The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance

Students are increasingly using the smartphone and smartphones are permanent companions to people worldwide. As a result, they have the potential to significantly influence consumers.

Through the present paper, the possibility of a strong negative influence by the smartphone is investigated. Especially college students can be negatively influenced by the heavy use of the smartphone. The work presented here shows one consequence of the smartphone’s integration into the everyday life of students: the loss of attention. It provides evidence that even the mere presence of one’s smartphone consumes cognitive resources, without willingly shifting attention or actively using the smartphone. In the test situation, there was no visible interaction with the smartphone, as the smartphone was not looked at or picked up. This work was able to show in more detail to what extent attention performance is negatively affected: it was found that people show a slower work speed in the presence of a smartphone. New findings were obtained regarding the influence of smartphone presence on attention in the context of complex and non-complex tasks. Contrary to the previous state of research, a strong influence of smartphone presence was found in the context of tasks that require basal attentional processes, which is a new finding in this area. Since previous research cannot clearly show whether the mere presence of a smartphone influences attention, the results of this study represent a contribution to this and support the assumption that smartphone presence is a negative influence on attention.

The theoretical framework presented here proposes the consumption of cognitive resources as an explanation for the different performances. As the theoretical presentation of the executive functions show, the cognitive resources of humans are limited. Thus, the limited resources must be divided. According to the Cognitive Load Theory, resources are consumed by different types and amounts of cognitive loads, which consequently leads to different cognitive performances. The fact that attention was visible from the outside, but the subjects' performance was nevertheless lower in the presence of the smartphone, provides evidence of an invisible consumption of cognitive resources. According to Sweller’s categories for the classification of loads, the smartphone presence can represent an extraneous load, as it is independent of the task and the content to be processed. The additional load represented by the smartphone consumes cognitive resources that are consequently no longer available to process further information. The additional load of the smartphone can thus be used to identify the reason for the negative influence of the smartphone on attention and consequently the lower performance under smartphone presence.

Other studies have already shown that attention and performance decreases when a task is performed while the smartphone was available, which means that there was still the possibility to receive messages and notifications. The present study provides evidence that even the mere presence of one’s smartphone consumes cognitive resources, without any voluntary shift of attention or active use of the smartphone. The present findings are consistent with previous research findings that showed a reduction of attention and performance due to the presence/availability of the smartphone. Additionally, Ito and Kawahara found that subjects show slower performance when a smartphone is available. The present work can corroborate and extent the findings of Ito and Kawahara, as it could be shown that even the mere presence of the smartphone has the discovered effect of cognitive interference and lead to a slower work pace.

Moreover, Koessmeier and Büttner tested the mere presence effect of the smartphone while also tracking visual distraction that might be caused by smartphone presence. Participants wore mobile eye tracking glasses while performing cognitive tasks and reading tasks in smartphone presence and absence. Negative effects of smartphone presence on performance could not be replicated. During the task, participants almost never looked at their smartphone. Only during breaks and transitions between tasks, people drew their visual attention to their smartphones. Results show that the presence of the smartphone increased smartphone vigilance, however, this did not influence task performance. Koessmeier and Büttner conclude that people can regulate the visual attention that they pay to smartphones.

The effect of smartphone presence and availability, i.e. the loss of attention, was only found for complex or high-level tasks in the prior body of research. The results of our study are opposite to this. The d2-R represents a simple test with little complexity, where the subjects must discriminate simple visual stimuli and which consists of intellectually simple tasks. Nevertheless, the presence of the smartphone had the effect of reducing attention performance. Moreover, a strong effect was shown, even in the context of a task that requires basal attentional processes. Thus, our study contributes to the previous findings regarding the effect in connection with tasks requiring basal or high-level attentional performance. It is shown that the smartphone presence has a negative effect on attention, even while solving non-complex tasks.

A strong difference was found to Canale et al. who found in their studies that there was only an effect for the presence of the smartphone when it was switched on and not when it was switched off. Results of Ward et al. (2017) and Thornton et al. show that a turned off smartphone influences attention. Liu et al. also found a possible effect that having a turned-off smartphone present reduces attention. In our study, effects were found for a smartphone that was switched off. It could be shown that cognitive capacities are used by the mere presence of a smartphone even if there is no possibility to receive notifications. These results imply that the complete spatial separation from the own smartphone is a possibility to counteract a negative influence of the smartphone on the ability to focus attention. This also corresponds to the results of Ward et al., who stated as well that only the spatial separation counteracts a negative influence of the smartphone on attention.

In contrast to the negative effects presented here, positive effects are also possible due to smartphone presence. In another study, Liu et al. investigated whether the presence of a smartphone leads to higher levels of creativity. Previous research shows that environmental factors can change a state of attention into a diffused state, which fosters creativity. Results of Liu et al.’s study show that creativity increases when a smartphone is present, as workers' attentional state is affected by the presence of the smartphone. Due to the presence of the smartphone, workers are in a diffused state of attention, which leads to a better performance on a creativity task. Thus, the study shows possible positive influences due to smartphone presence, which provides further indications for a positive handling of the smartphone: These results show that in certain contexts, the presence of a smartphone can have positive influences.

