Running head: Legitimacy of Phone Addiction

Legitimacy of Phone Addiction

Steven Boone

Loyola University
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 2

Introduction

The smart phone is like the mullet. A hair style of short maintained hair in the front

and long untamed hair in the back. Lovingly referred to as business in the front, party in the

back. When it was first introduced it promised businesses features that would give their

employees the edge over the competition. Immediate access to emails and digital calendars

were just a few of it’s features. Overtime as smart phones became more main stream, more

features were added like games and photos. Then came the invention of apps. A multitude

of various applications that met the wants of nearly everyone. What services or features

that weren’t available, we said we wanted. In return, our desires were met and exceeded

with things we didn’t even realize we wanted, but our desire for more returned and the

cycle continued. The app market was flooded with with entertainment apps. It was like a

party 24/7 in the palm of our hands. The smartphone became a device for pleasure seekers

and escapist. The smartphone has the slick design of a business device, but under the

surface its here to help you party and it’s a party we can’t leave. For many, smartphone use

is an addiction. Like the mullet, what was first presented to us was not what we got.

Within the research of cell phone use there is a debate taking place. What do we call

this excessive use of our cell phones? Early on it was identified as phone “addiction,” but

others label it as “abuse” or “misuse.” These are often used interchangeably in research.

Certainly, more time needs to be devoted on identify the differences in these words. This

paper will use the term addiction for consistency. Additionally, this addiction will refer to

the excessive use of a phone for texting, web browsing, social media, games, and gambling

applications. This addiction can be applied to other screen devices like tablets.
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 3

Labeling the Addiction

Not every one sees smart phones as an addictive problem. Sherry Turkle doesn’t

want to call people’s constant technology use an addiction since it creates a feeling of

helplessness to technology. (p. 215) The problem with this lack of identification is how do

we explain what we see all day everyday? People simultaneously carrying on conversations

both in person and digitally. People’s every moments being documented and shared online.

The vacant stare of children as they hold a screen to their faces at places that were once

about spending time together like restaurants or church. It seems that this obsessive phone

use is a decay of the society we use to know. These are the early signs that this is an

addiction and everyone is susceptible to it. Not identifying constant phone use as an

addiction is Turkle’s first mistake.

Sherry Turkle’s second mistake is how to address people’s constant use of their

phones. Turkle narrow-mindedly believes that unlike a drug addiction like heroine,

smartphones shouldn’t be cut out of an abuser’s life. (p. 216) The drug comparison is unfair

because it’s not the same kind of addiction. When identifying an addiction, there are two

categories: Substance addiction and behavioral addiction. Drug addictions are associated

with substance addiction. However, most view cell phone addiction as behavioral addiction

because to the compulsive repeated use of the phone. It is a near constant use of the phone.

“A behavior is addictive only if the reward it brings now are outweighed by damaging

consequences.” (Alter, p.20) Simply put we must see if the short term satisfaction of using

one’s phone leads to long term harm. As a fairly new technology, we have yet to see the full
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 4

effects of excessive phone use. Yet some evidence is currently available that illustrate the

dangers in not identifying its addictive qualities.

Evidence of Addiction

We have sacrificed so much for convenience. The smart phone is the multi-tool of

the twenty first century. It’s growing capabilities seem almost limitless. Every year, new

features and applications ingrain phones further into our lives. It has made solving many

problems easier. Even problems we didn’t realize we had get solved. Unfortunately, these

phones have also created problems that they can’t solve. This can be referred to a Faustian

Bargain. (Postman, p. 192) The smart phone has given us so much, but has also come at a

high cost.

Even the potential power of the device is so exciting many have developed a

dependency. Life without them seems almost impossible. The allure of these devices give

people many reasons to hold those phones up to their face for many hours a day. So much

attention is spent on what the phones can do that little attention is being paid to what the

phones are doing to the people. There are many components at play that lead to phone

addiction.

There are several commonly mentioned symptoms to excessive phone use in phone

addiction literature. “FOMO” (Fear of Missing Out) is when a person fears they are missing

something when they are without a phone or the internet. “Textaphrenia” and “ringxiety”

are the false sensations that the phone is ringing or vibrating that cause a person to check
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 5

their phone. “Textiety” is the compulsive need to respond immediately to text messages

and to immediately receive feedback. (Gutierrez, Fonseca, & Rubio, 2016)

Without ever using the term addiction, Neil Postman describes a similar situation

with technology as users feel an absence without access to it. (p. 38) There is almost a

feeling of withdrawal for many when denied access to their phones. Like an addict

everything around them may immediately feel mundane causing a greater desire to get

back on their phone. These feelings can create a cycle of addiction as they try to escape

their boredom.

