Cited by 316Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsDigital Media and Philosophy

The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics

Open access
Orben, Amy·2020·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Widespread concerns about new technologies—whether they be novels, radios, or smartphones—are repeatedly found throughout history. Although tales of past panics are often met with amusement today, current concerns routinely engender large research investments and policy debate. What we learn from studying past technological panics, however, is that these investments are often inefficient and ineffective. What causes technological panics to repeatedly reincarnate? And why does research routinely fail to address them? To answer such questions, I examined the network of political, population, and academic factors driving the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. In this cycle, psychologists are encouraged to spend time investigating new technologies, and how they affect children and young people, to calm a worried population. Their endeavor, however, is rendered ineffective because of the lack of a theoretical baseline; researchers cannot build on what has been learned researching past technologies of concern. Thus, academic study seemingly restarts for each new technology of interest, which slows down the policy interventions necessary to ensure technologies are benefiting society. In this article, I highlight how the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics stymies psychology’s positive role in steering technological change and the pervasive need for improved research and policy approaches to new technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691620919372

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent recommendations suggest identifying a specific subpopulation (e.g., age, personality) when making claims about emergent technology effects.

    “This perspective is consistent with recent recommendations to identify a specific subpopulation (e.g., age, personality) when making claims about emergent technology effects (Orben, 2020).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 70 · Cited by 316

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dienlin T. Masur P. K. Trepte S. (2018, 5). A longitudinal analysis of the privacy paradox using RI-CLPM. Paper presented at the 68th annual conference of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic.
  2. France A. (2007). Understanding youth in late modernity. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  3. House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. (2019). Impact of social media and screen-use on young people’s health (pp. 1– 92). London, England: House of Commons Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/822/822.pdf
  4. Pecora N. O. (2006). The changing nature of children’s television: Fifty years of research. In Pecora N. O. Murray J. Wartella E. (Eds.), LEA’s communication series. Children and television: Fifty years of research (pp. 1– 40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Authors
Orben, A.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Orben, Amy
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2020-06-30
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
1143-1157
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W3038775985
Cited by
316
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 12
FWCI
57.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Barnardo’s UK (Research Grant)
  • Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge (College Research Fellowship)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
new technologies, children and young people, technology policy, societal impact of technology
MeSH terms
Screen Time, Digital Technology, Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review