The Impact of Smartphones

on Social Behaviour

and Relationships

Hilary Groarke

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Higher Diploma in

Arts in Psychology at Dublin Business School, School of Arts, Dublin.

Supervisor: Dr. Jonathan Murphy

Head of Department: Dr Sinéad Eccles

March 2014

Department of Psychology

Dublin Business School

 1

Table of Contents
Page Number
Acknowledgements……........................................................................................2
Abstract...............................................................................................................3

Chapter
1. Introduction……..………………......................................................................4
Benefits and Caveats……………………………..........................................5
Changing Communication Styles and Preferences…………………………….7
Addiction………………………………………….......................................13
Measuring Problematic Use……………………….......................................15
Demographic Differences……………………………………………………..17
Current Study………………………………………………………………….18
Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………….19
2. Methodology…….……....................................................................................20
Participants……………………………………............................................20
Design……………………………………………………………….…………20
Materials…………………………………………….....................................21
Procedure..……………..………………...…………....................................25
3. Results…………..…….....................................................................................27
Descriptive Statistics………………….……………….................................27
Inferential Statistics……………………….………...…...…….………..........33
4. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...41
Strengths and Implications….……............................................................45
Weaknesses and Limitations………………………………………………….46
Future Research……………………………………………………………....48
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………48

References….....................................................................................................50
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………64
 2

Acknowledgements

First and foremost I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Jonathan

Murphy, for his continued help and guidance throughout this research. This work would have

been much more difficult without his timely responses and availability to discuss my many

questions. I would also like to thank my lecturer, Pauline Hyland, for her encouragement and

assistance during the research seminars. To all the participants who took the time to complete

my questionnaires, thank you for making this study possible. Last but not least, my

appreciation goes to my family, Yvonne, Patrick, Patrick, Ruth and Jennifer, and to Barry as

well as all of my friends, for sharing my questionnaires and their proofreading, and for their

unremitting support and patience throughout my college years.

 3

Abstract

Previous research suggests that people use phones mostly as a means to enhance

interpersonal closeness. The current study examined the impact of smartphones on social

behaviour and relationships, investigating smartphone use, present absence, phone etiquette,

face-to-face communication and computer-mediated communication. The study used internet

testing with a quasi-experimental and correlational design. A snowball sample of 279

participants aged between 18 and 77 years completed self-report questionnaires: Smartphone

Problematic Use Questionnaire; Face-to-face or Computer-mediated communication

Questionnaire; Present Absence Scale; and Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire. Results

showed that smartphone use and preference for computer-mediated communication were

predictors of present absence. Additionally, age was positively related to phone etiquette and

preference for face-to-face communication and negatively related to smartphone use, present

absence, and computer-mediated communication. Differences highlighted, included higher

levels of phone use and present absence, and lower levels of phone etiquette among

smartphone users, compared to standard mobile phone users. In conclusion, smartphones

undoubtedly have both pervasive and negative influences over users and it would be valuable

if future research focussed on the possible reasons for this.

 4

Introduction

Humans are social creatures with a universal need to connect with others. Recent

advancements in communications technology have enabled billions of people around the

world to fulfil this need using mobile phones (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012). However,

although people are attracted to these devices as a means for sociability and interpersonal

closeness (Leung & Wei, 2000), there is uncertainty as to whether phones actually serve this

purpose. “Ironically, a smartphone can change from the status of an instrument that supports

social exchanges to an object than indubitably interferes with them” (Billieux, 2012, p. 299).

Social engagement through the use of phones has become main-stream. This changing nature

of communication styles and preferences raises questions about the impact it has on real-life

social interactions.

The powerful demand for communications technology has revolutionised mobile

phones into devices with more advanced connectivity and functionality. It can no longer be

suggested that mobile phones offer exclusive communication between two individuals

(Billeux, 2012). The latest generation of mobile phones, smartphones, have an advanced

operating system which can perform many of the functions of a computer, enables ubiquitous

accessibility to the internet and includes a variety of general-purpose applications

(“Smartphone”, 2013). Smartphones not only enable users to take care of all their handheld

computing and communication needs, whether through texts, calls, emails or social

networking sites (SNSs), but they allow owners to engage in a number of online activities,

surfing the internet, playing games, music, and videos, reading e-books, managing their day-

to-day banking, online shopping and navigation (Billieux, 2012). It is no wonder that

smartphones have become such an integral part of modern society, with people constantly

immersed in their virtual world (Plant, 2001).

 5

The adoption and dependence of smartphone devices is increasing every day.

Worldwide sales of smartphones surpassed those of standard mobile phones in 2013, with

90% of handset sales involving the purchase of Android and iPhone smartphones (Svensson,

2013). A recent Eircom Household Sentiment Survey (2013) revealed that more than 1.6

million people now own a smartphone in Ireland while international statistics reported that

over 940 million people own at least one smartphone (International Telecommunications

Union, 2011). The latest research report by International Data Corporation (IDC, 2013)

shows some shocking statistics about human reliance on smartphones. The study was

conducted on 7,446 18-44 year old iPhone and Android smartphone owners in the U.S.

Results showed that almost half of the U.S. population uses a smartphone. They predicted

that by the year 2017, smartphone users will reach 68%. The study also revealed that 4 out of

5 smartphone owners check their phones within the first fifteen minutes of waking up, and

among these users approximately 80% reach for their phone before doing anything else. In

addition, 79% of smartphone users have their phone on or near them for all but two hours of

the day, while 20% of participants could not recall a single time of the day when their phone

was not in the same room as them. The researchers further discovered that the use of social

media applications, such as twitter and Facebook, is higher during social events due to the

desire to share experiences and photos, post status updates and check-ins with friends online.

This highlights the worrying issue that people seem more interested in their social life online

than their actual social life with those physically around them.

Benefits and Caveats

The integration of the internet and mobile services has brought enormous

convenience to the daily lives of smartphone users. Smartphones enable global

 6

communication regardless of time and place. People are more connected now than ever with

applications, such as Skype and Viber, allowing free phone calls to friends and family

anywhere in the world. In addition to breaking down the geographical boundaries of

communication, mobile phones allow people to widen and maintain their social networks due

to increased accessibility and immediacy of contact (Srivastava, 2005). Other gratifications of

phone use include increased feelings of security and safety (Carroll et al., 2002), better

contact between parents and children (Matthews, 2004), improved social inclusion (Ling,

2004) and facilitating the formation of romantic relationships (Ben-Ze’ev, 2005).

Furthermore receiving messages, phone calls or other contact can positively affect an

individual’s feelings of self-worth and belonging (Walsh, White, & Young, 2010). People use

their smartphones as instruments to demonstrate their individuality and in some cases, their

desired status. For many people, having the most expensive and most recent mobile phone

reflects prestige (Swaminathan, 2008). People can personalise and adapt their smartphones,

with different cases, applications and storage facilities, to suit their individual needs and

lifestyles (Tossell et al., 2012).

Despite the remarkable uptake and potential benefits of smartphones, they are not

without their disadvantages. According to Whitbourne (2011), smartphones are making

people less smart. There have been concerns about the negative impact smartphones have on

human intelligence, with regards to memory (Sparrow, Liu & Wegner, 2011), spatial

orientation (Bohbot et al., 2011) and higher level cognitive tasks (Abramson et al., 2009).

Cloete (2011) claimed that laziness and procrastination also results from communications

technology use.

Although there is evidence that mobile phones present significant safety risks if used

whilst driving (McEvoy et al., 2005; Hancock, Lesch & Simmons, 2003), 75% of drivers

reported using their phone in such situations (Thompson, 2005). With permanent access to
 7

SNSs, smartphones provide a powerful medium for cyber bullying which can lead to

detrimental outcomes for victims (Campbell & Gardner, 2004). Additionally the permanent

access to work email can breakdown the traditional boundaries between home and work life

(Meece, 2011). Phones are also often used in inappropriate places, such as classes, which can

interfere with students’ education (Srisvastava, 2005). Sleep disturbances, stress and

depression are among the other negative outcomes that have been linked to phone use

(Thomée, Harenstam & Hagberg, 2011). A diary study by Hancock, Thom-Santelli & Ritchie

(2004) showed that the design features of mobile phones (e.g., synchronicity, recordability,

and copresence) can increase lying behaviour.

Furthermore the smartphone has extensive implications for society and culture in

terms of its adverse affect on cultural norms, social behaviour and relationships. It influences

the development of social structures and how users perceive themselves and the world around

them (Plant, 2001). The increased connectivity and accessibility of this device should

enhance relationships and bring people closer together however it has the potential to do the

opposite by undermining face-to-face communication and promoting incivility (Nelson &

Quick, 2013). Yet people have little awareness of the huge effect these devices have on their

lives (Katz & Aakhus, 2002).

Changing Communication styles and Preferences

Computer-Mediated Communication

The advent of mobile phones has led to changes in how humans communicate with

one another. Increasingly, people are turning to computer-mediated communication to satisfy

important social and psychological needs (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). Computer-mediated
 8

communication (CMC) is described as "any communication patterns mediated through some

type of computer device" (Metz, 1992, p. 3). Due to its’ simplicity and convenience, CMC

may diminish the extent that people partake in face-to-face communication (O’Donohue,

2002). In fact, recent research findings show that nowadays people prefer interacting on their

smartphones than face-to-face (Lenhart, 2012; Victor, 2013; Metro Herald, 2014). It appears

that some people believe they can express themselves better through CMC and that this type

of communication requires less commitment (Karemaker, 2005).

Mobile phone use tends to occur within close relationships such as families,

romantic couples and friends and is used more frequently to strengthen already established

social relationships rather than to extend and make new ones (Ishii, 2006). However, phone-

to-phone interaction is not a sufficient alternative to face-to-face interaction. CMC lacks

many emotional and personal elements that are present in face-to-face interaction and

replaces them with meaningless emoticons. Hancock and Dunham (2001, p.326) argued that

‘the reduction of nonverbal social and relational cues in CMC produces a depersonalized

form of communication and decreased awareness of others, inhibiting interpersonal

relations’. Schumacher (2013) claims that by increasing face-to-face interactions and

reducing the amount of time spent using phones, email or other social media to communicate,

people will build a greater, deeper relationship with others, decrease misunderstandings and

increase productivity at work and at home. Moreover Lee and colleagues (2011) discovered

that internet communication cannot predict quality of life, while face-to-face communication

with friends and family members can.

