Technology has made the 21st century a richer place. These advances have changed the ways we relate to the world. In this paper we could not hope to investigate every type of emerging technology, nor would we endeavor to review every psychological implication of the technologies in question. Hartmann, et. al. (2014) has written extensively on the negative effects of violence and video gaming on children. However, this topic is not included in the current review. Also, the review will not explore research that examines problematic mobile phone usage and addiction-like symptoms (Bianchi, Phillips, 2005 Billieux, 2008 Kwon and al., 2013, Lee et.al., 2014). Nor will it consider studies exploring the possible effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields emitted from cellular devices on the human brain and its functioning ( Zubko et al., 2016 ). It is becoming increasingly clear that technology-related practices may have an impact on the ability to read emotions and develop social competences. We are not aware of any such work ( Brown, 2014 Misra, Uhls et. al. 2014 George, Odgers 2015 Mills 2016 ).

In order to give this review some context, we start by stating that smartphones are an important technological development because of their mobility, portability, proliferation and impact. Accordingly, we limit the scope of our examination to work that is directly relevant to smartphone-related impacts. We also avoid focusing on smartphone-related “problem behavior” (Bianchi, Phillips, 2005 Hadlington 2015). Instead, we focus our attention on the effects of everyday smartphone usage. Finally, while a wide array of mental functions might be influenced by smartphone habits, we home in on the impacts in the three domains that are most widely discussed in the lay media and that have garnered some consideration in empirical work: attention, memory, and delay of gratification (reward processing). Next, we will briefly discuss some new research exploring the links between smartphone habits and executive functioning as well as academic performance.

The following table summarizes some representative research on the link between cognitive functioning and smartphone habits (and other related behaviors): Researchers interested in this field of research face many challenges when trying to develop an empirical approach. This is why we have attempted to summarize the existing literature. Since smartphones are almost ubiquitous, it becomes nearly impossible to implement true experimental techniques with random assignment into different exposure/access group. It is difficult to find tech-naive people, so comparing them to more experienced users of technology is unlikely to work. This is due to differences in social expectations, SES, resources and age among different groups. As a result, much of the literature consists of quasi-experimental and correlational studies, from which strong inferences regarding causality cannot be drawn. Most studies of this topic that are truly experimental focus only on momentary effects of deprivation and smartphone usage on cognition.

The pattern in cognitive function, including attention and memory, suggests that there might be links between these findings and more generalized measures. The relationship between technology use and academic performance has been explored in a number of ways. Studies on this front generally support the conclusion that poor academic performance (generally assessed by GPA) can be predicted by higher levels of smartphone use ( Beland and Murphy, 2014 Lepp et al., 2014 ), instant messaging ( Levine et al., 2007 Fox et al., 2009 ), social networking ( Kirschner and Karpinski, 2010 Junco, 2012b Karpinski et al., 2012 Paul et al., 2012 ), media multitasking ( Junco, 2012a Rosen et al., 2013 Sana et al., 2013 ), and general electronic media usage ( Jacobsen and Forste, 2011 Junco and Cotten, 2012 Researchers have also directly investigated the relationship between mobile technology/media multitasking habits and executive functions that are thought to be essential to academic performance ( Abramson et al., 2009 Alloway and Alloway, 2012 Alzahabi and Becker, 2013 Lepp et al., 2014 Barr et al., 2015 ). In one relevant study ( Baumgartner et al., 2014 ), participants were required to complete a self-report questionnaire and computerized tasks that assessed executive functions in three subcategories: working memory, inhibition, and shifting. Participants who reported being high multitaskers, based on MMI score, also self-reported lower levels of “executive function in everyday life” on the questionnaire. The correlation was significant for all three subcategories of the executive functioning questionnaire. The results of self-reporting were inconsistent with any performance-based measure of executive functioning, but Cain et. al. recently published research. These links are supported by evidence from Cain et al. (2016). This study found that a larger sample of adolescents was more likely to multitask than usual and had lower executive functions scores, such as the n back working memory task. It also showed lower grades on an academic achievement test in the classroom. All of the research shows that individuals may differ in their vulnerability to mobile device usage.

Some evidence suggests that cognitive disruption and its impact on academic performance may be related to an individual’s cognitive skills, including their ability to exercise self-regulation over behaviour. Research indicates, for instance, that how closely an individual monitors and plans for interruptions, via executive control, mediates the relationship between multimedia interruptions and resultant stress ( Tams et al., 2015 ), and that differences in working memory capacity (which is closely linked to executive functioning) is a predictor of the speed of task resumption following an interruption ( Werner et al., 2011 As a further point, it should be acknowledged that some of the cognitive and affective consequences of smartphone/technology habits may come from indirect impacts, such as through influences on sleep and mood. Research has shown that quality of sleep can have serious consequences on cognitive performance ( Lim & Dinges 2008). There is also substantial evidence to suggest that smartphone technology may be a cause of sleep disturbances ( Cain et al. 2010 for a review) and a cumulative effect on cognitive functioning as well as work engagement ( Lanaj, et al. 2014). An observation that predates the emergence of smartphone technology is that using electronic devices with a brightly lit screen immediately before bed, such as a television or a computer, can negatively impact one’s ability to fall asleep. Because smartphones are often kept charged and used as alarm clocks, this could make it worse. Recent research shows that this pattern has been adopted by more than 70% of Americans ( Trends and Consumer Mobility Report, 2015). Furthermore, as well as the brightness, certain activities via smartphones, like social interactions or games, can trigger psychological arousal. These stimulations could also disrupt your sleep cycle ( Cain & Gradisar 2010). Though most studies in this domain have had child and adolescent participants, recent research has affirmed that this effect can be seen in older adults as well ( Exelmans and Van den Bulck, 2016 ). Future research should investigate a direct relationship between habitual smartphone usage before bedtime and cognitive abilities. Future research could also examine if certain smartphone activities, such as gaming or passive social media usage, are particularly detrimental to sleep quality. Notification settings can be used to impact this disruption. Finally, it might look at how apps that track sleep (e.g. the newly introduced “Bedtime”) feature on the iPhone i. A phone operating system), might help improve quality and consistency of sleep.

