Digital Technologies and Mental Health | Survey
SUMMARY DOCUMENT
Digital Technologies and Mental Health
EURISPES SURVEY
The relationship between digital technologies and mental health sits at the crossroads of two now-mass phenomena: the almost universal spread of connectivity and the growing weight of psychological distress.
The survey conducted by Eurispes on the relationship between Italians, digital technologies and mental health does not aim to establish whether digital technology is, in absolute terms, a “good” or a “bad” thing, but rather to observe how intensity of use, skills, vulnerabilities, difficulties in self-regulation, experiences linked to social networks, forms of technostress and digital wellbeing practices are distributed. The results paint an ambivalent picture: digital tools are perceived as useful and by now indispensable, but a substantial part of the population reports automatic behaviours, fatigue, loss of control and negative impacts, with critical issues particularly concentrated among the youngest.
A high-intensity digital daily life
The presence of digital technology in everyday life is confirmed as almost universal. Smartphones are used regularly by 94.3% of respondents, computers or laptops by 65.2% and Smart TVs by 61.2%. These are followed by tablets (33.6%), smartwatches (28.4%) and video game consoles (17.5%). Smartphone use cuts across generations: it stays above 95% up to age 64 and still involves 89.9% of those over 64. Other devices, however, show a clear generational gap. Computers are used by 80.2% of 18-24 year-olds, remain above 70% in the other age brackets, and drop to 39.1% among the oldest; tablets go from 52.3% to 18.1%, smartwatches from 46.5% to 12.7%, and consoles from 43% to 4.7%. Gender has less impact than age, with the exception of consoles, more widespread among men (23.9% versus 11%), and smartwatches (30.9% versus 25.9%).
On weekdays, time spent on devices combines leisure use and obligatory use. For leisure, 93.3% use their smartphone for at least part of the day, and 24.1% exceed three hours; for work or study, 66.7% use it and 22.2% exceed three hours. Computers are less common in leisure time but central to professional and educational activities: 64.8% use one on weekdays for work or study, and 39.8% for more than three hours. On weekends, smartphone use involves 95.1% of respondents, and almost three in ten exceed three hours.
The intensity of use is also strongly tied to generation. Among 18-24 and 25-34 year-olds, recreational exposure to smartphones is much more prolonged and is accompanied by frequent use of computers, video, social media and consoles. More than half of the 18-24 age bracket use their smartphone for leisure on weekdays for more than three hours (52.4%), a share that rises to 60.5% on weekends; among 25-34 year-olds the figure reaches 40.4% on weekdays and drops to 37% on weekends; in all other age brackets, use exceeding three hours is markedly lower and decreases progressively with age. For the oldest respondents, use is selective and concentrated almost exclusively on the smartphone, while other digital tools are never used at all by the over-64 sample, whether on weekdays or weekends.
In their free time, the internet is used above all to search for information (82.8%), send and receive emails (71.5%), chat (70.7%), watch videos (68.9%) and use social networks (67.9%). More than half access their bank account (56.4%), read online newspapers (55.1%) or make purchases (54.7%); 43.9% watch films and series via streaming and 42.8% pay bills. Gaming (23.9%), forums (25.6%) and dating sites (12.5%) remain more limited. Young people lead in relational and entertainment activities; the middle age brackets, especially 35-44 year-olds, show broader use of practical, financial and administrative services.
Modes of use: participation and passive consumption
The survey distinguishes between activities that require participation and content production and forms of use that are mainly observational. 69.2% publish original content at least occasionally and 63.4% comment on other people’s content. Private or group messaging is even more widespread: 79% use it at least occasionally. However, passive practices are almost as common: 79.8% scroll through feeds and content without interacting, and 78.3% look at other people’s profiles or activity without engaging, with about 30% doing this often. Only participation in group discussions remains less widespread, although it still involves at least 52.2% of the sample occasionally.