It has been shown that it is more difficult to develop trust in an online setting than

through face-to-face interactions (Rocco, 1998; Wilson, Straus & McEvily, 2006). Bos and

colleagues (2002) investigated trust development in a social dilemma game in four different

communication situations: face-to-face, video, audio, and text chat. The text chat condition
 9

showed the most difficulty establishing trusting relationships while the face-to-face condition

was significantly higher than all other conditions.

For a world that is more connected than ever, loneliness is still a major human

phenomenon. Young and Rogers (1998) found that people who were internet-dependent spent

less time with their peers, families and friends. Kraut et al. (1998) conducted research

involving 169 families and concluded that increased loneliness resulted from CMC. This

finding was attributed to a decrease in family communication, social activities, happiness and

the number of individual’s in the participant’s social network. Thus research suggests that

CMC can substitute certain activities having a negative, more isolated impact on a person’s

life (DiMaggio et al., 2001).

On the contrary, other research has shown that mobile phones may actually promote

face-to-face interactions and are used as a means to organise such interactions (Geser, 2004).

Similar results were described in another study showing a positive correlation between face-

to-face interaction and mobile phone usage (Goscicki, 2012). Specifically, the more people

used their phones, the more they engaged in face-to-face interactions (Jin & Park, 2010).

Present absence

A deficit in the quality of face-to-face communication has also emerged. The

presence of mobile phones is often felt during casual or intimate social interactions

(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012). The mobile phone allows people to contact others and be

contactable at any time. From phone calls to Facebook or email notifications, smartphones

demand their owner’s attention throughout the day making it impossible for them to

wholeheartedly devote themselves to the present moment. It is now customary that a ringing
 10

or beeping phone takes priority over the social interactions it disrupts (Plant, 2001). Geser

(2002) observed that a significant number of couples repeatedly interrupted their dinner

meals to check for text or voice messages.

The majority of research on mobile phones and relationships suggests that they can

influence a range of interpersonal processes. Through interviews, Plant (2001) revealed that

mobile phones provide a constant sense of connection to the wider social world, even when

phones are on silent mode. Although this can be perceived as a positive attribute of mobile

phones, it can have a considerable negative influence on interpersonal relationships by

degrading first hand interactions. Such effects are observed when individuals attempt to

engage one another in a meaningful way and the other person is inattentive, showing little

interest in the conversation due to the presence of a diverting influence.

An experimental study by Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) explored the effects of

the presence of mobile phones during face-to-face interactions. They conducted two

experiments where pairs of participants engaged in a brief relationship formation task, both in

the presence and absence of a mobile phone. The first experiment investigated the effects of

the phone’s presence on relational processes and the second experiment looked at its’ effect

during casual and intimate interactions. They concluded that the presence of mobile phones

can interfere with human relationships, by having negative effects on closeness, connection

and conversation quality, especially when individuals are discussing meaningful topics.

Similarly, Humphreys (2005) observed that using the phone in the presence of others may

cause other people in the face-to-face conversation, social anxiety and feelings of insecurity,

abandonment or unimportance, as well as anger towards the person on the phone.

Mobile phones might have these pervasive influences because people associate their

phones with larger social networks (Srivastava, 2005). This diverts the individual’s attention
 11

away from their immediate social context to focus on other people, events and interests.

Similarly, Turkle (2011) confirmed this idea in his account of qualitative evidence from

interviews that phones make concerns about maintaining wider social networks salient.

Jarvenpaa and Lang (2006) described this antisocial behaviour related to mobile

communication technology as “engagement-disengagement” or “present-absent” paradoxes.

According to Fortunatti (2002), present absence describes how the presence of individuals in

social space has changed as a result of mobile phone use, such that people are only half-

present in the company of others “with continuity in their physical part, but discontinuity in

immaterial part” (p.519). The phenomenon of present absence occurs when an individual

becomes preoccupied with their mobile phone to the extent that they ignore or stop

interacting with the people they are physically with (Casey, 2012). In other words, “the self,

now attached to its devices, occupies a liminal space between the physical real and its lives

on the screen” (Turkle, 2008, p.122).

Cellular Phone Etiquette

The ubiquitous nature of smartphones has led to concerns over the social manners

governing their usage. According to Palen, Salzman & Youngs, (2001, p. 109), “because

they are devices that are now present in a variety of contexts, and can be remotely and

unpredictably activated, mobile phones are subject to social scrutiny and play a role in the

social world”. Certain mobile phone behaviours are considered problematic and disruptive

and as a result, there are an increasing number of legislative and societal controls seeking to

govern aspects of their use. Mobile phones are banned in a variety of public settings,

including theatres, libraries, courtrooms, schools, private clubs, churches and golf courses.

Despite this legislation, people continue to use their phones even when it is considered
 12

disrespectful to do so. Indeed many professionals now request that mobile phones be

switched off before a consultation commences.

Monk and colleagues (2004) investigated people’s perceptions of phone

conversations compared to face-to-face conversations in public settings. The researchers

exposed 64 members of the public to the same staged conversation, either while waiting in a

bus station or travelling on a train. Half of the conversations were by mobile phone, so that

only one end of the conversation was heard, and half were face-to-face conversations where

both sides of the conversation were heard. The volume of the conversations was controlled at

one of two levels: the actors' usual speech level and excessively loud. Participants’ verbal

ratings following exposure to the conversations showed that mobile phone conversations

were significantly more noticeable and annoying than face-to-face conversations at the same

volume when the content of the conversation was controlled for. Furthermore, phone use in

social settings can force other people to overhear conversations which can be irritating and

embarrassing for the co-present individual (Campbell & Park, 2008).

Phone use in public settings offers individuals little opportunity for socialisation

with proximate others, such as strangers, and prevents a sense of community and belonging

(Banjo, Hu and Sundar, 2008). Instead, people consumed in their mobile devices are

perceived as impolite, unapproachable and withdrawn from their current location (Banjo, Hu

& Sundar, 2008). Additionally, research found that people with mobile phones in public are

less likely to help strangers in need. One possible explanation for this is that they are less

aware of their surroundings and thus, their social responsibilities, resulting in alienation of

communication at the social level. Similarly, an interesting study by Abraham, Pocheptsova

and Ferraro (2012) revealed that after a short period of mobile phone use, participants were

less inclined to volunteer for a community service activity.

 13

Women and older adults advocate more restrictive standards on phone use across

social settings (Forgays, Hyman & Schreiber, 2014). Lipscomb and colleagues (2005) found

that respondents considered inappropriate situations for mobile phone usage to include

churches, libraries, movie theatres and during class. Nevertheless Burns and Lohenry (2010)

conducted a study on faculty and students in the health sciences investigating the perception

of mobile phone use during class. Indeed they discovered that 40% of the students used their

phones during class which caused a distraction for 85% of the students. A similar study

showed even higher figures, with 95% of college students stating that they bring their phone

to class every day and 92% even admitting to sending text messages during lectures (Tindell

and Bohlander, 2012). Some restaurants have begun to reinforce “no phone policies” in their

establishments. According to Intel’s Mobile Etiquette Survey (2012), one in five adults and a

third of adolescents share information online when out for dinner with others. This has led to

the development of games such as the “phone stacking game” in different public settings,

most commonly pubs and restaurants. This involves everyone placing their phone face down

in the centre of the table and the first person to pick their phone up is punished by having to

pay the bill (Mogg, 2012).

Addiction

Due to the lack of research regarding the overuse of smartphones, this paper will

review research focusing on the overuse of some individual functions of this technology.

Mobile phone and internet use have been linked to antisocial behaviours, uncontrolled use

and dependence symptoms (Billieux, 2012). Recent research suggests that some people may

even develop an extreme attachment or “addiction” to communications technology, resulting

from excessive patterns of usage (Billieux, Van der Linden & Rochat, 2008). Individuals who
 14

are addicted to their mobile phones are constantly ensuring their phone is always on, using

their phone at every opportunity they get and frequently experience financial and social

difficulties due to their excessive use (Roos, 2001). Moreover internet addiction has been

characterised in the same category as alcohol, drugs and gambling addiction and can result in

academic, social, and occupational impairment (Young, 2009). Empirical studies have found

that SNSs are potentially addictive causing a multitude of negative psychosocial outcomes

such as decreased real-life community involvement, poorer academic performance and more

relationship problems (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).

Griffiths (1996) argued that technological addictions are a subset of behavioural

addictions, similar to other non-chemical addictions such as pathological gambling,

compulsive shopping and video-game addiction. All of these activities can be carried out on a

smartphone, due to its’ unlimited internet access and various applications. These addictions

involve human-machine interaction and usually contain reinforcing features which contribute

to the development of addictive tendencies (Griffiths, 1996). Similar to other addictions, the

core components of technological addictions include salience, mood changes, tolerance,

withdrawal, conflict with other people and daily activities, behavioural and cognitive

salience, and relapse.

There has been on-going debate over the use of addiction terminology and theory to

mobile phone use (Rush, 2011). Pathological addictions are usually associated with

significant harm to the self and others, and a severe negative impact on the person’s daily life

(Walsh, White & Young, 2010). Therefore, the term “addiction” may not be appropriate in

the context of mobile phone use as it is not evident that the behaviour is so egregious as to

justify that label (Walsh, White & Young, 2010). According to Griffiths (2013, p. 76)

“excessive use does not necessarily mean addiction, and the difference between a healthy
 15

enthusiasm and addiction is that healthy enthusiasms add to life, and addictions take away

from them”.

Measuring Problematic Use

There are very few validated scales measuring problematic mobile phone use and

even fewer focusing specifically on problematic smartphone use. Out of the measures that do

exist, most are based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

criteria for pathological addiction (Jenaro et al, 2007; Yen et al., 2007; Chóliz, 2012; Toda et

al., 2006) as well as the literature on internet addiction (Beard, 2002; Young, 1998). Bianchi

and Phillips (2005) defined problematic mobile phone use as continued use of the mobile

phone despite negative outcomes and societal restrictions (Walsh, White & Young, 2010).

The researchers developed one of the most commonly used measures of problematic phone

use, known as the Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (MPPUS). Based on substance abuse

literature, they identified several symptoms of problematic mobile phone use, including

tolerance, feeling anxious and depressed when out of range for some time, failure to control

use, escape from other problems and negative consequences upon social, family, professional

and financial aspects of life (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005).

The Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire (SPUQ; Rush, 2011) is utilised in

this study. It is based on the Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (Walsh et al., 2008)

and Brown’s (1993, 1997) behavioural addiction components. These components include:

cognitive and behavioural salience, referring to how much the behaviour dominates the

person’s thoughts and activities; conflict, describing how the individual’s phone use results in

conflict with other people or interferes with other aspects of the individual’s life such as less

engagement in social activities; feelings of euphoria and relief resulting from phone use; loss
 16

of control describing how the individual cannot monitor the amount of time spent on the

phone; withdrawal, which refers to the unpleasant feelings associated with not being able to

use the phone; and finally, relapse following attempts to reduce phone use.

As it is based on both DSM-IV criteria and other measurements of addiction used in

previous studies of mobile phone and internet use, the SPUQ has good content validity (Rush,

2011). Furthermore unlike most questionnaires measuring mobile phone and smartphone use

(Jenaro et al., 2007; Casey, 2012; Kwon et al., 2013), the SPUQ does not categorise people’s

phone use as “problematic” or “addictive”. Rather it measures a person’s level of smartphone

usage and identifies if their usage puts them at risk of developing problematic use. The SPUQ

expands on previous research on mobile phones by addressing issues specifically associated

with smartphones. The SPUQ comprises of eight factors that are highly relevant to this study

and to contemporary society. These factors cover a variety of current concerns about people’s

thoughts and behaviours regarding their smartphone use. Factor one, indispensability, relates

to the high value and usefulness individuals place on their smartphones, keeping it close to

them at all times. Factor two, withdrawal, represents negative feelings of distress, guilt or

worry associated with smartphone use. Factor three, interpersonal conflict and relapse,

represents conflict with family, friends and colleagues as a result of smartphone use and the

inability to limit its’ use. Factor four, loss of control, refers to the irrational thoughts and

morals resulting from use. Factor five, perceived success, relates to a person’s belief that their

smartphone reflects their wealth or accomplishments. Factor six, emotional connection,

represents how people become attached to their phones as they provide connectivity and are

personalised to the individual’s preferences. Factor seven, behavioural salience, signifies how

the smartphone requires attention and takes precedence over other social interactions. Finally

factor eight, decreased productivity, represents how the smartphone affects their day-to-day

productivity whether at work or at home.

 17

Demographic Differences

Younger people are more likely to embrace and use new technology, especially

communications technology, than older populations (Charness & Bosman, 1992). For this

reason, most researchers have focused on problematic phone use in young adults and

adolescents (Chóliz, 2012; Griffiths, 2013; Walsh, White & Young, 2010). Unsurprisingly,

research that has looked at age differences found that problematic mobile phone use is higher

amongst younger age groups (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Labrador & Villadangos, 2010; Kim

et al., 2008).

The literature looking at gender differences in phone use has yielded more mixed

results. Although early research suggests that males experience more problematic use of

technology in terms of internet and video-gaming (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Morahan-Martin

& Schumacher, 2000), more recent research suggests that females use their mobile phones

more and view their use as more problematic than males (Beranuy, Oberst, el al., 2009;

Choliz, Villanueva & Choliz, 2009; Griffiths, 2013). Other research however has shown that

there is no difference between genders in terms of problematic phone use, suggesting that

phone technology has been equally embraced by both males and females (Bianchi & Phillips,

2005; Rush, 2011; Kwon et al., 2013). Type of phone use also plays a part in the

development of problematic phone use, with text-messages and games contributing the most

and phone calls contributing the least (Griffiths, 2013). Gender differences in phone use have

also appeared, with women using their phones more for social purposes and men using them

for business and entertainment reasons (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Griffith, 2013).
 18

Current Study

As the literature review has shown, mobile phone use is increasing and has a number

of reported benefits but also caveats for modern society. These effects are dependent on the

phone user’s behaviours as well as society norms (Mogg, 2012). The current study aims to

address weaknesses and inconsistencies about the social benefits of mobile phones. While a

lot of research has focused on addiction, mobile phone use can be problematic in the absence

of addiction in terms of how it affects our social behaviour and relationships. The main

questions addressed in the study are: Are phones an element of social capital, bringing people

together and binding the individual to society? Or are they a force of individualisation,

distancing people from each other, allowing them to resist socialisation, and ignore social

values and norms? (Ling, 2005).

While other studies have focused on mobile phone addiction and internet addiction,

there has been limited research on smartphones in particular. As the smartphone combines

both internet and mobile phone devices, it provides an extended variety of functions that a

person can become absorbed in. Moreover, although research in this area has suggested that

people use phones mostly as a means to enhance interpersonal closeness (Leung & Wei,

2000), little research has systematically examined the actual influence these devices have in

the context of social behaviour and relationships. The current study aims to explore this in

smartphone users and standard mobile phone users, as well as different age and gender

groups. More specifically, the present paper seeks to examine the impact that smartphone use

has on a person’s social behaviour and relationships in terms of their preference for face-to-

face communication and computer-mediated communication, their use of the phone in the

company of others, referred to as ‘present-absence’, and their attitudes towards the use of

mobile phones in various social situations.

 19

Hypotheses

The first hypothesis (H1) proposes that participants with high levels of smartphone

use and those with low levels of smartphone use will show significant differences in (a)

present absence, (b) computer-mediated communication, (c) face-to-face communication and

(d) cellular phone etiquette.

The second hypothesis (H2) proposes that smartphone use and computer-mediated

communication will be significant predictors of present absence.

The third hypothesis (H3) states that standard mobile phone users and smartphone

users will show significant differences in (a) phone use, (b) present absence, (c) preference

for computer-mediated communication, (d) preference for face-to-face communication and

(e) cellular phone etiquette.

The fourth hypothesis (H4) proposes that there will be a significant correlation

between age and (a) smartphone use, (b) present absence, (c) computer-mediated

communication, (d) face-to-face communication and (e) cellular phone etiquette.

The fifth hypothesis (H5) proposes that there will be significant differences in

smartphone use across the most frequently used phone functions.

 20

Methodology

Participants

Inclusion factors for participants were individuals over the age of 18 who owned a

mobile phone. A convenience and snowball sample consisting of the general public was used

to recruit participants through Facebook and email. Hard-copy questionnaires were also

distributed to family, friends, neighbours and other acquaintances without an email or

Facebook account. Participation was voluntary and there were no incentives offered. The

study consisted of two hundred and seventy nine participants (N = 279) between the ages of

18 and 77 years (M = 33.37, SD = 14.85). Of the participants, there were 175 females (63%)

and 104 males (37%). Smartphone users made up 87% (N = 243) of the sample, while the

other 13% (N = 36) were standard mobile phone users. The majority of the sample were full-

time workers (n = 153), while 26 were part-time workers, 48 were students, 28 participants

were unemployed or retired, and the remaining 24 participants were both working and

students. According to the median split of 65, 121 participants (43.4%) had low levels of

smartphone use and 126 (45.2%) had high levels of smartphone use.

Design

The study used internet testing with a quasi-experimental between-group design. It is

also correlational in design and contains independent and dependent variables as well as

criterion and predictor variables. Age, phone type and levels of smartphone use were the

independent variables and smartphone use, present absence, face-to-face communication,

computer-mediated communication, phone etiquette and phone functions were the dependent

variables. Hypotheses one, three and five provided the quasi-experimental between-group
 21

elements to the study. Independent t-tests were conducted to examine differences between

smartphone users and standard mobile phone users on each of the independent variables.

Similar tests were used to explore the differences between participants with high and low

levels of phone use across these variables. An ANOVA was used to test hypothesis five.

Smartphone use was the dependent variable and phone functions (phone calls, SNSs, email,

internet, entertainment and text messages) were the independent variables. In addition, for

hypothesis four, correlations were examined between age (predictor variable) and smartphone

use, present absence, computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication and

phone etiquette (criterion variables). A multiple linear regression was also carried out to

analyse the data for hypothesis two. The predictor variables were smartphone use and

computer-mediated communication and the criterion variable was present absence.

Materials

The questionnaire began with a section on demographic information including

gender, age and professional status (1=“full-time work”, 2=“part-time work”, 3=”full-time

student”, 4=“part-time student”, 5=“retired or unemployed”). It also asked participants what

type of phone they owned, Smartphone or standard mobile phone, and about their most

frequently used phone functions (e.g. work/college email, internet, social networking,

personal calls, work phone calls, text messages, music, games, news applications,

photos/videos and other). They were also asked to indicate which descriptive word reflects

how they perceive their phone from the following options: addictive, annoying, cannot live

without it, disruptive, distraction, fun, helpful/useful tool, necessary evil and other.

Participants then completed four established self-report questionnaires: the

Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire; the Present Absence Scale; the preference for
 22

Face-to-face or Computer-mediated communication Questionnaire; and finally the Cellular

Phone Etiquette Questionnaire. Copyright permission was sought from all researchers before

issuing their questionnaire.

The Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire

The Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire (SPUQ; Rush, 2011) was designed

to assess whether participants are at risk of developing problematic smartphone use. The

questions are based on Walsh et al.’s (2008) Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire and

Brown’s (1993, 1997) components of behavioural addiction discussed in the literature. The

original SPUQ consists of 44 questions and 8 subscales, including indispensability,

withdrawal, interpersonal conflict and relapse, loss of control, perceived success, emotional

connection, behavioural salience and decreased productivity. Although the SPUQ showed

overall good reliability, Cronbach’s α = .78, two sub-scales, emotional connection and

decreased productivity, were omitted from this study due to low Cronbach’s α reliability

scores of .28 and .57, respectively (Rush, 2011). Therefore the adapted version of the SPUQ

used in this study consisted of only 37 questions and showed good internal consistency and

reliability with Cronbach’s α of .85. The remaining six sub-scales had good internal

consistency and were divided as follows: Indispensability (Cronbach’s α = .77) consists of

items 4, 7, 9, 17, 21, 25, 30 and 33; Withdrawal (Cronbach’s α = .79) includes items 8, 10,

15, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32; Interpersonal conflict and relapse (Cronbach’s α = .78) includes

items 1, 5, 6, 19, 20, 35 and 36; Loss of control (Cronbach’s α = .71) comprises of items 2, 3,

12, 13, 18, 22 and 23; Perceived success (Cronbach’s α = .80) included items 14, 16 and 34;

and finally, Behavioural salience (Cronbach’s α = .71) consisted of items, 11, 27 and 37

(Rush, 2011).
 23

Furthermore the cut-off score of 110 indicating which participants were at risk of

developing excess patterns of smartphone use was not employed in the current study. Instead

the median score on the SPUQ served as a grouping variable. Participants who scored above

the median of 65 were considered as having high levels of phone use and those who scored

below the median had low levels. In addition for the purpose of this study, the word

“smartphone” was rephrased as “phone” throughout to assess problematic phone use in both

Smartphone and standard mobile phone users. For example, the question “I would rather lose

my wallet than my smartphone” was rephrased as “I would rather lose my wallet than my

phone”. Participants were instructed to respond to questions, such as, “I do not go anywhere

without my phone” and “I worry about my reliance on my phone” on a Five-point Likert

scale; (0) strongly disagree, (1) disagree, (2) neither disagree nor agree, (3) agree, (4) strongly

agree and (5). Items for which participants selected option (5) N/A were omitted from the

analysis. Items are summed to compile a total ranging from 0 to 148 for each individual.

