‘We all need to be cyberpsychologists in some respects’

I often start by asking when things changed for you in terms of psychology – a key moment in your journey?
With the introduction of 'cyber', which is still relatively new. When I was doing my undergraduate degree, I knew I was interested in online communication, in different personalities online. I remember approaching my dissertation supervisor at the time and he was encouraging it from a social psychology angle, but I didn't really realise that there were other people doing pockets of digital behaviour work, that would have an impact on the social psychology side and fit hand in hand.

So once I got more established in an academic career, I noticed how cyber was becoming a topic in its own right. That was a big change. This thing I'd been intrinsically interested in was actually becoming its own little topic, flourishing. That was exciting for me, to be at the forefront of this new fountain of knowledge that we had.

And how tied to the development of the tech was the development of cyber psychology within the discipline? 

We always lag behind – especially when you think about AI at the moment, how many AI platforms we're getting and how long research takes to publish. I feel like we're constantly behind on it. But historically, cyber did start off predominantly in the social psychology realm – how social psychology translates into the online world – whereas now we have a lot more diversity in the way we can think about it, in terms of cognitive approaches and the like. 

You mentioned becoming more established in an academic career… am I right in thinking you started out within higher education in a demonstrator role?
That's right. I went straight from my undergraduate degree to a demonstrator role at the University of Wolverhampton. It was advertised in the paper and I thought why not? It sounded like a good way to make a living. So I did fall into it, but I've got very lucky – there were already a couple of researchers here, doing cyber-related stuff, though without the cyber label at the time. So I was able to put together a PhD proposal and become a PhD student the year after the demonstrator role, because of having those connections at the university. 

What role does the British Psychological Society's Cyberpsychology Section play in helping people with this interest find each other?
It's been a really good starting point to make the word itself known. Even now I'll mention cyberpsychology to people, for example A-level students at open days, and they'll say 'I've never heard of that word'. Having its own Section just gives it that spotlight, that credibility. It situates it as a psychological and scientific discipline, when sometimes people might associate the word with sci-fi, cyborgs and Doctor Who. It changes some of those perceptions.

How would you define it then? Is it anything that's digitally mediated, or is it specifically online?
It did start very much as Internet Psychology. But the way I would define it now is any kind of digital psychology – of how we're using technology, or how technology shapes our behaviours, thoughts or our feelings. That can be in form of the Internet or it can be in form of wearable technology, technology in the house, or even video gaming and stuff like that now comes under 'cyber' when previously perhaps that would have come under a different umbrella. It's grown into a general 'technology and psychology' label.

Do you see the technological development and its impact on us as a straight line continuum – that there's nothing genuinely new under the sun, and throughout history people have worried about how new 'technology' such as printing presses and postboxes will change people's behaviour?
Whenever you get a dramatic change in the way that we communicate or behave with each other, it does have that scaremongering side – what are the negatives of this? How is it going to change us? People don't like change. But there are so many different questions we can ask about technology – it's not just 'is it bad or is it good?', it's more about understanding the nuances. 

I did my PhD thesis on Facebook – I'd started around the time it was becoming mainstream in the UK.Facebook now is actually a lot different to how it was then. The psychological theories that I talked about, some of them may still be in practice, but a lot of them have changed because of the way that technology is used and how technology has shifted. Feature changes on these platforms can have a big impact. Elon Musk taking over Twitter / X has changed people's perceptions of what that platform is, and perhaps shaped behaviours on there. So even static platforms can see quite dramatic changes on behaviour over time.

What are the characteristics of a technological change that make it more likely that it's going to really shift the dial on people's behaviour?
You have trends and fads. Take TikTok for example – if certain videos are being shared and made viral, more people jump on that bandwagon and adopt those behaviours. If you're seeing a lot of people adopting the same kind of online behaviours, even more do that… a little bit like a mob mentality. 

