No CrossRef data available.
Digital environments reshaping children’s ecological affordance management: Hybrid ecologies, parallel strategies, and environmental shaping
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2026
Abstract
This study extends Ko and Neuberg’s affordance management theory to digital environments. Key findings include: (1) hybrid digital–physical ecologies alter attention and feedback mechanisms; (2) the parallelization of stages and strategies disrupts developmental sequences; and (3) the commercial logics of algorithms conflict with children’s needs for autonomous development. These mechanisms underscore critical challenges in child development in the digital age.
Information
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Rights Foundation. (2024). Pathways: How digital design puts children at risk. https://rightsfoundation.com/uploads/PathwaysReport.pdf
Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonanno, R. A., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., Ennis, H., Scott, S. D., & Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 770–777. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Li, H., Chen, A., Feng, T., Gao, X., Zhang, Z., & Long, C. (2005). The influence of color and texture similarity on child induction. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(2), 199–209.Google Scholar
Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. J., Lucherini, E., Mayer, J., Chetty, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359183
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, M. J., Schenck, K. E., Vinsonhaler, R., Michaelis, J. E., Swart, M. I., & Walkington, C. (2017). Embodied geometric reasoning: Dynamic gestures during intuition, insight, and proof. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 206–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1295369
Google Scholar
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K., & Reed, A. (2000). Recognizing emotion in faces: Developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.679
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Google Scholar
Subrahmanyam, K., & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-6278-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190498511.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836.10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Target article
Related commentaries (29)
A contingency management framework of ecological affordances across the lifespan
Affordance management’s cultural-ecological extensions outside of the West
Affordances are for life (and not just for maximizing reproductive fitness)
Edward Baggs
[Opens in a new window]Edward Baggs
, Guilherme Sanches de Oliveira
[Opens in a new window]Guilherme Sanches de Oliveira
, Miguel Segundo-Ortin
[Opens in a new window]Miguel Segundo-Ortin
, Paula Silva
[Opens in a new window]Paula Silva
, Vicente Raja
[Opens in a new window]Vicente Raja
and Anthony Chemero
[Opens in a new window]Anthony Chemero
Affordances in social ecologies: A biological markets extension
From life stages to micro-events: Ecological psychology and affordance management
Managing affordances in a complex world depends on social and cultural factors
The mind’s compass: semantic control as the guiding mechanism of affordance management
You have
Access
Ko and Neuberg’s affordance management framework articulates how ecological affordances are differentially perceived based on life stage-specific goals. Their research focuses on three evolutionary-relevant environmental dimensions – genetic relatedness, physical violence, and sex-age ratio – and explains how individuals manage these affordances through cognitive-affective attunement, psychological-behavioral strategies, and environmental restructuring. Building on their framework, we extend this approach to digital ecology as an emerging environmental variable, discussing three ways in which “physical–digital hybrid ecologies” profoundly affect children’s affordance perception and management.
Hybrid physical–digital ecologies and attention and feedback mechanisms
Hybrid physical–digital ecologies alter attention and feedback mechanisms. Contemporary children, once termed “digital natives” (Prensky, Reference Prensky2001), navigate simultaneously through physical and virtual environments across local and global communities. Digital platforms have introduced novel ecological affordances while reshaping how children perceive the physical world through algorithmic curation. In these hybrid ecologies, attention constantly shifts between multiple contexts, while engineered feedback loops deliberately shape behavior. Children must process numerous digital signals lacking physical referents, creating disconnections in perception–feedback–consequence loops. This disrupts traditional cognitive recalibration through experience-based abstraction, potentially affecting the development of accurate mental models of the world.
According to grounded cognition theory, abstract concept formation depends on multimodal interactions with the physical world (Barsalou, Reference Barsalou2008). Empirical studies demonstrate that manipulatives effectively promote the development of abstract reasoning (Li et al., Reference Li, Li, Chen, Feng, Gao, Zhang and Long2005; Nathan et al., Reference Nathan, Schenck, Vinsonhaler, Michaelis, Swart and Walkington2017). In contrast, digital environments may provide fewer opportunities for such embodied, multimodal interactions and can disrupt typical perception–feedback–consequence loops, potentially limiting opportunities for cognitive development. Furthermore, personalized recommendations and high-arousal content in digital interfaces tend to homogenize exposure to information, creating “filter bubbles” (Pariser, Reference Pariser2011) that reduce interaction with diverse contexts, thereby constraining the construction of knowledge about the world. Compounding these concerns, the development of executive functions – which requires the coordinated functioning of inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility (Diamond, Reference Diamond2013) – may also be challenged by digital environments. Heavy media multitaskers have been shown to exhibit increased task-switching costs (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, Reference Ophir, Nass and Wagner2009), suggesting that the frequent attention switching characteristic of digital media may interfere with cognitive control processes.
