Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Overuse of Digital Technologies: Human Weaknesses, Design Strategies and Ethical Concerns

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Philosophy & Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is an interdisciplinary article providing an account of a phenomenon that is quite widespread but has been thus far mostly neglected by scholars: the overuse of digital technologies. Digital overuse (DO) can be defined as a usage of digital technologies that subjects perceive as dissatisfactory and non-meaningful a posteriori. DO has often been implicitly conceived as one of the main obstacle to so-called digital well-being. The article is structured in two parts. The first provides a definition of the phenomenon and a brief review of the explanations provided by various disciplines, in particular psychology and the evolutionary and behavioural sciences. Specifically, the article distinguishes between the endogenous and exogenous factors underlying digital overuse, that is between causes that seem to be intrinsic to digital technologies, and design techniques intentionally aimed at nudging users towards this behaviour. The second part is devoted to a discussion of the ethical concerns surrounding the phenomenon of the overuse of digital technologies, and how it may be possible to reduce such overuse among users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I thank a reviewer for signalling this point.

References

  • Ainslie, G., & George, A. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital competence for lifelong learning. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Technical Note: JRC, 48708, 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angner, E. (2010). Subjective well-being. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3), 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. (2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work & Stress, 27(1), 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, A., & Oliver, M. B. (2016). Appreciation of meaningful entertainment experiences and eudaimonic wellbeing. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, 98–110.

  • Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: Adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M. (2007). If happiness is so important, why do we know so little about it (pp. 127–150). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2015). Design for the value of human well-being. Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains, 365–382.

  • Burr, C., & Floridi, L. (2020). Ethics of digital well-being. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr, C., Cristianini, N., & Ladyman, J. (2018). An analysis of the interaction between intelligent software agents and human users. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 735–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, R. A., & Peters, D. (2014). Positive computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, R. A., Peters, D., Vold, K., & Ryan, R. M. (2020). Supporting human autonomy in AI systems: A framework for ethical enquiry. In Ethics of Digital Well-Being (pp. 31–54). Springer.

  • Calvo, R. A., Peters, D., & Cave, S. (2020b). Advancing impact assessment for intelligent systems. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(2), 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and the Council (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, L394.

  • Davidow, B. (2013). Skinner marketing: We’re the rats, and Facebook likes are the reward. The Atlantic, 10.

  • Davis, H., & McLeod, S. L. (2003). Why humans value sensational news: An evolutionary perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 208–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, M. J. (2021). Towards a theory of digital well-being: Reimagining online life after lockdown. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(3), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J., & Jon, E. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entertainment Software Association. (2014). Games: Improving the economy. Entertainment Software Association, 4.

  • Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasoli, M. (2018). Super artifacts: Personal devices as intrinsically multifunctional, meta-representational artifacts with a highly variable structure. Minds and Machines, 28(3), 589–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B. J., Cueller, G., & Danielson, D. (2007). Motivating, influencing, and persuading users: An introduction to captology. In The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 159–172). CRC Press.

  • Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. (2016). The distracted mind: Ancient brains in a high-tech world. Mit Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Seung, B. Y., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gui, M., Fasoli, M., & Carradore, R. (2017). “Digital well-being”. Developing a new theoretical tool for media literacy research. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(1).

  • Gui, M., & Büchi, M. (2019). From use to overuse: Digital inequality in the age of communication abundance. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439319851163.

  • Gui, M., Gerosa, T., Garavaglia, A., Petti, L., & Fasoli, M. (2018). Digital well-being. Validation of a digital media education programme in high schools. Report, Research Center on Quality of Life in the Digital Society.

  • Gui, M., Shanahan, J., & Tsay-Vogel, M. (2021). Theorizing inconsistent media selection in the digital environment. The Information Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2021.1922565

  • Hanin, M. L. (2020). Theorizing digital distraction. Philosophy & Technology, 1–12.

  • Hefner, D., & Vorderer, P. (2016). Permanent connectedness and multitasking. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, 237.

  • Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, T. T., Noguchi, T., & Gibbert, M. (2013). Information overload or search-amplified risk? Set size and order effects on decisions from experience. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 1023–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huta, V. (2016). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. Handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, 14–33.

  • Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2019). When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klenk, M. (2020). Digital well-being and manipulation online. In C. Burr & L. Floridi (Eds.), Ethics of Digital Well-Being. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2019). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools.

  • Lanzing, M. (2019). “Strongly recommended” revisiting decisional privacy to judge hypernudging in self-tracking technologies. Philosophy & Technology, 32(3), 549–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. R., Son, S. M., & Kim, K. K. (2016). Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lortie, C. L., & Guitton, M. J. (2013). Internet addiction assessment tools: Dimensional structure and methodological status. Addiction, 108(7), 1207–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 2(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meshi, D., Tamir, D. I., & Heekeren, H. R. (2015). The emerging neuroscience of social media. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 771–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1963). Collected works.

  • Miller, G. A. (1984). Informavores. The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages, 111–113.

  • Murray, J., Scott, H., Connolly, C., & Wells, A. (2018). The attention training technique improves children’s ability to delay gratification: A controlled comparison with progressive relaxation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 104, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noggle, R. The ethics of manipulation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/ethics-manipulation/. Accessed Dec 2019

  • OFCOM (2016). The Communications Market Report. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/26826/cmr_uk_2016.pdf. Accessed Dec 2019

  • Peters, D., Calvo, R. A., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2003). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J. F., Breazeal, C., … & Jennings, N. R. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477-486.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y.

  • Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Motivation for entertainment media and its eudaimonic aspects through the lens of self-determination theory. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, 34–48.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

  • Schüll, N. D. (2014). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, N. (2018). Captivating algorithms: Recommender systems as traps. Journal of Material Culture, 1359183518820366.

  • Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanca, L., Gui, M., & Gallucci, M. (2013). Attracted but unsatisfied: The effects of sensational content on television consumption choices. Journal of Media Economics, 26(2), 82–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2018). Online manipulation: Hidden influences in a digital world. Georgetown Law Technology Review, Forthcoming.

  • Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8038–8043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L. (2016). Taking the good with the bad. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, 170–182.

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel, I. (2012). 21 Can we design for well-being? The Good Life in a Technological Age, 17, 295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & Van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2018). Stand out of our light: Freedom and resistance in the attention economy. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T. (2017). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The article was supported by the Italian project MOM “The Mark of the mental” PRIN 2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IUSS Pavia, Piazza della Vittoria, 15, 27100, Pavia, PV, Italy

    Marco Fasoli

Authors
  1. Marco Fasoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Fasoli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fasoli, M. The Overuse of Digital Technologies: Human Weaknesses, Design Strategies and Ethical Concerns. Philos. Technol. 34, 1409–1427 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00463-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00463-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation