Even in the rare cases where smartphones might alter cognition, this effect is likely transitory

An examination of the potential lingering effects of smartphone use on cognition. Peter Frost et al. Applied Cognitive Psychology, March 18 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3546

Summary

Smartphones might offer an extension of our own cognitive abilities, potentially preventing practice of certain forms of cognition. Our first study established that heavier usage of smartphones was negatively correlated with social problem solving and delayed gratification, as well as positively correlated with some aspects of critical thinking. Studies 2 and 3 involved experiments where participants were assigned to either a lower or higher smartphone usage group. In both experiments, higher usage of smartphones led only to a diminished ability to interpret and analyze the deeper meaning of information. However, Study 3 showed that, after a 4‐week interval, the difference in the ability to interpret and analyze meaning between lower and higher phone usage groups was no longer evident. The findings of this study suggest that, even in the rare cases where smartphones might alter cognition, this effect is likely transitory.

1 INTRODUCTION

In his book, “The Shallows,” Carr (2010) suggests the following when it comes to how technology might be changing our cognition:

    Over the past few years I've had the uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn't going—so far as I can tell—but it's changing. I'm not thinking the way I used to think. (Carr, 2010, p. 5)

Other popular media and books portray smartphones, social media, and other technology as diminishing cognitive capacities, like attention and concentration (Bauerlein, 2011).

Smartphone technology, in particular, is taking on an increasingly larger role in our daily mental activities. Pew Research data show that 77% of all U.S. adults had a smartphone in 2018, up from 35% in 2011 (Pew Research Center, 2018). The Pew Center also indicated that, in 2018, 94% of people from age 18 to 29 owned a smartphone. While access to smartphone technology has grown, so too has the body of literature investigating the concurrent and immediate residual inhibitory effects of these devices on certain forms of cognition, particularly attention (Strayer, Cooper, Turrill, Coleman, & Hopman, 2015; Strayer & Drews, 2007). Our study, however, focuses more on the potential for longer term effects these devices might exert on higher order cognition, including the ability to think critically, problem solve, reason, and engage in executive control. Some researchers acknowledge that consideration of the intersection between cognition and technology is an understudied area in psychology (Pennycook, Fugelsang, & Koehler, 2015; Wilmer, Sherman, & Chein, 2017).

If we consider the neuroplasticity of the brain—its ability to physically alter neural connectivity on the basis of changes in the environment and experience—could smartphone technology, which provides immediate and 24/7 access to the internet, be altering our cognitive abilities? Underlying this debate is the neuropsychological phenomenon of “use‐it‐or‐lose it,” demonstrated by neuroimaging and physiological studies that show new experiences strengthen synaptic connections in areas of the brain frequently used while weakening connections that are rarely used (Carr, 2010). Reliance on mobile phone technology as a form of “extended cognition” (Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2015; Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015) or “ibrain” (Small & Vorgan, 2008) might be leading to changes occurring in the brain that alter our ability to engage in various cognitive processes. Might easy access to information take away from practice of more deliberative thoughts and critical thinking skills? Moreover, might the constant notifications and cues provided by mobile phones be interrupting our ability to engage in higher cognition and/or delay gratification for longer term goals?

Some studies, such as that by Barr et al. (2015), have examined whether there may be a correlation between analytical thinking and smartphone technology. Barr and colleagues found that people who relied more heavily on smartphones and information sources performed worse on analytic‐thinking tasks. In a separate review article, Pennycook et al. (2015) acknowledged that this preliminary research suggests that smartphones may serve as a “second brain” that allows people to offload thinking.

Some studies show that smartphones might influence other forms of higher order cognitive functions, such as executive function and ability to delay gratification. The ability to resist temptation in favor of long‐term goals has important implications for individual, societal, and economic success (Casey et al., 2011). Delay of gratification is also negatively correlated with the control abilities in children and adults (Casey et al., 2011; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999).

Wilmer and Chein (2016) showed that higher scores on a self‐report measure of mobile technology engagement was correlated with a weaker tendency to delay gratification, as measured by a delay discounting task. Their self‐report questionnaire measured (a) daily usage of social media apps, (b) frequency of posting public status updates, and (c) phone‐checking behavior. Wilmer and Chein found a negative correlation between mobile device engagement and delay of gratification. They also found that this relationship might be specifically mediated by individual differences in impulse control and not reward sensitivity. The correlational nature of this study limited inferences about causation, but did show an interesting association between mobile device usage and habits associated with delay of gratification.

There is also evidence that the use of smartphones is correlated with some subjective reports associated with attention. Marty‐Dugas, Ralph, Oakman, and Smilek (2018) found that the results of a self‐report that assessed attention lapses, attention‐related errors, and mind wandering was positively related to results of a self‐report that assessed extent of smartphone use. These researchers found the correlation was particularly strong for participants who used smartphones without a specific purpose in mind (for what they referred to as “absent‐minded” usage). Even the mere presence of smartphones can interrupt attention and task performance (Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014). These studies show a relationship between concurrent smartphone use and attention. What about lingering effects on attention?

