If today adults are immersed in the world of technology around the clock (remember these endless Facebook notifications and the autoplay of the next episode on Netflix), then children are even more willing to fall for the hook of gadgets. Compared to 2011, today they spend 10 times more time on the screens of mobile phones and other devices. According to Common Sense Media, the average child spends 6 hours 40 minutes a day using technology.
Behind the games we play and the digital communities we are in are psychologists and other behavioral science experts who create products that “stick” to us. Today, large tech companies are hiring psychiatrists to implement addiction technologies. Researchers are studying the influence of computers on the way people think and behave. This technique, also known as “addictive design,” has already been embedded in thousands of games and applications, and is being actively used by companies such as Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft to shape user behaviors from an early age.
Advocates of addictive design argue that it can positively influence users, for example, by teaching us to take medications on time or by creating habits that will help us lose weight. However, some doctors believe that addictive design companies are manipulating children's behavior for profit. This week, 50 psychologists signed and sent a letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) accusing their colleagues at technology companies. The main complaint is the use of "covert manipulation techniques." The specialists who signed the letter asked the Association to take a morally correct position on this issue for the sake of the children.
Richard Freed is a child and adolescent psychologist and author of Wired Child: Reclaiming Childhood in a Digital Age. He is one of the authors of the letter addressed to APA. It was sent on behalf of the non-profit organization Campaign for a Childhood Without Commerce. Vox's Javi Lieber spoke with Dr. Fried about how IT companies manage to manipulate human behavior and found out why he believes psychology is being used as a "weapon against children."
The interview is presented in an edited and abridged form.
How did the history of addictive technologies begin?
The study of this phenomenon began with BJ Fogg, a behavioral scientist at Stanford University. (A laboratory for the study of human behavior is also based there.) By the way, he was also called "the creator of millionaires." Fogg founded an entire field of science based on research that showed that with a few simple techniques, a product can manipulate human behavior. Today his research is a ready-made guide for companies developing products whose goal is to keep users “online” for as long as possible.
Promotional video:
How did it happen that his research became so popular in the tech world?
Fogg has devoted half of his career to teaching [at Stanford] and the other half to consulting in the IT industry. He taught classes on stimulation techniques and was attended by people like Mike Krieger, who eventually co-founded Instagram. Fogg is the guru of Silicon Valley, where IT companies listen to his every word. Over time, they confirmed in practice the results of his research, and then developed their own devices, smartphones and games. This technology is incredibly effective today because it gives the industry what it wants: it keeps us from stopping and getting out.
How does addictive design work?
It's actually quite simple, but on closer inspection it turns out to be more complicated. It works like this: in order to change behaviors, a person needs motivation, opportunity and triggers. In the case of social networks, the motivation is the desire of people to communicate or the fear of rejection by society. With regard to computer games, then the motivation here is the desire to acquire any skills or achievements. Ease of use is a prerequisite for such a design.
It's also important to add triggers - incentives that encourage us to come back. Think of videos that you can't tear yourself away from, virtual bonuses for spending more time in the app, or secret treasure chests that you get when you reach a certain level in the game. All of these can be called triggers, elements of addictive design.
Now I understand how Snapchat uses triggers: for more time spent in the app, the user gets badges. What other examples of how tech companies are using addictive design?
All social media companies build their products around this kind of design. Sometimes, after logging into Twitter, notifications do not come to the user immediately, but after a few seconds. Twitter is doing this on purpose - the company has developed an algorithm that makes you stay on the site longer. Facebook, by the way, also has a schedule according to which the site saves notifications for the user, and then issues them at the right time. This schedule is designed to encourage the person to visit the site again. The iPhone and Apple are also not without sin, as I see the smartphone as a conduit that gives children access to social networks and games - and they are even more vulnerable.
Why is addictive design more dangerous for children than for adults?
Because of this design of technological products, the productivity of adults [at work] is reduced, they are more often distracted. But children, one might say, are simply robbed. Addictive technologies manipulate children and create isolation, which alienates young members of society from their real obligations and needs: from communicating with their families, going to school, friendship. Teenagers and children are being torn away from the life they should have lived.
Children are also the most vulnerable [to the techniques used by IT companies] members of society. Young people are especially sensitive to social interactions, they are sensitive to feelings of acceptance or rejection in society. Social media is created to capitalize on these age characteristics.
What are the real consequences of addictive design for children?
All children are equally glued to their screens, but girls and boys suffer from this in different ways. Boys often play computer games. They have a desire, conditioned by their upbringing, for various achievements and acquisition of abilities. That is why the games are designed so that the user receives rewards, coins and chests with money. As a result, the child gets the feeling that he is overcoming something and develops skills, he develops a habit of spending more time playing, which, in the end, is reflected in his performance at school.
