From the Internet paradox to the village effect
The British sitcom The IT Crowd once ran a hilarious episode about a fictional social networking site called “Friendface” (a parody of social media like Facebook). “Isn’t it great the way Friendface brings people together,” says Jen, one of the main characters of the show.
However, contrary to the facade of bringing people together, “Friendface” made its users more anxious as they zoned out to mindless news feeds, consumed shameless advertising, and snubbed (or ‘phubbed’) one another in the real world to stare at their screens.
Really, the parody pointed to a psychological phenomenon known as “the Internet paradox” (Kraut et al., 1998; Kraut et al., 2002). Simply put, the more time people spend behind screens, the lonelier they feel. To be sure, it’s fine to use the Internet to find information efficiently and then return to the real world. However, a problem arises when screen time interferes with face-to-face time.
Once virtual interfaces replace real faces, people tend to feel more socially isolated and lonesome. In short, using the Internet for social interaction can have a negative impact on social life and mental health. According to psychologist Susan Pinker, the reason for this paradox has to do with what she calls “the village effect,” which refers to the mental and physical health benefits from face-to-face interaction.
The Village Effect
In her book The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter, Pinker explains why in-person contact is a deeply rooted human need. Reviewing decades of evidence, she shows how a healthy social life positively affects well-being, including immunity, longevity, mental health, brain development, and even romantic relationships.
There are several causes of the village effect. Here, I’ll highlight two that particularly intrigued me while reading Pinker’s book.
Genetic causes of the village effect
Believe it or not, feeling lonely actually triggers genetic responses in our bodies that make us more prone to disease and inflammation. Pinker explains why:
Behind the scenes, one of the effects of loneliness is that it can alter our genetic response to disease. In other words, chronic loneliness—the subjective experience of feeling isolated and alone for long periods—alters the expression of genes in every cell of your body. As incredible as it sounds, feeling isolated creates a “lonely” fingerprint on every cell. That genomic fingerprint, or identifying stamp, confuses the body’s usual reactions to disease and stress, instructing some cells to turn on the fireworks of inflammation while instructing other cells to turn off the body’s usual immune defenses (p 29).
Neural causes of the village effect
Another cause of the village effect concerns the brain. In particular, it concerns oxytocin, a neuropeptide released into the bloodstream when we build and maintain relationships. While we socialize with people, our brain releases oxytocin upon hearing their voices and seeing their body language. As a result, our personal levels of stress go down, and our interpersonal levels of trust go up.
Thus, it’s no surprise the most productive and trustful workplaces in the business world are spaces where people regularly interact with each other. For example, businesses that allow coordinated breaks (in which workers take breaks together, not separately) perform better and foster more social trust. As Pinker observes:
All evidence points to social contact lowering stress among colleagues and making a team more cohesive (p 236).
Face-to-face vs. digital communication
Given these genetic and neural causes of the village effect, it’s no wonder people feel lonelier the more time they spend behind screens. The biological and psychological nuances of face-to-face communication aren’t replicated digitally. If virtual interfaces can’t replace real-world faces, online social networks shouldn’t displace real-life interactions.
In sum, social media like Facebook fail to meet the fundamental human need of person-to-person contact. Hence, Pinker concludes:
Despite our being increasingly tethered to the devices that connect us virtually, there has not been a corresponding uptick in well-being. In fact, it’s the reverse. By and large we’re lonelier and unhappier than we were in the decades before the Internet ages. Psychologists don’t know why that is exactly, though we do know that close relationships are the strongest drivers of happiness, and that being alone and unaffiliated makes us the most unhappy. The evidence is pretty clear that we are wired for frequent and genuine social interaction. As humans, we need to know that we belong.
There’s no going backward, of course. No one, least of all me, is about to trash their laptops, smartphones, and tablets. But given the sobering impact of decreasing intimate contact on public health, among other things, it seems clear that it’s time for a slight course correction (p 267).
Fortunately, Pinker leaves us with some ideas to correct course. Here are six principles she recommends following:
Principle 1: Live in a community where you know and talk to your neighbors (p 268).
Principle 2: Build real human contact into your workday. Save email for logistics. Use phone or face time for more nuanced interaction (p 269).
It’s important to realize texting, emailing, and other forms of digital messaging aren’t good for conversation. Rather, they’re best for logistics or quick reminders. For instance, use them to set up a time to meet with companions and neighbors, but don’t use them in place of talking with people.
Principle 3: Create a village of diverse relationships. Build in social contact with members of this “village” the way you work in meals and exercise (p 271).
Principle 4: Everyone needs close human contact. Adjust the ratio of your face-to-face to screen communication according to your temperament, just as you adjust how much and what you eat according to your appetite (p 273).
Personally, I’ve taken these ideas to heart by jotting down reminders in my planner to schedule quality time with folks close to me.
Principle 5: Make parent, teacher, and peer interaction the priority for preschoolers and young children. Combine live teaching with online tools for older children and teens (p 279).
Principle 6: As more of our interactions migrate to digital platforms, face-to-face contact in education, medicine, and child care has become a luxury commodity. As a fundamental human need, it should remain accessible to all (p 282).
In other words, digital classrooms can’t replace real ones. In fact, many studies show that digital technology doesn’t necessarily help students learn. Even with all the advances of online learning, I’m skeptical that machines will be able to replace teachers. That’s not to say there’s no place for online learning, but it’s probably best to see it as supplemental to offline teaching.
On that note, whether you’re an educator, a parent, or someone who has noticed a growing sense of loneliness in our culture, The Village Effect will likely strike you as a relevant and edifying piece of scientific writing.
References
Kraut, Robert, Patterson, Michael, Lundmark, Vicki, Kiesler, Sara, Mukopadhyay, Tridas, & Scherlis, William. (1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being? The American Psychologist, 53, 1017-31. www.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J. N., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. M. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74. www.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00248
Pinker, Susan. (2014). The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
For more book reviews or synopses, check out other Recommended Reading.