1. technology and computing
2. consumer electronics
3. telephones
4. mobile phones

Tell me why you’re texting! Effect of cell phone use on interpersonal interactions
Daniela Avelar
Psychology Department
at Franklin & Marshall College
Submitted for Departmental Honors
Expected Graduation Date: May 9, 2015
Submitted: April 17, 2015
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
i.2$
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Franklin & Marshall College Committee on Grants and Psi Chi
for funding my research project. Without them, this project could not have been carried out to a
successful completion.
I would also like to thank my research advisors Dr. Megan Knowles and Dr. Christina
Abbott for all their help and advice throughout the course of this research study. I am really
grateful for their support and feedback. Throughout my academic career they have pushed me to
challenge myself and have helped me grow in a personal and academic level.
I also want to express my gratitude towards Emily Dlugi and Alexa Yarish who served as
confederates in my study. I could not have completed my project without their assistance. I really
value and appreciate their help and their patience and perseverance with what seemed like
endless hours of data collection. I would like to also thank them for their enthusiasm and for
making this whole process so fun and enjoyable.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love and support. Even
though we are miles away, I am really appreciative of all the support they have given me and for
encouraging me to follow my dreams and never give up.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
3$
ii.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
i
List of Tables
iii
List of Figures
iv
Abstract
v
Introduction
1
Study 1
9
Method
9
Results and Discussions
12
Study 2
23
Method
24
Results and Discussion
28
General Discussion
39
References
48
Appendices
A- Marginal Frequencies Report
52
B- Relationship Closeness Induction Task
61
C- Empathic Concern Scale
62
D- Subject Impressions subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
63
E- Inclusion of Other in Self Scale
64
F- Perceptions of Effect of Cell Phone Use on Relationships
65
G- Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10)
66
iii.
4$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
List of Tables
Table 1. Frequencies of self-reported and perceptions of others’ cell phone use in
different settings
14
Table 2. Appropriateness of cell phone use (calling and texting) in different
settings
17
Table 3. Students’ perceptions of the effect of cell phones on their relationships
18
Table 4. Students’ reactions or imagined reaction to a companion texting while
they were having a meal together
21
Table 5. Students’ feelings while a companion was texting while they had a meal
together
21
Table 6. Students’ feelings while having a meal with a close friend in two
conditions (with and without an excuse for texting)
22
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics of Three Dependent Variables across the Four
Texting Conditions
29
Table 8. Analysis of variances (ANOVA) Between Texting Conditions and
Subscales of the Subject Impression Scale
33
Table 9. Participants’ Feelings When Their Partner Responded to Texts
35
Table 10. Participants’ perceptions of cell phone interference in their
conversations
36
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
iv.5$
List of Figures
Figure 1. Participants’ mean total scores on the Empathic Concern Scale across
30
the four texting conditions.
Figure 2. Mean aggregate scores of interpersonal connection across the four
17
different texting conditions.
Figure 3. Mean number of times participants looked away when their partner was
texting.
38
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
6$
v.
Abstract
People frequently use their cell phones while having face-to-face conversations, yet
research suggests it affects closeness, empathy, and trust towards others (Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2013). People feel annoyed since their companion’s phone use implies that a virtually
present individual is more important than they are (Humphreys, 2005). The current investigation
focused on texting behavior. Study 1 assessed the frequency of cell phone use in different
settings and people’s perceptions of how cell phones are affecting their relationships. Study 2
investigated whether providing an excuse for texting during a conversation mitigates the negative
effects associated with texting. A participant conversed with a confederate who was texting and
either did not apologize, provided a trivial excuse, or provided a justified excuse for texting.
Conversations were videotaped and participants also completed a questionnaire. Participants felt
more connected to the confederate when she was not texting. They felt less empathic concern
from their partner when she provided a trivial excuse or no excuse for texting. They felt more
sympathetic and less annoyed and disrespected when the confederate had a valid excuse for
texting. Further research could be beneficial and aid in finding ways to reduce the negative
effects typically associated with cell phone use.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
1$
Tell me why you’re texting! Effect of cell phone use on interpersonal interactions
Cell phones are ubiquitous. In 2011, 85% of adults reportedly owned cell phones
(Zichur, 2011). Cell phones provide great benefits and are used for several reasons. A great
advantage of using cell phones is that they provide the convenience of being easily accessible
(Rosen, 2004). Cell phone users also believe that cell phones are important for personal safety, in
case of emergencies, to stay in touch with friends and family, to keep and access important
information (like phone numbers), and for time management and coordination (Aoki & Dowens,
2003; Rosen, 2004). Furthermore, cell phones allow people to easily contact others who are
geographically distant (Forgays, Hyman, & Schreiber, 2014). Young people also use cell phones,
especially text messaging, to solidify social relationships (Aoki & Dowens, 2003).
Despite these benefits, cell phones have changed the way we interact with others, how we
socialize, what we expect of relationships, how we behave in public, and what we perceive as
appropriate behavior (Banjo, Hu, & Sundar, 2008; Forgays et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein,
2013; Srivastava, 2005). Cell phones are embedded in our daily lives in such a way that they
have become normative in social interactions (Forgays et al., 2014). A study found that 30% of
US adults rate the cell phone as the invention they “hate the most, but can’t live without” (Isaac,
Nickerson, & Tarasewich, 2004, p. 4792). This suggests that they hate the drawbacks of owning
a cell phone, yet they have become accustomed and thus dependent on them. In a survey
conducted in 2001, young adults indicated that they felt lost without their phone because it had
become part of their lives (Aoki & Downes, 2003). Cell phones are no longer a luxury but a
necessity. People feel like they cannot go anywhere without them. When they do not have access
to their phones, people report to feel anxious and distressed because they could not be reached by
friends and family members and are disconnected from their social group (Forgays et al., 2014).
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
2$
Similarly, people get frustrated when they cannot reach others because they have come to expect
reliable access to others.
Cell Phone Etiquette
The ubiquity of cell phones and increase in use has lead to the issue of knowing when
and where it is appropriate to use cell phones, what is commonly referred to as cell phone
etiquette. Cell phone use in public settings can be disruptive for other people. However, etiquette
rules and social norms for cell phone use in public settings are unclear and ambiguous
(Campbell, 2007; Forgays et al., 2014; Srivastava, 2005). Cell phone use under certain
circumstances and settings is considered intrusive and inappropriate for some people yet other
people disagree. As cell phones become more widely used, etiquette rules will continue to be
constantly redefined. Regardless of the ambiguity regarding cell phone etiquette, 50% of
respondents of a survey conducted in 2003 stated that they thought that people are generally
discourteous when using their phones and 89% thought that people needed to acquire better
“mobile etiquette” (Srivastava, 2005).
Acquiring good cell phone etiquette is important because cell phone conversations in
public settings can be loud and disruptive and therefore irritate other people in the same
environment. Even though face-to-face conversations create twice as much energy as ones
created by individuals talking on a cell phone, people seem to find phone conversations more
annoying (Monk, Carroll, Parker, & Blythe, 2004). Monk et al. (2004) staged cell phone and
face-to-face conversations in two different contexts and two loudness levels in trains and buses
and then asked people about their reactions to the conversation they overheard. Cell phone
conversations were reportedly more noticeable and irritating than face-to-face conversations at
when volume was controlled. Rosen (2004) suggests people are more annoyed by cell phone
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
3$
conversations in public settings because cell phone users are not interacting with their immediate
environment. This sends an implicit message to others around them that they believe the
situation in which they are physically in is not really there and it thus should not intrude with the
alternative use of personal space they have created. Another explanation regarding people’s
annoyance with cell phone conversations in public settings is that the less predictable speech due
to listening to only half of a conversation is more distracting for the listener and therefore more
irritating (Emberson, Lupyan, Goldstein, & Spivey, 2010). Humphreys (2005) says that it is
common for people to either not listen or pretend not to listen to others’ phone conversations.
Rosen (2004) argues that we are no longer overhearing conversations; we are just hearing and
have ended up in a “world where social space is overtaken by anonymous, unavoidable
background noise” (p. 34).
People differ in the extent to which they believe it is socially acceptable to use phones in
public settings. There are some settings in which people consistently agree about the
inappropriateness of cell phone use. People are strongly opposed to individuals using their cell
phones in church, at hospitals, and in movie theaters (Lipscomb, Totten, Cook, and Lesch, 2007).
People also rated cell phone use least acceptable in theaters, classrooms, restaurants, buses,
stores, and sidewalks, in that order (Campbell, 2007). Interestingly, people still use their cell
phones in these settings regardless of their own disapproval of this behavior. Not only do
people’s attitudes towards appropriate cell phone use change in public settings in which they
themselves feel comfortable using their phones, but they also report being less annoyed with
others in these contexts (Turner, Love, and Howell, 2008).
As the number of cell phones increases and more people use them in a variety of settings,
attitudes towards cell phone use in public continue to change as well. In 2002 in London and
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
4$
Paris, people thought it was bad manners to answer phone in public setting in the company of
others, but by 2004 people did not seem to perceive as bad manners as before (Lasén, 2006).
Lasén (2006) suggests we have reached a point in which cell phones are so widespread, we no
longer follow the general rules of etiquette that used to be valid for all occasions. Instead, we
evaluate each situation and determine whether it is appropriate to use cell phones or not.
Cell Phone Use and Interactions With Others
Another big issue to consider regarding cell phone use in public settings is how it affects
interactions with others. Cell phone users struggle to balance the interactions with proximal and
distant others (Banjo et al., 2008). They are supposed to focus on the person they are physically
with, but upon receiving a phone call, they feel an obligation to the person who is not physically
present as well. Banjo et al. (2008) refer to this as interproxiamte and interkinesic
communication, which means that the individual is functioning in two different locations
simultaneously. When an individual is using a cell phone in public, he is having two
simultaneous interactions: a phone conversation and a face-to-face conversation that also
includes its surroundings, people, and other activities (Lasén, 2006). According to Lasén (2006),
people struggle to keep them separated and connected in this “co-present setting.” Because
human cognitive capacity is limited, when people are engaged in two or more different activities
or complex situations with many stimuli, their performance is decreased. Individuals who use
their phone in public settings and are simultaneously aware of their surroundings experience a
cognitive overload (Banjo et al., 2008). For instance, when pedestrians walk and text at the same
time, they slow their pace down and greet passing acquaintances with less enthusiasm. Even
though interactions with strangers are uncommon, the presence of cell phones reduces
interactions with strangers even further (Banjo et al., 2008). Additionally, it may lead to
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
5$
unintentional unfriendly behaviors towards strangers, and thus be perceived as rude. People are
cognitively less aware of their immediate environment while using their phones.
This struggle to balance interactions with proximal and distant others when making or
receiving phone calls in public settings also brings about certain behaviors and reactions from
people. People create their own space by avoiding eye contact and turning their backs away, but
their gaze shifts and their attention fixes on what happens around them (Lasén, 2006). When it
comes to texting, people look alternatively at their phones and surroundings. Since cell phones
allow individuals to be in two or more places at the same time, they create a conflict of space and
time (Bugeja, 2005). Gregen (2002) argues that cell phones encourage “absent presence” which
means that even though an individual is physically present, he is absorbed by a technologically
mediated world. When people are using their phones while interacting with others, they are
giving priority to someone who is not physically present. Humphreys (2005) suggests that cell
phone users must deal with these two expectations, knowing that the interaction with one may
hinder the relationship with the other. In London and Paris, the etiquette norm is that no phones
should be present when sharing meals with others because it suggests that the person is not
paying attention to those present and is instead more interested in the potential presence of
someone who could call them (Lasén, 2006). In the United States, however, the interruption of
text messages and phone calls during meals in public settings has become commonplace and, to a
certain extent, even anticipated (Banjo et al., 2008). Cell phone use in the presence of others
suggests that maintaining contact in the wider social network is more important than the face-toface interaction (Turkle, 2011). Therefore, cell phones are having a negative influence on
interpersonal relationships because it directs attention away from the face-to-face conversation.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
6$
When an individual uses his/her phone in the presence of another companion, the
companion may react negatively to this behavior (Banjo et al., 2008). Goffman (1963) talked
about people in public spaces in terms of Withs and Singles. Withs are people who are with other
people and Singles are people who are alone. They are viewed differently since Singles are more
vulnerable and more likely to be judged for being alone. If during a face-to-face interaction one
person receives a phone call, the person who is left out may feel annoyance or social anxiety and
feel vulnerable for suddenly becoming a Single (Humphreys, 2005). They then engage in
activities that alleviate their vulnerability like looking at other people walking by, reading the
menu, drinking their water, or looking out the window to compensate for this feeling of being
left out (Humphreys, 2005). Smith and Williams (2004) conducted a study in which two
confederates and a participant were sent to different rooms and instructed to text each other. In
one of the conditions, the participant was excluded from the conversation and did not receive any
messages. They found that ostracism from a text message interaction yielded lower self-reported
state levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. In this case,
participants did not physically see that they were excluded, but it is possible that they would
have similarly felt ostracized if their companions would have been in front of them texting
someone else (as we observe in everyday interactions) since they would be excluded from the
text conversation.