The profile of younger users combines active and passive use with exceptional intensity. Among 18-24 year-olds, 97.7% post content on social media and send messages in private chats, and 86% comment on other people’s posts, but the shares of those who scroll through content without interacting (96.5%) and those who watch other people’s profiles without any interaction (98.8%) are just as high. This means that producing posts and messages coexists with prolonged passive exposure to representations of other people’s lives – fertile ground for social comparison, feelings of inadequacy and loss of a sense of time. Passive use is not inherently pathological, but it becomes more problematic when it is automatic, repetitive and driven by a constant search for stimuli.
The stated purposes confirm the multifunctional nature of digital technology. 76% use it to stay informed, 73.2% to maintain relationships, 61.9% for work or study and 51.4% for entertainment and gaming. Among 18-24 year-olds, the relational function reaches 91.9% and the recreational function 76.7%. Motivations also show strong stratification by age. Overall, 75.1% attach importance to maintaining friendships, 71.4% to staying informed and 70.2% to family relationships; 53.6% use technology to relax. Less widespread but not marginal are seeking distraction from problems (37.2%), the chance to meet new people (36.1%), expressing one’s identity (29.6%) and seeking approval or positive feedback (26%).
In the 18-24 age bracket, these motivations take on considerably greater weight: 74.4% consider meeting new people important, 67.5% expressing their own identity, 56.9% receiving approval and 70.9% distracting themselves from problems. Among the over-64s, these same shares fall to 19.9%, 10.9%, 9.7% and 20.6% respectively. For young people, then, digital technology is not just an operational tool but a space for identity construction, recognition and emotional regulation.
Digital skills: a generational gap
Self-assessment of digital skills is distributed across three levels with nearly equivalent results: 32.8% rate them as poor or very poor, 35% as adequate and 32.2% as good or excellent. Behind this apparent symmetry lies, once again, a generational divide. Among 18-24 year-olds, 61.6% consider themselves competent, while only 4.7% fall into the inadequate category; among the over-64s the proportions are reversed, with 67.3% rating their abilities negatively and just 9.4% considering them good.
Regarding confidence in carrying out certain online activities, perceptions vary depending on the task. 76.5% feel confident communicating with family and friends, but this share drops to 52.9% for using online banking, healthcare or public administration services, to 49.3% for online shopping, to 45.6% for recognising scams and fraud attempts, and to 41.8% for managing privacy and data security. This means that familiarity with chat and messaging does not equate to full digital competence: more than half the sample does not feel adequately protected against fraud and personal data handling.
Among the over-64s, only 29% feel confident using online services, 18.8% for online shopping, 24.3% for identifying scams and 21% for protecting data and privacy.
When facing a difficulty, 29.4% of internet users ask family members or acquaintances for help, 24.7% look for tutorials and solutions online, and 23.8% try to resolve it on their own; 8.4% abandon the activity and 5.8% subsequently avoid the technology that caused the problem. Among the over-64s, turning to friends or relatives rises to 45.3%, while abandonment and avoidance together reach 28.2%.
On a subjective level, 59.2% feel competent using the technologies they habitually use and 52.6% trust their own ability to solve problems, but 41.4% feel overwhelmed by the pace of change and 35.2% feel frustrated when they cannot use a new platform. Half the sample (50.2%) believe that better skills would increase their personal satisfaction, and 46.2% that they would offer greater work, social or personal opportunities. Digital vulnerability therefore also takes the form of exclusion: not being able to use tools autonomously and safely means forgoing services, opportunities and participation.
Negative online experiences and their impact on wellbeing
Exposure to unpleasant or harmful episodes is far from marginal: 26% of the sample say they have unintentionally encountered violent or disturbing content, 23.4% have suffered offensive comments, insults or personal attacks, and 21.8% have experienced the unauthorised sharing of photographs or videos. 16.4% have been targeted by phishing, 15.2% have had an account breached or their identity stolen, 14.6% have experienced intentional exclusion, 12.1% have had data or money stolen, 12% have been harassed and 10.1% have received threats.
