, et al., 2017). In a more recent article, Turkle explains that because of our deep integration with technology, we are monitoring our digital environment and surveilling for challenges to belonging (Turkle, 2023). It seems that technologies like Instagram or TikTok offer the idea of emotional relatedness, but they do not provide the full emotional benefits of human relationships. Social platforms like this have moved from fostering relationships between users to a content/consumer model (Montag, et al., 2021; Meta, 2023) and are so “sticky” because of their impact on the dopamine centers in the brain (Li, 2023). While connection can be fostered, it is important to note that overuse can lead to a reduced sense of belonging (Wilson, 2018). The negative impacts of technologies like social network sites (SNS) have been observed around the world (Pera, 2020; Choi & Lim, 2016; Anyaegbunam & Nwafor, 2022).
As Cameran Ashraf notes, “social media enables the collection of friends without the complexities of friendship”
(2020); these very complexities are what might generate meaning or provide long term social support and belonging (O’Donnell, et al., 2014).
Whether we use technology as an emotional regulation strategy, or simply are pulled by its “evoking” nature, here we begin to see the conflict between perception and behavior. Product designers, engineers and product managers will talk about the “value” being delivered to a user in a utilitarian lens; but we as users have a much more complex relationship with these tools. We need technology to survive in our modern society, but this same technology has been imbued with ambiguity because of human psychological dynamics due to the way we evolved to relate. It seems that this dynamic with these “evoking objects” are predominantly unconscious to the majority of users. But how did we arrive at this place with technology? The following sections will investigate the current research surrounding important aspects of our relationship to technology: cognition; and in extension, the impact of technology on meaning-making.
Cognitive Offloading & Metacognition
It is important to explore the reasons we so easily engage with technology and give over our conscious relationship with it. One primary reason is our search for cognitive offloading, a concept that describes moments an individual offloads their cognitive processes to an action, tool, device or product (Risko & Gilbert 2016). This offloading can alleviate cognitive strain or challenges, and the development of technology can be seen as a way that humans mitigated these cognitive challenges throughout history (Cosmides & Tooby, 2013). It seems we are creatures that strive to optimize our cognitive efficiency. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as pre-literate societies struggled for survival, cognitive offloading to various technologies like the alphabet offered ways to scale knowledge and cognitive tasks (Verbeek, 2002).
Our technologies for cognitive offloading have become so advanced that we now default to referencing information rather than storing it ourselves. Betsy Sparrow’s research into the effect of Google Search (Sparrow, et al., 2011) seems to fit into this cognitive offloading framework: instead of remembering the information, people will remember the location of saved information. Sparrow has shown the impressive impacts of memory in this new virtual world; rather than learning new information, we remember where it is stored. Unlike Google search, ChatGPT does not retain conversational memory and may produce different answers to users at different points in time based on the evolution of the LLM and specific prompt details (Ross, 2023). Research shows that individuals will engage in cognitive offloading when it is the path of least resistance to complete a task or activity (Cary & Carlson, 2001). Importantly, it has been observed that fast and easy interfaces encourage increased cognitive offloading (Grinschgl, et al., 2021). Research confirms what designers in the technology industry have known for years: to better engage and retain users, you must work to make the products as frictionless as possible (Anderson, et al., 2010). It’s not a surprise that ChatGPT uses one of the most intuitive interfaces we have: text chat. While cognitive offloading is extremely helpful to increase time around task performance or reduce immediate errors (Boldt & Gilbert, 2019), there is also research that there are down-sides to turning over cognitive controls to tools and technologies.
Cognitive offloading is shown to alleviate capacity, which could help certain populations, like those with ADHD; however by the same token, cognitive offloading did not show any growth in metacognitive abilities and even has negative impacts on metacognition (Dunn, et al., 2021). This could be very detrimental to certain populations like children, who’s cognitive abilities are not fully formed (Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022; Welsh & Pennington, 1988), or those with ADHD, who’s executive functions are impacted (Fuermaier, et al., 2015). When cognitive offloading, skills are not developed as easily (van Nimwegen & van Oostendorp, 2009). One questionnaire showed that those with the highest levels of smartphone usage had the lowest levels of learning and flow (Lee, et al., 2014). It was also observed that in those with high multimedia multitasking (consuming multiple streams of digital content at once), environmental self regulation was decreased (Ophir, et al., 2009). When looking at memory retrieval and learning, those with internet search access were more confident in their ability but performed worse on quizzes (Fisher, et al., 2022). There are many impacts of cognitive offloading, but important to the use of technology is the research showing that cognitive offloading harms metacognition.
