As reported in The Guardian:
Smartphones are psychologically addictive, encourage narcissistic tendencies and should come with a health warning, researchers have said.
A study by the University of Derby and published in the International Journal of Cyber Behaviour, Psychology and Learning found that 13% of participants in the study were addicted, with the average user spending 3.6 hours per day on their device.
[...] The study examined the responses of a self-selected sample of 256 smartphone users who were asked about how they used their device as well as questions intended to establish their personality traits.
Social networking sites were the most popularly used apps (87%), followed by instant messaging apps (52%) and then news apps (51%).
[...] "Narcissism is a negative personality trait and if a person is spending a lot of time on Facebook or Twitter they're more likely to display these types of traits," said [study Co-author from the University of Derby’s psychology department Dr. Zaheer] Hussain.
Related Stories
Technology doesn't just make life easier, it changes how we think, how we act, and what we come to expect from the world around us. The biggest shifts show up slowly, fold into everyday life, and eventually become invisible. Over time, a tool or system starts shaping behavior:
Smartphones - Smartphones didn't just improve communication, they removed its boundaries. Messages became instant, information became constant, and waiting became optional.
Before smartphones, there were natural gaps in the day. Time between conversations. Time without updates. Time where nothing was happening. Those gaps have largely disappeared.
Now, attention is continuously pulled in multiple directions. Notifications interrupt focus, and moments of silence are often filled automatically.
[...] GPS Navigation - Finding your way used to require memory, awareness, and decision-making. People learned routes, recognized landmarks, and built mental maps of the places they lived and traveled through. GPS replaced much of that process: following instructions rather than remembering directions.
[...] In fact, studies have suggested that reliance on GPS can weaken spatial memory over time, as the brain outsources that responsibility.
[...] Social Media Algorithms - Social media introduced systems that decide what you see. Early platforms showed content in chronological order but over time algorithms began prioritizing posts based on engagement, predicting what would keep you scrolling the longest.
This changed behavior on both sides. Users consume what is most attention-grabbing, and creators adapt by producing content that performs well within the system. Over time, this creates feedback loops, where certain types of content are amplified while others disappear. What you see begins is heavily filtered and shaped, yet it feels like a reflection of reality.
Related:
- The 'Engineering of Addiction' - 3 Ways Meta and YouTube Are Claimed to Have Harmed Users
- Smartphones Promise Satisfaction and Meaning, Deliver Only More Searching
- Turning Phones on Silent May Increase Phone Checking
- Smartphone Addiction - It's not Just for Kids
- Should Smartphones Come with Health Warnings About Psychological Addiction?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:11AM
Should Soylent Come with Health Warnings About Psychological Addiction?
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:14PM
Given the compulsion of Anonymous Coward to post messages on SN (s/he is far more active than anyone else), I reckon it would be good.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:46AM
You do something you like more often than I think you should. Therefore, you're addicted, and that's, of course, bad. No, this isn't arbitrary at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Sunday March 08 2015, @02:07PM
Addiction is when I do something more often than I like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:22PM
You usually do not know you have one until you try to stop doing that something you like.
For the past 3 months I have not had any colas. Lost 15 pounds. Last week I drank several every day. Even now that I just finished one I want another. Physical addiction? no. Big time mental one.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:15AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @03:17PM
I would much rather people need to pass a test to reproduce. The right to vote is given automatically just by living in a democracy, but there needs to be some kind of counter for the dumbest people's tendency to multiply far faster than those of even average intelligence.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 08 2015, @07:56PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:08PM
I would much rather people need to pass a test to reproduce. The right to vote is given automatically just by living in a democracy, but there needs to be some kind of counter for the dumbest people's tendency to multiply far faster than those of even average intelligence.
Isn't that tantamount to claiming all your ancestors were significantly smarter than the rest? Or are you advocating you shouldn't exist? You could be fine with that (sacrificing yourself for an imagined greater good etc.) but I'm not :3
Also makes me wonder how dumb Einstein's parents were, or Bohr's, or Feyman's, or Hawking's, Erdos', Perelman's, etc. my point is they could be really dumb (either one or both) and one wouldn't likely know about it. I'm sure they would all bullshit about their parents but some of them must have been pretty dumb.
Or how about the Curie's? Pierre died slipping in a rainy street getting his head crushed by a cart-wheel and Marie died from aplastic anemia/long-term radiation exposure. How dumb is it to slip in traffic? How dumb is it to die of self-inflicted radiation poisoning? And they were both damned smart. A Nobel prize doesn't grant invulnerability to idiocy, not two prizes either. “They couldn't know” doesn't matter, few if any decide to aim for a “Darwin award” or to fail the “obituary test”. That's just a super-famous example; there's no shortage of smart people directly offing themselves in the name of science.
Nota bene: the Curie's had/left behind two children.