Here too, young people are more exposed. Among 18-24 year-olds, 40.7% have seen violent or disturbing content, 38.4% have received insults or attacks, 37.2% have experienced the unauthorised sharing of images, 26.7% harassment, 25.6% exclusion and 22.1% threats. This high incidence may be linked to the greater time spent online and the central role platforms play in relational life, but it also signals that the environment in which young people seek belonging and recognition is the same one that frequently exposes them to attacks and violations.
For those who have experienced them, negative experiences have significant consequences. 45.9% acknowledge an impact on their emotional wellbeing, 39.3% on their self-esteem, 49.3% on their trust in platforms and 43.8% on their own online behaviour. Among the youngest, the impact on emotional wellbeing reaches 65.6%, on self-esteem 59%, loss of trust 59% and behaviour change 50.8%. This finding is particularly significant when compared with the compensatory function attributed to platforms, especially relevant among young adults: among 18-24 year-olds, 91.9% say they use social media at least occasionally to relieve negative emotions.
From routine to automatism: connection anxiety hits the youngest hardest
Numerous behaviours indicate that checking one’s phone and updates has by now become embedded in daily routines. 51.3% check notifications as soon as they wake up, and the same share check for updates during the day even in the absence of alerts; 46.8% immediately read group chats to find out what is happening, 36.2% check what people they know are posting, and 29.9% interrupt other activities to look at notifications or updates. For 21.3%, sharing their mood online is important. About two in three say they can stay calm without immediately knowing what is happening online (67.6%) and can disconnect without discomfort (67.7%), pointing to a widespread ability to detach from digital technology – although it remains concerning that one in three Italians shows difficulty in this respect.
Among 18-24 year-olds, checking upon waking reaches 86%, checking without notifications 80.3%, immediately reading chats 73.2%, monitoring others’ posts 65.1% and interrupting other activities 58.1%. In the same bracket, 53.5% attach importance to sharing their mood online. Intensity declines progressively with age, confirming that for digital natives, connectivity is an integral part of daily life.
Trying to reduce phone use without succeeding affects 26.6% of the population and exceeds 40% among 18-34 year-olds. This is a significant indicator because it measures the gap between intention and behaviour: the person recognises the excess, tries to limit it, and is unable to maintain control.
Potentially problematic behaviours involve very large shares at least occasionally: 83.9% have used their smartphone longer than intended, 70.8% have felt they were wasting too much time online, 69.9% have used their phone during meals, 65.3% have felt anxious when the battery was low, 58.7% have felt unable to disconnect, 58.6% have felt restless when unable to check their smartphone, 57.5% have had trouble concentrating due to recurring thoughts about social media or chats, and 57.3% have used social media to relieve negative emotions. High frequencies (those answering “often” and “always”) apply to 36% for using their phone longer than intended, 29.2% for the sense of wasting time, 29.7% for low-battery anxiety, 27.6% for use during meals, and around 22-23% for difficulty concentrating, restlessness, emotional regulation and the inability to disconnect.
Among 18-24 year-olds, nearly all have experienced these behaviours at least occasionally: 97.7% have used their phone longer than intended, 93% have used their smartphone during meals, 91.9% have felt they were wasting time and the same share have used it to relieve negative emotions, 88.4% have had trouble concentrating, 86% have felt anxious about low battery, 84.9% have had trouble disconnecting and 83.7% have felt restless when unable to check their phone.
The phone invades time and places
The integration of the smartphone into everyday life also emerges from analysis of the contexts in which it is used. 66.7% use it in bed upon waking or before sleeping, 65.2% at the table when eating alone and 63.3% while watching television. 55% take it into the bathroom, 51.1% check it while walking, 50.5% use it for personal reasons during work, and 49.7% when out with friends; almost three in ten use it at the table in company (29.3%), 30.5% at traffic lights and 22.8% while driving.
