home.social

#digitalwellbeing — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #digitalwellbeing, aggregated by home.social.

  1. DATE: July 21, 2026 at 12:00PM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Relying on reminders could be weakening your memory skills

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    Using reminders can make it easier to remember future tasks, but relying on them may also reduce the brain’s opportunity to learn how to remember on its own, according to new research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

    Most people use digital reminders every day. Smartphones, smartwatches, and calendar alerts help us remember appointments and deadlines, reducing the mental effort needed to keep track of future intentions. Psychologists refer to this strategy as cognitive offloading—transferring some of the brain’s workload to an external aid. Previous research has shown that reminders improve immediate performance, but much less is known about whether they influence our ability to remember independently in the future.

    The researchers wanted to investigate whether reminders simply provide temporary assistance or whether they also change the learning processes that normally strengthen prospective memory—the ability to remember to carry out intended actions later.

    Led by Craig Fellers from the University of California, Santa Cruz, the research team conducted two online experiments. In the first, 130 undergraduate students took part, with data from 108 participants included after applying predefined exclusion criteria.

    Participants completed an ongoing word task while simultaneously remembering two prospective memory tasks (such as pressing the spacebar when they saw a word with three syllables). In one condition, participants remembered both tasks using their own memory. In the offloading condition, one of the memory tasks was supported by a highly noticeable reminder displayed in bold text, while the other still had to be remembered internally.

    After completing the first phase, all participants repeated the task again, but this time without any reminders, allowing the researchers to examine whether earlier reminder use affected later memory performance. The researchers then conducted a second experiment with 280 participants using a different version of the task to replicate the findings.

    As expected, reminders greatly improved performance while they were available. Participants almost never forgot the task supported by the reminder. However, the researchers found no evidence that removing one memory burden allowed participants to perform better on the other memory task they still had to remember themselves. In fact, in the second experiment, when the reminders were made even more explicit, performance on the non-offloaded memory task actually worsened.

    The most important finding emerged after the reminders disappeared. Participants who had previously relied on reminders remembered significantly fewer future tasks than those who had never used reminders. Their performance was even lower than the baseline level achieved by participants who had relied solely on their own memory throughout the study. This suggests that they had learned less rather than simply losing the benefit of reminders.

    The authors concluded: “While reminders can be a powerful tool for ensuring immediate task completion, they are not cognitively neutral. They can undermine the very practice required to develop durable, internal memory skills, suggesting a fundamental trade-off between immediate convenience and long-term learning and skill acquisition.”

    The findings fit with a broader idea in psychology known as desirable difficulties. Although remembering without assistance is more mentally demanding, that extra effort may strengthen memory over time. By removing much of this effort, reminders may prevent people from developing stronger internal memory skills.

    The authors caution that the study was conducted online using university students, so the results may not fully reflect how people use reminder apps in everyday life. For instance, older adults may rely on offloading differently than students. The researchers also examined relatively short-term memory performance, leaving open the question of whether long-term reliance on digital reminders produces similar effects.

    The study, “Offloading Reduces Prospective Memory Learning,” was authored by Craig Fellers and Benjamin C. Storm.

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #memoryeducation #cognitivedumping #reminders #offloading #prospectivememory #desirabledifficulties #memoryskills #learningandmemory #digitalwellbeing #memorytraining

  2. DATE: July 21, 2026 at 12:00PM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Relying on reminders could be weakening your memory skills

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    Using reminders can make it easier to remember future tasks, but relying on them may also reduce the brain’s opportunity to learn how to remember on its own, according to new research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

    Most people use digital reminders every day. Smartphones, smartwatches, and calendar alerts help us remember appointments and deadlines, reducing the mental effort needed to keep track of future intentions. Psychologists refer to this strategy as cognitive offloading—transferring some of the brain’s workload to an external aid. Previous research has shown that reminders improve immediate performance, but much less is known about whether they influence our ability to remember independently in the future.

    The researchers wanted to investigate whether reminders simply provide temporary assistance or whether they also change the learning processes that normally strengthen prospective memory—the ability to remember to carry out intended actions later.

    Led by Craig Fellers from the University of California, Santa Cruz, the research team conducted two online experiments. In the first, 130 undergraduate students took part, with data from 108 participants included after applying predefined exclusion criteria.

    Participants completed an ongoing word task while simultaneously remembering two prospective memory tasks (such as pressing the spacebar when they saw a word with three syllables). In one condition, participants remembered both tasks using their own memory. In the offloading condition, one of the memory tasks was supported by a highly noticeable reminder displayed in bold text, while the other still had to be remembered internally.

    After completing the first phase, all participants repeated the task again, but this time without any reminders, allowing the researchers to examine whether earlier reminder use affected later memory performance. The researchers then conducted a second experiment with 280 participants using a different version of the task to replicate the findings.

    As expected, reminders greatly improved performance while they were available. Participants almost never forgot the task supported by the reminder. However, the researchers found no evidence that removing one memory burden allowed participants to perform better on the other memory task they still had to remember themselves. In fact, in the second experiment, when the reminders were made even more explicit, performance on the non-offloaded memory task actually worsened.

