Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions

Article (PDF Available)inJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 78 · November 2017with 1,001 Reads
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007
Using a field experiment and experience sampling, we found the first evidence that phone use may undermine the enjoyment people derive from real world social interactions. In Study 1, we recruited over 300 community members and students to share a meal at a restaurant with friends or family. Participants were randomly assigned to keep their phones on the table or to put their phones away during the meal. When phones were present (vs. absent), participants felt more distracted, which reduced how much they enjoyed spending time with their friends/family. We found consistent results using experience sampling in Study 2; during in-person interactions, participants felt more distracted and reported lower enjoyment if they used their phones than if they did not. This research suggests that despite their ability to connect us to others across the globe, phones may undermine the benefits we derive from interacting with those across the table.
Figures - uploaded by Kostadin Kushlev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kostadin Kushlev
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage:
Case Report
Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions
Ryan J. Dwyer
, Kostadin Kushlev
, Elizabeth W. Dunn
Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, 485 McCormick Road Gilmer Hall, Room 102, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States
Mobile phones
Social interaction
Using a eld experiment and experience sampling, we found the rst evidence that phone use may undermine
the enjoyment people derive from real world social interactions. In Study 1, we recruited over 300 community
members and students to share a meal at a restaurant with friends or family. Participants were randomly as-
signed to keep their phones on the table or to put their phones away during the meal. When phones were present
(vs. absent), participants felt more distracted, which reduced how much they enjoyed spending time with their
friends/family. We found consistent results using experience sampling in Study 2; during in-person interactions,
participants felt more distracted and reported lower enjoyment if they used their phones than if they did not.
This research suggests that despite their ability to connect us to others across the globe, phones may undermine
the benets we derive from interacting with those across the table.
Decades of research on human happiness points to one central con-
clusion: Engaging in positive social interactions is critical for well-being
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Epley & Schroeder, 2014; Kahneman, Krueger,
Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004; Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014). But the
current technological revolution may be altering how and when we derive
these benets. Smartphones enable us to connect with friends and family
throughout the day, potentially allowing us to reap the benets of social
interactions even when we are alone. Could these deviceswith their
ability to connect us with anyone, anywheredistract us from enjoying
interactions with the people sitting right next to us?
In a recent Pew study, almost 90% of cell phone owners reported using
their phones during their most recent social activity (Pew Research Center,
2015). Multi-tasking by using phones may be a major source of distraction
in daily life, leaving people unable to concentrate fully on their primary
activity. For example, using phones while driving is comparable to driving
drunk (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006), using phones in the classroom
has been shown to impede learning (Wood et al., 2012), and frequent
notications via phones can increase symptoms of inattention associated
with ADHD (Kushlev, Proulx, & Dunn, 2016). Theoretically, distraction
should also reduce the ability to derive pleasure from positive experiences
(Brown & Ryan, 2003; Quoidbach, Berry, Hansenne, & Mikolajczak,
2010). Several studies lend support to this contention (e.g.,
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; LeBel & Dubé, 2001), although this idea has not
been tested directly. In addition to increasing distraction, phones may
compromise the benets of social interactions by increasing perceived
opportunity costs; texting a romantic partner during lunch with friends or
other things they want or need to be doing. Thus, researchers have the-
their immediate social environment, potentially decreasing enjoyment of
social interactions (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012; Srivastava, 2005). In
sum, by increasing feelings of distraction or perceived opportunity costs,
smartphone use may undermine the emotional benets people derive from
social interactions.
It is also possible, however, that phone use could play a positive role in
social interactions. When a conversation lags or turns to dull topics,
smartphones could provide reliable access to an array of brief engaging
activities. Researchers have theorized that engaging one's attention with
desired stimuli should decrease boredom, speed the passage of time, and
promote a sense of agency (for a review, see Eastwood, Frischen, Fenske, &
Smilek, 2012). By allowing us to engage our attention with an array of
stimuli on demand, therefore, phones may decrease boredom, make time
pass more quickly, and give us a greater sense of control.
There is abundant speculation about the possible eects of phones
on social interactions (Turkle, 2012, 2015), but research examining
how phone use shapes the benets people derive from social interac-
tions is in its infancy. Using correlational analyses, recent studies have
documented a negative relationship between the presence of phones
Received 14 March 2017; Received in revised form 15 October 2017; Accepted 15 October 2017
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant H08-02739 awarded to Elizabeth Dunn.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: (R.J. Dwyer).
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
0022-1031/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Dwyer, R., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2017),
and the quality of social interactions (Brown, Manago, & Trimble, 2016;
Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2014; Rotondi, Stanca, & Tomasuolo,
2017), and these studies are supported by similar ndings in the lab
(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012; Vanden Abeele, Antheunis, & Schouten,
2016). However, no research has experimentally manipulated phone
use in the real world, and research has yet to document the psycholo-
gical mechanisms underlying the eects of phone use on the rewards
derived from social interactions.
Thus, in Study 1, we conducted a eld experiment in which we
manipulated phone use during a central social activitysharing a meal
out with friends and family. In Study 2, we used experience sampling to
capture the relationship between phone use and well-being across a
wider range of social contexts over the course of a week. In both stu-
dies, we examined whether and how phone use aects the social and
emotional benets people reap during in-person social interactions. In
line with current best practices, we pre-registered both studies, and we
report all measures, conditions, and exclusions, as well as how sample
sizes were determined.
1. Study 1
1.1. Method
1.1.1. Pre-registered power analysis
Based on a pilot study, we estimated an eect size of d = 0.4; using
G*Power3, we calculated that we would need a sample size of N = 200
for 80% power, which we pre-registered on the Open Science
Framework (OSF) at Given the high costs
of this study, we planned and pre-registered three sequential analyses
(at N = 100, 200, and 300); this technique allows for interim analyses
by adjusting the critical alpha to control overall Type 1 error (see
Lakens, 2014 for a primer on sequential analysis). At each analysis
point, data collection can be stopped if results are signicant at the
adjusted alpha level. The results of our interim analyses led us to
continue collecting data until we reached N = 300, with a pre-speci-
ed, adjusted alpha-level of 0.0278.
1.1.2. Participants
Because sessions were scheduled ahead of time, we slightly sur-
passed our target sample size, with 304 participants (64% females,
ages = 1969, M = 29.9 years, SD = 10.6). The sample included both
university students (34%) and adults from the Vancouver, BC commu-
nity (66%). An additional 2 participants did not have usable data due to
a technical error that occurred while completing the survey. We re-
quired that all participants own a smartphone, ostensibly so that they
could receive study-related reminders and survey questions.