Use during moments of rest and socialising is particularly widespread among young people: smartphone use in bed involves 87.2% of 18-24 year-olds, 89% of 25-34 year-olds and 83% of 35-44 year-olds; among the youngest, 79.1% check it while walking or during outings with friends, 51.2% at the table with other people and 40.7% while driving.
Social networks: between usefulness and risk
Opinions on social networks are ambivalent, reflecting both the advantages commonly attributed to these platforms and the risks associated with them. 80.5% believe they help stay in touch with friends, 77.7% that they allow people to stay informed about current events, 65.9% that they are useful for work, 58.2% that they foster new acquaintances, and 55.4% that they are a good pastime; at the same time, 79.9% think they lead to excessive use, 78.3% that anonymity fosters aggressive and offensive behaviour, 73.8% that they put privacy at risk, and 66.5% that they influence political views. 46.2% consider them a waste of time.
Awareness of risks becomes even sharper when it comes to content: 85.8% attribute to social media a role in spreading fake news, 76.3% in glorifying lifestyles based on wealth, appearance and superficiality, 75.8% in propagating harmful behavioural models, 74.9% in cyberbullying, and 63.9% in damaging social life.
This awareness does not reduce the platforms’ popularity: 79.6% are signed up to at least one social network, with shares of 95.3% among 18-24 year-olds and 60.1% among the over-64s. WhatsApp is used by 96.4% of members, Facebook by 67.5%, Instagram by 63%, YouTube by 45.6%, TikTok by 36.3%, Telegram by 32.2%, LinkedIn by 26.4% and X by 17.9%. The composition varies considerably with age: Instagram and TikTok mainly characterise younger age brackets, Facebook retains a stronger presence among adults and the elderly, LinkedIn reflects professional status, and WhatsApp maintains an almost universal role.
In practice, relational and informational activities predominate: 81.6% look at friends’ activity and photos, 78.1% chat, 74.3% seek information, 70.9% watch or listen to videos, 63.2% follow events and 62.3% comment on friends’ content. 58.1% share their own photos or videos, 53% share music, videos and links, 48.8% exchange opinions and 48.6% share what they are doing. 36.7% promote their own activity, 36.5% look for new acquaintances and 26.4% play games.
Judgement, social comparison and emotional experiences
Some users experience posting as a space for social evaluation: 60.4% express some degree of concern about others’ judgement when posting content online (26.2% more intensely), 55% fear negative evaluations (22.3% “quite a lot” or “a great deal”), 52.4% are afraid to express their own opinion (19.7% markedly), 63.6% frequently check the likes received on their posts, and about half the sample edit their posts out of fear of others’ reactions and feel discomfort when interactions are few. Women show greater sensitivity, with higher percentages than men experiencing these situations more intensely (“a great deal” and “quite a lot”): 32.2% worry about what others think, 27.8% fear negative judgement, 24.8% limit the expression of their own opinions and 41.6% check the feedback they receive.
Regarding feelings experienced while using social networks, comparing oneself with other people’s lives is felt intensely (“quite a lot” and “a great deal”) by about one user in five (19.9%), while the most widespread feelings are a sense of wasted time (40.5%) and loss of awareness of time (38.2%). 33.9% feel freer to express themselves and interact, 33.1% feel less alone, 30.9% feel a need to be constantly connected and the same share become anxious if they cannot be; 29.2% feel disconnected from the real world.
Among young people, these experiences reach much higher levels: among 18-24 year-olds, 74.4% lose track of time, 67% become anxious if they cannot connect, 65.8% feel freer to express themselves, 59.7% feel a constant need for connection, 58.5% feel they are wasting time, 53.7% feel less alone, 46.3% feel disconnected from the real world, and 45.1% feel inferior compared to the lives shown by others. Social media thus serve a function of belonging and expressive facilitation, but this very centrality can intensify comparison, fear of exclusion, and dependence on the flow of interactions. Feeling less alone and freer to express oneself does not, therefore, rule out distress and may, on the contrary, increase functional dependence on the platform when it becomes the main space in which to receive recognition, regulate emotions or experience relationships.