There is research showing that the multitasking aspect of smartphone technology habits, particularly for purposes of using social media, might relate to longer term effects on control of attention and concentration. Ophir, Clifford, and Wagner (2009) had participants engage in a number classification task (even or odd?) or letter classification task (vowel or consonant?). They then occasionally switched tasks. They calculated a “switch cost” as the difference in mean response time between trials preceded by a trial of the other type (switch trials) minus trials preceded by a trail of the same type (nonswitch trials). The switch cost for heavy social media multitaskers was 167 ms greater than that of low social media multitaskers. Heavy social media multimedia users performed worse on a test of task switching, perhaps—they speculated—because of reduced ability to filter out interference from irrelevant representations.

Relevant to smartphone usage for social networking purposes, studies show a positive association between heavier usage of social networking sites and diminished cognitive control or lack of judgment (Alloway & Alloway, 2012; Cao, Masood, Luqman, & Ali, 2018; Chen & Kim, 2013). Chen and Kim (2013) found that, if heavier users of social networking sites went to them for entertainment or pleasure, those desires overrode privacy concerns, such as unauthorized secondary use and improper access. Heavier usage was also associated with greater problematic social networking behaviors. Chen and Kim identified problematic social networking use based on Young's (1998) 20‐item version of problematic Internet use, and items were adjusted to be more relevant to the context of social networking. For example, respondents were asked if they found themselves staying on social networking sites longer than they intended, and if they feared that life without social networking sites would be empty and joyless. They suggest that problematic use might be a compulsivity control issue that cannot be overridden by recognition of potential long‐term exposure to harm. Again, though, a causal link was not established in this particular study. It is unclear whether heavy usage of social networking attracts people with less cognitive control or if social networking may be contributing to a lack of cognitive control. Some of these studies also emphasize the most extreme cases of heavy technology usage.

Some studies also find a negative association between the use of mobile phone technology and working memory (Abramson et al., 2009). Abramson et al. (2009) administered a questionnaire about mobile phone usage. They administered cognitive tests and found that the more frequently calls were made per week, the poorer was working memory accuracy and reaction time for a simple learning task was shorter.

Some studies have also explored whether the frequent interruptions from smartphones influences social reasoning and learning. Reed, Hirsh‐Pasek, and Golinkoff (2017) conducted an experiment where they found that phone interruptions that occurred when a mother was attempting to teach their 2‐year‐old novel words lead to poorer language acquisition. Though these studies show a concurrent effect of smartphone interruptions on social reasoning and learning, few studies have explored lingering effects of smartphone use on social cognition. Other studies show evidence that reliance on smartphone use for social interactions might correlate with poorer social skills and reasoning (e.g., Jin & Park, 2012). Our series of studies, particularly Studies 2 and 3, included controlled experiments to explore causative aspects pertaining to lingering effects of smartphone use.

It should be noted that whereas some studies have explored potential associations between smartphone usage and cognition, some studies have also explored whether exposure to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by smartphone technology alters cognition and brain physiology. Recent research shows that exposure to electromagnetic fields from smartphones does not alter event‐related potentials, like N100, P200, N200, P300 latencies and N2‐P300 amplitudes (Mohan, Khaliq, Panwar, & Vaney, 2016), nor do these fields alter measures of attention and short‐term memory (Cinel, Boldini, Fox, & Russo, 2008). Therefore, it is not likely that electromagnetic fields will confound an examination of how smartphone activities (for social media, phone calls, internet browsing, etc.) might influence cognition.

Our first study explored whether smartphone usage correlated with various measures of higher order cognition, including the Delayed Gratification Inventory, Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z (for college‐age participants), and Modified Means End Problem Solving. The Modified Means End was used to assess social problem solving because we suspected that higher rates of mobile phone technology and social media might lead to a lack of practice with social problem solving. Although a study by Ekinci (2014) found that problematic internet use was positively correlated with the perception of avoidant and impulsive problem solving styles, no one to our knowledge has examined the relationship between use of smartphones and direct (rather than perceptions of) problem solving.

Once we identified relationships between mobile device usage and various forms of cognition, we then used an experimental manipulation in Study 2 to determine if there were any causal links. Only the cognitive tests and scales found to be related to cognition in Study 1 were investigated in Study 2. Study 3 was intended to replicate the findings in Study 2, as well as include a longer interval of time associated with manipulation of smartphone usage.

Given previous research (e.g., Wilmer & Chein, 2016) and our suspicion that more frequent smartphone usage would lead to less reliance on higher cognition, we hypothesized that in Study 1, the use of smartphones should be negatively correlated with particular executive control abilities, particularly delay gratification and critical thinking. Further, we hypothesized in Studies 2 and 3 that higher rates of smartphone usage might cause diminished abilities associated with certain forms of higher cognition.

Our study adds to the literature on mobile phone technology and cognition by (a) examining some cognitive variables not previously associated with research on mobile technology usage, such as social problem solving and more aspects of critical thinking, (b) using tracking apps rather than self‐reports to more accurately and objectively measure usage rates, and (c) introducing experimental control in Studies 2 and 3.

We chose to use tracking apps rather than rely exclusively on self‐reports since studies have shown that people generally misjudge time durations, especially rapid, yet pervasive, checking behaviors (Grondin, 2010; Rachman, 2002). Andrews, Ellis, Shaw, and Piwek (2015) were the first to use a tracking software they developed to find out how much time was actually spent using mobile phones. Comparing self‐reported usage of mobile phones versus tracking app reports over 2 weeks, they found that their participants did not always self‐report some aspects of their mobile phone usage accurately. For example, they found that young adults far underestimated the average daily number of phone uses.