Pointing to the importance of metacognition, negative consequences of cognitive offloading can be mitigated when individuals are aware of their cognitive offloading. Individuals who have a higher intrinsic cognitive ability and are more aware of the tool usage are less vulnerable to these impacts (Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022). It seems that to counteract the down-sides of cognitive offloading, one needs to build metacognitive skills like awareness. When individuals have conscious awareness and agency in relation to cognitive offloading, there is less negative impact (Osiurak, et al., 2022). When participants of a memory quiz experiment were aware of the memory test, they could overcome the impacts of cognitive offloading to their memory and personal skill evaluation (Grinschgl, et al. 2021). In addition, restorative downtime, like time in nature, allows us to regain the ability to focus; in essence our ability to gain metacognitive capacity (Herzog, 1997; Kaplan, 1995). These studies seem to point to the importance of consciousness in relation to one’s cognitive offloading behavior.
While the idea of “technical solutionism” is a seemingly ubiquitous cultural assumption that the answer to overcoming technological challenges lie in further optimization of technology
(Morozov, 2014); the research seems to say that the way to overcome the down sides of cognitive offloading cannot be found in increased use of technology or technical optimization.
Cognitive offloading is the entryway for us into this virtual world; but our lowered cognitive defenses (and lack of metacognitive development) leave us vulnerable to unconscious emotional and relational dynamics we enact with technology. The interaction of our technologies with human psychology is not a new phenomenon, Ashraf points out that even technologies as old as written language impacted us, “first we create our tools, and then they create us” (2020). What has changed is the scale that our modern day technologies can offload our cognition, and the pervasiveness of their ability to allow for an emotional escape.
Discussion: Technology and Meaning-Making
It is unlikely that humans will turn away from digital technologies, and it has been shown that technology can improve performance when used in a conscious way (Grinschgl & Neubauer, 2022). The new virtual world we live in may require a new set of stronger metacognitive skills. There are serious implications of this relational dynamic with technology; but perhaps the greatest is in meaning-making. Francois Lyotard points out a shift in the way we think about technology, instead of a focus on inherent value, the question becomes, “Is it scalable?” (Lyotard, 1984). This shift represents a side-stepping of a core part of the human experience: meaning-making. It is important to point out that the uniqueness of being human relies on our ability to make meaning. Positive Psychology founder Martin Seligman posits that meaning is one of the essentials to well-being (2002). Roy Baumeister proposes four needs to create meaning: the need for self-worth, efficacy, purpose and internal values (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002).
Technology can certainly support humans in our need for efficacy, but the creation of self-worth, purpose and internal values is an internal process.
Here it is important to remember Turkle’s assertions about the conundrum we are facing: we use technology as a tool for cognitive offloading, but it still acts as an “evoking object” in our psyche. We as users subscribe to the idea of technology as a tool to alleviate complexity in our lives (leading to cognitive offloading); but the usage of technology in this way has not yet been shown to increase metacognition. This conundrum is critical when considering meaning-making. Meaning is only achieved through the metacognitive ability to re-evaluate global belief systems (Park, 2013). Crystal Park has developed a theory of meaning-making that proposes we create meaning when we confront existing beliefs. Triplett agrees with Park, finding that “deliberate rumination” is critical for meaning-making and resilience (Triplett, et al., 2012). Because we are cognitive offloading when using technology, we are predisposed to accept or assume the answers provided by technology are correct. With reduced metacognition and cognitive offloading, we do not have the opportunity to experience the “violation” of “global beliefs;”
We do not stop scrolling long enough to deploy “deliberate rumination” in order to generate a meaning.