Group chats: bonds, continuity and social obligations
Group chats involve 69.1% of respondents and are slightly more widespread among women (71.6% versus 66.5%). 87.2% of 18-24 year-olds take part, along with 82.9% of 25-34 year-olds, 80.7% of 35-44 year-olds and 73.8% of 45-64 year-olds; among the over-64s, the share drops to 42.4%. The most common groups are among friends (78.6% of those in at least one chat) and within the immediate family (76.6%). These are followed by work (58.2%), extended family (50%), sport or hobbies (39.5%), parent groups (28.1%), study (27.9%) and neighbourhood or building groups (20.8%).
Chats maintain family and friendship bonds and coordinate daily activities, but they also create expectations of presence. 38.9% feel obliged to read all messages and 38.3% feel obliged to reply; 38.4% are disturbed by notifications during other activities and 37.5% feel the need to check their phone as soon as they receive an alert. 24.4% would like to leave certain chats but fear social consequences, and 18.6% avoid expressing their own opinion for fear of judgement.
These figures show how chats extend relationships beyond the times and places in which they would take place in person, turning silence or leaving the group into signals that others may interpret. The pressure remains moderate for most people, but for a significant share, reading, replying and checking become small, repeated obligations that fragment attention and make it harder to establish periods of unavailability.
Work and digital technologies: availability and technostress
Digital technology is by now structural to work: 48.2% carry out work that always requires intensive use of devices and applications, 28.4% need it on certain occasions, and only 23.4% are not significantly exposed. Physical presence remains the prevailing way of working (60.9%), but 32.8% work in a hybrid form and 6.3% work entirely remotely: overall, almost four workers in ten experience some form of smart working, at least in part.
Technology extends work beyond its formal hours: 77.3% of the sample check work emails or messages outside working hours at least occasionally, and 43.5% do so often or always. 75.2% reply during their free time, with 38.5% doing so frequently; 68.1% reply even during holidays, and 34.7% do so often or always. 71.1% have felt obliged to reply immediately at least occasionally, with 38% feeling this frequently; 72.9% have had difficulty mentally switching off, and 37.6% experience this often or always.
Exposure varies considerably by occupation. Frequent out-of-hours checking reaches 62.1% among managers and executives, 57.2% among self-employed professionals and 51.1% among the self-employed generally; among manual workers, 57.3% never do so. During free time, 60.7% of self-employed professionals reply frequently, along with 54.5% of entrepreneurs, 51.1% of the self-employed and 50% of managers. Availability during holidays is particularly marked among self-employed professionals (67.9%, with 30.4% always), followed by managers (48.3%) and entrepreneurs (45.5%). Frequent difficulty switching off mentally reaches 60.3% among managers and executives and 50% among self-employed professionals.
Overload does not depend only on time but also on the characteristics of digital technologies themselves: 37.6% feel burdened by the number of tools and platforms they need to use for work, 36.7% struggle to keep up with updates and new software, 35% believe that emails, notifications and calls undermine their concentration, and 39.3% feel mentally fatigued by the constant use of technology. At the same time, 59.6% believe they manage to separate work time from personal time, while 22.2% consider the time absorbed by video meetings excessive.
In the six months preceding the survey, 68.6% experienced symptoms of stress or fatigue related to professional technologies (headaches, eye strain, anxiety or other disorders) at least occasionally, and 33.8% experienced them often or always. Among those who always make intensive use of digital technology at work, 85% recorded at least one such episode and 46.2% recorded a high frequency; among those who do not use it intensively, these shares drop to 34.9% and 13.4%, a connection that highlights a very strong relationship between technological intensity, availability and perceived symptoms.
Digital wellbeing: little measurement, inconsistent strategies
Most people who use digital technologies do not know precisely how much time they spend online. Only 11.2% monitor it regularly through apps or settings, 52.9% have a rough idea, and 35.9% cannot quantify it at all. In other words, 88.8% lack precise measurement, despite the fact that many digital behaviours occur in a fragmented, automatic way and are therefore difficult to estimate from memory.
