The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics
Open accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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).”
From Social media use and systemic inflammation: The moderating role of self-esteem (2021) · cites this paper as 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
- 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.
- France A. (2007). Understanding youth in late modernity. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
- 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
- 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
- ORCID
- Orben, Amy
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-06-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1143-1157
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- PMC
- PMC7477771
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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