More and more people are online doing more and more things on more and more devices. As internet connectivity becomes ubiquitous, the psychological undercurrent of human experience—from living mostly analog to mostly digital lives—is getting assessed through a new school of thought: cyberpsychology. First, this article considers how digitalization affects civilian life and how those changes get assessed through cyberpsychology. Second, given the broad shifts in civil society, the discussion turns to whether there is a place for leveraging the philosophy behind cyberpsychology as a tool to broaden Department of Defense planning efforts, or to incorporate it as part of Target Audience Analysis, during cyber operations and information influence campaigns.
Seemingly overnight and almost while no one was paying attention, a large part of commerce (and the general workings of civil society) shifted from occurring within the parameters of physical brick and mortar to taking place over a .com domain. Packages arrived on doorsteps. At first, only a few and only every so often. Today, one can command the delivery of contact lenses, groceries, vehicles, and a myriad of nearly every other thing. Proxy voting is more expansively enabled than ever. Parking tickets can be paid in a portal and community council meetings are streamed. This shift found its way into homes as well. Homes now secured through digital security systems instead of something connected by landline to a physical person. Your doors, both front and garage, can be opened with an app installed on a phone, which is basically installed on your palm. The bits are in free flow and while people seem willing to adopt technical advances that make their lives easier, the background noise can be overwhelming.
To address this problem and to better understand how pervasive internet connectivity affects us–to help human minds grapple with the enormous change wrought by metamorphosis from analog to digital–a new field has emerged: cyberpsychology.[1] The New Jersey Institute of Technology defines it as:
the study of psychological processes related to, and underlying, all aspects and features of technologically interconnected human behavior. In other words, it’s the psychology of cyberspace that focuses on the intersection of technology and human behavior. This field explains how humans interact with each other in a virtual environment and the potential complications that may arise from it.[2]
The gap addressed by Cyberpsychology is an important one, perhaps even commensurate with the overall impact digitalization has had on our societies, social engagements, and ability to carry out ordinary acts of commerce. There are any number of interesting observations about people’s online behavior. For example, it is known to differ from their in-person norms fairly significantly.[3] It is more common to lie on the internet—about anything and everything—and there seems to be a general shift in behavior in part based on the perception of anonymity.[4] Exploring these trends further is beyond the scope here. What is important is that cyberpsychology has emerged as a field concerned with helping us filter the noise. It helps us think about the mental aftermath of moving most nearly every part of our lives to the internet. It considers the social gains, the networks of people, places, and ideas that may have never emerged but for massive internet connectivity. It thinks about the negatives as well; the potential for isolation and the many superficial social interactions it facilitates in favor of the few but deep and meaningful. At its heart, cyberpsychology’s goal is to help map how people, as creatures of the internet age, deal will the full weight of an ever-digital existence.
This broad societal digital transformation has not been lost on commercial organizations. Every company wishing to swim with the currents of modern commerce plans for how its presence in cyberspace will grow or shrink the brand, how it might influence its intended audience (through advertising and psyops alike) and where such effects might come to their natural conclusion. How it will capture and understand data no longer brings up the rear but leads the charge. To compete today demands a digital strategy. Civilians get the power of data and the importance of connectivity. Commercial organizations have demonstrated admirable agility in adapting to the internet age. For its part, the Department of Defense (and Executive Branch Agencies in general) has not waited in the wings for the importance of data to become clear. Like similarly sized commercial organizations, the DoD understands that: (1) everyone and everything is online and (2) there is substantial value in the data generated by that connectivity.
The question now is what to do with those top-level insights and observations. The Federal Government understands that data and internet connectivity are essential to modern warfighting. DARPA, DISA, DODIN—each of these has been and will continue to be an indispensable data steward, safeguard, and catalyst for how National Security works both in this Country and abroad. Data at all levels is an integral part of everything from force protection to operations planning—including cyber as a warfighting domain.[5] There are strategies and policies at all echelons to help the DoD and its Departments leverage data to develop better equipment and capabilities, to assess supply chain risk, and to lighten logistics and sustainment burdens.[6] This is to say nothing of battlefield intelligence and C2.
We are now quite comfortable having meaningful conversations on where and how a cyber attack or the use of offensive cyber weapons may be an act of war.[7] Gone are the days when the discussions were mostly an exercise in pure academia, where one of the most important questions was: kinetic effect: y/n. With the ‘yes’ falling within LOAC and the ‘no’ not rising to the threshold. On a modern battlefield, electronic means are deployed across the spectrum, to interrupt the enemy, to support one’s own troops, and to conduct information operations. Each has rules and is planned according to procedures implemented by scores of personnel. The staff that feeds the algorithm includes intel analysis, scores of operations and financial, legal counsel, and a plethora of others.