Self-regulation strategies are not widespread: 12.7% have adopted at least one, 30.4% have not but believe they should, while 56.9% think they do not need one. In younger and middle age groups, recognition of the need is higher. Some form of reduction has been tried by 19.8% of 18-24 year-olds, 17.8% of 25-34 year-olds and 19.9% of 35-44 year-olds; the share drops to 12.3% among 45-64 year-olds and to 4% among the over-64s. The response “I don’t do it, but I should” is given by 37.2% of the youngest respondents, 34.3% of 25-34 year-olds, 38% of 35-44 year-olds, 34.7% of 45-64 year-olds and 15.6% of the elderly.
The most commonly used practices are disabling notifications (27.9% of those who have adopted strategies) and using timers or app limits (27%); these are followed by defining device-free spaces and times, such as meals and family time (16.7%), periods of digital detox (11.6%) and pre-set periods of non-use (8.6%). The perceived effectiveness is generally positive: 36.3% say they achieved their goals and 44.4% achieved them at least in part; 8.9% continue using the strategies despite not finding them effective, and 10.4% have abandoned them.
The use of dedicated wellbeing apps remains marginal. Apps for monitoring digital wellbeing are used regularly by 4.3% and occasionally by 14.3%; 9.6% have tried and abandoned them, and 71.8% have never used them. Apps for mental wellbeing, breathing, meditation, sleep or digital journaling show similar figures: 4.5% regular use, 13.5% occasional use, 10.2% abandonment, and more than seven in ten who have never tried them. This suggests that awareness is often generic: many people sense they spend too much time online or think they should cut back, but do not translate this perception into verifiable goals and stable practices.
Sleep, algorithms and the perception of a problematic relationship
81.4% use devices in the hour before sleep at least occasionally, and 45.7% do so often or always, with very high percentages among 18-24 year-olds, of whom only 1.2% say they never do so; the “never” response rises progressively to 45.3% among the over-64s. The phone stays in the bedroom overnight for 77.5% of respondents: 23.3% keep it on with notifications active, 37.5% in silent or sleep mode, and 16.7% switched off; while 22.5% leave it in another room.
Users largely recognise algorithmic personalisation. 71.7% believe platforms show content consistent with their interests, and 56.3% believe they suggest new content capable of sparking curiosity. 29.7% attribute to them an influence on their opinions or mood. Among 18-24 year-olds, these shares rise to 91.9%, 73.3% and 60.5% respectively; among the over-64s, perception of personalised content drops to 49.6% and perceived influence to 17.4%. Young people thus show greater awareness of algorithmic mediation, but also stronger exposure to its emotional and cognitive effects.
Overall, 65.8% of the sample consider their relationship with digital technologies to be problematic to some degree. The highest levels of criticality reach 41.9% among 18-24 year-olds and 30.2% among 25-34 year-olds, declining in subsequent age brackets to 28.3% among the over-64s; however, in this age bracket, the share expressing the most extreme assessment is higher (10.2% “very problematic”), probably because some elderly people experience specific difficulties adapting.
10.4% of the sample have sought professional help for problems related to technology use (2.5% are currently in therapy and 7.9% have been in the past), while 20.8% have not done so but have thought about it. Overall, 31.2% have therefore had some contact with the issue of seeking help, at least as a possibility. Among 18-24 year-olds, the share rises to 43%, and among 25-34 year-olds to 38.4%; the majority, however, still believe they do not need it.
Areas of distress
Cross-referencing perceived problematicity with behaviour reveals a consistent profile. Those who consider their relationship with digital technology problematic check notifications upon waking more often than those who do not perceive a problem (56.5% versus 49.2%), look for updates even without alerts (61.4% versus 47.2%), interrupt other activities to check their phone (45.2% versus 23.6%), and have more frequently tried to reduce their use without succeeding (40.6% versus 21%). 46.9% of the critical group are unable to disconnect without discomfort, compared with 26.4% of those who do not perceive problems.
