Social Control in Mobile Technology: Meaning and Agency

Fighting For Control: Social Organization, Interactions, Meaning, and Agency in the Age of Intelligent Mobile Technology A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Sociology. 2022 ________________________ ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ v INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Remembering a Time Before Smartphones .................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY ........................................................................ 3 Living Distracted: “I can’t focus… on anything but my phone.” ................................... 3 Addictive by Design: The Rise of Persuasive Technology ............................................ 7 Social Order in the Digital Age: Network Societies and Capitalism ............................ 10 Challenging Technological Interactions: Human or Object ......................................... 13 Challenging Agency: The Freedoms and Constraints of Intelligent Interfaces ............ 17 Triggered: Persuasive Triggers and Mobile Notifications ............................................ 25 Synthesis of Literature Review and Theory.................................................................. 26 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 27 Data Collection Process ................................................................................................ 27 Data Collection Timeline and Explanation ................................................................... 30 Sample........................................................................................................................... 32 Limitations and Generalizability................................................................................... 32 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 35 Quantitative Findings .................................................................................................... 35 Qualitative Findings ...................................................................................................... 37 Intentional Engagement ............................................................................................ 37 Emotional Escape...................................................................................................... 39 Staying Relevant: Pressure to Respond .................................................................... 41 Digital [Dis]connection ............................................................................................. 43 Alone While Together: Phone Snubbing .................................................................. 48 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 52 EXTENSIONS .................................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX A: Participant Recruitment Email ................................................................ 61 APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Form .......................................................................... 62 APPENDIX C: Interview One Questions ......................................................................... 64 APPENDIX D: Interview Two Questions ........................................................................ 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 69 iii Acknowledgements iv ABSTRACT Technology is advancing far faster than social structures and human evolution can adapt for. As interactive technologies find their way into workplaces, classrooms, and even the hands of toddlers, mobile devices are becoming increasingly influential in social life. I draw off of individual experiences to explore the role of mobile devices on social organization, interactions, meaning, and agency. I conducted semi-structured interviews with undergraduate students at Whitman College to understand individual perceptions of mobile technology in social life. I further collected participant mobile phone screen-time data to investigate whether participants’ estimations of their phone-related behavior were accurate. My results indicate that mobile devices are fundamentally changing how we understand and interact with the world. Mobile devices can make our lives easier, relieving us of tasks we would otherwise have to perform manually and reinforcing relationships through digital communication. However, mobile devices can also have negative effects on our sense of self, agency, focus, and behaviors. v INTRODUCTION Remembering a Time Before Smartphones How many times do you pick up your phone per day? My average floats around the mid-hundreds. Over a hundred times a day, I look away from the analog world to escape to a virtual world. Sometimes I am motivated by boredom, sometimes by stress; but, most of the time, I feel like I am waiting—waiting for approval, acknowledgment, a text message, or a notification to affirm my connection to the world. As much as I would like to think I am exercising personal agency every time I pick up my phone, I sometimes feel my phone controls me. Despite my best intentions, I cannot shake the compulsion to make sure I look OK in just about every social media post I have ever been tagged in. I obsessively check the likes I get on posts and judge myself accordingly. I check my email at least twice each waking hour to ensure that I am not missing out; and too often, a quick check turns into a rabbit hole of photos, videos, mindless scrolling, and liking, consuming hours in the blink of an eye. Maybe I just have exceptionally bad self-control or a deeprooted narcissism that sends me into obsessive internet deep-dives. However, I don’t believe that to be true, at least not always; because I am not an isolated case. I was born in 2000, making me one of the youngest people alive to remember some semblance of life before mobile devices went from commodities to near-necessities. I remember, albeit faintly, a time when the compulsion to pick up my phone didn’t dominate my life. As a pre-teen, I would beg my mom for her flip phone to play Snake. If my mom said, “yes,” I would set a ten-minute timer and disappear into the game. I was engrossed in making a pixilated snake float across the screen using tiny keypad arrows, in a game now simple enough for the average introductory computer science student to code. Left to my own devices, I could play Snake for hours. Nowadays, I would be lucky if a game of Snake could hold my attention for more than a few seconds. Here, too, I am not an isolated case. The growth of interactive technology has radically changed how we perceive and interact with the world (Van Dijk 2006). Interactive technologies respond to users and allow for user manipulation, permitting a continuous exchange between humans and technological interfaces. Common interactive technologies include phones, laptops, smartwatches, and touchscreens (Verbeek 2009). Any digital object or interface that provides a continual feedback loop of information is a form of interactive technology. As interactive technologies find their way into workplaces, classrooms, and even the hands of toddlers, mobile devices are becoming increasingly influential in social life. The rapid advancement of technology opens new avenues for sociological research. In this study, I investigate the following research question: how has the development and dissemination of mobile technology redefined social organization, social interactions, individual meaning-making, and the expression of agency? I argue that interactive mobile technologies are reshaping social organization, interpersonal interactions, social meaning, and the expression of agency. Mobile technology is fundamentally changing our social organization on a macro-scale. Macroscale changes to social relationships, institutions, and values call into question how individuals create meaning, exercise agency, and interact on a micro-scale. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY Living Distracted: “I can’t focus… on anything but my phone.” Technology can change the way we behave, interact, and think. As technology advances, attention spans appear to grow shorter (Maybin 2017; Ghausi 2018). Black and white movies are now monotone nostalgia (Marzola 2022) compared to the technicolor graphics of the modern Marvel universe (McGowan 2019). Games like Snake have taken a backseat to immersive gaming platforms (Vardomatski 2021; Morris 2018). While history has shown that humans physiologically evolve to suit their environments, a widely reported 2015 study conducted by Microsoft suggests that human attention spans are decreasing faster than evolution can account for (Microsoft Canada 2015). In 2015, Microsoft Canada published a report claiming the human attention span dropped from 12 seconds in 2000 to eight seconds in 2015—shrinking nearly 25% in just a few years. Global news outlets picked up the report, generating headlines such as The Times’, “You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish” (McSpadden 2015). In fact, Microsoft’s study experienced so much news coverage that, nine years later, a Google search for “length of human attention span” returns references that cite Microsoft’s claim in nine out of 10 of the first search results. Yet, if Microsoft’s claim is valid, how did people binge the newest season of Bridgerton for eight uninterrupted hours, 3,600 times the eight-second attention-span we supposedly have? If you are confused about what is meant by “average attention span,” so am I. And so, it would seem, is Microsoft. Microsoft’s report (2015) does not define “attention span.” How Microsoft obtained their statistics is notably absent from not just their report, but from the World Wide Web. An internet deep-dive for a peer-reviewed study to back 3 the attention span claim drew a blank for several international news corporations (Littlefield 2020; Maybin 2017; Subramanian 2018). While Merriam-Webster Online (2022) defines attention span as “the length of time during which one (such as an individual or a group) is able to concentrate or remain interested,” the act of “concentrat[ing]” isn’t binary. Am I concentrating on Bridgerton if I am also doing the dishes? How about if I do my physics homework while watching Bridgerton? As someone who has multitasked in both of the aforementioned ways, I would say that my focus depends on the tasks I am trying to simultaneously complete, suggesting that attention spans aren’t fixed values we can reduce down to seconds or hours. Instead, attention spans are task-dependent. How much attention we pay to something depends on a task’s demands (Maybin 2017). A 2018 study on monkeys found that measuring attention span is a little more complicated than measuring how long we can focus on a specific task (Fiebelkorn, Pinsk, and Kastner 2018). Researchers determined that “the spotlight of attention is more like a strobe” (Fuller-Wright 2018). Every 250 milliseconds, we experience a “pulse” of attention — four times a second, we have the opportunity to switch our attention. However, just because we can switch our attention four times a second does not mean we do. A parallel 2018 study (Helfrich et al.) showed a similar effect in humans — human attention is not a fixed ‘span,’ rather it is a fluid process. Our fluid attentional process evolved to keep us attentive to threats but also makes us prone to distractibility. While the measure of attention span remains a contested concept in social and psychological research, scholars agree that the increasing distractions created by 4 interactive technology can draw attention away from productive tasks. The more distractions we face, the more likely we will switch our attention even when we don’t intend to (Subramanian 2018). We are increasingly struggling to sustain focus on a single task, which correlates with the volume of media consumption, social media usage, multiscreening behavior, and technology adoption of a mobile device user (Microsoft Canada 2015). While there is no standardized measure of attention span, the abundance of visual, auditory, and informational stimuli provided through mobile technologies can narrow markers of attention spans over time. In 2013, a top-50 Twitter hashtag stayed in the top 50 for an average of 17.5 hours. By 2016, the time a hashtag spent in the top 50 had reduced to 11.9 hours (Lorenz-Spreen, Mønsted, Hövel, and Lehmann 2019). Similarly, soundbites from presidential election campaigns decreased from 43 seconds in 1968 to a fairly constant seven to nine seconds from 1988 forwards (Fehrman 2011), which is shorter than the time it would take to speak an average-length sentence (14 words) (Cutts 2020). A 2021 study (Maxwell 2021) found that on average, Android phone users spent more time on TikTok than on YouTube. On TikTok, the optimum recommended video length to maximize engagement falls between a scant 21 and 34 seconds (Stokel-Walker 2022). Comparatively, on YouTube, the average video length is around 12 minutes (Statista 2021)—still a far cry from the 60-minute programs of late 90s television shows but far longer than a half-minute TikTok video. However, does a decrease in engagement time with a tweet, soundbite, or video indicate shortened attention spans, or have we 5 simply learned to present information more succinctly and process information more efficiently? We are not just suffering from an information overload. Instead, we are receiving an information overload from attention-grabbing and addictive processes (Center for Humane Technology 2021). Our increased distractibility reshapes our social interactions, connectedness, and the fundamental cognitive processes that inform our lives (Center for Humane Technology 2021; Verbeek 2009; Orlowski 2020). Impaired focus and increased screen-time do not come without consequence. A 2019 psychiatry study found that digital distractions are leading to “decreased verbal intelligence” among children and “cognitive offloading” among adults (Firth et al. 2019). To illustrate the emotional ramifications of mobile technology, researchers placed participants in a restaurant environment. Half of the participants had their phones accessible and half had their phones put away. The study concluded that the more quickly a person can access their phone during an in-person interaction, the less they enjoy their experience and the more distracted they feel. The same researchers (Firth et al. 2019) conducted a similar experiment on a group of 120 Virginia college students and found a similar correlation between phone access and conversation enjoyability. Because the second study only included college students, researchers showed that growing tech-induced cognitive and social impairments do not exclusively stem from older generations failing to adapt to new technology. Instead, advertisers and marketers have mastered the art of creating digital distractions to draw our focus in a process known as persuasive technology. Therefore, mobile technologies can change the way we think. Mobile technology 6 offers an increasing arsenal of distracting stimuli. Agents are using psychological tools to influence human behavior, thereby influencing how we behave and the decisions we make. Consequently, mobile technology can fundamentally inform how we make choices, think, connect, and understand social relationships, even if we are unaware of their influence. Addictive by Design: The Rise of Persuasive Technology The growing field of persuasive technology substantiates that many mobile device platforms and applications are deliberately designed to foster addiction (Orlowski 2020). There is deep-rooted psychology behind the design of persuasive technology (Seibert 2020). Programmers design persuasive technology to influence human behavior and decision-making (Stanford University n.d.). Many tech companies, businesses, and advertisers program digital platforms to optimize user engagement (Orlowski 2020). User engagement drives up a user’s advertisement exposure, which increases revenue gains (Center for Humane Technology 2021). For example, signals such as hearts, likes, and thumbs-up stimulate short-term reward pathways (Center for Humane Technology 2021). Ultimately, the short-term reward leaves users empty and wanting more, forcing users into a cycle of addiction, seeking more short-term validation (Chamath 2020). To understand persuasive technology, one first has to understand back-end programming, which comprises the algorithms that hide behind our screens. Algorithms are complex instructions written in computer code (O’Neil 2020). Once programmed, interactive technologies interact with users, seemingly on their own. 7 However, every ‘decision’ an interactive technology makes is contingent upon instructions encoded in algorithms. The programmers that write algorithms actively make decisions about our technological interactions (Kitchin and Dodge 2011). Therefore, algorithms “are opinions embedded in code” (O’Neil 2020). Algorithms are not objective tools designed to help users but rather marketing tools “optimized [by programmers] to a finite definition of success” (O’Neil 2020). Most algorithms interact with user data (Bolin and Schwartz 2015). Think about how often you click a consent button to agree to the terms and conditions of a web application or click “Accept All” to an application’s permissions without a second thought. Generally, you are consenting to data tracking and often, you are consenting to sharing your usage, interaction, and location data across applications and platforms (Bolin and Schwartz 2015; Chen and Sundar 2018). If you withhold consent, you may be barred entirely from using a platform or application. Digital tools such as Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn are now so fundamental to personal, social, educational, and business structures that opting out based on permissions is not an option for most people (Humphreys 2011; Cyphers 2021). As a result, any time you interact with a mobile device, you leave a digital trace (Sundar 2020). As your online footprint amasses data, algorithms begin a process of machine learning. Programs connect your data and other users’ data to create a web so complex that even the best programmers cannot untangle every connection (Harris 2020). Despite the prolific claim that our phones are listening to us (Hunter 2021), a comprehensive study of over 17,000 Android apps (Pan et al. 2018) and the testimonies of industry professionals (Santora 2021) found no evidence of audio surveillance. Why? 8 Because applications do not have to listen to us to know just about everything about us (Rezazadegan 2021). Picture this: your online profile amasses data not only from you but also from people in your approximate geographic location, people who share similar Internet search histories, people who connect to the same private Wi-Fi networks, and friends or connections you have via social media (Bolin and Schwartz 2015). Even if you have never shared your age or gender-identity with a data-sharing site or application, there is most likely still a very comprehensive profile of you on the internet. If most of your friends are in their 20s, an app might tailor content to that age category. If you do not respond as well as predicted, the algorithms conduct micro-experiments, often imperceptible to the user (Newberry 2022) to determine user demographics and interests. For example, algorithms make minute changes in font size, color, and frequency of notifications, continually honing in on the most efficient way to hook the user in (Parakilas 2020). Consequently, your online profile can be unbelievably accurate even if you have never explicitly shared any information about yourself (Rezazadegan 2021). Our online profile is used to determine the content we see, which can in turn shape our worldview and perspectives. Most algorithms are not designed to show users content with diverse and balanced content to broaden user perspectives or encourage open-mindedness. Instead, we are shown the content most likely to get us engaged and keep us engaged (Kant 2021). Thus, computer algorithms decide the news we read, the notifications we interact with, and the results we get from a Google search that are most likely to send us down a rabbit hole. Online platforms and applications have good reason to want to maximize 9 engagement. In the Western world of capitalism, the driving algorithms behind Google, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and many more ‘free’ interactive platforms reflect the interest of commercial enterprises (McFarlane 2021). Platforms compete with one another for users’ time. The more information a platform has on users, the more effective the engagement tools and targeted advertising practices (Bodinger-deUriarte 2017). The more time a user spends engaged with a platform, and the more targeted advertisements are, the more likely a user will make a purchase based on an advertisement (Harris 2020). Minute and imperceptible changes in behavior ultimately drive the user toward increased clicks and purchases, which panders to company-oriented goals of revenue gain (Zuboff, 2020). As businesses compete for our time and digital engagement, social organization is changing. Modern social organization shares many attributes with the social system of the post-industrial era — A large proportion of power is held by a small group of agents that control the means of production (Van Dijk 2006). However, as power is increasingly held in the digital space, we are not just alienated from our labor. Often we don’t know we are even doing labor to begin with. Every time we are ‘persuaded’ to click on an advertisement or asked to disclose data in the name of personalization, we are unknowingly generating revenue, which complicates the role of capitalism in modern society (Kant 2021). Social Order in the Digital Age: Network Societies and Capitalism The spread of mobile technology is mutating capitalism (Castells 2005), marking a paradigmatic shift in social organization. The cost of raw materials and manufacturing 10 processes has depreciated over time, making mobile devices more affordable and accessible (Kant 2021). In recent years, laptops and smartphones have gone from rare commodities to necessities (Kitchin and Dodge 2011). Power dynamics are increasingly determined and expressed digitally. Finance still plays a critical role in modern power relationships, as it did in past capitalistic societies. However, there has been a shift in the distribution of social and economic power. Power is no longer gained and obtained solely through geographical and material influence; rather, power can be based on the resources that we hold in digital spaces (Castells 2005). Castells (2005) coined the term, ‘network society’ to describe the growing interconnectedness of societies in the digital age. A network society is “a social formation with an infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of organization at all levels (individual, group/organizational and societal)” (Van Dijk 2006:20). In Castells’ network society, propelled by the rapid growth and dissemination of information technologies, information networks comprise social structure (Castells 2005). Each of us is a node in a more extensive digital network (Castells 2005). Our behaviors and interactions on digital platforms shape and are shaped by the larger network of networks (or web) contained in the digital space. Interconnection and interdependence on a global scale enable the creation of increasingly complex systems with high levels of utility and productivity. The shift from analog networking to digital networking is redefining the stakeholders in global power structures (Verbeek 2009). As digital capital becomes increasingly important, material capital is fading into the past. Stakeholders in the capitalistic system are no longer the people who own the means of physical production, rather they are the people who have a hand in higher 11 orders of production, such as the production of the digital networks and information flows (Cheney-Lippold 2017). As a result, people are becoming less organized by geographical and temporal proximity and more organized by digital proximity (van Dijk 2006). Proximity is increasingly defined by information exchanges, and interactions, between social actors in physically disconnected, but digitally connected, positions (Castells 2005) (van Dijk 2006). Additionally, digital high-speed networking has driven time-space compression (Leyshon et al. 2013). As the efficiency, scope, and speed of global network flows increase, our physical presence is being superseded by our digital presence. Where we are located physically holds little significance so long as we can connect with someone digitally. As a result, technology is redefining collective life. Additionally, social power has become as much about one’s inclusivity in the digital network as it has become about material possessions (Verbeek 2009). It is far easier now to get rich from the comfort of one’s own home than it was 50 years ago. The only prerequisite to social inclusions is a mobile device to tie us into the digital network. Think about bitcoins and NFTs. There are no raw materials involved in purchasing, trading, or selling cryptocurrencies or NFTs. Yet, we can use cryptocurrency to purchase tangible objects and wield real-life influence on our own lives and on governmental systems. Consequently, we have seen a shift in power from a single central concentration of governments or wealthy landowners to decentralized nodal points where social currents are controlled. The growing macro-level network of connections adds a level of complexity to micro-level human interactions. Strong ties constitute relationships with enduring social 12 and cultural significance (Granovetter 1973). Most people have strong ties with family, close friends, and direct coworkers. Conversely, weak ties describe the relationships between acquaintances. While there is no definite line between strong and weak ties, tie strength depends on the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal services in a tie (Granovetter 1973). In the symbolic interactionist frame, social interaction creates meaning, so our strong ties can play a critical role in shaping our perspectives and values on a micro-scale. However, Granovetter (1973) argues that weak ties create critical bridges between the individual and society at large. Weak ties are conduits for information and knowledge flows between networks. As society approaches the concept of a network society, individuals are becoming more reliant on weak ties. Inclusion and exclusion from various digital spaces via a network of weak ties, can ultimately be decisive in an individual’s social and economic position (Castells 2005). While mobile devices facilitate the growing interconnectedness between individuals and groups, mobile devices further relieve us of many tasks, processes, and decisions that we would otherwise have to perform manually. While helpful, mobile devices can threaten the very freedom we set out to achieve by assuming rules that our agency and decision-making skills would otherwise play (Verbeek 2009). Challenging Technological Interactions: Human or Object The macro-level shift toward a network society redefines how individuals create meaning and form connections. We can study the effect of the increasing digitization on individual social interactions and meaning-making using the symbolic interactionist 13 framework. Symbolic interactionism operates under three main principles: We act upon things we find meaningful, we derive meaning through interactions, and we develop meaning through experiences (Blumer 2005; Carter and Fuller 2016). External forces are not simply acting upon us. Instead, we express agency when we engage in meaningmaking interactions. “Agency refers to acts done intentionally” (Verbeek 2009). Belief systems, emotions, and deep-rooted schemas can develop through meaningful interactions with other people. And while we can create non-pragmatic meaning through interactions with objects, there has historically been a clear distinction between human-human interaction and human-object interaction (Blumer 2005). Modern, intelligent technologies increasingly blur the lines between humans and objects (Verbeek 2009). Tech companies strive to create interactive technology with the ‘intelligence’ to adapt to human cognitive processes and influence human behavior. For technology to be qualified as intelligent, a technological system must exhibit characteristics of social intelligence (Verbeek 2009). Technology is becoming increasingly human in behavior, allowing for growing user interactivity and adaptive learning processes (Kang and Joon 2020). Because of the intelligent characteristics of interactive technologies, we finally have tools that can adjust to humans instead of humans having to adjust to suit the tools at their disposal (Biocca 2006). For example, modern speech recognition technology can learn various voices, cadences, and accents (Shadiev et al. 2014). The more users interact with Siri on their phones, the better Siri understands user needs (Haselton 2018). This learning process does not require effort or adaptation from the user, aside from regular 14 speech patterns. Instead, technology continually adapts to humans’ natural needs and characteristics (Kang and Joon 2020). The body consequently becomes present both in the physical space and cyberspace. As the body adapts to the cyberworld, digital spaces and tools adapt to better suit the human body (Biocca 2006). However, while interactive technologies can interact with humans and adapt to suit human needs, interactive technologies can further disrupt the process of human-human engagement. Turkle (2015) argues that increasing reliance on mobile technology for everyday interactions erodes our ability to have meaningful interactions with one another. If we look at the role of technology in interactions through Turkle’s lens, we might come to understand technologies as nothing more than pragmatic, albeit deceptively insentient objects. Mobile technology offers an “illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship and (...) the illusion of friendship without the demands of intimacy” (Turkle 2015:7). When we shift conversations from in-person to digital platforms, we cannot engage in open-ended and spontaneous and vulnerable conversations characteristic of human-human interaction. Furthermore, we may use our mobile devices to supplement or assume the role of social interactions without being cognizant of missing out on elements of social interaction. Turkle suggests mobile devices offer an illusion of human-human interaction while deceptively providing static meanings reminiscent of human-object interactions, blurring the line between human and object. Not all scholars agree with Turkle’s criticism of interactive technology. Many scholars argue that interactive technology augments our ability to have meaning-making interactions with one another and elements of the digital space (Sundar 2020; Kang and 15 Joon 2020). Mobile technology allows social interactions to extend beyond geographical and temporal proximity. At least once a week, I call friends overseas, or I text my parents, nine time zones away. We do not have to be in the same place or awake at the same time to interact with one another. As a result, technology allows many people to have more enduring social interactions and connections than would otherwise be possible. However, like all inanimate objects, mobile technologies do not possess the capacity for intentionality. Technology cannot imagine or represent a future course of action and, thus, cannot act intentionally (Verbeek 2009). While technology is becoming increasingly efficient at acting upon the intention or intentions of one or many agents, a technological device cannot purposefully engage without human programming. Even the most intelligent or interactive technologies do not possess self-motivated, intentional behavior (Verbeek 2009). However, technologies can provide direction to users and influence the intentions of a human user. Therefore, intelligent interactive technologies now make up a radically new category of human interactions that exists between humans and objects. Interactive technologies exhibit social intelligence through their interactive qualities, and consequently can foster meaningful interactions that would otherwise only be possible between individuals. Technologies are taking on intermediary roles, and human behaviors can adapt to the body in innovative ways that allow the technology to become an extension of the human body (Biocca 2006). Consequently, mobile devices relieve us of many tasks, processes, and decisions that would otherwise consume time and energy. While this can be highly useful on the surface, mobile phones can further threaten the 16 very freedom we set out to achieve by assuming rules that our agency and decisionmaking skills would otherwise play (Verbeek 2009). Challenging Agency: The Freedoms and Constraints of Intelligent Interfaces Mobile technology creates a paradoxically freer and more dependent world (Castells 2005). As technology relieves us of tasks once performed manually, we have more time and tools to innovate (Verbeek 2009). However, individuals become increasingly reliant on a comprehensive digital network of people, places, data, knowledge, and systems (van Dijk 2006). As the digital network of data and information flows grows in complexity, interactive technologies threaten our freedom because they influence and control us in ways we do not fully understand (Verbeek 2009). Humans have been manipulating one another to leverage social and material gain since the beginning of time (Verbeek 2009). As technology advances exponentially, so do technologically driven forms of manipulation. Persuasive technology is evolving faster than society can adapt for, placing a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of the programmers that write code for some of the most ubiquitous platforms in the world (Center for Humane Technology 2021). Take Instagram, for example. There are over two billion active monthly Instagram users worldwide (Rodriguez 2021). At least 138 million of those users reside in the United States, representing roughly 40% of the US population (Instagram Users 2021). Instagram now not only possesses data on almost half of the US population but also wields significant influence; and that influence extends beyond controlling the content 17 you see. The Instagram algorithm can play a pivotal role in how you perceive even your own content — Instagram can reshape your sense of self (Jiang and Ngien 2020). At the level of the individual, we create meaning through interactions. Cooley ([1902] 2010) extends the idea of meaning making interactions through the concept of the looking-glass self. Cooley posits that our sense of self is constructed based on how we think other people view us. We imagine how we appear to others, we imagine how we will be judged based on that appearance, and we develop the ‘self’ and make behavioral choices according to how we think we are being judged. But, when we apply the idea of the ‘self’ to social media platforms, meaning-making interactions are taking place through a digital filter. Instagram quantifies others’ judgments as likes, comments, and shares. Regardless of whether an Instagram like reflects an actual like, or just someone stuck in an absent pattern of double tapping pictures, the message behind likes is clear: 255 people liked your post. 255 people like you… or at least the version of you they see on Instagram. It’s human nature to want to be accepted or liked because our interactions with other people play such a pivotal role in our self-perception (Leary 1990). However, Instagram and other similar social media platforms offer a new form of social interaction that blurs the lines between the front stage and back stage. When we engage in continuous interactions, we are performing on the front stage. We are actively adjusting, then re-adjusting our behavior based on how we perceive other people to be judging us. When we are alone, we are on the back stage. We are present, but our audience is not. There is nobody to perform for so we can stop monitoring our behavior based on the perceived judgements of others (Goffman 1959). 