Cellphone Distraction - Final-2

Running head: EFFECTS OF CELLPHONE USE ON COGNITIVE TASKS 1
The Effects of Cellphone Usage on Accuracy During Cognitive Assessment Tasks
Benjamin Zaniewski
Courtney O’Brien
Jehlad Hickson
Author Note
Courtney O’Brien, Jehlad Hickson, & Benjamin Zaniewski, Psychology Department,
Stonehill College.
This research was supported by the Research Methods in Psychology course at Stonehill College.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: 320 Washington St, North
Easton, MA 02357; E-mail: bzaniewski@students.stonehill.edu,
cobrien1@students.stonehill.edu, or jhickson@students.stonehill.edu.

EFFECTS OF CELLPHONE USE ON COGNITIVE TASKS 2
Abstract
This study investigated the possible effects of cellphone distraction during a cognitive task.
Specifically, we looked at whether participants assigned to a higher level of cellphone distraction
would produce lower scores than participants assigned to a lower level of distraction.
Participants watched a 10-min video clip during which experimenters sent text messages to the
cellphone present during the experiment. Participants were required to respond to the
experimenter’s text message. After the video clip, participants had to answer a 30 multiple
choice posttest questionnaire to measure performance during a cognitive task. We found no
significant difference between the high and low level groups of distraction after the posttest
questionnaire. The results suggest that cellphone distraction levels do not influence performance
on cognitive tasks.

The Effects of Cellphone Usage on Accuracy During Cognitive Assessment Tasks
Cellphones continue to become increasingly integrated into our daily lives. It has now
become commonplace for an individual to own a cell phone, whether it is the latest smart phone
on the market or an older model flip phone, to such an extent that not owning one seems strange
in the eyes of modern society. One survey in particular indicated that at least 85% of people
living in the United States have a cellphone (Duggan & Rainie, 2012). As popularity increases,
it appears that what used to be an expensive commodity has now become a social necessity
across most age groups. Further advances in cellular device technology have adapted cellphones
into mobile computers allowing functionality to extend beyond simple calls and texting and into
the realms of social media, photography, and business management, to name a few. This
evolution raises new questions about people’s personal reliance and technological utility
negatively influencing focus and creating dependence, potentially impacting work and
educational performance.
Past research in the field of psychology has analyzed several aspects of the cellphone and
the potential changes its presence and use may have on an individual. Recent research has
established that the use of a cellphone, whether due to making a phone call or sending text
messages, increases levels of distraction and negatively impacts performance in multitasking
(Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014). Their study observed how the presence of a
cellphone, as opposed to a similarly sized notebook, influenced the participant’s performance on
several timed tasks. They found evidence for their hypothesis that having a cellphone present
would result in a decrease in attention. This study suggests that a cellphone has the ability to
distract an individual while in social situations and impede their ability to accurately complete
multiple tasks at once.

Cellphones have also been reported to influence people on the physiological and
psychological spectrums in different ways. One study conducted by Clayton, Leshner, and
Almond (2014) found that people who were unable to answer their ringing iPhone in an
experimental laboratory setting while instructed to complete a word search puzzle experienced
higher blood pressure, heart rate, and anxiety. They also indicated that they felt unpleasant, in
addition to experiencing decreased cognition (Clayton et al., 2014). These responses suggest that
cellphones influence our ability to successfully perform cognitive tasks and also provide further
evidence toward a deeper connection to our devices one that holds a negative potential.
Contrarily, Siggins and Flood (2013) reported that there was no significant difference in anxiety
levels amongst participants who were separated from their phones for 12 hours. However, they
did encounter a high proportion of individuals who, when approached and asked to participate,
were unwilling to be separated from their cellphones (Siggins & Flood, 2013).
While the aforementioned studies suggest that cellphone use is distracting and illicit
physiological responses in users, these relationships have not been tested in an educational
environment, such as a classroom. Results from a study specifically focusing on this
environment would help shift research in a new direction and help professors and students alike
understand the potential impacts cellphone usage could have on academic performance. In the
present study, we tested whether cellphone usage would impact participants’ ability to watch a
film and then answer questions based on the video. The film was chosen to be neither overtly
interesting nor boring. Furthermore, the posttest questionnaire included three categories of
questions with varying difficulties designed to assess different required levels of attention. We
predicted that those who experienced higher levels of cellphone distraction (receiving more text

messages) during the experiment would score lower on the recall test following the film
compared to those who were less distracted (received fewer text messages).
Method
Design
We conducted an independent-groups posttest-only design. The independent variable was
the assigned degree of cell phone use, either low level of use or high level of use. The dependent
variable was the number of correctly answered questions in a recall cognitive task, represented
by a 30-question multiple choice questionnaire.
Participants
Participants were 17 male students and 14 female students, ranging from first year
students to members of the senior class. The majority of students involved in the study were
enrolled in psychology courses at Stonehill College. Psychology students were recruited through
the SONA systems (available to Stonehill College students) in order to receive research credit for
their psychology course(s). Several students were recruited through personal connections,
including friends and work colleagues, along with two recruited through convenience sampling
in the Shields Science Center.
Materials
The video was a 10-min clip from a television series titled The First 48 Hours Mystery
played from YouTube on an Apple MacBook that was provided by the researchers. The episode
title was “Kiss of Death and the Google Executive.” This clip, beginning at the start of the
episode and ending at a break at the 10:24 mark, described the murder mystery of Forrest Hayes
and the investigation process led by law enforcement into his death. We provided participants
with a cellular device: an iPhone 6 using iMessage transmitted through cellular data. The

experiment also utilized a second iPhone 6 to allow for manipulation of the independent variable.
The posttest questionnaire was provided to participants following completion of the video (see
Appendix A for posttest questionnaire). This questionnaire contained 30 multiple choice
questions divided into three categories of difficulty: easy, medium, and difficult. The difficulty
of the questions was determined by the amount of focus a participant would need during the
video to correctly answer it.
Procedure
We conducted this study in the research wing of Shields Science Center. We utilized two
different rooms: one contained a desk and a chair for the participants to watch the video and take
the questionnaire while the other, equipped with a one-way window and camera feed, was used
by the experimenters to control the experiment. Participants were run in 30-min time increments.
Each participant entered the research wing where they are instructed to sit in the empty chair and
complete the informed consent form. The experimenter verbally outlined the experiment for the
participant, specifically stating that they would watch a 10-minute video clip and be tested on the
content following its completion. Participants were also oriented to the cellphone, which was
placed on the table next to the laptop. The experimenter then explained how the phone would go
off periodically during the video. They were instructed to, when the phone received a text from
the contact named “Researcher”, pick up the phone, unlock it, respond to the text message, then
lock the phone and place it back on the table (see Appendix B for text message guide).
Participants assigned to the low level of distraction were texted three times. Those assigned to
the high level of distraction were texted six times. Texts were sent in 90-sec intervals (high level)
or 3:30-min intervals (low level) beginning with the first question at the 1:00 mark. These
questions varied from simple responses such as “What is your full name and date of birth?” to

more complex tasks such as “Describe one of your best friends in three sentences.” Upon
completion of the video, the experimenters administered the posttest questionnaire. Participants
then completed the questions and turned in their questionnaire in exchange for the debriefing
form. After reading and signing the debriefing form, each participant was given permission to
exit the study.
Results
An independent-samples t test was calculated to determine whether or not level of
cellphone user distraction had an effect on performance during a cognitive task. The t test
showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two levels of distraction,
t(30) = 0.308, p = .508 (M = 20.60, SD = 3.225 for low and M = 20.27, SD = 2.685 for high).
In addition to our main analysis, we examined the relationship between distraction level
and question difficulty (easy, medium, difficult). Table 1 presents the pattern of means
concerning question difficulty. We found that overall mean performance by question difficulty
did not differ as a function of cellphone distraction level.
Discussion
We hypothesized that the higher level of cellphone distraction a participant experienced,
the lower the accuracy would be on cognitive tasks (a posttest questionnaire). After completing
the experimental stages and analyzing our data, we found no support for this hypothesis. Altering
the level of cellphone distraction had a statistically insignificant result on the questionnaire
scores. Furthermore, when analyzing whether or not cellphone distraction impacted the
performance on different question difficulties, we once again found there to be no support for our
hypothesis.

Previous research found that cellphone use increased levels of distraction and negatively
affected the ability of an individual to multitask (Thornton et al., 2014). The results of our
research contradict these previous findings by failing to show a connection between cellphone
use and distraction level. Also, our findings did not support the idea that cellphone use
negatively affected multitasking ability, as seen in the lack of fluctuating means between our two
cellphone distraction levels. Other research examined prior to our study discussed the
physiological effects of cellphones on individuals who could not answer their phones while
performing a cognitive task (Clayton et al., 2014). Our study did not look into physiological
arousal and our observations did not report any visible physiological effects on our participants
who could not use their personal cellphones during the study.
Although we faced multiple limitations, the most significant we experienced were control
of the technology and participant behavior. We ran into several technical issues while using the
cellphone and laptop combination. Setting up the iPhone to only display alerts for when the
experimenter texted the phone was difficult. We set up the iPhone so every likely alert, such as a
friend who frequently communicated with the experimenter whose phone was being used, was
set to “do not disturb”. However, several situations occurred where a contact we did not
anticipate to contact the phone did, therefore displaying alerts for messages other than those texts
used during the experiment. Furthermore, the wi-fi connection in Shields Science Center was
often unreliable, forcing us to use 3G data as an alternative. This also made loading the video
during one session quite difficult. In another instance, the laptop being used received a FaceTime
call, which we had not anticipated while setting up the study.
Participant behavior, the second major limitation, was extremely difficult to control. The
attitude of the participants varied greatly. Some participants appeared to be motivated, focusing

on the video’s details and strategically responding to the text messages during informational gaps
in the clip. On the other hand, several participants clearly did not want to be there. For example,
two participants were observed checking their personal cellphones during the study.
Additionally, several students verbally expressed frustration at the apparent difficulty of the
questionnaire. Trying to create an environment in which each participant had an equal motivation
and level of focus proved to be unachievable.
If this study were to be completed again, the focus should be to alleviate the limitations.
The first limitation we discussed realistically is controllable; the technology can, if given enough
preparation time, be set up to properly facilitate the study and not create additional unexpected
distractions. Another alternative is to purchase and use prepaid cellphones for the experiment,
allowing the researchers to have complete control over text messages received. This would also
eliminate the potential for phone calls and/or other media distractions. The second limitation
should also be addressed; however, a solution is not as apparent. A realistic proposition is to run
the study during the middle of the week in order to avoid behavioral issues which may arise from
anticipating the weekend, recovering from particular social activities, and academic distractions,
to name a few. We believe that the next direction for this type of research should continue
parallel to ours in the sense that it should delve deeper into the area of cellphone use’s impact in
academic tasks. New factors, such as the subject variables of age and gender, would be
interesting and worthwhile to investigate.
In conclusion, our study failed to support for our hypothesis that cellphone distraction
impacts performance on cognitive tasks. However, we believe that the failure to produce
statistically significant results should not discourage further research into this topic. The
limitations surrounding this area of research and the difficulty of controlling confounds will be

difficult obstacles to overcome, as we experienced personally in our own research. We
encourage more researchers to look into this area and provide new ideas and innovations to the
potential of cellphone distraction.

References
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone
separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 20, 119-135.
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/25/cell-phone-activities-2012/
Siggins, M., & Flood, C. (2013). Mobile phone separation and anxiety. Cyberpsychology and
New Media: A Thematic Reader, 38-47.
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone
may be distracting. Social Psychology, 45, 479-488.

Table 1
Distraction Level and Question Difficulty
Question Difficulty Distraction Level Mean
Easy
Low 7.87
High 8.00
Medium
Low 6.87
High 6.80
Hard
Low 5.60
High 5.60
Note. The mean represents questions answered correctly out of 10.

Appendix A
Posttest Questionnaire
Name: ___________________________________ Form: ___
Instructions: Please read each question carefully. Select the best answer to each question and
circle your response. Take as much time as needed to complete all 30 questions.
1. What show did you watch?
a. Homicide: Life on the Street
b. The First 48 Hours Mystery
c. Cold Case
d. 60 Minutes
e. 48 Hours: Hard Evidence
2. In the very beginning of the episode, what is displayed across the screen as it begins?
a. “Real people, real crimes, real life drama”
b. “People and real life drama”
c. “Crime and drama”
d. “Real life people and real life crime”
e. None of the above
3. When it shows a clear image of the yacht, what words are printed on the life preserver
(attached to the side of the boat)?
a. Escape
b. Escape, Hayes Family
c. Escape, Santa Cruz
d. Escape, California
e. Escape, Forrest Hayes
4. Where did the crime take place?
a. California
b. Florida
c. Hawaii
d. Massachusetts
e. North Carolina
5. Who became worried enough to contact the captain after the victim did not return home?
a. A stranger
b. His children
c. Alix, the mistress
d. His friend who was on his boat
e. His wife

