Do Communications Tools Drive Our Behavior?
Editor’s Note: This is the second part of Sexting, Texting and Metalife, exploring the impact of digital communications tools on our lives.
By Barry Chudakov
In the sexting story of Orlando teenager Phillip Alpert, Phillip’s girlfriend photographed herself nude and sent the digital image to him. Later, after their relationship ended, Phillip emailed the photo to her contact list, including her family. The image of his girlfriend then took on a life of its own with a significant effect on the real life of Phillip Alpert. He and his girlfriend were both minors when the photo was taken, but he was 18 when he sent it out. Arrested and charged as a child pornographer, he has since been kicked out of college, cannot get a job, and has to attend sex offender classes with men who have raped or molested children.
Phillip’s cyber tattoo is not a metaphor. His story speaks to the bewildering new world of preteens and teenagers, with children as young as 12 engaging in sexting. In Ruskin, a 13-year-old girl made yet another decision to sext photos of herself to her latest crush. When the recipient of her sexting affections left his phone unattended, the picture went viral, leading to hallway sexual taunts and bullying. Two weeks later the young girl hung herself in her bedroom.
For the sake of our children—and our own sanity—we would be wise to consider how sexting, texting and other behaviors are similarly affected by our communications tools. I call sexting and texting “metalife” behaviors because when we use communication tools, the arena of that change is not remote: what we value changes, our behaviors change, our life changes. The metalife that emerges entails a rerouting of our focus and attention, often altering us in ways we may not fully consider. Our tools enable that rerouting. Until we go beyond the notion of raging hormones and acknowledge this fact, we may be unable to fully understand sexting and prepare ourselves for its consequences.
At the literal level, Phillip’s story and sexting generally are fraught with poor judgment, emotional immaturity, failure to perceive and respect boundaries, ignorance and confusion over ownership of an image (“Could it be mine if she gave it to me, or is it still hers?”), as well as lack of respect for the other(s) or a full awareness of legal, moral and interpersonal consequences.
But there is another level. This is the level we typically ignore. We operate at this level when we are not mindful about how we use and then integrate our lives with our communication tools. At this level our actions in a given situation are dictated by the ease-of-use and handiness of our tool.
We can see that other level clearly, seeing sexting as a tool-induced behavior, by comparing it to another tool-induced hazard: talking on a cell phone while driving.
According to a poll conducted by Harris Interactive for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 38% of drivers say they’ve been hit or almost hit due to others who won’t get off their cell phones while driving.
One in four American adults say they have texted while driving, the same proportion as teens who say they have texted while driving.
Scientists (and now Oprah) have determined that our concentration is seriously compromised by trying to multitask behind the wheel. This leads these scientists to ask why people, knowing the risk, continue to talk on phones while driving.
Similarly, we might ask why teens, knowing the risk, continue sexting. You might think the answer lies in typical teenage risky business. But I would argue the answer also lies in the communications tool.
These statistics are from Sex and Tech, a report from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:
- 75% of teens and 71% of young adults say sending sexually suggestive content “can have serious negative consequences.”
- Yet, 39% of teens and 59% of young adults have sent or posted sexually suggestive emails or text messages—and 20% of teens and 33% of young adults have sent or posted nude or semi-nude images of themselves.
- 44% of both teen girls and teen boys say it is common for sexually suggestive text messages to get shared with people other than the intended recipient.
Sexting teenagers are behaving just like adult drivers on cell phones. They do know better, but when 47% of teens are sending 50 to more than 100 texts a day, things can occasionally go awry.
John Ratey, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and a specialist in the science of attention, says that when people use digital devices, they get a quick burst of adrenaline, “a dopamine squirt.” In other words when we use these tools, they take over our attention, even our intention: we are voluntarily distracted, where we put our attention changes—and then our lives change. This is the metalife conundrum.
Overnight, it seems, the intersection of our lives and our communications tools has gotten complicated. We’re seeing the complexity more often because these tools are reaching deeper into our lives, and they are now fundamental to how we touch and value each other. This entails more than simply acting on impulse. When we use communication tools, if we are not careful, we think and act at their speed and in their logic, instead of fully considering what we’re doing. In this scenario, the logic of the tool becomes the logic of our behavior. We need greater awareness of this process and how it changes us.
This is our metalife. We need to get acquainted with it.
Barry Chudakov, a visiting research fellow at the University of Toronto McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, lives in Winter Park and is founder and principal of Metalife Consulting. You can read more of his commentaries at www.metalifestream.com.
Susan,
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments. One point I would like to add is that a useful understanding of how our communication tools alter our lives can be confused by framing the discussion soley in terms of moral imperatives. I.e., do this, avoid that. This is not because those imperatives are unimportant. But, as I pointed out in the article, a majority of teens do know they shouldn’t sext, just as many drivers know they should concentrate on the road, not their cell phones. What is new and confounding here is the remove: many communication technologies hide the other or seemingly remove us from him or her; they effortlessly create a disconnect between an action and the repercussions of that action. Our tools can distract or disrupt what we might call a consequence-response. We often don’t think about that disconnect until we crash into our metalife as Phillip did or the texting driver does. I believe once we fully understand this, then we are better prepared to address the moral implications of our tool-affected actions.
Certainly Albert’s punishment was much harsher than need be and hopefully can be altered. Perhaps he was tossed to the dogs as an example, but there’s a big difference between his actions and someone texting while driving. The texter knows his actions may cause harm but thinks they have it under control and nothing will happen when “they” do it. I’ve seen people eating, reading, putting on makeup and even playing the trumpet while driving, most likely all thought no harm would come to anyone while driving – even when they knew better. While Albert, on the other hand, purposely set out to hurt, damage and humiliate someone he knew. Of course technology made his task easier but should be no excuse for his behavior. Same goes for his young “lady” friend. Young girls will always trust the young men they care about so these scenarios won’t change. The lesson learned here should be girls, keep your clothes on and the camera off. In the 21st century privacy is a thing of the past – we best learn it now.