Items 24, 26, 27, 29 and 34 were reverse-coded.

The Present Absence scale

The Present Absence scale (Casey, 2012) comprised five questions which seek to

measure how often an individual’s phone interferes with their social world and interactions

around them. Participants were instructed to respond on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from

(1) almost never to (5) almost always. Sample items included “How often do you “abandon”

your physical surroundings to use your phone or interact with someone else through your

phone?” and “How often do you use your phone while in a meeting, lecture or class?” The

Present Absence Scale has acceptable reliability of .73, as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha
 24

(Casey, 2012). Items are summed to compile a total ranging from 0 to 30. Higher scores on

the scale indicate higher levels of present absence.

Face-to-Face versus Computer-Mediated Communication General Preference Statements

Questionnaire

The Face-to-Face versus Computer-Mediated Communication General Preference

Statements Questionnaire (Karemaker, 2005) involves six questions rated on a 5-point Likert

scale from (1) agree completely to (5) disagree completely. For this reason, all questions were

reverse coded so participants with higher scores showed higher preference for each factor.

Three questions (Q.1, 3 and 5) measure a preference for face-to-face communication and the

other three (Q.2, 4 and 6) measure a preference for computer-mediated communication in

different social situations. Therefore two total scores per participant were calculated by

adding items 1, 3 and 5 into ‘factor 1’ to get a total for face-to-face communication and items

2, 4 and 6 into ‘factor 2’ to get a total for computer-mediated communication. Karemaker

(2005) conducted a factor analysis which confirmed that questions were loading on the two

intended factors. Sample items included “If you want to have a really good conversation, you

have to be able to see each other” and “Sometimes I say things through text message that are

difficult to express through other means”.

The Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire

The Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire (Lipscomb et al., 2005) was developed

to assess participants’ attitudes towards the appropriateness of phone usage in different

settings. The questionnaire includes 10 items, half of which are phrased in a positive way
 25

(e.g. “It is appropriate to use a mobile phone in a restaurant”) and the other half phrased in a

negative way (e.g. “It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in the library”). The instrument

uses a 5-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. For the purpose of

this study, items 1,4,5,7 and 10 were reverse scored and scores were summed to compile a

total ranging from 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate more restrictive standards on phone use

across social and public settings.

Procedure

Before conducting the study, ethical approval was received from Dublin Business

School Ethics Board. The 64-item questionnaire (Appendix 2) was created and designed

using www.kwiksurvey.com. The questionnaires were made available from January 25th,

2014 through February 10th, 2014. Participants were recruited by posting the questionnaire

link on Facebook or by sending it via email, with some participants forwarding the

questionnaire link on to their contacts. Hard copies of the questionnaire were also

administered to friends, family, neighbours, acquaintances and their contacts.

The first page of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) gave participants a brief

understanding of the purpose of the study stating that it was investigating mobile phone use.

It also informed participants of the expected duration of the study (10-15 minutes) and that

participation was completely voluntary, confidential and anonymous. Furthermore readers

were notified that they could withdraw from the study at any time during completion of the

questionnaire. All participants indicated their informed consent prior to questionnaire

completion by ticking a box at the end of the first page. Participants were then instructed to

fill out their demographic and phone information followed by the four questionnaires

accurately and truthfully. The questionnaire concluded with a page (Appendix 3) which
 26

thanked participants, provided further information about the nature of the study, and contact

information for the researcher should participants have any questions about the research.

When all questionnaires were collected, the data was entered into Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 for analysing.

 27

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The sample consisted of 279 participants, 175 females (63%) and 104 males (37%).

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77, with a mean age of 33.37 (SD = 14.85) (see Table

1). There were 243 Smartphone users (87%) and only 36 standard mobile phone users (13%).

The majority of the sample were full-time workers (n = 153), while 26 were part-time

workers, 48 were students, 28 participants were unemployed or retired, and the remaining 24

participants were both working and students. According to the median split of 65, 121

participants (43.4%) had low levels of smartphone use and 126 (45.2%) had high levels of

smartphone use.

The most frequently used phone functions selected by participants were personal

phone calls (22.10%), work phone calls (14.49%), social networking sites (11.23%) and text

messages (10.14%) (see Figure 1). Additionally, 54.5% percent of participants described their

phone as a “helpful/useful tool”, 15.4% stated that they could not live without their phone,

14.3% referred to their phone as a “necessary evil”, and 8.6% described their phone as

“addictive”.
 28

Figure 1: Pie chart showing participant’s most frequently used phone functions

The minimum and maximum scores calculated on each of the questionnaires as well

as the minimum and maximum age are represented in Table 1. It also shows the mean,

median and standard deviation for each. The mean score for phone use, as measured by the

Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire, is 62.59 (SD = 20.43), indicating that the

average member of the sample has a moderate level of phone use. Out of a possible score of

148, the highest score was 105. The mean score for present absence is 12.92 (SD = 4.76)

which shows that on average, participants’ phone use interferes moderately with their social

interactions with the people around them. With regards to communication preferences, the

average person had a high score for both face-to-face communication (M = 11.35, SD = 2.25)

and computer-mediated communication (M = 10.44, SD = 2.69). Furthermore on average

participants showed high restrictive standards of phone use in different settings (M = 32.20,

SD = 5.20).
 29

As figure two shows, the majority of participants stated that they were not addicted

to their phones (53.8%, n = 150), while only 23% reported that they were (n = 62). The

remaining 12.5% indicated neither agreement nor disagreement with the statement (n = 35).

Nevertheless, 58.1% of participants claim that their phone is an integral part of their life, with

44% of respondents stating that they would interrupt a social interaction with friends to

answer their phone.

Figure 2: Bar Chart showing percentage of participant’s agreement/disagreement regarding

addiction to their phone (SPUQ question 12)

 30

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Age, Smartphone use, Present absence, Face-to-face

communication, Computer-mediated communication and Phone etiquette

Variable Mean SD Median Minimum Maximum

Age 33.37 14.85 26 18 77
Smartphone use 62.59 20.43 65 5 105
Present absence 12.92 4.76 13 5 25
F2F 11.35 2.25 12 4 15
CMC 10.44 2.69 11 3 15
Phone etiquette 32.20 5.20 32 16 50
Note: F2F = Face-to-face communication; CMC = Computer-mediated communication

As indicated in Table 3, overall respondents considered the following settings

inappropriate for using a mobile phone: hand-held mobile phone while driving, church, class,

library and cinema/theatre. They considered it appropriate to use a hands-free mobile phone

while driving, to use a mobile phone while on public transport, in the bathroom and in a

supermarket. There was near-ambivalence among participants concerning the use of a phone

in a restaurant. However although nearly 50% of participants stated that it was inappropriate

to use the phone in the restaurant, almost a quarter of participants admitted to using the phone

in such situations.
 31

Table 2: Percentage of agreement/disagreement for each etiquette statement

Etiquette Statement Disagree Undecided Agree

It is appropriate to use a hand-held mobile phone 84.5% 6.5% 12.1%
while driving.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone during 14.7% 7.8% 77.6%
worship/church.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone during a 19.0% 12.1% 69.0%
class.
It is appropriate to use a hands-free mobile phone 28.0% 12.9% 59.1%
while driving.
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone in a restaurant. 48.3% 17.7% 34.1%
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in the library. 19.8% 12.9% 67.2%
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone on public 19.4% 12.5% 68.1%
transport.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in the 57.3% 12.5% 30.2%
bathroom.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in the 81.5% 6.9% 11.6%
supermarket.
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone in the cinema 67.2% 1.7% 31.0%
or at the theatre (during a show).

As can be seen from Table 3, there were a number of significant positive and

negative correlations between the measured variables. Smartphone use showed a strong

positive correlation with present absence (r (238) = .591, p < .001); a medium positive

correlation with computer-mediated communication (r (234) = .455, p < .001); a weak

negative correlation with phone etiquette (r (232) = -.174, p = .008); and also a weak negative

correlation with face-to-face communication (r (234) = -.23, p = .005). Additionally, present

absence had a weak negative correlation with face-to-face communication (r (234) = -.229, p

< .001); a medium positive correlation with computer-mediated communication (r (234) = -

.229, p = .003); and a weak negative correlation with phone etiquette (r (232) = -.291, p <

.001). There was a weak negative correlation between computer-mediated communication

and both face-to-face communication (r (234) = -.277, p < .001) and phone etiquette (r (232)

= -.196, p = .003). However, there was no statistically significant correlation between phone

etiquette and face-to-face communication (r (232) = .108, p = .101).

 32

Table 3: Pearson correlations between Age, Smartphone use, Present absence, Face-to-face

communication, Computer-mediated communication and Phone etiquette

Variables Age Smartphone Present F2F CMC Phone

use absence Etiquette
Age 1

Smartphone use -.459* 1

Present absence -.523* .591* 1

F2F .184* -.230* -.229* 1

CMC -.351* .455* .450* -.205* 1

Phone etiquette .255* -.174* -.291* .108 -.196* 1

Note: F2F = Face-to-face communication; CMC = Computer-mediated
communication
* Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
 33

Inferential Statistics

Preliminary data analysis was performed to check for any violations of the

assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity.

Hypothesis 1

A number of independent samples t-test were conducted to examine whether

participants with high levels of smartphone use and those with low levels of smartphone use

showed significant differences in (a) present absence, (b) preferences for computer-mediated

communication, (c) preferences for face-to-face communication and (d) perceptions of

cellular phone etiquette.

(a) Firstly, an independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the present

absence scores for participants with high levels of smartphone use and those with low levels

of smartphone use. The results showed that participants with high levels of smartphone use

(M = 15.16, SD = 4.32) had significantly higher present absence scores than those with low

levels of smartphone use (M = 10.72, SD = 4.11; t (236) = -8.13, p < .001, two-tailed). The

magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -4.44, 95% CI: -5.56 to -3.37)

was large (r = 0.62).