An influence of smartphone dependence on the effect of smartphone presence could neither be confirmed nor refuted here, as no strong smartphone dependence tendencies were present in the subjects. Given the recent increase in smartphone use, smartphone dependence was considered to be a relevant factor, and because smartphone dependence has played an important role in previous studies, this factor was controlled for. As smartphone addiction is not that common, these findings are consistent with the overall prevalence. However, as previous research by Ward et al., Thornton et al., and Ito and Kawahara found an effect of smartphone dependence and personal relevance of the smartphone, this should be further investigated in future research.

Limitations

By conducting the attention and concentration tests via an online video platform, limitations for the given results should be considered. Limitations arise from the fact that the general test situation during the examination was no laboratory situation, which means that various influencing factors could be present. Possible external factors may have interfered with the participants attention. However, this limitation is also contrasted with the advantages of a situation in which the subjects are in their natural environment. Salvucci and Taatgen (2011) did a study on multitasking, in which they argue that a laboratory experiment cannot represent the true costs of multitasking, as experiments in the laboratory are not representative for multitasking situations in real life situations. Thus, an influence on cognitive abilities can also be given by the laboratory situation compared to an everyday life situation, which is why keeping the participants in their natural environment is also an advantage given in this study. To counteract the different conditions that were given for the participants, exact instructions were prepared in advance and used while conducting the experiment. However, differences in instruction cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, participants in our study had their personal smartphones with them. Thus, each participant had a different smartphone, which also led to different conditions and the possibility of different influences on the participants. However, Ward et al. showed that the effect of smartphone presence on attention is mostly triggered by the personal smartphone, as the personal relevance of this device plays an important role. As mentioned by Liu et al., the influence of cellphone ownership on the effect of smartphone presence was not examined enough in the currently existing research and should be further considered in future studies.

Limitations also result from the sample of our study. First, with 42 test persons, only a relatively small sample was given. Second, the sample used in the present research was predominately White (93%), highly educated, and relatively young (20–34 years). Thus, it is not clear if the present results can be generalized to the broader population using a smartphone. To investigate the generalizability of the present findings, more studies on the effect of smartphone presence should be done, especially concerning a more diverse sample group.

Practical implications

As our data suggests that the mere presence of the smartphone has a negative effect on attention, implications for the use of smartphones in students’ daily lives can be drawn. In general, students should be made aware of the fact that the presence of the smartphone negatively affects attention. This can be done, for example, at universities in form of posters. Based on that, students should change the way they use their smartphone: they should not carry it with them permanently, and students should make sure that they do not have their smartphones in their field of vision, especially while studying or attending a lecture or class. Furthermore, the general rules and limitations for smartphone use both at universities and in other learning contexts, such as schools, should be questioned based on the present findings. In addition, the question can be raised how much other objects of “mobile technology”, such as tablets, have the potential to negatively influence cognitive performance. In the course of digitalization, many efforts are being made to implement digital devices as much as possible in the classroom and everyday teaching, especially now in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as results of this study show, placing the smartphone in another room is already sufficient to counteract the resource-consuming effect of the smartphone. This can be implemented by students in different contexts, for example while studying, to counteract the consumption of cognitive resources. In this way, better cognitive performance can be achieved by students.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that the mere presence of the smartphone influences attention without any interaction with it can thus be confirmed by this study. It could be shown that the presence of the smartphone results in lower attentional performance. In addition, with the help of this work, the type of influence on attention by the smartphone can be shown more specifically: the presence of the smartphone has a negative influence on the working speed and thus on cognitive performance and attention. Under the presence of the smartphone, individuals work slower.

Taken together, most studies show an influence of a turned-on or available smartphone on attention in the context of high-level attentional tasks. This study shows an influence of the mere presence of the smartphone in the context of low-level attentional performance, which is a contribution to the previous body of research.

The theoretical framework shows that the smartphone represents an additional cognitive load, whereby limited cognitive resources are consumed. As a result, cognitive performance is negatively affected. The results of this paper suggest that especially the speed of cognitive performance and processing is impaired. In addition, an important fact could be shown by this study: the smartphone presence influences attention even while solving tasks that require basal attentional processes.

Based on these results, the everyday use of smartphones and the desire for a greater digitalization, and thus the increased implementation of digital devices in our daily lives, should be critically reflected. With this work, concrete possibilities for a positive handling of the smartphone can be given. It could be shown that it is not sufficient to cover the screen of the smartphone or to turn it off. However, placing the smartphone in a different room is sufficient to avoid the negative effects on attention performance. This is a simple and effective method to achieve this.

As the results of this study show, the use and permanent presence of a smartphone imposes a great challenge on society. At the same time, current studies show that the smartphone and also the smartphone presence can have positive effects. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the smartphone proved to be a particularly useful tool. All of this shows that in order to get the most out of a smartphone and make the best of its costs and benefits, a balanced and conscious use of the smartphone must be achieved.

Thus, it can be shown that smartphone use should be critically scrutinized and should only be done in appropriate contexts. Students should avoid having their smartphone with them while attention is required. Based on this work, many other contexts can be explored in which the smartphone could be a negative influence on attention.

The possibilities of the smartphone are enormous, however, this work shows that the advantages of the smartphone come with a strong negative disadvantage: high cognitive costs and strong losses of cognitive abilities.