Running head: PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

Do Cell Phones Negatively Impact Social Interaction in Groups of People?

Emily E. Johnson
Western Illinois University

Author Note
Emily E. Johnson, Department of Psychology, Western Illinois University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Emily E. Johnson,
Department of Psychology, Olson Hall Rm 832, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, 61455.
E-mail: ee-johnson3@wiu.edu
Abstract
This research determined the effects cellular phones have on social interaction in group settings.
Participants were told to wait in a room without the presence of researchers and were
documented by researchers (by means of a one way mirror) on the time it took for them to begin
speaking and the length of conversation with other participants with the presence or absence of a
cell phone. Participants were then asked to complete a personality self-report measure in order
for researchers to determine their level of extraversion. Results showed no significance between
high levels of extraversion and willingness to talk to other participants with the presence or
absence of a cell phone.
Keywords: cell phones, extraversion, group interaction, interpersonal relationships

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

Do Cell Phones Negatively Impact Social Interaction in Groups of People?

Cell phones are theorized to have a negative impact on face-to-face relationships (Turkle,
2011), and have been claimed to actually alter the social and structural makeup of the world
(Zuboff, 1984). Though primarily a device used to communicate socially, using cellular phones
when in the presence of another person or group of people can actually be perceived as less
social behavior due to the fact that the person in possession of the phone, when using it, is not
focusing one hundred percent of their attention on those around them. The presence of a cellular
device in a group setting often causes the owner to direct their attention to other individuals who
are not physically present, inhibiting relationship formation (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012).
Relationship development involves a great deal of self-disclosure, or verbally revealing
information about oneself to another (Endler, Flett, Macrodimitris, Corace, & Kocovski, 2002).
A cellular phone distraction can have a negative impact on in person relationships as it has the
possibility to inhibit this relationship formation (Turkle, 2011). The failure to form or nurture
these face-to-face relationships can have serious emotional effects on an individuals well-being
(Lee, Taim, & Chie, 2013). With this information, it is clear that cellular phones can have a
negative effect on social interactions and in-person relationships, as well as individual health.
This background information on the negativity associated with the topic of cell phone usage

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

during face-to-face interactions sets up a framework for our decision to pursue research in this
field.
A theory that highlights and explains the importance of social growtha necessary factor
in creating and maintaining successful face-to-face communication techniquesis the social
development theory which states that social interaction plays an important role in the process of
cognitive development (Vygotsky 1978). For instance, if a child grows up seeing people using
their cell phones in group situations and neglecting those around them, this may seriously impact
the childs social development. The child could see this as a primary method of communication
and lose the ability to form new relationships once given a cell phone. Though cell phones are
now the most widely used communication device (Katz & Aakhus 2002), consider that they have
not been around for a long period of time and many studies of their usage involve subjects who
were alive before their mass production. Therefore, it is not entirely known the extent of their
effect on social development from an early age, the primary focus of Vygotskys social
development theory. However, it still raises concern and poses a very important question: Would
society communicate more effectively in social situations and build stronger social networks if
our cellular phones were not present? Studies show that most cell phone usage occurs between
people already in the same interpersonal network (Jin & Park, 2010). How then would social
development form outside an already shaped network? This unanswered question solidifies the
previously stated apprehension about cellular phone usage inhibiting face-to-face relationship
formation, making it apparent as an ever-increasing concern.
It is clear that cell phone usage can have potentially negative effects on in-person
interactions. Previous research focuses strongly on the personality types of individuals who
excessively utilize their cell phonesi.e. extroverted vs. introverted (Ha, Chin, Park, Ryu, & Yu,
2008). Ha et.al noted that participants who frequently and pointlessly utilized their cell phones

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

were prone to depression and had a much more difficult time expressing their emotions than their
comparison group. Other research has studied behavioral addictions in relation to cellular phone
usage (Bianchi, 2005). This research found a correlation between other technological addictions
and problematic cell phone usage.
It is apparent that cell phone usage in group settings can have potentially negative effects
on face-to-face relationships and individual health, as well as limit an individuals social growth,
as explained by the social development theory. Past research has studied personality types (an
area we will incorporate in our research) and addictions in relation to cell phone usage. What
these articles failed to studyquestions we will try to answerare the effects of cellular phone
usage in a group setting as well as the individuals perceived behavior (i.e. the likeliness they
will talk with others around them based on their personality type) versus actual behavior in this
setting. With that said, the purpose of our study is to see how cell phones manipulate our
probable actions in group settings. We expect that extroverts more than introverts will be likely
to speak with other participants in the study because their personalities are defined by traits such
as sociable, assertive, energetic, adventurous, enthusiastic, and outgoing (John & Srivastavia
1999). We further predict extroverts customary interaction abilities will be stifled in a group
setting when they have access to a cell phone.
Method
Participants
Participants recruited were college undergraduates at Western Illinois University
(Mage=19.5 years, age range: 18-22; numerous ethnicities). Participants were given class credit
for various psychology courses in which they were enrolled.
Materials
Big Five Inventory (BFI): This self-report form measures five key personality traits
(conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness) by means of a Likert
scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each statement referred to one of the five