These relationships are also confirmed in questions about how often risky behaviours are adopted. Among those who describe their relationship as problematic, 51.5% often or always use their smartphone longer than intended, compared with 29.9% of the non-critical group; frequent difficulty concentrating affects 39.9% compared with 15.7%; restlessness when unable to check the phone affects 41.9% compared with 16%; using social media to relieve negative emotions affects 36.3% compared with 18.2%; anxiety over low battery and the feeling of wasting time affect 44.2% compared with 23.9% and 23.2% respectively; and difficulty disconnecting affects 39.6% compared with 15.7%.
In the critical group, 36.7% report a decline in psychological wellbeing, compared with 13.1% of those who do not perceive a problem; negative judgement about relationships rises from 8.4% to 20.2%, about productivity from 11.2% to 23.1%, about hobbies from 10% to 21.8%, and about quality of life from 10.6% to 27.4%. For some users, then, problematicity is not merely an abstract feeling but is accompanied by the perception of concrete consequences.
The relationship with social media is also more intense and ambivalent among those in the critical group: 46.7% feel disconnected from the real world, compared with 22.6% of others; 50.2% feel a constant need to be connected, compared with 23.7%; 48.9% feel less alone and 49.3% feel freer to express themselves, compared with 27.3% and 28.1% respectively. At the same time, 33.2% feel inferior compared with the lives shown by others, compared with 15%.
Despite signs of awareness, this rarely translates into an actual request for help: only 44.8%(*) of those who consider their relationship with digital technologies problematic do not believe they need help, while 5% are currently in therapy and 15.2% have been in the past, and 35% have thought about consulting a professional without doing so.
Some concluding remarks
The survey confirms that digital technology is now an ordinary dimension of experience, and that it would not be realistic to set an “online life” against a “real life”: work, relationships, information, services and entertainment take place continuously across both environments. The central issue, therefore, is not the presence of technology but the degree of autonomy with which it is used and the ability to recognise its benefits, costs and underlying mechanisms.
The main differentiating factor is age: younger age brackets show greater competence, intensity and variety of use, but also more automatic behaviours, social pressure, reliance on platforms to regulate emotions, and difficulty disconnecting. Older people are less involved, but more vulnerable in terms of skills, security and access to services. Educational attainment adds a further divide: a lack of digital skills reduces the ability to stay informed, learn, protect oneself and solve problems independently, turning the digital divide into a form of social exclusion.
Awareness of risks is high, but not sufficient to change behaviour. Despite recognising the risks of fake news, aggression, privacy violations, superficial role models and excessive use, Italians rarely monitor their time online and adopt few structured strategies.
At work, the culture of constant availability and rapid response appears to limit the right to disconnect, leading to forms of technostress especially among the most “connected” and digitalised professional categories, made worse by the difficulty of keeping pace with the rapid evolution of the technologies required for work.
Responsibility cannot be attributed solely to users and a presumed inability to self-regulate: the very architecture of digital platforms – infinite feeds, notifications, personalised recommendations, approval metrics and intermittent reinforcement – is designed to maximise engagement and time spent. What is needed, therefore, is greater algorithmic transparency, limits on persuasive practices, stronger protections for minors and vulnerable individuals, simple and default control tools, and platform accountability for harmful content and the consequences of their own recommendation systems.
In a context where digital technology is set to become even more pervasive in everyday human experience, the goal cannot be to limit or oppose the spread of digital technologies, but to govern their impact by reducing inequalities, protecting vulnerabilities and harnessing their potential. This is not a challenge that can be addressed through regulation alone, but a cultural and educational challenge that requires rethinking the relationship between innovation and wellbeing – equipping people, particularly the generations most immersed in the digital environment, with the cognitive, emotional and relational tools needed to experience the digital dimension with awareness, dignity and freedom.
