What is internet psychology, and how does it differ from cyberpsychology?
Internet psychology is the study of how people think, feel and behave when they use internet technologies. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but I use “internet psychology” in a narrower sense. It focuses specifically on internet technologies, such as websites, search, social media and online shopping, rather than on digital technology as a whole. It draws on academic research but is also a practical set of tools for understanding online behaviour, which makes it particularly useful to businesses, as one of its main concerns is online consumer behaviour. Cyberpsychology takes a wider view. The British Psychological Society’s Cyberpsychology Section describes it as the scientific study of how digital technologies affect individuals, groups and wider society.
What does a digital business psychologist actually do?
A digital business psychologist examines how people and digital technologies interact in ways that impact business. This involves conducting original research or applying existing knowledge to advise and guide business leaders. The aim is to help businesses make the most of the positive aspects of human-digital connections while reducing the negative ones. Digital business psychologists also look at internet psychology and online behaviour.
Why is online behaviour different to face-to-face?
Online interaction feels more distant, carries fewer social cues and is designed to be effortless, and all three change how we act compared with IRL (in real life).
The first factor is distance. Construal Level Theory, developed by psychologists Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman, suggests that the more psychologically distant something is from us, the more abstractly we think about it. Social distance is one form of this, alongside distance in time and space. Face-to-face, other people feel concrete and real. Online, they become more distant and abstract, and that changes how we behave towards them.
Second, online communication lacks many non-verbal cues, such as body language and tone of voice. This makes it less rich than face-to-face conversation and, in turn, alters our behaviour.
Third, internet technologies offer convenience. Our brains tend to minimise effort wherever possible, which psychologists sometimes describe as being a “cognitive miser”. One explanation is evolutionary: conserving energy would have left our ancestors better able to deal with threats and emergencies. Because the internet lets us do things so quickly, we may find it appealing at an unconscious level. This helps explain why we respond so readily to “buy now” buttons and prompts to “click”, even though we rarely act so instantly in the physical world.
What is the online disinhibition effect, and why are people ruder on social media?
The online disinhibition effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people loosen social restraints and express themselves more openly, intensely or aggressively online than they would face-to-face. The term was coined by psychologist John Suler in 2004.
Suler identified several contributing factors, including anonymity, invisibility (other people cannot see us) and asynchronicity (we do not have to deal with someone’s immediate reaction). The psychological distance described above may add to this, as people feel less accountable to others who seem abstract. The lack of eye contact and other non-verbal cues also makes communication feel less “real”, so people become less inhibited.
Suler distinguished between two forms. “Benign disinhibition” is when people overshare and reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings. “Toxic disinhibition” is when people become rude, hostile, threatening or bullying which can be seen in many examples of online behaviour.
Why do people share things online without reading them?
Internet psychology researchers call this “sharing without clicking”, and it is remarkably common. A study published in Nature Human Behaviour analysed more than 35 million public Facebook posts containing links, shared between 2017 and 2020, and found that around three-quarters of shares happened without the person clicking through to the content. The researchers call these “shares without clicks”, or SwoCs. Political content that strongly matched users’ views attracted more of them.
Several factors contribute. One of the main ones is information overload. With never-ending timelines and vast amounts of incoming information, people share what they see instantly because they feel they don’t have time to investigate it.
Perceived authority also plays a role. Someone with a large following may attract SwoCs because people assume they are knowledgeable. Follower counts can be misleading, as many followers may be fake accounts or bots, but people tend to see the numbers rather than question them.
Political alignment is another reason. If an item appears to match the reader’s views, they may share it instantly to promote their perspective. Many platforms and businesses now design material specifically to be shared without thought, sometimes called “sharebait”. It taps into people’s desire to pass on content that matches their views and interests.
Why do people believe misinformation online?
People believe misinformation because it comes from sources that seem authoritative, it fits what they already think, it is simple, and it stirs their emotions.
Misinformation is not new. More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle set out evidence that the Earth is round, and educated Europeans accepted this throughout the Middle Ages. Yet, many people today believe that medieval people thought the Earth was flat. This myth was popularised partly by Washington Irving’s 1828 biography of Christopher Columbus, which mixed fiction with history. Because the book seemed authoritative, the myth took hold, and it is still widely repeated.
Online, it is easy to appear authoritative. A well-designed website or a large social media following can make someone seem knowledgeable. As early as 2006, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, told the BBC he was worried the web could be used to spread misinformation.
Repetition matters too. The “illusory truth effect” means that the more often we encounter a claim, the more likely we are to believe it. When an item is widely shared, we see it repeatedly, and the sheer number of shares acts as social proof: if so many people are passing it on, surely it must be true?
Our existing beliefs also play a part. “Confirmation bias” means we latch onto anything that seems to support what we already think, regardless of the evidence against it. “Cognitive ease”, a term popularised by psychologist Daniel Kahneman, means we prefer information that is simple and easy to process, which makes us quicker to accept explanations that fit our views.
Finally, emotions and identity matter. Content that makes us happy or angry is more likely to be believed and shared. If we belong to an online community, we are more likely to accept what others in it say, even if it is false because doing so cements our place in the group. And if we mistrust an organisation, such as a company or news outlet, we are more likely to believe someone who contradicts it.
What are filter bubbles and echo chambers?
Internet psychology research has shown that filter bubbles and echo chambers can narrow the range of information and opinion we see online. The difference is that filter bubbles are created by algorithms, while echo chambers are created by people. Both affect our online behaviour.
A filter bubble, a term popularised by Eli Pariser in 2011, is an invisible, personalised online environment that algorithms create automatically. They show you material they predict you will be interested in, and the more you engage with a particular kind of content, the more of it you see. Over time, your information diet narrows and you are less likely to encounter opposing views.
An echo chamber arises from people’s own activity, on social media or in online forums. Ideas, facts, and opinions bounce back and forth, reinforcing what everyone in the group already believes, even when it is incorrect.
Research suggests that the effects of filter bubbles may be weaker than was first feared, but both filter bubbles and echo chambers can contribute to division, extreme views and the spread of misinformation. You can reduce their influence by seeking diverse news sources, checking facts, following accounts with different viewpoints and talking to people offline.