The Media Psychology Blog

The study “Teenagers: A Generation Unplugged” by the wireless trade association CTIA and Harris Interactive reports that cell phones have become a vital part of a teen’s identity. The coolness of the cell phone is considered a marker for popularity and status and having a phone is essential to a teen’s social life. (While most teens agreed that the iPhone was the coolest phone, most teens had a ‘conventional’ cell phone. Few could manage the high cost of the phone and the rates charged by AT&T.) The study results were announced at the CTIA Fall 2008 trade show. (See the overview at CNET.com)

Photo credit: Local12. com

The importance of a cell phone to teen identity matters to cell phone makers and network operators because teens are a huge demographic. (A recent CNET review is entitled “Top Cell Phones for Teens”.) In fact, four out of 5 teens carry a cell phone with total cell phone owners up 40% since 2004. A Nielsen study reported that the average age of getting the first cell phone is now between ages 10 and 11; with nearly half of all kids in the US between ages 8 and 12 with their own cell phones. Most teens reported text messaging as much or more than they talk on the phone and 42% said they could text blindfolded. If you think this is teen bravado, watch your own kids sometime. My daughter has a friend who texts messages with his phone in his pocket. Before you accuse these teens of being immature, shallow, and commercial, look in your own closet and see what brand of shoe, pants, shirt, purse, briefcase, or even phone YOU have. (Busted! I have an iPhone. See, I am cool.)

Why are exterior signs of our identities so important? In part, we have a biological need to establish tribal identity because it is vital to survival. Your own tribe is much more likely to feed you and much less likely to kill you than a competing tribe. That probably is how it feels in high school.

The importance of a cell phone (or anything else) to teen identity matters to me, because I am interested in how identity responds to information flows. Identity formation across the lifespan, from an Eriksonian framework, argues that our identity develops and strengthens as we move through stages, responding to developmental and social challenges. An interesting question is how our identity development handles such a rapidly changing information environment. Technological changes have impacted the speed with which we communicate and travel, how and what we do for work, how we receive information, and our awareness of the world around us. Is it possible to go through Erikson’s stages at a breakneck speed or does it force us to revert to more primitive tribal allegiances for comfort and identity? Worth considering, because identity has implications for individual, group, and international relations.

The question of ‘Internet Addiction’ is big in China. Parents are more worried than ever about their child’s performance–most have only one child to bear the brunt of all that parental pressure–and those same parents are facing a digital divide between themselves and the new generation.

China has its own set of pressures and changes.  But the concerns of parents for their children are the same on both sides of the world.

Here are some things I believe about our world today:

* Things are changing very fast
* New things frighten people
* Frightened people are on the look out for other scary things
* If you want to get someone’s attention, make it scary (or sexy, or preferably both.)

What does this have to do with the topic of Internet addiction?  A lot.  The speed of technological change and the introduction of technology into everyday lives are proceeding at a breakneck pace. Change is happening so fast, that generational differences for the comfort and use of technology varies tremendously.   Our oldest daughter is 13 years older than our youngest daughter.  They are light years apart in how they use technology, from cell phones, Internet, instant messaging, Facebook, and text messaging; their use is completely different.  While our oldest daughter is certainly technologically competent in what are now necessary life skills–word processing programs, spreadsheets and email–our youngest daughter uses multiple technologies with the nonchalance of someone who knows life no other way.  Her frustrations are not with understanding how to use a new gadget or program; it is with Internet access speeds, the availability of wireless reception and how we could be so dumb about it all.

This difference over such a short amount of time speaks volumes about how different ages view and use computers and the Internet.  Every new technology has triggered a cascade of doomsayers, from Socrates who worried that writing would destroy man’s ability to remember things, to my grandmother, who was sure the telephone would mean no one would ever visit her in person again.   (My grandmother was so amazed by technology, that when she first got a washing machine–the kind with the door on the front and the little window–she would sit and watch it like a television set.)  The early decades following the introduction of television sets were filled with books warning that television would destroy children’s ability to learn and wreak havoc on a family’s social interactions.

The Internet is new, constantly changing, and has seemingly unlimited information, activities, and people.  Because of this, there is a lot we do not know about the Internet.  This means there is a lot of uncertainty that gives us a never-ending supply of anxieties.  All this worrying makes us perfect targets for headlines that warn of the dangers of Internet Addiction.

Now let me say here that do believe in addictions–that is a real and separate issue from the point I am making here.  I am concerned about our solipsistic tendencies to not see past our own noses.  We do it in foreign policy, social policy, and individual attributions.

