Inoculation Theory and Organizational Storytelling
to Undo Social Media Mind Control: A Literature Review

https://twitter.com/Evan_Crawley/status/1470545846777393152?s=20

Introduction

The 21st century has been marred by war. A battle not in the kinetic sense, but one that goes unnoticed every day. This war is for our attention. As time passes, the weapons have become more sophisticated. Television, radio and newspaper advertisements were once seen as cutting-edge methods for getting people to pay notice. While each form of media is still utilized today to varying degrees, how they are weaponized is far more radical. In 2021, it is like comparing a rock and sling to a rail gun when considering modern methods like algorithmic persuasion, sponsored content and clickbait. It has contributed to the creation of a new species, according to Tim Wu, called homo distractus — “a species of ever shorter attention span known for compulsively checking his device.” (Wu, 2017, p. 6)

From a corporate communications perspective, the rise of homo distractus creates plenty of confounding variables. This is a conflict with no clear battle lines, where individuals are constantly bombarded with memes, Tweets or targeted ads, each one dragging a person further down the distraction rabbit hole. Given the landscape, how can corporate communications professionals compete? What are the essential elements a message needs to compete in today’s society? The only way to do so is to understand both what is getting the attention of people and how to persuade them to listen to your messaging. The following is a review of relevant literature with respect to attention, persuasion and propaganda. The author asserts the following ideas as guiding principles for research:

• IDEA: There is a war going on for our attention.
• IDEA: We are engaging in media multitasking that tests the limits of how much information our brains can process simultaneously.
• IDEA: Given this environment, how do you create effective messaging that broadcasts clearly?
• IDEA: A dynamic environment requires a dynamic response.
• IDEA: A combination of inoculation theory and organizational narrative (narrative paradigm) utilizing tenets of the micro-celebrity creates effective messaging.

This is intended to be the first step toward understanding how to improve corporate communications at a 6,000 employee government installation in the Northeast United States. What ultimately will make this research unique is it will investigate theory blending in the social media age while exploring the variables of age and government employment (the variables of age and government setting are not explored here).

Media multitasking

Multicommunications refers to the process of interacting with more than one person at the same time and is typically aided by technology. (Valo, 2019) This idea includes a few adjacent concepts, one of which is media multitasking — at times the two are used interchangeably. (Valo, 2019) Media multitasking occurs when a person interacts with another individual and a medium at the same time, or when a person interacts with two different forms of media at once. (Valo, 2019) Studies on this concept have applied varying frames to it. Some authors — typically those conducting laboratory experiments — note the negative aspects of media multitasking as something that “distracts concentration, decreases community involvement, harms performance or weakens cognitive processes.” (Valo, 2019, p. 6) Other researchers — often relying on surveys — have professed there is a rewarding benefit to media multitasking in that it provides entertainment and relaxation. (Valo, 2019) Zheng (Joyce) Wang and her fellow researchers tried to bridge the gap in these research methods and further define the concept of media multitasking by interpreting it through basic cognitive dimensions. (Wang et al., 2015)

Wang et al. relied on a series of theories to craft 11 basic dimensions of media multitasking behavior that affects resource demand and allocation. (Wang et al., 2015) This was done to provide a framework for predicting behavior with respect to media multitasking. (Wang et al., 2015) These basic dimensions incorporated elements of central bottleneck theories, limited capacity theories, multiple resource theories, multicomponent theories and the “law of less work.” Central bottleneck theories suggest there are limits to how we can process information based on cognitive structures that in turn affect performance. (Wang et al., 2015) Limited capacity theories postulate that performance is hurt by a lack of capacity, here defined as the energy to encode, store and retrieve information. (Wang et al., 2015) Multiple resource theories suggest our mental resources used to complete tasks are analogous to pools. (Wang et al., 2015). As one would imagine, these pools can be deep or shallow, or sometimes there are mixups with the pools that affect performance. Multicomponent theories state there are four components that affect memory: phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer and central executive system. (Wang et al., 2015) The phonological loop temporarily stores and maintains linguistic information; the visuospatial sketchpad stores visual information; the episodic buffer integrates information from a number of resources and filters them with the long-term memory; and the central executive system regulates attentional focus and task switches. (Wang et al., 2015) Finally, the “law of less work” implies that humans tend to avoid cognitively demanding tasks and conserve resources. (Wang et al., 2015)

