Andrew Ingledue

Dr. Adrienne Cassel

ENG 1201.501

3/22/2019

The Dark Relationship Between Social Media and Neuroscience

Social media, and by extension, the internet have perhaps been mankind’s biggest stride

forward since the United States put a man on the moon. While the moon landing may have

inspired millions and marked the day that we, as a species finally accomplished our life dream

of seeing a man on the moon, the internet isn’t quite held in the same reverence. In fact, it’s

usually the butt-end of jokes among professors and an outright punchline when discussing

issues of sources. However, the internet is by no means a bad thing; allowing people all over the

world to communicate is a staggering step forward and has essentially become a playground

inhabited by forum users, businesses, artists, writers, musicians, and just about everything else

you can think of. How could something like that have any logical detriment? The answer is “it

doesn’t”, as that concept of a “pure internet” is long dead in 2019. In contrast to our fellow

fauna, we may have actually devolved. With more mobile technology came mobile phones,

which evolved into smartphones which were essentially the desktop computers of old now in

the form of a small phone. One has to wonder what this new technology is doing to our own

minds, or to be biologically specific – our brains. There is a fair amount of neuroscience taking

place when one participates in social media and would seem the general phone-using populous
don’t know what they get themselves into whenever they turn on a phone.

Fig. 1. - In many ways social media is analogous to prescription drugs [8]

As previously mentioned, the digital age is here and it looks like it’s here to stay. While some

have shunned its existence (and have probably purchased a smartphone anyways), others have

embraced it, and others yet have may have embraced it a little too much. As of late, social

media seems to have become the Internet's dumbest child. Be it a heated feud on twitter, an

Instagram argument, or watching one’s family and friends lose their temper on the ever-public

Facebook, social media seems to bring out the worst in people. Nearly every day in the

mainstream news features some kind of outrageous “tweet” (a term used by twitter users). It’s

almost as if we abandon all inner dialogue in favor of a stream of consciousness. As per any

general observation, that doesn’t mean that the absolute entirety of a medium are subject to such

behaviors; I’m sure there are plenty of well-meaning, decent people who regularly use social
media. For one reason or another, the talk on why these two correlations of social media and

abnormal behavior seems to be a talk seldom told. There are fields however, that at the very

least attempt to explore as to why such correlations exist. One of those fields is neuroscience.

Neurology is perhaps one of the most amazing sub-fields of the biological sciences. After all,

who wouldn’t want to study an organ that could essentially be defined as a biological “soul” of

sorts? The brain is a place of wonder as it is a place of mystery, meaning we don’t know as

much about the brain as we would like to and thus cannot produce clear, concise answers as to

such complex questions like the direct connection between all social media interactions in the

brain. It can, however at the very least give us the slightest glimpse as to what parts of the brain

are reacting to social feedback. A 2015 academic study by Meshi, Tamir and Heekeren delved

into those exact details and made quite a few interesting discoveries. [1] The study not only

makes the implication that social media as a whole is just a capitalization on preexisting social

drives but also gives insight as to five behaviors found to be common in all social media users:

broadcasting, receiving feedback, observing, providing feedback, and comparison. In addition

to this there were also some physical findings in Meshi’s study such as the medial prefrontal

cortex (MPFC) being a key part of the brain in reaction to self reference (such as being on the

receiving end of feedback), while the social “rewards” one receives (such as a “Like” on

Facebook) is found within a complex system located in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex

(VMPFC). The study features a plethora of other information that shows in blatant objectivity

that the ever-mundane phones have created entirely processes in our ever-malleable brains.
Fig. 2. - An image from Meshi's Study detailing the five key social behaviors of social media [9]

In terms of measuring such a phenomena, the XMQ (or extended mind questionnaire) is a

proposed unit of measurement by a research team led by Sari Nijssen in her study “Has Your

Smartphone Replaced Your Brain? Construction and Validation of the Extended Mind

Questionnaire (XMQ).” [2] In the study, The XMQ itself is a quiz consisting of 28 questions

that measure the degree of accessibility, endorsement, and reliance a person experiences

towards digital media. Although it may still be in it’s infancy, the XMQ had showed that is was

a completely viable and empirical measurement suitable for future studies that concern social

media in an academic sense.

It should be noted that field neuroscience as a whole faces some issues when it comes to what

the general populous thinks it is and what it represents as a whole. According to a study

conducted by van Atteveldt et al., perceptions and media depictions of neurology can actually
depend on timing, topic and newspaper type. [3] The essay gives a deep and comprehensive

look into things such as how words such as “neuro” and “brain” being used nonchalantly by

both reporter and layman alike.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that even with ample evidence people are unlikely to limit or slow

their participation in social media. Spending time on your phone is nothing to shun; after all it’s

how we get through those boring family reunions or long waits in the doctor’s office. But like

all good things, moderation is needed; in the case of social media, a form of emotional

moderation is needed. “Emotional moderation” is quite the tricky concept to grasp, particularly

when we’re speaking of global platforms that the entire world (or just your friends, depending

on the application) can see. Why is it exactly would a person pour out their emotions, be they

supportive or destructive, on twitter? It’s analogous to wanting to rush up on stage in a crowded

theater only to act unpredictable and constantly focused on the audience. Why do we partake in

something so outrageous and detrimental? Even as we watch real-world relationships wither

and miss out on real-world events, our hands cling our phones ever so tight. A dependency to

start socializing with our digital peers is eventually developed and soon a good chunk of one’s

life is in revered devotion to this machine and all of it’s heavenly rewards (or feedback). It’s an

unhealthy relationship not unlike the one found between a drug addict and his or her choice of

drug.