When people are interacting in a public setting and they are using their phones during the
time they spend together, their relationship and interaction can be affected in different ways. For
instance, Przybylski and Weinstein (2013) found that having a phone nearby, without even using
it, could be harmful to interpersonal connections and interactions with others. They found that
the presence of cell phones hinders interpersonal closeness and trust and affects perceived
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
7$
empathy from their partners (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). These effects were further
amplified when people discussed meaningful and personal information. The presence of phones
has this effect because it reminds people of other people and events outside of the immediate
social setting, which diverts their attention and hinders their ability to form meaningful
connections with people right next to them (Lasén, 2006; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). Even
when people do not use cell phones, their presence serves as a reminder of the virtual presence of
other people. As Lasén (2006) says, the “mere presence of someone’s mobile is already
affecting, modulating, their presence, sending the message that the mobile owner is also at
another place at the same time” (p.12). If the mere presence of phones affects relationships, then
actually using phones during interactions with others must be having an even greater effect on
our ability to relate, communicate, and connect with others.
Research also suggests that the usage of cell phones has the potential of inhibiting
important social cues and gestures (i.e. smiling) that are valuable in face-to-face interactions
(Banjo et al., 2008; Srivastava, 2005). People also shift their gaze away from their companions
when they receive a phone call (Banjo et al., 2008). When someone makes or answers a call, the
others show a polite lack of interest (Lasén, 2006). The result is that the physically present
people act like they’re not together anymore. When someone uses their phone in the presence of
others, he is transmitting the message “I do not need you” to those around him (Rosen, 2004).
Sometimes, however, people do make an effort to maintain communication with their physical
partner by communicating nonverbally (e.g. rolling their eyes in frustration or motioning with
their hands for the conversation to hurry up and wrap up) (Humphreys, 2005). Regardless of
these efforts, cell phone use is still having adverse effects on closeness, connection and the
overall quality of conversations and communication we have with others (Przybylski &
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
8$
Weinstein 2013; Srivastava, 2005). To further complicate the situation, it seems that these
effects happen outside of conscious awareness so people do not even realize the effects it is
having on their relationships (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013).
Texting vs. Calling
A presumable advantage of texting, as opposed to actually making or receiving phone
calls, is that people can continue having conversations with people who are physically present
and communicate with a distant third party simultaneously (Srivastava, 2005). In fact, etiquette
experts encourage texting in public settings as an alternative to calling (Rosen, 2004). They
argue that instead of criticizing young adults for texting frequently, we should praise them for
refraining from making phone calls, which are loud and disruptive, and instead have resorted to a
more discreet mode of communication (Forgays, et al., 2014). Although they are not disrupting
others in their environment and this does show consideration, the drawbacks of text messaging
include the inattention to one's immediate social environment (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012).
People are still removing people from the immediate social situation and transmitting the
message that others who are virtually present are more important.
Current Investigation
In the early 2000s cell phone use in the presence of others was perceived as bad manners,
but in order to understand the social and cultural changes caused by it, it is important to assess
people’s current attitudes towards cell phones (Aoki & Dowens, 2003). If cell phone use has
increased and people’s attitudes towards cell phone use are changing and becoming more
accepting, it is important to investigate what we could do to mitigate these aversive effects
because it has been found that phones affect relationships.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
9$
Therefore, the current investigation was broken down into two studies. Study 1 included
a descriptive study to assess cell phone use in public settings in a liberal arts college. Assessing
the frequency of cell phone use, people’s attitude towards using phones in public and while
interacting with others, and their general attitudes towards cell phones was important to get a
better understanding of the current situation and the repercussions of its potential effects. It is
also important to first consider whether people think cellphones are affecting their relationships
and to what degree. This is because if, as previous research suggests, cell phone use is affecting
people’s relationships by disrupting face-to-face interactions and prioritizing those who are
virtually present, perhaps something should be done to mitigate these negative effects. In Study
2, the effect of cell phones during face-to-face conversations was examined in an experimental
setting. Its purpose was to examine whether providing an excuse for texting buffers negative
effects of cell phone use when interacting with others.
Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to investigate students’ current cell phone use in different
public settings and whether they perceive it is affecting their relationships and interactions with
others. The survey assessed (1) students’ frequency of cell phone use in public settings, (2) their
perceptions of others cell phone use in public settings, (3) appropriateness of cell phones in
public settings, and (4) whether they believe it is affecting their relationships with others.
Method
Participants. Participants included undergraduate students from a liberal arts college in
Pennsylvania with 2,314 students. Five hundred students were randomly selected and contacted
by email. Students were entered in a raffle as compensation for taking the survey. Two hundred
and twelve students took the survey yielding a response rate of 42.4%. Of these 212 students,
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
10$
164 completed the entire survey. The final sample included 50 first-years students, 53
sophomores, 46 juniors, and 62 seniors and their mean age was 19.88 years. The sample included
124 females and 51 males (37 people did not respond this question). The sample included 111
White students, 23 Asians, 12 Hispanic/Latinos, 5 African Americans, and 7 “Others” (61 people
did not respond this question).
Measures. The cell phone use survey included items from previous research studies on
cell phone etiquette (Cumskey, 2003; Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Lipscomb et al., 2007;
Waldman, Sheets, Jones, & Nichols, 2005). However, some items and settings were modified to
be more appropriate and relevant to a college campus. The first set of questions assessed
students’ frequency of phone use in public settings. It included a list of 18 public settings (for
example “at a sports game”) to which participants responded how frequently they use their
phones and a subsequent list of how frequently they think other people used their cell phones in
the same settings. Participants responded using 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never to 5 =
Always). These questions evaluated in which settings students use cell phone the most and
whether they believe that others use their phone more than them.
The survey also assessed the appropriateness of either calling or texting in public settings
with a scale made up of 13 different social settings. Participants rated their agreement on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to items such as “It is
appropriate to talk on the phone when you are at a restaurant”. These questions determined the
appropriateness of cell phone use in various settings. The questions also assessed which method
of communication, texting or calling, was more appropriate in the different settings.
Additionally the survey included questions about people’s perceptions of the effect of cell
phones on their interactions with others. Participants were asked to recall situations in which
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
11$
their companion was texting. Participants then had to remember how their companion’s action
made them feel and how they had reacted. They responded to questions about the same situation
by recalling the interaction with different parties (close friend, acquaintance, professor, group of
friends) to assess whether or not the type of relationship they have with their companion affected
their feelings and reactions. It also included a modified version of the 9-item Mobile
Relationship Interference Scale (α = .93) created by Hall, Baym, and Miltner (2014). It included
questions like “The way I use my cell phone interferes with my relationships with my friends”
and participants indicated if they agreed with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =
Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
Finally, the survey also included the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10) a 10-item
personality test that captures 70% of the variance of the complete Big Five Inventory and 85%
retest reliability (Rammstedt, & John, 2007). It was included for explanatory purposes to
examine whether certain personality traits are related to certain cell phone use behaviors,
attitudes, reactions or perceptions on the effects on relationships.
There was a short demographic survey at the end of the survey with questions regarding
age, gender, school year, ethnicity, and region/country of origin to provide a better sense of the
sample and for exploratory analysis.
Procedure. A random sample of 500 college students was contacted via email. They
were invited to participate in the survey and offered to be entered into a raffle of a Kindle in
compensation for participating. Students who chose to participate clicked on the link embedded
in the email, which took them to the informed consent. Once they read and agreed to participate,
they could continue to the survey. Participants read a debriefing statement explaining the purpose
of the survey upon completion of the survey.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
12$
The survey included 27 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete (see Marginal
Frequencies Report, Appendix A). The questions regarding self-reported and perception of
others’ frequencies of cell phone use (see Q4 and Q5, Appendix A) were counterbalanced to
reduce bias. Additionally, the individual items in both frequency questions were randomized to
reduce bias. The order of the different settings regarding the appropriateness of either making
phone calls or texting was also randomized (see Q13 and Q14 in Appendix A).
Results and Discussion
A survey conducted in 2003 in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and California found that 83.1%
of students owned a cell phone (Waldman et al., 2005). In the current survey, every student in
the sample reported that they own a cell phone and 85% of respondents indicated that they
believe it is necessary to own one. One hundred and ninety-eight students (96%) indicated that
they own a smartphone out of which 79.3% own iPhones, 10.9% Samsung Galaxies, 7.3%
Androids, 1% HTC Ones, 1% Windows Phones, and 0.5% Blackberry.
Participants ranked six cell phone functions in the order in which they used them the
most (1= the one they use the most). Texting was ranked as most frequently used by 160
respondents (M = 1.33, SD = 0.76). Texting was followed by email (M = 2.85, SD = 0.93), calls
(M = 3.43, SD = 1.40), web use (M = 3.86, SD = 1.32), and apps (M = 3.97, SD = 1.35). Games
were noticeably the least frequently used function by most participants (M = 5.55, SD = 0.90).
Srivastava (2005) found that young people prefer texting than calling because it is less
expensive, it is secret and secure and it is easier than calling, especially for shy people. Young
people use texting as the primary way of communication, to keep in touch and make plans with
friends, to express emotions, and to sustain and enhance social networks (Aoki & Dowens, 2002;
Srivastava, 2005). In fact, many report that they would rather text than call (Srivastava, 2005).
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
13$
Frequency of cell phone use in different settings. Students rated how frequently they
used their cell phones in 18 different settings, as well as how frequently they thought other
people used their cell phones in those settings (see Table 1). Students use their phones more
frequently when they eat alone, are on the train, and are waiting in line to order food or drinks. A
large number of students reported using their phone when walking on and off campus. This high
frequency was consistent with a 2001 survey in which 36.6% of college students said the place
they used their phone most frequently was on the street (Aoki & Downes, 2002). They use their
phones less frequently during meetings with professors, at religious services, and at the
theater/movie theater. In the current study, the setting in which students used their phones the
least was during meetings with professors, which is even lower than religious services, the
setting that is considered the least appropriate in most previous studies (Forgays et al., 2014;
Lipscomb et al., 2007). Frequencies of phone use while eating or during sports games were
consistent with Harrison & Gilmore’s (2012) survey from 2010. However, frequencies of cell
phone use in movie theaters, dates, and religious services were lower in the current sample than
in Harrison & Gilmore’s (2012) survey. Also, the frequency of phone use in public transportation
was higher in the current sample than in previous studies (Aoki & Downes, 2002).
Paired-sampled t-tests were run to determine whether there was a statistically significant
mean difference between participants’ self reported frequency of phone use and their perceptions
of others’ phone use in the various settings. For all the settings, participants rated their frequency
of cell phone use as lower than that of others (p < .001).
