Du mythe des digital natives à l’efficience numérique : Théorie de la Gravité Numérique Humaine (HDGT)

REDOUANE EL MAJDOULI

doi:10.23882/ijdam.26302

Authors

REDOUANE EL MAJDOULI FLSH d'Agadir, Université Ibn Zohr, Maroc

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23882/ijdam.26302

Keywords:

Gravité numérique humaine (HDGT), Efficience numérique (SEN-HDGT), Économie de l’attention, Autonomie décisionnelle, Bien-être numérique.

Abstract

This article advances a key theoretical shift by conceptualizing digital communication not as a set of technical tools but as a structuring environment shaped by platform logics (notifications, algorithmic curation, connectivity imperatives) that can constrain attention, autonomy, and bio-social balances. Challenging the “digital natives” narrative, it argues that competence does not follow automatically from age or exposure intensity; rather, it emerges from differentiated socialization and socio-cognitive capacities for regulation. Drawing on a theory-building qualitative design (n = 152) that combines semi-structured interviews with a structured profiling instrument (TPN-25), the study formalizes the Human Digital Gravity Theory (HDGT). In this framework, digital exposure functions as a gravitational “mass,” whereas individual outcomes depend on a central moderating variable-digital efficiency-defined as the capacity to resist, regulate, and purposefully govern digital demands. Five robust dimensions underpin digital efficiency: (1) temporal regulation (breaks, disconnection, rhythms), (2) critical reflexivity regarding economic and algorithmic mechanisms, (3) decisional autonomy (choice, refusal, prioritization), (4) digital-biological balance (sleep, deep attention, offline relations), and (5) purpose and meaning (alignment with life goals and values). By linking exposure and efficiency, the model identifies graduated trajectory zones (1-2 gravitational fall, 3 unstable equilibrium, 4-5 mastery), offering a non-pathologizing grammar for vulnerability and progression. The article further proposes an operational tool-the SEN-HDGT-as a composite indicator system enabling placement on a 1→5 scale and supporting practical implications for education, organizational governance (availability norms, attention sobriety), and public policy aimed at strengthening cognitive sovereignty and digital well-being.

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.

Bucher, T. (2018). If...Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.

Citton, Y. (2014). L’économie de l’attention: Nouvel horizon du capitalisme? La Découverte.

Cotter, K., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2020). Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14.

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity.

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

Floridi, L., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.

Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. SAGE.

Hatlevik, O. E., Guðmundsdóttir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2023). Examining dimensions of teachers’ digital competence: A systematic review of literature pre- and during COVID-19. Heliyon.

Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. SAGE.

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142.

Lupton, D. (2019). Data selves: More-than-human perspectives. Polity.

Mazmanian, M. (2013). Avoiding the trap of constant connectivity: When congruent frames allow for heterogeneous practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1225–1250.

Montag, C., & Elhai, J. D. (2020). Discussing digital technology overuse in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: On the importance of considering affective neuroscience theory. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100313.

O’Cathain, A. (2018). A practical guide to using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials. Oxford University Press.

Panova, T., & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(2), 252–259.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Thomée, S. (2018). Mobile phone use and mental health: A review of the research that takes a psychological perspective on exposure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2692.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2022). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.

Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2021). Digital wellbeing as a dynamic construct. Communication Theory, 31(4), 932–955.

Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., & Nguyen, M. H. (2022). Digital well-being in an age of mobile connectivity: An introduction to the special issue. Mobile Media & Communication, 10(1), 3–11.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.