How the Internet Stops Your Brain Telling Time

Whenever an activity is declared ‘unhealthy’, or ‘bad for you’, people start reporting that they do not engage in that activity as much as they actually do. This phenomenon has been noted for behaviours as diverse as drinking, eating junk food, gambling, and shopping, and now it happens for screen time. However, a closer examination of this phenomenon suggests that there may be more to this under-reporting of screen time use than simple social embarrassment. The reasons for such underestimation of screen activity illustrates neurochemical aspects of internet usage, possibly responsible for symptoms mimicking psychopathologies.

A recent study¹ noted that people underestimate their actual daily screen time by about 20%: the actual average time spent by the participants on their smartphones was just over 5 hours a day (and think about that number for a second!), but their estimated time was only about 4¼ hours. Although this difference narrowly failed to be statistically significant, the study was somewhat underpowered to detect such a statistical difference. Similarly, participants estimated that they used their smartphone 37 times a day, on the average, but they actually used them a mean of 87 times a day – this time, a significant difference. In fact, the impact of screen use on time estimation has long been known in the retail industry, who populate areas, where you have to wait, with screens in order to reduce the perception of the time that you think you have spent waiting to be served².

Two questions are immediately brought to mind by results such as these, and others like them: does this underestimation of the passage of time actually matter?; and what are the reasons for this screen time underestimation? The former question is thrown into sharper, and somewhat disturbing, relief by the answers that can be given to the apparently ‘more academic’ latter question. The variety of answers and reasons for screen time underestimation illustrate some of the neurochemical influences of screen usage, especially on our ‘internal clock’ (the brain’s way of telling time), and the results for our mental health.

At this point, it is worth considering why people underestimate the length of time that they spend connected to the digital world. There are, in fact, numerous possibilities as to why this underestimation occurs, which are not mutually incompatible, but which all seem to share a common thread – their relationship to the neurochemical, dopamine. Dopamine is a neurochemical that is associated with incentive motivation – it signals that something good is coming, and you want it! These possible explanations reveal something about the impacts of digital technology on our brains, beyond explaining why we ‘lose time’ on the internet.

Firstly, perhaps time flies when you are having fun (and many find playing with digital devices fun)! There is evidence from a learning theory background that time estimation is altered when engaged in activities (like screen time) associated with higher levels, or magnitudes, of reinforcement. Certainly, this is true when considering screens being used for pleasure, if not work! In a different context, high calorie rewards make people take longer to estimate when a particular length of time has passed – they think that less time is passing than actually is passing. This result suggests that their internal clock has been slowed down³ – it ‘ticks’ more slowly than usual. The less ‘ticks’ the internal clock makes, which can then be stored and counted, the less time appears to have gone by⁴.

The question is whether this impact of reinforcement magnitude (or fun) on ‘time flying’ is due to its influence on dopamine or endorphins – neurochemicals that are associated with ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’, respectively. The former chemical explanation for screen time use estimation is associated with people liking it, partly driven by endorphins; the latter explanation is associated with people wanting (or needing) it, and driven by dopamine. Crudely, this is to ask: do people engage in screen time because they enjoy doing it (‘like’ it), or because they have to do it (‘want’ or ‘need’ it)?

Screen time underestimation could be due to, either: the intrinsic digital rewards – they are just good things, themselves; or due to digital activity allowing needed escape from real-world problems, or perhaps from the withdrawal effects of not going digital⁵, that is, they are ‘wanted’ because they are ‘needed’. The evidence favours an explanation based on wanting, and dopamine; both in terms of the reasons for internet use⁵, and as rewarding behaviours make temporal regulation of activities difficult due to their impact on dopamine⁶.

A second possibility is that retrospective underestimation of time (looking back, and thinking that less time has passed than has actually passed – associated with a slowed-down internal clock) results from ‘cognitive inertia’ after being online. When people wake up, and have to estimate the passage of time, they are confused, and they get it wrong – they are groggy⁷. Perhaps the same occurs after being online. Aldous Huxley might have said that they are ‘somatised’, but we might say that they were under the influence of excessive dopamine⁸. Whatever tack we take, it suggests that online time, and increased dopamine, make us confused when re-emerging into the ‘real’ world.

