Reaction paper at least 700 words. 36 hours left

Article

Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality

Andrew K. Przybylski Netta Weinstein University of Essex, UK

Abstract Recent advancements in communication technology have enabled billions of people to connect over great distances using mobile phones, yet little is known about how the frequent presence of these devices in social settings influences face-to-face interactions. In two experiments, we evaluated the extent to which the mere presence of mobile communication devices shape relationship quality in dyadic settings. In both, we found evidence they can have negative effects on closeness, connection, and conversation quality. These results demonstrate that the presence of mobile phones can interfere with human relationships, an effect that is most clear when individuals are discussing person- ally meaningful topics.

Keywords Closeness, connection, conversation quality, face-to-face interactions, mobile phones, relationship quality

Corresponding author:

Andrew K. Przybylski, Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ,

UK.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

30(3) 237–246 ª The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407512453827 spr.sagepub.com

J S P R

Recent advancements in communication technology have enabled billions of people in

the developed and developing world to connect with others using mobile phones

(Mieczakowski, Goldhaber, & Clarkson, 2011). The widespread availability and use of

mobile phones mean that these devices are commonly present in public and private

settings and during casual and intimate interactions, often as subtle background objects.

Despite their ubiquity, it is not known how the presence of mobile communication

technology influences face-to-face interactions. The present paper empirically explores

this issue for the first time and examines the effects of merely having a mobile phone

present during in-person conversations.

Psychological research on phone use broadly suggests that it is often aimed as a

source of entertainment and a means for sociability (O’Keefe & Sulanowski, 1995), and

indicates the use of phones is largely a way to feel closer with family members, to

express care for others, and to be available to others (Leung & Wei, 2000). Despite the

fact that people seem attracted to mobile phones as a means to interpersonal closeness,

little psychological research to date has systematically investigated the actual influence

these devices have in or outside the context of relationships. Instead, the thrust of

research in this area has examined effects mobile communication technology has on

attention. Specifically, this research indicates that use of mobile phones can reduce the

quality of attention to real-world events such as operating motor vehicles (Strayer,

Drews, & Johnston, 2003; Strayer & Johnston, 2001).

Most research focusing on mobile phones and relationships suggests they have the

potential to influence a range of interpersonal processes. Interviews reveal mobile

phones provide a continual sense of connection to the wider social world—a feeling that

persists even if a mobile is in ‘‘silent mode’’ (Plant, 2000). Indeed, the presence of

phones is often felt during intimate social outings. As an example, Geser (2002) observes

that a significant portion of couples eating together repeatedly interrupt their meals to

check for text or voice messages. In reviewing a wide range of survey data, Srivastava

(2005) concluded mobile phones might exert these pervasive influences because people

associate phones with wide-ranging social networks. The presence of a mobile phone

may orient individuals to thinking of other people and events outside their immediate social

context. In doing so, they divert attention away from a presently occurring interpersonal

experience to focus on a multitude of other concerns and interests.

In line with this, a number of prominent theorists have argued that mobile commu-

nication technology can have a decidedly negative influence on interpersonal relation-

ships (Turkle, 2011). Turkle cites a wide range of qualitative evidence collected in

interviews that phones can direct attention away from face-to-face conversations by

making concerns about maintaining wider social networks salient. Taken together with

quantitative research that demonstrates environmental cues can activate relational

schema and affect behavior without a person’s awareness (Shah, 2003), there is reason

to believe that merely having a phone at hand may degrade firsthand social interactions.

Effects such as these would be apparent when partners attempt to engage one another

in a meaningful way. Particularly when strangers are interacting, a superficial con-

versation may do little to foster closeness and trust in the relationship. On the other hand,

dyads engaged in a meaningful conversation may develop their relationship as they

become better acquainted with one another and self-disclose relevant and personal

238 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3)

information (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997). In these cases, the presence

of a diverting influence such as a mobile phone may inhibit relationship formation by

reducing individuals’ engagement and attention for their partners, and discouraging part-

ners’ perceptions that any self-disclosure had been met with care and empathy. Indeed,

such an impediment to relationship formation may be frustrating and isolating. To test

this idea, we investigated the degree to which the presence of mobile communication

technology influences the quality of human interactions across different kinds of

conversations.

Present studies

In the present research, we evaluated the idea that the presence of mobile communication

technology may present a barrier to human interactions, especially when people are

having meaningful conversations. To investigate this, we conducted two experiments in

which pairs of strangers engaged in a brief relationship formation task, adapted from

previous research (Aron et al., 1997). We also manipulated the innocuous presence

versus absence of a mobile phone in the laboratory room. The first experiment examined

the general effects of mobile phone presence on relational processes, and the second

experiment investigated these dynamics for people having casual and meaningful

interactions.

Experiment 1

Participants and procedure

Seventy-four participants (26 women; M age ¼ 21.88, SD ¼ 4.81) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (a) phone absent or (b) phone present. For those

assigned to the phone present condition, a nondescript mobile phone rested on a book,

which was placed on a nearby desk outside participants’ direct visual field. In the phone

absent condition, a pocket notebook replaced the phone (see Figure 1). We used a rela-

tionship formation task adapted from previous research (Aron et al., 1997), which was

meant to emulate the content of many real-life conversations. A pilot study indicated that

the assigned conversation, ‘‘Discuss an interesting event that occurred to you over the

past month,’’ was a moderately intimate topic. Participants left personal belongings in

a common waiting area before being led to a private booth along with a randomly

assigned partner. Dyads were then asked to spend 10 minutes discussing the topic

together. Following this encounter, participants completed measures used in previous

research to assess relationship quality over time (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan,

2000) and emotional sensitivity in both committed and newly formed relationships

(Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Funneled debriefing of participants in both experiments

indicated mobile phone placement was unobtrusive.

Measures

Relationship quality. Relationship quality was measured using a seven-item version of the connectedness subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (McAuley, Duncan, &

Przybylski and Weinstein 239

Tammen, 1987), and included items such as ‘‘It is likely that my partner and I could

become friends if we interacted a lot’’ (M ¼ 2.78, SD ¼ 0.79, a ¼ .85).

Partner closeness. Closeness between participants was measured using the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron et al., 1992), which instructed participants to select one of

seven increasingly overlapping circle pairs representing themselves and their conversation

partner. (In the present study, participants responding averaged: M ¼ 3.57, SD ¼ 1.46.)

Covariate: Positive affect. Positive and negative affect was assessed using the nine-item Emmons Mood Indicator (Diener & Emmons, 1984) to account for the potential con-

founding effect of overall positive mood on relational outcomes. Items included pleased,

worried/anxious, and frustrated (a ¼ .83), paired with a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).

Results

Data analytic strategy. Analyses required accommodations for nesting persons within dyads (assuming nonindependence between the two interacting partners). Analyses were

Figure 1. Overhead view of lab room. 1. Mobile phone or pocket notebook. 2. Book on desk. 3. Chairs used by participants.

240 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3)

therefore conducted with hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk,

2002). Condition (1: phone present, �1: phone absent) was defined at level 2 (dyad level), while covariates (gender, age, and positive affect) were defined at level 1 (person

level). Unconditional models were first assessed to determine whether sufficient var-

iance existed between- and within-dyad. Intraclass correlation (ICC) derived from these

models showed that across outcomes, 43% to 51% of the total variance occurred between persons. Given the substantial variance accounted for at each level, full models were

tested. Across analyses, the general level 1 equation was as follows:

OV ij ¼ Boj þ B1X 1ij þ B2X 2ij þ B3X 3ij þ eij where Boj reflects the average value of the relational outcome, B1 reflects the estimated

population slope of gender, B2 reflects that of age, B3 reflects that of positive affect, and

eij represents level 1 error.

The level 2 equation was:

Boj ¼ Goo þ G01X1j þ u0j where Goo reflects the person level intercept for an average person and G01 refers to the

effect of the phone condition. As Raudenbush & Bryk (2002) recommended, level 1

variables were centered on individual rather than sample means; level 2 variables were

not centered.

Relationship quality. At level 1, positive affect related to better relationship quality, b ¼ 0.80, t(69) ¼ 2.99, p < .001, though there were no effects of either gender, b ¼�20, t(69) ¼�0.61, p ¼ .55, or age, b ¼�0.04, t(69) ¼�0.03, p ¼ .12. Controlling for these, individuals in the mobile phone condition reported lower relationship quality after the

interaction, b ¼�0.99, t(35) ¼ 3.08, p ¼ .004.

Partner closeness. Results for perceived closeness with one’s partner were largely consistent with relationship quality. None of the level 1 predictors related to perceived

closeness with one’s partner, bs ¼ �0.00 to �.09, ts(69) ¼ �0.06 to �0.64, ps ¼ .52 to .95. Yet at level 2, those in the mobile phone condition reported less closeness with

their partners, b ¼ �0.39, t(35) ¼�2.56, p ¼ .02.