18 Social media is a filtered stage. Users curate their social media behavior based on the perceived judgements of others. Hence, profiles on social media are subject to a greater deal of selective information sharing than any real life-interaction. If we spent hours ruminating on how to respond to a question, what our body language should look like, how we should move our hands, and how to talk during face-to-face interactions, we would get nowhere. Face-to-face, and even phone and text conversations rely on continuity and the vis-à-vis exchange of information and influence (Candello, Vasconcelos, and Pinhanez 2017). Conversely, users can take as much time as they would like to curate their profile on a digital platform. When we interact via social media, we can be physically backstage, even if we are digitally performing. The more time spent on social media, the more the self becomes situated in the digital performance space. Because the digital space is an oversimplified representation of life, social media threatens to reduce the range of human interactions and emotions into ideas that can be made intelligible by data. Modern technology allows users to run data analytics on their followers and likes through Instagram business accounts or third-party applications to maximize likes, following, and commentary. You can even track the analytics of your friends if you’re feeling competitive (Moreau 2021). Hence, self-worth is being reduced down to a numbers game, wherein users try to optimize the time of day, filter, photo editing, and content of posts to maximize the number of likes on a post. To further complicate matters, popularity on Instagram largely depends on the Instagram algorithm. Your comments, likes, and engagement history do somewhat reflect how others perceive you, or at least your digital persona. Nevertheless, the extent to which other users view and engage with your content is largely based on how Instagram 19 perceives you. The Instagram algorithm quantifies you through a series of data points to maximize user engagement through the use of your content. When you post a picture, Instagram combines data collected on both you and the content you posted. Not only does Instagram place ‘closer friends’ posts at the top of your feed, but Instagram further runs content analysis on posts you have engaged with in the past (yes, Instagram knows if you like kittens). The more consistency between the data profile of a post and the data profile of a user, the higher up the photo gets placed on a user’s feed (Mosseri 2021). Therefore, Instagram is as pivotal in your number of likes and engagement levels as the people double tapping their screen to give you a like. Instagram is in the business of selling your content in return for user engagement (McNamee 2020). If a photo you post draws in more likes, comments, or shares, you are fostering engagement with the platform. Conversely, if something you post doesn’t quickly accrue clicks, your post may fall farther and further down followers’ feeds, as the algorithm decides that your content is less appealing to users. Let’s say you post a picture during the Super Bowl that has nothing to do with football. Chances are any of your football fan friends will have a high engagement level with football-related content. Regardless of how ‘hot’ you might look in a photo, Instagram might push your post to the bottom of Super Bowl fans’ feeds before they even have a chance to pass judgment. For the people that feel bolstered by likes, and feel discouraged when posts underperform, there is a disconnect between the perception and the reality of the role of mobile technology in society. Likes are as much about the Instagram algorithm liking you as they are about other people liking you. However, if we continue to perform on social 20 media and adapt our behavior based on responses, we become subject not only to the judgment of humans but also to the judgment of an algorithm. A closer look at identity formation through Instagram provides just one example of how social media can affect the construction of the ‘self.’ Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter use similar algorithms to leverage user content and profiles, to maximize the engagement of other users. It may seem ironic that we are turning to machines for limiting machine agency and reclaiming human agency, but it signals an emergent collaboration between humans and machines in negotiating the type and degree of agency. This collaboration rests on a nuanced understanding of the various ways by which machine agency can enhance human agency and the ways by which it may threaten it. (Sundar 2020:77) To understand the agency, we must first understand the concept of freedom. Foucault (1990) posits that freedom is not so much a total absence of influence from external forces, but the capacity we have as humans to develop a relation to influences and decide accordingly. “If our environment starts to respond intelligently to us and take on our decisions for us, are people going to gradually lose control over their own lives?” (Verbeek 2009:234). Agency is an abstract concept—there is no discrete place or action that inherently makes one an agent. We can broadly define agency as the intentionality to make things happen. From beliefs systems to self-regulations, we exercise agency through our intentional influence on structures and functions (Bandura 2001). Mobile technologies are not neutral instruments or intermediaries, but are active mediators of relationships between people and reality (Verbeek 2009). Thus, technology is becoming a proxy agent for decision-making (Bandura 2001) — increasingly capable of exerting an agency that neither reflects the decisive interest of the user nor the programmer. 21 Humans organically use proxies to exercise agency. By asking a favor of a friend, or using pedals and a steering wheel to drive a car, we use people and surrounding tools to exercise ‘agency’ on our behalf. While personal agency refers to the direct control of our environment, proxy agency allows us to use external agents to act in our self-defined best interest (Bandura 2001). Proxy agency does not rob us of decision-making capabilities. Proxy agency occurs when we allow agents possessing better resources of expertise, to act on our behalf (Bandura 2001). In theory, using a mobile device to search up information, or contact a friend is a form of proxy agency. However, a growing body of evidence would suggest that the individualized search results by Google or the tailored web content that follows us across websites reflect neither the user’s decisions nor the best interests (Kant 2021). Never before in history have 50 designers—20- to 35-year-old white guys in California—made decisions that would have an impact on two billion people. Two billion people will have thoughts that they didn’t intend to have because of a designer at Google. (Harris 2020) While digital content is tailored to the user based on digital traces left by the user (Sundar 2020), most interactive algorithms are not designed to maximize user efficiency. The front-end of many mobile devices shows aesthetically pleasing summaries of notifications, reminders, graphics and simple charts. However, the front end of mobile devices offers little insight into the behind-the-scenes processes that prompt mobile device interactions and responses (Dodgen-Magee 2018; Schüll and Dow 2016). Back-end algorithms inform our phones, laptops, and smartwatches’ decisions about whether to display notifications, which search results to display first, and more (Bodinger-deUriarte 2017). Mobile software can appear automagical to the user (Kitchin 22 and Dodge 2011), when in reality there are “1,000 engineers on the other side of the screen, using notifications, using your friends, using AI to predict what’s going to perfectly addict you, or hook you, or manipulate you, or allow advertisers to test 60,000 variations of text or colors to figure out what’s the perfect manipulation of your mind” (Harris 2020). Consequently, there is a perception gap between how users understand their mobile devices and how the agents and algorithms behind technology shape decision and meaning-making behaviors (Dodgen-Magee 2018). “On the one hand, [mobile technology] data has created a sociologically fertile way to understand human experience and connections. On the other hand, this very type of understanding provides opportunities to take advantage of human psychological vulnerability in ways the world has never seen” (Nitzani 2019:206). Our lives are increasingly controlled by how we are made intelligible by the data we feed to our mobile devices. Data becomes attached to our profile with or without our consent. That data influences how we perceive the world and how we are perceived, by shaping the digital platforms we interact with and communicate through daily (Bucher 2017). “For the last ten years, the biggest companies in Silicon Valley have been in the business of selling their users” (McNamee 2020). Think about Google, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat; so many of the applications that light up our phone screens and populate laptop pop-ups are ‘free’ for the user. However, many tech companies operate using a business model where the user and the customer are two 23 separate entities. The advertisers are the customers, and users, are the products sold (Bucher 2017). Platforms compete for user time, engagement, and revenue. The very business model of so many of the ‘free’ applications we engage with is not to make our lives easier so much as to keep people engaged with the screen and engaged with paid content of advertisers (Center for Humane Technology 2021). Our mobile devices are designed to provide us with constant feedback loops. Increased time on a platform benefits corporations because the user will be exposed to more ads (Harris 2020). We’ve created a world in which online connection has become primary, especially for younger generations, and yet in that world any time two people connect, the only way it’s financed is through a sneaky third person who is paying to manipulate those two people. We’ve created an entire global generation of people who were raised within a context where the very meaning of communication, the very meaning of culture is manipulation. We’ve put deceit and sneakiness at the absolute center of everything that we do. (Lanier 2020) In the capitalistic system there is little incentive to prevent companies from using and abusing persuasive technology (Cheney-Lippold 2017). Persuasive technology, applied to large-scale datasets, sells certainty (Zuboff, 2020). Once an algorithm becomes developed enough to predict user demographics and behavior, the algorithm can begin tailoring ads, news stories, links, and other online content for the user, thereby increasing ad engagement rates with an impressive level of accuracy (Bodinger-deUriarte 2017). As a result, persuasive technology allows businesses to wield a disproportionate amount of social power and influence over users in the pursuit of financial gain—reshaping what it means to be a product and what it means to work for a company. One of the many forms of persuasive technology we encounter daily is notifications. 24 Triggered: Persuasive Triggers and Mobile Notifications Notifications are as ubiquitous as mobile devices themselves. Mobile device notifications are qualified by sounds, banners, and badges. While notifications are marketed as helpful reminders and contact alerts, there is an ulterior motive behind many of the notifications that populate most phone screens. There’s the engagement goal to drive up your usage to keep you scrolling. There’s the growth goal, to keep you coming back and inviting as many friends and get them to invite more friends. And then there’s the advertising goal, to make sure that as all that’s happening, we’re making as much money as possible from advertising. (Harris 2020) Notifications are persuasively designed triggers (Center for Humane Technology 2021). They trigger targeted behaviors, and their very design is fundamental to entrapping the user in a vicious cycle of scrolling and clicking (Harris 2020). Notices like dings, banners, and alerts facilitate quick interactions; however, a closer look at the fundamental design of notifications calls into question their utility (Center for Humane Technology 2021). Are notifications making our lives easier, or just increasing our exposure to revenue-driven content? Ultimately, computer algorithms are programmed generate notifications to tailor user behavior to engagement goals. Thus, notifications provide a route for engagement loops. A notification triggers a person to pick up their phone, exposing the person to a stimulus consistent with data-driven knowledge of a user’s interests. If the notification successfully hooks the user in, the notification triggers entry into the cycle of scrolling and clicking. While we mechanically choose to pick up our phones and can elect to 25 enable or disable notifications, how much of that is our choice, and how much does persuasive technology subconsciously influence us? Many dystopian books and movies visualize a world in which artificial intelligence (AI) supersedes the capacity of human intelligence and takes over the world (Leslie 2019). But, many members of the tech field warn that there is a more imminent threat than an apocalypse caused by self-motivated AIs. Current Head of the Center for Humane Technology and a former Google design ethicist, Tristan Harris, cautions: There’s this much earlier moment when technology exceeds and overwhelms human weaknesses. This point being crossed is at the root of addiction, polarization, radicalization, outrage-ification, vanity-ification — the entire thing. This is overpowering human nature and this is a checkmate on humanity. (Harris 2020) The same technologies that afford us global connections and relieve us of everyday tasks can also be sites of constraint, influencing how we think and behave (Nitzani 2019; Bandura 2001). As the network of digital interconnectedness increases in scope and influence, abuses of power become more diffuse and widespread. Hence, the effects of persuasive programming are magnified on a global scale. Synthesis of Literature Review and Theory Literature reveals that technology changes social networks on both a micro and a macro scale. At a micro-level, mobile technology is both helping and hindering individual agency and choices. Mobile technology has become an increasingly widespread tool that individuals can use to streamline research processes, foster communication, and conduct administrative tasks, such as calculations or reminders with high levels of efficiency. However, users are also becoming increasingly exposed to 26 persuasive technology, which alters how users behave and create meaning, often imperceptibly (Bodinger-deUriarte 2019). On a macro-scale, inclusion in the technological network of data is progressively becoming a prerequisite to the social. Individuals are increasingly barred from ‘opting out’ of technological framework and data tracking as society shifts partially into a digital environment. Thus, the rapid growth of interactive mobile technology is redefining social connectedness, values, and agency. METHODOLOGY This study used a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection to investigate the role of interactive mobile technology in redefining social connectedness, values, and agency. The study explores how well individuals understand the role of mobile technology in their life. Are our perceptions of the role of interactive technology consistent with the effects of mobile technology on our thoughts, options, and behaviors? If not, how are individual agencies and social organizations fundamentally changed? Data Collection Process I collected qualitative and quantitative data from seven undergraduate Whitman College students who used Apple iPhones, sixth generation or later, as their primary mobile phone. While mobile phones are not the only kind of mobile device, mobile phones offered an easy avenue for screen-time tracking, providing a distinct object of measurement with comprehensive analytics. 