Compulsive phone users keep coming back to their phones because they get

something out of it. Cell phones follow the law of effect by providing positive

reinforcements. (Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014) These reinforcements can take the form

of comments, likes, pictures, digital rewards, and more. There is a constant stream of

validation in these reinforcements.

The related stimuli of a phone could also perpetuate addiction. The related stimuli

associated with drinking alcohol, taking drug, or gambling is similar to the related stimuli

of a phone (Aiken, p. 55). Just the sight of a phone could cause a person to pull out their

phone. For example, the presence or even the image of a needle could cause a heroin addict

to relapse. Based on this premise, even the sight of a logo from twitter, Facebook, or

Snapchat could lead to the compulsive need to check those apps.

Many things on our phones are designed to be addictive. Physically, the phones

could promote addiction through structural characteristics. These would include

notification noises or compelling graphics and animations (Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis,

2014). Not unlike the studies of Pavlov, you can see the excitement on a person’s face from
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 6

the sounds of a twitter alert or notification. People begin to look forward to when their

phone chirps again because it will give them the positive stimuli of a like or retweet.

A unique characteristic of cell phone addiction is the difference between males and

females. One study of college students’ phone use found that females spend an average of

600 minutes on their cell phone compared to males (Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014). One

possible reason for this is how each sex uses their devices. Studies have shown that females

use their devices for social apps and males use theirs for utilitarian and/or entertainment

purposes. The researcher of this study theorize that meeting social goals may require more

time than meeting utilitarian goals. (Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014) These differences are

key in identifying the various forms cell phone addiction may take.

Aiken goes as far as claiming people’s compulsive need to be on their cell phone may

be explained by signaling theory, a theory of attraction closely associated with the animal

kingdom. (p. 265) These visual, acoustic, or tactile signals entice people to pick up their

phones. These signals work similarly to a bird puffing its feathers or singing to attract a

mate. Our phones are designed to have many signals that interest us at a behavioral level.

Like the sirens of lore, our phones are pulling us to our doom.

Effects of the Addiction

The greater point Turkle makes about excessive phone use is that there is a loss of

connection among people because of their phones. Cell phone addiction is more than

chatting with friend, acquaintances, and strangers online. The effects can be seen in what

we lose. We lose ourselves to our phones. We sacrifice the few relationships right in front
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 7

of us for the many online. With most phone use, people are ignored and neglected. A phone

addiction amplifies these ramifications. “The conflict caused by excessive cell phone use

impacts relationships among and between students, between students and their professors

and parents, and students and supervisors at work.” (Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014) No

aspect of a person’s life is impervious to the effects of phone addiction.

Phone addiction is a problem in schools because students feel compelled to use their

phones in school. Whether its to continuously check their phone or use a number of

different applications on it they are limiting what they learn because they are multitasking.

The very action of trying to sneak a glimpse of the phone shows that it has priority over

everything else happening in that classroom. For some students addicted to their cell

phone, just having the phone put away in their locker can lead to anxiety and a lack of

focus. At a very young age, many students’ development is being impacted by this

technology. It’s the portability of phones that makes them worse than other addictive

technologies. People are use to leaving computers and videogames at home. By keeping a

phone always with us, we create a more intimate relationship it.

The amount of time with the phone isn’t as much the problem as how that time is

being spent using it. Often that time is just waiting for the next exciting thing as a person

goes between the same few apps. For some, the mindlessness of juggling between several

apps is to avoid any negative emotions. The boredom and feeling of isolation come from

our hyper activity and continual communication in which phones have conditioned us to. It

chasing a high that can rarely be met. In some ways, smartphones have squandered their

potential and in turn have the potential to squandered their users’ potential.
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 8

Possible Solutions

Ending the addiction to phones will be difficult. Adam Alter believes the challenge

comes in breaking the cues of the environment because an addiction relies on triggers to

induce a behavior. (p. 270) This means that a simple sound effect from anyone’s phone

could potential cause a recovering phone addict to relapse. With nearly everyone carrying a

fix in their pocket, only the strongest of will could quit the habit. This means that owning a

smartphone would be impossible for those recovering from their addiction. It would be

challenging, but people can live without a smartphone. It is possible for people to live

successful lives with a smartphone. In fact, the people that grew up without a smart phone

were able to create them. Technology is never the defining factor of an innovator and

sometimes all the bells and whistles on our phones disable that trait in us.

Another solution is to change how phones are designed. To overcome this addiction,

Aiken believes that we must identify the specific triggers that led to the compulsive or

addictive behaviors, technology can be “designed to be more compatible with its users.” (p.

87) This could take the form of phones without certain features/apps or to have time limits

on more addictive behaviors. The phones must have purpose. Our phones are simply tools.