In summary, digital environments alter traditional connections between cognitive development and embodied experience, causing long-term disconnections between perception, feedback, and consequences. This likely means children’s development no longer follows previously established cognitive developmental patterns, resulting in fundamentally different ecological affordance perception and management strategies.
Stage-strategy parallelization disrupts developmental sequences
The metacontext and multitasking characteristics of hybrid physical–digital ecologies may lead individuals to perceive environmental affordances differently and to deploy multiple cognitive and behavioral strategies in parallel. This stands in marked contrast to Ko and Neuberg’s theoretical framework, which posits that strategy selection aligns with the priority goals characteristic of specific developmental stages. As a consequence, children encounter more complex and sometimes conflicting environmental demands and cognitive task requirements over the course of development.
For example, digital environments significantly alter Ko and Neuberg’s “sex-age ratio” ecological affordance. Unlike the clear, stable gender and age stratification in traditional physical environments (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner2005), digital platforms blur these boundaries, allowing individuals to collaborate anonymously with anyone or encounter cross-gender and cross-age identity expressions on social platforms. While this “disembodied” interaction expands social exploration spaces, it also weakens traditional role learning and sense of belonging construction based on sex-age, compelling individuals to develop multiple identity management strategies in parallel – such as experimenting with different personas across digital platforms (Subrahmanyam & Smahel, Reference Subrahmanyam and Smahel2011; Turkle, Reference Turkle2011; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, Reference Zhao, Grasmuck and Martin2008).
Similarly, compared to traditional physical violence perception discussed by Ko and Neuberg – where children exhibit high sensitivity to specific anger signals (Pollak et al., Reference Pollak, Cicchetti, Hornung and Reed2000), cyberbullying (digital threat information) lacks physical properties and immediate contextual cues, making it difficult to activate evolutionarily formed threat detection systems. Nevertheless, research indicates cyberbullying carries more significant psychological burdens (Bonanno & Hymel, Reference Bonanno and Hymel2013; Hamm et al., Reference Hamm, Newton, Chisholm, Shulhan, Milne, Sundar, Ennis, Scott and Hartling2015), suggesting digital ecologies create distinctive threat affordances that may not evoke evolutionary “fight or flight” responses but rather differential coping strategies.
This evidence indicates that digital environments not only reconstruct the ecological backdrop for individual development but also fundamentally alter how developmental tasks are presented and addressed. Individuals may not develop according to traditional stage theories but instead explore developmental paths in parallel through multiple identities and approaches, placing unprecedented demands on cognitive flexibility, emotional regulation, and social adaptation.
Algorithmic commercial logic conflicts with autonomous development needs
Unlike natural physical environments, digital ecologies are not neutral, spontaneously formed spaces but deliberately designed constructs based on specific purposes and flexible algorithms (Zuboff, Reference Zuboff2019). This constructive nature means digital environments inherently carry the intentions and value judgments of their designers, profoundly influencing individual behavior and cognition within them.
Two distinctly different types of digital ecologies can be distinguished: one aimed at promoting collaboration, education, and social welfare, committed to building open, just, and fair harmonious environments aligned with universal values of a “shared future for mankind” (Vallor, Reference Vallor2016) and the other employing “commercial dark patterns” primarily focused on maximizing user engagement and economic benefits, sometimes at the expense of deeper individual developmental needs (5Rights Foundation, 2024).
This ecological attribute divergence prompts a reevaluation of the essence of “agency” in individual–digital environment interactions. In positive ecologies, individuals can remain autonomous managers, developing cognition and personality through exploration, trial-and-error, and self-directed goal setting. In negative ecologies dominated by dark patterns (Mathur et al., Reference Mathur, Acar, Friedman, Lucherini, Mayer, Chetty and Narayanan2019), behavior is often reduced to “passive responses” to preset stimuli, with apparent interactive choices actually being algorithmically controlled outcomes. This reveals the risk of individual agency erosion in digital environments.
In conclusion, the emergence of physical–digital hybrid ecologies suggests that Ko and Neuberg’s affordance management framework may benefit from theoretical extensions to account for digital environments’ distinctive properties. While natural ecological dimensions have evolved over extended periods, designed digital environments introduce different affordance landscapes that potentially influence attention, feedback mechanisms, and developmental trajectories. Future research might explore how this framework could incorporate these digital dimensions to enhance our understanding of contemporary human development in increasingly hybrid ecological contexts.
Financial support
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research (grant number 21JZD063) and the Research Center for Brain Cognition and Human Development, Guangdong, China (grant number 2024B0303390003).
Competing interests
None.