> Using the same tasks and conditions as in Ward et al.'s (2017) second experiment, the present study found that the “brain drain” effect did not replicate: there was no difference between smartphone location conditions on performance on either the o-span task or the go/no-go task.
Fair enough. It is one replication attempt, so that makes it even. Jonathan Haidt mentions the same in his book The Anxious Generation but lists other similar studies:
> I note that one attempt to replicate the study did not find that phone location affected performance (Ruiz Pardo & Minda, 2022). But other studies have found that when phones are visible, they have disruptive effects. See Dwyer et al. (2018); Tanil & Young (2020); Skowronek et al. (2023).
> Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions
> those without smartphones had higher recall accuracy compared to those with smartphones.
These seem reasonable. But they have little to do with this study, they are explained by competing attention and that smartphones also substitute for rote memorization.
> the mere presence of a smartphone results in lower performance on a concentration and attention test
This is more interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10249922/ It was conducted via videoconference though, so I wonder how much attention was devoted simply to the videoconference. And there was no effect of smartphone dependence.
As far as the book, there is a Nature review https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 and a Polish review https://e-psycholog.eu/clanek/498 that say his book has no basis in science and is just cherry-picked studies and graphs. It seems Haidt has doubled down and is like "I reviewed all the studies myself" - but he didn't publish a systematic review, only these non-peer-reviewed "collaborative reviews" https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-rev.... Whereas his detractors have done peer-reviewed SR's: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4053961. I have seen this pattern before, in other areas of science, and pretty uniformly if it is one man (or woman) vs. the literature then the literature is right and the "lone genius" is a crackpot. But that's just scientifically, in society you can be popular even if your theories are as nutty as they come.
Now there are patterns in the studies, I am sure there are interesting conclusions to be drawn, I just don't trust Haidt to do that kind of analysis.
Interesting. I wonder if it had anything to do with this little tidbit:
>All analyses in experiment 1 include a “Week” factor to account for variation across research assistants; this factor does not interact with Phone Location in any analysis (all F < 1.27, all p > .28).
What was the variation? What was the factor? Why was it only needed in experiment 1 and not in the rest of the experiments?
Are we really supposed to believe that in 2008, some turtle-necked evil genius permanently impaired the entire world?
how does one systematically and efficiently go about finding replication (or debunking) experiments for a given hypothesis / result / paper? look for citations and read all relevant papers? look for a meta-study? is there anything like a wikipedia of hypotheses?
For me it is just searching and searching with Google Scholar. Maybe someone in the AI space has figured out how to connect papers to replications based on abstracts and references, but I haven't seen any such tool.
Photos of everyone clutching their phones now are going to look as cringe as those photos of people holding cigarettes in the 70s. “Why couldn’t grandma put it down for the picture?” Indeed.
I've intentionally never owned a smartphone myself. Our kids don't have it either. It is always fun to suddenly notice during train trips that we're more or less the only family here occupied with actual, real-life talking that also involves actual eye contact, lol.
That being said, maybe the communication pattern of two smartphone users sitting side by side is nonetheless still signaling the same humanly care, warmth, etc. Yes, there is a (IMO silly) technical device in between, but I'm not sure if all this would actually mean that it is "less humane" etc. It's just... different. Maybe.
I remember train commutes where everyone was reading a book or newspaper instead of looking at their phone.
There's nothing special about phones (in this sense). Most people just aren't interested in interacting with the other people around them. Or that might just be the famous British Reserve in action.
I used to have a smartphone and have basically gotten rid of it. I'll tell you the main difference between taking a train/bus/whatever with a phone vs a book:
The book ends.
You may be engrossed for a while, or a long while, or even a very long while, but eventually you get bored. You have to close it for a while and look around, or talk to someone, or just sit there.
A phone with internet is infinite. You get bored of (a) and then you can go to (b) then (c) then back to (a) for hours and hours and hours and hours on end.
"Most people just aren't interested in interacting with the other people around them."