    The most important finding emerged after the reminders disappeared. Participants who had previously relied on reminders remembered significantly fewer future tasks than those who had never used reminders. Their performance was even lower than the baseline level achieved by participants who had relied solely on their own memory throughout the study. This suggests that they had learned less rather than simply losing the benefit of reminders.

    The authors concluded: “While reminders can be a powerful tool for ensuring immediate task completion, they are not cognitively neutral. They can undermine the very practice required to develop durable, internal memory skills, suggesting a fundamental trade-off between immediate convenience and long-term learning and skill acquisition.”

    The findings fit with a broader idea in psychology known as desirable difficulties. Although remembering without assistance is more mentally demanding, that extra effort may strengthen memory over time. By removing much of this effort, reminders may prevent people from developing stronger internal memory skills.

    The authors caution that the study was conducted online using university students, so the results may not fully reflect how people use reminder apps in everyday life. For instance, older adults may rely on offloading differently than students. The researchers also examined relatively short-term memory performance, leaving open the question of whether long-term reliance on digital reminders produces similar effects.

    The study, “Offloading Reduces Prospective Memory Learning,” was authored by Craig Fellers and Benjamin C. Storm.

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #memoryeducation #cognitivedumping #reminders #offloading #prospectivememory #desirabledifficulties #memoryskills #learningandmemory #digitalwellbeing #memorytraining

  3. DATE: July 21, 2026 at 12:00PM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Relying on reminders could be weakening your memory skills

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    Using reminders can make it easier to remember future tasks, but relying on them may also reduce the brain’s opportunity to learn how to remember on its own, according to new research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

    Most people use digital reminders every day. Smartphones, smartwatches, and calendar alerts help us remember appointments and deadlines, reducing the mental effort needed to keep track of future intentions. Psychologists refer to this strategy as cognitive offloading—transferring some of the brain’s workload to an external aid. Previous research has shown that reminders improve immediate performance, but much less is known about whether they influence our ability to remember independently in the future.

    The researchers wanted to investigate whether reminders simply provide temporary assistance or whether they also change the learning processes that normally strengthen prospective memory—the ability to remember to carry out intended actions later.

    Led by Craig Fellers from the University of California, Santa Cruz, the research team conducted two online experiments. In the first, 130 undergraduate students took part, with data from 108 participants included after applying predefined exclusion criteria.

    Participants completed an ongoing word task while simultaneously remembering two prospective memory tasks (such as pressing the spacebar when they saw a word with three syllables). In one condition, participants remembered both tasks using their own memory. In the offloading condition, one of the memory tasks was supported by a highly noticeable reminder displayed in bold text, while the other still had to be remembered internally.

    After completing the first phase, all participants repeated the task again, but this time without any reminders, allowing the researchers to examine whether earlier reminder use affected later memory performance. The researchers then conducted a second experiment with 280 participants using a different version of the task to replicate the findings.

    As expected, reminders greatly improved performance while they were available. Participants almost never forgot the task supported by the reminder. However, the researchers found no evidence that removing one memory burden allowed participants to perform better on the other memory task they still had to remember themselves. In fact, in the second experiment, when the reminders were made even more explicit, performance on the non-offloaded memory task actually worsened.

    The most important finding emerged after the reminders disappeared. Participants who had previously relied on reminders remembered significantly fewer future tasks than those who had never used reminders. Their performance was even lower than the baseline level achieved by participants who had relied solely on their own memory throughout the study. This suggests that they had learned less rather than simply losing the benefit of reminders.

    The authors concluded: “While reminders can be a powerful tool for ensuring immediate task completion, they are not cognitively neutral. They can undermine the very practice required to develop durable, internal memory skills, suggesting a fundamental trade-off between immediate convenience and long-term learning and skill acquisition.”

    The findings fit with a broader idea in psychology known as desirable difficulties. Although remembering without assistance is more mentally demanding, that extra effort may strengthen memory over time. By removing much of this effort, reminders may prevent people from developing stronger internal memory skills.

    The authors caution that the study was conducted online using university students, so the results may not fully reflect how people use reminder apps in everyday life. For instance, older adults may rely on offloading differently than students. The researchers also examined relatively short-term memory performance, leaving open the question of whether long-term reliance on digital reminders produces similar effects.

    The study, “Offloading Reduces Prospective Memory Learning,” was authored by Craig Fellers and Benjamin C. Storm.

    URL: psypost.org/relying-on-reminde

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #memoryeducation #cognitivedumping #reminders #offloading #prospectivememory #desirabledifficulties #memoryskills #learningandmemory #digitalwellbeing #memorytraining

  4. RECAP/RECORDING - Chronically Online | A Workshop on Digital Fatigue & Burnout isoclive.substack.com/p/isocmu

    Digital fatigue, doomscrolling, "fake rest" & what it means to pause and recharge — a workshop with Your Space.

    #DigitalWellbeing #DigitalFatigue #Burnout #MentalHealth #isocmumbai

  5. RECAP/RECORDING - Chronically Online | A Workshop on Digital Fatigue & Burnout isoclive.substack.com/p/isocmu

    Digital fatigue, doomscrolling, "fake rest" & what it means to pause and recharge — a workshop with Your Space.