1.1.3. Procedure and measures
Participants were invited to complete a study investigating people's
experience dining out with friends.Groups of 35 friends or family
members participated in the study at a local café. After providing
consent, each group was randomly assigned to the phone or phoneless
condition. Specically, to manipulate phone use without revealing the
purpose of the study, we told participants in the phone condition that
they would be asked to answer a survey question after ordering their
food, and that the RA would text them this question; to ensure that they
received the survey, they were told to set their phone on the table with
the ringer or vibration on. In the phoneless condition, participants were
also told that they would answer a survey question, which would be
handed to them on paper; these participants were then instructed to
turn their phones on silent and place them in a container on the table.
To support our cover story, we asked participants to rate how they were
feeling that day on a scale from 0 to 100 via text (phone condition) or
paper (phoneless condition). Participants then ate their meal together
without further interruption by the experimenter.
After their meal, all participants were given iPads to complete a
questionnaire (thereby maximizing the privacy of their responses; for
complete survey see This questionnaire
included our key measures of social connectedness, aect, opportunity
costs, interest/enjoyment, distraction, perceived control, time percep-
tion, and boredom, in that order (see Table 1 for details on all mea-
sures). Next, participants were asked to answer questions about their
overall amount of phone use during the session (providing a manip-
ulation check); we also included exploratory questions about the nature
of their phone use (e.g., text messaging, social media, photos). Finally,
participants were asked to indicate the nature of their relationship to
each other person in the group (e.g., spouse, sibling, friend), and to
provide demographics. After completing this survey, participants were
asked to provide feedback about the study and to report how many
notications they received on their phones. In exchange for partici-
pating, each participant received up to $20 to spend toward their
group's total bill. All sessions were videotaped using a small camera
(GoPro Hero 4) positioned so that it was visible but unobtrusive. To
minimize any potential for experimenter bias, research assistants were
kept blind to our hypotheses. During the meal, research assistants sat at
a separate table without observing participants.
1.1.4. Manipulation checks
We asked participants to report During the dining experience
today, how often did you use your mobile phone?from Not at all (1) to
Constantly (7). To capture phone use compared to participants' normal
behavior, we asked How frequently did you use your phone as com-
pared to how you would have normally used your phone in a restaurant
with your friends/family?from Much less (3) to Much more (3). To
Table 1
Sample questionnaire items from Study 1.
Measure αSample items Source
Dependent variables
Social connectedness .77 I felt close to people. Lee, Draper, & Lee, 2001
Aect: valence (mood) .87 Pleasant. Schimmack & Grob, 2000
Aect: tense arousal .72 Jittery. Schimmack & Grob, 2000
Aect: energetic .90 Awake. Schimmack & Grob, 2000
Interest and enjoyment .69 I enjoyed this experience very much. Ryan, 1982
Perceived control .61 I felt I had control. Bernstein & Claypool, 2012
Boredom .83 I felt bored. Fahlman et al., 2013
Time perception .88 Time was dragging on. Fahlman et al., 2013
Opportunity cost Did you feel there were other things you wanted or needed to be doing? Kushlev, 2011
Distraction .54 I was easily distracted. Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007
All items were measured on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), except social connectedness, perceived control, boredom, and time perception, which were measured on a scale
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
provide an objective behavioral measure, the amount of time partici-
pants spent interacting with their phones was assessed by two coders,
and then divided by the total duration of the video. Coders showed high
agreement (α= .95) and thus we averaged their ratings.
1.1.5. Pre-registered hypotheses
We pre-registered our main hypotheses at the Open Science
Framework ( Specically, we predicted
that phone use would undermine the benets people derived from
sharing a meal with others, such that participants in the phone (vs.
phoneless) condition would experience less social connectedness, more
tense arousal, less pleasant aect, and less interest/enjoyment (see
Table 1). We expected that these negative eects would be mediated by
distraction or by perceived opportunity costs. We also anticipated that
phone use would provide benets by giving people a greater sense of
perceived control, reducing boredom, and making time seem to move
faster. We expected that the positive and negative eects of being as-
signed to the phone condition would be amplied for individuals who
used their phones heavily during the meal.
1.2. Results
1.2.1. Analytic strategy
Because all participants within a group were assigned to the same
condition, we employed multilevel modeling (MLM), which accounts
for non-independence. In these data, participants (level 1) are nested
within groups (level 2). We used SPSS 24 to run all reported mixed
models. For all of the models, we used maximum likelihood estimation
and treated predictors as xed eects, allowing only the intercept to
vary as a random eect at the person level. The reported xed eects
below represent the eect of Condition (level-2 variable) on partici-
pants' feelings and behavior (level-1 variables).
1.2.2. Manipulation checks
Conrming the success of our manipulations, participants in the
phone condition reported using their phones more during the study
(M = 2.21, SD = 1.31) than those in the phoneless condition
(M = 1.07, SD = 0.31), b= 1.16, t(73.45) = 8.79, p< .001.
Participants in the phone condition reported using their phones slightly
less than normal (M = 0.63, SD = 1.24), while participants in the
phoneless condition reported using their phones much less than normal
(M = 1.79, SD = 1.44), creating a signicant dierence between
conditions, b= 1.16, t(72.02) = 7.31, p< .001. Additionally, coders'
objective ratings conrmed that participants in the phone condition
used their phones for a greater percentage of time during the sessions
(M = 11%, SD = 8%) compared to those in the phoneless condition
(M = 1%, SD = 2%), b= 0.11, t(79.31) = 10.02, p< .001.
1.2.3. Pre-registered hypotheses
Consistent with our pre-registered hypothesis, participants in the
phone condition reported signicantly lower interest and enjoyment
than those in the phoneless condition, b=0.37, t(82.75) = 2.55,
p= .013 (see Tables 2 and 3). Participants in the phone (vs. phoneless)
condition also reported feeling more distracted, b= 0.46, t(79.08)
= 3.14, p= .002. In contrast to our original predictionbut consistent
with the other negative eects of phone useparticipants reported
marginally higher boredom, b= 0.28, t(77.06) = 2.15, p= .035. Si-
milarly, participants in the phone (vs. phoneless) condition reported
worse subjective experience on all of our other dependent variables,
although these eects were not signicant.
Our dependent variables
were signicantly correlated, r= .38, which inates the family-wise
Type I error. We accounted for this by calculating the average eect
across all our outcome variables. We found that phone use had a small
negative eect on well-being, d=0.31, bootstrapped 95% CI
[0.43, 0.12].
1.2.4. Mediation
We conducted all mediation analyses using Rockwood and Hayes'
(2017) MLmed macro for SPSS with robust standard errors (REML es-
timation). We estimated all nonredundant parameters for a 2-1-1
mediational model, including xed and random intercepts, xed ef-
fects, and the random eect between mediator and outcome (the
random eects for condition were redundant). Only between-group
eects were estimatedthere is no within-group eect for condition,
which is a Level 2 (group-level) variable. Covariances between random
intercepts and eects are also not modelled in 2-1-1 mediational
models. Although we originally predicted that distraction and oppor-
tunity costs might mediate the eects, condition only aected distrac-
tion, b= 0.46, p= .003. In turn, distraction signicantly predicted
interest/enjoyment, b=0.29, p= .008. Thus, we examined whether
distraction mediated the eect of condition on interest and enjoyment.