From these theories, Wang et al. developed their 11 dimensions and categorized them as pertaining to either task relations, task inputs, task outputs or user differences. (Wang et al., 2015) Task relations that can affect how resources are spent include task hierarchy, task switch, task relevance, shared modality and task contiguity. (Wang et al., 2015) Task hierarchy refers to the relative importance given to each task, while task switch refers to how much control a person has to switch tasks and whether the media allows them to do so. (Wang et al., 2015) Task relevance refers to how closely the act is aligned to one’s goals, shared modality is the degree to which a task is shared among sensory modalities, and contiguity refers to the physical proximity between the tasks. (Wang et al., 2015) Information modality, emotional content and behavioral responses are categorized as task inputs. Modality refers to whether visual, auditory or motor systems are used, flow refers to how information is transmitted, and emotional content in this context is about what feelings the task evokes. (Wang et al., 2015) Tasks that require anything beyond cognitive processing or have varying time constraints are considered behavioral responses and time pressure, respectively, and comprise the task outputs category. (Wang et al., 2015) The final category, user differences, takes into account that not everyone is the same and tasks will affect people differently. (Wang et al., 2015) After conducting two studies with college-age participants, the group came to a number of conclusions. A key one with respect to this literature review is that people are more likely to select media multitasking behaviors that use up less cognitive resources. (Wang et al., 2015) Wang et al. write: “Our findings suggest that although not necessarily intentional, in general people adopt adaptive decision and media use behaviors in response to an increasingly saturated media environment. People seemingly have an intuitive grasp of their own cognitive limits and adjust their behaviors accordingly when interacting with this changing media landscape.” (Wang et al., 2019, p. 122) Furthermore, the authors differentiated between less cognitively demanding phenomena like radio or television in the background versus more demanding tasks like instant messaging, phone calls and emails. (Wang et al., 2015) In turn, future research that looks to craft organizational communication messages should make them as simple and direct as possible. That said, any general conclusions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Media multitasking is a very complex subject, which is likely a significant contributor to inconsistent results between studies on the topic. (Wang et al., 2015) The authors also identified the fact the study was conducted with college students, people may overestimate their abilities in a study and their purpose was not to test multitasking against performing a single task as potential limitations. (Wang et al., 2015) According to the authors, it is well-established that performing a single task requires less cognitive ability than multitasking. (Wang et al., 2015)

The human brain’s processing ability is truly impressive, but it has limits. “We are highly distractible creatures and the quality of our attention can easily be compromised,” Tristan Harris writes for the Center for Humane Technology. “When we frequently switch attention from one task to another, we experience an ‘attention residue’ whereby thoughts about the previous task interfere with giving full attention to the current task.” (Harris, 2021) While the research of Wang et al. is highly valuable with respect to media multitasking, it does not take into account social media — it’s a different animal altogether. Research suggests social media stimulates multitasking, and this relationship appears to have a distinct effect on our brains. A 2017 study by Uncapher et al. estimated that American youth interact with media for approximately 7.5 hours per day, of which 29% of that time is spent utilizing multiple streams at once, or “media multitasking”. (Uncapher et al., 2017) The group suggested that extended media multitasking shows differences in cognition through poorer memory, psychosocial behavior in increased impulsivity, and neural structure through reduced volume in the anterior cingulate cortex. (Uncapher et al., 2017) The group also noted that there is a relationship between media multitasking during learning and negative academic outcomes. (Uncapher, et al. 2017) The authors did add, though, that it could not be determined what caused what, but that there was a definite correlation between media multitasking and their observations. (Uncapher et. al., 2017) This at the very least warrants caution with the constant flooding of media in today’s society, particularly given social media’s unique ability to infiltrate our brains and the explosion of persuasive technology.