Finally, for some, there may be high levels of schizotypy-like behaviours. Schizotypy is a complex set of behaviours and cognitions that, together, define a personality characteristic, or a clinical trait, depending on their severity. Schizotypy is related to the overuse of digital technology⁹, and also to the mis-estimation of the passage of time^10,11. A brain region where dopamine over-activity contributes to the emergence of schizophrenic and schizotypal symptoms is the striatum. This same brain region is also involved in the estimation of time¹². The association of digital use and schizotypy-like symptoms – involving a lessening of control by real stimuli, in real time – is somewhat concerning.

Dopamine Essential Reads

The Forecast in Your Mind: How Expectations Shape Experience

Why Do We Want Things We Don’t Like?

All of these potential explanations suggest that time estimation is related to increases, or decreases, in dopamine, which influences performance in timing tasks. In the case of screen time, too much dopamine seems to slow down the ‘ticking’ of the internal clock, making it seem like less time is passing than actually is passing, or that less time has passed than actually has passed – leading to an underestimation of how much time we have spent online. If dopamine is involved in screen use and time estimation, then it points to a role for incentive motivation, controlled by dopamine, in the use of the internet – people ‘want’ it (which is different from ‘liking’ it – controlled by endorphins¹³ and serotonin¹⁴ – but which may also be involved, too). This view is compatible with an escape-driven need⁵, rather than a reward-driven steer – to use a distinction from 100 years ago¹⁵ for a modern problem.

However, we do need to consider less neurochemical explanations of screen time underestimation. People may just lie – deliberately under-reporting their screen time use. It is not unheard of for this to occur, and it says something about what people think others may think of their behaviour – linking screen time with other ‘socially unacceptable’ activities. This might be a problem for studies in the area, as it represents a demand characteristic embedded within studies of digital world influences on the real world. Of course, this depends on who is asking the question of whom. If a Psychologist, doing a study on the harms of the internet, is asking, the answer may be predictable, and this may produce a different answer to when one gamer asks another. Whatever the reasons, the effect suggests that people know how their perceived ‘weakness’ may be viewed, and try to cover it up – they do not think it is a ‘good’ thing, at least, in any straightforward way.

To return to the question regarding whether any of this matters – it can now be answered quite easily: screen time appears to impact important neurochemicals that are associated with health problems. Above and beyond this, there is ample evidence that screen time is associated with a range of mental and physical health conditions¹⁶, so it is important to know how these conditions actually relate to screen time use.

It might be counter-argued that the precise meaning of ‘screen time’, in terms of its harmful effects, has not been fully specified, meaning any underestimation is not yet of consequence. For example, we do not know whether work-time, or pleasure-time, or both, impact problematic internet usage and health. Neither do we know whether it is the subjective, or the objective, times that are more important. If it is our perception of screen use that is important for our health, then any discrepancy between the actual and estimated uses are irrelevant, as it is the subjective, not the objective, measure that counts. This is not quite as heretical to scientific thinking as it sounds. Firstly, many of the outcomes that screen time is associated with are subjective constructs: issues of mental health, internet addiction, and even immune function, involve heavily subjective components. Secondly, patient-reported health outcomes are increasingly relevant and important – not to be dismissed. Thus, while there is scope for debate about the ways in which screen time should be measured, the fact of these relationships makes it of importance, as does the magnitude of the problems related to digital use.

Whatever the eventual answers to these questions, regarding how the internet stops your brain telling time, evidence from the learning and neurocognitive fields suggests that the outcomes of digital overuse will not be good. This does not mean that using digital devices produces schizotypy, or ADHD, or any other existing disorder, but the ‘new’ disorder that it does produce mimics them through having similar mechanisms. One of these mechanisms is illuminated by screen time underestimation. Like providers of drink, food, gambling, and shopping, social media and online providers could be said to be trafficking in human weaknesses – producing a ‘need’, making people ‘want’ something, and impacting neurochemicals in human brains. The difference is that digital providers are creating a ‘new’ form of weakness, not relying on exploiting potentially unavoidable activities.