27 Before the study, I asked participants their name and email or phone number for contact purposes. I also asked them for demographic information about their age, gender identity, and class at Whitman so that I could analyze the generalizability of findings. Pseudonyms replaced all names to maintain the privacy of participants. I collected quantitative data through Apple screen-time-reports to gain insight into the physical screen-time behavior of participants. Participants sent me detailed daily screen-time reports for two weeks. For the first week, I instructed participants to use their phones as they normally would, with no notification changes. For the second week, participants had notifications disabled. Notifications are not the singular determinant of phone behavior; however, they are a tangible and easily measurable tool used in mobile technology to increase user engagement. Thus, the measurement of behavior in two different conditions, one with and one without phone notifications, allowed for analysis of how notification-based phone behavior differed from participant perception of the affects of notification on phone behavior. Screen-time reports measured and recorded the following: 1. Phone-pickups Apple counts pick-ups when a user actively engages with the phone screen. Scrolling through notifications, unlocking the phone, or interacting with the lock screen are all forms of engagement. The phone-pickup analytics further allows users to see the first-used app after a phone pick-up, which explains why a user picks up their phone. 2. Daily screen-time: 28 Daily screen-time measures the total time a user spends with their phone screen unlocked every day. Screen-time also measures time spent on individual apps and the distribution of app usage over a day. 3. Notifications The notification tracking feature allows users to see how many notifications they receive daily, the applications sending notifications, and the distribution of notifications received for the day. Figure 1 - Sample Screen-Time Report Data I conducted two in-depth interviews with each of the seven participants for qualitative data collection. The first and second interviews for each participant were one 29 week apart. I used in-depth interviews to gain insight into how participants perceived the role of mobile devices (including but not limited to mobile phones) in social connectedness, attention, and agency. I also asked participants to estimate their mobile phone screen-time behavior under both the notifications enabled and notifications disabled conditions. I asked participants to predict how disabling phone notifications might alter their screen-time behavior in the first interview, then asked them to reflect on behavioral, emotional, and perceptual changes in behavior in their second interview. Data Collection Timeline and Explanation 1. Normal Use Screen-Time Reporting, Day 1-7 Participants screen recorded a video of them scrolling through the day-by-day screen-time reports from the week before their first interview. 2. Semi-Structured Interview One, Day 7 I conducted a semi-structured interview with each participant and asked questions that related to: - Attitudes toward mobile devices - Perceptions of the effect of mobile devices - Estimations of screen-time usage from Week One - Predictions of changes in screen-time usage with notifications disabled. (The full questions list can be found in Appendix C) 3. Notifications Disabled Screen-Time Reporting, Days 8-14 30 I directed participants to turn off all phone notifications except for the ringer to receive calls, and any health-critical apps, such as medication reminders or blood sugar tracking. 4. Semi-Structured Interview Two, Day 14 I conducted a second semi-structured interview with each participant and asked questions that related to: -Attitudes toward mobile devices -Reflections on the experience of having notifications disabled -Whether participants changed notification settings post-experiment (The full questions list can be found in Appendix D) I used convenience sampling to obtain a pool of participants. I recruited participants from Whitman college using email (see Appendix A for participant recruitment email). I also used in-person meetings and text messages to ask my personal Whitman connections to participate in my study. The only prerequisites for participation were: participants had to be 18 years or older by the start of the study, current Whitman undergraduate students, using a sixth-generation iPhone or later as their primary form of mobile phone, running a version of iOS 10.3 or later. I controlled for the iOS software to ensure that the screen-time reporting across participants was collected using the same method. I had no requirements about the phone use or mobile behavior of participants. There were no specifications about the notifications settings that participants used in the week preceding their first interview because I asked users about their perceptions of mobile devices in their daily lives, a role that would be shaped in part by their regular notification choices. 31 Participants were emailed an informed consent form (Appendix B) before the study and instructed to apply to the email affirmatively if they consented to take part. Sample My final sample comprised seven students between the ages of 19 and 22 between their sophomore and senior year at Whitman College. Three of the students were maleidentifying, while four were female-identifying. I offered participants the option of having interviews via Zoom as a COVID-19 precaution; however, all participants elected to have in-person interviews at various participant-selected on-campus locations. I recorded all interviews and reaffirmed participant consent before pressing ‘record’ at the beginning of each interview. Limitations and Generalizability The small sample size means that my findings are not generalizable to the entire population of Whitman College, or beyond. However, my goal was to draw insights from participants’ individual mobile-phone related experiences rather than to collect a representative dataset. While I collected quantitative data, I explored the potential social implications of the increasing usage of mobile phones and notifications in modern society. I used quantitative data to compare the mobile-phone related behavior of each individual participant to the self-perceptions they expressed during their semi-structured interviews, to draw qualitative conclusions. I did not attempt to use qualitative or quantitative data to describe the experience of all mobile phone users, rather I drew off of 32 individual experiences to explore the potential role of mobile phones, and notifications on social organization, interactions, meaning, and agency. Furthermore, my data suggests that my sample may not be very representative of college students in general. The average number of hours a college student spends on their phone is roughly 8 hours for male-identifying students and 10 hours for femaleidentifying students (Roberts, Ya-Ya, and Manolis 2014). The students in my study spent comparatively less time on their phones, even with notifications enabled normally. This could have to do with the demographic of Whitman College. However, my selection process suggests that self-selection bias may also be a factor. I relied heavily on personal connections to recruit study participants. The connections I have that I know spend more extended periods on their phone either said “no” to the study or kept setting up and missing interviews until the time range I was collecting research in, elapsed. Participants who relied heavily on their phones or felt negatively about their phone engagement may have been less likely to take part, whilst participants who felt more positively about phone use or who were seeking a positive behavioral change in phone use may have been more likely to take part. Participants started the study on different dates ranging from February 20th to February 28th, 2022. Each study collected quantitative data over 14 days; however, many participants had their second interview a few days after the conclusion of the notifications-disabled condition. Thus, not all participants shared the same immediate recall of the experience. Nevertheless, all participants had their second interview within four days of the experiment’s conclusions. 33 The dates included the two weeks preceding spring break, a period of high exam activity at Whitman. Depending on a student’s class schedule, they possibly had heavy workloads for one or both weeks, affecting phone-related behavior. The first week of qualitative data that I collected was retrospective data. Participants shared their phone data from the seven days leading up to their first interview. Thus, notification settings were variable across participants. I let participants use their normal notification settings instead of a controlled set of notifications settings because I asked participants to reflect on their mobile experiences and perceptions during their first interview. The notification settings participants’ enabled normally, would likely heavily inform a participant’s reflection. I wanted participants’ interviews to coincide with the quantitative data collected so that I could compare participants’ estimations and expectations with the data. Participants knew I was collecting screen-time data and were asked to estimate the phone usage from a previous week. Participants were further asked to predict how disabling notifications might change their behavior. Many psychological studies provide evidence that we are likely to change our behavior based on our predictions, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (Stukas 2016). Thus, participants may have been subconsciously influenced by their predictions. When asked, participants said that knowing the basic premise of my study prior to participation did not affect their behavior. I also asked participants when they last checked their screen-time report during the first interview. They all said that while they were notified weekly of their screen-time average via a settings notification, they had never looked at the detailed analytics. However, that does not mean that participants were 34 not subconsciously influenced or did not check or note screen-time reporting because they knew the premise of my study. FINDINGS During the first interview, I asked participants to estimate their screen-time analytics from the previous week which I compared to their actual data analytics. Thus, I first explore whether participants were good judges of their phone related behavior and the role of notifications in their daily life. I then use qualitative data from the first and second interviews to explore the intentionality behind mobile engagement, mobile technology as an emotional escape, the pressure to stay connected, types of digital connections, and phone-use in social settings. Quantitative Findings Table 1: Average Daily Screen-Time Data in ‘Notifications Enabled’ and ‘Notifications Disabled’ Conditions Notifications Enabled Notifications Disabled % Difference Pick-ups Screen-Time (minutes) Notifications Pick-ups Screen-Time Pick-up Screen-Time (minutes) Change (%) Change (%) Emma 108 246 71 44 148 -59.3 -39.8 Jason 108 315 84 78 269 -27.8 -14.6 Noah 88 422 97 60 374 -31.8 -11.4 Anna 119 207 91 110 169 -7.6 -18.4 Megan 337 554 324 259 432 -23.1 -22.0 Julia 214 346 129 99 302 -53.7 -12.7 Andrew 130 290 68 153 324 17.7 11.7 Average 158 340 123 115 288 -26.5 -15.3 35 Participants grossly underestimated their screen-time during their initial interview. The average phone usage per day with normal notification settings was fivehours and 40 minutes, far higher than the approximately three-hour average predicted by participants. However, with notifications disabled, average screen-time decreased to four hours and 48 minutes, marking a fifty-two minutes difference in screen-time. Thus, on average, participants underestimated their screen-time by roughly 30 percent change. As with screen-time, most participants underestimated the number of times they picked up their phones per day. Participants did not provide a finite number for their daily pickup estimations and instead gave ballpark figures; however, only two participants estimated their pickups to be higher than 100. Participants effectively predicted how disabling notifications altered their phone pickup behavior. The average number of times participants picked up their phones every day decreased from the notifications enabled condition to the notifications disabled condition. Participants went from picking up their phones an average of 158 times per day with notifications enabled to only picking up their phones an average of 115 times per day with notifications disabled, marking a 26 percent decrease in pickups. All participants but Andrew predicted that disabling notifications would lead to a decrease in average screen-time and phone pick-ups. All participants, including Andrew, predicted their outcome correctly. Andrew was the only participant who experienced an increase in screen-time and pickups with notifications disabled. He experienced an increase in both, as explained later in the “Qualitative Findings” section. Overall, with notifications disabled, participants picked up their phones fewer times per day but for more extended periods of time. With notifications enabled, the 36 average screen interaction time was two minutes nine seconds, while with notifications disabled, the average phone interaction time was two minutes 30 seconds. The most prominent trends from qualitative data alone show that disabling notifications led to a decrease in screen-time and phone-pickups, and an increase in engagement-time per phone pickup. Qualitative Findings Intentional Engagement Participants provided context for their decrease in pick-ups and screen-time, but their increase in average engagement time once notifications were turned off. Some participants mentioned that with notifications disabled, they were more focused and less guilty when using their phones, even in “unproductive” ways. Megan said, “I know I still used my phone a ton, but I guess I appreciated it more cause I could just spend an hour on TikTok and recognize that and stuff, instead of trying to check social media but also be watching a video for class or something, and kind of just half doing each.” Noah felt his phone engagement was “a lot more intentional” without notifications, saying he would actively decide to pick up his phone and think, “OK, now is my phone time. I’m going to check messages, check Instagram, check like these specific things.” With notifications disabled participants said they were more focused in face-toface social interactions. Julia mentioned getting fewer negative comments from her friends about screen-checking, because “Nobody got mad at [her] for checking [her] phone during a conversation, which was nice.” Megan and Emma both felt that overall, 37 their in-person conversations were “more genuine” and they felt “more present” with notifications disabled. However, Julia also asserted the value of notifications as conversation starters. Disabling notifications “sometimes meant that [Julia] didn’t have as much to talk about because sometimes it’s cool when you get a notification of something and can show it to a friend.” Emma similarly mentioned the social relevance of notifications during her first interview when she told me, “if the person we’re talking about is the one whose notification