    #DigitalWellbeing #DigitalFatigue #Burnout #MentalHealth #isocmumbai

  6. RECAP/RECORDING - Chronically Online | A Workshop on Digital Fatigue & Burnout isoclive.substack.com/p/isocmu

    Digital fatigue, doomscrolling, "fake rest" & what it means to pause and recharge — a workshop with Your Space.

    #DigitalWellbeing #DigitalFatigue #Burnout #MentalHealth #isocmumbai

  7. RECAP/RECORDING - Chronically Online | A Workshop on Digital Fatigue & Burnout isoclive.substack.com/p/isocmu

    Digital fatigue, doomscrolling, "fake rest" & what it means to pause and recharge — a workshop with Your Space.

    #DigitalWellbeing #DigitalFatigue #Burnout #MentalHealth #isocmumbai

  8. RECAP/RECORDING - Chronically Online | A Workshop on Digital Fatigue & Burnout isoclive.substack.com/p/isocmu

    Digital fatigue, doomscrolling, "fake rest" & what it means to pause and recharge — a workshop with Your Space.

    #DigitalWellbeing #DigitalFatigue #Burnout #MentalHealth #isocmumbai

  9. One week after deleting my LLM accounts

    I deleted my ChatGPT and Claude accounts last week. It’s vanishingly unlikely this will be a permanent state of affairs but I did think it was a useful exercise to prepare myself for a future of enshittified chatbots. These systems are going to get more expensive to use and less reliable in the short to medium term. Therefore I’d like to establish where they are actually adding value to my existence and where I have fallen into using them out of habit. A few observations after week one:

    • There are interesting topics which occur to me that I default to exploring with a chatbot. In some cases I use other means to explore this but mostly I just let them drop. For example I found myself wondering yesterday about the economics of escape rooms which I think would have previously led to a half hour conversation with ChatGPT or Claude. The level of interest just isn’t high enough to lead me to explore this without immediate access to a chatbot to satisfy my curiosity.
    • The first time I had a practical question I slipped into a conversation with Google Search before I realised “hey wait I’m supposed to not be doing this”. This illustrates how ubiquitous models have become in our digital lives. It also made me realise that I do think for many practical order questions it really is a more effective means of finding good enough answers than searching. I’m fairly certain ChatGPT could have told me how to turn off the faulty ‘replace filter’ light in my air filter in one shot, whereas I still haven’t got round to looking up the instruction book to get the manufacturer’s advice on troubleshooting.
    • There was a health and fitness question I would have defaulted to discussing with a chatbot. In the absence of it I found myself thinking “hey wait I know this stuff” and actually thinking it through myself based on my existing knowledge. This was the only sign I saw this week of a kind of outsourcing that troubled me where defaulting to a chatbot was something I was deriving confidence from rather than using a purely neutral tool.
    • There are practical machinic tasks which I’ve started to rely on them for. I thought I might re-organise my blog at some point before I restart work (as the kind of thing I’d intended to do for months but never got round to with usual routines). But then I remembered I don’t have a Claude account anymore. The WordPress MCP is so powerful I just couldn’t imagine doing this kind of tedious work directly any more even when the outcome matters to me.
    • I feel notably less digitally distracted. I’m off work and not on e-mail so that’s almost certainly the major factor but I suspect this is a meaningful contributing factor nonetheless. I spend a lot of time each week reading text and writing text through interacting with chatbots so the intensivity and extent of my screentime is significantly reduced.
    • I’m surprised how strong my instinct is to share this blog post with a chatbot while writing it. I suddenly realise how much I’d slipped into sharing pretty much everything I write with Claude Opus. Not because I want its input on the content but rather because it so reliably offers “here are some more things to think about on this theme”. I also don’t think I’d realised how frequently I was using it as a light touch copy editor. The stream of consciousness way in which I write blog posts feels ever so slightly exposing to me now in a way it didn’t.

    My plan is to wait until August at least before setting up new accounts. Ideally I’ll hold off until the absence of models is materially impacting on my life in an obviously negative way. I suspect there’s some deeper psychological aspects to daily use of models which haven’t really shown up in my experience yet, which might after a few weeks or months.

    #chatbots #digitalWellbeing #enshittfication
  10. One week after deleting my LLM accounts

    I deleted my ChatGPT and Claude accounts last week. It’s vanishingly unlikely this will be a permanent state of affairs but I did think it was a useful exercise to prepare myself for a future of enshittified chatbots. These systems are going to get more expensive to use and less reliable in the short to medium term. Therefore I’d like to establish where they are actually adding value to my existence and where I have fallen into using them out of habit. A few observations after week one:

