The Mere Presence Effect

Abstract

Smartphones have become an essential part of modern life, offering access to entertainment, information, and social connections from anywhere, at any time. However, research has associated interactions with these devices with maladaptive behaviors and cognitive impairments. Furthermore, recent research has suggested that the mere presence of a smartphone can deplete cognitive resources. We sought to test the hypothesis that the perceptual salience of smartphones would negatively impact perceptual processes. Using a sample of college-aged students (N = 71), we tested whether the mere presence of a smartphone might affect reaction time and accuracy in a lateralized spatial configuration visual search task, and how the location of the phone might bias attention on this task. Additionally, we tested how individual differences in amount of smartphone and social media usage, smartphone attachment, and fear of missing out correlate with the behavioral measures. The presence of a smartphone neither distracted nor biased attention of participants and was not related to any the variables exploring individual differences. We did find that a large proportion of our sample, especially females, self-reported high levels of smartphone attachment, qualifying as at risk of smartphone addiction. Additionally, we found a positive relationship between fear of missing out, smartphone attachment, and social media usage. Based on these findings, we argue that patterns of smartphone dependence are not related to the amount of time people spend with their smartphones, but the type and amount of social rewards acceded using them. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. Evan Palmer, for his patience, support, and humor, throughout this process. Without his knowledge and contagious capacity to get excited about all aspects of research, this project would not have been such a joy to complete. He allowed this research to be my own work but steered me in the right direction whenever I needed a push. Second, I would like to thank my committee members. Dr. Valerie Carr for her suggestions on all things neuroscience and for challenging me to check my own biases as a researcher, and Dr. Susan Snycerski, for her knowledge on learning processes and all her invaluable writing feedback. My sincere thank also goes to all the members of LAVA Lab, who were colleagues and friends during the completion of this program. Their invaluable support and feedback helped me to refine and improve most aspects of this experimental design and to stay motivated until the completion of this project. Next, I would like to thank my husband and best friend, Gabriel Gayan, for being a great listener, even after hours of hearing about statistics and smartphones. His support, love, and capacity to remind me about self-care were essential to successfully complete all the challenges that I experienced during these two and a half years. I could not have imagined a better partner to share my life with. Finally, I would like to thank my family. T...

Supplemental Material for The effect of mere presence of smartphone on cognitive functions: A four-level meta-analysis.

“…Smartphones had to be visually present in the smartphone presence condition. Upon further examination of the 786 potentially eligible records, 29 records (contributing 33 unique studies with 53 samples) met all inclusion criteria, 1 of which 19 were journal articles (Boila et al, 2020;Canale et al, 2019;Hartmann et al, 2020;Ito & Kawahara, 2017;Johannes et al, 2018Johannes et al, , 2019Kaminske et al, 2022;Koessmeier & Büttner, 2022;Linares & Sellier, 2021;Liu, Dempo, Kimura, et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, & Shinohara, 2022;Nakagawa et al, 2022;Niu et al, 2022;Pellowe et al, 2015;Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022;Skowronek et al, 2023;Tanil & Yong, 2020;Thornton et al, 2014;, nine were unpublished theses or dissertations (Aguila, 2019;Bailey, 2018;Beijer, 2020;Bianchi Bosch, 2018;de Werd, 2020;Ruiz Pardo, 2022;Stahl, 2018;Stone, 2020;Tarantino, 2019), and one was a conference poster (Lyngs, 2017).…”

“…All eligible records were made available from 2014 to 2023 across 12 countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States) in four continents (Australia, Asia, Europe, North America), with 30.30% of studies being conducted in the United States. It is noteworthy that 24 records employed a between-subject research design (Aguila, 2019;Bailey, 2018;Beijer, 2020, Boila et al, 2020Canale et al, 2019;de Werd, 2020;Hartmann et al, 2020;Ito & Kawahara, 2017;Johannes et al, 2018Johannes et al, , 2019Koessmeier & Büttner, 2022;Linares & Sellier, 2021;Lyngs, 2017;Niu et al, 2022;Pellowe et al, 2015;Ruiz Pardo, 2022;Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022;Skowronek et al, 2023;Stahl, 2018;Stone, 2020;Tanil & Yong, 2020;Tarantino, 2019;Thornton et al, 2014;, while only five records (Bianchi Bosch, 2018;Kaminske et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, Kimura, et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, & Shinohara, 2022;Nakagawa et al, 2022) employed a within-subject research design. The total sample size was 5,866 unique individuals (Mdn = 91, range = 25-520).…”

The effect of mere presence of smartphone on cognitive functions: A four-level meta-analysis.

“…Smartphones had to be visually present in the smartphone presence condition. Upon further examination of the 786 potentially eligible records, 29 records (contributing 33 unique studies with 53 samples) met all inclusion criteria, 1 of which 19 were journal articles (Boila et al, 2020;Canale et al, 2019;Hartmann et al, 2020;Ito & Kawahara, 2017;Johannes et al, 2018Johannes et al, , 2019Kaminske et al, 2022;Koessmeier & Büttner, 2022;Linares & Sellier, 2021;Liu, Dempo, Kimura, et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, & Shinohara, 2022;Nakagawa et al, 2022;Niu et al, 2022;Pellowe et al, 2015;Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022;Skowronek et al, 2023;Tanil & Yong, 2020;Thornton et al, 2014;, nine were unpublished theses or dissertations (Aguila, 2019;Bailey, 2018;Beijer, 2020;Bianchi Bosch, 2018;de Werd, 2020;Ruiz Pardo, 2022;Stahl, 2018;Stone, 2020;Tarantino, 2019), and one was a conference poster (Lyngs, 2017).…”

“…All eligible records were made available from 2014 to 2023 across 12 countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States) in four continents (Australia, Asia, Europe, North America), with 30.30% of studies being conducted in the United States. It is noteworthy that 24 records employed a between-subject research design (Aguila, 2019;Bailey, 2018;Beijer, 2020, Boila et al, 2020Canale et al, 2019;de Werd, 2020;Hartmann et al, 2020;Ito & Kawahara, 2017;Johannes et al, 2018Johannes et al, , 2019Koessmeier & Büttner, 2022;Linares & Sellier, 2021;Lyngs, 2017;Niu et al, 2022;Pellowe et al, 2015;Ruiz Pardo, 2022;Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022;Skowronek et al, 2023;Stahl, 2018;Stone, 2020;Tanil & Yong, 2020;Tarantino, 2019;Thornton et al, 2014;, while only five records (Bianchi Bosch, 2018;Kaminske et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, Kimura, et al, 2022;Liu, Dempo, & Shinohara, 2022;Nakagawa et al, 2022) employed a within-subject research design. The total sample size was 5,866 unique individuals (Mdn = 91, range = 25-520).…”