Very good point, thanks for this. Might indeed be first and foremost simply a personality trait (they would have been "introverts" and reluctant to conversation also in the pre-smartphones era, or even in the 19th century).
I don't think it will be cringe, it might even be back on-trend in 25 years, after everyone has had AR contacts with neural implants for a decade and yearns for the simpler times where the internet was only on an external device.
This is AI generated which makes it more uncanny than it needs to be. But honestly, what's wrong with wanting to document something by taking picture or video? It's a natural thing that humans want to do, whether by writing it down or sketching picture. Digital photography and videography has now just become much more accessible due to lower cost and near ubiquity of high resolution imaging devices.
I think he GP was making the comparison based on both phones and cigarettes being addictive. What's the comparison with newspapers that makes one productive of the other?
We are in dire need of strict overreaching regulations about what apps and notifications can and cannot do.
For example, it should be imposed by law that notifications can’t be used for advertising.
I NEED to have my airline app’s notifications on, but no, I don’t need to know once a day about the “incredible” Cancun weekend getaway deals.
In the same way, it’s clear and established that social media apps’ UX-features such as infinite scroll are devastating for our mental and somewhat physical health.
They leverage a fundamental brain pattern, just like nicotine in cigarettes creates addiction. We need mandatory splash screens with advice on all this when we open Instagram or TikTok. And we should impose legal limits on features like infinite scroll or pull to refresh.
I would like that Europe’s penchant for hyper regulation would lead the way in this field, instead of just pushing for more blatant favoritism towards shitty companies like Spotify just because they’re European.
Well, I can’t. The “free” market does not have that flexibility and for minor airports i have to fly to to visit my family there is only one airline I can book.
That said, ALL airlines do that because they can’t avoid leveling up with their competitors marketing so the choice you mention doesn’t actually exist.
Considering that our consumer behavior can actually steer decisions in a corporation is a rather naïve take on the problem…
I skimmed the paper, and while superficially legitimate, this just doesn’t pass the smell test. I suspect p-hacking. I would be surprised if this study replicates.
Related, I do believe smartphones are a distraction, which is why I opted for an Apple Watch Ultra II with a LTE connection. Paired with AirPods Pro, it has the benefits of connectivity (calls, texts, emails, music, appt reminders, electronic payment, etc…), but is too inconvenient of a form factor to mindlessly scroll.
I cut out social media about 10 months ago. News and that's about it. I tend to be alone still in rooms with other humans physically present. They're busy talking to others virtually. It's shocking how few people actually look up anymore.
> nothing in the news was really actionable for me
A month ago, I was reading the news of my country of birth to decide if it looks stable enough to go there and then get out without surprises at the border.
Two months ago, I was reading the news of my country of residence to choose when to go to the shower, trying to avoid running to the shelter naked.
Hell, I might consider relocation to your country.
I mean, it's obviously different if you're somewhere that the news has directly actionable info. Just like how someone who doesn't otherwise care about the news will probably keep track of weather news during storm season in their area.
Exactly, the majority of the strangers that end up talking to me turn out to be total weirdos. Apparently something about the way I carry myself seems to paint me as a target.
So, I've taken to wearing earphones to signal I'm not interested in talking, sometimes I'm not even actually listening to anything, most of the time the volume is low enough that I can hear everything just fine. I'll even intentionally pull my phone out and try to look like I'm doing something on it to signal my disinterest.
On the other hand, if I see someone I wouldn't mind speaking to, like if someone looks like they have a question, they need help or if they are wearing/doing something interesting, I won't do any of that and may strike up a conversation myself.
This idea reminds me of that meme template of the guy standing in a corner at a party thinking "they don't know that I..." while everyone else is busy enjoying themselves.
Pre-smartphone I'd probably be using an mp3 player or playing on a handhold console and always carrying a book to read (or appear to read).
The examples of public transport are especially odd, the very purpose of being on transport is that you would rather be somewhere else, why would they interact with strangers? I remember the pre-smartphone world, people still didn't regularly engage in casual conversation with strangers on public transport, they read, listened to mp3 players, played on handheld consoles, or most often, just napped.