    • There are interesting topics which occur to me that I default to exploring with a chatbot. In some cases I use other means to explore this but mostly I just let them drop. For example I found myself wondering yesterday about the economics of escape rooms which I think would have previously led to a half hour conversation with ChatGPT or Claude. The level of interest just isn’t high enough to lead me to explore this without immediate access to a chatbot to satisfy my curiosity.
    • The first time I had a practical question I slipped into a conversation with Google Search before I realised “hey wait I’m supposed to not be doing this”. This illustrates how ubiquitous models have become in our digital lives. It also made me realise that I do think for many practical order questions it really is a more effective means of finding good enough answers than searching. I’m fairly certain ChatGPT could have told me how to turn off the faulty ‘replace filter’ light in my air filter in one shot, whereas I still haven’t got round to looking up the instruction book to get the manufacturer’s advice on troubleshooting.
    • There was a health and fitness question I would have defaulted to discussing with a chatbot. In the absence of it I found myself thinking “hey wait I know this stuff” and actually thinking it through myself based on my existing knowledge. This was the only sign I saw this week of a kind of outsourcing that troubled me where defaulting to a chatbot was something I was deriving confidence from rather than using a purely neutral tool.
    • There are practical machinic tasks which I’ve started to rely on them for. I thought I might re-organise my blog at some point before I restart work (as the kind of thing I’d intended to do for months but never got round to with usual routines). But then I remembered I don’t have a Claude account anymore. The WordPress MCP is so powerful I just couldn’t imagine doing this kind of tedious work directly any more even when the outcome matters to me.
    • I feel notably less digitally distracted. I’m off work and not on e-mail so that’s almost certainly the major factor but I suspect this is a meaningful contributing factor nonetheless. I spend a lot of time each week reading text and writing text through interacting with chatbots so the intensivity and extent of my screentime is significantly reduced.
    • I’m surprised how strong my instinct is to share this blog post with a chatbot while writing it. I suddenly realise how much I’d slipped into sharing pretty much everything I write with Claude Opus. Not because I want its input on the content but rather because it so reliably offers “here are some more things to think about on this theme”. I also don’t think I’d realised how frequently I was using it as a light touch copy editor. The stream of consciousness way in which I write blog posts feels ever so slightly exposing to me now in a way it didn’t.

    My plan is to wait until August at least before setting up new accounts. Ideally I’ll hold off until the absence of models is materially impacting on my life in an obviously negative way. I suspect there’s some deeper psychological aspects to daily use of models which haven’t really shown up in my experience yet, which might after a few weeks or months.

    #chatbots #digitalWellbeing #enshittfication
  11. One week after deleting my LLM accounts

    I deleted my ChatGPT and Claude accounts last week. It’s vanishingly unlikely this will be a permanent state of affairs but I did think it was a useful exercise to prepare myself for a future of enshittified chatbots. These systems are going to get more expensive to use and less reliable in the short to medium term. Therefore I’d like to establish where they are actually adding value to my existence and where I have fallen into using them out of habit. A few observations after week one:

    • There are interesting topics which occur to me that I default to exploring with a chatbot. In some cases I use other means to explore this but mostly I just let them drop. For example I found myself wondering yesterday about the economics of escape rooms which I think would have previously led to a half hour conversation with ChatGPT or Claude. The level of interest just isn’t high enough to lead me to explore this without immediate access to a chatbot to satisfy my curiosity.
    • The first time I had a practical question I slipped into a conversation with Google Search before I realised “hey wait I’m supposed to not be doing this”. This illustrates how ubiquitous models have become in our digital lives. It also made me realise that I do think for many practical order questions it really is a more effective means of finding good enough answers than searching. I’m fairly certain ChatGPT could have told me how to turn off the faulty ‘replace filter’ light in my air filter in one shot, whereas I still haven’t got round to looking up the instruction book to get the manufacturer’s advice on troubleshooting.
    • There was a health and fitness question I would have defaulted to discussing with a chatbot. In the absence of it I found myself thinking “hey wait I know this stuff” and actually thinking it through myself based on my existing knowledge. This was the only sign I saw this week of a kind of outsourcing that troubled me where defaulting to a chatbot was something I was deriving confidence from rather than using a purely neutral tool.
    • There are practical machinic tasks which I’ve started to rely on them for. I thought I might re-organise my blog at some point before I restart work (as the kind of thing I’d intended to do for months but never got round to with usual routines). But then I remembered I don’t have a Claude account anymore. The WordPress MCP is so powerful I just couldn’t imagine doing this kind of tedious work directly any more even when the outcome matters to me.
    • I feel notably less digitally distracted. I’m off work and not on e-mail so that’s almost certainly the major factor but I suspect this is a meaningful contributing factor nonetheless. I spend a lot of time each week reading text and writing text through interacting with chatbots so the intensivity and extent of my screentime is significantly reduced.
    • I’m surprised how strong my instinct is to share this blog post with a chatbot while writing it. I suddenly realise how much I’d slipped into sharing pretty much everything I write with Claude Opus. Not because I want its input on the content but rather because it so reliably offers “here are some more things to think about on this theme”. I also don’t think I’d realised how frequently I was using it as a light touch copy editor. The stream of consciousness way in which I write blog posts feels ever so slightly exposing to me now in a way it didn’t.

