MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit and Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2020 Sep;15(5):1143-1157. doi: 10.1177/1745691620919372. Epub 2020 Jun 30.
Widespread concerns about new technologies-whether they be novels, radios, or smartphones-are repeatedly found throughout history. Although tales of past panics are often met with amusement today, current concerns routinely engender large research investments and policy debate. What we learn from studying past technological panics, however, is that these investments are often inefficient and ineffective. What causes technological panics to repeatedly reincarnate? And why does research routinely fail to address them? To answer such questions, I examined the network of political, population, and academic factors driving the . In this cycle, psychologists are encouraged to spend time investigating new technologies, and how they affect children and young people, to calm a worried population. Their endeavor, however, is rendered ineffective because of the lack of a theoretical baseline; researchers cannot build on what has been learned researching past technologies of concern. Thus, academic study seemingly restarts for each new technology of interest, which slows down the policy interventions necessary to ensure technologies are benefiting society. In this article, I highlight how the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics stymies psychology's positive role in steering technological change and the pervasive need for improved research and policy approaches to new technologies.
人们对新技术（无论是小说、收音机还是智能手机）的广泛担忧在历史上屡见不鲜。尽管今天人们常常对过去的恐慌故事感到可笑，但当前的担忧通常会引发大量的研究投资和政策辩论。然而，从研究过去的技术恐慌中我们了解到，这些投资往往效率低下且效果不佳。那么，是什么导致技术恐慌一再重现呢？为什么研究通常未能解决这些问题呢？为了回答这些问题，我考察了推动技术恐慌的政治、人口和学术因素网络。在这个周期中，心理学家被鼓励花费时间调查新技术以及它们如何影响儿童和青少年，以安抚焦虑的民众。然而，由于缺乏理论基准，他们的努力变得无效；研究人员无法在研究过去令人担忧的技术方面所学到的知识的基础上继续研究。因此，对于每一项新的感兴趣的技术，学术研究似乎都重新开始，这减缓了确保技术使社会受益的政策干预的速度。在本文中，我强调了技术恐慌的西西弗斯式循环如何阻碍了心理学在引导技术变革方面的积极作用，以及新技术需要改进研究和政策方法的普遍需求。