Drug addict is actually an interesting choice of words, as a similar argument is presented in the

BBC documentary “Smartphones: The Dark Side” which briefly explores the literal chemical

dependency taking place whenever an individual receives feedback.[4] There is in fact a release

of dopamine whenever social media users receive feedback. This feedback can range from a

“Like”, an emoticon, or even simple acknowledgment that somebody in the vast world is
listening to them and potentially cares what they have to say. Whenever this happens, studies

have observed that a rush of dopamine, a naturally occurring chemical commonly associated

with happiness, pleasure, arousal, and various other “rewards” given to our body. The

documentary also mentions the disturbingly close similarities between social media users and

B.F. Skinner’s “Skinner’s Box”. A typical Skinner box involves a rat being presented rewards

upon completing various tasks. It is also the go-to model for operant conditioning, a type of

psychological conditioning that involves rewards and consequences. In relation to social media,

this type of conditioning is given the new variable of the rewards being presented in random

intervals. To sum it up, we are unknowingly getting high and looking to keep that high

whenever we peruse social media.

I suspect the immediate reaction to this would be insisting that the people in question could put

down the smartphone whenever they wanted; after all, they are human beings with sentience

and free will. But that sounds eerily similar to the classic addict adage of “I can stop whenever I

want”, does it not? The harsh truth is we don’t have that much of a say in anything if our body

wants something. And the mind is more than willing to do impressive mental acrobatics to

justify our next peer evaluation and subsequent dopamine hit. For an animal who prides himself

so much on his freedom, man doesn’t realize that both body and mind are not only conspiring

but actively working against his supposedly free will. The thought that we’re essentially being

chemically bullied by small mobile electronics is both frightening and pathetic (and hilarious,

depending on your perspective). Unfortunately the situation becomes even more complex when

taking into account that since rewards are obtained at random intervals in social media, there’s a

subconscious reason to keep one’s phone on themselves at all times.

Fig.3. A diagram o f the neurotransmitter known as dopamine, which plays a major part in

social media feedback [10]

According to Sherman et al. in their extensive academic study titled “The Power of the Like in

Adolescence”[5], nearly 90% of teenagers in America report to be active in some form of social

media. Sherman conducts a series of f-MRI scans on various adolescences, while the

adolescences in question were to view photos submitted to social media app Instagram during

the f-MRI scan. Photos would range to something neutral like a brand of coffee to things

considered “risky” such as a cigarette that clearly shows marijuana on its inside. Adolescence

were then placed in an f-MRI and were then ask to choose between “like” and “next” (approval

and disapproval, respectively). In addition to dopamine, Sherman had found that NAcc, an

important hub in the brain’s reward circuitry were quite prominent in the progress of one using

social media and the feedback that comes with it.

In addition to this study, yet another study was performed by doctoral student Julia Soares

involving having participants either look at an image, take a picture of the image with their

phone, or take an image from their phone using the Snapchat application, which can record for
up to 10 seconds when taking a picture. [6] Students who used their phone to take on average

scored 20% lower on the corresponding quiz than students who simply looked at the image.

Snapchat users didn’t fair that much better on the quiz, either. It is a frightening prospect that

something as vital as memory can be impeded by such a innocuous use of technology, and

devolve our senses from right out under our noses.

As mentioned previously near the beginning of the essay, the internet was a much simpler place.

It was still a place of utter chaos, shining brilliance, and infernal stupidity. But like all good

things it would seem, it must go away, or at the very least evolve in a certain direction. What we

have before us today is whole different beast entirely; personal information linked with

everything, an expectancy to constantly be in the spotlight, and the swift erosion of any self-

dignity or self-control. In psychology, there is something known as the “spotlight effect”, which

typically refers to a characteristic common among teenagers in which they treat every aspect of

their life as if they were in a spotlight; making only the most superficial of judgments and

statements in order please as many people as possible and subsequently get the maximum

amount of feedback (read: dopamine). The implications that people go out on public spiels and

tirades over the internet in order to get a high may sound far-fetched, but much like an addict’s

brain, the social media user’s brain may very well go through through a slew of leaps in logic

and disregard for reasons in order to post something in that accumulates in maximum (and

continuous) feedback. Anything for a fix, as they say.