(b) Similarly, participants with high levels of smartphone use (M = 11.26, SD =

1.85) had significantly higher preference for computer-mediated communication than those

with low levels of smartphone use (M = 9.63, SD = 3.12; t (190.50) = -4.87, p <.001, two-

tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -1.63, 95% CI: -

2.29 to -.97) was medium (r = .38).

(c) It was also found that participants with low levels of smartphone use (M = 11.68,

SD = 2.34) had a higher preference for face-to-face communication than those with high
 34

levels of smartphone use (M = 11.01, SD = 2.12; t (232) = 2.30, p = .023, two-tailed). The

magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = .67, 95% CI: .10 to 1.24) was

small (r = .15).

(d) Lastly, perceptions of cellular phone etiquette did not differ between participants

with high levels of smartphone use (M = 31.81, SD = 4.31) and those with low levels (M =

32.58, SD = 5.93; t (213.70) = 1.15, p = .253, two-tailed). Furthermore the magnitude of the

differences in the means (mean difference = .79, 95% CI: -.56 to .2.12) was very small (r =

0.08).

Therefore hypothesis one is partially supported except for differences in phone

etiquette between participants with high and low levels of phone use.

Hypothesis 2

A multiple linear regression was used to determine whether smartphone use and

computer-mediated communication were predictors of present absence. The dependent

variable was present absence and the independent variables were computer-mediated

communication and smartphone use. Preliminary analysis was conducted to ensure there was

no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and

homoscedasticity.

The results of the regression indicated that the two predictors explained 41% of the

variance (R2 = .41, F (2, 231) = 81.43, p < .001). It was found that computer-mediated

communication predicted present absence ( = .22, p = .001, 95% CI = .19 – .58) as did

smartphone use ( = .52, p < .001, 95% CI = .09 – 1.5). Therefore the null hypothesis is

rejected.
 35

Present absence = 1.49 (constant) + 0.52 (smartphone use) + 0.22 (computer-mediated

communication)

Hypothesis 3

A number of independent samples t-tests were carried out to test whether standard

mobile phone users and smartphone users showed significant differences in (a) phone use, (b)

present absence, (c) preferences for computer-mediated communication, (d) preferences for

face-to-face communication and (e) perceptions of cellular phone etiquette. Equality of

variances was tested for the five variables and was observed for smartphone use, present

absence and face-to-face communication. Accordingly, equal variances were not assumed for

computer-mediated communication and phone etiquette. Results of the analyses were as

follows:

(a) Regarding phone use scores, the independent samples t-test showed that

smartphone users (M = 65.85, SD = 18.52) had significantly higher scores of phone use than

standard mobile phone users (M = 39.90, SD = 18.87; t (245) = 7.28, p < .001, two-tailed).

The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = 25.94. 95% CI: 18.92 to

32.97) was medium (r = 0.42). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.

(b) It was also found that smartphone users (M = 13.42, SD = 4.51) had significantly

higher scores of present absence than standard mobile phone users (M = 9.58, SD = 5.12; t

(236) = 4.34, p < .001, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean

difference = 3.84, 95% CI: 2.10 to 5.58) was small (r = 0.27). Therefore the null hypothesis is

rejected.

(c) Preference for computer-mediated communication did not differ significantly

between standard mobile phone users (M = 9.48, SD = 3.80) and smartphone users (M =
 36

10.58, SD = 2.46; t (33.94) = 1.56, p = .129, two-tailed). Therefore the null hypothesis must

be accepted. Even though the effect was non-significant, it still represented a small effect size

(r = .26). This suggests that the magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference =

-.83, 95% CI: -1.68 to .022) was small.

(d) The independent t-test found that preferences for face-to-face communication did

not differ between standard mobile phone users (M = 12.06, SD = 2.14) and smartphone users

(M = 11.24, SD = 2.25; t (232) = -1.92, p = .056, two-tailed). Therefore the null hypothesis is

accepted. The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = -.83, 95% CI: -

1.68 to .022) was small (r = 0.13).

(e) Additionally, on average, smartphone users (M = 31.78, SD = 4.67) had lower

levels of phone etiquette compared to standard mobile phone users (M = 34.94, SD = 7.31).

According to the independent samples t-test, this difference was significant, t (33.88) = -2.33,

p = .026, two-tailed. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. The magnitude of the

differences in the means (mean difference = -3.15, 95% CI: -5.91 to -.40) was medium (r =

0.44). Table 4 shows a summary of these results.

 37

Table 4: An Independent Samples T-test table displaying the differences between smartphone

and standard mobile phone users on the different variables

Variables Groups Mean SD T Df P

Phone use Smartphone 65.85 18.52 7.28 245 .000*

Standard 39.90 18.87
Present Smartphone 13.42 4.51 4.34 236 .000*
Absence
Standard 9.58 5.12
Computer- Smartphone 10.58 2.46 1.56 33.94 .129
mediated
communication Standard 9.48 3.80

Face-to-face Smartphone 11.24 2.25 -1.92 232 .056

communication
Standard 12.06 2.14

Phone etiquette Smartphone 31.78 4.67 -2.33 33.38 .026*

Standard 34.94 7.31

* p significant at .01 level

Hypothesis 4

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients investigated the relationship

between age and (a) smartphone use, (b) present absence, (c) computer-mediated

communication, (d) face-to-face communication and (e) cellular phone etiquette. In

interpreting the Pearson product-moment correlations, r coefficient values of .10 to .29 were

considered weak correlations, values of .30 to .49 were considered moderate correlations and

those from 0.50 to 1.0 were deemed strong correlations (Cohen, 1988, pp. 79-81). Results

were as follows:
 38

(a) There was a medium, negative correlation between age and smartphone use, r

(247) = -.459, p < .00, two-tailed. The percentage of variance accounted for by the

relationship between these two variables is 21.07%.

(b) There was a strong, negative correlation between age and present absence, r

(238) = -.523, p <.001, two-tailed. The percentage of variance accounted for by the

relationship between these variables is 27.36%.

(c) The analysis showed a medium, negative correlation between age and computer-

mediated communication, r (234) = -.351, p <.001, two-tailed. The percentage of variance

accounted for by the relationship between these variables is 12.32%.

(d) A small, positive correlation was found between age and face-to-face

communication, r (234) = .184, p = .005, two-tailed. The percentage of variance accounted

for by the relationship between these variables is 3.39%.

(e) Lastly, results showed a small, positive correlation between age and phone

etiquette, r (232) = .255, p <.001, two-tailed. The percentage of variance accounted for by the

relationship between these variables is 6.5%.

These results indicate that as age increases, so does preference for face-to-face

communication and phone etiquette while smartphone use, present absence and preference

for computer-mediated communication decrease. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Hypothesis 5

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the

impact of participant’s most frequently used phone functions on levels of smartphone use.

Participants were divided into six groups according to their most frequently used phone

functions (Group 1, phone calls, n = 90; Group 2, social networking sites, n = 28; Group 3,
 39

email, n = 20; Group 4, internet, n = 20; Group 5, entertainment, n = 47; Group 6, text

messages, n = 24). The one-way ANOVA revealed that there was no statistically significant

difference in smartphone use across the six different phone function groups (F (5, 223) = .15,

p = .981). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted.

Additional Findings

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to test whether

participant’s most frequently used phone functions differed according to age. The dependent

variable was age and the independent variable was phone function (Group 1, phone calls, n =

101; Group 2, social networking sites, n = 31; Group 3, email, n = 23; Group 4, internet, n =

23; Group 5, entertainment, n = 51; Group 6, text messages, n = 28). There was a statistically

significant age difference across the six phone function groups: F (5, 251) = 2.81, p = .017.

Despite reaching statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between the

groups was small (eta squared = .05). However post-hoc analysis confirmed that differences

were significant in nature only between the entertainment group (M = 28.16, SD = 10.14) and

the phone call group (M = 35.91, SD = 17.66, p = .029) and no other phone function groups.

Table 3: ANOVA table displaying significant difference between phone functions

Variables Groups Mean SD F df P

Age Calls 35.91 17.66 2.81 256 .017

SNS 33.52 15.62
Email 38.43 14.30
Internet 34.35 11.82

Entertainment 28.16 10.14

Text messages 29.54 11.26
 40

Moreover a number of independent samples t-test were conducted to examine

whether males and females showed significant differences in (a) smartphone use (b) present

absence, (c) computer-mediated communication, (d) face-to-face communication and (e)

perceptions of cellular phone etiquette. The independent samples t-test revealed that males

and females do not differ significantly in terms of smartphone use, t (245) = -1.82, p = .070,

two-tailed; present absence, t (236) = .59, p = .554; computer-mediated communication, t

(232) = -1.00, p = .318; or face-to-face communication, t (232) = -.13, p = .899. Therefore the

null hypothesis can be accepted for these variables. However there was a significant

difference in phone etiquette between males (M = 30.75, SD = 5.07) and females (M = 33.08,

SD = 5.09; t (230) = -3.38, p = .001, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the

means (mean difference = -2.33, 95% CI: -3.69 to -.97) was small (r = .22).
 41

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact that smartphones have on

people’s social behaviour and relationships. The variables studied included their usage levels,

frequency with which their social interaction is interrupted by their phone, communication

preferences and their attitudes towards phone use in a variety of social settings. These

variables were measured using the Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire, the Present

Absence Scale, the Face-to-Face versus Computer-mediated communication General

Preference Statements Questionnaire and finally, the Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire.

It also aimed to broaden current knowledge in the area by examining these variables through

phone type and phone functions, while comparing those with high and low levels of use.

The first hypothesis predicted that significant differences would exist between

participants with high levels of smartphone use and low levels of smartphone, with regards to

present absence, communication preferences and phone etiquette. The hypotheses were

supported for three of the four variables. As expected, participants with high levels of phone

use had higher present absence and preference for computer-mediated communication but

lower preference for face-to-face communication than participants with low levels of phone

use. Surprisingly, however the groups did not differ in their attitudes towards phone etiquette.

