Understanding Digital Technology as Everyday Experience

  • Dave HarleyEmail author
  • Julie Morgan
  • Hannah Frith


This chapter starts by providing a brief overview of existing research in Cyberpsychology and then sets out a revised approach which is pursued throughout the book. Existing Cyberpsychology research has inherited a great deal from the ‘media effects’ tradition, and there are limitations to this positivist, objective stance when it comes to explaining the everyday use of digital technologies. In contrast, the approach to Cyberpsychology proposed here takes into account the effects of social context and subjective experience. In order to do this, the book examines different life stages and life orientations as significant in framing our digital interactions, giving them meaning and purpose.


  1. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership. Pew Research Center, October 2015. Available online:–10-29_device-ownership_FINAL.pdf.
  3. Anderson, C. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2014). Violent video effects on aggressive thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behavior. Media violence and children (2nd ed., pp. 229–270). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al., (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazzanella, C., & Baracco, A. (2003). Misunderstanding in IRC (Internet Relay Chat). In Dialogue Analysis 2000—Selected Papers from the 10th IADA Anniversary Conference, Bologne 2000 (pp. 119–131).Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, A. D. (1991). The republic of Plato. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bragazzi, N. L., & Del Puente, G. (2014). A proposal for including nomophobia in the new DSM-V. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 7, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. Online communities and social computing (pp. 143–152). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabinet Office. (2014). Government digital inclusion strategy. Available online: Accessed March 16, 2016.
  12. Caplan, S. E. (2006). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(2), 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Culnan, M., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–444). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., & Shook, J. J. (2013). Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence new evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(2), 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dhir, A., Pallesen, S., Torsheim, T., & Andreassen, C. S. (2016). Do age and gender differences exist in selfie-related behaviours? Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 549–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eggermont, S. (2004). Television viewing, perceived similarity, and adolescents’ expectations of a romantic partner. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48(2), 244–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EU. (2015). Eurostat dataset—Households—Level of Internet access. Available online:
  21. Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, C. S. (1994). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, W. S., & Jordan, P. W. (Eds.). (2003). Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Griffiths, M. D., & Meredith, A. (2009). Videogame addiction and its treatment. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39(4), 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GSMA Intelligence. (2016). Global mobile trends, October, 2016. GSMA Intelligence. Available online:
  27. GSMA Intelligence. (2017).
  28. Haines, G. (2017, July 7). More than half of all selfie deaths have occurred in just one country. The Telegraph. Retrieved from:
  29. Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience—A research agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Zhong, C. B. (2011). Drunk, powerful, and in the dark how general processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huston, A. C., Wartella, E., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Measuring the effects of sexual content in the media: A report to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Jowett, G. S., Jarvie, I. C., & Fuller, K. H. (1996). Children and the movies: Media influence and the Payne Fund controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). Selfies|selfies and photo messaging as visual conversation: Reports from the United States, United Kingdom and China. International Journal of Communication, 9, 12.Google Scholar
  37. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kushin, M. J., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11).
  40. Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Addiction to social networks on the Internet: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8, 3528–3552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Binder, J. F. (2013). Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lampe, C., Zube, P., Lee, J., Park, C. H., & Johnston, E. (2014). Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, M., MordkoV, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A laboratory study of psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(34) (Whole No. 553).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2009). Desiring to be in touch in a changing communications landscape: Attitudes of older adults. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1693–1702). ACM.Google Scholar
  45. Livingstone, S. (2014). The mediatization of childhood and education: Reflections on the class. In L. Kramp, N. Carpentier, A. Hepp, I. Tomanic-Trivundza, H. Nieminen, R. Kunelius, T. Olsson, E. Sundin, & R. Kilborn (Eds.), Media practice and everyday agency in Europe (pp. 55–68). Bremen: Edition Lumière.Google Scholar
  46. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miranda, C., & Steiner, A. (2014, December 3). No-makeup selfie: Cancer research’s lesson on benefits of quick thinking. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
  48. Murphy, K. (2015, August 8). What selfie sticks tell us about ourselves. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
  49. Nielsen, J. (1999). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. OfCom. (2015). The communications market report. OfCom, August 2015. Available online:
  52. Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33(1), 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2015). American’s Internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center, June 2015. Available online:
  54. Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Potts, R., Doppler, M., & Hernandez, M. (1994). Effects of television content on physical risk-taking in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58(3), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salovaara, A. (2008). Inventing new uses for old tools: A cognitive foundation for studies of appropriation. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 4(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steers, M. L. N., Wickham, R. E., & Acitelli, L. K. (2014). Seeing everyone else’s highlight reels: How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(8), 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tiggemann, M. (2006). The role of media exposure in adolescent girls’ body dissatisfaction and drive for thinness: Prospective results. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Turel, O. (2015). An empirical examination of the “Vicious Cycle” of Facebook addiction. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(3), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  66. Walther, J. B. (2008). Social information processing theory of computer-mediated communication: Impressions and relationship development online. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 391–404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weaver, M. (2015, March 15). National gallery in London bans selfie sticks. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
  68. Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’me, searching for the ‘actual’you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1707–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yao, M. Z., & Zhong, Z. J. (2014). Loneliness, social contacts and Internet addiction: A cross-lagged panel study. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1(3), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction a new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Applied Social ScienceUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations