Close
today i learned (til)

Psych and Tech: Creating a Social Media Trap

March 1, 2022

In the digital age, social media has become a staple in millions, if not billions, of people’s lives. From Tumblr to Twitter, the digital space is full of many different kinds of social media platforms. What we’re looking at today, though, is TikTok, a newer platform that gained immense popularity over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Known for its video sharing capabilities, TikTok has been named the most popular website of 2021, according to Cloudflare. You either use it yourself or know someone who does, but regardless, TikTok is immensely popular, especially among millennials and Gen Z. Being such a popular platform, it’s only natural that it comes surrounded in controversy. The list could go on for a while, but dangerous trends, censorship, cultural appropriation, privacy concerns, and cyberbullying are just a handful of issues on the platform. Despite all of these concerns, the platform still has well over a billion users – why is that? The problem lies within the way the app is designed. The two key components TikTok has successfully embedded into their platform are its algorithm and the content available on it. Together, let’s look at these components and how they work together to create such a powerful, addictive social media trap.

 

One of TikTok’s most striking features is its algorithm. It curates a near-perfect ‘for you’ page, keeping users scrolling for hours and hours. The craziest part is that no two feeds are the same. How does this algorithm work exactly? Artificial intelligence and data analysis are our main suspects here. While all the details aren’t out there for the whole world to see, we know the system works by recommending videos similar to the ones you like, share and save, along with analyzing the comments you leave and accounts you follow. The algorithm monitors how much time users spend scrolling or watching videos, and it keeps collecting information to accommodate trends and changing styles. That’s the simple explanation of it, but let’s break it down a little farther. The algorithm splits user data into three categories: content, user and scenario data. Content data consists of the traits of the videos posted onto the platform so TikTok can categorize and recommend videos based on the content. User data includes profile data such as age, gender, and interest tags users choose when creating a profile. Lastly, there is scenario data, which is tracking the user’s preferences based on their current scenario. An example of this would be tracking what a user likes to watch when they’re at work/school compared to when they’re traveling or at home. This form of data collection relies on location tracking and/or time of day to monitor user behavior. 

 

From those three types of data, the algorithm derives certain features and sends that to the recommendation engine. These are correlation, user-scenario, trend and collaborative features. Correlation features represent the correlation between content and users, user-scenario features include location and time of day, trend features include global trends, themes, and trending topics in general, and collaborative features compare users with similar behaviors to categorize them. Using those features, the algorithm determines whether or not a video is suitable for a user’s ‘for you’ page. This behavior tracing is known as machine learning – the algorithm quite literally learns your habits on the app and uses that information to recommend you videos. This keeps users’ ‘for you’ page up-to-date and accurate, giving them endless content to stay hooked on. If you were constantly fed content relating to things you like, you’d probably find it hard to look away too, right?

 

Well, where’s the psychology in all this? A big consequence of the digital age is reduced attention span. You’ve probably heard of the term ‘iPad kid’ used to describe cranky kids with limited awareness of their surroundings, constantly needing a screen in front of their face. That’s the poster example of limited attention spans as a result of devices, and that’s exactly what using social media for a prolonged period of time does to you. If you’re using TikTok, you’re probably also using some other social media like Instagram, Twitter or Facebook, and chances are you’ve been using them for a while too. TikTok is designed to specifically target these people – with endless scrolling and short videos ranging from fifteen seconds to three minutes, it’s the perfect trap for users with short attention spans. You spend a couple seconds watching one video, and then it’s onto the next, and within one minute, you’ve already watched four videos. The design keeps people hooked, and it becomes very easy for people to spend hours scrolling. 

 

Apart from catering to limited attention spans, a large part of why so many people stay hooked on TikTok is due to gratification theory. Uses and gratification theory (UGT) explores the relationship between people and media, specifically how people use media to satisfy certain needs. These needs are categorized into one of the following: cognitive, affective, personal integrative, social integrative and tension free. Cognitive needs refer to the academic, intellectual or social knowledge and information that people use media for. For example, people watch the news to learn more about current events or use search engines to learn more about a specific topic. Affective needs, as the name suggests, refers to emotional needs. People will watch thriller or horror movies for a good scare or adrenaline rush, or maybe a sad romcom to get a little emotional after a long day. Personal integrative needs are essentially self-esteem needs; people are active on social media to reassure themselves, establish their online presence, and gain credibility. Often, people see more likes on a picture and a higher follower count as a self-esteem booster. Social media also lets you only post certain aspects of your life, so you’re free to build your own image on there. Next, we have social integrative needs, which refers to the desire to fit into society, whether it be friends or family. People will start a social media profile if all of their friends have one, or might start watching a new show solely because their crush said they liked it. Lastly, there are tension free needs, or one’s escapism from daily life. After a long day of work, you might just want to relax and watch a movie, or scroll through memes on Instagram, but either way, you’re using media as a form of escape to relieve yourself of stress.

 

Each user of TikTok has some combination of these needs – maybe they want to fit in since everyone they know is on it, they seek validation from certain videos they see, or just to scroll and laugh at funny videos after a long day. People are motivated by the fact that TikTok allows them to seek fame, expand their social network, and express themselves in many creative ways. Since it requires a shorter attention span than a platform like YouTube, many people have turned to it as their new social addiction. The algorithm works hand-in-hand with UGT to create a social media trap – one that the users keep running. They’ll like and watch videos, and the algorithm will just keep recommending more. This process is endless until the user decides to stop, which is harder than you think.

 

Citations

https://towardsdatascience.com/why-tiktok-made-its-user-so-obsessive-the-ai-algorithm-that-got-you-hooked-7895bb1ab423

https://www.communicationtheory.org/uses-and-gratification-theory/#:~:text=in%20Mass%20Communication%2C%20Psychology%2C%20Behavioral,when%20their%20needs%20are%20fulfilled. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010681/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0735633117743917

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The Science of Hand Dryers
today i learned (til)
Demystifying Transgender Healthcare
today i learned (til)
The Science Behind Pickled Vegetables and Their Longevity
today i learned (til)
Mindcraft: The Science of Flowers & Flower Pressing

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.