Negative Effect of Cell Phone Addiction on Mental Health

Introduction

Americans have always had a fascinations with technology and its incredible ways to changing lives one step at a time. The fascinations continues onto the 21st century encouraging US consumers to spend an ever increasing amount of time with technology. First, it was the radio then came the telephone along with the television followed by the internet. The current-day fascination with cellular devices are the highlights of this century, whether positive or negative.

College students are commonly viewing their cell phones as an integral part of who they are and considering it as an important extension of themselves. A large scale of 2,500 US college students found that respondents reported spending one hour and 40 minutes daily on Facebook (Junco, 2011) and 60% of US college students admit that they may be addicted to their cellular device (McAllister, 2011). By their increasing dependence on the use of cell-phone coincides with the recent emergence of the Smartphone which are quickly replacing laptops and desktop computers as a preferred method of accessing the internet.

An increasing reliance on cell-phones targeting young adults and college students may be a signal of evolving from habit to addiction. Although the concept can have many different definitions, traditionally it has been described as a repeated use of substance despite the negative consequences suffered by the addicted individual (Alavi et al., 2012). A recent study has notioned the addiction to being generalized as behaviors such as gambling and sex as well as cell phone use.

Make sure your essay is 100% unique

Our experts will write for you an essay on any topic, with any deadline and requirements from scratch

127 our experts are available
right now

Get custom essay

Cell-phone Activities & Addiction

Given the ever-increasing array of activities that can be done via cell phone, it is important that we comprehend the reasons why such activities are more likely to be correlated with cell-phone addiction. In discussing the Internet addiction Griffiths (2012) points out that there is “fundamental difference between addictions to the Internet and addictions on the Internet” (p. 519). This same logic holds true to cell-phone use. As suggested by Roberts and Pirog (2012), “research must dig beneath the technology being used to the activities that draw the user to the particular technology” (p. 308).

Although various theories could be used to explain why cell-phone activities can be an addiction The Law of Effect emphasizes that rewards are gained from various cell-phone activities (Chakraborty, Basu, & Kumar 2010). When any behavior is closely followed by an effective “reinforcer” the behavior is most likely to happen again (Roberts, 2011).

Based on principles of operant conditioning, when a cell-phone user experiences feelings of happiness or enjoyment from a particular activity (funny YouTube videos, memes, etc.) they are most likely going to engage in the activity again in order to increase their neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine as drugs, sex, and alcohol do. Particular cell-phone use can also be a scapegoat to avoid awkward social situations. Pretending to call, send a text, or check one’s phone are three great examples of this. In discussing the Internet, Griffiths (2000) argues that many activities can be done online so it leads to be more habit-forming.

Gender, Cell-phone Use, & Cell Phone Addiction

There have been multiple past research on gender and technology that suggests difference that will exist regarding males and female cellular use. Based on Geser (2006) and his study of gender pattern in cell-phone use, he concludes the follow: “the motivations and goals of cell phone usage mirror rather conventional gender roles” (p. 3). According to Geser (2006), men see a more instrumental use for cellphones whereas women utilize the cell-phone as a social tool. Men tend to see the Internet and its related technologies as sources of entertainment (Junco et al.; 2010; Junco & Cole-Avent, 2008) and/or as sources of information (Geser, 2006). Women, on the other hand, tend to see technology such as the cell-phone as a tool of communication as to maintain and nurture relationships.

Psychosocial Role of the Smartphone

Harkin (2003) explained the phenomenon of mobilization which draws deminals work of Brown, Green, and Harper (2001) along with Katz and Aakhus (2002), that explains the mobile technologies are capable of being incorporated with social lives and communications. Attachment to one’s cell phone can be a result of capacity to provide information, social interaction, and personal safety. Without the cell-phone, a person may be at risk of fear of missing out (FoMO), which is operationally defined as “the fears, worries, and anxieties people may have in relation to being out of touch with events, experiences, and conversations happening across their extended circles” (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013 p. 1482).