Indeed, we found an indirect eect of condition on interest/enjoyment
through distraction, b=0.13, Z = 1.99, p= .046, which was
marginal by our more stringent alpha level. Condition was no longer a
signicant predictor of interest and enjoyment after controlling for
distraction, b=0.23, p= .121, suggesting that the negative eect of
phone use on interest/enjoyment was due in part to people being dis-
tracted by their phones.
Our manipulation also had signicant indirect eects, via distrac-
tion, on nearly all of our dependent measures; that is, the presence of
phones led people to feel more distracted, which in turn was associated
with less positive aect valence, more tense arousal, less energetic
arousal, less control, and more boredom (see Table 4).
1.3. Discussion
In the real-world setting of a café, we found that people enjoyed a
Table 2
Means and standard deviations for measures in Study 1.
Phone (n= 152) Phoneless (n= 152)
Dependent variables M (SD) M (SD)
Social connectedness 5.78 (0.82) 5.82 (0.79)
Valence 5.99 (0.89) 6.12 (0.82)
Tense arousal 2.65 (0.97) 2.55 (0.88)
Energetic arousal 4.8 (1.23) 5.05 (1.2)
Interest/enjoyment 4.98 (1.17) 5.36 (1.02)
Control 4.85 (0.84) 4.97 (0.94)
Boredom 2.21 (1.19) 1.93 (1.02)
Time perception 2.04 (1.17) 1.85 (1.1)
Mediator variables M (SD) M (SD)
Opportunity cost 2.84 (1.66) 2.92 (1.63)
Distraction 2.84 (1.2) 2.38 (1.03)
Table 3
Summary of xed eects for MLM analyses in Study 1.
DV bdft p
Social connectedness 0.03 80.52 0.31 .758
Valence 0.12 79.72 1.14 .257
Tense arousal 0.1 83.01 0.9 .369
Energetic arousal 0.25 79.96 1.64 .106
Interest/enjoyment 0.37 82.75 2.55 .013
Control 0.11 81.66 1 .323
Boredom 0.28 77.06 2.15 .035
Time perception 0.18 75.17 1.31 .194
Note. See Table S-1 in SOM for full model statistics.
We also predicted that the negative eects of phone use would be amplied for
participants who exhibited the highest levels of phone use. We did not nd consistent
support for this hypothesis (see SOM).
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
meal with their friends less when phones were present than when
phones were put away. They also felt more distracted when phones
were present (vs. absent), which had negative downstream con-
sequences for their broader subjective experience (e.g., more tense
arousal and boredom). Taken together, these results provide initial
evidence that phone use may undermine some of the benets people
derive from the central social experience of sharing a meal. However,
given that the eects were somewhat weak statistically and that we
examined only one social setting, we conducted a second study ex-
amining phone use, distraction, and well-being across diverse social
interactions. By using a within-subjects design and collecting data
across numerous time points, we sought to enhance power to detect the
eects initially observed in our between-subjects experiment.
2. Study 2: experience sampling
In Study 2, we surveyed people 5 times a day for one week, asking
them to report how they had been feeling and what they had been
doing over the past 15 min.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Preregistration
We preregistered our hypotheses and analysis plan on the Open
Science Framework ( Based on Study 1,
we predicted that during social interactions, people would feel more
distracted and would experience less enjoyment when they were using
smartphones compared to when they were not using smartphones. In
addition, consistent with Study 1, we expected that phone use would
have detrimental indirect eects (via distraction) on social connected-
ness, aect valence, boredom, and time perception. We preregistered to
collect at least 100 usable participants with replacement. Participants
were considered unusable for the analyses if they had no episodes when
they interacted with others in person.
2.1.2. Participants
Students at a large public university in the U.S. who owned smart-
phones participated for course credit. In total, we obtained usable data
from 123 participants (M
= 18.6, 69% women; see SOM for further
details). The participants responded to a total of 3008 ESM surveys
(68.6% of surveys sent), of which 1244 were episodes when they were
interacting with others face-to-face.
2.1.3. Procedure and measures
Participants completed a demographic survey, and on the following
day, they began to receive links to brief ESM surveys sent via text
message using the service For seven days, partici-
pants received ve prompts per day between 9 am and 9 pm. Within
this 12-hour period, the prompts were sent randomly within ve
equally divided intervals. Each message instructed participants to re-
spond as quickly as they safely could. The links expired after 1 h, and
each survey was administered at least 2 h after the previous prompt.
At the top of each survey, participants were instructed that all the
questions pertained to their experience over the last 15 min before com-
pleting the survey.Participants then completed brief versions (adapted for
ESM) of selected measures from Study 1. Specically, participants reported
whether they had enjoyed their experience in the last 15 min and whether
they would describe their experience as very interesting (1 Not true;7
Very true). We averaged these two responses to form our composite mea-
sure of interest/enjoyment (α=.80).Aect valence, social connectedness,
distraction, boredom, and time perception were each measured on 7-point
scales using single items adapted from Study 1; for the full survey, see
At the end of the survey, participants were asked what they had been
doing in the past 15 min, including how much they had used their
smartphones (1 Not at all;7Constantly). As preregistered based on the
ndings in Study 1, this measure was transformed into a dichotomous
measure of whether or not people used their phones during the episode. To
dichotomize phone use, we coded as 0 episodes when participants re-
ported using their phones notatall, and coded any use as 1 (i.e., 27
were coded as 1). Participants also indicated whether or not they had
socialized in person/face-to-face,among a number of other common
daily activities (e.g., eating/drinking, working/studying).
2.2. Results
2.2.1. Analytic strategy
We pre-registered our analysis plan on OSF; see
z7xe43d. Because each person had multiple episodes, we used multi-
level modeling (MLM) to estimate the eects. For all of the models, we
used SPSS 24, specifying restricted maximum likelihood estimation and
treating predictors as xed eects, allowing only the intercept to vary
as a random eect at the person level.
Table 4
Mediational and indirect eects of phone use through distraction in Study 1.
Indirect eect
Outcome variable Path bPath cPath cab95% CI Sobel Z
Social connectedness 0.22
0.03 0.07 0.10
[0.21, 0.02] 2.13
Valence 0.39
0.12 0.06 0.18
[0.32, 0.06] 2.67
Tense arousal 0.44
0.10 0.10 0.21
[0.07, 0.36] 2.73
Energetic arousal 0.38
0.25 0.08 0.17
[0.34, 0.05] 2.24
Interest/enjoyment 0.29
0.23 0.13
[0.29, 0.03] 1.99
0.11 0.03 0.14
[0.28, 0.04] 2.35
0.06 0.21
[0.07, 0.38] 2.65
Time perception 0.23
0.18 0.07 0.11 [0.01, 0.24] 1.75
Note. The eect of condition on distraction (path a) is signicant for all DV's, b= 0.46, p= .003. Path brepresents the eect of distraction on each outcome variable. Path crepresents
the total eect of phone use on each outcome variable. Path crepresents the direct eect of phone use on each outcome variable after accounting for the indirect eect through
distraction. Condence intervals were estimated using 10,000 Monte Carlo stimulations.
p< .05.
p< .027.
p< .01.
p< .001.