Paired-sample t-tests were also run to determine whether there was a statistically
significant mean difference between participants’ frequencies of phone use when eating with
others and when eating alone. Students used their phone significantly more when eating alone (M
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
14$
Table 1
Frequencies of self-reported and perceptions of others’ cell phone use in different settings
Self
Train
Theater/
Movie theater
Class
Meeting with a
professor
Library
Walking on
campus alone
Walking on
campus with
others
Walking offcampus alone
Walking offcampus with
others
Crossing the
street
Walking up or
down the stairs
Religious service
Sports game
Party
Date
Waiting in line to
order food or
drink
Eating with
others
Eating alone
M
3.72
1.75
SD
1.46
0.86
M
4.52
2.91
Others
SD
0.68
0.91
2.05
1.13
0.92
0.47
3.10
1.76
0.80
0.88
-13.60
-9.03
189
190
< .001
< .001
3.46
3.76
1.14
1.04
4.04
4.26
0.78
0.75
-2.95
-6.76
189
188
.004
< .001
2.65
0.93
3.44
0.85
-10.49
189
< .001
3.45
1.19
4.09
0.89
-8.46
191
< .001
2.58
0.96
3.43
0.80
-11.68
191
< .001
1.97
0.91
2.89
0.95
-12.05
191
< .001
2.68
0.98
3.38
0.87
-8.39
190
< .001
1.31
2.82
3.06
1.70
3.64
0.72
1.18
1.05
0.80
0.98
2.29
3.82
3.82
2.88
4.31
0.97
0.80
0.82
0.86
0.74
-12.38
-11.11
-9.93
-15.03
-9.33
189
190
191
188
190
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
2.64
0.95
3.46
0.85
-8.02
191
< .001
4.03
0.96
4.57
0.59
-5.70
188
< .001
Note: Likert-type scale 1= Never; 5=Always
t
-7.94
-15.63
df
189
191
p
< .001
< .001
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
15$
= 4.03, SD = 0.96) than when eating with at least one other person (M = 2.64, SD = 0.95), t(188)
= -16.98, p < .001. Students also used their phone significantly more when they were walking
alone on-campus (M = 3.75, SD = 1.05) than with at least one other person (M = 2.65, SD =
0.91), t(188) = 14.56 p < .001. Similarly, they used their phone significantly more frequently
when they were walking alone off-campus (M = 3.43, SD = 1.20) than with at least one other
person (M = 2.58, SD = 0.95), t(191) = 10.34, p < .001. This may be because when people are
alone they want to reduce the awkwardness or anxiety of being by themselves, want to feel more
connected and less lonely, or pretend to be busy (Humphreys, 2005). It may also be because they
do not think it is disrupting other people in their surrounding or because they are actually using
the time to check email, news, or social media.
Appropriateness of phone use in public settings. Students also responded a series of
questions regarding the appropriateness of cell phone use in public settings. Almost all students
(91%) reported that it is not appropriate to use cell phones at any time and under any
circumstance. Within this subsample, 81% thought that it is only appropriate to use a cell phone
when it does not interfere with others around them, 19% thought it was appropriate anytime but
during class, church, meetings, etc., and 1% other (“for emergencies and free time”).
The survey also evaluated whether the appropriateness of cell phone use in different
settings is different for calling and for texting. Students rated the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with the statement “I believe it is appropriate to make a phone call” in 12 different
settings (see Table 2). They also responded to the same questions for texting. The most
inappropriate settings to make phone calls were class, religious services, and movie theaters.
This is consistent with college students’ responses from different regions in the United States in
2005 and 2007 (Campbell, 2007; Lipscomb et al., 2007). On the other hand, the most
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
16$
inappropriate circumstances to text were driving, religious services, and dates. Texting and
driving is dangerous for the driver and other people around them because it distracts drivers
since they constantly take their eyes off the road to look at the screen (Atchley, Atwood, &
Boulton, 2011; Madden & Lenhart, 2009; Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003). It was interesting
that students thought it was inappropriate to text during dates and this might be because they
want to spend time with the other person and not be disrupted or they do not want to seem rude
or uninterested. People were fairly indifferent of cell phone use in restaurants and in the
bathroom, which was consistent with previous studies (Campbell, 2007; Libscomb et al., 2005).
This may be because using cell phones in these settings does not directly disrupt others, yet
others are still present and they might find it loud, rude, and inappropriate.
Paired-sampled t-tests were run to determine whether there was a statistically significant
mean difference between students’ perceptions of the appropriateness of calling and texting in
different settings. There was a significant difference for the appropriateness of calling or texting
in every setting (p < .001). Students thought it was significantly more appropriate to text than
call for every setting except driving and walking on the street, for which they believed calling
was more appropriate. This is consistent with previous studies (Campbell, 2007; Forgays et al.,
2014). Campbell (2007) also found that students reported that using cell phones when walking
on the sidewalk was acceptable. This is likely an issue of safety since individuals can be more
attentive to their surroundings when they are calling than when texting and constantly looking
down at their screens (Banjo et al., 2008; Hyman, Boss, Wise, McKenzie, & Caggiano, 2010;
Madden & Lenhart, 2009).
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
17$
Table 2
Appropriateness of cell phone use (calling and texting) in different settings
Call
Text
M
SD
M
SD
t
df
p
Driving
2.25
1.17
1.25
0.57
11.26
174
< .001
Religious
service
1.28
0.68
1.58
0.81
-5.34
173
< .001
Class
1.20
0.59
1.91
0.89
-9.59
174
< .001
Restaurant
2.06
1.02
2.97
1.11
-10.53
174
< .001
Library
1.47
0.78
3.87
0.91
-26.49
174
< .001
Bathroom
2.70
1.21
3.95
1.00
-12.31
174
< .001
Supermarket
3.74
0.87
4.06
0.83
-4.58
172
< .001
Movie theater
1.28
0.58
2.25
0.96
-13.86
174
< .001
Walking on
campus
4.18
0.82
4.00
0.87
2.37
173
.019
Walking on the
street
3.87
1.03
3.35
1.13
6.66
173
< .001
Sports game
2.80
1.05
3.83
0.96
-12.25
173
< .001
Party
2.82
1.04
3.82
0.86
-11.95
174
< .001
Date
1.45
0.71
1.85
0.82
-6.34
174
< .001
Note: Likert-type scale: 1=Strongly disagree; 5=Strongly agree
Effects of cell phones during interactions with others. The survey also evaluated
whether or not people believe that cell phones are affecting their relationships. Eighty three
percent of respondents believed that making phone calls in a public setting while having a
conversation is impairing their relationship with the person who is physically present. However,
only 67% of respondents believe that texting in the same situation is impairing their relationship
with the person who is physically present.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
18$
Students responded a series of questions regarding their perceptions of the effects of cell
phone on relationships with their friends (see Table 3). Their perceptions of the effect of cell
phone use on their friendships were neutral for the most part. However, students tended to
slightly agree more with statements like “I wish my friends and I would turn off our cell phones
and spend time together” yet disagree with “The way I use my cell phone interferes with my
relationships with my friends.”
Table 3
Students’ perceptions of the effect of cell phones on their relationships
Statement
M
SD
I can have a face to face conversation and text at the same time
2.69
1.14
Cell phones are often a distraction in my relationships with my
friends
3.01
1.20
The way I use my cell phone interferes with my relationships
with my friends
2.57
1.08
The way my friends use their cell phones interferes with my
relationships with them
2.95
1.16
The way I use my cell phone decreases how much I enjoy my
relationships with my friends
2.60
1.08
The way my friends use their cell phones decreases how much we
enjoy our time together
3.03
1.20
I wish that cell phones were not around when I spend time with
my friends
3.05
1.14
I wish my friends and I would turn off our cell phones and spend
time together
Note: Likert-type scale: 1= Strongly disagree; 5=Strongly agree
3.24
1.17
When evaluating the effect of cell phones on people’s behaviors with other people, it is
important to consider the context and the person they are physically interacting with. Participants
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
19$
were asked to imagine how they would react if they received a text message while eating a meal
with a close friend; an acquaintance; a group of friends; or a professor, advisor or boss. Most
students reported that they would first see who it was and then decide whether or not to respond
if they were having a meal with a close friend (67.5%), an acquaintance (64.7%) or a group of
friends (75.3%). If, however, they were having a meal with a professor, advisor, or boss, most
students (92.8%) said they would ignore the text message. Some students would respond
immediately if they were with a group of friends (20.0%) or a close friend (18.3%), but very
rarely if they were with an acquaintance (3.5%) or a professor, advisor or boss (1.8%). This
could suggest that students respect their professors and if they are making the effort to go meet
with a professor they do not want to be rude and impolite.
It is interesting to point out that even though students reported that they never or rarely
use their phones during meeting with professors, they often use them during class. This
difference may be because in class they are not interacting one-on-one with the professor. Ninety
eight percent of students take their cell phones to class and out of this subsample 53% put their
phones in their bags, 34% put them in their pockets, 6% put them on the table, and 6% leave
them on their laps. While they are in class, 57% of students turn their phones on silent mode,
39% turn them on vibrate, and only 2% turn them off. These percentages have increased
drastically from 2003 when only 63.4% of students took their phones to class, out of which
16.3% turned their phones off for class and 47.1% turned them on silent or vibrate (Waldman et
al., 2005).
The way people react to text messages also differs depending on who people are
interacting with. Students were asked to recall how they reacted the last time they had had a meal
with a close friend and with acquaintance and he/she had gotten a series of text messages and
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
20$
he/she responded to them. They were subsequently asked to imagine their reaction if their close
friend would provide an excuse for why he/she must respond to the text messages (see Table 4).
In these three situations, most people ignore it and do not say anything about their companion’s
texting behavior. They very rarely asked their companion to stop texting or said it was
disrespectful. It is important to note that when people are having a meal with at least one other
person, 48% leave their cell phones on the table, 38% put them in their pockets, 10% in their
bags, 3% on their laps, and only 1% do not bring their phones with them. The fact that most
people have their phone on the table is important because the mere presence of the phone has the
potential to interfere with their relationship and the quality of conversation they have (Pzybylski
& Weinstein, 2013).
Participants also completed a series of questions rating the degree to which they
experienced a list of 11 feelings when their close friend or acquaintance was texting during a
meal (see Table 5). Paired-sample t-tests were run to determine whether there was a statistically
significant mean difference between participants’ feelings when their companion was texting
during a meal. Participants felt significantly more happy, sympathetic, and indifferent when a
friend rather than an acquaintance was texting during their meal together. Participants also felt
significantly more awkward when an acquaintance rather than a close friend was texting.
Participants also felt more self-conscious and disrespected when an acquaintance was texting,
but these differences were not statistically significant. These differences could be attributed to
the fact that confederates do not know each other that much.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
21$
Table 4
Students’ reactions or imagined reaction to a companion texting while they were having a meal
together
Acquaintance
Close friend
If close friend were
to provide excuse
33.7%
Ignored it and did not say anything
44.7%
34.8%
Asked who he/she was texting
21.7%
21.7%
32.5%
Looked somewhere else
31.7%
19.6%
7.8%
Texted someone else
11.8%
6.0%
8.4%
Took out their phone and engaged in
another activity (games, email, social
media)
9.9%
13.0%
13.9%
Asked him/her to stop texting
0.6%
4.3%
0.6%
Told him/her that it was disrespectful
0.0%
0.5%
3.0%
Table 5
Students’ feelings while a companion was texting while they had a meal together
Happy
Close Friend
M
SD
2.80
2.21
Acquaintance
M
SD
1.87
2.13
t
5.44
df
105
p
< .001
Sympathetic
3.15
2.59
2.31
2.34
4.53
97
< .001
Indifferent
6.58
3.14
5.77
3.31
2.95
119
.004
Awkward
4.03
2.76
4.80
2.73
-3.10
119
.002
Self-Conscious
3.09
2.69
3.57
2.83
-1.91
105
.059
Ignored
4.68
2.88
4.25
2.89
1.69
127
.094
Lonely
2.68
2.56
2.28
2.46
1.52
96
.131
Sad
2.07
2.48
1.61
2.02
1.81
89
.073
Annoyed
4.48
2.99
4.15
2.62
1.28
129
.205
Disrespected
3.37
2.88
3.85
3.17
-1.82
115
.072
Angry
2.22
2.40
2.17
2.36
0.24
91
.814
Note: 0=not at all; 10=Extremely
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
22$
Participants were also asked to imagine how they would feel if they were eating a meal
with a close friend and he/she would provide an excuse for why he/she was texting. Pairedsample t-tests were run to determine whether there was a statistically significant mean difference
between participants’ feelings when their close friend either provided or failed to provide an
excuse for texting during a meal. They reported they would feel significantly more happy and
sympathetic if their close friend would provide an explanation for texting (see Table 6). They
would also feel significantly less indifferent, awkward, self-conscious, ignored, lonely, sad,
annoyed, disrespected, and angry if their companion would provide an excuse. This suggests that
providing an excuse for texting might help reduce the negative feelings and consequences of
texting while interacting with others. This idea was further investigated in Study 2.
