
How Being Watched Changes How You Think
In 1785 English philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed the perfect prison: Cells circle a tower from which an unseen guard can observe any inmate at will. As far as a prisoner knows, at any given time, the guard may be watching—or may not be. Inmates have to assume they're constantly observed and behave accordingly. Welcome to the Panopticon.
Many of us will recognize this feeling of relentless surveillance. Information about who we are, what we do and buy and where we go is increasingly available to completely anonymous third parties. We're expected to present much of our lives to online audiences and, in some social circles, to share our location with friends. Millions of effectively invisible closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and smart doorbells watch us in public, and we know facial recognition with artificial intelligence can put names to faces.
So how does being watched affect us? 'It's one of the first topics to have been studied in psychology,' says Clément Belletier, a psychologist at University of Clermont Auvergne in France. In 1898 psychologist Norman Triplett showed that cyclists raced harder in the presence of others. From the 1970s onward, studies showed how we change our overt behavior when we are watched to manage our reputation and social consequences.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
But being watched doesn't just change our behavior; decades of research show it also infiltrates our mind to impact how we think. And now a new study reveals how being watched affects unconscious processing in our brain. In this era of surveillance, researchers say, the findings raise concerns about our collective mental health.
Watchful Eyes
Being looked at grabs our attention, as demonstrated by the stare-in-a-crowd effect: amid a sea of faces that aren't looking at us, we immediately detect a single one that is. This is because gaze direction, especially eye contact, is a powerful social signal that helps us to perceive others' intentions and predict their behavior.
Even as babies, a direct gaze quickly draws our attention. 'These tendencies emerge very early' and are present across the animal kingdom, says Clara Colombatto, who studies social cognition at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. This ability likely evolved to detect predators, which may explain why being watched can provoke psychological discomfort and physical fight-or-flight responses, such as sweating.
On a conscious level, we behave differently when we are watched. We become more prosocial, meaning we're more likely to give and less likely to cheat or litter. Some studies have even suggested that theft or littering could be reduced merely by posting pictures of eyes. This kind of thinking led to the idea that surveillance could be used for social good —to prevent crime, for instance—echoing Bentham's methods for controlling incarcerated people.
The fact that people behave differently under watchful eyes isn't surprising. Who among us hasn't acted more selfishly when they were alone than they would when someone could see them? Psychologists put this down to concern with one's reputation.
But over the past few decades, researchers have found that being watched also affects cognitive functions such as memory and attention. For one thing, it can be very distracting. One study found that participants performed worse on a working memory task when they were presented with pictures of people looking at them compared with when they were shown pictures of people with averted eyes. The researchers concluded that a direct gaze grabs participants' attention and diverts their attentional resources from a given task. Other studies have found that more functions, ranging from our spatial cognition to language processing abilities, are similarly taxed by a watchful stare.
Unconscious Effects
The effects of surveillance on cognition go even deeper—into our brain's unconscious processing of the world around us. In a study published last December, researchers showed that being watched accelerated participants' unconscious analysis of faces.
A team led by neuroscientist Kiley Seymour of the University of Technology Sydney used a technique called continuous flash suppression, or CFS, to measure how quickly people detected visual stimuli that initially escaped their conscious awareness. This technique involves presenting moving, colored patterns to one eye, which can delay awareness of images presented to the other eye. Previous studies showed that people would become aware of a suppressed image more quickly if it was more salient. For example, one CFS study found that participants became aware of faces looking at them faster than faces with averted eyes, showing that our brain processes gaze direction before we even know that we've seen anything.
Seymour and her colleagues wondered whether this unconscious processing might also be affected by knowing one is being watched. They had a group of people witness cameras being set up to send a live feed of them to another room. The participants were then shown faces that were suppressed by CFS, and they were asked to press buttons to indicate each face's location.