Turkle concluded her 2004 remarks with the call for an increased richness in the way we talk about our emotional response and relationships to digital technologies, fearing that we might lose the “appreciation for complexity and ambivalence” in the age of information certainty. She argues that we must find ways to deal with the uniquely human complexity of morality and meaning; our feeling-toned determination of what is right or wrong (Turkle, 2004). This raises the importance of metacognitive ability and meaning-making. Digital technologies and software works in certainty. Although algorithms and large language models may feel nuanced and even human, the model or the software is giving you the repeatable, “technically” correct answer. When cognitive offloading onto technology, the answer we receive is assumed correct unless we maintain the metacognitive skills to bring our awareness to the answers we receive.
Furthermore, LLMs are not able to explain their responses or provide source material (Chomsky, et al. 2023). This poses a major challenge to users of ChatGPT who are cognitive offloading; they will no longer be able to rely on the memory of the location (for example, a file folder or URL as Sparrow showed). These users will only be able to remember that the answer was provided by ChatGPT at a specific point in time and might default to going back to ChatGPT for the answer again in the future. Not only are our abilities to process confronting beliefs impacted, but the source information is obfuscated. This can be contrasted with how we might interact with a peer or even a teacher; we know that they don’t have absolute knowledge so we employ cognitive and metacognitive skills in the relationship to learn new things, debate ideas or complete tasks with them. This paradigm shifts when we interact with technologies as expansive as Google or ChatGPT; we assume they know (in essence) everything and we accept the results given automatically.
There is research that shows meaninglessness has impacts on well-being (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Specifically, smartphone usage has been shown to result in lowered meaning in life and lowered agency (Lukoff, et al., 2018).
Perhaps this inability to create meaning with technology is a reason that usage is associated with depression
(Twenge, 2020). Although it has not been verified in the research, we have seen here that technology impacts the cognitive ability needed for meaning-making, and a lack of meaning has been found to be linked to increased meaninglessness and decreased well-being (Lukoff, et al., 2018). The connection between cognitive offloading, metacognition, and meaning-making is an area rich in opportunity for future research.
Technology as we experience it today only expresses and interacts with one kind of human knowing: a cognitive, information processing and categorizing kind of knowing (Ashraf, 2020). Thankfully, other psychologically evolved skills and abilities to engage the world can still be put to good use in relation to technology (Goodwyn, 2017). Before technologies like the alphabet humans developed ritual, songs, rhymes and stories to pass down information (Ong, 2002); and as a culture we are still drawn to stories and performance to find meaning (Schiff, 2012). Free play has also been shown to have impressive social and emotional learning outcomes (Gray, 2011). The good news is that embodied learning can still be applied successfully to increase metacognitive abilities and learning today (Lee & David, 2022; Skulmowski & Rey, 2017).
Conclusion
Extending Turkle’s ideas with a depth psychology approach, Cameran Ashraf connects today’s technology usage with the human need for a central myth or symbol (2020); perhaps technology has become the collective myth of our time (Shlain, 1999). It is pervasive, powerfully captures our attention and emotion, and holds important impacts on quality of life and cohesion with others. As users, we are faced with the complexity of treating technologies like tools but also feeling emotionally connected to them as “evoking objects.” We cannot seem to relate to technology without human relational strategies, yet we still experience it as something “other than human” (Turkle, 2004).
As with any innovation or technology, we know that the softwares, applications and hardware devices have become part of our life are here to stay. From a theoretical perspective, it seems clear that we must find new ways to relate to these “evoking objects” that are now part of our extended virtual world. The research points to critical aspects of this relationship; we know technology is not quite human, but we still use human relational strategies to interact with it. Our current digital technologies clearly promote cognitive offloading, which can support us in information access or even help execute tasks at great scale; but this cognitive offloading poses a risk to populations with developing or already diminished cognitive capacity as well as those without strong metacognition. In either case, the dissonance between our perception of technology as a tool and our behaviors around technology as a relational object reduces our ability to make meaning out of the interactions we have in this virtual world.
We say that our modern world is becoming more and more complex, requiring the use of these technologies to keep up. Perhaps the complexity of the modern world is due to the fact that we are ever-more connected and the lines are now almost fully blurred between the virtual world and physical world.
Maybe we are moving to a world in which we as a species must again invoke the technologies of our ancestors;
similar to these early humans’ animistic experience, our virtual world is full of programs, applications, avatars, and notifications that are nudging, demanding attention and evoking responses from us. When everything around us, our virtual world, is animated by evoking objects; we need the metacognitive skills, and other kinds of knowing to retain consciousness and make meaning; allowing us to interact and engage with both physically and virtually.