These results are consistent with past research in the area which showed that people with

excessive levels of phone use had lower levels of face-to-face communication and higher

present absence (Casey, 2012). These findings, however, challenge the concept that mobile

phone use has increased the frequency of face-to-face contact (Goscicki, 2012; Jin & Park,

2010; Ishii, 2006). Instead, it appears that people with high levels of phone use choose this

means of communication to enhance their social relationships over face-to-face

communication, whereas those with lower levels of phone use prefer face-to-face
 42

communication. The finding that those with high levels and low levels of phone use have

similar attitudes to phone use in different settings may be explained in relation to attitude-

behaviour inconsistency, where attitudes do not always predict behaviour (La Piere, 1934). In

other words, despite awareness of common regulations and etiquette regarding phone use,

participants who spend a lot of time on their phone may continue to use their phone in such

settings. This was observed when almost half of the participants stated that they believed it

was inappropriate to use a phone in a restaurant, yet almost a quarter of participants admitted

to using the phone in these situations. In addition, although overall participants agreed that it

was inappropriate to use a phone during a class (69%), almost half of participants indicated

that they keep their phones on in such settings (45.1%) and nearly a quarter (24%) responded

that they use their phone during classes, lectures and meetings.

Secondly, it was hypothesised that smartphone use and preference for computer-

mediated communication would predict present absence. This hypothesis was supported, with

both variables predicting 41% of the variance in present absence. This result reflects previous

research which demonstrated that phone use or communicating with others via the phone can

lead to antisocial behaviour, detaching the person from their immediate social environment

(Fortunatti, 2012; Geser, 2002). The first hand social interactions of mobile phone users

become noticeably more limited when people become engrossed in their phones because they

regard computer-mediated communication as their principal means of communication (Plant,

2001).

Hypothesis three claimed that smartphone users and standard mobile phone users

would show significant differences in levels of phone use, present absence, preferences for

computer-mediated communication, preferences for face-to-face communication and attitudes

 43

to appropriate phone etiquette. The hypothesis was supported for three of the five variables.

Results indicated that smartphone users had higher levels of phone use and present absence,

and lower levels of phone etiquette than standard mobile phone users. This is consistent with

research by Kwon et al. (2013) who argued that smartphones have become a major social

problem as they are associated with higher degrees of usage and antisocial behaviour than

other phones. However smartphone owners and standard mobile phone owners did not

different in their communication preferences. The variety of applications on a smartphone

means that people may not be just communicating with others when using their phones. They

may be surfing the internet or catching up on the latest news (Billeux, 2012). This may

explain why communication preferences are similar between smartphone and standard phone

users.

The fourth hypothesis predicted that a significant relationship would exist between

age and smartphone use, present absence, computer-mediated communication, face-to-face

communication and phone etiquette. This hypothesis was fully supported as correlations

existed between age and each of the variables. Negative correlations existed between age and

smartphone use, present absence and computer-mediated communication, while positive

correlations were found between age and face-to-face communication as well as phone

etiquette. This demonstrates that older people are less influenced by the pervasive effects of

the smartphone. These findings correspond with other research which suggests that younger

people are more likely to embrace new technology and have more excessive patterns of usage

than older people (Charness & Bosman, 1992; Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Kim et al., 2012).

Furthermore it also supports Forgays, Hyman and Schreiber (2014) who found that older

adults advocate more restrictive standards of phone use in different settings.

 44

The fifth hypothesis, which predicted that levels of smartphone use would differ

depending on participant’s most frequently used phone functions, was rejected as no

significant differences were found. Whether participants used their phones mostly for phone

calls, SNSs, email, internet, entertainment or text messages did not affect their levels of

phone use. These results did not agree with previous research which found that type of phone

use also plays a role in levels of phone usage, with text-messages and games contributing the

most and phone calls contributing the least (Griffiths, 2013).

The study also investigated whether participant’s most frequently used phone

functions differed depending on the participant’s age. Age differences were found between

the entertainment and phone calls group. This suggests that older participants are more likely

to use their phones for making calls rather than for playing games or music etc. This supports

research by Griffiths (2013) who found that younger individuals use their phones more for

entertainment, SNSs and text messaging.

Similar to previous research, no gender differences were found with regards to levels

of smartphone use, communication preferences and present absence (Bianchi & Phillips,

2005; Rush, 2011; Casey, 2012; Kwon et al., 2013). These findings oppose those by other

researchers who found that females used their phone more than males (Beranuy, Oberst, el

al., 2009; Choliz, Villanueva & Choliz, 2009; Griffiths, 2013). Additionally, females had

higher levels of phone etiquette than males, thus further supporting research by Forgays,

Hyman and Schreiber (2014). They found that women believed it was inappropriate to use

the phone in more situations than men. However, Lipscomb et al. (2005) discovered only one

significant difference in males and females attitudes to phone etiquette. They found that

females believed it was more inappropriate to use the phone during worship than men.
 45

Strengths and Implications

Firstly, this study contributes to the research on communications technology. This

research focused on the most prominent and current negative effects of phone use in modern

society. It integrated aspects of different studies on mobile phones which examined phone

etiquette, communication preferences and phone use separately and explored them in relation

to the most recent and advanced communication device.

Furthermore it explored how the effects of mobile phones have deteriorated since the

development of these devices by comparing them to standard phones with less functions and

applications. This study measured both face-to-face communication and computer-mediated

communication. This allowed for more detailed accounts of participant’s communication

styles and meant that evaluations could be made to determine whether smartphone use is

replacing face-to-face communication or enhancing it. The research found that as smartphone

use increases, preferences for face-to-face communication decrease.

The study extended research focusing on phone use in adolescents to an adult

population as all participants were over the age of 18. This was an important aspect of the

research as antisocial behaviour in relation to phone use is predominantly associated with

adolescents. However this study demonstrates that adults’ are also influenced by their mobile

phones which can result in inconsiderate and distant behaviour towards those around them.

The large amount of significant findings emphasises the value of this study. The

results showed that phone use has resulted in significant changes in terms of how people

communicate with one another. Some individuals, especially younger adults and smartphone

users, are no longer fully present in their social world due to their phone use and have higher
 46

preferences for interactions on their phone than face-to-face. In addition, some participants

showed little awareness of manners surrounding phone use in social settings. These findings

emphasise the need for individuals to monitor their phone use, by bringing awareness to the

negative impact phones can have on their social behaviour and interactions. The study

suggests that there should be more regulated control of phone usage in social settings.

Weaknesses and Limitations

As the current study used quantitative analysis, participants were restricted in their

responses. They were required to tick the most appropriate answer using a Likert scale,

meaning that more descriptive detail was not collected. Moreover the data-gathering was

limited to self-report questionnaires which meant that participants may have reported socially

desirable responses rather than their true beliefs and behaviours. As a result, the collected

data may not be reflective of the actual level of smartphone use, present absence and

preference for computer-mediated communication by the sample. Qualitative research (e.g.

interviews) would have provided richer data and a reduction in the objectivity of responses.

Furthermore although the sample consisted of 279 participants, due to time constraints, it was

not possible to recruit a larger sample. This limits the capacity for these findings to be

generalised to the wider population. In addition, questionnaires were kept short with an

estimated completion time of 10-15 minutes so that participants would not become bored and

careless with their responses. This limited the content of investigation.

Although the Smartphone Problematic Use Questionnaire only identified

participants at risk of developing problematic use, it may have been preferable and more

appropriate to use a measure for smartphone use in general as “problematic use” was not

investigated in this study. This questionnaire also included a few questions which were only
 47

relevant to smartphone users, such as, “I use my phone to find answers to questions” and “I

think about missed emails when my phone is off or out of reach”. This may have contributed

slightly to the lower phone use scores for standard phone users.

As the study employed a convenience and snowball sample, a sampling bias may

have occurred with participants sharing similar characteristics to each other instead of

representing the general population. This can be seen in the age range of the sample, with

81.7% of participants under 44 and only 18.3% over 45. A subsequent limitation was the

imbalance of smartphone users and standard mobile phone users. The sample was made up of

243 smartphone users and only 36 standard mobile phone users. This may be because a

majority of the participants were recruited via Facebook and email, which are easily

accessible on a smartphone. Nevertheless, this disproportion of standard phone and

smartphone users highlights the widespread adoption of smartphones in recent years and the

difficulty in finding people without these devices in today’s society.

Additionally, the Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire does not specify the type of

phone use in each setting. This means that participants may be answering questions

differently from each other as some types of phone use is considered less disruptive than

others. For instance, some people may interpret “It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone on

public transport” as referring to phone calls and thus, indicate agreement to the statement,

while others may refer to it as text messages and indicate disagreement. In addition,

participants may have been confused by the alternating phrasing of the phone etiquette

statements as some were phrased positively and some negatively. This may have led to
 48

inaccurate responses as the participant becomes tired and less attentive near the end of the

questionnaire.

Future Research

Similar to the experimental study by Przybylski & Weinstein (2013) which

examined the impact of phone presence in social interactions with strangers, future research

should use a controlled experimental design, to explore the impact that an individual’s actual

phone use has on their close friends and family. In addition the impact of phone use could be

assessed in a variety of different contexts, such as during first-dates or meetings. It may be

the case that people have become accustomed to phone use in general and its use in social

settings and throughout social interactions. Research should also investigate the reasons that

smartphones have such pervasive influences on users. Is it because users associate them with

wider social networks, or is it a habit that brings pleasure and comfort to users? It would also

be interesting to look at differences between adolescents and adults on each of the measures

used in this study as adolescents.

Conclusion

The current study has demonstrated that smartphone use and preference for

computer-mediated communication can predict how often a person rejects their social

surroundings to engage with technology. The most striking results were that individuals with

higher levels of smartphone use had a greater tendency to engage in phone use rather than

engage with co-present others. In particular, smartphone users and younger participants were

found to elicit more antisocial behaviour resulting from their phone use. Type of phone use

did not play a role in participant’s frequency of phone usage. Participants showed general

agreement regarding the appropriate use of mobile phones in social settings. However,
 49

attitudes do not predict behaviour and it seems that some respondents continue to use their

phones despite awareness of etiquette. Smartphones have undoubtedly had pervasive and

negative influences on their users. In some cases, it appears that smartphones are replacing

face-to-face interactions and interfering with such social interactions when they do occur. It is

of critical importance that future research attempts to identify the possible reasons for these

changing communication styles, so that they can be recognised and manipulated in the future.
 50

References

Abraham, A., Pocheptsova, A., & Ferraro, R. (2012). The effect of mobile phone use on

prosocial behaviour. Manuscript in preparation.

Abramson, M. J., Benke, G. P., Dimitriadis, C., Inyang, I. O., Sim, M. R., Wolfe, R. S., &

Croft, R. J. (2009). Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive

function in young adolescents. Bioelectromagnetics, 30 (8), pp. 678-686.

Alingod, J. (October, 2013). How smartphones could be ruining your relationships.