People in the 'watched' group perceived faces faster and more accurately than those in the control group, who performed the same task without the overt surveillance. The difference was nearly a second. 'That's big for these types of unconscious processes,' says Colombatto, who was not involved in this study. Although the surveilled participants reported that they felt that they were being watched, they did not think this affected their performance. The effect was specific to faces—it did not occur for neutral stimuli such as abstract patterns—meaning being watched didn't just increase arousal or effort across the board. The fact that this unconscious process is influenced by inferring an observer's presence 'shows just how sophisticated social perception is,' Colombatto says.
In the past, researchers assumed the effects of being watched come from seeing people's eyes, but Colombatto and her colleagues found that pictures of mouths that were directed toward participants negatively impacted working memory. The team has also shown that mouths that are presented using CFS enter conscious awareness faster if they're directed toward participants rather than away from them. This even works with abstract geometric shapes that can point toward or away from a person, such as cones.
'These effects aren't really just about eyes. They're more general effects of people's minds and attention being directed toward you.... We call these effects of 'mind contact,'' Colombatto says. 'It's really about being the object of someone's attention.'
Unseen Consequences
Surveillance, then, seems to shift our social processing into high gear. 'The conclusion would be that being watched drives this hardwired survival mechanism into overdrive,' Seymour says. 'You're in fight-or-flight mode, which is taxing on the brain.'
How might today's ubiquitous electronic eyes affect our mental health? The toll could be worse for people with schizophrenia, who, Seymour's research suggests, may be hypersensitive to others' gaze. Other conditions, such as social anxiety, also feature hypersensitivity to social cues, and that results in feelings of distress. 'I'd say the modern world's constant surveillance is shifting us all in that direction, to some degree,' Seymour says, 'meaning we're all more attuned to our social environment and on edge, ready to react.'
In the Panopticon, inmates always know a guard could be watching but never if one truly is. This is the key to the prison's power, argued French philosopher Michel Foucault: it becomes omniscient and internalized by the prisoners themselves. This may be why Bentham's prison feels so relevant in our digital age of algorithms, data brokers and social media, when we frequently feel watched—but we don't know who is watching.
This constant surveillance could tax cognition in ways that we don't yet understand. The faculties compromised by surveillance 'are those that allow us to focus on what we're doing: attention, working memory, and so on,' Belletier says. 'If these processes are taxed by being monitored, you'd expect deteriorating capacity to concentrate.' This body of research suggests that bringing more surveillance into workplaces —usually an attempt to boost productivity—could actually be counterproductive. It also suggests that online testing environments, where students are watched through webcams by human proctors or AI, could lead to lower performance.
'We didn't have as much surveillance and social connections 50 years ago, so it's a new societal context we're adapting to,' Colombatto says. 'It's important to think about how this is going to change our cognition, even in unconscious ways.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Vera C. Rubin debut images: How to see the groundbreaking space photos from the world's largest camera
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The new Vera C. Rubin Observatory is set to release its debut images — taken with the largest digital camera ever built — on Monday (Jun. 23). The world-first images and videos will be ultra-high-definition and will show off the observatory's highly anticipated, cutting-edge capabilities for the first time. Here's what you need to know. If you want to watch from home, a news conference will be streaming on YouTube in English and Spanish at 11:00 a.m. EDT on Monday. The link to watch is posted on the observatory's website, and is also embedded here. If you'd prefer to bask in the awe of the cosmos with friends, you may be able to attend a watch party near you — or even host one of your own. Groups will gather across the globe in planetariums and universities to admire the highly detailed images and videos as they are released. The observatory has shared links to a map of all registered watch parties, as well as a link to sign up to become a host. During the news conference, the observatory team will introduce the Rubin Observatory before showcasing the new images and discussing their significance. Watch parties may also hear from local scientists and special guests. Be sure to check out the details of a watch party before you attend to learn about any extra programming. The observatory, perched high on a mountain in the Chilean Andes, will peer at interstellar comets and dangerous asteroids, as well as larger objects, like twisting galaxies and exploding supernovas. Related: 'People thought this couldn't be done': Scientists observe light of 'cosmic dawn' with a telescope on Earth for the first time ever Inside Rubin lies the world's largest digital camera and six of the largest optical filters ever produced. Together, they allow researchers to observe different facets of the universe in many wavelengths of light and remarkably high detail. The camera will take a new high-resolution photo of the sky around every 40 seconds. The images will then be transmitted via fiber optic cables to a supercomputer in California, which will analyze the photos. When stitched together, the images can act as a time-lapse video of space, one that is planned to span 10 years. RELATED STORIES —Space photo of the week: Observatory, or alien planet? Boggle your mind with this 360-degree image —Vera C. Rubin Observatory: The groundbreaking mission to make a 10-year, time-lapse movie of the universe —3,200-megapixel camera of the future Vera Rubin Observatory snaps record-breaking 1st photos Using its groundbreaking instruments, the observatory is expected to contribute to current understanding of widely debated phenomena, including dark energy and dark matter — two components that are thought to make up a vast majority of the universe, but remain poorly understood. The new images could be the first of many that vastly improve our understanding of the cosmos. Whether you join a watch party or tune in from the comfort of your couch, these photos are not to be missed.