is coming on my phone, then [notifications] can help [in-person conversation].” Noah brought up the value of notifications when I asked him if he felt in control of his notification settings. He said, “if [a notification] doesn’t alert you, then it’s not notifying notification with a certain purpose (...) so by design, [a notification] kind of has to be distracting.” However, some applications and notifications are explicitly designed to hook users into engagement loops. Picture this: If you get an email, it says your friend just tagged you in a photo. Of course, you’re going to click on that email and look at the photo. It’s not something you can just decide to ignore. This is a deep-seated human personality that they’re tapping into. What you should be asking yourself is why doesn’t that email contain the photo in it? It would be a lot easier to see the photo (Seibert 2020). While our notification settings allow us some control over the alerts we receive, many elements lie outside of our control—elements that we may not ordinarily consider, like why we have to open Instagram to see the contents of an email from Instagram, or why the posts we see at the top of our feed are so in tune with our moods and interests. Users are being triggered into cycles of scrolling and clicking using imperceptible 38 persuasive tools. Thus, user behavior is being controlled by an external agent, giving notifications agentic qualities. Emotional Escape The distraction afforded by mobile technology can be both beneficial and detrimental to the goals of individuals. Notifications can provide just one of many examples of how social media apps, such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Snapchat, keep users engaged (Bucher 2017). Responses from participants suggest many users are very aware of the distracting quality of the social media apps, even if they are unaware of the exact persuasive mechanisms behind the apps. Four out of seven interviewees reported intentionally, or at least consciously, using their mobile devices to escape negative emotions. Emma said, “I would say [scrolling] actually is a distraction from emotions. When I’m like stressed, I just dive into this colorful cascade of videos.” Similarly, Anna reported, “I use [my phone] as an easy way out of dealing with hard depression. (…) It’s like a pick-me-up.” Both Megan and Julia mentioned using social media on their phones to curb negative emotions. Megan mentioned TikTok as a “good way to distract [herself] from anxiety,” while Julia said she goes on her phone when bored, and she starts “thinking about all the really bad things for no reason.” These responses are consistent with research conducted into the effects of the Facebook algorithm on user behavior. Harris (2020) cautioned: We’re training and conditioning a whole new generation of people that when we are uncomfortable or lonely, or uncertain, or afraid, we have a digital pacifier for ourselves that is almost atrophying our own ability to do that. 39 Participants seemed to recognize a similar pattern in their behavior. For example, Anna reported turning to social media feeds when she was “too lazy to do something that’s more like a long-term pick-me-up—[something] that is probably a way better way to like, deal with emotions and turn things around.” Anna said that social media was often an easier escape because confronting emotions “just takes more energy for that critical thinking about stuff.” Emma turned to media as a non-thinking escape, saying, “[I] dumb myself down and I’m absorbing instead of like feeling. I’m consuming [media] to alleviate whatever emotional distress is being felt.” Moreover, Megan reported that going on social media is “the easiest way to just forget you’re stressed for a moment, even if it sometimes turns into accidentally being on Instagram or TikTok for a few hours.” Emma suggested a potential reason for the ease of social media escape: I’d also say it is actually one of the coping mechanisms for stress; it’s not that bad compared to my other coping mechanisms like scrolling, as much as I hate scrolling. It’s not unhealthy. It’s not like I’m harming my physical well-being, necessarily. And, at least in the physical sense, Emma is right. Using social media bears far less externally visible harm than other common coping mechanisms, such as substance abuse, self-harm, or compulsive spending. However, studies suggest social media does not have the enduring positive effects of coping mechanisms such as exercise, meditation, art, and writing (Kuss and Griffiths 2011). Many participants additionally mentioned that getting messages makes them feel better. Each message, like, or update provides what Megan described as a “boost,” a boost that Noah describes as being more poignant in individual doses than en masse: 40 I think being able to know people sent me this stuff, I’m like, Yeah, it’s like a good feeling. (…) I don’t think that was as much of a good feeling and [opening my phone] seeing like the nine-plus [messages] on Instagram isn’t nine times better than [seeing notifications] for individual messages. Emma reflected that getting a notification gives her a sense of anticipation; however, checking for new messages or updates with notifications disabled can be disheartening. “It was kind of depressing when I would open my messages app anticipating something to be there, and then nothing was there.” Megan missed seeing notifications telling her about Instagram likes once she disabled notifications: When I have notifications on, I don’t have to open my phone and check [for likes]. And I know I shouldn’t care that much, but it’s really good to know that people like what I posted. Because sometimes, you have moments when you’re really unconfident, and then my phone tells me that people like what I posted. I think a lot about what I post, so (…) it makes me confident to know people like what I made. It’s not just like a picture of me… I mean, it’s a picture of me [laughs]… or a video. But like, I do editing and stuff and pose, and lighting, and sometimes I put on a fit for Insta, and so it means they like something I created. Not just like, my face, you know? Respondents provided little more than a sentence in when asked directly about emotions surrounding mobile phones and mobile phone notifications. However, answers such as Megan’s about her study experience suggests notifications elicit emotional responses of validation and inclusion. Megan’s response is consistent with the idea that interactive technology, specifically social media, can be used to validate self-worth, especially when faced with exclusion (Han et al. 2015; David and Roberts 2017). Staying Relevant: Pressure to Respond Respondents reported in initial and follow-up interviews that mobile device were a critical way to stay connected and up to date with the world. All participants said that 41 they had messaging apps enabled on their phones and used messages daily to connect with friends and family. Participants also mentioned using social media apps such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram messaging to have conversations with surrounding people; however, social media conversations were generally described as less urgent or profound than direct messaging. While six out of seven respondents suggested they do not enjoy constantly receiving messages and updates, all seven respondents expressed apprehension at the idea of turning notifications off for a week. They did not want to miss important messages. Many felt compelled to respond to messages out of a sense of responsibility to other people and to stay socially and culturally relevant. Thus, participants’ phones became proxies for peer pressure. Emma told me, “I hate being responsive to people. I hate feeling like I need to respond to people. It really pisses me off (…). It’s like my time is actually other people’s time.” Emma nonetheless said she feels pressure to respond whenever she gets a notification, saying, “It’s pretty easy for me to see the Instagram notification that somebody’s like DM’d me something funny and I’m like, ‘Oh, I have to look at this’ because there’s also like, this narrative that you have to be available to people. You have to be responsive.” Julia was particularly apprehensive about disabling notifications, saying, “You know how if you don’t like a photo, your friend will think you’re mad at them or something? Yeah, I’m really scared that if I turn notifications off, I will miss things like that and people will think I don’t care.” Both Megan and Andrew mentioned the importance of notifications in their work. Andrew brought up the importance of 42 responding promptly to project group members, and Megan said, “I sometimes get lastminute texts from my boss about shift changes, and if I miss them, then I might miss a shift.” While Anna similarly expressed concern about missing important messages from friends, family, and group chats, she also hoped that turning notifications off would ease the feeling of “always being late and there’s always something to do.” Anna described the feeling of always being accessible as negative, saying, “getting emails from my professors at like what? Like nine in the morning on a Saturday. (…) where I am like, ‘Oh shit, I need to do that.’” Participants feel external pressure to stay connected to mobile technology at all times. Consequently, the mechanisms behind persuasive technology extend far beyond the individual user. Mobile technology is becoming increasingly critical in facilitating micro- and macro-level social and cultural networks and acting as a conduit for information flows and connections between individuals and society at large. Digital [Dis]connection In the initial interviews, only five out of seven participants felt their mobile phones increased their connectivity to other people. In the final interviews, all seven participants spoke about the merits of digital connection with other people. However, some relationships were more important to maintain close contact with than others. All seven participants mentioned using mobile phones to stay in contact with “family and friends”—and not the friends that populate the number of followers someone has on Instagram or the number of connections someone has on Facebook. 43 Throughout the interview process, a pattern emerged in the modes of mobile phone communication. Many participants recognized a distinction between their interactions through apps designed exclusively for messaging, such as Messenger, WhatsApp, and FaceTime, and their interactions with social media apps such as Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. After disabling notifications for a week, respondents reported feeling far less connected and experienced a fear of missing out (FOMO). Respondents were more affected by the lack of notifications from messaging apps. Andrew described his experience without messaging notifications as “net negative,” saying, “I felt I had to keep checking my phone at random intervals. It got to the point where it started to make me anxious.” Emma expressed regret that “some of [her] conversations with people died out,” especially with people that she only stays in touch with only via her phone. Julia mentioned she felt “left out” because she was harder to get a hold of and told me, “I kinda just felt like I missed out on things. Like, I told people my notifications were off and they needed to call me, but nobody called me. I guess it’s just like too much work or something.” Some participants compensated for their FOMO by finding creative ways to stay in the loop. For example, Megan essentially used her housemate as an in-person form of phone notification. “I live with [a close friend] and so she just kind of told me what was going on in group chats and stuff if it was something important or if we were going to do stuff or something.” Emma took the phrase “waiting by the phone” quite literally, telling me, “There were times when I was like coordinating with someone and I had to leave it in 44 front of me with the chat open, so I made sure I didn’t miss anything that they were saying. And that was really annoying to me.” While no participants reported missing out on anything significant, respondents all experienced some negative emotions because a lack of notifications hindered the fast and easy communication processes they were used to with family and friends. Jason felt “anxiety the first few days” without notifications, a feeling echoed by both Julia and Emma. Jason felt like he was “missing something” because there were a few texts from friends that he “didn’t see for a few hours.” Noah similarly reported feeling a few hours behind everyone else and said the lack of notifications made him feel less connected to friends: “depending on when you check your phone (…) You’re like a handful of messages behind.” While Megan did not miss any critical messages because her housemate kept her in the loop, she still said that not receiving message notifications “sucked because [she] never [knew] what is happening exactly and when.” Overall, Emma had the most positive experience with messaging disabled out of all respondents, but only because the experiment provided her with an excuse to be disconnected. Emma “really liked having an excuse, something to blame [her] lack of responsiveness on because [she] tend[s] to not be very responsive.” However, following the study, Emma says the pressure to respond has returned because she no longer has an excuse to be disconnected. Andrew reinforces this idea by saying his biggest takeaway from his week without notifications is realizing that “communication is very much digital now versus coming and saying things face to face. And now most people rely on that [digital 45 connection]. And once a person no longer has [a digital connection], they don’t get communicated to as frequently.” While participants struggled with messaging notifications disabled, respondents reported an overwhelmingly positive response to having non-messaging notifications turned off. Six out of seven participants said they did not re-enable many of their nonmessaging when they re-enabled their notifications. Five out of seven opted to keep the notifications of at least one social media app disabled, that they had previously kept enabled. Julia said she only re-enabled messaging apps and opted out of re-enabling social media apps, including Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. “I still did everything I wanted to anyway, but I wasn’t checking Instagram in class to see the photo I was tagged in. I still got to see it later, but I felt less guilty about it.” Megan opted to continue receiving Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok notifications. However, she said she did not bother re-enabling upwards of 20 apps: “You know the apps that send you only one or two notifications a day, not enough to like bother disabling? I had a bunch of those, but I guess like, every time I got one, I would open my phone and do something else.” Andrew was the only participant who re-enabled all the apps that he had previously had enabled; however, he only did so because he had already limited his notifications to just messaging apps, reminders, and alarms. The difference between the messaging apps that participants adamantly reenabled notifications for post-experiment and the social media apps that many participants opted out of re-enabling notifications for, lies in the form of engagement on each platform. Participants used messaging apps predominantly to connect with family and friends. Participants gave me names, relationship details, conversation details, and 46 nuanced information about many of the people they conversed with using messaging apps, suggesting most messaging relationships are strong ties. Conversely participants used social media apps primarily to connect to weak ties. Participants were more likely to make broad statements about “followers” or “people who like my photos” than they were to provide intimate details about social media connections. Megan said, “Nobody goes on Instagram to have a conversation. Like sure, sometimes I message friends or like comment on a photo or something, but if I really want to talk to someone, I text them.” Julia suggested that the difference between messaging communication and social media communication lies in the strength of ties. Julia described her connections with people on her most commonly used social media platforms, Instagram and Facebook, as different from those she has with people she messages. Like, [social media connections], they’re my ‘friends,’ but they’re not really my friends. If I wait an hour to like a friend of a close friend’s Insta post, nobody is going to care, but if I don’t respond to a text from a friend who really needs me, that would suck… Even if a close friend posts on Insta like, it’s OK if I don’t like it right away. But my friends kind of expect me to respond if they text me. One of the most reported uses of messaging apps was staying in contact with family and friends who are not geographically close enough to see in person. Julia mentioned: I text people all the time. Like, my family doesn’t live in this country, so I text my dad a lot. And then, I have friends from high school in Japan whom I talk to a lot. It’s nice to know when they’re online and not just check your messages or Instagram after and see that you missed a text or a PM from them. Megan agreed, saying, I don’t know; people don’t really all live in the same place anymore. I can’t really wait for my parents to get on a plane to come to talk to me in person. So it’s really good to be able to know what they are doing online because I can’t 47 see them in person. Even if it’s just Facebook telling me, they posted a new photo or something. [laughs] yeah, my parents still use Facebook. Anna says she has friends and family across the state and out of the country that she “would not be able to connect with without technology.” Participants also used messaging apps to “coordinate things” (Anna) to see people in person. Anna explained, I think having (…) text messages allows me to stay connected with people even if they are just one mile away from me. [It helps with] planning something because I wouldn’t have time to just walk up to someone’s house and knock on the door just in case they’re there. Julia mentioned that the people she felt most connected with digitally were also the people she made an effort to see in person when geographically possible. She said, “I feel like the people I bother to see in person are the people I really want to talk to. The rest is just the kind of stuff you have to do so people think you are a nice person.” Alone While Together: Phone Snubbing While the number of times we open our phones in a day is not inherently coordinated with screen-time or productive phone use, picking up our phones can draw us out of the present moment and hinder in-person communication. Or at least witnessing other people pick up their phones during conversation can make us feel disconnected from them. Emma mentioned, “when people are on their phones in front of me (…), I absolutely feel more disconnected.” Andrew said he uses humor to bring his friends back into a conversation if he is sitting at a table with friends who are all on their phones by saying, “I’m so glad the family is all together!” to curb his annoyance. 