Attention in the social media age

Whether people want to admit it or not, the human brain is a sponge. (Harris, 2021) The brain takes in all sorts of information, whether we want it to or not. This includes persuasive technology, which, over time, seeps in and shapes the way we think. (Harris, 2021) In turn, social media may feel like a random collection of posts and advertisements, but in reality it is very sophisticatedly designed to infiltrate our brains to meet the goals of social media designers. (Harris, 2021) The aim of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok is to keep you clicking or scrolling. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021) They are designed to monopolize — and monetize — your time. They do this by considering your motivation, such as a desire for social interaction, as well as the ability of users to easily do what the application wants and various triggers, like notifications. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021) Countless decisions go into the construction of these platforms, and among them is how our brains process information. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021) The brain has a series of shortcuts for how it processes information, allowing humans to make quick decisions. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021) The technology companies understand the brain takes these shortcuts, and in turn have put billboards along these shortcuts to push people toward certain behaviors. These are not regular billboards, either; they are powered by algorithms designed to inundate and overwhelm, while at the same time subverting our decision making. These algorithms constantly learn more about people to become more effective. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021) Ultimately, persuasive technology becomes more than a distraction; it changes what we think and feel, how we behave and understand ourselves. (Center for Humane Technology, 2021)

Some of the places where social media erects these billboards along brain function shortcuts are particularly effective. For example, the human brain has many diverse pleasure systems that in some instances share overlapping substrates. (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015) In their research, Kent Berridge and Morten Kringelbach investigated how the brain reacts to rewards. They determined that there are different brain mechanisms for “liking” and “wanting”. Both can be triggered by a reward, but it is far more likely for the part of our brains associated with wanting to fire because it’s a much larger system. (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015) Physiologically, people can get something they want and feel good about it after. It is far more likely, however, that a person can get what they want and not feel fulfilled because the mechanism for wanting is far stronger than that of liking. This endless loop is often seen in addiction. (Harris, 2021) As Harris astutely points out, technology and social media take advantage of this in providing endless nourishment for wanting but few instances of satisfaction. (Harris, 2021) “We might find fleeting pleasure, but no enduring satisfaction. Our ‘tolerance’ increases, and we need more to achieve the same effects,” Harris writes. “The result: we keep clicking and scrolling, mindlessly consuming content, often with minimal oversight from cognitive control regions of the brain.” (Harris, 2021)

This only scratches the surface, though, of how complicated the brain is in how it processes stimuli. The insula, for example, is the structure that regulates interoceptive awareness, emotional responses and empathetic processes. (Menon & Uddin, 2010) It works with other systems to discern the most important stimuli and integrate it with our inner feelings and involuntary responses. (Menon & Uddin, 2010) Notifications like flashing lights, vibrations or red dots activate this system, alerting us to threats or opportunities. (Harris, 2021) In practice, what social media alerts really do is make something that is rather trivial seem urgent. (Harris, 2021) Social media also targets other brain processes as well that encourage constant social comparison. (Harris, 2021) The medial prefrontal cortex creates our beliefs in individual decisions, as well as global estimates of our skills and abilities. (Rouault & Fleming, 2020) This includes confidence encoding, which operates across multiple hierarchical levels. (Rouault & Fleming, 2020) This ties directly into self-esteem, which involves how we affirm ourselves while batting away attacks to one’s self-worth. (Harris, 2021) Social media drastically affects how our brains process self-esteem. As Harris notes, “It floods us with highly curated images featuring people in select moments showing only what they want you to see. Influencers establish standards of excellence and we tether our self-image to those ideals. Our ‘likes’ — which activate powerful reward circuits in the brain — become a commentary on the deepest part of ourselves.” (Harris, 2021)

Social media also feeds off the brain’s processing of moral outrage. This is triggered by stimuli that call attention to moral norm violations like corruption, child trafficking or genocide. (Crockett, 2017) The internet has supercharged moral outrage by not only better connecting people, but also because people are more likely to share content that draws out moral emotions. (Crockett, 2017) Furthermore, because sharing creates revenue for platforms, they are financially incentivized to not censor or even promote this content. (Crockett, 2017) The very nature of moral outrage evokes a variety of emotional and behavioral responses that can be shared via gossip, shaming or punishment. Expressing moral outrage has a range of consequences. These can be more negative outcomes like breeding retaliation or creating empathetic distress, but also can be used to signal one’s moral quality to others or hold bad actors accountable. (Crockett, 2017) How much one can hold these bad actors accountable is limited, however, as they are often insulated by their own online communities and actions can deepen social divides. (Crockett, 2017) Becoming too involved in digital moral outrage can also lower the standard of decency, as well as limit how much one becomes involved with things that actually make an impact on the world like volunteerism or donations. (Crockett, 2017) The key takeaway with respect to Crockett’s research is moral outrage is another tool social media taps into to infiltrate our brains. It provides an avenue where fear and anxiety are weaponized. “It is unsurprising that social media content generating fear, anger, and disgust spreads much faster than positive content. We marinate in this negativity and it propels deeper engagement,” Harris writes. “Fear and outrage become the norm and can erode our sense of goodness and shared humanity.” (Harris, 2021)