There was little variability in the slope from the mediator to outcome variable, so the model did not converge. Thus, we did not estimate the random M to Y slope for the Control
There was little variability in the Y intercept, so the model did not converge when it the random Y intercept was included in the model. Thus, the model used for the Boredom variable
included a xed Y intercept only.
Estimating the random component of each eect did not substantively change the size
of the xed component or the signicance level.
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2.2.2. Eects of phone use
As predicted, during episodes that included face-to-face social in-
teractions (N = 1244), people reported feeling more distracted when
they used their smartphones than when they did not, b= 0.95,
SE = 0.11, t(91.98) = 8.23 p< .001 (see Table 5 for means). In ad-
dition, during these episodes, participants experienced less interest and
enjoyment when they used smartphones than when they did not,
b=0.41, SE = 0.09, t(1239.60) = 4.44, p< .001. Although we
did not predict direct eects of phone use on the other outcomes, we
found that people also reported worse aect, b=0.31, SE = 0.09, t
(1237.09) = 3.46, p= .001, felt less socially connected, b=0.33,
SE = 0.09, t(1234.80) = 3.87, p< .001, more bored, b= 0.53,
SE = 0.10, t(1240.14) = 5.25, p< .001, and perceived time to be
moving slower, b= 0.34, SE = 0.11, t(1239.77) = 3.20, p= .001 (see
Table S-3 for exhaustive list of model parameters for all reported
models). In additional exploratory analyses, we used the continuous
phone use variable as the predictor (1 Not at all;7Constantly) and
found the same eects across all outcomes (all p's < .001). As in Study
1, our dependent variables were signicantly correlated, r= .50,
which inates family-wise Type 1 error. Calculating the average eect
across our variables, we found that social interactions with phone use
were associated with a small decrease in well-being compared to social
interactions without phone use, d=0.23, bootstrapped 95% CI
[0.034, 0.14].
2.2.3. Mediation analyses
As preregistered, we used person-level means for the mediation
analyses. For distraction and all outcome variables, we rst aggregated
each participant's scores separately for episodes with versus without
smartphones. We then predicted the dierence scores between the
means of the outcome variables (e.g. interest/enjoyment) when people
were using versus not using their phones from the dierence and sum
scores of distraction (i.e., the mediator). As in Study 1, we conducted all
mediation analyses using Rockwood and Hayes' (2017) MLmed macro
for SPSS. All random eects were estimated, within- and between-
persons eects were deconated, and covariances were estimated ex-
cept for the covariance between the intercepts of the mediator and
outcome variables. Because we were interested how the same people
felt when using their phones or not, we focus on the within-subjects
eects below (see Table S-4 for between-subject eects). We examined
whether distraction could explain the eect of phone use on our out-
come variables.
We found support for the mediating role of distraction
across all outcomes (see Table 6). To the extent people felt more dis-
tracted when they used their phones, they reported feeling less enjoy-
ment, worse aect, less socially connected, more bored, and slower
time perception.
3. General discussion
Using a eld experiment and intensive experience sampling, we
found the rst evidence that phone use undermines the enjoyment
people derive from real world social interactions. In Study 1, phone use
caused individuals to feel distracted, which reduced how much they
enjoyed sharing a meal with friends at a local café. In Study 2, we
obtained similar results by asking people to report what they had been
doing and feeling during the past 15 min. When they had been engaging
in face-to-face interactions, they felt more distracted and reported
lower enjoyment if they had been using their smartphones than if they
had not. Phone use also had indirect negative eects, via distraction, on
other well-being outcomes; in both studies, phone use predicted
distraction, which in turn predicted greater boredom and worse overall
Going beyond previous research, we found these eects in natur-
alistic contexts by conducting a eld experiment in a café and by using
experience sampling to capture a variety of real-world social situations.
These results held across two distinct samples, including both students
and community members in Western Canada (Study 1), and students in
the Southern United States (Study 2). It is especially notable that we
observed negative eects of phone use among university students. This
generation has grown up with mobile technology, and some have raised
the possibility that young people might therefore be relatively adept at
multi-tasking in real world contexts (Foehr, 2006). This idea is parti-
cularly compelling in the context of extended social interactions, such
as sharing a meal with friends, given that natural lulls in conversation
might aord the ability to attend to one's phone without any detectable
cost. Yet, our ndings suggest that even the moderate levels of phone
use we observed are sucient to create feelings of distraction that
undermine the emotional rewards of social interaction.
These results build on other recent work showing that phone use is
associated with less positive social impressions (Vanden Abeele et al.,
2016), lower interaction quality with friends (Brown et al., 2016; Misra
et al., 2014), and lower relationship satisfaction with a romantic
partner (Roberts & David, 2016). We found that the negative eects of
phone use were mediated by distraction, but not opportunity costs,
suggesting that phone use prevents individuals from fully engaging in
the present moment. Contrary to our original prediction, phones
slightly increased boredom. While Eastwood et al. (2012) argue that
interesting stimuli can decrease boredom, they also theorize that rela-
tively subtle sources of distraction may lead people to misattribute their
feelings of inattention to being bored with the situation. For example,
people report greater boredom when a TV plays quietly in another room
than when it is blaring (Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989). Thus, people may
Table 5
Means for episodes with face to face interactions with phone use versus no phone use in
Study 2 (N = 1244).
With phone use M(SD) No phone use M(SD)
Distraction 3.45 (0.91) 2.42 (1.26)
Interest/enjoyment 4.78 (1.01) 5.33 (1.25)
Aect valence 5.28 (0.98) 5.77 (1.11)
Connectedness 5.39 (0.97) 5.92 (1.03)
Boredom 2.97 (0.97) 2.28 (1.13)
Time perception 3.11 (1.11) 2.70 (1.53)
Note. In total, 120 people had episodes with phone use, whereas 96 people had episodes
without phone use. This could explain why the standard deviations for episodes with
phone use are smaller than those for episodes with no phone use.
Table 6
Within-subjects indirect eects of phone use through distraction in Study 2.