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

traits listed above. Is talkative and is full of energy are two examples of statements offered
on this self-report measure. Though more personality data was collected from the survey,
researchers were only interested in the information pertaining to extraversion and whether or not
extraversion affects the likelihood of people talking to each other in the presence or absence of a
cell phone.
Procedure
The study began with researchers asking participants in one condition group to place their
belongings including their cell phone (i.e. the independent variable) outside of the room while
the study was being conducted. Participants in the other condition group were not told to place
anything outside the room, and as such were allowed to keep their cell phones with them. There
was a group of chairs positioned in a rough square formation in a single room with a one way
mirror where the participants were asked to take a seat. Once each group was positioned inside
the room, researchers gave participants a consent form to fill out which stated that the
participants were willing to partake in and agreed to the terms and conditions of the study. After
consent forms were completed, researchers conducting the study provided a cover story for
participants, saying that they didnt have enough copies of the questionnaire and claimed they
needed the group to wait for a few minutes while they printed off more copies of the self-report.
Once the researchers left for three minutes, a second group of researchers, who were waiting
behind the one way mirror, measured the duration (in seconds) it took for participants to speak
and the duration of conversations. The researchers who left to make copies returned three
minutes later and passed out the self-report measures to participants who then proceeded to fill
them out. After the group finished filling out their measures and turned them in, the researchers
debriefed the participants explaining that researchers had been watching them in order to

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

determine whether or not participants spoke to each other in correlation with the presence or
absence of cell phone access for participants.
Results
We predicted that if a participant perceived themselves as extroverted, their usual
communication skills would be subdued in a group setting when they had access to a cell phone.
Data was collected and analyzed using two 2 x 2 factorial ANOVAs. The independent variables
used in the analysis were cell phones (present or absent) and extraversion (high or low). The
dependent variables analyzed were the time to begin conversation and the duration of
conversation. The results collected in this study were not significant and did not support the
hypothesis. One of the 2 x 2 factorial ANOVAs described above was used to determine
differences in conversation start time between participants. The main effect for extraversion F(1,
13) = .10, p > .05 had no significance. This illustrated that extroverted participants did not begin
talking to other participants any faster than their introverted counterparts. This ANOVA also
showed that the main effect for presence of cell phones in relation to duration it took for
participants to speak was not significant as F(1, 13) = .11, p > .05, meaning that whether a
participant had a cell phone or not did not affect the length of time it took for them to being
speaking with other participants. The interaction effect between extraversion and cell phones
regarding conversation start time was F(1, 13) = .10, p > .05, a not significant effecti.e. there
was no relation between extraversion and cell phone usage in relation to conversation start time.
A second 2 x 2 factorial ANOVA was used to determine differences in duration of conversation
between participants. Again, there was no main effect of extraversion F(1, 13) = .070, p > .05.
This displays that whether or not a participant was extraverted did not have a significant impact
on the duration of conversation between participants. This ANOVA also showed that the main
effect for presence of cell phones in relation to duration of conversation between participants was

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

not significant as F(1, 13) = .14, p > .05, showing that whether or not a participant had a cell
phone had no effect on their duration of their conversations. The interaction effect between
extraversion and cell phones regarding duration of conversation was not significant as F(1, 13)
= .070, p > .05meaning there was no relation between extraversion and cell phone usage to
duration of conversation. Attached are graphs representing this data. Figure 1 displays that
participants with high levels of extraversion took a longer time to start a conversation than
participants with levels of high conversation without a cell phone. It also shows how participants
who had low levels of extraversion took longer to start a conversation when they did not have a
cell phone than participants with levels of low extraversion who did have a cell phone. Figure 2
displays how participants with high levels of extraversion who had their cell phone talked for a
slightly shorter duration of time than high level extraverted participants who did not have their
cell phones. It also shows how participants with low levels of extraversion who did not have
their cell phones held longer conversations than their counterparts who did have their cell
phones.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to see how cell phones manipulate our probable actions in
group settings. Participants who scored themselves as extroverted were expected to be more
likely to speak with other participants in the study rather than those who label themselves as
introverted based on previous extraversion research carried out by O.P. John & S. Srivastava
(1999). We predicted that if a participant sees themselves as extroverted, their normal interaction
abilities will be restrained in a group setting when they have access to a cell phone. However, the
results of this study were non-significant. A participants level of extraversion had no substantial
effect on whether or not they spoke to those around them or how long they held conversations in