Concepts like moral outrage or social comparison can be further exacerbated by confirmation bias. This occurs when evidence against what one believes is selectively disregarded. (Rollwage et al., 2020) If confirmation bias were to be compared to a fire, confidence would be considered gasoline that turns blind belief into a conflagration. Rollwage et al. (2020) note that having a high amount of confidence affects the neural processing of confirmation bias, whereas the individual will amplify confirmatory evidence and completely disregard evidence to the contrary. This can lead to the formation of alternate realities at one extreme, but at a minimum creates extra pressure to feel a sense of belonging. (Harris, 2021) This presents a dangerous inroad for social media. “Software algorithms learn about our preferences, customizing and curating the information we receive,” Harris writes. “…When algorithms tell us what we want to believe, we become more polarized and lose a sense of ourselves as a cohesive social group with shared understanding.” (Harris, 2021) It is of interest to note at this point that Rollwage et al. (2020) indicate that metacognitive interventions are recognized as a possible solution to confirmation bias. These are “treatments that explicitly target metacognitive content — characterized by the awareness and understanding of one’s thoughts and feelings of others — as key elements.” (Philipp et al., 2019) While Philipp et al. conducted their research as a possible intervention for mental disorders, the concept seems applicable as a way to create effective messaging in today’s attention overload society. Philipp et al. sought to enhance the metacognitive abilities of those with mental disorders so that they could gain more “flexibility in the attention, monitoring, control and regulation of cognitive processes.” (Philipp et al., 2019) While Philipp et al. takes a psychological approach, their process is very reminiscent of tenets of inoculation theory and narrative paradigm in the field of Communications. Taking this as a cue, this literature review will delve into these theories to explore if messages encouraging awareness of the effects of social media and software algorithms can mitigate attention deficits. Given the ultimate intent here is to create clear avenues by which effective corporate communication can be delivered, it is important to first discuss some foundational principles of the field.

Crafting persuasive messages for corporate communications

A number of researchers have explored the effects of technology in the field of corporate communications, but the effects of media multitasking in this arena is understudied. Dartmouth College professor Paul Argenti is considered a leading scholar in corporate communications, and in 2006 he wrote about how technology is changing the landscape. He also provided a clear definition for what corporate communications is and how it should function. There are four aspects of communication that define it in the corporate sense: a function, such as marketing; a channel of communications; communications process such as tone and timing; and an attitude or set of beliefs that define how to communicate and the inherent values of such efforts to communicate. (Argenti, 2006) Functions include internal and external communications, and involve a number of subfunctions. These include media relations, investor relations, internal or employee communications, government relations or public affairs, community relations, corporate philanthropy, corporate reputation and marketing communications. (Argenti, 2006) Like many have noted, technology has created a dynamically changing communications field where there is much greater access and speed. This has created a shift from “tell style” of communications where corporate messages were broadcast to inform audiences or persuade them to do something a corporation wanted to accomplish. (Argenti, 2006) Whereas in the past corporate communications were planned in advance and delivered, technology necessitated a shift to accommodate dialogues in real-time. (Argenti, 2006) That said, much has changed since this study was released. It provides a fine framework for the tenets of corporate communications, but there may again be a role for “tell style” communications. A combination approach of static and dynamic communications that incorporate elements of propaganda will be investigated.