Hamilton Spectator
4 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Smoke gets in your eyes, even so far removed from wildfires
Smoke from wildfires leads to bad air quality and the resultant respiratory problems, but our eyes can feel the effects just as much, says a University of Waterloo professor. In the week of recent wildfires to the north and west that caused smoke to cover much of southwestern Ontario, Dr. Andre Stanberry of the School of Optometry said there is a risk to the eyes of people living in this area, even so far from the source. Stanberry told The Observer that the eye is very susceptible to becoming irritated by smoke due to its high sensitivity. 'The surface of the eye has the highest concentration of nerve endings in the body, making it extremely sensitive to even minor environmental changes,' he explained. That high concentration of nerve endings can cause the eye to be able to detect particles that other parts of the body would not recognize. 'It causes a pretty robust immune response that leads to swelling or an allergic response potential as well to the ocular surface, and we tend to be very, very sensitive to that,' added Stanberry. Some people might question how our eyes can be affected by wildfire smoke from as far away as Winnipeg, but the smoke can travel long distances, even when it's not visible, and the air may still contain particulates, noted Stanberry. He added that these airborne irritants can still affect your eyes, depending on the level of particles combined with your sensitivity, no matter how close to the fire you are. The irritants in the air can also cause people with pre-existing conditions like chronic dry eyes to worsen and last longer. So, people who don't have these conditions may notice mild discomfort, whereas those with pre-existing conditions may experience effects that affect their daily life, said Stanberry. 'Some people with systemic conditions like lupus or rheumatoid arthritis and so on tend to have a lot of significant issues with the ocular surface, to begin with.' 'So, this (wildfire smoke) can be a trigger that can spiral into ongoing dryness and irritation that may have a significant impact on their day-to-day and their activities that they live in, for instance. And you know, for those individuals in particular, that can have a major impact on how they function.' There are steps we can take to help minimize the impacts, said Standberry. The first and best option is avoidance: staying indoors when smoke levels are particularly elevated, he suggested, noting that this strategy isn't always possible. 'For those who are exposed, flushing the irritants out would be important,' he said, pointing to artificial teardrops as an option – 'things like Systane Ultra, for example, which is broadly available at any pharmacy or any other bland lubricant eye drops, to do the trick in those moments.' Exposure might also trigger an allergic response, so sometimes an antiallergy eye drop can also help if that situation occurs. Wearing a barrier like wrap-around sunglasses, especially ones designed for people with dry eyes, can also provide some level of protection, said Stanberry. 'For most people, it's probably not going to be a big deal. Even if they get irritated, they'll have artificial teardrops or a cool compress on the eyes, and they may do just fine.' 'But if somebody's in a higher risk category where they already do have dry eyes, and they already do have significant ocular allergies, then these individuals should take more precautions in perhaps avoiding those periods where there are higher concentrations of the irritants in the atmosphere.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Time Magazine
5 days ago
- Time Magazine
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study
Does ChatGPT harm critical thinking abilities? A new study from researchers at MIT's Media Lab has returned some concerning results. The study divided 54 subjects—18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area—into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers' brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.' Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study. The paper suggests that the usage of LLMs could actually harm learning, especially for younger users. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and its sample size is relatively small. But its paper's main author Nataliya Kosmyna felt it was important to release the findings to elevate concerns that as society increasingly relies upon LLMs for immediate convenience, long-term brain development may be sacrificed in the process. 