48 However, participants seem less likely to feel disconnected from the present moment when they receive notifications or check their phones during a conversation. Megan mentioned, “some of my friends sometimes get mad at me when like, I’m scrolling when they’re talking to me, but I’m paying attention, I swear!” Julia said, “I only really check my phone if it’s like important, and we all do it. Often if I check my phone, they check their phone too. And It’s not like I’m one of those people who has earbuds in while trying to have a conversation.” While phone-checking during conversations may make some people feel disconnected, most participants mentioned that phone-checking was familiar enough that it was essentially just an accepted part of life. For example, Anna said, “I have made a conscious effort to not check my phone all the time when I’m with people that I care about. But I think that some people aren’t aware or don’t make that effort, and that’s not a negative judgment of them. It’s just how we are.” Phone checking during exchanges is such a common occurrence that there is now a word for it (albeit an informal one)—“phubbing,” or phone-snubbing occurs when someone ignores their companions in favor of their phone (David and Roberts 2017). There is a psychological reason why so many people phub and why, once one phone comes out during a discussion, other phones might follow (Han, Min, and Lee 2015; David and Roberts 2017). When people feel threatened by social exclusion, they become anxious and lose the ability to self-regulate, reason, or perceive time effectively (Baumeister and Tice, 1990; Mead et al. 2011). In the long term, repeated feelings of social exclusion can foster phone addictions—when ignored, we attempt to reinforce the meaning of our existence 49 (Lee and Shrum 2012; Han et al. 2015). Social media offers an easy way for people to feel connected, with an integrated system of likes and comments to offer instant gratification to the user (Mead et al. 2011). Users who cope with feelings of exclusion through social media use are more likely to develop phone addictions because they reach for their phones when their self-regulation, reasoning, and time-perception are impaired (Kuss and Griffiths 2011). Addiction, in turn, can compel someone to phub a companion. The companion may then feel excluded and turn to their phone for positive reinforcement and a feeling of inclusion (Han et al. 2015)(David and Roberts 2017). Then the cycle repeats itself. Anna voiced concern about some of the behavior she observed from people seeking social connection and turning to social media: I think it really hinders our ability to connect with people genuinely, and I worry about that, especially with how dating apps have become like friendship apps. And I think that’s helpful in some ways if we move to a new city or whatever. But it can also become like, OK, I can just swipe on this instead of going and joining like an organization where people would have similar values or like joining a sport or whatever. Quantitative results suggest participants might not realize just how many times in a day they get distracted by their phones or turn to their phones when they feel excluded. Participants were poor judges of their phone pick-up behavior. If we averaged out participant gross estimations of phone pick-ups, participants estimated that they usually picked up their phones roughly 60 times per day with regular notification settings. In actuality, the number of times participants picked up their phones in a day before turning notifications off was 158 times, over 100% more than participants predicted. However, participants were better at predicting the effect that disabling notifications would have on their phone behavior. All but one participant predicted they 50 would pick up their phone fewer times with notifications disabled. The participants were right. With notifications disabled, phone pick-ups dropped to an average of 115 times per day, marking a 26 percent decrease. Interestingly, Andrew, the participant who predicted that his number of pick-ups would increase, experienced an increase in pick-ups with his notifications disabled. He explained why during our second interview: I consciously felt like I had to keep checking my phone at intervals. And it made it a lot more stressful. (...) I would have to stop what I’m doing, scroll through to make sure no one had messaged me, and take an extra amount of time when I would just be alerted about when I was like messaged about something. However, Andrew’s initial notification settings make him unique among the participant pool. Andrew had only messaging app notifications enabled prior to the study, namely, WhatsApp and Messages. Andrew experienced an increase in messaging relatedpickups with notifications disabled, making Andrew’s behavior consistent with other participants. Julia, for example, went from having Instagram as the most opened app following each pickup with notifications enabled to Messages being the most opened app following each pickup with notifications disabled. Julia picked up her phone and opened Messenger 34 percent more frequently with notifications disabled than notifications enabled. However, because Julia picked up her phone fewer times to engage with social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok, she still experienced a net decrease in phone pickups she had, on average, per day, with notifications disabled. Megan experienced an increase in WhatsApp, Messenger, and Message-related pick-ups. Still, she experienced a net decrease because she picked up her phone for TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook fewer times per day. 51 Thus, findings suggest participants are more likely to pick up their phones unnotified to check for messages on messaging apps rather than to check social media apps. Resultantly, participants were more likely to check apps they used to stay in contact with predominantly close friends and family of their own volition. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION A combination of qualitative and quantitative research demonstrates that mobile devices play a complicated role in social organization, human interaction, meaningmaking, and the expression of agency. All seven participants asserted mobile phones increased their connectivity to other mobile phone users and to society itself. Overall, participants experienced a sense of disconnectivity from disabling their notifications, especially their messaging notifications, and felt continued pressure to check their phone and respond promptly. One potential explanation for the pressure to respond lies in network theory. In a network society, inclusion in the social network is crucial for social, cultural, and economic capital acquisition. As social networks become increasingly digital, the need for digital connections becomes more important. If a person opts out of the digital space, they are opting out of a considerable component of social and cultural life that has shifted into the digital world. Many participants drew a subconscious distinction between messaging apps and social media apps. Messaging apps allowed for direct and personal communication between individuals or small groups. The most common messaging apps mentioned were Messages (the built in text platform on Apple phones), WhatsApp, GroupMe, and 52 Messenger. Participants used messaging apps to connect with more intimate connections, such as friends, family, or direct coworkers. Participants offered details about messaging correspondences including, names, the nature of a relationship, geographical proximity, and emotional attachment. Correspondence via messaging apps were primarily between individuals or members of a group with strong ties to one another. Social media applications fostered communication in more transient or impersonal ways than messaging apps. Participants used applications such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Facebook to connect to weak ties. Participants were more likely to talk about likes, followers or views, when discussing social media contacts, than to provide detail about a relationship formed through social media. Both messaging and social media applications affected the emotions and selfperception of participants. However, participants sought meaningful interactions with strong ties more than weak ties. With notifications disabled, participants were more likely to reach for their phones to check only messaging apps. In fact, with notifications disabled, participants experienced an increase in the number of times they picked up their phone to open messaging applications. While participants still engaged with social media apps, often directly after picking up their phones, the overall number of social-media-related pick-ups decreased with notifications disabled. Participants were also far more likely to mention social media notifications as a hindrance, with many participants electing not to re-enable social media notifications post-experiment. 53 Many participants opted out of social media notifications following the study, however, all participants continue to engage in social media applications to stay connected to digital culture and a larger network of weak ties. However, our interactive mobile devices can reinforce our relationships with friends and family and facilitate communication and connection that transcend geography and time. This concept is consistent with the idea of technologically induced time-space compression. We can engage with people who are temporally and geographically distant from us with growing speed and efficiency. While our interactive mobile devices can enhance the connectivity of strong ties, there is more ambiguity surrounding whether mobile technology facilitates positive weak-tie interactions. Mobile devices allow our messaging and social media apps to follow us around almost everywhere. Participants frequently described social media platforms as addictive, distracting, and overall, a hindrance to both the productivity of participants and their engagement with people they are close to. However, no participants mentioned that the people they were actually connected to via social media were a hindrance or distraction. Participants referenced “scrolling,” “advertisements,” and their compulsion to check for “likes” as negative, however saw their network of followers as a benefit. Social media re-enforces the strength and scope of weak ties, which can be a powerful way to create cross-group ties and communication within a social network. Unfortunately, social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, are not designed solely to connect weakly tied individuals. Instead, many online platforms use persuasive technology to keep users hooked on their screens. The 54 information flows and interactions that take place between weak ties via social media platforms differ from the information flows and interactions that take place between strong ties. Persuasive technology can compel users to spend extended periods on social media. Three participants specifically used the term “rabbit-hole” to describe an extended period spent on social media when they only intended to check up on a notification or post. While all three participants blamed their “rabbit holes” on poor self-control, the documentary “The Social Dilemma” (Orlowski 2020) reveals from the words of Facebook coders themselves, that social media algorithms are written to imperceptivity hook users in. Thus, the decrease in the number of phone pickups following notification disablement suggests that notifications and notification algorithms play a significant role in user behavior; Noah noted, that notifications by definition, “kind of has to be distracting,” however, post-study interviews reveal notifications may not always be distracting in the way we intend them to be. Participants experienced both negative and positive distractions from phoneusage. Participants reported using phones as an intentional distraction from negative emotions, but an unintentional distraction when they were trying to be productive. Social media was an easy way for participants to escape reality and provided a non-thinking form of entertainment. At least three participants used social media as an pacifier in response to negative thoughts and emotions. When participants picked up their phones to escape reality, they were actively acknowledging and using the distracting qualities of mobile platforms as a tool for their own wellbeing. 