Propaganda has had a number of definitions over the decades, which has led to some confusion on the topic. (Hobbs, 2020) All these different conceptions have led it to have a negative connotation, but propaganda is not always a bad thing. (Hobbs, 2020) First and foremost, though, it is important to develop a working definition of propaganda and differentiate it from persuasion. The use of words and symbols to influence people, typically to gain social power, is considered persuasion. (Hobbs, 2020) Propaganda, meanwhile, does the same, only it is intended to reach a large group of people. (Hobbs, 2020) “Propaganda relies on a type of suggestion that involves reinforcing existing beliefs, changing perceptions, activating an emotional response, or provoking a behavior,” Hobbs writes. (Hobbs, 2020) Social media has made it easier for ordinary folks to create and disseminate propaganda, thus making it more prevalent. It is important to note, while propaganda does use information selectively to transmit only those ideas that help the user’s goals, it is not brainwashing or mind control. (Hobbs, 2020) It is not synonymous with fake news, and while it can involve deception, that is not the focus here. Ultimately, with the intent of this literature review being to create a research paper, the focus will be on propaganda that informs a workforce and general public, improves employee morale and secures future funding. When creating this propaganda, it will be important to consider the message, techniques, environment and context, means of communication and format, and audience receptivity. (Hobbs, 2020) What is the nature of the information conveyed and what strategies need to be used to elicit interaction? When, where and how will the message get to people? What will be their reaction be when they receive it? The following investigates some possible templates for creating this propaganda.

Philipp et al. suggest metacognitive interventions as a way to remedy confirmation bias. These methods, however, share an awful lot in common with some key tenets of inoculation theory. Pioneered by William J. McGuire in the early 1960s, McGuire used a medical metaphor to describe how people might resist some forms of persuasion. Like a vaccine that prevents you from getting a disease, a message that presents a weaker form of a contrary message may keep someone from changing their mind when presented with a stronger version in the future. (Compton et al., 2020) These are typically two-sided messages that often include a forewarning. Compton et al., 2020) This theory has proven to be very versatile as it has been further studied. Given the flexibility of the theory and the effectiveness of metacognitive interventions, could this serve as a template for crafting messages designed to inoculate people against the effects of social media? If so, these inoculation messages will need to consider two key aspects — threat and refutational preemption. (Compton et al., 2020) Threat, in this sense, refers to a forewarning of a possible attack on one’s beliefs and the individual’s susceptibility to said attack. (Compton et al., 2020) Refutational preemption, meanwhile, refers to anticipating that there will be further resistance to these initial messages and there will need to be information ready to inoculate against these communications. (Compton et al., 2020) The benefit of using this theory is it provides somewhat of a blanket defense, as it inoculates against the specific message in question but also against those not mentioned. (Compton et al., 2020) For example with respect to this research, could a message that warns against triggers utilized by social media apps be extended to inoculation against social media in general? Research into the interplay between inoculation theory and public relations seems to indicate so. Both the theory and the discipline are dialogic, relational and acknowledge the importance of the audience making its own decisions. (Compton et al., 2020) Crafting these messages, though, will require strong storytelling.

Strong storytelling has shown to have tremendous benefits to an organization and its workforce. In their 2010 work, Barker and Gower proposed the Storytelling Model of Organizational Communications (STMOC) as a means to improve organizational culture. The method is rooted in Narrative Paradigm Theory, which is an exchange of “value-laden information” in a way that is both familiar and shared along the diverse backgrounds of an organization. (Barker & Gower, 2010, p. 299) The theory states that stories must be memorable, easy to understand, establish a common ground that creates credibility, and creates a sense of empathy from a cognitive and emotional perspective to help understand others. (Barker & Gower, 2010) Furthermore, it postulates that human beings are innate storytellers and all forms of human connection are best conveyed as stories. (Barker & Gower, 2010) Humans use logic to evaluate stories as listeners and in turn create their reality based on these tales. (Barker & Gower, 2010) Finally, these value-laden stories result in listener beliefs and actions. (Barker & Gower, 2010) STMOC utilizes these principles, but takes a blended approach by incorporating the individual, organizational and communications needs of a company and mixing in the “diversity continuum business communication needs to recognize the importance of heterogeneity and time.” (Barker & Gower, 2010, p. 301)

As previously mentioned, the ever-shifting nature of the social media age requires an equally dynamic response if one hopes to craft effective organizational messaging. Methods employed by micro-celebrities to make them seem more credible than the mainstream media may provide further guidance in this arena. (Lewis, 2020) Micro-celebrities are social media users that present themselves as public personas to be consumed by audiences, which they regard as their fans. (Lewis, 2020) The term can refer to not just the person themself, but also the way they gather influence and position their status. (Lewis, 2020) The concept is adopted from celebrity culture, albeit with less resources and privileges, as well as a niche audience. (Lewis, 2020) These micro-celebrities use strategic intimacy to appeal to followers, often emphasizing relatability, authenticity and accountability. (Lewis, 2020) Like propaganda, micro-celebrity does not always have a positive connotation so the concept should not be used in totality. However, the idea that presenting themselves as relatable, authentic and accountable has helped to garner attention is something that could be adapted for a compelling organizational narrative. The key here is not what kind of attention they have garnered, and more that they have attracted attention in an unbelievably competitive arena.

