Beyond ‘brain rot’ from short form video feeds

Short form video feeds limit our ability to choose which action to take, and to act accordingly; or in the words of one feed’s creators: it “limits user agency” (e.g. Tik Tok).

Digging into early research on social media consumption and “brain rot,” this Howtown documentary explains how scrolling through short form videos limits our capacity to focus our interest, and to remember things we are supposed to do in the future.

Although this documentary focuses on the negative impacts on cognition, as viewers who are attentive to emotions, we noticed that “feelings” were also addressed in research it covered. In a systematic review of over 71 studies, researchers found poorer mental health – especially heightened stress and anxiety – associated with short form video feed use.

Beyond that, drawing on the EQ-i 2.0 model of emotional intelligence, we noticed that emotional intelligence skills cut across both the cognition and mental health categories in the research:

• Impulse control may be treated as a matter of cognition, as an executive function of the brain.  And as an emotional intelligence skill, reduced impulse control means that our usual strategies for resisting the temptation to do something won’t work (e.g. setting a time limit on scrolling through short form videos).
• Independence: Emotional dependency on short form video feeds – for little bites of dopamine, for instance – reduces our ability to self-direct, and interferes with day-to-day decision-making, planning and action.

With less impulse control and independence, we cannot rely on “willpower” to stop scrolling through short-form video feeds. This is just to put the documentary’s conclusions in a different language. 

Rather than getting stuck on cognitive limits, considering the problem in terms of emotional intelligence opens up pathways to reclaiming our agency. 

What other emotional intelligence skills can we draw on, to focus our interest and follow through on things? Social responsibility? Reality testing? Empathy? Interpersonal relationships?

Howtown sources

“’Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness’: managing multiple working spheres” by Gonzales and Mark (2004)

Is there a Flynn effect for attention? Cross-temporal meta-analytical evidence for better test performance (1990–2021) by Andrzejewki et al. Personality and Individual Differences (2024)

“Feeds, feelings, and focus: A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the cognitive and mental health correlates of short-form video use” by Nguyen et al. Psychological Bulletin (2025)

“Swiping more, thinking less: Using TikTok hinders analytic thinking” by Jiang and Ma. CyberPsychology (2024)

“Short-form videos degrade our capacity to retain intentions: Effect of context switching on prospective memory” by Chiossi et al.  Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023)

“Context-switching in short-form videos: What is the impact on prospective memory?” by Barton and Smyth. Memory (2025)

“Attention Span: A Groundbreaking Way to Restore Balance, Happiness and Productivity” by Gloria Mark (2023)

“Kentucky’s TikTok lawsuit revealed executives knew about app’s effect on teens” by Sylvia Goodman, Kentucky Public Radio (2024)

“More than a dozen states sue TikTok, alleging it harms kids and is designed to addict them” by Bobby Allyn, NPR (2024)

“14 attorneys general sue TikTok, say app exploits young users and promotes addictive use,” CBS News (2024)

“You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish,” Time (2015) 

“Is your attention span shorter than a goldfish’s?” by The Wall Street Journal (2017)

The Phaedrus of Plato via the Internet Archive (p. 136)

“A Study of Analogy” by John Burroughs, The Atlantic Monthly (1891)

“In 1858, People Said the Telegraph Was ‘Too Fast for the Truth’” by Adrienne LaFrance. The Atlantic (2014)

“Pioneering Psychologist William James on Attention, Multitasking, and the Mental Habit That Sets Great Minds Apart,” by Maria Popova. The Marginalian, 2016

The Principles of Psychology, Vol 1. by William James, 1891