When planning military operations, incredible care is given to ends and means. Each move is measured against the military advantage to be gained and compared with expected collateral consequences. Each mission is tailored to meet the specific objectives of the commander. The availability of data–first party accounts of military maneuvers–from both combatants and civilians, requires a renewed focus on psyops and information influence campaigns.[8] More can be seen and captured than ever, bringing with it the power of influence over local populations in addition to enemy combatants.
In early 2024, the Army published a Technical Manual that outlines how it conducts Target Audience Analysis, an 8-step process designed to help operators think through and account for all the subtle variations in human motivation that need to be accounted for, and perhaps acted on, in a modern campaign.[9] In the Army’s words, the TM “provides detailed techniques and procedures that, in their whole, enable the conduct of influence activities by the Army Psychological Operations forces.” Here lies a potential injection point for cyberpsychology. Because of pervasive reliance on the internet, especially in a LSCO—Large Scale Combat Operations—environment, it may be time for planners to account for where electronic disruption to civilian and dual use infrastructure can, should, and may terminate on the modern battlefield as part of an overall Target Audience Analysis. As certain tools how shown, Stuxnet chief among them, it is sometimes difficult to know in advance where a specific cyber capability will end once released. Even if one was to know with precision, and plan for in advance, where specifically a digital capability would stop, there could be significant value to DoD planning efforts in accounting for a cyberpsychological perspective. How could disrupting signal in a particular area of operations affect the civilian population? What might that do to a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign. Could it provide leverage by catalyzing resistance movements? Could it break down dialogue between a task force and the population by interrupting daily habits? Is it more germane to COIN than LSCO? Layering cyberpsychology on top of traditional planning and LOAC during information influence and cyber operations could provide additional insights for and advantages to the command team.
There are a lot of good questions here—a key signal in suggesting there are also good problems. Effective staff work requires immense amounts of orchestration, coordinated by a conducting commander. Given the importance of data gathering, regression, and analysis married to who generates the data on a modern battlefield (hint: its not just enemy combatants, but is also open source, civilian-generated) could there be room for a slide in the planning deck for how a cyberpsycologist anticipates the population could and would respond to both the intended and unanticipated effects of a cyber maneuver? For now, the answer is at least worth further consideration.
CPT Matt Gimovsky is a Judge Advocate in the United States Army Reserve. He was called to Active Duty during the Army’s COVID response and is currently assigned as Defense Counsel with the 154th Legal Operations Detachment. As a civilian, he is a senior corporate legal advisor specializing in digital products and services and technology transactions.
[1] Ancis, J. R. (2020). The Age of Cyberpsychology: An Overview. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000009
[2] What is Cyberpsychology and Why is it Important? | New Jersey Institute of Technology (njit.edu)
[3] Adam N. Joinson, Chapter 4 – Disinhibition and the Internet, Editor(s): Jayne Gackenbach, Psychology and the Internet (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2007, Pages 75-92.
[4] Michelle Drouin, Daniel Miller, Shaun M.J. Wehle, Elisa Hernandez, Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet”, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 64, 2016, Pages 134-142
[5] Framework (defense.gov); Esper Describes DOD’s Increased Cyber Offensive Strategy > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News
[6] 2023 DOD Cyber Strategy Summary (defense.gov)
[7] Crossing the Line: The Law of War and Cyber Engagement (americanbar.org)
[8] https://www.jwc.nato.int/images/stories/threeswords/TAA.pdf
[9] https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/tm3-53-11.pdf
Want to support KTC another way? Click the icon below to buy a KTC sticker and help fund our programs.
Key Terrain Cyber is dedicated to the professional development of our cyber workforce and information warfare community. We offer all our programs at no cost to readers, including our professional journal, mentorship and fellowship programs, and information warfare memorial. Our team of unpaid volunteers work hard to keep this site running and appreciate any support you are willing to give us.
There are sevearal ways you can help us spark innovation, disseminate good ideas, and remember our fallen. You can donate to KTC via the paypal button or venmo graphic below and help us cover our operating costs. Buying Key Terrain Cyber merchandise from our webstore is another excellent way to show your support for our programs and look good in the process.
Interested in volunteering your time? Contact us at [email protected] if you want to learn more about becoming a volunteer, staff member, or senior fellow. Finally, you can thank our staff by using the button below to buy us a coffee or a beer.
