Is the internet changing how our brains process information and pay attention?
Yes, the internet appears to be changing how we process information and pay attention, although much of the evidence shows associations rather than proof of cause and effect.
The biggest factor is the constant, competing demands on our attention. Research by Gloria Mark at the University of California, Irvine, found that the median time people spend focused on a screen before switching is just 40 seconds. Notifications, emails “pinging” and pop-up messages all pull us away. At the same time, we know that any information we might need is only a couple of clicks away, so when something strikes us, we go searching for more and get sidetracked by what we find. Adverts and social media posts distract us further.
This may affect our brains directly. A 2019 review in World Psychiatry by Joseph Firth and colleagues reported that high levels of internet use and media multitasking have been linked to reduced grey matter in prefrontal regions associated with concentration.
Other changes concern memory and depth of thinking. The “Google effect” suggests that because we know we can look anything up, we make less effort to remember things ourselves. However, the original 2011 study by Betsy Sparrow and colleagues did not hold up in a later large-scale replication project, so the effect may be weaker than first thought. Researchers have also described “shallow processing”: we skim-read and move quickly between items without taking time to absorb and think about them.
This might all sound rather negative, but there are benefits too. A 2009 study led by Gary Small at UCLA, “Your Brain on Google”, found that searching the internet activated wider brain networks in experienced older users than reading a book did. This suggests that some online activity can exercise the brain and build skills.
Why do we keep checking our phones?
We mostly check our phones out of habit, boredom, anxiety, and the anticipation of a reward, rather than because something has alerted us.
Research at the London School of Economics by Dimitri Heitmayer and Saadi Lahlou found that almost nine out of ten interactions with mobile phones are started by the user, not by a notification. It is something of a myth that incoming alerts are what usually prompt us to pick up our phones. We make the first move.
Often this happens when we switch between tasks. We finish some emails or some online shopping and, in the pause before the next task, we glance at our phone. Boredom is another trigger: when nothing seems immediately important, we reach for our phones. Anxiety and stress do the same. You can see this at events, where people would rather look at their phones than talk to strangers.
Anxiety is also connected with the need for social validation. At heart, we all want to feel valued, so we check whether anyone has messaged us or liked something we posted. In a sense, we are checking whether other people still “love” us. This is linked to FOMO (fear of missing out). Nobody would like to be the last to comment on a friend’s post, or to miss the notice about concert tickets that will sell out fast.
Phones and apps are also designed around “reward loops”. We anticipate a reward when we pick up our phone, whether that is a message from a friend, points in a gamified app or a piece of news that few people know yet. That anticipation is linked to the brain’s dopamine system (see “Does social media really affect dopamine?” below). Importantly, dopamine drives wanting rather than liking. So we keep checking our phones not necessarily because we enjoy it, but because our brains want the next possible reward.
Are smartphones addictive?
Smartphone addiction is not a recognised diagnosis, but there is growing agreement that many people use their phones compulsively in ways that cause problems. Researchers usually call this “problematic smartphone use”.
In the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), the only formally recognised behavioural addiction is gambling disorder. Internet gaming disorder is listed as a condition requiring further research. The World Health Organization goes further: its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) officially recognises gaming disorder. Neither includes smartphone nor social media addiction, largely because there is not yet enough evidence to agree diagnostic criteria.
Even so, problematic smartphone use shares features with recognised addictions. Central to this is compulsive use: people feel compelled to pick up their phone and struggle to control how often they do. The brain’s reward system and FOMO both play a part. There is also some evidence that heavy users experience anxiety, restlessness, and irritability when their phone is taken away. These are similar to the withdrawal signs recognised in gambling disorder, which do not involve the physical symptoms associated with alcohol or drug withdrawal.
So while it may not yet be possible to diagnose “smartphone addiction”, the patterns of behaviour are real and worth taking seriously.
What is doomscrolling, and why do people do it?
Doomscrolling is the compulsive habit of scrolling through negative, distressing or alarming news and content on a smartphone, tablet, or computer. Instead of stopping, people keep going, apparently hoping to find something more positive even though what they see remains negative. The more they engage with negative material, the more the platform’s algorithm assumes they want it, so they see even more.
At the root of this behaviour is human survival. Our brains give more weight to negative information than to positive, a tendency psychologists call “negativity bias”. Spotting potential threats helped our ancestors prepare for danger, so bad news grabs and holds our attention.
A related driver is the need for control. To feel safe, we want to be able to anticipate and respond to danger, so we keep gathering information to retain a sense of control. A 2026 scoping review from the University of Chichester notes that people seeking reassurance or control in this way may be using doomscrolling as an unhelpful coping mechanism, particularly during crises.
The design of social media worsens this. The same review found that doomscrolling is commonly reinforced by infinite scrolling and algorithmic content. A book, a TV programme or a documentary has a clear end, which signals that we have all the information we need. Endless feeds have no such end point, so we keep going searching for one.
Some people also doomscroll not to find information, but to detach from real-life stress or emotional fatigue. Scrolling creates a temporary, passive distance between them and their thoughts.
Does social media really affect dopamine?
Social media engages the brain’s reward system, in which dopamine plays a central role, although most of the evidence comes from brain-imaging and behavioural studies rather than direct measurements of dopamine.
The psychiatrist Anna Lembke, author of Dopamine Nation, has argued that “social connection has become druggified by social-media apps, making us vulnerable to compulsive overconsumption.” Researchers at the University of Chichester go further, arguing in a 2025 commentary that “dopamine-scrolling” is a public health challenge requiring urgent attention.