I have found that since I started using an Apple Watch and customized the notifications on it to only urgent ones, and silenced my iPhone (I don't think I've had a ringer turned on for...5 years? Longer?), I'm actually more in danger of accidentally leaving my phone behind than I am potentially distracted by it.
In fact, were it not for the camera (and the fact that I dearly love taking photos) I would regularly leave home with just my Watch.
Hello, brother from a different mother. I read this and, “someone is describing me.” I have my phone on silent mode for over 10+ years (I remember, because I wrote an article in 2014). Since the Phone 6+ (or so), I have made my iPhone as the Camera. However, of late, I have taken on a keen interest in getting back to an actual camera and I’m likely to start soon.
I’ve also kinda started a white lie when people start probing into why I don’t do most of phone calls - “I’ve a condition where I can’t do VOICE on the phone.” It is kinda of a lie but also not NOT a truth.
Sub-compact cameras are still a thing. And by comparison use actual glass for their lenses, have real telephoto capabilities, and won’t distort your pictures with AI hallucinated nonsense
I tried this, and found that all my photos stayed on the camera.
The shitty camera on my Fairphone takes objectively worse photos, but I can send them to my wife or WhatsApp group(s) immediately. So they're massively more useful despite being worse.
Well if OP wants to share photos but also not have the distractions of social media, they’re back to muting notifications and relying on their own willpower to not open the apps. Most cameras have a dedicated app for image transfer and browsing, but of course it’s going to be a more clunky experience
I love a real camera, but I’d guesstimate 75% of my favorite “art” photos are from iPhones, stretching back at least 10 years. They’re genuinely good cameras.
Sure, but if you’re only reason for taking the phone is for the camera, it’s not on the same par as a dedicated camera with a decent sized lens and sensor (esp. in low light), and compacts fit in most pockets. But if you really want a iPhone camera without the distractions, you can just get one second hand and leave out the sim card
Regarding the camera, I recommend buying a dedicated camera if you can allocate the funds. I bought a Sony ZV-1 as a pocketable compliment to my DSLR, and it has ended up being the camera I use the most - even more than my phone.
I have…6 or 7 medium format cameras, a 4x5 view camera, a film SLR, plus a DSLR and a compact digital or two.
The iPhone is vastly more convenient than any of them. I’ll often use something else when I’m going out specifically to take photos, but the iPhone is always with me for spontaneous shots.
While I do not leave a phone behind and use it for many things (not social media) I still often carry my old trusty OMD EM-5 and sometimes feel sorry that I sold my Nikon D800
I’ve been skeptical of secondary dumb phones for a while, Given that they are so lacking and many of the useful features, I need on a daily basis.
That said it’s become clear to me that even different profiles on my phone don’t solve the problem of distraction In the same way that putting my phone in another room/using a different device does.
To speculate a bit: if I were able to use generative UI To customize the experience on my phone, I could enable useful tools like posting to social media, while disabling distracting features like scrolling through the newsfeed. In this way, I could separate my consumption and creation time for more than I can now.
On the other hand, I would argue that having 24/7 access to an Encyclopedia, translator, the most abandoned calculators, up to date world map, reasoning engine and simply basic access to the world's knowledge makes us a hell of a lot more effective if not smarter.
Even if the negative effects are real and measurable, it's going to take a LOT to displace all the positives to make this a net negative addition to humanity.
> Because the same finite pool of attentional resources supports both attentional control and other cognitive processes, resources recruited to inhibit automatic attention to one’s phone are made unavailable for other tasks, and performance on these tasks will suffer.
This to me, seems the key insight of the article. The phone represents a constant drain on our attention as we try to _not_ focus on it, like a slow battery drain.
> Using the same tasks and conditions as in Ward et al.'s (2017) second experiment, the present study found that the “brain drain” effect did not replicate: there was no difference between smartphone location conditions on performance on either the o-span task or the go/no-go task.
Fake study, move along