In one line: Digital technology now shapes how we think, relate and feel — for better and for worse.
The HL extension of technology layers onto every context. Technology — smartphones, social media, gaming, online tools — affects behaviour, cognition and wellbeing across health, development, relationships and learning.
This links to the concept of change (technology changes how we behave) and causality (but the evidence is often correlational, so causal claims must be careful). HL note: assessed on Paper 3, a source-based data paper.
Memory hook: Double-edged screen. Technology can help or harm behaviour and wellbeing.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Key idea: Technology has both benefits and costs — and the effect often depends on how it's used.
Effects of technology
Positive effects
Connection and support, access to information and learning, health apps, and tools that aid memory and productivity.
Negative effects
Links to lower wellbeing, disrupted sleep and attention, social comparison, cyberbullying, and problematic overuse.
It depends
The effect often depends on how technology is used (active/social vs passive scrolling) and on the person and context.
Connect · Distract · Depends
Take social media and a teenager's wellbeing. Active use (messaging friends) can support connection; passive scrolling and social comparison can lower mood; and disrupted sleep harms wellbeing. Technology changes behaviour, but whether the effect is good or bad often depends on use — so simple claims mislead.
Go further — higher-level insight: Most evidence here is correlational. We can measure that screen time and low mood go together, but not easily that one causes the other — a third variable (like existing distress) or reverse causation may explain it. Flagging this is essential for Paper-3 evaluation.
Get feedback like a real examiner
Submit your answers and get instant feedback — what you did well, what's missing, and exactly what to write to score full marks.
Key idea: Technology research is topical and important but mostly correlational and fast-changing.
Strengths and limitations
| Strengths and limitations | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Highly applicable to modern life and policy | Mostly correlational — can't confirm cause |
| Data | Large-scale usage data available | Self-reported screen time is often inaccurate |
| Nuance | Distinguishes active vs passive, person, context | Technology and effects change faster than research |
So technology research is timely and practically important, but a good Paper-3 evaluation stresses it is mostly correlational (so causal claims are risky), that self-reported use is unreliable, that effects depend on how technology is used, and that the fast pace of change makes findings quickly dated. Read the data with these limits in mind.
Watch out: 'Screens cause harm' overstates it. A correlation between screen time and low wellbeing doesn't prove screens are the cause — reverse causation and third variables are live possibilities.