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

relation to the presence or absence of their cell phone. With this understanding, it is clear that the
results do not support our hypothesis.
Previous research on the related studies sheds very little light on the results of our study.
Though studies have related personality type (introverted vs. extroverted) to cell phone usage
(Ha, Chin, Park, Ryu, & Yu, 2008), they have not made the connection of their usage in group
settings to personality. Other studies have focused on the addictive nature of cell phones
(Bianchi, 2005), which, had this study shown significant results, might explain participants
underlying reasons to utilize their cell phones in a group setting despite high levels of
extraversion. If the results of this study had been significant, cross-references with these previous
studies could have been very beneficial.
Greater amounts and higher quality data may have been collected had there been more
time for the researchers to conduct their experiments. More time would result in greater
participation, more conditions, potentially more personality diversity among participants, and
possibly a greater significance in results. Another limitation to this study was the participants
themselves. Since the study was conducted in a small room with a one way mirror, participants
were suspicious. Knowing that there were many larger classrooms, several participants were
convinced that the researchers were deceiving them. This suspicion led to immediate
conversation, regardless of whether or not participants were granted cell phone permission.
Another limitation was the researchers ability to convey honesty to participants. Since none of
the researchers are actors, their attempt to provide an authentic-looking cover story did not
always fool participants.
This study did not find significant results, but that does not mean it does not provide a
solid foundation for future studies. If further research was to be done on this subject, a
participant stipulation might provide more significant results. If all participants were required to
be extroverted, data would be easier to collect. Perhaps a pre-screening would have participants

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

take the Big Five Inventory to determine their extraversion, and high extraversion scoring
participants could be called in for a second round where the observational measures (time it takes
to begin conversation and duration of conversation) would be taken for the two separate
conditions (presence or absence of cell phone). Further research, if results prove significant in
support of our hypothesis, may answer questions such as: Why do these individuals feel inclined
to use their cell phones when in the presence of other people? Will this inability to communicate
have serious effects on future generations? What are the risks? What will society lose if
communication ability continues to decrease with an increase of cell phone usage? As previously
mentioned, our study does not answer these questions. But greater research into this new and
unknown territory has the potential to answer very important societal questions that could have a
very large impact on the future of humanity as a whole.

References
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J.G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8 (1), 39-52. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39
Endler, N. S., Flett, G. L., Macrodimitris, S. D., Corace, K. M., & Kocovski, N. L. (2002).
Separation, self-disclosure, and social evaluation anxiety as facets of trait social anxiety.
European Journal of Personality, 16, 4, 239-269. doi: 10.1002/per.452
Ha, J. H., Chin, B., Park, D.H., Ryu, S.E., & Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive cellular
phone use in Korean adolescents. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (6), 783-784. doi:
10.1089/cpb.2008.0096

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

10

Jin, B. & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting: Interpersonal motives for
cell phone use, face-to-face interaction, and loneliness. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 13(6), 611-618. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0314
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research, 2, 102138. New York: Guilford Press.
Katz, J.E. & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public
performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, S., Tam, C.L., & Chie, Q.T. (2014). Mobile phone preferences: The contributing factors of
personality, social anxiety, and loneliness. Social Indicators Research, 1205-1226.
doi:10.10 07/s11205-013-0460-2
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of
mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal Of
Social And Personal Relationships, 30 (3), 237-246.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Zuboff, S. (1984) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New
York: Basic Books.

PHONES IMPACT SOCIAL INTERACTION

11

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
MEAN TIME TO conversation
With Cell Phone

Without Cell Phone

2
1.5
1
0.5
0

High Extrovert

Low extrovert

Figure 1 displays the mean time to conversation compared with the levels of extraversion.
60

50

40

MEAN DURATION OF
With
CONVERSATION
Cell Phone

30

Without Cell Phone

20

10

High Extrovert

Low Extrovert

Figure 2 displays the mean duration of conversation compared with the levels of extraversion.