Indirect eect
Path cPath cab95% CI Sobel Z
Interest/enjoyment 0.45
Aect valence 0.34
0.16 0.18
Connectedness 0.35
0.13 0.22
Boredom 0.56
[0.21, 0.51] 4.79
Time perception 0.33
0.04 0.29
[0.11, 0.47] 3.24
Note. Path crepresents the total eect of phone use on each outcome variable. Path c
represents the direct eect of phone use on each outcome variable; that is, the remaining
eect of phone use after accounting for the indirect eect through distraction. Condence
intervals were estimated using 10,000 Monte Carlo stimulations.
p< .10.
p< .05.
p< .01.
p< .001 (signicance based on Sobel's Z test of
The sample used for the mediation analyses was smaller than the total sample because
these analyses require people to have episodes both with and without reported phone use.
The number of participants who had both episodes with reported distraction was N = 93.
As indicated by the total eects in Table 6, the eects of phone use on the outcome
variables mirrored those from the MLM analyses reported above.
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
anticipate that phones will reduce boredom (as we did), but by pro-
viding a subtle source of distraction, phones may ironically increase
Still, it is important to note that the observed eects in both studies,
as shown by the meta-analyses, were relatively small. Based on the
eect size (d = 0.31) observed across variables in Study 1, future
experiments should include at least 165 participants per condition to
detect reliable eects. As this high required sample size illustrates,
phones may have minimal negative eects on individual social inter-
actions; however, these small eects are likely consequential over time.
McDaniel and Coyne (2014) argue that small, frequent interruptions
from phones can compound into relationship conict and lower life
satisfaction. Our study provides a window into one underlying process
through which phone use may chip away at life satisfaction: phones
may undermine the enjoyment derived from face-to-face social inter-
Of course, everyday life is riddled with other sources of distraction,
such as newspapers and television, but phones dier from these earlier
forms of information technology in two critical ways: Phones provide
access to a virtually innite array of potential diversions, while being so
portable that they are almost always with us, enabling them to easily
pervade our social interactions. For example, a recent observational
study found that caregivers exhibited a high degree of absorption in
their phones while sharing a meal with children at fast food restaurants
(Radesky, Kistin, Augustyn, & Silverstein, 2014). Theoretically, then,
smartphones provide an ideal proxy for studying how the increasing
pervasiveness of our digital activities is interacting with fundamental
human activities (e.g., sharing a meal).
Our studies have several limitations. Because participants in Study 1
were assigned to the phone or phoneless condition in groups, it is un-
clear whether the eects were caused by the individual's phone use, the
phone use of others in the group, or an interaction between individual
and group phone use. For example, Sally might experience reduced
enjoyment if her dining companions were using their phones while she
was not. Thus, an interesting open question is how individual and group
phone use interact. It is also possible that some participants guessed the
purpose of our studies, and thus responded according to their lay beliefs
about phone use. In both studies, however, we ensured our interest in
phone use was minimally salient by embedding any mention of phones
within broader study instructions or questionnaire items.
Whereas Study 1 used an experimental design, Study 2 relied on a
correlational design and thus may have captured bi-directional eects
between phone use and participants' feelings; for example, phone use
may have increased distraction, but feeling distracted could also have
promoted phone use. Another limitation of Study 2 is that we may have
inadvertently increased participants' typical phone use by about ve
instances per day by asking participants to use their phones to complete
surveys about phone use. According to a Deloitte (2016) report, how-
ever, 1824 year olds use their phones 82 times a day on average. Thus,
the survey method likely only increased phone use by around 6%.
Given the small magnitude of this increase, we think it is fairly unlikely
to have fundamentally altered the relationship between phone use and
our well-being measures. Finally, although we have framed these re-
sults as showing negative eects of phone use, it would be equally valid
to describe these results as showing positive eects of putting phones
away. That is, it is possible that putting phones away increases atten-
tion, which in turn increases well-being outcomes. Given the ubiquity
of phones in everyday life, we think either causal pathway is important
and the main principle is the same: enjoyment is higher during social
interactions without phones.
Although we found that phone use negatively aected enjoyment of
social interactions, phones should have positive eects in situations where
distraction is desirable. Indeed, phone use has been found to reduce the
need for anesthesia during minor surgery (Guillory, Hancock, & Woodru,
2015). By aecting distraction, phones may also have a wide range of
other psychological consequences. Distraction has been linked to reduced
memory (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996), increased
stress (Mark, Gudith, & Klocke, 2008), and reduced self-control (Shiv &
Fedorikhin, 1999), pointing to the value of testing the eects of phone use
on these outcomes.
Our research may also serve as a model for future experimental
studies, given that the literature on phones and well-being has dis-
proportionately utilized correlational designs (Brown et al., 2016;
Kushlev & Heintzelman, in press; Misra et al., 2014; Rotondi et al.,
2017). Several other new studies have manipulated the presence of
phones during social interactions and cognitive tasks (Allred &
Crowley, 2017; Avelar, 2015; Lyngs, 2017), but these studies have re-
lied on small samples (cell sizes 25) and have produced mixed re-
sults, highlighting the need for well-powered, conrmatory research in
this area.
Research on the cognitive eects of distraction have led govern-
ments to enact policy changes restricting phone use while driving
(World Health Organization, 2011), and many course instructors have
implemented analogous policies in their classrooms (Hammer et al.,
2010). In a similar vein, our research highlights the need for change in
social norms surrounding phone use in social interactions. In particular,
this work reveals how phones can distract us from engaging with people
in our immediate environment. Despite their ability to connect us to
others across the globe, phones may undermine the benets we derive
from interacting with those across the table.
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the study design. Data collection, analysis
and interpretation for Study 1 was performed by R. J. Dwyer under the
supervision of E. W. Dunn and K. Kushlev. Data collection, analysis and
interpretation for Study 2 was performed by K. Kushlev. R. J. Dwyer
drafted the manuscript, and E. W. Dunn and K. Kushlev provided cri-
tical revisions. All authors approved the nal version of the manuscript
for submission.
Open practices
All data have been made publicly available via the Open Science
Framework. The data for Study 1 can be viewed at
hwmo9t6, and the data for Study 2 can be viewed at http://ti-
We thank the following research assistants for their instrumental
help conducting these studies: Camille Hunt, Charlotte Freitag, Kara
Lee, Nishi Sumant, Shauna Moore, Zoe Bethune, Tara Arvan, Briana
Nolletti, Remy Panikkar, Luan Wei, Bahja Ammari, and Allison Yang.
This research protocol was approved by The University of British
Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board.
Appendix A. Supplementary materials
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
Allred, R. J., & Crowley, J. P. (2017). The mere presencehypothesis: Investigating the
nonverbal eects of cell-phone presence on conversation satisfaction. Communication
Studies, 68(1), 2236.
Avelar, D. (2015). Tell me why you're texting! Eect of cell phone use on interpersonal in-
teractions. Franklin and Marshall College. (Master's Thesis, Retrieved from) https://
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Not all social exclusions are created equal:
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Emotional distress following social exclusion is moderated by exclusion paradigm.