Experiment 2

Experiment 1 found that dyadic partners who got to know one another in the presence of

a mobile phone (via sharing a moderately meaningful discussion) felt less close with

their partners and reported a lower quality of relationships than did partners who shared a

conversation without a mobile phone present. Experiment 2 explored which relational

contexts mobile phones most mattered by manipulating the content of discussion to be

either casual or meaningful. We hypothesized mobile phones would impede relational

outcomes when partners are attempting to build an intimate connection and have less effect

in casual conversation, where little self-disclosure takes place. In addition, this second

experiment explored two new relational outcomes that have been shown as important

Przybylski and Weinstein 241

indicators for building intimate relationships: interpersonal trust (Campbell, Simpson,

Boldry, & Rubin, 2010) and perceived partner empathy (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004).

Participants and procedure

Sixty-eight participants (43 women; M age ¼ 23.21, SD ¼ 4.99) were randomly assigned to one of the cells of a 2 (absent vs. present phone) � 2 (casual vs. meaningful con- versation) between-subjects design. A modified version of the 10-minute relationship

formation task from Experiment 1 was used for all 34 dyads. Participants in the casual

conversation condition were instructed to discuss their thoughts and feelings about

plastic holiday trees (casual condition); those assigned to the important conversation

condition discussed the most meaningful events of the past year (meaningful

condition).

Measures

To examine a more diverse set of relational outcomes that included processes indicative

of intimate relationships, relationship quality was assessed in the same way as in

Experiment 1 (M ¼ 4.98, SD ¼ 1.09, a ¼ .86) but was paired with two additional measures of relational functioning: trust and empathy.

Partner trust. Trust was assessed with an item asking participants to rate their agreement to the statement: ‘‘I felt like I could really trust my conversation partner’’ (M ¼ 3.25, SD ¼ 1.01).

Partner empathy. Empathy was measured with the nine-item Empathic Concern Scale (Davis, 1995), which included items such as: ‘‘To what extent do you think your partner

accurately understood your thoughts and feelings about the topic?’’ (M ¼ 4.98, SD ¼ 1.09, a ¼ .92).

Results

Analytic strategy. HLM analyses were conducted as in Experiment 1, although in the present study, phone manipulation (1: phone present, �1: phone absent) was interacted with conversation type (1: meaningful, �1: casual), both entered at level 2. Preliminary unconditional models showed 39% to 47% of variance was at the between-person level. Figure 2 presents the means of observed for relationship quality, partner trust, and part-

ner empathy across conditions.

Relationship quality. There were no effects of gender, age, or positive affect on relationship quality, bs ¼ 0.01 to 0.09, ts(60) ¼ 0.13 to 1.28, ps ¼ .21 to .90. At level 2 and consistent with Experiment 1, mobile phone presence predicted lower relationship quality,

b ¼�0.19, t(30) ¼�2.29, p ¼ .03, and new to this study, results showed an interaction between mobile phone presence and conversation type, b ¼�0.26, t(30) ¼�3.02, p ¼ .006 (no effect of conversation type, b ¼ 0.03, t(30) ¼ 0.29, p ¼ .78). Simple slopes

242 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3)

analyses showed no effect of phone when the conversation was casual, b ¼ 0.02, t(14) ¼ 0.50, p ¼ .63. On the other hand, the presence of the mobile phone predicted lower rela- tionship quality when the conversation was meaningful, b¼�0.45, t(16)¼�4.21, p¼ .001.

Partner trust. None of the covariates (gender, age, or positive affect) related to trust, bs ¼ 0.02 to 0.13, ts(60) ¼ �0.13 to 1.50, ps ¼ .13 to .90. At level 2, phone presence predicted less trust between partners, b ¼ �0.36, t(30) ¼ �3.76, p < .001, and mean- ingful conversations marginally encouraged trust, b ¼ 0.21, t(30) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .06. These main effects were qualified by their interaction, b ¼ �0.33, t(30) ¼ �3.48, p ¼ .002. Simple slopes analyses complemented those of relationship quality, indicating that when

the conversation was casual the presence of a mobile phone had no effect on partners’

trust, b ¼ �0.07, t(14) ¼ �0.26, p ¼ .80, yet partners who attempted to share a meaningful conversation in the presence of a phone reported less trust than those who did

so in its absence, b ¼�0.69, t(16) ¼�5.24, p < .001.

Figure 2. This figure shows that the presence of a mobile phone in the laboratory room leads to lower levels of relationship quality, trust, and empathy. All critical t-tests are significant at p < .05. Error bars are based on standard error.

Przybylski and Weinstein 243

Perceived empathy. A final series of analyses were conducted predicting perceived empathy from partners. Older participants reported perceiving marginally higher

empathy from their partners, b ¼ 0.04, t(60) ¼ 1.92, p ¼ .06, though there was no relation with gender, b ¼ �0.08, t(60) ¼ �0.29, p ¼ .77, or positive affect, b ¼ 0.21, t(60) ¼ 1.55, p ¼ .13. At level 2, participants reported lower perceived empathy when the phone was present compared to absent, b ¼�0.37, t(30) ¼�3.60, p ¼ .002, yet no effect of conversation type, b ¼ 0.18, t(30) ¼ 1.49, p ¼ .15. These relations were qualified by an interaction, b ¼�0.36, t(30) ¼�3.41, p ¼ .002. As before, simple slopes analyses showed no differences in perceived empathy between the two phone conditions when the

conversation was a casual one, b ¼�0.01, t(14) ¼�0.06, p ¼ .95; however, when the conversation was meaningful the presence of a phone predicted less perceived empathy

following the conversation, b ¼�0.72, t(16) ¼�4.66, p < .001.

Conclusions

These results demonstrated that the mere presence of mobile communication technology

might interfere with human relationship formation, lending some empirical support to

concerns voiced by theorists (Turkle, 2011). Evidence derived from both experiments

indicates the mere presence of mobile phones inhibited the development of interpersonal

closeness and trust, and reduced the extent to which individuals felt empathy and

understanding from their partners. Results from the second experiment indicated that

these effects were most pronounced if individuals were discussing a personally

meaningful topic. More specifically, results of this experiment showed that meaningful

conversation topics tended to encourage intimacy and trust under neutral conditions.

This difference between those in the casual and meaningful conversation conditions was

absent in the presence of a mobile phone, which appeared to interfere in conditions that

were otherwise conducive to intimacy. More interesting, the debriefing procedure

suggests that these effects might happen outside of conscious awareness.

The present findings are qualified by a number of limitations that provide avenues for

future research. The first and most important question this research leaves open concerns

the mechanism through which a mobile phone impedes relationship formation. Given

that the effects do not appear to depend on conscious awareness, it is possible that phones

operate as a prime that activates implicit representations of wider social networks, which

in turn crowd out face-to-face conversations. It is also possible that people form individ-

ual and enduring implicit associations with phones; and such attitudes, behaviors, and

cognitions interrupt here-and-now interactions. In both cases, these mechanisms could

be examined in future research using sequential priming and or lexical decision tasks

(e.g., Shah, 2003).

In a similar vein, an expanding body of qualitative research (e.g., Srivastava, 2005)

suggests people form important and diverse kinds of connections to their personal

devices. Future work might replicate and extend the present studies by exploring how the

presence of a range of personally owned communication devices such as portable or

tablet computers shape conversations. In the present experiments, we examined mobile

phones in the context of casual and meaningful conversations, but the presence of mobile

phones may show a curvilinear relationship such that they do not obstruct relationship

244 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3)

formation in deeply meaningful conversations; future research may explore these

processes across conversation types. In addition, future research should test behavior

directly to answer the question: do mobile phones change the way partners behave

toward one another (e.g., via the amount of self-disclosure, nonverbal relational beha-

viors, attentiveness), or whether they primarily shape subjective perceptions of conver-

sations. Finally, these experiments explored the effects of mobile phone presence on

relationships among heretofore strangers. Future research may focus on the extent to

which mobile devices would have such effects in established relationships, such as those

between business associates, parents and children, or romantic partners.

All things considered, this research presents interesting empirical findings that inform

the billions of conversations that take place daily, as many are accompanied by a phone

placed casually on a table or bar. These results indicate that mobile communication

devices such as phones may, by their mere presence, paradoxically hold the potential to

facilitate as well as to disrupt human bonding and intimacy.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the Self Scale and the structure

of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation

of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J. G., & Rubin, H. (2010). Trust, variability in relationship

evaluations, and relationship processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 14–31.

Davis, M. H. (1995). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Corte

Madera, CA: Select Press.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

Geser, H. (2002). Sociology of the mobile phone. Unpublished manuscript, University of Zurich,

Switzerland.

Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the

cellular phone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 308–320.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic

Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

Mieczakowski, A., Goldhaber, T., & Clarkson, J. (2011). Culture, communication, and change:

Report on an investigation of the use and impact of modern media and technology in our lives.

In Culture, communication, and change. Cambridge, UK: Engineering Design Centre, University

of Cambridge.

O’Keefe, G. J., & Sulanowski, B. K. (1995). More than just talk: Uses, gratifications, and the

telephone. Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly, 72, 922–933.

Przybylski and Weinstein 245

Plant, S. (2000). On the mobile. The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual life.

Retrieved from http://www.Motorola.com/mot/documents/0,1028,333,00.pdf

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing

construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of

closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The

role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

26, 419–435.

Shah, J. (2003). The motivational looking glass: How significant others implicitly affect goal

appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 424–439.

Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behavior. Behaviour & Information

Technology, 24, 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, 23–32.

Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated

driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

246 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(3)