Liveboldandbloom.com. Retrieved January 12, 2014 from

http://liveboldandbloom.com/10/relationships/how-smartphones-could-be-ruining-

your-relationship

Banjo, O., Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2008). Cell phone usage and social interaction with

proximate others: Ringing in a theoretical model. Open Communication Journal, 2,

pp. 127–135.

Beard, K. W. (2002). Internet addiction: Current status and implications for employees.

Journal of Employment Counseling, 39 (1), pp. 2-11

Beninger, J. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-community.

Communication Research, 14 (3), pp. 352-371.

Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2005). 'Deattachment': The unique nature of online romantic relationships. In

Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The Social Net: Understanding Human Behavior in

Cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 51

Beranuy, M., Oberst, U., Carbonell, X., & Chamarro, A. (2009). Problematic Internet and

mobile phone use and clinical symptoms in college students: The role of emotional

intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (5), pp. 1182-1187.

Bianchi, A. and Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use.

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8 (1), pp. 39-51.

Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: a literature review and a pathways

model. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8 (4), 299-307.

Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and

problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22 (9), pp.

1195-1210.

Bohbot, V. D., Gupta, M., Banner, H., & Dahmani, L. (2011). Caudate nucleus-dependent

response strategies in a virtual navigation task are associated with lower basal

cortisol and impaired episodic memory. Neurobiology of learning and memory, 96

(2), pp. 173-180.

Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G., & Wright, Z. (April, 2002). Effects of four

computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In Proceedings

of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 135-140).

ACM

Brown, R. I. F. (1993). Some contributions of the study of gambling to the study of other

addictions. In W. R. Eadington & J. A. Cornelius (Eds.), Gambling behavior and

problem gambling (pp. 241-272). Reno: Institute for the study of gambling and

commercial gaming, University of Nevada.

 52

Brown, R. I. F. (1997). A theoretical model of the behavioural addictions - Applied to

offending. In J. E. Hodge, M. McMurran & C. R. Hollin (Eds.), Addicted to crime.

Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Burns, S. M., & Lohenry, K. (2010). Cellular phone use in class: Implications for teaching

and learning a pilot study. College Student Journal, 44 (3), pp. 805-810.

Campbell, M. A., & Gardner, S. (2004, September). Cyberbullying. Paper presented at the

Queensland Guidance and Counselling Association, Brisbane, Australia.

Cambell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of

personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2 (2), pp. 371-387.

Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: development of a

theory based cognitive-behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human

Behavior, 18 (5), pp. 553–575

Carroll, J., Howard, S., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002). A field study of perceptions and use of

mobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds. Journal of Information Technology Theory

and Practice, 4 (2), pp. 49-61.

Casey, B. M. (2012). Linking Psychological Attributes to Smart Phone Addiction, Face-to-

Face Communication, Present Absence and Social Capital (Doctoral dissertation,

The Chinese University of Hong Kong).

Charness, N., & Bosman, E., A. (1992). Human factors and age. In: Craik, F.I.M., &

Salthouse, T.A. (eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 495–551

Chóliz, M. (2010). Mobile phone addiction: A point of issue. Addiction, 105 (2), pp. 373-374.
 53

Chóliz, M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: The Test of Mobile Phone

Dependence (TMD). Progress in Health Sciences, 2 (1), pp.33-44.

Cloete, A. (2011). Exploring the uses and gratification of facebook: A psychological study.

(Masters research, The University of Pretoria).

Chóliz, M. Villanueva, V., & Chóliz, M.C. (2009). Ellos, ellas y su móvil: Uso, abuso (¿y

dependencia?) del teléfono móvil en la adolescencia. Revista Española de

Drogodependencias, 34 (1), pp. 74-88.

Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd Ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Czincz, J. & Hechanova, R. (2009). Internet addiction: Debating the diagnosis. Journal of

Technology in Human Services, 27 (4), pp. 257–272.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R. & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of

the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), pp. 307-336.

eircom Home Sentiment Survey: A tech savvy nation that needs to be constantly connected

(April, 2013). Retrieved January 18, 2014 from

http://www.banda.ie/assets/files/eircom%20eHSS%20report%20April%202013.pdf

Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything:

Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human

Behavior, 31, pp. 314-321.

Fortunati, L. (2002). The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations.

Information. Communication and Society, 5 (4), pp. 513–528

 54

Geser, H. (2002). Sociology of the mobile phone. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Zurich, Switzerland.

Geser, H. (2004, May). Towards a sociological theory of the mobile phone. Sociology in

Switzerland: Sociology of the Mobile Phone. Online Publications, Zuerich.

Goscicki C. (2011). Study Discovers How Cell Phones Use Affects Social Interactions. The

Michigan Daily. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from

http://www.michigandaily.com/news/%E2%80%98u%E2%80%99-researchers-

identify-link-between-cell-phones-and-socialization-habits

Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Gambling on the internet: a brief note. Journal of Gambling Studies,

12 (4), pp. 471–473.

Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Internet addiction-time to be taken seriously?. Addiction Research &

Theory, 8 (5), pp. 413-418.

Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: A cause for concern. Education

and Health, 31 (3), pp. 76-78.

Griffiths, M.D., & Hunt, N. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents.

Psychological Reports, 82 (2), pp. 475–480.

Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P.J. (2001). Impression formation in computer mediated

communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions.

Communication research, 28 (3), pp. 325-347.

Hancock, P. A., Lesch, M. & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during

a crucial driving manoeuvre. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (4), pp. 501-514.
 55

Hancock, J. T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of

communication technology on lying behaviour. Proceedings of CHI 2004, pp. 129-

134.

Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era. New media

& society, 7 (6), 810-833. Retrieved February 10th, 2014 from

http://interruptions.net/literature/Humphreys-NewMediaSociety05.pdf

Intel (2012, September). Intel Annual 'Mobile Etiquette' Study Examines Online Sharing

Behaviors Around the World; Global Perception of 'Oversharing' Revealed.

Retrieved February 2, 2014 from

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2012/09/05/intel-

annual-mobile-etiquette-study-examines-online-sharing-behaviors-around-the-

world-global-perception-of-oversharing-revealed

Ishii, K. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in

everyday life. Journal of Communication, 56 (2), pp. 346–65

International Telecommunications Union (ITU, 2011). ICT facts and figures [online].

Retrieved January 10th, 2014 from http://www.itu.int/ITU-

D/ict/facts/2011/material/ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf

Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Lang, K.R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology.

Information Systems Management, 22 (4), pp. 7-23.

Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gómez-Vela, M., González-Gil, F., & Caballo, C. (2007). Problematic

internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health

correlates. Addiction research & theory, 15 (3), pp. 309-320.

 56

Jin, B., & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting: Interpersonal motives

for cell phone use, face-to-face interaction, and loneliness. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking, 13 (6), pp. 611-618.

Karemaker, D. (2005). Face to Face or Mediated Communication? Personality Makes a

Difference (Bachelor of Science Thesis, University of Amsterdam).

Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk,

public performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, D. I., Chung, Y. J., Lee, E. A., Kim, D. M., & Cho, Y. M. (2008) Development of

internet addiction proneness scale-short form (KS scale). The Korea Journal of

Counseling, 9 (4), pp. 1703–1722.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T. & Scherlis, W. (1998).

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and

psychological well-being. American Psychologist, 53 (9), pp. 1017-1031.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction—a review of

the psychological literature. International journal of environmental research and

public health, 8 (9), pp. 3528-3552.

Kwon, M., Kim, D. J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The Smartphone Addiction Scale:

Development and Validation of a Short Version for Adolescents. PloS one, 8 (12),

e83558. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083558

Labrador, E. F., & Villadangos, G. S. (2010). Adolescents and new technologies: Behaviours

pointing a possible addiction problem. Psicothema, 22 (2), pp. 180-188.

 57

Lee, P. S., Leung, L., Lo, V., Xiong, C., & Wu, T. (2011). Internet communication versus

face-to-face interaction in quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 100 (3), pp.

375-389.

Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M. & Jochen, P. (2009). Development and validation of a

game addiction scale for adolescents. Media Psychology, 12 (1), pp. 77–95.

Lenhart, A. (2012). “Teens, Smartphones & Texting”, A Pew Internet & American Life

Project Report. Retrieved March. 1, 2012

from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones/Summary-of-

findings.aspx

Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the

cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77 (2), pp. 308–

320.

Levitas, D. (2013). Always Connected: How Smartphones and Social Keep us Engaged. An

IDC Research Report. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from https://fb-

public.app.box.com/s/3iq5x6uwnqtq7ki4q8wk

Ling, R., (2005). Mobile communication vis-a`-vis teen emancipation, peer group integration

and deviance. In: R. Harper, A. Taylor, and L. Palen, (eds.). The Inside Text: Social

Perspectives on SMS in the Mobile Age. London: Klewer.

Lipscomb, T. J., Totten, J. W., Cook, R. A. and Lesch, W. (2005). Cellular phone etiquette

among college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (1), pp. 46-

56

Lookout (June, 2012). Mobile Mindset Study. Retrieved December 17, 2013 from

https://www.lookout.com/static/ee_images/lookout-mobile-mindset-2012.pdf
 58

Loonis, E., Apter, M. J., & Sztulman, H. (2000). Addiction as a function of action system

properties. Addictive Behaviors, 25 (3), pp. 477-481.

Mathews, R. (2004). The psychosocial aspects of mobile phone use amongst adolescents.

InPsych, 26 (6), pp. 16-19.

McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., McCartt, A. T., Woodward, M., Haworth, C., Palamura, P.,

et al. (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital

attendance: A case-crossover study. Retrieved February 12th, 2014 from

http//press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/july/mobilephones.pdf

McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J.A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the

internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social psychology

Review, 4 (1), pp. 57-75.

Meece, M. (2011, February). Who’s the Boss, You or Your Gadget? New York Times.

Retrieved February 18th, 2014 from

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/business/06limits.html

Metro Herald (2014, February 7). Percentage of individuals who prefer to communicate on

their smartphones than face-to-face. Metro Herald, p. 2.

Metz, J. M. (1992). Computer-mediated communication: Perceptions of a new context. Paper

presented at the Speech Communication Association annual conference, Chicago,

IL.

Mogg, T. (2012, January). Phone Stack restaurant game prevents meal-time interruptions

(and could cost you a lot of money). Digitaltrends.com. Retrieved December 12,

2013 from http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/phone-stack-restaurant-game-

prevents-meal-time-interruptions-and-could-cost-you-a-lot-of-money/#!BHlc7
 59

Monk, A., Carroll, J., Parker, S., & Blythe, M. (2004). Why are mobile phones annoying?