Social Inuence, 7(2), 113130.
Brown, G., Manago, A. M., & Trimble, J. E. (2016). Tempted to text: College students
mobile phone use during a face-to-face interaction with a close friend. Emerging
Adulthood, 25.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benets of being present: Mindfulness and its
role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4),
Craik, F. I., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The eects of
divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. General, 125(2), 159180.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper and Row.
Damrad-Frye, R., & Laird, J. D. (1989). The experience of boredom: The role of the self-
perception of attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 315320.
Deloitte (2016). 2016 global mobile consumer survey: US edition (Retrieved from)
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind:
Dening boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5),
Epley, N., & Schroeder, J. (2014). Mistakenly seeking solitude. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 143(5), 19801999.
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D. B., & Eastwood, J. D. (2013). Development
and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment, 20(1),
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness
and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and
aective mindfulness scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177190.
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors, and
pairings. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (Retrieved from) http://www.k.
Guillory, J. E., Hancock, J. T., & Woodru, C. (2015). Text messaging reduces analgesic
text messaging reduces analgesic requirements during surgery. Pain Medicine, 16,
Hammer, R., Ronen, M., Sharon, A., Lankry, T., Huberman, Y., & Zamtsov, V. (2010).
Mobile culture in college lectures: Instructors' and students' perspectives.
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 6, 293304 (
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey
method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method.
Science, 306(5702), 17761780.
Kushlev, K. (2011). Exploring parental well-being: Is childcare associated with parental well-
being and what factors can enhance it. University of British Columbia. (Master's Thesis,
Retrieved from)
Kushlev, K., & Heintzelman, S. J. (2017). Put the Phone Down. Social Psychological and
Personality Science. Advanced online publication..
Kushlev, K., Proulx, J., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). Silence your phones: Smartphone noti-
cations increase inattention and hyperactivity symptoms. Proceedings of CHI, 2016.
Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies eciently with sequential analyses.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 701710.
LeBel, J. L., & Dubé, L. (2001). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focus on
pleasure and on behavioral responses to hedonic stimuli. 13th Annual American
Psychological Society Convention.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal
behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48(3), 310318.
Lyngs, U. (2017). It's more fun with my phone: A replication study of cell phone presence
and task performance. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on
human factors in computing systems (pp. 136141). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008, April). The cost of interrupted work: More speed
and stress. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
(pp. 107110). ACM.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). Technoference:The interference of technology
in couple relationships and implications for women's personal and relational well-
being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1),
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone eect: The quality of in-
person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and
Behavior, 124.
Americans' views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center. (Retrieved from) http://www.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now? How the
presence of mobile communication technology inuences face-to-face conversation
quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237246. http://dx.doi.
Quoidbach, J., Berry, E. V., Hansenne, M., & Mikolajczak, M. (2010). Positive emotion
regulation and well-being: Comparing the impact of eight savoring and dampening
strategies. Personality and Individual Dierences, 49(5), 368373.
Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Augustyn, M., & Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile
device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics,
133(4), e843e849.
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell
phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134141.
Rockwood, N. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2017, May). MLmed: An SPSS macro for multilevel
mediation and conditional process analysis. Poster presented at the annual meeting of
the Association of Psychological Science (APS), Boston, MA.
Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., & Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use,
quality of social interactions and well-being (No. 357). DEMS working paper series
(Available at SSRN)
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(3),
Sandstrom, G. M., & Dunn, E. W. (2014). Social interactions and well-being: The sur-
prising power of weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910922.
Schimmack, U., & Grob, A. (2000). Dimensional models of core aect: A quantitative
comparison by means of structural equation modelling. European Journal of
Personality, 14, 325345.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conict: The interplay of aect and
cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3),
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24(2), 111129.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver
and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48(2), 381391.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin
Press HC.
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Antheunis, M. L., & Schouten, A. P. (2016). The eect of mobile
messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 562569.
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012).
Examining the impact of o-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time class-
room learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365374.
World Health Organization (2011). Mobile phone use: A growing problem of driver distrac-
tion. World Health Organization. (Retrieved from)
R.J. Dwyer et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Dwyer Kushlev Dunn JESP.pdf
314.75 KB
  • ... It may also increase the impact on sleep, as smartphones may be brought into the bedroom or even the bed, with negative impacts on sleep duration and/ or sleep quality ( Twenge et al., 2017). Smartphones may also be used during face-to-face social interactions, which may negatively impact those interactions and blunt their usually positive impact on well-being ( Dwyer et al., 2018). ...
    ... However, several longitudinal studies have found that increases in recreational screen time precede lower psy- chological well-being among children and adolescents (Allen and Vella, 2015;Babic et al., 2017;Hinkley et al., 2014;Kim, 2017) as well as among adults ( Kross et al., 2013;Schmiedeberg and Schröder, 2017;Shakya and Christakis, 2017). In addition, experiments have shown that the presence of smartphones can lower enjoyment during social inter- actions (e.g., Dwyer et al., 2018;Kushlev et al., 2017) and that ab- staining from social media use for one week can increase well-being (Tromholt, 2016). In other studies, the relationship appears to be re- ciprocal, with screen time and well-being each causing the other ( Gunnell et al., 2016). ...
    Full-text available
    Previous research on associations between screen time and psychological well-being among children and adolescents has been conflicting, leading some researchers to question the limits on screen time suggested by physician organizations. We examined a large (n = 40,337) national random sample of 2- to 17-year-old children and adolescents in the U.S. in 2016 that included comprehensive measures of screen time (including cell phones, computers, electronic devices, electronic games, and TV) and an array of psychological well-being measures. After 1 h/day of use, more hours of daily screen time were associated with lower psychological well-being, including less curiosity, lower self-control, more distractibility, more difficulty making friends, less emotional stability, being more difficult to care for, and inability to finish tasks. Among 14- to 17-year-olds, high users of screens (7+ h/day vs. low users of 1 h/day) were more than twice as likely to ever have been diagnosed with depression (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.54, 3.70), ever diagnosed with anxiety (RR 2.26, CI 1.59, 3.22), treated by a mental health professional (RR 2.22, CI 1.62, 3.03) or have taken medication for a psychological or behavioral issue (RR 2.99, CI 1.94, 4.62) in the last 12 months. Moderate use of screens (4 h/day) was also associated with lower psychological well-being. Non-users and low users of screens generally did not differ in well-being. Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being were larger among adolescents than younger children.
  • ... 3 Further support for that hypothesis emerged from a recent study in which 302 participants were randomized to dine in a cafe with or without their phones. 4 Participants in the ''phone'' condition reported significantly less interest in and enjoyment of the dining experience, as well as more distraction and boredom than those who had been randomized to dine sans phone. More in-depth mediation analyses revealed that the adverse impact of the phone on interest and enjoy- ment was attributable in part to the increased distraction they experi- enced. ...