There are three main ways in which social media is thought to engage the reward system. First, there is anticipation. When we open a social media app, we expect to see something we will like, and dopamine is closely linked to that expectation. Second, endless scrolling means there is always the promise of something new just below, which keeps us seeking. Third, social media uses the same principle as slot machines: a “variable ratio reinforcement schedule”, first described by the psychologist B. F. Skinner. Because we never know when the next interesting post will appear, the unpredictability itself keeps us engaged.
Some researchers argue that frequent, repeated stimulation may make the reward system less responsive, so we need to scroll for longer to get the same effect. Anna Lembke also describes a dip after use, as the brain compensates for the dopamine released, which can draw us back to social media for another “fix”. These ideas are largely extrapolated from research on substances, so they remain debated.
What is FOMO, and how does it influence online behaviour?
FOMO, or “fear of missing out”, is the anxiety of suspecting that other people are having more enjoyable and rewarding experiences than you. It was brought into mainstream research by Andrew Przybylski and colleagues in 2013, who developed the first scale to measure it.
It stems from a deep human desire for connection, belonging and acceptance, combined with “loss aversion”, our tendency to feel losses more strongly than equivalent gains, identified by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The feeling is far from new, but platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp intensify it by giving us constant, real-time access to the polished highlights of everyone else’s lives. What we feel we are missing may not reflect how others actually live. Even so, our brains respond to the perception that others are having a better time.
This can lead to damaging behaviour. People may accept every invitation “just in case”, creating time pressure and further anxiety when they cannot attend everything. FOMO can also encourage unnecessary risks. ABC News has reported on online trends that encourage potentially dangerous activities, and people appear to join in partly because they fear missing out on what others are doing. FOMO also drives distraction: the urge to keep checking our phones can disrupt work and even sleep.
Can multitasking online actually work?
Not really. For tasks that need our attention, we cannot genuinely do two at once. What feels like multitasking is rapid switching between tasks, and numerous studies strongly suggest that we perform worse at each task when we try.
The exception is tasks that are largely automatic, such as walking while talking. But writing a report, checking an email when it pings and searching for something online all compete for the same attention. It feels like efficient work, but that is an illusion.
Psychologists explain this through the “central bottleneck” theory, associated with Harold Pashler, which proposes that the brain can only select and plan one response at a time, so other tasks have to queue. Research by Eyal Ophir, Clifford Nass and Anthony Wagner at Stanford in 2009 also found that heavy media multitaskers were more easily distracted by irrelevant information than light multitaskers. Trying to juggle several digital activities is linked with greater mental stress and poorer performance.
Online work does push us towards multitasking. Rather than trying to do various things at once, though, it is more effective to focus on one task at a time and to group similar tasks together, for example by setting aside blocks of time for email.
What is digital wellbeing, and how can you improve it?
Digital wellbeing is about maintaining a balanced, intentional and healthy relationship with technology. The idea is to use technology in a way that supports your life and does not harm your mental, physical, emotional or social health.
Focusing on digital wellbeing helps you get the most out of online technologies without them affecting you physically or mentally. Prolonged screen use can cause eye strain and disrupt sleep. Some content can impact you emotionally or cause difficulties in your relationships with others.
There are several ways to improve your digital wellbeing:
- Track your time online. Most phones have built-in tools, such as Screen Time on iPhone and Digital Wellbeing on Android, which show where you could cut back.
- Avoid screens before bed. Staying off screens for the hour or so before bed supports good sleep.
- Take regular breaks. The 20-20-20 rule helps reduce eye strain: every 20 minutes, look at something at least 20 feet (about 6 metres) away for 20 seconds. Standing up while you do this also eases stiffness from sitting.
- Switch off non-essential notifications. Most apps send routine prompts, but very few are genuinely important. Turning them off can reduce stress and improve your focus.
- Make mealtimes gadget-free. This reduces reliance on technology and improves face-to-face conversation, which can help lower stress.
How can developing an “internet routine” stop digital burnout?
An internet routine helps prevent digital burnout by replacing constant, reactive screen use with predictable boundaries that give your brain time to rest and recharge.
“Digital burnout” is an informal term rather than a medical diagnosis; the World Health Organization classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon. It describes the exhaustion that can follow long periods of constant online activity with few restful breaks. You deal with a stream of notifications, try to multitask and sit at your desk for hours. Then you carry on working on your laptop, tablet, or phone late into the night, even answering emails in bed. Eventually, you cannot take any more. People who reach this point may experience physical exhaustion, headaches, aches and pains, and digestive upsets. Some withdraw from others or procrastinate because they do not know how to cope.
Paying attention to your digital wellbeing helps prevent this, and so does a routine. For instance, instead of checking email constantly or whenever a notification arrives, check it at set times of day. This breaks the constant checking loop driven by the brain’s reward system. It also reduces “cognitive switching”, the mental cost of moving between tasks, which tires the brain. A routine that includes a fixed time to stop using screens in the evening can also improve your sleep.
How much screen time is too much for adults?
There is no official, universal limit for adult screen time, largely because work and daily life often require hours of computer or phone use.
Research mostly focuses on recreational (non-work) screen time. Some studies link more than about two hours a day of leisure screen time, particularly TV viewing, with higher risks of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However, these studies show associations rather than cause and effect, and much depends on what you are doing on screen and what it replaces, such as sleep, exercise, or time with other people.
You can reduce excessive screen time by following the digital wellbeing guidance above. Setting boundaries also helps, such as a time in the evening when you stop using your phone, tablet, or laptop so that you can relax before bed. If you spend long periods at a screen for work, take regular breaks using the 20-20-20 rule, and stand up and move around to reduce the stiffness caused by sitting at a desk.