Practical Dilemmas and Optimization Directions of Social Media Technology Communication from the Perspective of Cognitive Psychology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/k26k2431Keywords:
Cognitive Psychology, Social Media, Algorithmic Recommendation, Information Cocoon, Cognitive Load, Communication OptimizationAbstract
Social media technology is widely diffused and is transforming the cognitive ecology of information delivery. Algorithmic suggestions, emotive computing and multimodal symbolic systems have changed the mechanisms of users' attention allocation and information filtering at the level of cognitive processing. However, the empowerment of technology has also brought a series of cognitive dilemmas: algorithms are constantly pushing homogeneous content, trapping users in self-reinforcing information cocoons and limiting their information horizons while polarising their views; the human brain is naturally inclined to emotional information, and social media amplifies this tendency, allowing emotional content to consistently dominate in dissemination; information overload prompts the brain to shift from deep thinking to a shallow cognitive mode of frequent attention diversion, inducing widespread cognitive fatigue. The article starts from the basic cognitive laws of information processing, analyses the internal mechanisms of social media dissemination dilemmas, and explores the optimisation direction with emphasis on the reconstruction of cognitive autonomy, including the cognitive ethical adjustment of algorithms, the cultivation of users' cognitive defence capabilities, and the multi-dimensional collaborative governance. The paper argues that the answer to solving the conundrum is not the denial of technology, but the re-establishment of human cognitive agency during technological iteration.
Downloads
References
[1] Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The MAD model of moral contagion: The role of motivation, attention, and design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 978–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917336
[2] Anwar, M. S., Schoenebeck, G., & Dhillon, P. S. (2024, May). Filter bubble or homogenization? Disentangling the long-term effects of recommendations on user consumption patterns. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 (pp. 123–134). https://doi.org/10.1145/3589132.3648110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3589334.3645497
[3] Keijzer, M. A., & Mäs, M. (2022). The complex link between filter bubbles and opinion polarization. Data Science, 5(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-210050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/DS-220054
[4] Kohout, S., Kruikemeier, S., & Bakker, B. N. (2023). May I have your attention, please? An eye tracking study on emotional social media comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107495
[5] Puryear, C., Vandello, J. A., & Gray, K. (2024). Moral panics on social media are fueled by signals of virality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000367 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000379
[6] Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490887416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974
[7] Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Dew, M. A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., & Primack, B. A. (2018). Social media use and depression and anxiety symptoms: A cluster analysis. American Journal of Health Behavior, 42(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.42.2.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.42.2.11
[8] Cotton, J. L. (2013). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11–33). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203056721-6
[9] Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
[10] Duricic, T., Kowald, D., Lacic, E., & Lex, E. (2023). Beyond-accuracy: A review on diversity, serendipity, and fairness in recommender systems based on graph neural networks. Frontiers in Big Data, 6, 1251072. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbigd.2023.1251072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2023.1251072
[11] Helberger, N., Pierson, J., & Poell, T. (2018). Governing online platforms: From contested to cooperative responsibility. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391916 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education and Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