Another research done by Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever (2013) found that anxiety is associated with not being able to check in using various technologies such as Facebook and Instagram. In addition to Fomo, psychiatric researchers have coined a term to define the new disorder related to people’s dependence on mobile devices. They called this Nomophobia (a portmanteau for “no mobile phone” and phobia). This disorder reflects the pathological fear, discomfort, and anxiety that is related to being out of touch with technology (King et al., 2013) Based on these literatures, it seems quite likely that users may begin to experiences feelings of anxiety that can result from separations of their technology or concerns of missing out one’s social circles (i.e, FoMO).

Extended Self

In addition to Nomophobia and FoMO, one theoretical explanation as to why cell phone users may experience anxiety when separated from their device can also be the theory of Extended Self (Belk, 1988). This theory proposes that a person’s possession, whether knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, can become an extension of themselves. Belk (1988) illustrated his theory by referring to McClelland (1951), who suggests that external objects have been put into view as an arm or leg because we exercise power or control over them.

The point is that when we are able to exercise power or control over our possession, we come closely allied to that object. In addition, Clark (2008) discusses extension of self, termed “embodiment” and introduces the idea of “negotiable body” in which the brain incorporates elements into the body schema, treating these as a part of the subject’s body. Clark (2008) provides a scenario about a skilled carpenter and his hammer to explain this idea. In this example, Clark explains that the carpenter has mastered the use of the hammer and sees himself completing his taks with a hammer at hand. Thus, the body has incorporated the hammer into the body treating it as an extension to completing a task. The researchers then hypothesize that the cell phone is perceived to levels of the extended self.

Conclusion

Although Smartphones and cell-phones are useful tools, it is addictive. A sort of “pull-to-refresh” addictive which only leads to negative effects on the human body such as withdrawals symptoms of anxiety and fear. Part of the issue with “using” what we think is social media will give us a boost, but most of the time, it makes us feel worse. This is called a “forecast error” and it keeps pulling the consumer back leading to a negative effect on our mental health.

This cycle is eerie but true. It will be interesting to see how our interactions with phones change over time. Maybe it will be a pendulum effect, swinging back and forth from cell phones and social media, hopefully becoming less novel. But for millenials, it is a way of life–not just novelty. It may take bigger pushes to help see just how wrongly addictive phones can be and how it damages mental health.

Work Cited

1. Alavi, S. S., Ferdosi, M., Jannatifard, F., Eslami, M., Alaghemandan, H. & Setare, M. (2012). Behavioral addiction versus substance addiction: Correspondence of psychiatric and psychological views. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(4), 290–294
2. Belk, R. (1988). Possession and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168. doi: 10.1086/209154
3. Brown, B., Green, N., & Harper, R. (2002). Wireless world. Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age. London. Google Scholar
4. Chakraborty, K., Basu, D. & Kumar, K. G. V. (2010). Internet addiction: Consensus, controversies, and the way ahead. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 20, 123–132.
5. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
6. Geser, H. (2006). Are girls (even) more addicted? Some gender patterns of cell phone usage. Sociology in Switzerland: Sociology of the Mobile Phone. Retrieved date, from http://socio.ch/mobile/t_geser3.pdf
7. Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Facebook addiction: Concerns, criticism, and recommendations – A response to Andreassen and colleagues. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 518–520.
8. Harkin, J. (2003). Mobilisation: The growing public interest in mobile technology. London: Demos. Google Scholar
9. Junco, R. (2011). Students spend a lot of time Facebooking, searching, and texting. December 3, 2018
10. Junco, R. & Cole-Avent, G. A. (2008). An introduction to technologies commonly used by college students. New Directions for Student Services, 124(Winter), 3–17.
11. King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M. R., & Nardi, A. E. (2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.025
12. McAllister, S. (2011). Retrieved December 6, 2018 from www.hackcollege.com/blog/2011/18131/generation-mobile. Html.
13. McClelland, D. (1951). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Google Scholar
14. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
15. Roberts, J. A., & Pirog, S. F. (2013). A preliminary investigation of materialism and impulsiveness as predictors of technological addictions among young adults. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(1), 56–62. doi: 10.1556/JBA.1.2012.011
16. Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013a). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media‐induced task‐switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 948–958. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
17. Roberts, J. A. & Pirog, III, S. F. (2012). A preliminary investigation of materialism and impulsiveness as predictors of technological addictions among young adults. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(1), 56–62.