SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 75

COMMUNICATION IN NEW MEDIA FROM A NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND NEUROETHICAL PERSPECTIVE: EMPATHY, MANIPULATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

NÖROBİLİMSEL VE NÖROETİK PERSPEKTİFTEN YENİ MEDYADA İLETİŞİM: EMPATİ, MANİPÜLASYON VE KARAR VERME SÜREÇLERİ

Dilek Turan Eroğlu(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1760-6127
Pages
387–399
Publication Date
2026-07-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, this study was conducted by reviewing the literature and using a qualitative compilation method in order to draw attention to the importance of ethical and neuroscientific awareness in order to make empathy sustainable in digital communication, to develop awareness against manipulation, and to protect individual decision freedom.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores how empathy, emotional manipulation, and decision-making mechanisms have evolved in the new media age within a neuroscientific and neuroethical context.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In other words, it examines relevant studies in the literature to understand the neuroscientific implications of social media use on empathy, manipulation, and decision-making processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, this study was conducted by reviewing the literature and using a qualitative compilation method in order to draw attention to the importance of ethical and neuroscientific awareness in order to make empathy sustainable in digital communication, to develop awareness against manipulation, and to protect individual decision freedom.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:iletişim · Nöroetik · Empati

Abstract

This study explores how empathy, emotional manipulation, and decision-making mechanisms have evolved in the new media age within a neuroscientific and neuroethical context. In other words, it examines relevant studies in the literature to understand the neuroscientific implications of social media use on empathy, manipulation, and decision-making processes. Emotional indicators such as gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voice, effective in traditional face-to-face communication, have been replaced in digital environments by algorithmic manipulation and virtual interactions. This transformation weakens individuals' empathic responses and leads them to make more automatic and impulsive decisions. Social media platforms, in particular, manipulate individuals' decision-making processes with content that targets the dopamine-based reward system to attract users' attention. In this context, we examine the neural basis of digital communication forms that lead to a loss of empathy, the erosion of decision-making freedom, and the blurring of ethical boundaries. Furthermore, the power of neurotechnologies and algorithmic content to manipulate individuals' attitudes is questioned from a neuroethical perspective. In conclusion, this study was conducted by reviewing the literature and using a qualitative compilation method in order to draw attention to the importance of ethical and neuroscientific awareness in order to make empathy sustainable in digital communication, to develop awareness against manipulation, and to protect individual decision freedom.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yeni medya çağında empati, duygusal manipülasyon ve karar verme mekanizmalarının nörobilimsel ve nöroetik bağlamda nasıl dönüştüğünü araştırmakta, bir başka deyişle sosyal medya kullanımının empati, manipülasyon ve karar verme süreçlerine yansımalarını nörobilimsel olarak anlamlandırmak üzere literatürde yer alan ilgili çalışmaları incelemektedir. Geleneksel yüz yüze iletişimde etkili olan jest, mimik ve ses tonu gibi duygusal göstergeler dijital ortamlarda yerini algoritmik düzenlemelere ve sanal etkileşimlere bırakmıştır. Bu dönüşüm, bireylerin empatik tepkilerini zayıflatmakta ve kararlarını daha otomatik, dürtüsel biçimlerde almalarına neden olmaktadır. Özellikle sosyal medya platformları, kullanıcıların dikkatini çekmek için dopamin temelli ödül sistemini hedef alan içeriklerle bireylerin karar süreçlerini manipüle etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, empati yitimine, karar verme özgürlüğünün aşınmasına ve etik sınırların belirsizleşmesine yol açan dijital iletişim biçimlerinin sinirsel temelleri incelenmiştir. Ayrıca nöro teknolojilerin ve algoritmik içeriklerin bireylerin tutumlarını yönlendirme gücü, nöroetik tartışmalar açısından sorgulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, dijital iletişimde empatiyi sürdürülebilir kılmak, manipülasyona karşı bilinç geliştirmek ve bireysel karar özgürlüğünü korumak amacıyla literatürü tarayarak nitel olarak derleme yöntemiyle yapılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eroğlu, D. T. (2026). COMMUNICATION IN NEW MEDIA FROM A NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND NEUROETHICAL PERSPECTIVE: EMPATHY, MANIPULATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 75, 387–399. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1756548

