Unintended Consequences of Technology

The instrumental approach to modern technology advocates that technology is a neutral tool which can be used to increase productivity and efficiency (Feenberg, 1991).  Generally speaking, 

Honda automobile plant

technology is a broad field, encompassing the production and use of tools, from those used in manufacturing, to practical products like vacuum cleaners and microwaves, to personal electronics like cell phones and computers.  More specifically, electronics like laptop computers and smart phones were created to increase productivity in a number of ways.  For example, they make communication easier.  You can quickly and easily send emails and texts from cell phones, and can quickly and easily compose or edit a document on a computer.  Using your smart phone or computer, you can access the internet, which is prevalent in the Western world. For example, 69% of people have internet access in the US and 75% have access in Sweden.  However, in developing nations, internet access is less prevalent—in South Africa, ten percent of the population has access to the internet (Thatcher, Wretschko, & Fridjhon, 2008).  Internet use is highest among 16-24 year olds—those who grew up with the technology.

procrastination

The internet can be helpful, but it isn’t always beneficial.  When tasks are boring or seem too difficult, people can find themselves engaging in problematic internet use.  Problematic internet use, also called cyberslacking or cyberloafing, is defined as using the Internet to distract yourself from certain tasks (Thatcher et al., 2008).  It can lead to procrastination—avoiding a task by delaying the start or completion of a task (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001).  There may be certain brain chemistry involved in this process.  Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is associated with certain “seeking” behaviors like searching for information online, whether it’s related to a task or just for entertainment (Weinschenk, 2009).

People also seek a social connection by chatting online instead of in person, or seek entertainment by playing games online like Words with Friends or World of Warcraft.  Using the Internet can lead to what’s called a flow experience, or getting engrossed or absorbed in a task (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989).  A problem arises when that task isn’t related to your job or homework.  Experiences of flow on the Internet are relatively common, especially when instant messaging (chatting online) or playing online games.  Surfing the internet leads to these flow states because the search or game is under the user’s control, it provides immediate feedback, and it’s interactive. 

"flow"

All of this information provides support for the substantive viewpoint, Feenberg’s (1991) preferred viewpoint.  According to the substantive viewpoint, technology is not neutral, and it is inherently value-laden.  Technology may be designed as a neutral tool, but it can negatively impact people.  It could hinder focus or concentration, could reduce productivity at work, and could negatively impact academic success.

This is a timely issue.  Many children are growing up surrounded by TV, video games, cell phones, and computers.  If nothing is done, children will continue to become habituated to frequent distractions and will be less able to focus, which could lead to lowered academic success (Richtel, 2010).  Academic success is associated with later success at work, so there could be longitudinal consequences. If internet use that isn’t work-related surpasses 12% of the work day, overall productivity suffers (Coker, 2011).  Children are exposed to technology at a very early age, and continue to interact with it throughout their childhood.  Researchers have found that academic self-efficacy is negatively correlated with problematic internet use (Odaci, 2011).  Students who don’t feel effectual in their schoolwork tend to engage in more distracting and problematic internet use.

technology in the classroom

This leads to a conundrum.  Technology and internet access could be beneficial, but could be detrimental.  Many high school and college students have internet access at home and on school campus.  There is an ongoing debate about whether or not to bring technology into the classroom.  Many instructors do, thinking if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  But others don’t.  As Alan Eaton said, “When rock ‘n’ roll came about, we didn’t start using it in classrooms like we’re doing with technology” (Richtel, 2010, p. 9).

We should ask the question, Does technology aid students’ learning, or does it impair their concentration and focus?  If technology use has more positives than negatives, it would be beneficial to continue incorporating technology into the classroom.  Likewise, we should increase efforts to distribute technology more evenly across school districts so all districts have access to technology.  If the use of technology in the classroom shows more negatives than positives, we should communicate to children the importance of face-to-face interactions and reduce the amount of time they spend with electronics.  Parents and teachers should engage children and students in activities that aren’t reliant on technology so they don’t become dependent upon it.  Ultimately, technology can be beneficial, but we must be intentional about how we use it—we need to determine exactly what the consequences are, whether they’re positive or negative, and act accordingly.

References

Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, 28, 309-369. Retrieved from http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/research&labs/berridge/publications/Berridge&RobinsonBrResRev1998.pdf

Coker, B. L. S. (2011). Freedom to surf: The positive effects of workplace Internet leisure browsing. New Technology, Work, and Employment, 26(3), 238-247. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2011.00272.x

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815-822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.815

Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Critical Theory of Technology (pp. 2-20). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lavoie, J., & Pychyl, T. A. (2001). Cyber-slacking and the procrastination superhighway: A web-based survey of online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 431-444. doi:10.1177/089443930101900403

Odaci, H. (2011). Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination as predictors of problematic internet use in university students. Computers and Education, 57, 1109-1113. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.005

Richtel, T. (2010, November 21). Growing up digital, wired for distraction. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=all

Thatcher, A., Wretschko, G., & Fridjhon, P. (2008). Online flow experiences, problematic Internet use and Internet procrastination. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2236-2254. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.008