    ... The effects were once again mediated by distraction. 4 Equally concerning is that social media use may contribute to social isolation, loneliness, and decreased well-being. Research on nearly 1800 young adults aged 18 to 32 years indicates that high rates of social media use (more than 2 hours per day) are associated with a signifi- cantly higher likelihood of perceived social isolation (eg, ''I feel iso- lated''; ''I feel that people around me but not with me'') than low levels of social media use (0-30 min/d). ...
  • ... First studies demonstrated divergent findings on this topic, with some studies reporting a positive link between smartphone use and social engagement (e.g., attending gatherings with friends and colleagues) (Kim et al., 2016), while others demonstrated using mobile smart devices less for online content or social activities when in social situations such as at a restaurant with friends or in an intimate moment with a partner (Vorderer et al., 2016). See also the new work by Dwyer et al. (2018) showing that smartphones reduce enjoyment of face-to-face interactions. Kushlev et al. (2019) even reported that smartphones reduce smiles between strangers. ...
    Full-text available
    The study of individual differences in human social behavior has a long tradition in (personality) psychology focusing on traits such as extraversion linked to vividness and assertiveness. The study of molecular genetic underpinnings of individual differences in social behavior produced many genetic association studies with only few genetic variants, robustly associated with individual differences in personality. One possible reason for non-replication of findings might be the different inventories used to assess human social traits. Moreover, self-report methods to assess personality and social behavior might be problematic due to their susceptibility to different biases such as social desirability or poor abilities in self-reflection. We stress the importance of including recorded behavior to understand the molecular genetic basis of individual differences in personality and linked social traits. We present preliminary data linking oxytocin genetics to individual differences in social network size derived from smartphones. Here, the genetic variation rs2268498, located in the adjacent area of the promoter of the gene coding for the oxytocin receptor (OXTR), was linked to the number of active contacts and incoming calls, tracked on the smartphone for 12 days (note that these results became a bit weaker when age was controlled for). Although the present empirical findings should only be seen as a proof of concept study, this work demonstrates the feasibility to combine molecular genetic variables with real world behavior. If this approach keeps its promises, the field of personality research might experience a boost in psychometric quality in the near future.
  • ... There is an emerging body of literature examining the effects of the use of technology on face-to-face social interaction. Research has found that using mobile devices has a negative effect on both the quality and quantity of face-to-face social interaction (Drago, 2015;Elsobeihi & Abu Naser, 2017), and phone use leads to distraction, which undermines ben- efits of social interaction (Dwyer, Kushlev, & Dunn, 2017). However, Ictech (2014) found that smartphones can both disrupt and facilitate face-to-face social interaction, depend- ing on how they are used and in what context. ...
    Full-text available
    Background and Objectives Mobile phone use is increasing among older adults, yet few studies have examined how the various purposes for which mobile phones are used affect loneliness and through what mechanisms. This study aims to address the gap by examining if different uses and gratifications of mobile phone are associated with loneliness and whether there is a mediation effect through face-to-face social interaction. Research Design and Methods Participants included 1,318 mobile phone users drawn from a national probability sample of Japanese middle-aged (65% aged 40–64 years) and older adults (35% aged 65 years or older) in 2011. Ordinary Least Squares regression and mediation analyses were used. Results Regression analyses revealed that using a mobile phone for sociability purposes was associated with decreased loneliness (b = −0.10, p < .001), while using it for the purposes of entertainment/passing time was associated with increased loneliness (b = 0.04, p < .01); some effects varied by age and mobile phone feature use. Further, sociability was associated with increased face-to-face social interaction, which was, in turn, associated with reduced loneliness. Passing time, however, was related to reduced face-to-face interaction and, in turn, an increased sense of loneliness. Discussion and Implications Although it is not possible to determine causality from this cross-sectional design, it is possible that the various purposes for which mobile phones are used (specifically sociability and passing time) partially affect loneliness through their effects on either increasing or decreasing face-to-face social interaction. Recommendations for enhancing positive and reducing negative effects of mobile phone usage are discussed.
  • ... Furthermore, mobile phone notifications create distractions significant enough to impair performance even if users do not engage with the phone; the effects of these notifications are similar to the effects when people do actively engage with their phones ( Stothart et al. 2015). Similarly, the mere presence of mobile phones predicts greater distraction, reduced enjoyment and closeness during interactions with friends and family (Dwyer et al. 2017;Przybylski and Weinstein 2013), as well as impaired performance on challenging cognitive tasks (Thornton et al. 2014). ...
    There is a large evidence base supporting the efficacy of mindfulness interventions in adulthood, and growing support for the efficacy of these interventions in adolescence. Historically mindfulness interventions have been delivered in person and in groups, with recommendations for home practice being a critical part of the intervention. However, compliance with these practice recommendations in adolescence is very poor. Past studies indicate that using mobile technology to promote skill transfer to real life can be an effective strategy, particularly when used as a supplement to an in-person intervention strategy. To date, however, mobile technology has largely been used to create stand-alone mindfulness interventions. The goals of the current paper are to discuss the potential opportunities and challenges with a mobile-technology-enhanced mindfulness intervention, and to present the rationale that such an approach is not only theoretical and empirically sound but also a critical next step to increase the efficacy and developmental appropriateness of mindfulness interventions for adolescents. This discussion is grounded in a specific example of a mindfulness intervention supplemented by a momentary intervention we are developing.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    New developments in technology—from the printing press to television—have long facilitated our capacity for “absent presence,” enabling us to escape the limits of our immediate environment. Does being constantly connected to other people and activities through our smartphones diminish the need to engage with others in the immediate social world, reducing the likelihood of approach behavior such as smiling? In a preregistered experiment, strangers waited together with or without their smartphones; their smiling was later coded by trained assistants. Compared to participants without smartphones, participants with smartphones exhibited significantly fewer smiles of any kind and fewer genuine (Duchenne) smiles. These findings are based on objective behavioral coding rather than self-report and provide clear evidence that being constantly connected to the digital world may undermine important approach behavior.