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
  2. Baymur, F. B. (2015). Genel Psikoloji. İnkılap Kitabevi.
  3. Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: A neurocognitive perspective. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1458- 1463. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1584
  4. Chapaux-Morelli, P., & Couderc, P. (2017). İkili ilişkilerde duygusal manipülasyon: Narsist bir partnerle yüzleşmek (9th ed.). İletişim Yayınları.
  5. Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures in empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713
  6. Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience, 32(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1159/000317771
  7. Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008
  8. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
  9. Doheny, M. M., & Lighthall, N. R. (2023). Social cognitive neuroscience in the digital age. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 17, Article 1168788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1168788
  10. Dores, A. R., Monteiro, A., Teixeira, A., & Carvalho, I. P. (2025). The effects of social feedback through the “like” feature on brain activity: A systematic review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13010089
  11. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Sadovsky, A. (2006). Empathy-related responding in children.In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 517–549). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Farah, M. J. (2005). Neuroethics: The practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001
  13. FeldmanHall, O., Dalgleish, T., Evans, D., & Mobbs, D. (2015). Empathic concern drives costly altruism. NeuroImage, 105, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.043
  14. Fischbach, G. D. (1992). Mind and brain. Scientific American, 267 (3), 48-57.
  15. Greely, H. T. (2008). Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. University of Kansas Law Review, 56, 1103–1138.
  16. Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin Press.
  17. Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9
  18. Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2007
  19. Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003
  20. Iacoboni, M. (2009). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. Picador.
  21. Illes, J., & Sahakian, B. J. (Eds.). (2011). Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford University Press.
  22. Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2011). Me, my “self” and you: Neurobiological relations between social and physical pain and empathy. In J. Decety (Ed.), Empathy: From bench to bedside (pp. 29–42). MIT Press.
  23. Keen, S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. Oxford University Press.
  24. Keleş, E., & Çepni, S. (2006). Beyin ve öğrenme. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 66-82. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/494?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  25. Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.1.42
  26. Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. NeuroImage, 54(3), 2492–2502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014
  27. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press.
  28. Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Mertz, C. K. (2016). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLOS ONE, 6(3), e17571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017571
  29. Meshi, D., Morawetz, C., & Heekeren, H. R. (2013). Nucleus accumbens response to gains in reputation for the self relative to gains for others predicts social media use. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00439
  30. Montague, P. R. (2006). Why choose this book? How we make decisions. Dutton.
  31. Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018
  32. Racine, E. (2010). Pragmatic neuroethics: Improving treatment and understanding of the mind-brain. MIT Press.
  33. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
  34. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0
  35. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron, 35(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00763-8
  36. Sabour, S., Liu, J. M., Liu, S., Yao, C. Z., Cui, S., Zhang, X., Zhang, W., Cao, Y., Bhat, A., Guan, J., Wu, W., Mihalcea, R., Wang, H., Althoff, T., Lee, T. M. C., & Huang, M. (2025). Human decision-making is susceptible to AI-driven manipulation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.07663
  37. Sherman, L. E., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., & Dapretto, M. (2018). What the brain ‘likes’: Neural correlates of providing feedback on social media. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13(7), 699–707. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx094
  38. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535
  39. Slavich, G. M., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Taylor, S. E. (2010). Neural sensitivity to social rejection is associated with inflammatory responses to social stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(33), 14817–14822. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009164107
  40. Ulman, Y. İ., Çakar, T., & Yıldız, G. (2015). Ethical issues in neuromarketing: “I consume, therefore I am!”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1271–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9581-5
  41. Wikman, P., Moisala, M., Ylinen, A., Lindblom, J., Leikas, S., Salmela-Aro, K., Lonka, K., Güroğlu, B., Alho, K., & … (2022). Brain responses to peer feedback in social media are modulated by valence in late adolescence. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 16, 790478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.790478
  42. Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. (2010). Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(15), 6753–6758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914826107