References
Anderson, J., McRee, J., Wilson, R., Team, T. E. (2010). Effective UI: The Art of Building Great User Experience in Software. United States: O'Reilly Media.
Anyaegbunam, M. C., & Nwafor, C. E. (2022). Loneliness, happiness, and interpersonal dependency as correlates of problematic use of social networking sites. Nigerian Journal of Social Psychology.
Ashraf, C. (2020). Psychodynamics of the technological unconscious. International Journal of Jungian Studies.
Baumeister, R. & Vohs, K. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. Handbook of positive psychology.
Bhandari, A, & Bimo, S. (2020). TikTok and the Algorithmized Self: A New Model of Online Interaction. Paper presented at AoIR 2020: The 21thAnnual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Virtual Event: AoIR. Retrieved from http://spir.aoir.org.
Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., & Liss, M. (2017). Extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences.
Boldt, A., & Gilbert, S. J. (2019). Confidence guides spontaneous cognitive offloading. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications..
Cary, M., & Carlson, R. A. (2001). Distributing working memory resources during problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Chen, Y., Li, R., Zhang, P., & Liu, X. (2020). The Moderating Role of State Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Between Social Anxiety and Social Networking Sites Addiction. Psychological Reports.
Choi, S. B., & Lim, M. S. (2016). Effects of social and technology overload on psychological well-being in young South Korean adults: The mediatory role of social network service addiction. Computers in Human Behavior.
Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023, March 8). Noam Chomsky: The false promise of chatgpt. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and motivation. Annual review of psychology.
Dunn, T. L., Gaspar, C., McLean, D., Koehler, D. J., and Risko, E. F. (2021). Distributed metacognition: Increased bias and deficits in metacognitive sensitivity when retrieving information form the internet. Technology, Mind, and Behavior.
Fisher, M., Smiley, A. H., & Grillo, T. L. (2022). Information without knowledge: The effects of Internet search on learning. Media Psychology.
Fuermaier, A. B. M., Tucha, L., Koerts, J., Aschenbrenner, S., Kaunzinger, I., Hauser, J., Weisbrod, M., Lange, K. W., & Tucha, O. (2015). Cognitive impairment in adult ADHD—Perspective matters! Neuropsychology.
Goodwyn, E. (2017) Rediscovering the ritual technology of the placebo effect in analytical psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology.
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play.
Greenberg-Worisek, A. J., Kurani, S., Finney Rutten, L. J., Blake, K. D., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2019). Tracking healthy people 2020 internet, broadband, and mobile device access goals: an update using data from the health information national trends survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research.
Grinschgl, S., Meyerhoff, H. S., & Papenmeier, F. (2020). Interface and interaction design: How mobile touch devices foster cognitive offloading. Computers in Human Behavior.
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2021). Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Grinschgl, S., & Neubauer, A. C. (2022). Supporting Cognition With Modern Technology: Distributed Cognition Today and in an AI-Enhanced Future. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.
Gudka, M., Gardiner, K. L., & Lomas, T. (2023). Towards a framework for flourishing through social media: a systematic review of 118 research studies. The Journal of Positive Psychology.
Harkin, L. J., & Kuss, D. (2021). “My smartphone is an extension of myself”: A holistic qualitative exploration of the impact of using a smartphone. Psychology of Popular Media.
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Instagram. (2023). About Instagram. https://about.instagram.com/
Kalla, D., & Smith, N. (2023). Study and Analysis of Chat GPT and its Impact on Different Fields of Study. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Laestadius, L., Bishop, A., Gonzalez, M., Illenčík, D., & Campos-Castillo, C. (2022). Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika. New Media & Society.
Lee, Y. K., Chang, C. T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z. H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior.
Lee, J. S., & David, E. M. (2022). Examining the indirect effects of embodied learning on adaptability: The mediating roles of challenge stressors and psychological capital. Personnel Psychology.
Leiva, L., Böhmer, M., Gehring, S., & Krüger, A. (2012, September). Back to the app: the costs of mobile application interruptions. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services.