6. What did the suspected murderer have tattooed on her shoulder?
a. Flowers
b. A butterfly
c. A skull
d. An anchor
e. Nothing
7. What was the victim’s full name?
a. Forrest Hayes
b. Michael Daly
c. Jared Davidson
d. Alix Tichelman
e. David Bernstein
8. Who found the victim lying dead on his boat?
a. His wife
b. A friend
c. The captain
d. The police
e. Alix, the mistress
9. What color were the cameras that were installed on the yacht?
a. Blue
b. Black
c. Metallic
d. White
e. Red
10. What was the name of the company that the victim worked for?
a. Amazon
b. Ebay
c. Google
d. Youtube
e. Wikipedia
11. What did the police officer describe Alix Tichelman as to the interviewer?
a. “Sweet and Innocent”
b. “Not guilty”
c. “A cold blooded killer”
d. “Apologetic for the crime”
e. I do not recall

12. What was the name of the interviewer in the video clip?
a. Susan
b. Marie
c. Debbie
d. Maureen
e. Ellen
13. What drug did the victim overdose on?
a. Cocaine
b. Antidepressants
c. LSD
d. Ecstasy
e. Heroin
14. What specific town did the victim live in?
a. Santa Cruz, CA
b. Santa Monica, CA
c. Los Angeles, CA
d. San Diego, CA
e. Long Beach, CA
15. How expensive was the victim’s house?
a. 3.8 million dollars
b. 6 million dollars
c. 3 million dollars
d. 2.5 million dollars
e. 1 million dollars
16. How many children did the victim have?
a. 5
b. 2
c. 3
d. 0
e. 6
17. How old was the victim?
a. 47
b. 58
c. 45
d. 51
e. 54

18. What was the first company that the victim worked for before going to Google?
a. Amazon
b. Sun Microsystems
c. Microsoft
d. Chevrolet
e. Boeing
19. What did the victim name his boat?
a. Big Fish
b. The Adventure
c. Tiger Shark
d. California Girl
e. Escape
20. How did they know that the victim died of an overdose?
a. Drugs were on the table
b. Visible drug marks in his arm
c. A needle
d. An autopsy
e. The drugs were in his hands
21. Where was the victim’s body discovered on the boat?
a. The bedroom
b. The captain’s chair
c. The main cabin floor
d. The bathroom
e. The bow
22. What was the name of the woman they discovered was with the victim?
a. Janette
b. Christina
c. Alix
d. Stephanie
e. It did not include her name
23. What was what piece of evidence they used to determine there was another person on the
boat, besides the wine glasses?
a. A witness who saw the person leave
b. The person was still on the boat
c. The person left behind personal belongings
d. Cameras installed on the yacht
e. None of the above

24. What was the suspected murderer’s eye color?
a. Brown
b. Blue
c. Hazel
d. Green
e. Other
25. Where was the victim originally from?
a. Colorado
b. Arizona
c. Nevada
d. Michigan
e. Montana
26. What was a distinctive feature about the girl who was on the boat with the victim?
a. Large sunglasses
b. Handbag color
c. Unusual height
d. Bathing suit
e. Her tattoos
27. What was the dating website that the victim had an account for?
a. eHarmony
b. Christian Mingle
c. SeekingArrangement
d. OkCupid
e. Zoosk
28. How did they realize that someone else was on the boat with the victim?
a. Two wine glasses
b. A female pair of shoes
c. A dress
d. Two dinner plates
e. A purse
29. The cop described the videotape as what to the interviewer?
a. “The entire case”
b. “As everything for us”
c. He did not say anything about the videotape.
d. “Not helpful”
e. Both A and B

30. What device did they take from the victim to pull digital evidence from?
a. Laptop
b. Tablet
c. Cell phone
d. External hard drive
e. USB drive
Researcher Use:
Final Score__/30

Appendix B
Experimenter Text Message Guide
Low Level (3 questions [1 easy & 2 hard]; 3:30 intervals)
Text Time Message Content
Text 1
Easy
1:00 What is your full name and date of birth?
Text 2
Hard
4:30 Describe one of your best friends in three sentences.
Text 3
Hard
8:00 List 5 professional sports teams.
High Level (6 questions [4 easy & 2 hard]; 1:30 intervals)
Text Time Message Content
Text 1
Easy
1:00 What is your full name and date of birth?
Text 2
Hard
2:30 Describe one of your best friends in three sentences.
Text 3
Easy
4:00 What is your favorite course this semester?
Text 4
Easy
5:30 What is the name of your hometown?
Text 5
Hard
7:00 List 6 countries you would like to visit.
Text 6
Easy
8:30 What are the names of three of your friends?

Cellphone Distraction - Final-2

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (8)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Cellphone Distraction - Final-2

Ähnlich wie Cellphone Distraction - Final-2 (20)

Cellphone Distraction - Final-2