Data from such experiments provides proof of the psychological influence that digital media can exert on us. However, the data from such experiments does not indicate whether anxiety results from being separated from your smartphone or whether it might be the case for those who are also separated from something of subjective value like a wallet, or a cherished personal item. The potential consequences for cognitive function are also limited because a word search puzzle was used to establish a link between anxiety & cognition. This task is more specialized than those that are commonly found in cognitive research. Also, it is impossible to tell if word search performance suffered due to distractions like the ringer or the lack of phones.

Although smartphones and related mobile technology have the potential of affecting a broad range of cognitive domains it is not clear if empirical evidence has been done on their cognitive effects. Given that technology is constantly changing and still in its early stages, this is quite understandable. Smartphones are becoming more ubiquitous in everyday life with every passing year. Instead of being limited to certain individuals, research done in this field will be applicable to most people (e.g., Marketer, 2014). Understanding how smartphones affect us is essential to avoid any negative outcomes.

Although there is more research being done on cognitive implications of smartphone technology, it remains contradictory. These contradictory results suggest that not all smartphones are created equally. Certain apps, multitasking approaches, and notification settings could influence the relationship between smartphone usage overall and cognitive abilities. Although the research is not conclusive in nature, headlines on media outlets encourage the public to believe that these findings have an impact on cognitive functioning. A common view, that smartphones are stifling our creativity by depriving our brains of downtime ( Richtel, 2010a ), even led to a radio challenge, in which thousands of people reduced their smartphone usage in an attempt to increase their creativity ( Zomorodi, 2015 ). The challenge was prompted by a fundamental concern, but there’s no evidence to back it up. Investigating the cognitive impacts of filling the small breaks in our day with inputs from smartphone engagement is perhaps another endeavor worth pursuing, but not one that is yet represented in the peer reviewed literature.

We have already discussed the limitations of the literature used to create this paper. There is little longitudinal evidence to support the long-term negative effects of regular smartphone usage. The time is right to gather the data needed for such studies. The impact of smartphone ownership on children under five years old is a crucial topic. We don’t know enough about how young children should start using smartphones, despite widely shared recommendations by the AAP Council on Communications and Media (2016). The development of a longitudinal study with large numbers should allow children to be evaluated on various cognitive (and affective!) outcome measures over multiple points. A study like this could allow data collection to examine the impact of mobile devices and portable sources on immediate pleasure, such as smartphones, on children. An analysis of differences between groups in the maturity of cognitive processes might also be used to determine how smartphone technology affects brain development during periods of higher developmental plasticity. There is a possibility that children’s increased neural plasticity could make frequent smartphone usage less detrimental than it might be for adults.

There are likely to be serious side effects from smartphone usage. This research should prompt us to explore practical options that might mitigate them. Finally, most of the literature is limited to “smartphone use.” Future research needs to identify specific forms of smartphone usage which may have different effects. While it appears that certain social activities like email, text messaging, and social media usage will have different impact than gaming or browsing, not much is known about the concerns surrounding these disparate use patterns.

With smartphones now being in the pockets of more than 70% of American adults (and nearly 50% globally), there’s great potential to use them as research tools. Poushter (2016) Smartphones could be an easier and more naturalistic way for scientists to gather empirical data. Additionally, smartphone usage will continue to be closely monitored to determine how it affects our cognitive functioning and shape our lives.

It is possible to imagine endless “next steps” based on the research presented in this paper. With the goal of providing psychologists with a greater understanding of the short-term as well long-term consequences of smartphone technology, there is a lot of research that can be done.

Smartphone apps have a low user retention rate in general. The app retention rate for smartphone apps is low at 25% (Rodde). In 2016, the global app retention rate after 90 days of use was just 4.4% for Android as well Apple smartphones (Statistica 2019,b ). The wildly successful Pokemon Go app lost 80% in just a few months. Score 2017a In a similar vein, data on apps for mental and physical health shows low downloads as well as poor retention. This is especially true if the app is not used in clinical trials or other research contexts. In national surveys in Germany, 20.5% of adult smartphone users 35 years or older, and 16.5% older adults used a health app (Ernsting et al.

It is. In a national survey of smartphone users in the US, 58% had downloaded a health app but about half had stopped using it (Krebs and Duncan ). According to Carroll and colleagues, health app users are healthier, more educated, and have better health in general (Carroll et.al.

The app can be downloaded for free by about 12% of people with depression (Robbins and al.

It is. A mental health app was used by 10.7% of VA patients who had mental illnesses (Lipschiz et al.

This is a good idea. About 10% of patients both at a state clinic and at a private insurance clinic were using a mental health app (Torous et al.

). Review of apps and programs that can be used to help depression or anxiety. There were 8 – 40,000 registrations per month. 21-88% reported using the app at minimum once. 0.5-28.6% continued for 6 weeks. (Fleming.

. A depression clinical trial was completed by 18.7% only of the US Hispanic/Latino populations.