Naturally, there is going to be a fair amount of disagreement as to whether or not both the

internet and social media have some sort of unseen neurological hold over us. Two the

immediate come to mind are those who think that such a bias against such social media as a
medium (which I will humbly admit to) can only point towards me being a 21st century Luddite

who loathes technology and progress and the argument that I’m making a big deal on something

so mundane and minute. I can not disagree with that first disagreement any more; I’ve

personally loved science, in both it’s factual and fictional forms, since I was a kid. Progress is a

beautiful thing but only if it leads the way for future beauty. It is more than possible for

progress to lead us in the wrong direction as well; the books of George Orwell tend to show the

repercussions of blindly praising something simply because it’s new or topical. The second

disagreement on the other hand I can see the logic of. To create a hysteria out of a medium that

people are enjoying and spout doom-say upon everyone simply because they use a certain

aspect of the internet. I could only reply to such an accusation with the knowledge that it’s best

to prepare for things while they’re in their infancy rather then when they finally get out of

control.

A 2010 Guardian article by John Naughton collects the opinions of various experts

(neuroscientists, psychiatrist, doctors, etc.) responding to an older article by Robert Carr titled

“Is Google Making Us Stupid” serves as an excellent reference to the discussion and occasional

of how the internet as a whole make be watering down the entire species.[7] One in particular,

neurobiologist Colin Blakemore, noted that at its best the internet is no threat to our lives in the

long run. The brain is very “plastic”, meaning that nearly nothing is set in stone in terms of

development. The brain is one of, if not, the most adaptable organ found within our body and

even the most radical of change to thought process can be remolded into a new thought process

because of the brain’s plasticity.

In conclusion, the connection between social and neuroscience is indeed a very prominent and

provable connection. The impact of an individual’s smartphone on their brain has not only been
shown to be tremendous. So tremendous in fact, that it has led what appears to be an entire

generation of youth to start developing a subconscious dopamine addiction purely dependent on

the feedback they receive on social media. While social media is not a universally negative

addition to our lives, often giving us the opportunity to meet new friends and catch up with old

friends and family, it should not be accepted as some altruistic digital tool. An explicit number

of unwelcome and unhealthy processes trigger within the brain when a person delves too deep

into social media, and it can all too commonly consume the entirety of their life. What’s worse,

is that there seems to be companies who’s entire incentive is to capitalize off such psychological

hysteria. Social media is not an inherently good or bad thing; just a tool that has the potential to

do a lot of damage if handled incorrectly.

-
Works Cited

[1]-Meshi, Dar; Tamir, Diana; Heekeren, Hauke. “The Emerging Neuroscience of Social

Media” Cell Press, Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 19, ISSUE 12, P771-

782, December 01, 2015;

<http://psnlab.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/publications-

pdf/MeshiTamir_TICS_inpress.pdf> (.pdf file)

<https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(15)00228-4>

(website)

Accessed 3/1/2019

[7]-Naughton, John. “The internet: is it changing the way we think?”. The Guardian, 14, Aug.

2010

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/aug/15/internet-brain-neuroscience-

debate

Accessed 3/1/2019

[2]-Nijssen, Sari R. R., et al. “Has Your Smartphone Replaced Your Brain? Construction and

Validation of the Extended Mind Questionnaire (XMQ).” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 8,

Aug. 2018, pp. 1–14. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202188.

[5]-Sherman, Lauren E et al. “The Power of the Like in Adolescence: Effects of Peer Influence

on Neural and Behavioral Responses to Social Media” Psychological science vol.

27,7 (2016): 1027-35.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5387999/>

Accessed 3/1/2019

[4]-“Smartphones: The Dark Side”, Directed by Matthew Hill, Performances by Hilary

Andersson

BBC, 2018

[6]-UC Santa Cruz”Social Media May Fade Memories.” NeuroscienceNews.

NeuroscienceNews, 29 June 2018.

<http://neurosciencenews.com/social-media-memory-9478/>.

Accessed 3/1/2019

[3]-van Atteveldt, Nienke M et al. “Media Reporting of Neuroscience Depends on Timing,

Topic and Newspaper Type” PloS one vol. 9,8 e104780. 12 Aug. 2014,

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104780

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4130600/>

Accessed 2/28/2019
Images Used

[8] - “Yes, you can be addicted to social media”. Kaity Nakagoshi. BussinessGrow. 19 April

2012. Accessed 2 April 2019.

https://businessesgrow.com/2012/04/19/yes-you-can-be-addicted-to-social-media/

[9] - Meshi, Dar; Tamir, Diana; Heekeren, Hauke. “The Emerging Neuroscience of Social

Media” Cell Press, Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 19, ISSUE 12, P771-

782, December 01, 2015;

<http://psnlab.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/publications-

pdf/MeshiTamir_TICS_inpress.pdf> (.pdf file)

<https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(15)00228-4>

[10]- “What Is Dopamine?” Lindsay Konkel. Everyday Health. 10 August 2018. Accessed 2

April 2019.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/dopamine/