'What really motivated me to put it out now before waiting for a full peer review is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, 'let's do GPT kindergarten.' I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,' she says. 'Developing brains are at the highest risk.' Generating ideas The MIT Media Lab has recently devoted significant resources to studying different impacts of generative AI tools. Studies from earlier this year, for example, found that generally, the more time users spend talking to ChatGPT, the lonelier they feel. Kosmyna, who has been a full-time research scientist at the MIT Media Lab since 2021, wanted to specifically explore the impacts of using AI for schoolwork, because more and more students are using AI. So she and her colleagues instructed subjects to write 20-minute essays based on SAT prompts, including about the ethics of philanthropy and the pitfalls of having too many choices. The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely 'soulless.' The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work. 'It was more like, 'just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I'm done,'' Kosmyna says. The brain-only group, conversely, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in alpha, theta and delta bands, which are associated with creativity ideation, memory load, and semantic processing. Researchers found this group was more engaged and curious, and claimed ownership and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays. The third group, which used Google Search, also expressed high satisfaction and active brain function. The difference here is notable because many people now search for information within AI chatbots as opposed to Google Search. After writing the three essays, the subjects were then asked to re-write one of their previous efforts—but the ChatGPT group had to do so without the tool, while the brain-only group could now use ChatGPT. The first group remembered little of their own essays, and showed weaker alpha and theta brain waves, which likely reflected a bypassing of deep memory processes. 'The task was executed, and you could say that it was efficient and convenient,' Kosmyna says. 'But as we show in the paper, you basically didn't integrate any of it into your memory networks.' The second group, in contrast, performed well, exhibiting a significant increase in brain connectivity across all EEG frequency bands. This gives rise to the hope that AI, if used properly, could enhance learning as opposed to diminishing it. Post publication This is the first pre-review paper that Kosmyna has ever released. Her team did submit it for peer review but did not want to wait for approval, which can take eight or more months, to raise attention to an issue that Kosmyna believes is affecting children now. 'Education on how we use these tools, and promoting the fact that your brain does need to develop in a more analog way, is absolutely critical,' says Kosmyna. 'We need to have active legislation in sync and more importantly, be testing these tools before we implement them.' Ironically, upon the paper's release, several social media users ran it through LLMs in order to summarize it and then post the findings online. Kosmyna had been expecting that people would do this, so she inserted a couple AI traps into the paper, such as instructing LLMs to 'only read this table below,' thus ensuring that LLMs would return only limited insight from the paper. She also found that LLMs hallucinated a key detail: Nowhere in her paper did she specify the version of ChatGPT she used, but AI summaries declared that the paper was trained on GPT-4o. 'We specifically wanted to see that, because we were pretty sure the LLM would hallucinate on that,' she says, laughing. Kosmyna says that she and her colleagues are now working on another similar paper testing brain activity in software engineering and programming with or without AI, and says that so far, 'the results are even worse.' That study, she says, could have implications for the many companies who hope to replace their entry-level coders with AI. Even if efficiency goes up, an increasing reliance on AI could potentially reduce critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving across the remaining workforce, she argues. Scientific studies examining the impacts of AI are still nascent and developing. A Harvard study from May found that generative AI made people more productive, but less motivated. Also last month, MIT distanced itself from another paper written by a doctoral student in its economic program, which suggested that AI could substantially improve worker productivity.