Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Shows novelty and habit learning drive digital information seeking behavior, highlighting potential addiction risks.
Social media scrolling can be understood as a digital form of information seeking. When seeking information online, individuals are tasked with deciding whether to stay on a given social media platform to continue seeking information or to explore other sources of information (e.g., an alternate online platform or offline activity). These decisions mirror the explore/exploit decisions observed in patch foraging frameworks, where individuals must weigh the depleting rewards of a known source (i.e., exploit) against the uncertain rewards of an unknown source (i.e., explore). Unlike traditional foraging, which typically involves extrinsic rewards, digital information seeking occurs in the absence of extrinsic rewards and may instead be driven by the perceived novelty of information. We first show that variance in novelty shapes how long individuals engage with information (i.e., exploit) and decisions to explore new sources of information (i.e., explore). We also show that the anterior hippocampus, which is known to support novelty detection, is sensitive to variance in novelty when individuals are foraging for digital information. Next, we consider whether habit learning shapes digital information seeking by focusing on ‘doomscrolling’, a maladaptive style of digital information seeking involving the persistent consumption of timely negative information despite adverse emotions. We show that individuals who regularly doomscroll express a habitual orientation toward doomscrolling, marked by a strong endorsement of social media and smartphone dependency, reduced mindfulness, and a strong urge to doomscroll. These findings advance our understanding of how novelty and habit learning drive digital information seeking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stevent Martinez (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: