Psychological and physiological effects of applying self-control to the mobile phone


Autoři: David M. Markowitz aff001;  Jeffrey T. Hancock aff002;  Jeremy N. Bailenson aff002;  Byron Reeves aff002
Působiště autorů: School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, United States of America aff001;  Department of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224464

Souhrn

This preregistered study examined the psychological and physiological consequences of exercising self-control with the mobile phone. A total of 125 participants were randomly assigned to sit in an unadorned room for six minutes and either (a) use their mobile phone, (b) sit alone with no phone, or (c) sit with their device but resist using it. Consistent with prior work, participants self-reported more concentration difficulty and more mind wandering with no device present compared to using the phone. Resisting the phone led to greater perceived concentration abilities than sitting without the device (not having external stimulation). Failing to replicate prior work, however, participants without external stimulation did not rate the experience as less enjoyable or more boring than having something to do. We also observed that skin conductance data were consistent across conditions for the first three-minutes of the experiment, after which participants who resisted the phone were less aroused than those who were without the phone. We discuss how the findings contribute to our understanding of exercising self-control with mobile media and how psychological consequences, such as increased mind wandering and focusing challenges, relate to periods of idleness or free thinking.

Klíčová slova:

Anxiety – Attention – Cell phones – Cognition – Happiness – Questionnaires – Social communication – Skin physiology


Zdroje

1. Gonzales AL. Health benefits and barriers to cell phone use in low-income urban U.S. neighborhoods: Indications of technology maintenance. Mob Media Commun. 2014;2: 233–248. doi: 10.1177/2050157914530297

2. Campbell SW, Kwak N. Mobile communication and civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political engagement. J Commun. 2010;60: 536–555. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01496.x

3. Neumayer C, Stald G. The mobile phone in street protest: Texting, tweeting, tracking, and tracing. Mob Media Commun. 2014;2: 117–133. doi: 10.1177/2050157913513255

4. Turkle S. Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in the digital age. London, UK: Penguin Press; 2015.

5. Alter A. Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. United Kingdom: Penguin Press; 2017.

6. Jenaro C, Flores N, Gómez-Vela M, González-Gil F, Caballo C. Problematic internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health correlates. Addict Res Theory. 2007;15: 309–320. doi: 10.1080/16066350701350247

7. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N. Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. J Soc Pers Relat. 2013;30: 237–246. doi: 10.1177/0265407512453827

8. Baumeister RF, Tierney J. Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York: Penguin Press; 2011.

9. Hofmann W, Reinecke L, Meier A. Of sweet temptations and bitter aftertaste: Self-control as a moderator of the effects of media use and well-being. In: Oliver MB, editor. The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects. New York: Routledge; 2017. pp. 211–222.

10. Alahmadi S, Buttrick NR, Gilbert DT, Hardin AM, Westgate EC, Wilson TD. You can do it if you really try: The effects of motivation on thinking for pleasure. Motiv Emot. 2017;41: 545–561. doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-9625-7

11. Wilson TD, Reinhard DA, Westgate EC, Gilbert DT, Ellerbeck N, Hahn C, et al. Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science (80-). 2014;345: 75–77. doi: 10.1126/science.1250830 24994650

12. Watts TW, Duncan GJ, Quan H. Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication investigating links between early delay of gratification and later outcomes. Psychol Sci. 2018;0: 0956797618761661. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661 29799765

13. Mischel W, Ebbesen EB. Attention in delay of gratification. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1970;16: 329–337. doi: 10.1037/h0029815

14. Casey BJ, Somerville LH, Gotlib IH, Ayduk O, Franklin NT, Askren MK, et al. Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108: 14998–15003. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108 21876169

15. Inzlicht M, Schmeichel BJ. What Is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7: 450–463. doi: 10.1177/1745691612454134 26168503

16. Mischel W. The marshmallow test: Mastering self-control. New York, New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2014.

17. Hsee CK, Yang AX, Wang L. Idleness aversion and the need for justifiable busyness. Psychol Sci. 2010;21: 926–930. doi: 10.1177/0956797610374738 20548057

18. Westgate EC, Wilson TD, Gilbert DT. With a little help for our thoughts: Making it easier to think for pleasure. Emotion. 2017;17: 828–839. doi: 10.1037/emo0000278 28191992

19. Buttrick N, Choi H, Wilson TD, Oishi S, Boker SM, Gilbert DT, et al. Cross-cultural consistency and relativity in the enjoyment of thinking versus doing. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2018; doi: 10.1037/pspp0000198 30035566

20. Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2: 637–644. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z 31346273

21. Wilson TD, Westgate EC, Buttrick NR, Gilbert DT. The mind is its own place: The difficulties and benefits of thinking for pleasure. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2019; doi: 10.1016/BS.AESP.2019.05.001

22. Mowlem FD, Agnew-Blais J, Pingault J-B, Asherson P. Evaluating a scale of excessive mind wandering among males and females with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from a population sample. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 3071. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39227-w 30816143

23. Singer JL. Navigating the stream of consciousness: Research in daydreaming and related inner experience. Am Psychol. 1975;30: 727–738. doi: 10.1037/h0076928

24. McMillan RL, Kaufman SB, Singer JL. Ode to positive constructive daydreaming. Front Psychol. 2013;4: 626. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00626 24065936

25. LaRose R. The problem of media habits. Commun Theory. 2010;20: 194–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01360.x

26. Campbell SW, Ling R, Bayer J. The structural transformation of mobile communication: implications for self and society. In: Oliver MB, Raney A, editors. Media and social life. New York: Routledge; 2014. pp. 176–188.

27. Bayer JB, Campbell SW, Ling R. Connection cues: Activating the norms and habits of social connectedness. Commun Theory. 2016;26: 128–149. doi: 10.1111/comt.12090

28. Hofmann W, Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. What people desire, feel conflicted about, and try to resist in everyday life. Psychol Sci. 2012;23: 582–588. doi: 10.1177/0956797612437426 22547657

29. Panek E. Left to their own devices: College students’ “guilty pleasure” media use and time management. Communic Res. 2014;41: 561–577. doi: 10.1177/0093650213499657

30. Fox KCR, Thompson E, Andrews-Hanna JR, Christoff K. Is thinking really aversive? A commentary on Wilson et al.’s "Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind" Front Psychol. 2014;5: 1427. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01427 25538668

31. Fox KCR, Andrews-Hanna JR, Mills C, Dixon ML, Markovic J, Thompson E, et al. Affective neuroscience of self-generated thought. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1426: 25–51. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13740 29754412

32. Dawson M, AM S, DL F. The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary L, Bernston G, editors. Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 159–181.

33. Lang A, Chung Y, Lee S, Schwartz N, Shin M. It’s an arousing, fast-paced kind of world: The effects of age and sensation seeking on the information processing of substance-abuse PSAs. Media Psychol. 2005;7: 421–454. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_6

34. Darrow CW. Sensory, secretory, and electrical changes in the skin following bodily excitation. J Exp Psychol. 1927;10: 197–226. doi: 10.1037/h0075376

35. Lang PJ, Greenwald MK, Bradley MM, Hamm AO. Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology. 1993;30: 261–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x 8497555

36. Lang A. The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing. In: Nabi RL, Oliver MB, editors. The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2009. pp. 99–112.

37. Lang A. Using the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing to design effective cancer communication messages. J Commun. 2006;56: S57–S80. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x

38. Yeykelis L, Cummings JJ, Reeves B. Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. J Commun. 2014;64: 167–192. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12070

39. Bolls PD, Weber R, Lang A, Potter RF. Media psychophysiology and neuroscience. In: Oliver MB, Raney AA, Jennings B, editors. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Routledge; 2019.

40. Srivastava J. Media multitasking performance: Role of message relevance and formatting cues in online environments. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29: 888–895. doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2012.12.023

41. Rigby JM, Brumby DP, Gould SJJ, Cox AL. Media multitasking at home: A video observation study of concurrent TV and mobile device usage. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video—TVX ‘17. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 2017. pp. 3–10. doi: 10.1145/3077548.3077560

42. Clayton RB, Leshner G, Almond A. The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. J Comput Commun. 2015;20: 119–135. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12109

43. Gross JJ. Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74: 224–237. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.224 9457784

44. Wegner DM, Schneider DJ, Carter SR, White TL. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Attitudes Soc Cogn. 1987;53: 5–13.

45. Holzmeister F, Camerer C, Imai T, Manfredi D, Nave G. Replication of Wilson et al (2014) [Internet]. [cited 22 Nov 2016]. Available: osf.io/svjbk

46. Empatica. Issues with EDA values [Internet]. 2017. Available: https://support.empatica.com/hc/en-us/articles/204676479-Issues-with-EDA-values

47. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54: 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 3397865

48. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Commun. 2007;12: 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

49. Doberenz S, Roth WT, Wollburg E, Maslowski NI, Kim S. Methodological considerations in ambulatory skin conductance monitoring. Int J Psychophysiol. 2011;80: 87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.002 21320551

50. Wise K, Reeves B. The effect of user control on the cognitive and emotional processing of pictures. Media Psychol. 2007;9: 549–566.

51. Fox JR, Lang A, Chung Y, Lee S, Schwartz N, Potter D. Picture this: Effects of graphics on the processing of television news. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2004;48: 646–674. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4804_7

52. Braithwaite JJ, Watson DG, Jones R, Rowe M. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Birmingham: University of Birmingham; 2013.

53. Boucsein W. Electrodermal activity. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2012.

54. Gino F, Schweitzer ME, Mead NL, Ariely D. Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2011;115: 191–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001

55. Ward AF, Duke K, Gneezy A, Bos MW. Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. J Assoc Consum Res. 2017;2: 140–154. doi: 10.1086/691462

56. Rieger D, Hefner D, Vorderer P. Mobile recovery? The impact of smartphone use on recovery experiences in waiting situations. Mob Media Commun. 2017;5: 161–177. doi: 10.1177/2050157917691556

57. Cheever NA, Rosen LD, Carrier LM, Chavez A. Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Comput Human Behav. 2014;37: 290–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002

58. Laidlaw KEW, Foulsham T, Kuhn G, Kingstone A. Potential social interactions are important to social attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 5548–53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1017022108 21436052

59. Hall JA, Baym NK, Miltner KM. Put down that phone and talk to me: Understanding the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships. Mob Media Commun. 2014;2: 134–153. doi: 10.1177/2050157913517684

60. Reinecke L, Vorderer P, Knop K. Entertainment 2.0? The role of intrinsic and extrinsic need satisfaction for the enjoyment of Facebook use. J Commun. 2014;64: 417–438. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12099

61. Muraven M. Autonomous self-control is less depleting. J Res Pers. 2008;42: 763–770. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08.002 18704202

62. Schober MF, Pasek J, Guggenheim L, Lampe C, Conrad FG. Social media analyses for social measurement. Public Opin Q. 2016;80: 180–211. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfv048 27257310

63. Holbrook AL, Krosnick JA. Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opin Q. 2010;74: 37–67. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp065

64. Johannes N, Veling H, Verwijmeren T, Buijzen M. Hard to resist? The effect of smartphone visibility and notifications on response inhibition. J Media Psychol. 2018; 1–12. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000248

65. Konok V, Pogány Á, Miklósi Á. Mobile attachment: Separation from the mobile phone induces physiological and behavioural stress and attentional bias to separation-related stimuli. Comput Human Behav. 2017;71: 228–239. doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2017.02.002

66. Reinecke L, Klimmt C, Meier A, Reich S, Hefner D, Knop-Huelss K, et al. Permanently online and permanently connected: Development and validation of the Online Vigilance Scale. Khazaal Y, editor. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0205384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205384 30359368

67. Seli P, Kane MJ, Smallwood J, Schacter DL, Maillet D, Schooler JW, et al. Mind-wandering as a natural kind: A family-resemblances view. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018;22: 479–490. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.010 29776466

68. Christoff K, Irving ZC, Fox KCR, Spreng RN, Andrews-Hanna JR. Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: A dynamic framework. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2016;17: 718–731. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.113 27654862


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11