How they are used is determined by us. However, unlike craftsmen’s tools phones aren’t

designed to protect us. Apps in particular are often designed to keep us hooked. A

carpenter doesn’t get obsessed with his or her hammer because a hammer is designed to

serve a specific purpose. Phones need to be designed with meaningful purpose.

In addition, Turkle advises, for a those suffering from phone addiction, to have

greater intention when it comes to using the device. (p. 216) This is sound advice, but isn’t
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 9

the solution for those suffering the greatest from their phone addiction. For them

abstinence is the only available option.

Cell phones are not the first time society has been under siege by undesirable

behaviors. However, in the past, their have been interventions or even legislation. A child

can’t buy a lottery ticket, but there are few barriers that prevent them from playing a game

on their phone with gambling elements. There could also be more pressure from society to

change. There are no laws in the United States prohibiting extraordinarily large meals and

yet Supersize is no longer available at McDonalds.

Of course a change like this can only happen if enough people believe there is a

problem. And the only way people will believe it’s a problem is if there is more education

on the subject. This is the role school must take. It shouldn’t just be about helping the

students understand the debilitating effects, but also the community. Schools need to have

the vision for the community and lead the way through example. This could empower more

parents to take more responsibility in how their children use the device because for the

children time is of the essence. “The age of possession of one’s first cell phone is also

relevant: the younger age at which this occurs, the greater the probability of problematic

use in the future.” (Gutierrez, Fonseca, & Rubio, 2017) Schools and parents can often push

devices on kids at an early age believing that it will increase cognitive development. While

there are some benefits to introducing technology at an early age, addiction is not worth

the risk. A more watchful eye and steady hand are required for safe phone use for future

generations to come.
Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 10

Conclusion

Keeping with the analogue created by Turkle, Cell phone aren’t an addiction like

heroine. Cell phones are more like the bad friend we want to keep are kids from. After all

we wouldn’t want our kids hanging around someone that introduces them to so many

addictive and negative behaviors. More preventative actions are needed. A smartphone is

conduit to many possible addictions. A phone is the gateway to many other established

addictions like videogames or gambling and some less established addictions like social

media. It is because of this unification that makes phones dangerous for children and adults

alike. There is a potential risk that a person could find addictions to a number of habits that

have to be practiced together to match the hyperactivity they have come to expect. Like

lacing drugs, these multiple apps work together to create a greater dependency on the

phone. In this way it amplifies those addictive behaviors unlike anything that came before

it.

So it would seem it isn’t the cellphone that creates the addiction, but what the phone

makes available. With millions of apps on the marketplace many more specific addictions

can take place. A phone can be the gateway to video game addiction, social media addiction,

gambling addiction, and more. As smart phones become more versatile, the problem will

continue to change and evolve with the technology. Applying Moore’s law of technology

growth, it will be nearly impossible to entirely end the addiction because we can’t keep up

with the rate of all the new problems being introduced. As one problem is addressed, two

more will pop up in that time.

Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 11

For now, the greater concern lays with so many people using phones for many hours

a day, can it even be considered a problem? Technological addictions are influenced by

time and social and cultural norms as the normalization and integration of new

technologies enter our daily life. (Carbonell, Chamarro, Oberst, Rodrigo, & Prades, 2018) As

new technologies are introduced, it’s likely phones will not be the major technology

concern. Eventually, our phones will be replaced with new devices that promise even

greater ease and pleasure in our lives. Of course that promise will also come with greater

drawbacks as well. Looking back at cell phones that could only call and text seem harmless

now, but people were concerned about their overuse. (Carbonell, Chamarro, Oberst,

Rodrigo, & Prades, 2018) Then phones will no longer be a major threat. After all, the

television is no longer the scourge of society it once was, but many of its negative traits

have been passed onto the smartphone. Without addressing the problem in the now, it will

only grow worse with new technology.

Legitimacy of Phone Addiction 12

References

Aiken, M. (2017). The cyber effect: One of the world's experts in cyberpsychology explains

how technology is shaping the development of our children, our behavior, our values,

and our perception of the world - and what we can do about It (Spiegel & Grau trade

paperback edition. ed.). New York: Spiegel & Grau.

Alter, A. L. (2018). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us

hooked. New York: Penguin Books.

Carbonell, X., Chamarro, A., Oberst, U., Rodrigo, B., & Prades, M. (2018). Problematic Use of

the Internet and Smartphones in University Students: 2006-2017. International

Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 15(3), 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030475

De-Sola Gutierrez, J., Rodriguez de Fronseca, F., & Rubio, G. (2016). Cell-Phone Addiction: A

Review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00175

Postman, N. (1996). End of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Vintage

Books.

Roberts, J. A., Yaya, L. H. P., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone

activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of

Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254-265. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015

Turkle, S. (2016). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY:

Penguin Books.