Table 6.
Students’ feelings while having a meal with a close friend in two conditions (with and without an
excuse for texting)
No excuse
Excuse
M
SD
M
SD
t
df
p
Happy
2.85
2.17
3.61
2.81
-3.00
109
.003
Sympathetic
3.00
2.46
5.31
2.83
-9.70
117
< .001
Indifferent
6.55
3.16
5.36
3.23
4.60
136
< .001
Awkward
4.21
2.84
2.05
2.26
9.12
110
< .001
Self-Conscious
3.25
2.85
1.81
2.04
5.61
101
< .001
Ignored
4.27
2.89
1.99
2.66
7.38
98
< .001
Lonely
2.73
2.66
1.54
1.94
4.91
97
< .001
Sad
2.10
2.46
1.20
1.64
4.05
95
< .001
Annoyed
4.49
2.90
1.99
2.32
10.77
115
< .001
Disrespected
3.47
3.01
1.77
2.42
6.71
103
< .001
Angry
2.22
2.42
1.35
2.15
3.73
88
< .001
Note: 0=not at all; 10=Extremely
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
23$
It is also interesting to note that regardless of the emotions they experienced when their
companion was texting during a meal and who their companion was, most students ignored the
behavior and did not say anything about it. Furthermore, participants rarely felt sad or angry
about their companion’s texting behavior. They also rarely asked their companion to either stop
texting or told him/her that it was disrespectful to text during a meal.
Finally, there are some limitations in this study that must be considered. First of all, not
every student completed the entire survey. Another limitation was that the term acquaintance was
not clearly defined and thus different people could have responded in a different way depending
on their internal definition of acquaintance. Also, the survey was conducted in a liberal arts
college, with a predominately white sample of college students from the Northeast region of the
United States and thus the results cannot be generalized to the entire population of college
students or population in general. Lastly, because of the nature of the study, the data are all selfreported and may not accurately reflect people’s actual behaviors and attitudes. To address this
issue, Study 2 examined people’s cell phone attitudes in an experimental setting.
Study 2
Study 1 suggested that people thought that if their companion provided an explanation for
texting, they would feel better and react differently. Thus, the purpose of Study 2 was to examine
whether providing an excuse for texting mitigates the negative effects associated with texting
while having a face-to-face conversation with another person. Langer, Blank and Chanowitz
(1978) conducted a study in which a stranger approached someone waiting in line to use a
photocopier and asked if they could make copies. When the stranger had a reason for needing to
cut in line, 94% of people agreed to let the stranger make the photocopies. Therefore, I
hypothesize that when it comes to having a face-to-face conversation with a person that is texting
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
24$
someone else, people will be more accepting of this behavior if the individual provides a valid
explanation for texting at the time. I predict that providing such excuse will buffer the negative
effects typically associated with cell phone use in public settings while interacting with others.
Method
Participants. Participants included 100 undergraduates (38 male, 62 female) from the
Introductory Psychology classes at Franklin & Marshall College. Students were compensated
with research credit they needed for their class. Data were collected for six weeks during the
Spring 2015 semester.
Procedure. Participants arrived to the assigned room for the experiment. One of two
female confederates also arrived and pretended to be the second participant. The experimenter
welcomed them and took them to the testing room, which had two video cameras installed in the
corners of the room. Only the camera facing the participant was turned on. The participant and
confederate sat facing each other and read and signed the informed consent. The experimenter
told them that the purpose of the study was to “learn more about the interactions and
communication between college students and their experience in college.” To assess this, they
were instructed to have a 9-minute conversation using 3 lists of questions about themselves and
their college experiences to guide the conversation (Sedikides, Campbell, Reader, & Elliot, 1999;
see Appendix B). The actual purpose of this task was for the participant and confederate to
engage in meaningful conversation to evaluate the effects of texting during such conversation,
but participants were not aware of this. They were given 1 minute to talk about the first list of
questions, 3 minutes for the second list, and 5 for the last one. The questions become more
personal as the lists progress. This was important because previous studies suggest that cell
phones create greater interference and disruptions when people have meaningful conversations
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
25$
(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). The experimenter left the room so the participant and
confederate had more privacy and felt more comfortable talking. The experimenter also
explained that as the video was recording, she would not be able to hear the audio of the
conversation, with the hope that this would make them feel more comfortable talking. The
experimenter knocked on the door to signal that it was time to move to the following set of
questions at the 1- and 4-minute marks, but the experimenter did not enter until after the 9minute mark.
There were two female confederates in the study. They were both senior undergraduate
students. They both provided the same answers to all of the questions in the lists. Prior to the
testing phase, they wrote the answers to each question. The experimenter and both confederates
reviewed each answer individually to provide answers that were similar and/or identical for both
confederates, but making sure that the responses were still true for both confederates. This was
important to establish consistency between the confederates and across conditions, and to make
sure they were providing honest answers so they could have a real, meaningful conversation with
participants.
There were 25 people assigned to each condition. There were four different conditions for
this phase: no apology, trivial excuse, justified excuse, and no texting. Every fourth participant
was assigned to each condition. The no texting condition was the control condition since the
confederate did not text during the conversation with the participant. In the remaining three
conditions, the experimenter texted the confederate three times throughout the conversation at
the 2:30, 5:30, and 7:30 minute marks. This provided sufficient time for the confederate to
receive the text and reply, and they were also spaced out enough that they did not overlap or
occur too close to each other. In the no excuse condition, the confederate did not apologize to the
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
26$
participant for texting during the conversation. In the trivial excuse condition, the confederate
provided an unimportant excuse for texting (“my friend sent me a joke”). In the valid excuse
condition, the confederate provided a valid explanation for texting (“a family member is in the
hospital”). In these three conditions the confederate turned off all other notifications (e.g. email,
phone calls, social media) to ensure that she only received the text messages from the
experimenter. In the control condition, the confederate took her phone out of her pocket, put it in
silent mode and placed it on her lap.
Four participants were removed from the data because they did not notice the confederate
using her cell phone or because they suspected the true purposes of the study. Additionally, eight
other participants were removed because they already knew the confederates. There were 21
participants (8 males, and 13 females) in no excuse condition, 23 (8 male, and 13 female) in the
trivial excuse condition, 23 (8 male, and 15 female) in the valid excuse condition, and 23 (8
male, and 15 female) in the control condition.
After nine minutes had passed, the experimenter returned to the testing room with the
questionnaires. These measured perceived empathy, trust, closeness, connectedness, and
personality. The participant stayed in the room and completed the questionnaire and the
experimenter allegedly took the confederate to complete the questionnaire in another room. After
the participant finished answering the questionnaire, the experimenter debriefed him/her.
Measures. Empathic concern was measured using a 5-item version of the Empathic
Concern Scale on a 7-point Likert-type scale in which higher scores indicate higher empathic
concern (Davis, 1995; see Appendix C). It includes items like “My conversation partner
understood the importance of the topic I discussed” (1 = not at all true, 7 = very true). Total
scores were computed by summing responses (α = 0.85).
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
27$
Interpersonal connection between the participant and the confederate was measured
using a 22-item modified version of the Subject Impressions subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989; see Appendix D). It includes items such as “I
thought that interacting with my partner was very interesting.” Participants responded on a 7point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all true, 7 = Very true). Scores ranged from 51- 143 with a
Mean of 112.05 and SD of 14.67 (α = 0.84). It included five subscales to assess different aspects
that influenced interpersonal connection. There were six questions about the degree to which
participants felt they could relate to their partner, comprised a relatedness measure (α = 0.77, M
= 30.91, SD = 4.49, range 7 - 40). There were five questions related to interest/enjoyment of the
conversation (α = 0.88, M = 28.34, SD = 4.78, range 10 -35). Tension and pressure experienced
during the conversation included three questions (α = 0.59, M = 15.29, SD = 3.58, range 6 - 21).
How much effort the participant put into the conversation and how much importance he/she gave
it was computed by adding two questions (α = 0.73, M = 8.87, SD = 3.06, range 2 - 14).
Similarly, two other items assessed the participants’ perception of how much effort the
confederate put into the conversation and how much importance he/she gave it (α = 0.88, M =
7.78, SD = 2.93, range 2 - 14). Closeness between the participant and the confederate was
measured using a modified version of the Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (Aron, Aron, &
Smollan, 1992; see Appendix E). It includes 7 pairs of circles representing the participant and
their conversation partner and responses can range from not close at all to extremely close.
The questionnaire also included four items about participants’ perceptions of cell phone
use on their interaction with their partner like, “The way my partner used his/her cell phone
interfered with our conversation” (see Appendix F). Participants responded on a 5-point Likerttype scale (1 = Disagree strongly, 5 = Agree strongly).
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
28$
They also rated the extent to which they experienced eleven feelings during the
conversation including happiness, annoyance, sadness, loneliness, and sympathy. They
responded on a 10-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all, 10 = Extremely). Finally, the Big Five
Inventory-10 (BFI-10) was used to measure personality (Rammstedt, & John, 2007; see
Appendix G). Participants responded to the 10 items on a 5-point point Likert-type scale (1 =
Disagree strongly, 5 = Agree strongly).
The experimenter used the video recordings to observe the participants’ nonverbal
language (looking away, arm crossing, leaning back). For each video, a total of 90 seconds of
footage was coded. The experimenter marked the time when the confederate unlocked her phone
after receiving each text message and coded behaviors for the next 30 seconds. Looking away
was operationally defined as the number of times the participant broke eye contact with the
confederate. One instance was started as soon as the participant broke eye contact in any
direction and ended when the participant made eye contact with the confederate again. The
experimenter also noted verbal statements regarding the confederate’s texting behaviors and
whether the participant stopped talking while the confederate was texting. The experimenter also
observed whether the participants took out their phones during the conversation. A second coder
who was unaware of the purpose of the experiment and the different texting conditions recorded
the number of times participants looked away.
Results and Discussion
Three one-way ANOVAs were run to determine whether providing an excuse for texting
affects people’s empathic concern scores, perceived closeness, and subject impressions scores.
Descriptive statistics three dependent variables and the four texting conditions can be found in
Table 7. Shapiro-Wilks tests of normality were run for each variable. Levene’s test of
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
29$
homogeneity of variances were run for each ANOVA. Welch’s F statistics are reported for tests
in which the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated. Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests
were run for significant results.
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics of Three Dependent Variables across the Four Texting Conditions
No Excuse
Empathic
concern
Interpersonal
connectedness
Closeness
Trivial Excuse
Valid Excuse
Control
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
25.52
5.90
25.19
3.47
27.30
5.46
29.78
3.52
104.90
17.99
111.24
11.39
113.96
13.41
117.65
12.82
3.14
1.20
3.00
1.12
3.30
1.43
3.83
1.07
Note: For empathic concern scores could range from 5 – 35
For interpersonal connectedness scores could range from 22 – 154
For closeness scores could range from 1 –7. Higher scores indicate higher perceived closeness
Empathic concern. There was a significant difference on the empathy scores between
the different texting conditions, Welch’s F (3, 49.45) = 6.84, p = .001, η2 = .150, Figure 1.
Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis revealed that the mean difference in scores between the control
and the no excuse condition was significant (4.26, p = .019, 95% CI [0.53, 7.99]), as well as the
difference between the control and the trivial excuse condition (4.59, p = .009, 95% CI [0.86,
8.32]). These results suggest that participants perceived that the confederate was being more
empathetic towards them when she was not texting. This was consistent with previous studies
that assessed empathic concern (Misra, Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein,
2013). However, the current study found that the differences in empathic concern were greatest
when the confederate either did not explain why she was texting or gave an insufficient reason
for doing so. When the confederate provided a valid excuse for texting fell in between not
providing an excuse and no texting thus suggesting that providing a valid excuse affected
empathic concern.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
30$
*$
*$
Figure 1. Participants’ mean total scores on the Empathic Concern Scale across the four texting
conditions. There was a significant difference between the no excuse and the control conditions
and between the trivial excuse and the control conditions. Error bars represent +/- 1 SE.
Closeness to the confederate. Most participants reported feeling “a little close” or
“somewhat close” to the confederate (M = 3.33, SD = 1.24). Closeness scores for the valid
excuse condition were normally distributed, but scores for the no excuse, trivial excuse, and
control conditions were not (p = .031, p = .001, and p = .004, respectively). There was no
significant difference between the texting conditions and how close participants felt to the
confederate, F (3, 83) = 1.94, p = .130, η2 = .065. Even though the differences were not
significant, participants felt closer to their partner in the control condition than in the valid
excuse condition, the no excuse condition, and the trivial excuse condition (Table 7). These
reflect the expected trend.
An exploratory analysis was conducted to determine if the presence or absence of texts
during the conversations (disregarding the type of excuse provided) had an effect on how close
they felt to their partner, as seen in previous studies (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein,
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
31$
2013). An independent sample t-test determined that the mean closeness scores were higher
when the confederate was not texting during the conversation (M = 3.83, SD = 1.07, N = 23) than
when she was texting (M = 3.16, SD = 1.25, N = 64), t = 2.28, p = .025, 95% CI [0.09, 1.25].
Consistent with previous findings, the presence of cell phones during face-to-face conversations
seems to affect how close people feel to each other.
Interpersonal Connection. The mean aggregate Interpersonal Connection scores for the
valid excuse and the control condition were normally distributed, but the scores for the no excuse
and the unjustified excuse condition were not normally distributed (p = .044 and p = .039,
respectively). There was homogeneity of variances (p = .572). There was a significant difference
on the interpersonal connection scores between the different texting conditions, F (3, 84) = 3.18,
p = .028, partial η2 = .102, Figure 2. Participants felt more connected to their partners during
their interaction in the control condition than in the valid excuse, unjustified excuse, and the no
excuse conditions (Table 7). Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis revealed that only the mean
difference in scores between the control and the no excuse condition was significant (12.75, p =
.018, 95% CI [1.61, 23.88]). This difference was consistent with previous studies that suggest
that the presence or absence of phones during conversations affects interpersonal connectedness
(Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). Connectedness scores for both excuse
conditions fell in between the no excuse and the no texting conditions. Even though they were
not significant from the other conditions, scores followed the expected trend thus implying that
providing an excuse for texting could have affected how connected people felt to each other
during the conversation. Further research should be conducted to continue investigating this
effect.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
32$
Five one-way ANOVAs were run to assess whether the different texting conditions
affected each of the five subscales of the Subject Impressions Scale (relatedness,
interest/enjoyment, tension, individual effort and perceived partner effort). Participants’ mean
relatedness score was highest for the control condition, but this difference was not significant
(Table 8). Participants enjoyed their conversation more in the control condition than in the other
three conditions, but this difference was not significant either. They put similar amounts of effort
in each condition, and their tension or pressure scores were similar across conditions. They
perceived that their partner put more effort in the control condition than in the rest of the
conditions, but this difference was also not significant.
*$
Figure 2. Mean aggregate scores of interpersonal connection across the four different texting
conditions. There was a significant difference between the control and the no excuse conditions.
Error bars represent +/- 1 SE.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
33$
Table 8
Analysis of variances (ANOVA) Between Texting Conditions and Subscales of the Subject Impression Scale
No excuse
Trivial Excuse
SD
M
Valid Excuse
Control
Mdn
SD
F(3,84)
p
Partial η2
5.55 32.74
33
4.24
1.68
.178
.057
30
4.77 29.83
31
4.48
1.99
.122
.066
3.32 15.96
16
3.42 15.96
15
3.55
1.43
.239
.049
9
2.89
9.22
9
3.01
9.26
9
2.94
0.82
.488
.028
7
2.64
8.00
8
2.84
8.61
9
3.46
1.32
.272
.045
M
Mdn
Mdn
SD
M
Mdn
Relatedness
29.10
29
7.32 30.71
32
3.91 30.96
31
Enjoyment
26.43
27
5.92 28.38
30
3.17 28.74
Tension
14.10
14
3.90 14.86
15
Effort (self)
8.00
8
3.35
9.10
Effort (partner)
7.62
8
2.52
6.91
SD
M
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
34$
Feelings. A one-way between groups multivariate analysis of variances was performed to
investigate if providing an excuse for texting, and the type of excuse provided, affected how
people felt when their partner was texting. Eleven dependent variables were used: happy,
sympathetic, indifferent, awkward, self-conscious, ignored, lonely, sad, annoyed, disrespected,
and angry. The independent variable was texting condition. Descriptive statistics for each feeling
can be found in Table 9. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality,
linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and
multicollinearity. Only sad, annoyed, lonely and angry violated the assumption of equality of
variances. There was a statistically significant difference between the texting conditions on the
combined dependent variables, F (22, 104) = 2.22, p = .004; Wilks’ Lambda = .46; partial η2 =
.32. When the results of the dependent variable were considered separately, the only differences
to reach significance, using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .004, were sympathetic,
annoyed, and disrespected (Table 9). Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis revealed that the mean
difference in sympathy between the valid excuse and the no excuse condition (4.71, 95% CI
[2.63, 6.79]) was significant (p < .001) as well as the difference between the valid excuse and the
unjustified excuse conditions (3.29, 95% CI [1.21, 5.37], p = .001). Tukey’s post hoc analysis
also revealed that the mean difference in annoyed between the valid excuse and the no excuse
condition (-3.11, 95% CI [-5.35, -0.88]) was significant (p = .004) as well as the difference
between the valid excuse and the unjustified excuse conditions (-2.49, 95% CI [-4.73, -0.26], p =
.025). The mean difference in disrespected between the valid excuse and the no excuse condition
(-3.45, 95% CI [-5.61, -1.29]) was significant (p = .001) as well as the difference between the
valid excuse and the unjustified excuse conditions (-2.98, 95% CI [-5.14, -0.81], p = .004). These
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
35$
results suggest that providing an excuse for texting, and the type of excuse that is provided, make
a difference in the way people feel when they are conversing with others.
Table 9
Participants’ Feelings When Their Partner Responded to Texts
No excuse
M
Happy
1.43
Sympathetic
2.29
Indifferent
a
Trivial Excuse
Mdn
SD
M
0
1.86
2.52
Valid Excuse
Mdn
SD
M
3
1.89
3.00
b
4
2.65
ab
SD
M
Mdn
SD
3
2.58 2.34
2
2.22
8
3.48 4.42
5
3.47
2
2.28 3.71
4.81
5
3.06
5.38
5
2.78
5.52
6
3.34 5.25
5
3.05
Awkward
5.62
6
2.13
5.00
6
2.77
3.02
4
2.88 4.94
5
2.64
Selfconscious
4.67
5
2.97
4.33
5
2.67
2.78
2
2.76 3.89
5
2.88
Ignored
5.14
5
3.12
5.28
6
2.83
3.30
3
2.49 4.53
5
2.92
Lonely
2.19
2
2.20
2.24
2
2.68
1.04
0
1.58 1.80
1
2.22
Sad
2.52
2
2.69
1.57
0
2.04
0.91
0
1.76 1.64
0
2.25
Annoyed
4.81a
5
3.82 4.19b
5
3.03
1.70ab
1
2.29 3.51
2
3.33
Disrespected
5.19a
5
3.50 4.71b
5
2.81
1.74 ab
0
2.60 3.82
4
3.33
Angry
2.67
2
2.90
1
2.27
0.70
0
1.43 1.69
0
2.37
1.81
7.00
Mdn
Total Score
Note: 0=not at all; 10=Extremely
Raw data (prior to reverse scoring of Happy and Sympathetic)
a
Indicates a significant difference
b
Indicates a significant difference
Cell phone interference in relationships. Seventy two percent of participants (N = 63)
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that cell phones are often a distraction in their
relationships with others. There was no significant difference across the four different conditions,
F (3, 84) = 0.36, p = .781, partial η2 = .013. Participants in the three texting conditions (N= 67)
also completed questions regarding their perceptions of cell phones on interactions with others.
Most participants (53.8%) indicated that they wished cell phones were not allowed in this
activity. The majority (53.4%) also thought that the way their partner used her cell phone
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
36$
interfered with their conversation and 33% thought that it decreased how much they enjoyed
their time together.
Three one-way ANOVAs were run to determine whether people’s perception of cell
phone interference differed across the three different conditions. Data were not normally
distributed for any of the questions in any of the conditions, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilks tests
of normality (p < .05). Participants’ perception of how the way their partner used her cell phone
interfered with their conversation was very similar (Table 10). This difference was therefore not
significant, F (2, 62) = 0.02, p = .984, partial η2 = .001. There was also no difference in
participants’ desire that cell phones were not allowed in the activity across different texting
conditions, F (2, 62) = 1.15, p = .324, partial η2 = .036 Participants in the no excuse condition
thought that cell phones had a greater interference in how much they enjoyed their time with
their partner compared to the unjustified and valid excuse conditions. This difference was
significant, F (2, 62) = 3.27, p = .045, partial η2 = .095. Tukey’s post hoc analysis revealed that
the mean difference in how much they enjoyed their time together between the valid excuse and
the no excuse condition (-0.95, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.05]) was significant (p = .037).
Table 10
Participants’ perceptions of cell phone interference in their conversations
My partner’s cell phone use
interfered with our conversation
I wish cell phones were not allowed
in this activity
My partner’s cell phone use
interfered with how much we
enjoyed our time together
No excuse
Trivial excuse
Valid Excuse
M Mdn SD
M Mdn SD
M Mdn SD
3.62
4
1.02 3.57
4
1.03 3.57
4
1.16
3.76
4
1.14 3.29
4
1.52 3.17
3
1.37
3.48
4
1.08 3.10
3
1.26 2.52
2
1.38
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
37$
Non-verbal behavior. Only two participants took out their phones in response to their
partner texting during the conversation. Both participants (1 male, 1 female) were in the no
excuse condition. Only six participants crossed their arms when the confederate was texting. Out
of these six people, two were in the no excuse condition, three were in the trivial excuse
condition, and only one was in the valid excuse condition. One of the participants in the trivial
excuse condition crossed his arms in two separate occasions. Nine participants leaned back when
the confederate was texting. Out of these nine participants, two were in the no excuse condition,
three were in the trivial excuse condition, and four were in the valid excuse condition. One
person in the trivial excuse condition and two people in the valid excuse condition leaned back
on two separate occasions. Twenty-three participants stopped talking when the confederate was
texting. Out of these 23 people, only one person was in the no excuse condition. Nine
participants were in the trivial excuse condition, four of which stopped in two separate occasions.
Fourteen participants stopped talking in the valid excuse condition. Eight of these participants
stopped for two of the text messages, and one person stopped talking for all three texts.
The number of times participants looked away when their partner was texted was also
recoded. The frequencies recorded by the second coder were used for analysis to reduce bias. A
one-way ANOVA determined that there was a significant difference on the number of times
participants looked away and broke eye contact with the confederate when she was texting,
F(3,81) = 3.43, p = .021 , partial η2 = .113, Figure 3. Participants in the valid excuse condition
look away the most (M = 11.78, SD = 3.00), followed by the no excuse (M = 11.75, SD = 4.29)
and trivial excuse conditions (M = 10.58, SD = 2.41). As expected, they looked away the least in
the control condition (M = 9.09, SD = 3.03). Tukey’s post hoc analysis revealed that the mean
difference in number of times the participant looked away between the valid excuse and the no
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
38$
control condition (2.70, 95% CI [0.18, 5.21]) was significant (p = .031) as well as the difference
between the no excuse and the control conditions (2.66, 95% CI [0.06, 5.27], p = .043). These
differences could be due to the nature of the types of excuses the confederate used. Since the
confederate said that “a family member was in the hospital,” it is possible that the participant
was trying to give the confederate some space and privacy.