In terms of features, it's any new feature which changes the status quo. The introduction of reactions, for instance – that caused quite a big change. We're 'liking' stuff and then we have the option to choose a whole range of different things. What does that say? If I click a heart, how is that interpreted differently to a thumbs up? Very subtle features can actually make us second guess what we're doing on the platform, and how the change will then be perceived by others.

I think sometimes we try to convince ourselves that we're doing things in an ethical way, when actually we're kind of skirting around some of the more scary stuff. There was a reaction to the Black Mirror episode 'Nosedive' as some dystopian future, but actually when we're online we do rate each other, companies, places, all sorts, both directly and indirectly.

I think an interesting thing in terms of different platforms is when they're introduced, there seems to be a sense that, 'oh, people will be different on that platform'. We saw it with Twitter / X… I was someone who dipped a toe into Threads, Mastodon, BlueSky, but ultimately most people seemed to come back to Twitter/X saying 'oh it turned out to be pretty much the same, just with way fewer people'. It's hard for competitors to the main platforms to get a foothold.

There's this idea of niche theory – if you want to try and bring in something new, you have to have that unique selling point. Instagram's unique selling point is the fact that it's based on photos, TikTok's videos. So you have to be creative – what is it that you're going to offer people that's not offered before? And then, of course, the bigger platforms adopt these ideas themselves.

Do you find that you still see the positives of social media, being a cyberpsychologist? 

I love social media. I'm not going to lie, I've spent a lot of time on social media. I find it an entertaining place to be. I find it useful for information. I like arts and crafts and follow people for that. So it does have a lot of positives for me. This is the introvert in me, but it's not the tech I don't like, it's sometimes the people behind the tech. Sometimes, people show their worst sides online. We can go back to John Suler's online disinhibition effect: people feel a bit protected by the screen. And the instantaneous nature of social media means that people are not fully thinking through the consequences of what they're doing. That's the sad bit for me –we haven't learnt as a society that there are consequences, quite severe consequences, of using the internet. We do need to better prepare society for that – for the black and white thinking, the echo chambers. More could be done by platforms to make it a better place.

But I don't think it should be limited in some of the ways that people are talking about, in terms of banning it. That's a bit too extreme, because it can be very positive. 

Do platforms listen to psychologists around that? Are there channels for big tech companies to get that psychological input?

They do offer research funding and they hire their own researchers. So they are engaging in academic research. But with any company, they're always going to balance that input against their own company goals.

Tell me a bit about a specific area of research you're working on.

I've been focusing more recently on the role of social media in supporting and promoting breastfeeding. It's actually World Breastfeeding Week this week so it's an apt time to talk about it. I'm interested in the story that social media tells about breastfeeding. Is there a lot of misinformation around breastfeeding or can it be a good way to learn more? Are people able to access support online and how effective is this? Social media platforms will often censor breastfeeding photos with a visible nipple – what impact does this have? If we can better understand the best ways to communicate health information online, we can use this to improve people's experiences and recognise barriers that may be negatively affecting our health.  

How do you think the Covid-19 pandemic changed things for Cyberpsychology?

I think Covid really emphasised why it is important to have a dedicated BPS Cyberpsychology Section. In lockdown we became reliant on online platforms to carry out all the things we would usually take for granted. It really shone a light on why evidence-based research is important. All of a sudden, we needed to research ways to improve online learning and understand the best ways to work remotely. It also made us reconsider areas that may have previously been somewhat neglected, such as digital inequalities and teaching digital literacy skills. I think it made psychologists realise that we all need to be cyberpsychologists in some respects, given how integral technology is such a big part of our lives.  

You've kindly agreed to join the Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee – why did you want to get involved?

I always love getting my copy of The Psychologist in the post. There are only so many hours in the day, and when you specialise on a topic you sometimes lose track of the bigger picture. I think it's a great way to connect with the wider discussions in psychology and keep up to date with current topics. The best research comes from open conversations and sharing ideas and the Psychologist gives us a platform to do that. I'm really excited to meet others on the committee and share my passion for cyberpsychology.