Findings and future research

The mission of corporate communications remains the same, yet the methods needed to be successful must evolve to compete in the social media age. Media multitasking constantly is occurring, as smartphones have revolutionized how humans interact with media. At any moment, we are a push notification away from distraction. Given how connected this world is to media — specifically social media — corporate communications messaging will need to be carefully crafted with a number of considerations. It is important to consider what you are asking the recipients to do, particularly what the task is and what it entails. How will they get this message and how will it be received when they get it? Perhaps most importantly, the less cognition required, the more likely the message will be received and processed. Along the same lines, be mindful of the limitations of the brain and how social media takes advantage of these shortcomings. Social media uses persuasive technology to make everything seem urgent while encouraging empty searching. It forces multitasking, preys on our fears and anxieties, encourages constant social comparisons and reinforces confirmation bias. Keeping this in mind, theory blending may provide a road ahead for the modern corporate communications professional. What is proposed is a Clear and Convince (C&C) Method for Corporate Communications. Inoculation theory could be used to inform an audience about social media and how it hacks our brains as a means to vaccinate against the effects of social media. Messages would be crafted using previously mentioned tenets as well as that of narrative paradigm. The idea here is that the persuasive technology vaccine would clear a path for the messaging of a corporate communications professional by quarantining some of the effects of social media, thus freeing up more capacity for cognition. The subsequent messaging would use a proven method, storytelling, to craft its messaging. Given the rise of the micro-celebrity on platforms such as YouTube, it would be wise to incorporate key principles of relatability, authenticity and accountability into the narrative. As a suggestion for future research, the following hypothesis is stated:

H1: Messages using a combination of inoculation theory and narrative paradigm are more likely to be seen by social media users than messages that do not use this method.

Bibliography

Argenti PA. How Technology Has Influenced the Field of Corporate Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 2006;20(3):357–370. doi:10.1177/1050651906287260

Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelling in organizations: Toward effective communication in a diverse world. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 47(3), 295–312.

Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure systems in the brain. Neuron, 86(3), 646–664.

Center for Humane Technology (2021). Persuasive Technology. How does technology use design to influence my behavior?

Compton, J., Wigley, S., & Samoilenko, S. A. (2021). Inoculation theory and public relations. Public Relations Review, 47(5), 102116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811121001090?casa_token=9Ws9-mf00n8AAAAA:F03DHk3gdKimWLHaocQzo1VvYFthd8R-ktH3gIERlLv54dX_NQLpT4naJt6Uv5Iek18OMQt

Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771.

Harris, T. (ND). How social media hacks our brains. Center for Humane Technology. https://www.humanetech.com/brain-science

Hobbs, R. (2020). Mind Over Media: Propaganda Education for a Digital Age. W.W. Norton.

Lewis, R. (2020). “This is what the news won’t show you”: YouTube creators and the reactionary politics of micro-celebrity. Television & New Media, 21(2), 201–217.

Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6), 655–667.

Philipp, R., Kriston, L., Lanio, J., Kühne, F., Härter, M., Moritz, S., & Meister, R. (2019). Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults — A systematic review and meta‐analysis (METACOG). Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 26(2), 227–240.

Rollwage, M., Loosen, A., Hauser, T. U., Moran, R., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2020). Confidence drives a neural confirmation bias. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–11.

Rouault, M., & Fleming, S. M. (2020). Formation of global self-beliefs in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(44), 27268–27276.

Uncapher, M. R., Lin, L., Rosen, L. D., Kirkorian, H. L., Baron, N. S., Bailey, K., … & Wagner, A. D. (2017). Media multitasking and cognitive, psychological, neural, and learning differences. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement 2), S62-S66.

Valo, Maarit (2019). Multicommunication. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.886

Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C., & Srivastava, J. (2015). Multidimensions of media multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41(1), 102– 127

Wu, T. (2017). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. Vintage Books, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.