  • Chapter
    Nahezu die Hälfte der Online-Kommunikation hat interpersonalen Charakter. Wenn sich Menschen über Emails, Chats, WhatsApp-Nachrichten, Dating-Dienste, Online-Foren, Social-Networking-Plattformen und sonstige Soziale Medien austauschen, geht es immer auch um Identitätsdarstellungen, soziale Beziehungen und Gemeinschaftserleben. Der Beitrag fasst den sozialpsychologischen Forschungsstand zusammen und geht auf zentrale Fragestellungen, Theorien, Methoden und Befunde ein. Es zeigt sich, dass bei der interpersonalen Online-Kommunikation psychosoziale Chancen und Risiken meist Hand in Hand gehen.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    In the U.S., 95% of smartphone users admit to having used their smartphones during their latest social gathering. Although smartphones are designed to connect us with others, such smartphone use may create a source of distraction that disconnects us from the people in our immediate social environment. Focusing on one fundamental social relationship—between parents and their children—we examined whether smartphones made parents feel distracted, thereby undermining key benefits parents reap when spending time with their children. Ina field experiment at a science museum (Study 1), we randomly assigned parents to use their phones frequently or infrequently. Frequent phone use led parents to feel more distracted, which in turn impaired feelings of social connection and the meaning that parents derived when spending time with their children. In an additional weeklong diary study (Study 2), we found further evidence that smartphones can distract parents from reaping a sense of social connection when spending time with their children. These studies suggest that being constantly connected to the Internet may carry subtle costs for the fabric of social life.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    If there ever was a key to happiness, this key would open a door that leads straight to a rich social life. And in the era of smartphones, this key to social connection is in our pockets anytime and anywhere. Or is it? Using the experience sampling method (ESM), we explore the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the context of face-to-face (FtF) social interactions, testing two competing hypotheses: (1) a complementarity hypothesis stating that more channels of communication should be associated with higher well-being and (2) an interference hypothesis stating that FtF interactions could be impoverished by adding computer-mediated channels of communication. We surveyed 174 millennials (Mage = 19.28; range: 17–22) 5 times a day over a period of a week (4,508 episodes). When participants reported a mix of CMC and FtF socializing in the same episode, they felt worse and less connected than when solely interacting FtF.
  • Conference Paper
    A couple of widely-cited studies have found that presence of cell phones interferes with social interactions and cognitive performance, even when not actively in use. These studies have important implications but have not been replicated, and also suffer from methodological shortcomings and lack of established theoretical frameworks to explain the findings. We improved the methodology used in a previous study of phone presence and task performance [8], while testing an 'opportunity cost' model of effort and attention [2]. We were unable to replicate Thornton et al.'s finding [8] that presence of cell phones reduces performance in a simple cognitive task (additive digit cancellation). Moreover, contrary to our expectations, we found that participants who were more attached to their phones found the tasks more fun/exciting and effortless, if they completed them with their phone present.
  • Article
    Prior research has supported the mere presence hypothesis, which suggests that cell phones act as an environmental nuisance that negatively impact the quality of face-to-face interactions. This study conducted an experiment to determine whether cell-phone presence negatively influences conversation satisfaction. Specifically, network member dyads (N = 46) engaged in unstructured conversations where one partner’s cell phone was either absent or present. The results revealed that, whereas the mere presence of a cell phone did not influence conversation satisfaction, individuals’ recollection of whether or not a cell phone was present did significantly negatively impact their pre- to posttest reports of conversation satisfaction. Implications of these findings for research on the mere presence hypothesis as well as directions for future research are discussed.
  • Article
    This paper presents two experimental studies investigating the impact of mobile messaging during an offline conversation on relational outcomes. A first study examined the impact on impression formation. A 3 × 1 experiment revealed that phone users were perceived as significantly less polite and attentive, and that self-initiated messaging behavior led to more negative impression formation than messaging behavior in response to a notification. A second study examined the impact on perceived conversation quality and social attraction. A 2 × 2 experiment revealed that perceived conversation quality was negatively affected by co-present mobile messaging behavior, while social attraction was not. Whether persons were acquainted or not with the phone user did not moderate this relationship.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    We examined whether emerging adults would engage in mobile phone use (MPU) when given the opportunity to socialize face-to-face with a close friend in a laboratory setting. Sixty-three U.S. college student friendship dyads rated their friendship quality in an online survey before coming into the laboratory together. When they arrived for their appointment, they were asked to wait together in a room for 5 min. A hidden camera recorded each dyad. Friends then separately rated the quality of the interaction. We coded time spent using mobile phone in seconds. A hierarchical regression conducted at the level of the dyad controlling for friendship quality and gender showed that more MPU was associated with lower quality interactions. We discuss findings in terms of the potential for MPU to interfere with the development of friendship intimacy.
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    As smartphones increasingly pervade our daily lives, people are ever more interrupted by alerts and notifications. Using both correlational and experimental methods, we explored whether such interruptions might be causing inattention and hyperactivity—symptoms associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)—even in people not clinically diagnosed with ADHD. We recruited a sample of 221 participants from the general population. For one week, participants were assigned to maximize phone interruptions by keeping notification alerts on and their phones within their reach/sight. During another week, participants were assigned to minimize phone interruptions by keeping alerts off and their phones away. Participants reported higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity when alerts were on than when alerts were off. Higher levels of inattention in turn predicted lower productivity and psychological well- being. These findings highlight some of the costs of ubiquitous connectivity and suggest how people can reduce these costs simply by adjusting existing phone settings.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Partner phubbing (Pphubbing) can be best understood as the extent to which an individual uses or is distracted by his/her cell phone while in the company of his/her relationship partner. The present study is the first to investigate the oft-occurring behavior of Pphubbing and its impact on relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. In Study 1, a nine-item scale was developed to measure Pphubbing. The scale was found to be highly reliable and valid. Study 2 assessed the study's proposed relationships among a sample of 145 adults. Results suggest that Pphubbing's impact on relationship satisfaction is mediated by conflict over cell phone use. One's attachment style was found to moderate the Pphubbing - cell phone conflict relationship. Those with anxious attachment styles reported higher levels of cell phone conflict than those with less anxious attachment styles. Importantly, Pphubbing was found to indirectly impact depression through relationship satisfaction and ultimately life satisfaction. Given the ever-increasing use of cell phones to communicate between romantic partners, the present research offers insight into the process by which such use may impact relationship satisfaction and personal well-being. Directions for future research are discussed.
  • Chapter
    Bacterial cell wall and membrane are associated with a variety of glycoconjugates and polysaccharides which aids in structural formation as well as performing various functions in the bacterial cell. In gram-negative bacteria, peptidoglycan is majorly present in the periplasmic space and it provides mechanical strength as well as shape to the cell. In some cases, the periplasm contains membrane-derived oligosaccharides (MDOs), which are involved in osmoregulation. The outer membrane mainly contains lipopolysaccharides (LPSs) that bind to divalent cations or chelators for structure stabilization and to increase outer membrane permeability. This LPS contains lipid A, also known as endotoxin, which has shown a powerful biological effect in mammals such as fever, septic shock, multiple organ failure, and mortality. The mucoid (slime-producing) strains contain capsular polysaccharide which aids as virulence factor. The gram-positive bacteria lack an outer membrane and have a much thicker peptidoglycan layer along with a specialized polysaccharide known as teichoic acid. It provides cell wall integrity through complex formation with cations and also assists in cell growth regulation. The present report attempts to provide an overview of bacterial polysaccharide structure, occurrence, and their important functions, along with the biosynthesis and major inhibitors to block biosynthetic pathways.