In order to determine if a behavior is problematic, we need to discriminate between some important things that requires us to step outside our own baggage and try and be objective.  For example, 1) the actual impact of newness versus our fear of what change might bring, 2) behavior differences cohorts versus a significant change in behavior in one individual, 3) short-term fascination with something new versus a problematic preoccupation, and 4) usage based on utility  versus usage for escapism.  In other words, we need to figure out how we think about technology and if that is different than how whomever we are making a judgment about thinks (our parents, friends or children) before we decide what is or isn’t healthy.  Different perspectives engender different meanings and different behaviors

If someone finds technology challenging, difficult to understand, unnecessary or unpleasant, then that point of view will influence how he or she see technology use in those around them.  That meaning will become embodied in the assumptions anf value judgments that person makes  about media technologies. For example, much of the research done on the impact of media violence on children is authored by researchers who arent’ investigating a null hypothesis.  They believe that media violence harms children.  Thus their “research,” not surprisingly, supports their beliefs.  The same is true of some of the research on Internet Addiction—it is done to prove that there are harmful effects.  And further, by labeling problematic Internet use as an “Addiction,” the behavior becomes equated with drug addicts, alcoholic binges, and lives destroyed by gambling.  This all serves to increase the fear of technologies and drive a greater distance between the technology-enthusiastic and the technology-phobic.

There are big differences between frequent use behaviors and abusive use behaviors that resemble addiction.  While some estimate that about 10% of users could be considered addicted to the Internet, a lot of us who live totally plugged in with computers, Blackberrys, iPhones and PDAs are experimenting with the productivity of technology versus our balance and sanity.  Many people joke about their own level of technology connection—such as checking email at the dinner table, taking their laptop into the bathroom, imagining they are blogging in their dreams, or spending hours flying around the world on Google Earth.  Sharing a joke about your dependence on technology helps us feel more normal as we work our way toward balance. Everyone knows it is hard to make perfect sense out of all this access.  This is a media culture and to succeed in it, we have to know how to harness media technologies for our positive use and make peace with them.  We are not going to get this right overnight.

But to determine what is problematic, or “addictive,” behavior, we have to make sure we are asking the right questions.  And we have to get over all the blaming and kneejerk responses.  We need a new perspective to understand how new media is used and abused.  (If you went on time online alone, I’d be a major offender.)
Like most addictions, Internet addiction is not about the Internet.  It is about the person who uses the Internet so much that the use or activity creates problems in their life.   Before we rush to pathologize ,  label regulate, inspect, and vilify each new technology, we might want to invest in building some skills like critical thinking, resourcefulness, and risk-tolerance.  Unplugging the computer or restricting Internet access won’t work any better as a solution than holding a beach ball underwater.  The ball will pop back up as soon as you let go.

A study out of Ohio state reports that “fake” news, such as Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report, doesn’t inform or teach viewers as much about political issues and cadidates as does watching news on television networks like CNN and NBC.  I never thought learning was the issue when reports started coming out saying that many young people were getting their news from Jon Stewart.  In fact, in my current research, Comedy Central comes in about third in viewer’s choice of an information source.  I interpret this as a matter of trust, not education.  We all know that Jon Stewart’s primary goal is to be funny and entertain us.  This certainty means we can process what we receive from him in that context.  Within that context, he has no reason to lie, distort, or otherwise reframe current events. 

On the other hand, television news is presented as truth, without any signposts to clue us in to the economic pressues that drive content choice and framing of a given network, producer, or station.  Without that context, we are mssing vital information as to the reliability or pitch of the information we receive.  Due diligence demands we confirm or deny from other sources which requires time and effort.  It is no wonder that the American public is a little cynical about mainstream media as a source of truth (if there is such a thing.)  I am not, I should note, a believer in all the conspiracy theories about media bias, government control, corporate America, the neo-cons, and other influential group.  I am, however, a believer in market forces and as long as television programming decisions are driven by eyeballs (ratings) in order to generate the revenues to stay economically viable in a tough market, the content choices will be driven by the things chosen to attract our attention.   Cynicism, however, does not impede retention.  In fact, it might even enhance it by engaging critical thinking.

We are very pleased to announce the inaugural edition of the Media Psychology Review. We believe that it is a breakthrough as the first academic e-zine employing multiple media forms in lieu of the standard linked-PDF-files type online journal. Let us know what you think!

Sometimes new ideas are right in front of us in the garden. The Media Creativity blog reports that watermelons are being tested as ad vehicles.
When I read this, I imagined mini-billboards applied across the span of the rotund fruit, but the the ad is applied more discreetly as a sticker (but does include a coupon for Zip-loc bags if you were worried that it isn’t practical.) I was a little disappointed by the lack of fruit-art, but nevertheless, this reminds me that innovation can be using things out of context as much as it is new technology. (The photo is from the Media Creativity blog)