55 However, many participants lost focus on schoolwork or interactions because of the compulsion to pick up their phone and scroll. When I was setting up interviews with participants, five voiced their desire to decrease unproductive screen-time. All seven participants defined unproductive screen-time as some variation of engaging with their phones, with no goal or purpose. The most common “waste of time” mentioned was social media. Following the interview, six out of seven participants opted to leave some previously enabled social media notifications in their disabled states — Participants wanted to regain control of their social media behavior. Consequently, self-control and agency become subjects of contention. In the initial interviews, four out of seven participants felt controlled by their phone. In poststudy interviews, the number had increased to five out of seven participants even though all five of those participants had made conscious post-study changes to their notification settings to feel more in control of their phones. Participants were notably poor at estimating their screen-time and their pickups, which begs the question: how much does feeling in control correlate with participants actively having control over phone-related behavior? The effect of mobile devices on society, connections, and agency is neither inherently positive nor inherently negative. However, mobile technology is redefining social structures. Mobile devices possess many features that make our lives easier, allowing us with more time to innovate and more tools to innovate with. Participants referenced the value of phones for looking up information or doing calculations, and two mentioned how much they appreciated the ease of some tools their phone provided, such as the camera and flashlight features. Thus, mobile devices can increase user agency by 56 allowing users to carry around tools that extend the range and efficiency of everyday tasks. Mobile devices further allow immediate access to messaging and social media applications. Social ties can be strengthened, and digital information flows can transcend time and proximity through digital networks. We can reinforce relationships through digital communication. Hence, participants showed strongly that digital platforms can act as intermediaries in meaningful human interactions. However, mobile devices can also have negative effects on participants’ sense of self, freedoms, and the delineation between the front and the back stage. Now that having a mobile phone is an expectation in many academic and work environments, being accessible for work and academics outside of a typical workday, or classroom or office space is possible. Competition is a critical part of the capitalistic system. Generally, the agent who can produce goods and services faster, better, cheaper, and in more mass reaps financial benefits. For individuals competing for jobs or positions in the capitalistic system, spending more time working and being more accessible renders them more competitive; and as office spaces, home spaces, and classrooms increasingly dissolve into one homogeneous space, setting time and work boundaries are no longer as possible for individuals who want to get ahead economically. The more individuals connect within the digital world, the more social capital they have, which is consistent with the concept of a network society—access to technology is a gateway to inclusion in the network. Thus, the combination of capitalistic values and time-space compression create pressures for users to work for a greater amount of time, and be available to a larger network of people. Participants mentioned that jobs and academics are no longer as clearly 57 delineated as they were before interactive mobile technology became mainstream, leading to decreased agentic free time, even as they were relieved of tasks. Interactions are increasingly filtered through various online platforms, which changes the way we construct a sense of self. Historically, there has been a distinction between front stage and back stage interactions. Having access to social media networks and social connections (both strongly and weakly tied) at all times erodes the distinction between the front and the back stage. The looking-glass self suggests that we form a sense of self and behave based on how we perceive others to be judging us. Prior to the growth of digital networking, actors only had to engage in self-monitoring behavior in public settings. However, with a network of hundreds of people accessible with a few taps of a phone screen, mobile devices make it possible for us to be simultaneously alone and together, blurring the lines between front stage and back stage. The part of us we share through digital profiles are on stage interactions even if we are alone. We use our online interactions, profiles, and likes to shape our sense of self. Mobile phones and social media can erode user agency. Given that social media programmers explicitly program social media to be addictive, programmers and the corporations they work for can be seen as agents. The youngest generation is now being born into a world where technology is fundamental to human connection. Whereas 20 years ago, cribs were still a place for rattles and pacifiers, even the youngest in society are being handed phones and iPads to learn about the world. As current toddlers and children become teenagers and adults, society will become more situated in the digital space, as society forgets what life was like before interactive technology. 58 As interactive technology becomes increasingly more advanced, many applications and platforms are approaching artificial intelligence. Former President of Pinterest, Tim Kendall fell victim to the persuasive qualities of an application he worked on. He described his compulsion to scroll through Pinterest even while at home as “classic irony.” He was “going to work during the day and building something that [he was] falling prey to” (Kendall 2020). Thus, Kendall, the man in charge of Pinterest, the man defining company goals, was losing his agency to an app he designed. As algorithms apply data to grow networks beyond human comprehension, mobile devices are becoming more than proxy agents. They are increasingly developing agencies of their own. In summary, the rise of mobile technology is not only reshaping our networks and connections but also reshaping social ecology. The environment that humans live and interact with is no longer confined to tangible spaces and resources. Opting out of the digital space in today’s era means opting out of social interactions and many occupational, educational, and financial opportunities, as power systems and communication networks shift into an interconnected digital space. When we pick up a mobile device, we are not only choosing to be physically influenced, but also mentally influenced. We are placing a part of our consciousness into the digital space, and we are both learning and interacting in the intangible digital world (Verbeek 2009). However, as social, cultural, and economic structures become increasingly intertwined with the digital world, picking up a mobile device is becoming less of a choice. Thus, technology has become a fundamental mediating force in human 59 actions and experiences. We are becoming hybrid both in our body and in our environment as we shift our tools and parts of our being into the digital world. EXTENSIONS As an extension of this study, I would propose collecting data from more participants for a more extended period to provide greater generalizability and mitigate time-dependent changes in phone behavior. The longer each condition is studied, the less significant an anomalous day of phone use becomes. Furthermore, the study has the potential to be examined longitudinally. Many participants voiced anxiety or a feeling of missing something when their notifications were initially disabled. It is possible that in the long-term, if participants kept notifications off, they may begin habitually reaching for their phone less and may experience less anxiety related to a lack of notifications. 60 APPENDIX A: Participant Recruitment Email Hi! Do you find yourself distracted by your phone, or perhaps wondering why your attention span suddenly feels so short? I can help you! I am conducting a study on the role of notifications on human-computer interaction, choices, and agency. I would love to have you as a participant! The only pre-requisite is that you own an Apple iPhone, 6th generation or newer and that your screen-time data was collected over the last week (it was unless you have gone out of your way to disable the screen-time analysis feature). Participants will be asked to participate in two 20-minute interviews about their perceptions of their phone use and phone-related behaviors, a week apart from one another. After their first interview participants will send me screenshots of their screentime analytics from the preceding week and disable all of their phone notifications for the next week. While notifications will be disabled, your ringer can still be on so calls can vibrate or ring. Your messages and updates can, of course, be seen, by simply opening up your app and seeing if you have any new messages or updates. This is a great study to participate in if you keep getting distracted by your phone buzzing while you’re trying to grind for midterm season! As compensation, you would be provided a small gift from the soc department, as well as the opportunity to meet with me for up to an hour of social sciences help. As a senior sociology major, I have a lot of experience writing for social science classes and I would be happy to help you with anything from readings and analysis, to writing and editing work! I would also be happy to talk to you at any point about being a soc major or the soc thesis process! Please email me if you are interested, and I can provide you with more info! I would love to have you as a part of my study! Thanks, Jess 61 APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Form You are invited to participate in a data collection and interview project about how our perceptions of the role of phone notifications affect behavior and agency when engaging with mobile technology. This data collection and interview project is being conducted by Jessica ‘Jess’ Lilly, a senior undergraduate sociology major at Whitman College, and is advised by Dr. Michelle Janning in the Sociology Department at Whitman College in Walla Walla, WA. To participate in this study, you must reside in Washington State, be at least 18 years old, and own an iPhone 6 or above running iOS 10.3 or later. Prior to the study, you will be asked to disclose information that will identify you as an individual to the primary researcher and staff advisor (name, email or phone number, age, gender identity, racial identity, class at Whitman, Major/s or planned Major/s at Whitman). You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. Any information that can identify you as a participant of the study will either be replaced with a pseudonym or generalized in any publicly accessible documents to maintain your anonymity. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to engage in two different parts of the study: Semi-Structured interviews: You will participate in two interviews, one pre-data collection, and one post-data collection. The interviews will be recorded for the purpose of transcription, however, any identifying information will be removed or replaced with a pseudonym before becoming accessible to the public. You will be asked questions about your perception of mobile devices and notifications, and your behavior and relationship surrounding mobile devices. These interviews do not ask participants to disclose any highly personal information about their mobile device usage and are not expected to pose risk to you. Each interview will last about 20 minutes. Interviewees have the option of having an in-person interview with all campus and state COVID protocols being respected or a Zoom interview. In the interview, you may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. You may opt out of an interview at any time. Data Collection: You will be asked to send screenshots of the most recent week of data analytics on your phone and laptop via the means that are most convenient for you among email, text message, airdrop, and Google Drive. You will then be asked to disable the notifications on your phone and laptop for a week. Phone calls and emergency notifications will remain enabled. Participants are asked to live their lives normally for the next 7 days (sans notifications), then send screenshots of the most recent week of data analytics to the researchers. This ‘experiment’ is not expected to pose risks to you, however, disabling notifications may be disruptive to scheduling or connectivity to other people. The data collection process does require you to share your personal phone and laptop analytics with the researchers. The analytics will contain graphs of time spent on mobile devices, number and times of pickups, number and times of notifications, and distribution of app usage, however, they do not contain any highly personal information such as messages, IP address, or contacts. You can opt out of sending your data analytics at any time. Participation in both the data collection and interviews is completely voluntary. There are no penalties for not participating in or completing the study or interview. 62 Upon completion of the study and interviews you will be given a small gift valued at roughly $10. You will also be given the option of scheduling a writing help or tutoring session of up to 1 hour with Jess. All data from the survey will be securely stored and accessed only by trained researchers. If you have any questions about this study, you can contact Jess Lilly (lillyjm@whitman.edu, 801-814-8991), Dr. Michelle Janning (janninmy@whitman.edu), or the Whitman College Institutional Review Board (irb@whitman.edu). By replying affirmatively to this email, you agree that you are at least 18 years old, you live in Washington State, you have both an iPhone running iOS 10.3 or later, and a mac running Cataline or later, you understand this information, and you agree to participate. 63 APPENDIX C: Interview One Questions Tell me about the role of mobile devices in your everyday life. Tell me about the role of notifications in your everyday life. What notification choices or setting choices have you made on your phone and laptop, if any? What have you decided to enable/disable? What defines productive engagement? What defines unproductive engagement? Do mobile devices help or hinder your productivity? Do notifications help or hinder your productivity? How many times a day do you think you will pick up your phone with notifications enabled? How many times a day do you think you will pick up your phone with notifications disabled? How many hours a day do you think you will spend on mobile devices with notifications disabled? How many hours a day do you think you will spend on mobile devices with notifications enabled? What percentage of the time you spent on your mobile device with notification enabled do you think you will spend being productive? What percentage of the time you spent on your mobile device with notification disabled do you think you will spend being productive? When was the last time you checked your screen-time report? Do mobile devices create emotional responses in us? Tell me about the effect of mobile devices on your mental health, both positive and negative. Tell me about the effect of notifications on your mental health, both positive and negative. 64 Tell me about the effect of mobile devices on your physical health, both positive and negative. Tell me about the effect of notifications on your physical health, both positive and negative. In what ways do you engage with your mobile devices on a daily basis? In what ways do you engage with notifications on a daily basis? What is your general attitude towards mobile device usage? What is your general attitude towards mobile device notifications? Do you think of your mobile devices as helpful or hurtful? In what ways? What negative effects, if any, do you experience from your relationship with mobile devices? What positive effects, if any, do you experience from your relationship with mobile devices? What negative effects, if any, do you experience from your relationship with notifications? What positive effects, if any, do you experience from your relationship with notifications? Do mobile devices make you feel more or less connected(in other relationships?)? How so? Do notifications make you feel more or less connected (in other relationships?)? How so? How do mobile devices influence your behavior? How do mobile devices influence your relationships with other people? How do notifications influence your behavior? How do notifications influence your relationships with other people? How much do you feel your notifications settings and format reflect your best interest? Do you feel in control of your mobile devices? Do you feel in control of your notifications? 65 Do you ever feel like your mobile devices control you? Do you ever feel like your notifications control you? How do you predict your participation in the experiment will influence your perspectives on mobile technology and notifications? How do you think your interaction with your mobile devices will change once notifications are disabled, if at all? How do you think you will feel when your notifications are disabled? How do you think your productivity will be affected by your notifications being disabled? How do you think your choices will be affected by your notifications being disabled? 66 APPENDIX D: Interview Two Questions What have you learned, if anything about the role of mobile devices in your life? What have you learned, if anything about the role of notifications in your everyday life? Moving forward, will you make any changes to your initial notifications setting based on your experience in the study? If so why? If not, why not? What defines productive engagement? What defines unproductive engagement? Do mobile devices help or hinder productivity? Did having notifications disabled help or hinder productivity? How do mobile devices make you feel? How did the absence of notifications make you feel? Tell me about the effect of mobile devices on your mental health, both positive and negative. Tell me about the effect of notifications on your mental health, both positive and negative. Tell me about the effect of mobile devices on your physical health, both positive and negative. Tell me about the effect of notifications on your physical health, both positive and negative. How would you describe your relationship with mobile devices? Follow-up: how has your participation in this study affected this understanding? How would you describe your relationship with notifications and how has your participation in this study affected this understanding? What negative effects, if any do you experience from your relationship with mobile devices? What positive effects, if any do you experience from your relationship with mobile devices? 