*$
*$
Figure 3. Mean number of times participants looked away when their partner was texting. There
was a significant difference between the no excuse and control conditions and between the valid
excuse and the control conditions. Error bars represent +/- 1 SE.
Limitations and future directions. A limitation of the study is that it was done in an
experimental setting and therefore it might not completely reflect how people behave in public or
social settings. The conversation was also very short (9 minutes) so it is possible that people
behave differently in longer conversations. Future research could examine if the length of
conversations, not just the meaningfulness of conversations, affect people’s cell phone behavior
and interference during face-to-face conversations. Furthermore, there were cameras in the room
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
39$
and this could have altered people’s behavior. Finally, participants were all college students and
thus the results cannot be generalized to the entire populations.
General Discussion
The frequency of cell phone use has increased in the past decade, as has the number of
cell phone users. The current study found that all sampled students at the college own a cell
phone, which reflects the ubiquity and popularity of cell phones. Furthermore, most students not
only own a cell phone, but they own a smartphone. The most commonly owned smartphone is
the iPhone, which could be attributed to the fact that the survey was administered in a Mac
campus.
Not only has the frequency of cell phone use increased in the past decade, but so has the
percentage of students who believe that cell phones are necessary has increased from 70.2% in
2003 (Waldman et al., 2005) to 85% in the current survey. This is of interest because it could
suggest that people are becoming more dependent on their phones and they are necessary for
everyday practices. As cell phones have become more popular, the frequencies of phone use in
public settings have changed and will likely continue to change.
In 2003, most students (48.8%) believed that it is appropriate to use cell phones when it
does not interfere with others around them (Waldman, 2005). Students in the current survey held
the same belief, but there was an increase in their response since 81.2% believed this to be true.
This could suggest that in the past decade, young people have become more aware of when and
where cell phone use is appropriate. Classes, religious services, movie theaters, and libraries are
all settings in which people have an expectation of quietness and a phone call would be deemed
disruptive and disrespectful to others present. Therefore, it makes sense that they would consider
phone calls to be inappropriate since they would interfere and disrupt others around them.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
40$
Texting at the library or in the movie theater, however, was not viewed as inappropriate as
calling. This may be because texting does not cause as much of a disruption as calling. However,
the glare of phone screens is still annoying and rude for other movie goers as are sound alerts and
keyboard typing sounds if the phone is not in silent mode.
The majority believes that both texting and calling impairs their relationships with those
who are physically present, yet calling was significantly more disruptive to their interactions than
texting. Texting is more appropriate because it does not disrupt others around you (Srivastava,
2005). However, others believe that cell phones still interfere with their relationships with others
because texting still removes the person from the immediate environment (Lasén, 2006). The
fact that students believe that calls are interfering more with their relationships than text
messages suggests that although they perceive texting to be disruptive, they do not see its effects
on their relationships to be so damaging. Additionally, most students believed that it was “not
possible to have a face to face conversation and text at the same time” and that cell phones were
often a distraction in their relationships with their friends. Most students also moderately wished
that “cell phones were not around when [they] spend time with [their] friends” and that they and
their friends “would turn off [their] cell phones and spend time together.” This suggests that to
some degree, students do know that cell phones are affecting their interactions with others. They
also tended to moderately disagree with the statement that the way they and their friends use
their phones decreases how much they enjoy the time they spend together. It is important to note,
however, that most of students’ responses regarding the effect of cell phones in their interactions
with their friends tended to be neutral, with very few participants either strongly agreeing or
disagreeing with the statements.
The type of relationship students have with the person they are interacting with seems to
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
41$
have an effect on the way they use their cell phones. Students are a lot more likely to ignore a
text message if they are with a professor, advisor, or boss than if they are with a close friend,
acquaintance, or group of friends. Conversely, they are more likely to respond immediately if
they are with a group of friends or with a close friend. In the case of a group of friends, this may
be because there are more people so they feel less accountable for their behavior. In the case of a
close friend, it could be because their relationship is already established and strong so they do
not care what their friend thinks about their texting behavior or because they both have similar
norms regarding cell phone use (Hall et al., 2014).
When asked about what they would do when a close friend or an acquaintance was
texting during a face-to-face conversation in Study 1, most respondents said they would ignore
the behavior and not say anything, look somewhere else or take out their own phone. The
participants in Study 2 mostly looked away or ignored the behavior. Surprisingly, only two
participants took out their own phone to start texting. However, it is important to mention that in
Study 1, participants answered questions related to cell phone behaviors in situations in which
the participant had interacted with a close friend or an acquaintance whereas in Study 2,
participants conversed with a stranger. There are therefore probably various differences
regarding people’s cell phone behavior and their perceptions of how much they interfere with
their relationships depending on whom they are interacting with. Thus, future studies should
assess whether providing an excuse for texting (and the different types of excuses) affects other
dyads with different degrees of closeness in a similar fashion.
In Study 2, some people said that texting was particularly rude because they did not know
the confederate. In other words, they thought it is rude to text when you meet someone for the
first time. Other people, however, had the opposite view in that they believed that since they did
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
42$
not know each other, the confederate owed them nothing so they were not bothered by it. If,
however, a close friend would have been the one texting, then they would have perceived it
differently. Misra et al. (2014) found that cell phones have a more negative effect on the
perceived quality of conversations when people are close friends rather than casual friends. This
might be because they expect that people that mean so much to them will give them their
undivided attention (Humphreys, 2005). It is also important to consider that friends usually
follow and share similar norms, so they both might have similar texting behaviors (Hall et al.,
2014). Future research could investigate these differences to examine how the perceived effect of
cell phone interference varies depending on people’s type of relationships.
Cell phone use during conversations does not only affects people’s behaviors and
reactions, but they seem to also affect how they make people others feel. In Study 1 participants
answered questions related to how they thought they would feel if their companion was texting
and they either provided an explanation for texting or failed to do so. They reported they would
feel more happy and sympathetic and less indifferent, awkward, self-conscious, ignored, lonely,
sad, annoyed, disrespected, and angry if their friend would provide an excuse. Study 2 asked the
same questions but in this case, cell phone use had been manipulated and it was tested in an
experimental setting. Consistent with Study 1’s predictions, participants actually felt happier and
more sympathetic when their partner explained why she was texting than when she did not,
especially when she provided a valid excuse for texting. They also felt less annoyed and
disrespected. They did feel happier and less awkward, self-conscious, ignored, lonely, sad, and
angry, but these differences were not statistically significant. It is important to note that these
changes in affect were found regardless of the fact that the participant and the confederate were
strangers and did not have a close friendship. Moreover, these items were not rated that high,
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
43$
which could suggest that students might not usually experience strong emotions when their
companions are texting. It could also suggest that they do not feel strong emotions because
texting has become so commonplace that people are starting to accept this behavior.
As has been mentioned, cell phones are damaging our relationships and interactions with
others. Consistent with previous studies, Study 2 found lower scores for empathic concern and
connectedness (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2013). These scores were heightened
when the person texting during the conversation did not explain why she was texting or provided
a trivial excuse for doing so. There were also differences on intrapersonal connection when the
confederate was texting and did not provide an excuse and when she was not texting. Not only
that, but cell phone use is also affecting how people feel when they interact with others.
It is worth mentioning that the trivial excuse condition had the lowest scores for empathic
concern and closeness. It is possible that the trivial excuse still made participants feel excluded
and irritated because it reiterated the feeling that the person who is virtually present is more
important than them, which would be consistent with previous research (Banjo et al., 2008;
Gregen, 2002; Lasén, 2006; Rosen, 2004). Also, in the no excuse condition, participants could
have imagined various reasons why the participant was texting. During the debriefing, some
participants in the no excuse condition said that they assumed that the confederate had a good
reason for texting whereas others just thought it was rude.
A limitation of this study is that it was not conducted in a naturalistic setting so it does
not completely reflect people’s usual interactions. It was conducted in a lab room and
participants were compensated with course credit. Therefore, it is possible that participants
perceived it as an academic setting rather than a social setting and thus their behavior was
different. Future research should examine people’s cell phone behaviors and their reactions to
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
44$
their companions texting in a social setting like a coffee shop or a dining location on campus in
which people are more likely to use their cell phones.
Despite these limitations, the results of this experiment could have very useful and
practical applications. They not only shed light to a current issue that is affecting our daily lives,
but also provide an alternative that could help mitigate the adverse effects of cell phone use when
we are interacting with others. The best thing to do in order to have meaningful conversations
and interactions with others is to not use ones phones while doing so. This, however, is easier
said than done, especially considering how frequently people use their phones nowadays. If one
decides to text during a face-to-face conversation, having a good reason for doing so and sharing
it with your conversation partner will reduce how much cell phones interfere with your
conversation. This makes sense because you are not excluding your partner, and are instead
including him/her in your virtual conversation and demonstrating that you do value the
conversation you are physically present in at the time.
The findings of the current study are important and relevant because previous research
suggests that mere presence of phones affects relationships (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2013). Using them further damages relationships and interactions, yet people are
sometimes not aware of this or do not see it as a problem. One possible explanation is that using
a mobile phone when being with other people is possibly not considered such bad manners
anymore because the ubiquity of cell phones has made being always reachable a social obligation
(Lasén, 2006). There is now an expectation that texts should be answered as quickly as possible
and this is also changing people’s day-to-day interactions (Horstmanshof & Power, 2005). This
expectation leads people to have the urge to constantly check their phones and messages to see
who is contacting them and to comply with the norm of responding texts promptly. This creates a
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
45$
constant interruption of face-to-face conversations and disconnecting us from the physical world
to take us to a virtual world. Moreover, the expectation that texts should be responded promptly
creates a problem, since not answering quickly is considered unacceptable and often rude for the
person who sent the text, but responding is rude to the person who is physically present.
The presence of cell phones not only affects interactions, but it also negatively affects
individuals’ performances in tasks that demand are cognitively demanding and require a lot of
attention (Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014). This is important to consider in various
place, like academic settings and work environments. Furthermore, it could relate to
conversations with others as well, since conversing and texting at the same time requires
multitasking and a lot of effort and attention (Misra et al., 2014). If the mere presence of cell
phones is detrimental and distracting, perhaps the approach that has to be implemented is an “out
of mind, out of mind” situation (Thornton et al., 2014).
Regardless of their reactions and feelings about cell phones and relationships and
interactions with other people, 92% of students in Study 1 thought that no action should be taken
regarding cell phone use in public settings. This percentage of students has increased since 2003
(86%) perhaps because of the ubiquity of cell phones (Waldman et al., 2005). They seem to
prefer to use their phones at their discretion, regardless of how they think phones are or not
affecting interactions with others. Unlike what students seem to believe, Rosen (2004) sees the
current situation and thinks that action should be taken against cell phone use in public settings.
She suggests taking an approach similar to the one taken in regards to smoking. She suggests
creating designated cell phone use areas in an effort to retain civility.
Perhaps of more concern is that fact that people are becoming addicted or dependent on
their phones to an extent to which they feel anxious without them (Aoki & Downes, 2003;
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
46$
Forgays et al., 2014; Isaac et al., 2004). In fact, 42% of people reported that they have trouble
doing things when they do not have their phones with them (Smith, 2011). Cell phones connect
people to the social world, and thus many feel disconnected and isolated when they do not have
their phones. Others, however, argue that not having a phone does not equal being left out of the
social world, but it requires the individual to make an extra effort to feel connected to others
(Horstmanshof, & Power, 2005).