Behaviour & Information Technology, 23 (1), pp.33-41.

Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological

internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16 (1), pp. 13-

29.

Nelson, D. L. & Quick, J. C. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and

You (8th Ed.). Ohio, USA: Cengage Learning.

O’Donoghue, Z. (2002). “Friend Me”: The Impacts of Technology on Human Interaction.

Palen, L., Salzman, M., & Youngs, E. (2001). Discovery and integration of mobile

communications in everyday life. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5 (2), pp.

109-122.

Peters, O., & Allouch, S. B. (2005). Always connected: a longitudinal field study of mobile

communication. Telematics and Informatics, 22 (3), pp. 239-256.

Plant, S. (2001). On the mobile. The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual

life. Retrieved December 9, 2013 from

http://www.Motorola.com/mot/documents/0,1028,333,00.pdf

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence

of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30 (3), pp. 237-246.

Rocco, E. (1998, January). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by

some initial face-to-face contact. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on

 60

Human factors in computing systems (pp. 496-502). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley

Publishing Co.

Roos, J. P. (2001, August). Postmodernity and mobile communications. Paper presented at

the European Sociological Association on 5th Conference of the ESA, Helsinki,

Finland. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jproos/mobilezation.htm

Rush, S. (2011). Problematic use of smartphones in the workplace: an introductory study.

(Undergraduate dissertation, Central Queensland University).

Schumacher, S. (2013). The dangers of electronic communication. Rock Products, 116 (2),

pp. 36-37

Smartphone. n.d. In Oxford English online dictionary. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/smartphone

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive

consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333 (6043), pp. 776-

778

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual

attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9

(1), pp. 23–32

Svensson, D. (2013, April 29). Smartphones now outsell 'dumb' phones". 3news.co.nz.

Retrieved at October 20, 2013 from http://www.3news.co.nz/Smartphones-now-

outsell-dumb-phones/tabid/412/articleID/295878/Default.aspx
 61

Swaminathan, N. (April, 2008). For the Brain, cash is good, status is better.

Scientificamerican.com. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-the-brain-status-is-better/

Thomée, S., Harenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use and stress, sleep

disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults: A prospective

cohort study. BMC Public Health, 11 (1), pp. 66.

Thompson, E. (2005, November). Drugged driving menaces revealed. The Courier-Mail.

Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text

messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60 (1),

pp. 1-9.

Toda, M., Monden, K., Kubo, K., & Morimoto, K. (2006). Mobile phone dependence and

health-related lifestyle of university students. Social Behavior & Personality: An

International Journal, 34 (10), pp. 1277- 1284.

Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P., Shepard, C., Rahmati, A., & Zhong, L. (2012). An empirical

analysis of smartphone personalisation: measurement and user variability. Behaviour

& Information Technology, 31 (10), pp. 995-1010.

Turkle, S. (2008). Always-On/Always-On-You: The Tethered Self. In James E. K. (Ed.),

Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies (pp.121-138). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The

MIT Press.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each

other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Retrieved January 16, 2014 from

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31043071/Sherry_Turkle_book.
 62

pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1390793248&Sig

nature=JwQvlKefWoR%2F84PfU%2FGPP%2FjvRXg%3D&response-content-

disposition=inline

Victor, H. (2013). Here is why smartphones may have killed communication.

Phonearena.com. Retrieved January 10, 2014 from

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Here-is-why-smartphones-might-have-killed-

communication_id46155

Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2006). Ring, ring, why did I make that call? Beliefs underlying

Australian university students’ mobile phone use. Youth Studies Australia, 25 (3),

pp. 49–57.

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2008). Over-connected? A qualitative

exploration of the relationship between Australian youth and their mobile phones.

Journal of Adolescence, 31 (1), pp. 77 - 92.

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. (2010). Needing to connect: The effect of self and

others on young people's involvement with their mobile phones. Australian Journal

of Psychology, 62 (4), pp. 194-203.

Whitbourne, S. K. (October, 2011). Your Smartphone May Be Making You... Not Smart: Is

the latest iPhone hazardous to your brain? Psychologytoday.com. Retrieved

December 16, 2013 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-

age/201110/your-smartphone-may-be-making-you-not-smart

Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust

in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 99 (1), pp. 16-33.

 63

Yen, J. Y., Ko, C. H., Yen, C. F., Wu, H. Y., & Yang, M. J. (2007). The comorbid psychiatric

symptoms of Internet addiction: attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD), depression, social phobia, and hostility. Journal of adolescent health, 41

(1), pp. 93-98.

Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder.

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1 (3), pp. 237-244

Young, K.S. & Rogers, R.C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet

addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1 (1), pp. 25-28.

Young, K. (2009). Internet addiction: diagnosis and treatment considerations. Journal of

Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39 (4), pp. 241-246.

 64

Appendix 1 – Cover Letter of Questionnaire

January 2014

Dear Participant,

My name is Hilary Groarke and as part of my final year studies for my Higher Diploma in
Psychology at Dublin Business School, I am conducting research investigating mobile phone
use. This study has been reviewed and approved by the Dublin Business School Ethics Board.

If you are over the age of 18 and own a mobile phone, you are invited to take part in this
study which involves completing a number of tick-the-box questions. Completing the
questionnaire should take approximately 10-15 minutes. Your time and co-operation is
greatly appreciated.

Your participation in completing the questionnaire is entirely voluntary, all responses are
completely anonymous and the collected information will be held strictly confidential. As a
voluntary participant, you have the right to withdraw at any time during completion of the
questionnaire. However once submitted, it will not be possible to withdraw your information
once submitted as this questionnaire is anonymous.

If you have any further questions regarding this research, please contact me or my supervisor
Dr. Jonathan Murphy

It is important to understand that by completing and submitting the questionnaire that you are
consenting to participate in the study.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

* Please indicate below if you are over 18 and consent to take part in this study.

Yes.
 65

Appendix 2 – Questionnaires

Personal Information

Gender
Male
Female

Age:

What type of phone do you own?

Smartphone
Standard Mobile Phone

Professional/Employment status (Please click all that apply):

Full-Time Work
Part-Time Work
Full-Time Student
Part-Time Student
Unemployed/Retired

Please tick which phone function you use the most.

Work/college email
Internet (except social networking)
Social networking (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.)
Personal phone calls
Work phone calls
Text messages (including Viber, Whatsapp etc.)
Music/TV shows/Film/YouTube
Games
News Apps
Photos/Videos
Other
 66

Please indicate which term best describes how you perceive your mobile phone
Addictive
Annoying
Cannot live without it
Disruptive/Demands your attention
Distraction
Fun
Helpful/Useful tool
Necessary evil
Other (Please Specify)
 67

Smartphone Problematic Use Scale (Rush, 2011)

Please read the following 37 statements carefully and indicate how much you agree with each
statement about your phone use.

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree nor Agree N/A
Disagree Agree
disagree
My family have complained about
how much I use my phone
I would rather lose my wallet than
my phone
I compare my phone to other
people's phones
If I lost my phone, I would order a
replacement the same day if
possible
My friends have complained about
how much I use my phone
I get upset when my family
complain about how much I use
my phone
I do not go anywhere without my
phone
I worry about my reliance on my
phone
My phone is great for when I'm
bored
I think about what I'm missing
when my phone is turned off or
out of reach
I attend to my phone at the dinner
table

I am addicted to my phone

I am happier since getting my

phone
My phone makes me look
successful
 68

Neither
Strongly Strongly
Disagree agree nor Agree N/A
Disagree Agree
disagree
My phone makes me feel
successful
I have never lost my phone
I have thought about damaging my
phone to get an upgraded model
I get upset when my friends
complain about how much I use
my phone
I have been unsuccessful at
attempts to limit my phone use
Apart from when I sleep, my
phone is always at arm's length
I would rather lose my little toe
than lose the use of my phone
I use my phone to escape from
situations I do not want to be in
I do not feel guilty about turning
my phone off
I always have my phone with me
I never think about missed calls
when my phone is turned off or
out of reach
I would not interrupt social
interactions to answer my phone
I find it difficult to turn off my
phone
The thought of being separated
from my phone does not make me
feel distressed
I use my phone to find answers to
questions
When my phone runs out of
battery and I do not have a
charger, I feel distressed
 69

Strongly Neither Strongly

Disagree Disagree agree nor Agree Agree N/A
disagree
I feel pressured to leave my phone
on after work hours
My phone is an integral part of my
life

I don't think my phone makes me

look successful
My colleagues have complained
about my phone use in meetings
I have tried to stop myself
checking my phone
I answer my phone when I am
talking to friends
 70

Present Absence Scale (Casey, 2012)

Please indicate how often each of the following scenarios occur in your life.
Almost Not Almost
Neutral Often
Never often Always
How often do you “abandon” your physical
surroundings to use your phone or interact
with someone else through your phone?
How often do you keep your mobile phone
on in inappropriate places such as in classes,
meetings and libraries?
How often do you have a face-to-face
conversation and simultaneously send a text
message or have a conversation on your
phone?
How often do you and your friends gather
around using your own phones instead of
talking or chatting to each other?
How often do you use your phone while in a
meeting, lecture or class?
 71

Face-to-face versus Computer-Mediated Communication General Preferences

Statements Questionnaire (Karemaker, 2005)

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.
Agree Disagree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Completely Completely
If you want to have a really good
conversation, you have to be able to see
each other.
Sometimes I say things through text
message that are difficult to express
through other means.
If the subject is emotional, I always
choose to drop by.
Sometimes I can explain things better
through email than in a conversation.
You can only get to know somebody well
if you see each other often.
I can say things to somebody via internet
or phone that I normally would not say.
 72

Cellular Phone Etiquette Questionnaire (Lipscomb et al., 2005)

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Undecided Agree
Disagree Agree
It is appropriate to use a hand-held mobile
phone while driving.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone
during worship/church.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone
during a class.
It is appropriate to use a hands-free mobile
phone while driving.
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone in a
restaurant.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in
the library.
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone on
public transportation.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in
the bathroom.
It is inappropriate to use a mobile phone in
the supermarket.
It is appropriate to use a mobile phone in the
cinema or at the theatre (during a show).
 73

Appendix 3 – Questionnaire Outro Page

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

This study is investigating the impact that Smartphone use has on social behaviours and

relationships in terms of participant’s use of the phone in the presence of others, their

preference for face-to-face or computer-mediated communication, and their attitudes towards

the use of phones in different social situations.

If you have any questions or would like to know more about this study, please feel free to

contact me via email at

Thank you,

Hilary Groarke