But girls are more likely to become victims of social networks, and this can have serious consequences for their mental health, since such sites can traumatize the fragile psyche. By the way, now the number of suicides among adolescents has increased.
Have doctors not faced the problem of computer games before?
They collided constantly. But today IT companies want addictive design to be part of their products. And now we're talking about companies with unlimited resources, the kind that hire the best psychologists and user interface designers. They are guided by experimental methods that are tested until a product appears impossible to tear away from.
Do people know that psychologists are consulting technology companies?
I don't think people know about this. I have spoken to dozens of parents who have claimed that their kids are socially addicted, but they have never heard of Dr. Fogg, much less addictive design. But you can take a look on LinkedIn and find psychology professionals working for Facebook, Instagram, and a myriad of gaming companies. And how many psychologists are involved in the development of Microsoft's Xbox, while using addictive technologies! Just look at the composition of their team!
Not all tech companies have psychologists as full-time employees. Some work as visiting consultants, although not all of them are PhDs or clinical psychologists. Certain specialists, for example, are called user interface researchers, they have different professional certifications. But a lot of psychologists themselves work.
Do psychologists who work for an IT company think they are exploiting science?
They are more likely to think that their work is making a better and more user-friendly product - for the sake of the people themselves. But they go much further. I'm sure there is a huge chasm between the tech industry and the rest of the world. Silicon Valley and Stanford University live as if they are in a separate universe. Not sure if they think about the consequences. Psychologists who work on technology see product and user reviews. I work with real children and families, I see the situation from the other side. My colleagues helping the industry are very far removed from what is happening in children's lives.
Have tech companies' manipulative tactics ever been publicized?
We know of a case where internal Facebook documents were leaked in Australia. They spoke openly about the exploitation of the emotions of adolescents. It has been found that they feel "unprotected", "useless." They were "under stress" and considered themselves "losers." The company boasted to stakeholders of its ability to influence the emotions of young people.
Have you ever witnessed public dissatisfaction with the use of addictive technology?
In fact, even in the tech world itself, there are people who talk about it. Tristan Harris (he worked at Google until he started a nonprofit campaign to spread ethics in technology - author's note) spoke on this score. Sean Parker, the first president of Facebook, told the online publication Axios that the first thing the company thinks about is how to keep the user on the site longer and how to get their attention. Major Apple investors wrote a public letter expressing concern about how children use smartphones to access social media.
I express my gratitude to these industry representatives for what they say about the issue. But again: these people have financial freedom and certain guarantees, so they can dare to do this. Psychologists in the world of technology have a hard time, because they cannot do the same without losing their livelihood.
IT companies want people to use their product exclusively. But what is their ultimate goal in the application of addictive technologies?
It's all about the money. The more time users spend on social networks, the more views the ad will have, which will ultimately increase the company's revenue. The more time a person spends in the game, the more he buys [paid content for it]. This is the attention economy, and psychologists work precisely to ensure that we spend as much time as possible on the product of their employer.
Could the impact of addictive design on children get worse?
Can. And I'm also sure the situation will definitely not improve. People want too much money. If some companies loosen their grip, others will come and take their place. Facebook's capabilities are only expanding now, they want to attract children by launching, for example, a messenger specially for them (Messenger Kids).
We contacted Facebook with a request not to release a separate social network for children (our letter was not answered), because we know how negatively such sites affect teenagers, especially girls. The price is too high: Young people will have to pay with their emotional health.
Will the IT industry regret what they did when they have children of their own?
Tony Fadell (the man who designed the iPhone and iPad - author's note) believes that yes, people will repent. However, society also complains that women in Silicon Valley are not hired as readily as men. And this, I think, had an impact on the manufactured products. Everything revolves around venture capital, money, and stock value. It is unlikely that children mean anything here.
Why is your letter addressed specifically to APA?
It's time for the psychology community to take action. I'm afraid psychology may get into big trouble when parents find that professionals in this field are involved in the development of applications and games that cannot be taken away from children. The essence of the work of psychologists working for the IT industry is to exploit vulnerabilities to change behavior for profit. This is not proper work for a psychologist.
How do you think the APA should act?
Psychology should focus on improving health rather than harming children and encouraging the overuse of technology. The association should make an official statement that psychologists will not be able to work with addictive design to lock users to screens. The APA should also reach out to psychologists in the industry and ask them to switch to the "bright" side. They must help us convey the idea that this is a real danger that will not disappear by itself. The association should help the community learn more about how unsafe this practice is for people of all ages, especially children.