    My plan is to wait until August at least before setting up new accounts. Ideally I’ll hold off until the absence of models is materially impacting on my life in an obviously negative way. I suspect there’s some deeper psychological aspects to daily use of models which haven’t really shown up in my experience yet, which might after a few weeks or months.

    #chatbots #digitalWellbeing #enshittfication
  12. Oh joy, it's 2026 and the techno-saviors have decreed that swapping your phone's OS will magically thwart domestic abuse. 🙄 Because we all know the true villain in DV is clearly the operating system, not the abuser. 📱🔧
    privacypros.com.au/privacy-hub #domesticviolence #technologysolutions #victimblaming #digitalwellbeing #OSswapping #HackerNews #ngated

  13. Oh joy, it's 2026 and the techno-saviors have decreed that swapping your phone's OS will magically thwart domestic abuse. 🙄 Because we all know the true villain in DV is clearly the operating system, not the abuser. 📱🔧
    privacypros.com.au/privacy-hub #domesticviolence #technologysolutions #victimblaming #digitalwellbeing #OSswapping #HackerNews #ngated

  14. Oh joy, it's 2026 and the techno-saviors have decreed that swapping your phone's OS will magically thwart domestic abuse. 🙄 Because we all know the true villain in DV is clearly the operating system, not the abuser. 📱🔧
    privacypros.com.au/privacy-hub #domesticviolence #technologysolutions #victimblaming #digitalwellbeing #OSswapping #HackerNews #ngated

  15. Oh joy, it's 2026 and the techno-saviors have decreed that swapping your phone's OS will magically thwart domestic abuse. 🙄 Because we all know the true villain in DV is clearly the operating system, not the abuser. 📱🔧
    privacypros.com.au/privacy-hub #domesticviolence #technologysolutions #victimblaming #digitalwellbeing #OSswapping #HackerNews #ngated

  16. Oh joy, it's 2026 and the techno-saviors have decreed that swapping your phone's OS will magically thwart domestic abuse. 🙄 Because we all know the true villain in DV is clearly the operating system, not the abuser. 📱🔧
    privacypros.com.au/privacy-hub #domesticviolence #technologysolutions #victimblaming #digitalwellbeing #OSswapping #HackerNews #ngated

  17. AI focus tools are racing to optimize every minute. But you cannot fix an attention pattern you have never seen.

    Gloria Mark’s research found people average 47 seconds on one screen before switching. Try RescueTime for a week: let it log your apps and sites, guess your biggest time sink, then check the report.

    The catch: it sends activity data to its servers, and the report can become another dashboard to obsess over. New users get a two-week trial.

    #Attention #DigitalWellbeing #QuietTech

  18. Body doubling is moving beyond ADHD communities into remote-work culture, and Focusmate is a good example of why.

    Book 25, 50, or 75 minutes, meet one person on camera, state your goals, then work in silence and check in at the end. No extra app; three sessions a week are free.

    It’s a gentler model of digital wellbeing: support your attention instead of scolding you for losing it.

    Would a quiet stranger help you start the task you keep avoiding?

    #DeepWork #BodyDoubling #DigitalWellbeing

  19. 👋 Hi #a11y community! I built NoSuggest (nosuggest.com) — a free, source-avaiavle PWA that lets you watch YouTube without the algorithm. No recommendations, no Shorts, no autoplay, no sign-in. Just the channels you choose.

    I built it because I was tired of opening YouTube for one video and losing an hour to the rabbit hole. Turns out a lot of people feel the same. 🙂

    #OpenSource #PWA #DigitalWellbeing #Accessibility

  20. 👋 Hi #a11y community! I built NoSuggest (nosuggest.com) — a free, source-avaiavle PWA that lets you watch YouTube without the algorithm. No recommendations, no Shorts, no autoplay, no sign-in. Just the channels you choose.

    I built it because I was tired of opening YouTube for one video and losing an hour to the rabbit hole. Turns out a lot of people feel the same. 🙂

    #OpenSource #PWA #DigitalWellbeing #Accessibility

  21. 👋 Hi #a11y community! I built NoSuggest (nosuggest.com) — a free, source-avaiavle PWA that lets you watch YouTube without the algorithm. No recommendations, no Shorts, no autoplay, no sign-in. Just the channels you choose.

    I built it because I was tired of opening YouTube for one video and losing an hour to the rabbit hole. Turns out a lot of people feel the same. 🙂

    #OpenSource #PWA #DigitalWellbeing #Accessibility

  22. 👋 Hi #a11y community! I built NoSuggest (nosuggest.com) — a free, source-avaiavle PWA that lets you watch YouTube without the algorithm. No recommendations, no Shorts, no autoplay, no sign-in. Just the channels you choose.

    I built it because I was tired of opening YouTube for one video and losing an hour to the rabbit hole. Turns out a lot of people feel the same. 🙂

    #OpenSource #PWA #DigitalWellbeing #Accessibility

  23. 👋 Hi #a11y community! I built NoSuggest (nosuggest.com) — a free, source-avaiavle PWA that lets you watch YouTube without the algorithm. No recommendations, no Shorts, no autoplay, no sign-in. Just the channels you choose.