Yeah we all like to think we're smarter than that but we're not, and the few who might actually be that mythically smart are highly unlikely to get any/much sex anyways.
Now I know IQ has severe limits/flaws but let's use it as an example. IQ is a normalized scale (as any relevant scale would have to be) and half the population should thus always be below 100 IQ points by definition. Plotting out IQ scores gives the usual Bell curve/gaussian function so if one defines “pretty dumb” as the lowest quarter (25%) of the population one might not need to get much lower than 70 or 80 in IQ to qualify as “pretty dumb”. The main flaw with this argument is of course that it belies that we're not all idiots, which we are :)
And on that tangent there's an excellent quote of wisdom:
“Every time an idiot dies, your IQ goes down.” — Bill Ballance
By the way I'm extremely unlikely to procreate (like no one knew lol), make of that what you will :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:21AM
Sounds less addictive and dangerous than TV or religion or alcohol ... probably safe to let it pass.
One of those PR pieces where if you throw out a bunch of numbers hoping for a response, make sure not to provide data in context or people might come to the opposite conclusions.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nuke on Sunday March 08 2015, @12:48PM
They said this about One-Armed Bandits, TV, Space Invaders, PCs, games consoles, Facebook, ..... Oh wait, they were right in the nail.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Sunday March 08 2015, @01:49PM
Tomorrow. I'll quit tomorrow.
Where's my lighter?
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday March 08 2015, @04:28PM
Lighter?
Wow, that's hardcore...smoking your phone!
Well, I guess smoking the phone would be easier than mainlining it.
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:22PM
Maybe he should vape his phone [cigabuy.com] instead :o (only for laughs).
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Sunday March 08 2015, @04:02PM
You lost me at "encourage narcissistic tendencies" - has a causal relationship between narcissistic tendencies and phones been established, or does the fact that almost every person on the planet have a cellphone now mean that the subset of almost every person on the planet who is a narcissist also have cell phones? By definition, the narcissist will advertise, while the person who doesn't care won't, so these people are overrepresented on social media just by definition. This stuff is junk science on the same level as the studies that find almost everyone on the planet has toothpaste/television/etc whatever makes headlines and some people are whatever-makes-headlines therefore there is some connection.
And I'm not even going to touch the "self-selected sample"...
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday March 08 2015, @08:58PM
How about a warning about the degree to which you surrender your privacy?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Doctor on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:29PM
That would be nice -- of course a large portion of people don't care as long as they have their shiny Apple toy so they can do all those fascinatingly useless things that humanity managed to live without for thousands of years. Shiny out-weighs minor things like privacy, unfortunately.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Doctor
(Score: 3, Funny) by meisterister on Sunday March 08 2015, @09:59PM
That's all it takes to call something psychologically addictive? I am or know people who are addicted to the following:
1. Commuting
2. Using a computer
3. Working
4. Studying
5. Listening to music
6. Watching television
7. Writing software
8. Drawing
9. Sitting down
10. Standing up
... I'm sure I missed several hundred more...
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Monday March 09 2015, @03:08PM
Yup… Definitely addicted to working here. I just can’t seem to live without it… Can’t wait to give it up, but I’ve got at least another 20 years of addiction in front of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @03:13AM
This issue is actually ruining a relationship. Its not that computers cannot be just as bad (they sure can be). Its not just mine with her, its hers with everyone. I tried to have her visit a mutual friend, even paid for a nice restaurant for it, and she spend 85% of the time on her phone. She blew off dealing with people in person simply to play with this stupid phone on more than one occasion. She wonders why things are going poorly in some areas of her life, but always was bad at math. You can't spend 49 hours working, and 31 hours on your phone and get a lot of other things done. It doesn't work that way.
I can't even get a conversation with her with eye contact anymore unless I break the thing. This may not sound like a serious issue to some of you, but my next two stops are a divorce attorney and a financial planner. I've watched it grow badly over the past 3 1/2 years, and its beyond anything I can change and accept anymore.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @01:45PM
A dream for Aspies: People with smartphones don't require you to keep eye contact!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @03:42PM
Yes, before that divorce attorney I'd fvisit some decent multiplayer FPS. At least she will be able to see the situation from another POV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:20AM
It wouldn't do the slightest bit of good. She is well aware, and resistant to any impact its having on anyone else. On the bright side, I file now I avoid any alimony. On the not as bright side, I'll probably get sacked with about 20K on a house I can't live in -- even if she chooses to keep it. That may even out. Thankfully the second biggest debt is in her name only.
I don't even think having the papers served will serve as a wake up call. I'm saddened beyond belief. 9 years and she got that the prior model 4 years ago. I broke the prior model once just to see how long she would go without one. The answer was less than 20 minutes from the time she realized it wasn't working ... She even called in late to work to do it. She is just shy of 5 hours per day on it that I know about and I'm sure she fools with it at work too that I don't know how often.