Li, D. X. T. (2023). What Should We Do about Teen Social Media Addiction? A Review of Social Media’s Impact on Development and Recommendation for Future Regulations. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202311.1934/v1
Lin, Y., Liu, Q., Qi, D., Zhang, J., & Ding, Z. (2023). Smartphone embodiment: The effect of smartphone use on body representation. Current Psychology.
Longua-Peterson, J., Giguere, B., & Sherman, J. (2017). Social connection and social networking: Daily conflict increases nightly Facebook use among avoidant participants. Self and Identity.
Lukoff, K., Yu, C., Kientz, J., & Hiniker, A. (2018). What makes smartphone use meaningful or meaningless?. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Vol. 10). U of Minnesota Press.
O’Donnell, M. B., Bentele, C. N., Grossman, H. B., Le, Y., Jang, H., & Steger, M. F. (2014). You, me, and meaning: An integrative review of connections between relationships and meaning in life. Journal of Psychology in Africa.
Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy. Routledge.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., and Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Osiurak, F., Reynaud, E., & Navarro, J. (2022). Impact of Intrinsic Cognitive Skills and Metacognitive Beliefs on Tool Use Performance. The American Journal of Psychology.
Meta. (2023). Transparency Center: Instagram Notifications AI system. https://transparency.fb.com/features/explaining-ranking/ig-notifications/?referrer=2
Montag C, Yang H and Elhai JD (2021) On the Psychology of TikTok Use: A First Glimpse From Empirical Findings. Frontiers in public health.
Morozov, E. (2014). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
Park, C. L. (2013). The meaning making model: A framework for understanding meaning, spirituality, and stress-related growth in health psychology. European Health Psychologist.
Pera, A. (2020). The psychology of addictive smartphone behavior in young adults: Problematic use, social anxiety, and depressive stress. Frontiers in Psychiatry.
Pielot, M., & Rello, L. (2017). Productive, anxious, lonely: 24 hours without push notifications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services.
Porter, J. (2023, November 6). CHATGPT continues to be one of the fastest-growing services ever. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23948386/chatgpt-active-user-count-openai-developer-conference
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in cognitive sciences.
Ross, M. Q., & Bayer, J. B. (2021). Explicating self-phones: Dimensions and correlates of smartphone self-extension. Mobile Media & Communication.
Ross, C. (2023, March 21). Does CHATGPT give the same answer to everyone?. Medium. https://medium.com/@charles-ross/does-chatgpt-give-the-same-answer-to-everyone-521e3e9355a4
Schiff, B. (2012). The function of narrative: Toward a narrative psychology of meaning. Narrative Matters, 2(1), 33-47.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. United Kingdom: Free Press.
Shlain, L. (1999). The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image. Spain: Penguin Publishing Group.
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Bodily effort enhances learning and metacognition: Investigating the relation between physical effort and cognition using dual-process models of embodiment. Advances in cognitive psychology.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science.
Suler, J. (2011). The psychology of text relationships. In Online counseling.
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting. Social Psychology.
Triplett, K. N., Tedeschi, R. G., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Reeve, C. L. (2012). Posttraumatic growth, meaning in life, and life satisfaction in response to trauma. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy.
Turkle, S. (2004). Whither Psychoanalysis in Computer Culture? Psychoanalytic Psychology.
Turkle, S. (2023). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. In Social Theory Re-Wired (pp. 485-495). Routledge.
Twenge, J. M. (2020). Why increases in adolescent depression may be linked to the technological environment. Current opinion in psychology.
van Nimwegen, C., & van Oostendorp, H. (2009). The questionable impact of an assisting interface on performance in transfer situations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.
Verbeek, P. P. (2002). Devices of engagement: on Borgmann's philosophy of information and technology. Techné: research in philosophy and technology.
Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing frontal lobe functioning in children: Views from developmental psychology. Developmental neuropsychology.
Wilmer, H. H., & Chein, J. M. (2016). Mobile technology habits: patterns of association among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychonomic bulletin & review.
Wilson, C. (2018). Is it love or loneliness? Exploring the impact of everyday digital technology use on the wellbeing of older adults. Ageing and Society.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well‐being. British journal of psychology.