    I built it because I was tired of opening YouTube for one video and losing an hour to the rabbit hole. Turns out a lot of people feel the same. 🙂

    #OpenSource #PWA #DigitalWellbeing #Accessibility

  24. DATE: July 14, 2026 at 08:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Narcissistic individuals are more prone to problematic use of generative AI

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    A survey of generative artificial intelligence users found that people with pronounced narcissism are more prone to problematic use of generative artificial intelligence. In women, this association was fully mediated by vertical individualism, an orientation that emphasizes personal independence and autonomy alongside competition, achievement, status, and acceptance of inequality between individuals. In men, the association was partially mediated by vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty. The paper was published in BMC Psychology.

    Problematic use of generative AI refers to a pattern of excessive, poorly controlled, or harmful engagement with generative artificial intelligence tools that causes significant difficulties in a person’s daily life. It may involve spending excessive amounts of time interacting with AI systems, repeatedly using them despite negative consequences, or feeling unable to reduce their use.

    People with problematic generative AI use may become overly dependent on generative AI for work, studying, decision-making, creativity, social interaction, or emotional support. Such use can interfere with academic performance, occupational responsibilities, relationships, sleep, or other important activities. Some individuals may increasingly rely on AI to avoid difficult tasks, uncertainty, boredom, loneliness, or unpleasant emotions. Problematic use may also involve compulsive checking, repeated prompting, or persistent engagement that resembles other forms of problematic digital technology use.

    Another concern is cognitive overreliance, in which users increasingly delegate thinking, writing, problem-solving, or judgment to AI systems and become less willing to perform these activities independently. Problematic use does not simply mean frequent use, because intensive AI use can be adaptive and productive when it remains controlled and does not cause impairment. The concept is still emerging, but the term is best used to describe AI use characterized by impaired control, functional impairment, psychological dependence, or continued engagement despite meaningful negative consequences.

    Study author Kağan Kırcaburun, an assistant professor at Düzce University in Turkey, investigated the relationship between dark personality traits and problematic generative AI use. He was particularly interested in exploring the possible mediating roles of cultural orientations of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty in this relationship. He noted that previous studies already linked problematic technology use with dark personality traits, but that only one very recent study had specifically examined the relationship between those traits and problematic generative AI use.

    He conducted an online survey via Prolific. Participants were 677 individuals who reported active use of generative artificial intelligence. Their average age was about 40 years, and 50% of them were men.

    The survey contained assessments of problematic generative AI use (the Problematic GAI Use Scale, created by adapting items of a scale designed to measure the problematic use of conversational artificial intelligence), intolerance of uncertainty (the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale), individualistic orientation (the Individualism and Collectivism Scale), and dark personality traits (the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale and the Short Sadistic Impulses Scale).

    Dark personality traits are socially aversive characteristics associated with self-interest, manipulation, emotional coldness, and disregard for others. There are four of them: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. Machiavellianism involves strategic manipulation, cynicism, and a willingness to exploit people to achieve personal goals. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, a strong need for admiration, and sensitivity to threats to one’s self-image. Psychopathy involves callousness, low empathy, impulsivity, and limited remorse. Sadism makes a person prone to deriving pleasure or satisfaction from humiliating, hurting, or controlling others.

    Results indicated that participants with more pronounced problematic use of generative AI tended to show somewhat higher narcissism, slightly higher Machiavellianism, and sadism. More pronounced problematic use of generative AI was also associated with higher intolerance for uncertainty and higher vertical individualism.

    Intolerance of uncertainty is the tendency to find uncertain or unpredictable situations distressing and to react negatively to not knowing what may happen. Vertical individualism is a cultural orientation that values personal independence and competition while accepting inequality in status, achievement, and power.

    Further analysis indicated that, among women, vertical individualism fully mediated the relationship between problematic generative AI use and narcissism. For men, vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty partially mediated the relationship. Study authors proposed that narcissism leads to more pronounced vertical individualism and that this pronounced vertical individualism makes an individual prone to problematic use of generative AI.

    “Overall, the findings highlight the central role of individualistic value orientations and uncertainty-related processes in explaining how dark personality traits contribute to PGAIU [problematic use of generative AI],” the study author concluded.

    The study contributes to the scientific understanding of problematic use of generative AI. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Additionally, all data were based on self-reports, leaving the possibility that reporting bias might have affected the results. Finally, because the average levels of problematic AI use in this sample were relatively low, the findings may reflect variations in general engagement rather than clinically significant problematic use.

    The paper, “Dark Tetrad traits and problematic generative artificial intelligence use: the serial mediating role of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty,” was authored by Kağan Kırcaburun.

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Narcissism #GenerativeAI #ProblematicAIUse #DarkTetrad #VerticalIndividualism #IntoleranceOfUncertainty #AIInfluence #DigitalWellbeing #AIandPsychology #MentalHealthTech

  25. DATE: July 14, 2026 at 08:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Narcissistic individuals are more prone to problematic use of generative AI

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    A survey of generative artificial intelligence users found that people with pronounced narcissism are more prone to problematic use of generative artificial intelligence. In women, this association was fully mediated by vertical individualism, an orientation that emphasizes personal independence and autonomy alongside competition, achievement, status, and acceptance of inequality between individuals. In men, the association was partially mediated by vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty. The paper was published in BMC Psychology.