This dependence on cell phones extends even further in the sense that people not only see
them as a tool that can connect them to a virtual world, but they also provide an escape from
reality and the current situation. For instance, texts help reduce boredom and anxiety
(Horstmanshof, & Power, 2005). People anticipate a response from person they texted, and along
with it they expect to get comfort or advice. Texts also make people feel special. In a recent
survey, 70% of responded reported that they used their phones to entertain themselves when they
were bored (Smith, 2011). Although in some occasions people do not realize the harm cell
phones are doing to their relationships and how they are removing themselves from the physical
situation, others purposely use their cell phones to try to escape their current situation (Smith,
2011). In fact, 30% of young cell phone owners admitted that they used their phone to avoid
interacting with others at least once in the 30 days prior to answering the survey.
Cell phones not only have the possibility of disconnecting us from the people we are
interacting with, but also with others around us and society as a whole. A recent study found that
cell phones make you selfish and that after talking on the phone, people were less likely to
engage in prosocial behaviors. (Abraham, Pocheptsova, & Ferraro, 2012). Moreover, recalling
cell phone use (and not actually using their phones) was able to decrease the accessibility of
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
47$
others-related thoughts, which suggests that cell phone use decreases concern for others. This in
turn makes people less likely to help others or engage in other prosocial behaviors.
As cell phone use continues to rise, it is important to be aware of the repercussions they
can have not only in our conversations and interactions with others, but in our daily lives as well.
Yes, cell phones do provide great advantages, but they also remove people from the current
situation and take them to a virtual world, thus making them miss a lot of important things that
happen in their immediate environment. Further research should be conducted regarding cell
phone use and interactions with others, with the hope of finding ways to reduce the negative
effects associated with cell phone use, especially now that the frequency of cell phone use is
increasing and younger generations are growing up in a world surrounded by so much
technology. After all, it is ironic that a device that is supposed to make us feel more connected
with others, is in fact disconnecting us from our reality.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
48$
References
Abraham, A., Pocheptsova, A., & Ferraro, R. (2012). The effect of mobile phone use on
prosocial behavior. Manuscript in preparation.
Aoki, K., & Downes, E. J. (2003). An analysis of young people’s use of and attitudes toward cell
phones. Telematics and Informatics, 20(4), 349-364.
Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers:
Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 134-142.
Banjo, O., Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. (2008). Cell phone usage and social interaction with proximate
others: Ringing in a theoretical model. Open Communication Journal, 2, 127-135.
Bugeja, M. J. (2005). Interpersonal divide: The search for community in a technological age.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, S. W. (2007). Perceptions of mobile phone use in public settings: A cross-cultural
comparison. International Journal of Communication, 1(1), 738-757.
Cumiskey, K. M. (2003). " Can You Hear Me Now?": The Paradoxes of Techno-intimacy Via
the Use of Personalized Communication Technology in Public (Doctoral dissertation,
City University of New York).
Emberson, L. L., Lupyan, G., Goldstein, M. H., & Spivey, M. J. (2010). Overheard cell-phone
conversations when less speech is more distracting. Psychological science, 21(10), 13831388.
Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: gender
and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31,
314-321.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
49$
Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. Perpetual contact: Mobile
communication, private talk, public performance, 227-241.
Goffman, E. (1971). Strategic Interaction, Conduct and communication. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hall, J. A., Baym, N. K., & Miltner, K. M. (2014). Put down that phone and talk to me:
Understanding the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships.
Mobile Media & Communication, 2(2), 134-153.
Harrison, M. A., & Gilmore, A. L. (2012). U txt WHEN? College students’ social contexts of
text messaging. The Social Science Journal, 49(4), 513-518.
Horstmanshof, L., & Power, M. R. (2005). Mobile phones, SMS, and relationships. Australian
Journal of Communication, 32(1), 33-52.
Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era. New media &
society, 7(6), 810-833.
Hyman, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see
the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597-607.
Isaac, H., Nickerson, R. C., & Tarasewich, P. (2004). Cell phone use in social settings:
preliminary results from a study in the United States and France. In Proceedings of the
DSI 2004 Annual Meeting (pp. 4791-4796).
Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful
action: The role of 'placebic' information in interpersonal interaction. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
50$
Lasén, A. (2006). How to be in two places at once? Mobile phone use in public places. In J.
Höflich & M. Hartman (eds.), Mobile Communication in Everyday Life. Ethnographic
Views, Observations and Reflections (pp. 227-252). Berlin, Frank & Timme.
Lipscomb, T. J., Totten, J. W., Cook, R. A., & Lesch, W. (2007). Cellular phone etiquette among
college students. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(1), 46-56.
Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and distracted driving: Texting, talking and other uses
of the cell phone behind the wheel.
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone Effect The Quality of InPerson Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices. Environment and
Behavior, 0013916514539755.
Monk, A., Carroll, J., Parker, S., & Blythe, M. (2004). Why are mobile phones annoying?.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(1), 33-41.
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.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of research in
Personality, 41(1), 203-212.
Rosen, C. (2004). Our cell phones, ourselves. The New Atlantis, 6, 26-45.
Smith, A. (2011, August 15). Americans and their cell phones. Pew Internet. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/Cell%20Phones%202011.pdf
Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U There? Ostracism by Cell Phone Text Messages.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 8(4), 291-301.
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24(2), 111-129.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual
attention during simulated driving. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 9(1),
23.
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone
may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology,
45(6), 479-488.
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY: Basic books.
Turner, M., Love, S., & Howell, M. (2008). Understanding emotions experienced when using a
mobile phone in public: The social usability of mobile (cellular) telephones. Telematics
and Informatics, 25(3), 201-215.
Waldman, L., Sheets, B., Jones, C. L., & Nichols, P. (2005). Cell phone usage among college
students. Journal of Business and Training Education, 5, 15.
Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations and their gadgets. Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project. <http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Generations-andgadgets.
aspx>.
51$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
52$
Appendix A
Marginal Frequencies Report
1. What type of cell phone do you own?
96%
Smartphone
4%
Regular phone
0%
I don’t have a phone
2. What type of smartphone do you own?
79.3%
iPhone
10.9%
Samsung Galaxy
7.3%
Android
1%
Windows Phone
1%
HTC One
0.5%
Blackberry
3. Rank the following cell phone functions in the order you use them most (1= the one you use
the most).
1
2
3
4
5
6
Text
79.6%
11.7%
5.6%
2.0%
1.0%
0%
Call
5.1%
27.6%
18.9%
21.9%
19.4%
7.1%
Apps
5.1%
12.8%
14.3%
24.0%
36.7%
7.1%
Web Use
5.1%
12.8%
18.4%
29.1%
25.0%
9.7%
Email
4.6%
34.2%
40.3%
14.3%
6.1%
0.5%
Games
0.5%
1.0%
2.6%
8.7%
11.7%
75.5%
4. In the past 30 days, how frequently did you use your phone when you were… (N=183)
On a train
At the theater/movie
theater
In class
In a meeting with a
professor
In the library
Walking on campus
by yourself
Walking on campus
with at least one
other person
Never
17.4%
47.4%
Rarely
4.2%
35.4%
Sometimes
9.5%
13.0%
Often
28.4%
3.6%
Always
40.5%
0.5%
30.9%
90.6%
39.3%
7.8. %
24.1%
0.5%
4.7%
0.5%
1.0%
0.5%
7.4%
4.2%
10.5%
7.4%
27.9%
23.2%
35.8%
40.0%
18.4%
25.3%
8.9%
37.2%
34.6%
18.3%
1.0%
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
Walking off-campus
by yourself
Walking off-campus
with at least one
other person
Crossing the street
Walking up or down
the stairs
At a religious
service
At a sports game
At a party
On a date
In line, waiting to
order food or drink
Eating with others
Eating alone
53$
6.8%
17.7%
22.4%
32.3%
20.8%
14.1%
30.2%
41.1%
12.5%
2.1%
38.5%
13.5%
33.9%
26.6%
22.9%
38.0%
4.2%
20.3%
0.5%
1.6%
78.5%
14.7%
4.2%
1.0%
1.6%
19.9%
8.3%
46.8%
3.7%
14.7%
18.8%
38.9%
7.3%
34.0%
39.1%
11.6%
24.6%
25.7%
26.6%
2.1%
46.1%
5.8%
7.3%
0.5%
18.3%
7.8%
2.6%
29.7%
3.2%
40.1%
12.2%
18.8%
37.6%
3.6%
44.4%
5. How frequently do you think other people use their phones when they are
On a train
At the theater/movie
theater
In class
In a meeting with a
professor
In the library
Walking on campus
by themselves
Walking on campus
with at least one
other person
Walking off-campus
with at least one
other person
Walking off-campus
by themselves
Crossing the street
Walking up or down
the stairs
At a religious
service
At a sports game
Never
Rarely
Often
Always
0.5%
31.8%
Sometime
s
5.7%
42.2%
0.5%
3.6%
31.8%
17.2%
61.5%
5.2%
1.6%
43.5%
17.3%
46.1%
56.0%
4.7%
20.4%
3.7%
4.7%
2.1%
0%
0%
3.1%
1.6%
21.4%
13.1%
46.4%
42.4%
29.2%
42.9%
1.6%
9.9%
40.3%
39.3%
8.9%
1.0%
8.3%
46.4%
36.5%
7.8%
0.5%
4.7%
19.3%
38.0%
37.5%
5.2%
0.5%
30.7%
15.7%
41.7%
41.4%
16.7%
32.5%
5.7%
9.9%
19.4%
46.6%
23.6%
7.3%
3.1%
1.6%
1.0%
30.2%
49.5%
17.7%
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
At a party
On a date
In line, waiting to
order food or drink
Eating with others
Eating alone
54$
0%
3.1%
0%
6.3%
30.4%
2.1%
28.1%
46.1%
9.9%
46.4%
16.8%
43.8%
19.3%
3.7%
44.3%
1.0%
0%
11.5%
0.5%
36.5%
3.6%
42.2%
34.4%
8.9%
61.5%
6. When you go to class you
2.1%
Don’t take your phone with you
2.1%
Turn off your phone
56.8%
Turn your phone on silent
38.9%
Turn your phone on vibrate
7. Where do you typically have your phone when you are in class?
6.6%
On the table
6.0%
On my lap
33.9%
In my pocket
53.6%
In my bag
8. Where do you typically have your phone then you are having a meal with at least one other
person?
49.5%
On the table
2.6%
On my lap
36.8%
In my pocket
10.5%
In my bag
9. The last time you met a close friend for a meal and he/she received text messages and
responded to them…(If this has never happened to you, you can skip questions A and B
a. How did you feel? (0= not at all, 10= Extremely)
Happy
Sympathetic
Indifferent
Awkward
Self-conscious
Ignored
Lonely
Sad
Annoyed
Disrespected
Angry
N
140
137
164
151
135
166
135
124
166
152
125
Mean
2.84
3.18
6.40
4.03
3.16
4.83
2.64
2.11
4.33
3.54
2.31
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
b. What did you do about it?
34.8%
Ignored it and did not say anything
19.6%
Looked somewhere else (ex. window, other people walking by, etc.)
6.0%
Took out my phone ad texted someone else
13.0%
Took out my phone and engaged in another activity (games, email,
news, social media, etc.)
21.7%
Asked who he/she was talking to
4.3%
Asked him/her to stop texting
0.5%
Told him/her that it was disrespectful
10. The last time you met an acquaintance for a meal and he/she received text messages and
responded to them…(If this has never happened to you, you can skip questions A and B
a. How did you feel? (0= not at all, 10= Extremely)
N
106
102
130
134
121
132
102
98
134
123
102
Happy
Sympathetic
Indifferent
Awkward
Self-conscious
Ignored
Lonely
Sad
Annoyed
Disrespected
Angry
Mean
1.87
2.37
5.63
4.67
3.60
4.23
2.23
1.60
4.19
3.84
2.18
b. What did you do about it?
44.7%
31.7%
11.8%
9.9%
1.2%
0.6%
0%
Ignored it and did not say anything
Looked somewhere else (ex. window, other people walking by, etc.)