67 What negative effects, if any do you experience from your relationship with notifications? What positive effects, if any do you experience from your relationship with notifications? Do mobile devices make you feel more or less connected(in other relationships?)? How so? Do notifications make you feel more or less connected (in other relationships?)? How so? How much control do you have over your notifications? How much do you feel your notifications settings and format reflect your best interest? How do you think your participation in the experiment has influenced your perspectives on mobile technology and notifications as well as your answers to my questions? How do you think your interaction with your mobile devices will change once notifications are disabled, if at all? How did your experience with notifications turned off differ from your expectations? 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bandura, Albert. 2001. “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual Review Of Psychology 52:1-26. doi: 10.1146/Annurev.Psych.52.1.1. Baumeister, Roy F., and Dianne Tice. 1990. “Anxiety and Social Exclusion.” Journal Of Social and Clinical Psychology 9(2):165–95. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165. Blumer, Herbert. 2005. “Society as Symbolic Interaction.” Pp 91-100 in Contemporary Sociological Thought: Themes and Theories edited by Sean P. Hier. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. Bodinger-deUriarte, Cristina, 2019. “Why We Care: Netizenship and Informed Choice.” Pp. 223-230 in Interfacing Ourselves: Living in the Digital Age. Edited by Cristina Bodinger-deUriarte. New York: Routledge. Bolin, Göran, and Jonas Andersson Schwarz. 2015. “Heuristics of the Algorithm: Big Data, User Interpretation and Institutional Translation.” Big Data & Society, 2(2):1-12. doi: 10.1177/2053951715608406. Bucher, Tania. 2017. “The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms.” Information, Communication & Society 20(1):30-44. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086. Candello, Heloisa, Claudio Pinhanez, and Marisa Vasconcelos. 2017. “Evaluating the conversation flow and content quality of a multi-bot conversational system.” Paper presented at the Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Joinville, Brazil, October 23-7. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/HeloisaCandello/publication/320929870_Evaluating_the_conversation_flow_and_ content_quality_of_a_multibot_conversational_system/links/5a02fe850f7e9b3d401e0047/Evaluatingthe-conversation-flow-and-content-quality-of-a-multi-bot-conversationalsystem.pdf. Carrier, Mark. 2018. “From Smartphones to Social Media: How Technology Affects Our Brains and Behavior.” Santa Barbara: Greenwood. Castells, Manuel. 2005. “The Network Society: from Knowledge to Policy.” Pp. 322 in The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy, edited by M. Castells and G. Cardoso. Washington DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations. Center for Humane Technology. 2021. “Persuasive Technology.” Accessed May 20, 2022. https://www.humanetech.com/youth/persuasive-technology. Chen, Tsai-Wei and S. Shyam Sundar. 2018. “This App Would Like to Use Your Current Location to Better Serve You: Importance of User Assent and System Transparency in Personalized Mobile Services.” Paper presented at the annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, May 21-6. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174111. Cheney-Lippold. 2017. “We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves.” New York: New York University Press. 69 Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. “The Looking-Glass Self.” Pp. 189 in Social Theory: The Multicultural Readings (2010) edited by C. Lemert. Philadelphia: Westview Press. Cutts, Martin. Oxford Guide to Plain English. 5th ed. 2020. New York: Oxford University Press. Cyphers, Bennett. 2021. “Google Is Testing Its Controversial New Ad Targeting Tech in Millions of Browsers. Here’s What We Know.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 30. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/google-testing-its-controversialnew-ad-targeting-tech-millions-browsers-heres. David, Meredith E. and James A. Roberts. 2017. “Phubbed and Alone: Phone Snubbing, Social Exclusion, and Attachment To Social Media.” Journal Of The Association For Consumer Research 2(2):155-63. doi: 10.1086/690940. Dodgen-Magee. 2018. Deviced!: Balancing Life and Technology in a Digital World. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Fehrman, Craig. 2011. “The Incredible Shrinking Sound Bite.” Ideas, The Boston Globe February 1. http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/02/the_incred ible_shrinking_sound_bite/. Fiebelkorn, Ian C., Mark A. Pinsk, and Sabine Kastner. 2018. “A Dynamic Interplay within the Frontoparietal Network Underlies Rhythmic Spatial Attention.” Neuron 99(4):842-53. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.038. Firth, Joseph A., John Torous, Brendon Stubbs, Genevieve Z. Steiner, Lee Smith, Mario Alvarez Jimenez, John Gleeson, et al.. 2019. “The ‘Online Brain’: how the Internet May be Changing our Cognition.” World Psychiatry 18(2):119-29. doi: 10.1002/wps.20617. Foucault, Michel. [1984] 1990. The Care of the Self—the History of Sexuality, Vol. 3. Reprint: London: Penguin Books. Fuller-Wright, Liz. 2018. “The Spotlight of Attention is More Like a Strobe, Say Researchers.” Princeton University, August 22. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/22/spotlight-attention-morestrobe-say-researchers. Ghausi, Nadjya. 2018. “Sorry, Goldfish: People’s Attention Spans Aren’t Shrinking, They’re Evolving.” Entrepreneur, October 19. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/321266. Goffman, Erving. 1959. “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.” New York: Anchor Books. Granovetter, Mark S.. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–1380. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392 Han, Sehee, Jinyoung Min, and Heeseok Lee. 2015. “Antecedents Of Social Presence and Gratification Of Social Connection Needs in SNS: A Study Of Twitter Users and Their Mobile and Non-Mobile Usage.” International Journal Of Information Management 35(4):459–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.004. 70 Harris, Tristan. 2020. In “The Social Dilemma,” directed by Jeff Orlowski. Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 22. McNamee, Robert. 2020. In “The Social Dilemma,” directed by Jeff Orlowski. Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 22. Haselton, Todd. 2018. “How to Get Siri Working Again if it Stops Listening to You on Your iPhone.” Tech Guide, CNBC, November 23. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/23/how-to-retrain-siri-to-recognize-yourvoice.html. Helfrich, Randolph F., Ian C. Fiebelkorn, Sara M. Szczepanski, Jack J. Lin, Josef Parvizi, Robert T. Knight, and Sabine Kastner. 2018. “Neural Mechanisms of Sustained Attention Are Rhythmic.” Neuron 99(4):854-65. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.032. Humphreys, Lee. 2011. “Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance.” Journal of Communication 61(4):575-95. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01570.x. Hunter, Tatum. 2021. “Ask Help Desk: No, your phone isn’t listening to your conversations. Seriously.” Article, The Washington Post, November 12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/12/phone-audiotargeting-privacy/. Instagram Users. 2021.“Instagram Users in United States of America.” Napoleon Cat, March. https://napoleoncat.com/stats/instagram-users-inunited_states_of_america/2021/03/#:~:text=There%20were%20138%2000 0%20000,group%20(44%20000%20000). Jiang, Shaohai and Annabel Ngien. 2020. “The Effects of Instagram Use, Social Comparison, and Self-Esteem on Social Anxiety: A Survey Study in Singapore.” Social Media + Society 6(2). doi: 10.1177/2056305120912488. Kang, Hyunjin & Kim, Ki Joon. 2020. “Feeling Connected To Smart Objects? A Moderated Mediation Model Of Locus Of Agency, Anthropomorphism, and Sense Of Connectedness.” International Journal Of Human-Computer Studies 133:45-55. doi: 10.1016/J.Ijhcs.2019.09.002. Kant, Tanya. 2021. “Identity, Advertising, and Algorithmic Targeting: Or How (Not) to Target Your ‘Ideal User.’” MIT Schwartzman College of Computing, September 2. https://mit-serc.pubpub.org/pub/identityadvertising-and-algorithmic-targeting/release/2. Kitchin, Rob, and Martin Dodge. 2011. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-44 in Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. Kuss, Daria J., and Mark Griffiths. 2011. “Online Social Networking and Addiction: A Review Of The Psychological Literature.” International Journal Of Environmental Research and Public Health 8(9):3528–52. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8093528. Leary, M. R.. 1990. “Responses To Social Exclusion: Social Anxiety, Jealousy, Loneliness, Depression, and Low Self-Esteem.” Journal Of Social and Clinical Psychology 9(2):221–29. doi: 10.1521/Jscp.1990.9.2.221. Lee, Jaehoon and L. J. Shrum. 2012. “Conspicuous Consumption Versus Charitable Behavior in Response To Social Exclusion: A Differential Needs 71 Explanation.” Journal Of Consumer Research 39(3):530-544. doi: 10.1086/664039. Leslie, David. 2019. “Raging Robots, Hapless Humans: the AI Dystopia.” Article, Nature, October 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02939-0. Leyshon, Michael, Sean DiGiovanna, Briavel Holcomb, Katherine V. Gough, and Tracey Skelton. 2013. “Mobile Technologies and Youthful Exploration. ” Urban Studies 50(3):587-605. doi: 10.1177/0042098012468897. Littlefield, Andrew. 2020. “No, You Don't Have the Attention Span of a Goldfish.” Ceros, January 20. https://www.ceros.com/inspire/originals/no-dontattention-span-goldfish/. Lorenz-Spreen, Philipp, Bjarke Mørch Mønsted, Philipp Hövel, and Sune Lehmann. 2019. “Accelerating Dynamics of Collective Attention.” Nature Communications 10(1759). doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w. Marzola, Luci. 2022. “The History of Black-and-White Cinematography: From Its Death to Latest Oscar Trend.” Indie Wire, January 18. https://www.indiewire.com/2022/01/history-black-and-whitecinematography-death-latest-oscar-trend-1234691108/. Maxwell, Tom. 2021. “How Many Hours U.S.-based TikTok Users Spend in the Android Version of the App Monthly.” Input Magazine, September 7. https://www.inputmag.com/tech/americans-are-spending-more-time-ontiktok-than-youtube-report-says. Maybin, Simon. 2017. “Busting the Attention Span Myth.” Health, BBC News, 10 March. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790. McFarlane, Greg. 2021. “How Facebook (Meta), Twitter, Social Media Make Money From You.” Business, Investopedia, November 4. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/032114/how-facebooktwitter-social-media-make-money-you-twtr-lnkd-fbgoog.aspx#:~:text=The%20primary%20way%20social%20media,before%2 0social%20media%20companies%20existed. McGowan, Chris. 2019. How the Avengers Movies Impacted, and United, the World of Visual Effects.” The Magazine of the Visual Effects Society, December 10. https://www.vfxvoice.com/how-the-avengers-moviesimpacted-and-united-the-world-of-visual-effects/. McSpadden, Kevin. 2015. “You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish.” Time, May 14. https://time.com/3858309/attention-spansgoldfish/. Mead, Nicole L., Roy Baumeister, Tyler Stillman, Catherine Rawn, and Kathleen Vohs. 2011. “Social Exclusion Causes People To Spend and Consume Strategically in The Service Of Affiliation.” Journal Of Consumer Research 37(5):902–19. doi: 10.1086/656667. Merriam-Webster. 2022. “attention span.” Merriam-Webster.com, April 11. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attention%20span. Accessed 4/13/2022. Microsoft Canada. Consumer Insights, 2015. “Attention Spans.” https://dl.motamem.org/microsoft-attention-spans-research-report.pdf 72 Moreau, Elise. 2021. “How to See Who Unfollowed You on Instagram.” Lifewire, December 27. https://www.lifewire.com/who-unfollowed-me-oninstagram-3485849. Morris, Chris. 2018. “Video Games Can Now Have Hyper Realistic Characters Thanks to New Graphics Tech.” Fortune Magazine, 22 March. https://fortune.com/2018/03/22/epic-games-siren-hyper-realisticcharacters-videogames/#:~:text=Video%20Games%20Can%20Now%20Have%20Hyper% 20Realistic%20Characters%20Thanks%20to%20New%20Graphics%20Te ch&text=Video%20game%20characters%20look%20a,between%20real%2 0and%20digital%20humans. Mosseri, Adam. 2021. “Shedding More Light on How Instagram Works.” Instagram, June 8. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/shedding-more-light-onhow-instagram-works. Newberry, Christina. 2022. “How the Facebook Algorithm Works in 2022 and How to Make it Work for You.” Strategy, Hootsuite, February 28. https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-algorithm/. Nitzani, Chapter Michael, 2019. “Knowing You Better Than You Know Yourself. ” Pp. 204-20 in Interfacing Ourselves: Living in the Digital Age. Edited by Cristina Bodinger-deUriarte. New York: Routledge. Pan, Elleen, Jingjing Ren, Martina Lindorfer, Christo Wilson, and David Choffnes. 2018. “Panoptispy: Characterizing Audio and Video Exfiltration from Android Applications.” Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (4)33-50. doi: 10.1515/popets-2018-0030. Parakilas, Sandy. 2020. In “The Social Dilemma,” directed by Jeff Orlowski. Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 22. Peters, Michael A, Ergin Bulut, and Rodrigo Britez. 2009. “Cybernetic Capitalism, Informationalism, and Cognitive Labor.” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 1(2):11-40. https://www.proquest.com/docview/613384987?parentSessionId=JIYCtKR hcMuSijoOktPm6ZJEOxbQVLHNrp4YRBfr3Ss%3D. Rezazadegan, Dana. 2021. “Is Your Phone Really Listening to Your Conversations? Well, Turns out it Doesn’t Have to.” The Conversation, June 20. https://theconversation.com/is-your-phone-really-listening-to-yourconversations-well-turns-out-it-doesnt-have-to-162172. Roberts, James A., Luc Petnji Yaya, and Chris Manolis. 2014. “The Invisible Addiction: Cellphone Activities and Addiction Among Male and Female College Students.” Journal Of Behavioral Addictions 3(4):254–65. doi 10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015. Rodriguez, Salvador. 2020. “Instagram Surpasses 2 Billion Monthly Users While Powering Through a Year of Turmoil.” CNBC, December 14. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/14/instagram-surpasses-2-billion-monthlyusers.html. Santora, Sara. 2021. “‘Your Social Media Apps are Not Listening to You’: Tech Worker Explains Data Privacy in Viral Twitter Thread.” News, Newsweek, 73 May 26. https://www.newsweek.com/your-social-media-apps-are-notlistening-you-tech-worker-explains-data-privacy-viral-twitter-1595136. Schüll, Natasha Dow. 2016. “Data for Life: Wearable Technology and the Design of Self-Care.” BioSocieties 11:317-333. Seibert, Jeff. 2020. In “The Social Dilemma,” directed by Jeff Orlowski. Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 24 : Iss. 1 , Article 22. Shadiev, Rustam, Wu-Yuin Hwang, Nian-Shing Chen, and Yueh-Min Huang. 2014. “Review of Speech-to-Text Recognition Technology for Enhancing Learning.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 17(4):65-84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.4.65. Stanford University. n.d. “Behavior Design Lab.” Accessed May 22, 2022. https://behaviordesign.stanford.edu/. Statista. 2021. “Average YouTube Video Length 2018, by Category.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/1026923/youtube-video-categoryaverage-length/ Stokel-Walker, Chris. 2022. “TikTok Wants Longer Videos—Whether You Like It or Not.” Wired, February 21. https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-wantslonger-videos-like-not/. Stukas, Arthur and Mark Snyder. 2016. “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies.” Pp. 92-100 in Encyclopedia of Mental Health (2), edited by H. Friedman. Oxford: Academic Press. Subramanian, Kalpathy Ramaiyer. 2018. “Myth and Mystery of Shrinking Attention Span.” International Journal of Trend in Research and Development 5(3):1-6. http://www.ijtrd.com/papers/IJTRD16531.pdf. Sundar, S. Shyam. 2020. “Rise Of Machine Agency: A Framework For Studying The Psychology Of Human–AI Interaction (HAII).” Journal Of ComputerMediated Communication 25(1):74–88. doi: 10.1093/Jcmc/Zmz026. Turkle, Sherry. 2015. Reclaiming Conversation. New York: New Penguin Press. Van Dijk, Jan. 2006. The Network Society. London: SAGE Publications. Vardomatski, Sergei. 2021. “Augmented And Virtual Reality After Covid-19.” Forbes, September 9. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/09/14/augmentedand-virtual-reality-after-covid-19/?sh=66a6f0f52d97. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2009. “Ambient Intelligence and Persuasive Technology: The Blurring Boundaries Between Human and Technology.” Nanoethics (3):231-42. doi: 10.1007/s11569-009-0077-8. 74