    Problematic use of generative AI refers to a pattern of excessive, poorly controlled, or harmful engagement with generative artificial intelligence tools that causes significant difficulties in a person’s daily life. It may involve spending excessive amounts of time interacting with AI systems, repeatedly using them despite negative consequences, or feeling unable to reduce their use.

    People with problematic generative AI use may become overly dependent on generative AI for work, studying, decision-making, creativity, social interaction, or emotional support. Such use can interfere with academic performance, occupational responsibilities, relationships, sleep, or other important activities. Some individuals may increasingly rely on AI to avoid difficult tasks, uncertainty, boredom, loneliness, or unpleasant emotions. Problematic use may also involve compulsive checking, repeated prompting, or persistent engagement that resembles other forms of problematic digital technology use.

    Another concern is cognitive overreliance, in which users increasingly delegate thinking, writing, problem-solving, or judgment to AI systems and become less willing to perform these activities independently. Problematic use does not simply mean frequent use, because intensive AI use can be adaptive and productive when it remains controlled and does not cause impairment. The concept is still emerging, but the term is best used to describe AI use characterized by impaired control, functional impairment, psychological dependence, or continued engagement despite meaningful negative consequences.

    Study author Kağan Kırcaburun, an assistant professor at Düzce University in Turkey, investigated the relationship between dark personality traits and problematic generative AI use. He was particularly interested in exploring the possible mediating roles of cultural orientations of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty in this relationship. He noted that previous studies already linked problematic technology use with dark personality traits, but that only one very recent study had specifically examined the relationship between those traits and problematic generative AI use.

    He conducted an online survey via Prolific. Participants were 677 individuals who reported active use of generative artificial intelligence. Their average age was about 40 years, and 50% of them were men.

    The survey contained assessments of problematic generative AI use (the Problematic GAI Use Scale, created by adapting items of a scale designed to measure the problematic use of conversational artificial intelligence), intolerance of uncertainty (the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale), individualistic orientation (the Individualism and Collectivism Scale), and dark personality traits (the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale and the Short Sadistic Impulses Scale).

    Dark personality traits are socially aversive characteristics associated with self-interest, manipulation, emotional coldness, and disregard for others. There are four of them: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. Machiavellianism involves strategic manipulation, cynicism, and a willingness to exploit people to achieve personal goals. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, a strong need for admiration, and sensitivity to threats to one’s self-image. Psychopathy involves callousness, low empathy, impulsivity, and limited remorse. Sadism makes a person prone to deriving pleasure or satisfaction from humiliating, hurting, or controlling others.

    Results indicated that participants with more pronounced problematic use of generative AI tended to show somewhat higher narcissism, slightly higher Machiavellianism, and sadism. More pronounced problematic use of generative AI was also associated with higher intolerance for uncertainty and higher vertical individualism.

    Intolerance of uncertainty is the tendency to find uncertain or unpredictable situations distressing and to react negatively to not knowing what may happen. Vertical individualism is a cultural orientation that values personal independence and competition while accepting inequality in status, achievement, and power.

    Further analysis indicated that, among women, vertical individualism fully mediated the relationship between problematic generative AI use and narcissism. For men, vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty partially mediated the relationship. Study authors proposed that narcissism leads to more pronounced vertical individualism and that this pronounced vertical individualism makes an individual prone to problematic use of generative AI.

    “Overall, the findings highlight the central role of individualistic value orientations and uncertainty-related processes in explaining how dark personality traits contribute to PGAIU [problematic use of generative AI],” the study author concluded.

    The study contributes to the scientific understanding of problematic use of generative AI. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Additionally, all data were based on self-reports, leaving the possibility that reporting bias might have affected the results. Finally, because the average levels of problematic AI use in this sample were relatively low, the findings may reflect variations in general engagement rather than clinically significant problematic use.

    The paper, “Dark Tetrad traits and problematic generative artificial intelligence use: the serial mediating role of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty,” was authored by Kağan Kırcaburun.

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Narcissism #GenerativeAI #ProblematicAIUse #DarkTetrad #VerticalIndividualism #IntoleranceOfUncertainty #AIInfluence #DigitalWellbeing #AIandPsychology #MentalHealthTech

  26. DATE: July 14, 2026 at 08:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: Narcissistic individuals are more prone to problematic use of generative AI

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    A survey of generative artificial intelligence users found that people with pronounced narcissism are more prone to problematic use of generative artificial intelligence. In women, this association was fully mediated by vertical individualism, an orientation that emphasizes personal independence and autonomy alongside competition, achievement, status, and acceptance of inequality between individuals. In men, the association was partially mediated by vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty. The paper was published in BMC Psychology.

    Problematic use of generative AI refers to a pattern of excessive, poorly controlled, or harmful engagement with generative artificial intelligence tools that causes significant difficulties in a person’s daily life. It may involve spending excessive amounts of time interacting with AI systems, repeatedly using them despite negative consequences, or feeling unable to reduce their use.