Took out my phone ad texted someone else
Took out my phone and engaged in another activity (games, email,
news, social media, etc.)
Asked who he/she was talking to
Asked him/her to stop texting
Told him/her that it was disrespectful
11. Is it appropriate to use cell phones at any time and in any circumstance?
9.8%
Yes
90.2%
No
55$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
56$
12. When is it appropriate to use cell phones?
18.2%
81.2%
0.6%
Anytime but class, church, meetings, etc.
When it doesn’t interfere with others around you
Other- “Free time and emergencies”
13. Is it appropriate to talk on the phone when you are…
Strongly
Disagree
Neither agree
disagree
nor disagree
Driving
33.0%
31.8%
13.6%
At a religious
80.0%
13.7%
4.6%
service
In class
86.4%
8.0%
4.5%
At a restaurant
36.4%
31.8%
22.2%
At a library
65.9%
24.4%
6.3%
In the bathroom
21.6%
19.9%
32.4%
At the supermarket
1.7%
5.7%
27.4%
At the movie
77.8%
15.9%
5.7%
theaters
Walking on campus
1.1%
2.3%
13.1%
Walking on the
4.6%
5.1%
17.1%
street
At a sports game
13.6%
23.3%
35.8%
At a party
9.7%
30.1%
33.0%
On a date
65.3%
25.0%
8.0%
14. Is it appropriate to text when you are…
Strongly
Disagree
disagree
Driving
80.0%
16.7%
At a religious
57.0%
30.2%
service
In class
38.3%
39.4%
At a restaurant
9.4%
27.2%
At a library
2.2%
2.8%
In the bathroom
2.8%
3.9%
At the supermarket
0%
4.5%
At the movie
21.7%
44.4%
theaters
Walking on campus
1.1%
3.4%
Walking on the
6.1%
17.2%
street
At a sports game
2.8%
5.6%
At a party
0%
7.2%
On a date
38.3%
42.2%
Agree
19.9%
0.6%
Strongly
agree
1.7%
1.1%
0.6%
8.5%
2.8%
19.3%
48.0%
0.6%
0.6%
1.1%
0.6%
6.8%
17.1%
0%
46.0%
45.7%
37.5%
27.4%
24.4%
22.7%
1.7%
2.8%
4.5%
0%
Neither agree
nor disagree
1.7%
10.1%
Agree
1.7%
1.7%
Strongly
agree
0%
1.1%
16.1%
26.1%
26.1%
22.8%
17.3%
21.1%
6.1%
30.0%
42.8%
35.6%
45.3%
11.1%
0%
7.2%
26.1%
35.0%
33.0%
1.7%
20..7%
25.6%
43.0%
35.0%
31.8%
16.1%
22.3%
25.6%
16.7%
44.1%
45.6%
2.2%
25.1%
21.7%
0.6%
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
57$
15. I believe that making phone calls in a public setting while having a conversation with
someone else…
83.3%
Is impairing my relationship with the person who is physically present
16.7%
Has no effect on my relationship with the person who is physically present
0%
Is enhancing my relationship with the person who is physically present
16. I believe that texting in a public setting while having a conversation with someone else…
66.1%
Is impairing my relationship with the person who is physically present
33.9%
Has no effect on my relationship with the person who is physically present
0%
Is enhancing my relationship with the person who is physically present
17. Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
disagree
agree nor
disagree
I can have a face to face
13.5%
38.2%
18.8%
conversation and text at
the same time
Cell phones are often a
12.4%
23.5%
24.1%
distraction in my
relationships with my
friends
The way I use my cell
17.1%
34.1%
27.1%
phone interferes with my
relationships with my
friends
The way my friends use
10.1%
29.0%
27.2%
their cell phones interferes
with my relationships with
them
The way I use my cell
14.7%
37.1%
25.9%
phone decreases how
much I enjoy my
relationships with my
friends
The way my friends use
9.4%
28.8%
22.9%
their cell phones decreases
how much we enjoy our
time together
I wish that cell phones
9.4%
23.5%
28.2%
were not around when I
spend time with my
friends
Agree
Strongly
agree
24.1%
5.3%
30.0%
10.0%
18.2%
3.5%
23.1%
10.7%
18.2%
4.1%
25.9%
12.9%
29.4%
9.4%
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
I wish my friends and I
would turn off our cell
phones and spend time
together
10.1%
17.1%
58$
23.5%
37.6%
11.8%
18. Should action be taken against cell phone use in public?
7.0%
Yes
93.0%
No
19. Imagine yourself in the following scenarios. While you are eating a meal with a _________,
you notice you receive a text message. You…
Ignore it
Close friend
Acquaintance
Professor, advisor, or
boss
Group of friends
14.2%
31.8%
92.9%
See who it is, then decide
whether or not to respond
67.5%
64.7%
5.3%
Respond
immediately
18.3%
3.5%
1.8%
4.7%
75.3%
20.0%
20. Imagine yourself in the following scenario. While you are having lunch with a close friend
he/she receives a series of text messages and responds to them. He/she explains why he/she
must respond to text message.
a. How would you feel? (0= not at all, 10= Extremely)
Happy
Sympathetic
Indifferent
Awkward
Self-conscious
Ignored
Lonely
Sad
Annoyed
Disrespected
Angry
N
131
149
144
120
111
122
103
109
122
112
102
Mean
3.60
5.15
5.31
2.05
1.78
2.18
1.52
1.22
2.03
1.73
1.29
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
b. What would you do about it?
33.7%
7.8%
8.4%
13.9%
Ignored it and did not say anything
Looked somewhere else (ex. window, other people walking by, etc.)
Took out my phone ad texted someone else
Took out my phone and engaged in another activity (games, email,
news, social media, etc.)
Asked who he/she was talking to
Asked him/her to stop texting
Told him/her that it was disrespectful
32.5%
0.6%
3.0%
21. Is it necessary to have a cell phone?
85.3%
Yes
14.7%
No
22. Gender (N=175)
28.8%
Male
71.2%
Female
23. Age
0.5%
14.3%
21.7%
19.2%
18.7%
8.9%
0.5%
0.5%
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
26
24. Year (N=212)
23.6%
First-years
25.0%
Sophomores
21.7%
Juniors
29.2%
Seniors
25. Ethnicity (N=158)
70.3%
White/Caucasian
14.6%
Asian
7.6%
Hispanic/Latino
3.16%
Black/African American
4.43%
Other
59$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
26. Region
65.7%
4.8%
4.2%
4.2%
3.0%
0.6%
4.8%
87.3%
3.0%
2.4%
1.8%
1.2%
0.6%
9.0%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
North East, USA
Southwest, USA
Southeast, USA
Mid-Atlantic, USA
Midwest, USA
Pacific/Hawaiian Islands
USA (did not specify where)
TOTAL USA
China
Vietnam
South Korea
Thailand
India
TOTAL Asia
South America
Africa
Europe
60$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
Appendix B
Relationship Closeness Induction Task
LIST I (1 minute)
1. How old are you?
2. Where are you from?
3. What year are you at college?
4. What do you think you might major in? Why?
5. What made you come to this college?
6. What is your favorite class? Why?
LIST II (3 minutes)
1. What are your hobbies?
2. What would you like to do after graduating from college?
3. What would be the perfect lifestyle for you?
4. What is something you have always wanted to do but probably never will be able to do?
5. If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go and why?
6. What is one strange thing that has happened to you since you’ve been at college?
7. What is one embarrassing thing that has happened to you since arriving at college?
8. What is one thing happening in your life that makes you stressed out?
9. If you could change anything that happened to you in high school, what would that be?
10. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would that be?
11. Do you miss your family?
12. What is one habit you’d like to break?
LIST III (5 minutes)
1. If you could have one wish granted, what would that be?
2. Is it difficult or easy for you to meet people? Why?
3. Describe the last time you felt lonely.
4. What is one emotional experience you’ve had with a good friend?
5. What is one of your biggest fears?
6. What is your most frightening early memory?
7. What is your happiest early childhood memory?
8. What is one thing about yourself that most people would consider surprising?
9. What is one recent accomplishment that you are proud of?
10. Tell me one thing about yourself that most people who already know you don’t know.
61$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
62$
Appendix C
Empathic Concern Scale
The following statements refer to the conversation you just had. Please rate how true each
statement is for you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not at all true
Somewhat true
Very true
1. ______ My conversation partner understood the importance of the topic I discussed.
2. ______ My conversation partner missed the key meaning of the topic I discussed.
3. ______ My conversation partner made an effort to understand my thoughts and feelings about
the topic I discussed (e.g. put him/herself in my shoes and tried to see the situation
through my eyes)
4. ______ My conversation partner accurately understood my thoughts and feelings about the
topic I discussed.
5. ______ My conversation partner validated my experience of the topic I discussed (e.g.
supported how the topic impacted my feelings and thoughts)
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
63$
Appendix D
Subject Impressions subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
The following sentences describe thoughts and feelings you may have had regarding your
conversation partner. For each of the following statement please indicate how true it is for you‚
using the following scale as a guide:
1
Not at all true
2
3
4
Somewhat true
5
6
1. ______ I felt really distant to my partner.
2. ______ I did not feel at all nervous about interacting with my partner.
3. ______ I would describe interacting with my partner as very enjoyable.
4. ______ I really doubt that my partner and I would ever become friends.
5. ______ I found my partner very interesting.
6. ______ I enjoyed interacting with my partner very much.
7. ______ I felt tense while interacting with my partner.
8. ______ I really feel like I could trust my partner.
9. ______ Interacting with my partner was fun.
10. ______ I'd like a chance to interact more with my partner.
11. ______ I tried hard to have a good interaction with my partner.
12. ______ I'd really prefer not to interact with my partner in the future.
13. ______ I was anxious while interacting with my partner.
14. ______ I thought my partner was very boring.
15. ______ I tried very hard while interacting with my partner.
16. ______ I thought interacting with my partner was very interesting.
17. ______ I think it's likely that my partner and I could become friends.
18. ______ My partner seemed really distant.
19. ______ My partner put a lot of effort into this.
20. ______ My partner tried very hard to do well at this activity.
21. ______ My partner did not seem nervous at all while doing this.
22. ______ I feel like a learned a lot about my partner.
7
Very true
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
Appendix E
Inclusion of Other in Self Scale
Instructions: The following circles represent you and your conversation partner. Please circle
the picture that best describes your relationship with him/her.
64$
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
65$
Appendix F
Perceptions of Effect of Cell Phone Use on Relationships
Instruction: Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements:
Disagree strongly
Disagree a little
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree a little
Agree strongly
1
2
3
4
5
1. ________ Cell phones are often distractions in my relationship with others.
2. ________ The way my partner used his/her cell phone interfered with our conversation.
3. ________ The way my partner used his/her cell phone decreased how much we enjoyed
our time together.
4. ________ I wish that cell phones were not allowed during this activity
Did you use your cell phone during the conversation with your partner? Why/why not?
Did your partner use his/her cell phone?
(If NO, skip the following questions)
YES
NO
If your partner used his/her cell phone, how did you feel when he/she responded to texts?
0
Not at all
1
2
3
1. ________ Happy
2. ________ Sympathetic
3. ________ Indifferent
4. ________ Awkward
5. ________ Self-conscious
6. ________ Ignored
7. ________ Lonely
8. ________ Sad
9. ________ Annoyed
10. ________ Disrespected
11. ________ Angry
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Extremely
CELL$PHONE$USE$AND$INTERPERSONAL$INTERACTIONS$
66$
Appendix G
Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10)
Instruction: Indicate how well do the following statements describe your personality?
Disagree
strongly
1
Disagree a little
2
Neither agree nor
disagree
3
I see myself as someone who…
1. ______ … is reserved
2. ______… is generally trusting
3. ______… tends to be lazy
4. ______… is relaxed, handles stress well
5. ______… has few artistic interests
6. ______… is outgoing, sociable
7. ______… tends to finds fault with others
8. ______… does a thorough job
9. ______… gets nervous easily
10. ______… has an active imagination
Agree a little
4
Agree
strongly
5