    People with problematic generative AI use may become overly dependent on generative AI for work, studying, decision-making, creativity, social interaction, or emotional support. Such use can interfere with academic performance, occupational responsibilities, relationships, sleep, or other important activities. Some individuals may increasingly rely on AI to avoid difficult tasks, uncertainty, boredom, loneliness, or unpleasant emotions. Problematic use may also involve compulsive checking, repeated prompting, or persistent engagement that resembles other forms of problematic digital technology use.

    Another concern is cognitive overreliance, in which users increasingly delegate thinking, writing, problem-solving, or judgment to AI systems and become less willing to perform these activities independently. Problematic use does not simply mean frequent use, because intensive AI use can be adaptive and productive when it remains controlled and does not cause impairment. The concept is still emerging, but the term is best used to describe AI use characterized by impaired control, functional impairment, psychological dependence, or continued engagement despite meaningful negative consequences.

    Study author Kağan Kırcaburun, an assistant professor at Düzce University in Turkey, investigated the relationship between dark personality traits and problematic generative AI use. He was particularly interested in exploring the possible mediating roles of cultural orientations of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty in this relationship. He noted that previous studies already linked problematic technology use with dark personality traits, but that only one very recent study had specifically examined the relationship between those traits and problematic generative AI use.

    He conducted an online survey via Prolific. Participants were 677 individuals who reported active use of generative artificial intelligence. Their average age was about 40 years, and 50% of them were men.

    The survey contained assessments of problematic generative AI use (the Problematic GAI Use Scale, created by adapting items of a scale designed to measure the problematic use of conversational artificial intelligence), intolerance of uncertainty (the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale), individualistic orientation (the Individualism and Collectivism Scale), and dark personality traits (the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen Scale and the Short Sadistic Impulses Scale).

    Dark personality traits are socially aversive characteristics associated with self-interest, manipulation, emotional coldness, and disregard for others. There are four of them: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism. Machiavellianism involves strategic manipulation, cynicism, and a willingness to exploit people to achieve personal goals. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, a strong need for admiration, and sensitivity to threats to one’s self-image. Psychopathy involves callousness, low empathy, impulsivity, and limited remorse. Sadism makes a person prone to deriving pleasure or satisfaction from humiliating, hurting, or controlling others.

    Results indicated that participants with more pronounced problematic use of generative AI tended to show somewhat higher narcissism, slightly higher Machiavellianism, and sadism. More pronounced problematic use of generative AI was also associated with higher intolerance for uncertainty and higher vertical individualism.

    Intolerance of uncertainty is the tendency to find uncertain or unpredictable situations distressing and to react negatively to not knowing what may happen. Vertical individualism is a cultural orientation that values personal independence and competition while accepting inequality in status, achievement, and power.

    Further analysis indicated that, among women, vertical individualism fully mediated the relationship between problematic generative AI use and narcissism. For men, vertical individualism and intolerance of uncertainty partially mediated the relationship. Study authors proposed that narcissism leads to more pronounced vertical individualism and that this pronounced vertical individualism makes an individual prone to problematic use of generative AI.

    “Overall, the findings highlight the central role of individualistic value orientations and uncertainty-related processes in explaining how dark personality traits contribute to PGAIU [problematic use of generative AI],” the study author concluded.

    The study contributes to the scientific understanding of problematic use of generative AI. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Additionally, all data were based on self-reports, leaving the possibility that reporting bias might have affected the results. Finally, because the average levels of problematic AI use in this sample were relatively low, the findings may reflect variations in general engagement rather than clinically significant problematic use.

    The paper, “Dark Tetrad traits and problematic generative artificial intelligence use: the serial mediating role of individualism and intolerance of uncertainty,” was authored by Kağan Kırcaburun.

    URL: psypost.org/narcissistic-indiv

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Narcissism #GenerativeAI #ProblematicAIUse #DarkTetrad #VerticalIndividualism #IntoleranceOfUncertainty #AIInfluence #DigitalWellbeing #AIandPsychology #MentalHealthTech

  27. 30 years of internet research turns up a mixed bag: better problem-solving, more creative thinking, but reduced focus and less critical thinking (we're more likely to accept what we're told without questioning it).

    I wrote about what this means now that AI is doing something similar, only faster.

    ctnet.co.uk/ai-information-ove

    #PKM #AI #Cognition #KnowledgeManagement #DigitalWellbeing

  28. 30 years of internet research turns up a mixed bag: better problem-solving, more creative thinking, but reduced focus and less critical thinking (we're more likely to accept what we're told without questioning it).

    I wrote about what this means now that AI is doing something similar, only faster.

    ctnet.co.uk/ai-information-ove

  29. 30 years of internet research turns up a mixed bag: better problem-solving, more creative thinking, but reduced focus and less critical thinking (we're more likely to accept what we're told without questioning it).

    I wrote about what this means now that AI is doing something similar, only faster.

    ctnet.co.uk/ai-information-ove

    #PKM #AI #Cognition #KnowledgeManagement #DigitalWellbeing