Smartphones Review 2016
Scope: Challenges and Limitations
Technology has made the 21st century a richer place. These advances have changed the ways we relate to the world. The scope of this paper is limited to a few emerging technologies. We also cannot attempt to address all psychological implications of each technology. Hartmann and colleagues (2014) have written extensively about the effects of video games and violent TV on children. This is just one example of many that are outside the scope of this review. The review also won’t look at the expanding body of research that has been done on the problem of using mobile phones, and how it can lead to addiction (Bianchi et. al. 2005, Billieux (2008), Kwon (2008), Lee (2013) et. al. (2014) ). The review will also not examine studies that examined the effects of radio frequency electromagnetic field radiation on human brain functioning and function ( Zubko and al., 2016). There is also a growing body of work exploring how technology-related habits may be affecting the development of individuals’ social competencies and emotion reading, and this is yet another topic that has been tackled elsewhere ( Brown, 2014 Misra et al., 2014 Uhls et al., 2014 George and Odgers, 2015 Mills, 2016 ) and to which we give little consideration.
The present review will be centered on the fact that smartphones represent a particularly important technological innovation due to their versatility, portability, increasing proliferation, and other features. We limit our scope to only work directly related to smartphone-related effects. 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). We then give brief consideration to some emerging work exploring links between smartphone habits, executive functioning, and 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 the area face numerous challenges while developing empirical approaches. These difficulties are evident in our review of existing literature. Because smartphones are so common, it’s almost impossible to apply true experimental methods and random assignments into different tech exposure/access groups. Although it is possible for technology-naive individuals to be found, comparisons with technology-experienced participants is not likely due to disparities between SES, age and resources. A lot of literature is based on correlational and quasi-experimental studies. It’s difficult to make causal inferences from this. This topic has only a few real experimental studies. They focus more on immediate effects of smartphones or their deprivation on cognition than on long-term consequences.
Mobil Technology and everyday cognitive function
Based on the findings regarding attention, memory, reward-related processing, in the context delay of gratification and ability to regulate reward, we can assume that links could be found to other generalized measures cognitive functioning. The relationship between technology use and academic performance has been explored in a number of ways. The majority of these studies support the conclusion: poor academic performance, as measured by GPA, can be predicted by high levels of smartphone use. Baumgartner et.al. (2014) required participants for a self-report questionnaire. They also had to perform computerized tasks which assessed their executive functions in the three subcategories of working memory (inhibition), shifting and shift. Based on their MMI scores, participants who were high-multitaskers also reported lower “executive functions in daily life”. This correlation was statistically significant in all three executive function subcategories. Although the self-report results were not supported by performance-based executive function measures, Cain and colleagues published recent work. These links are supported by evidence from Cain et al. (2016). They found that high media-multitasking in large numbers of teenagers was linked to lower results on the nback working memory task and a standard test for academic achievement in school. This body of research suggests that individual differences in vulnerability may be explained by the ability to exert executive control and keep goal-related representations in working memory.
It is possible that cognitive disruption caused by mobile technology might be linked to one’s ability to control their behavior and exercise self-regulation. 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. Lim and Dinges (2008) found that poor sleep quality can negatively impact cognitive performance. A lot of evidence also suggests that smartphones may cause sleep disturbances. A common observation before the advent of smartphones is that people who use electronic devices that have brightly lit screens right before going to bed such as computers or televisions, are less likely to fall asleep. These problems could be worsened by smartphone technology. Smartphone users often have their phones charged, and they are used frequently as alarm clocks. Recent research shows that this pattern has been adopted by more than 70% of Americans ( Trends and Consumer Mobility Report, 2015). It has also been suggested that certain activities (e.g., social interaction or gaming) that are performed via the smartphone may cause psychological stimulation. In turn, this could disrupt sleep. While most research in this area has been done with adolescents and children, it is now clear that the effect can be found in older people ( Exelmans, Van den Bulck and others, 2016 ). Future research will investigate the relationship between smartphone use before bedtime and cognitive ability. Furthermore, future research might attempt to identify if particular smartphone activities (e.g., gaming, passive or active social media use) are especially deleterious to sleep quality, and how notification settings may impact sleep disruption, and also consider how sleep-tracking apps (e.g., the recently introduced “Bedtime” feature on the i. Phone operating system) might improve quantity or consistency of sleep.
These experiments provide evidence that our digital life can have a psychological hold 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. Furthermore, there are no implications for cognitive functioning. A link between anxiety/cognition was found only through a wordsearch puzzle. It is a somewhat unique task relative to other tasks in cognitive research. This design does not permit for the determination of whether word search performance was affected by participants’ absence or by distractions such as the ringing of their 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. The technology behind the smartphone is in continuous development and is therefore understandable. With each year that passes, however, smartphones are more and more ubiquitous in our daily lives. Rather than applying to only a niche group of individuals, the research conducted in this domain will soon be relevant to the majority of the world’s population ( e. Marketer, 2014 ). So it’s important to learn how the smartphone technology impacts us, so we can mitigate any potential negative effects.
Although the research concerning the potential cognitive impacts of smartphone technology is growing, the results remain contradictory and inconclusive. The at times contradictory findings suggest that not all smartphone use is created equal; certain apps, approaches to multitasking, or notification settings may moderate the relation between overall smartphone use and various cognitive skills. Media headlines reinforce the belief that, despite the lack of conclusive evidence in the literature and the negative effects smartphones can have on cognitive function. There is a common perception that smartphones are hindering our creativity, reducing our brains’ downtime ( Richtel (2010) ). In fact, a radio challenge was launched in which thousands participated in reducing their smartphone use to help increase creativity ( Zomorodi (2015) The challenge was prompted by a fundamental concern, but there’s no evidence to back it up. Perhaps another worthwhile endeavor is to examine the cognitive benefits of filling our small breaks with inputs via smartphone engagement. However, this research isn’t yet supported 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. You should now begin collecting the data necessary for these types of studies. It is particularly crucial to collect longitudinal data on the effects of smartphone ownership and its impact on children young. Although widely reported recommendations have been made by AAP Council on Communications and Media (2016a b), little is known about when a child should begin to use a smartphone and what the implications are of doing so too soon. A longitudinal study with a large sample size should be developed in which children are assessed on a variety of cognitive (and affective) outcome measures at multiple time points. In a study such as this, data could also be gathered to ascertain the degree to which children with smartphones or other portable sources of immediate gratification, such as portable video game systems, are influenced by these devices. 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. Though it has not been proven, it is possible to find that smartphones are less dangerous for adults while children might experience greater negative effects due to their neural plasticity.
We need to look at practical ways that we can mitigate the negative effects of smartphone use if emerging research suggests otherwise. The majority of literature does not address specific smartphone use. Future research will need to distinguish between different types of smartphone usage that could have differing effects. Although it is possible that texting, email and other social activities will have different outcomes than gaming or surfing the internet, little is known about their specific impacts.
As smartphones have worked their way into the pockets of over 70% of American adults, and nearly 50% of adults worldwide, there is also a great opportunity to use them as a tool for research ( Poushter, 2016 ). Researchers have suggested that smartphones may be a better and more efficient way to collect empirical data in cognitive and sociology experiments. As smartphones are increasingly linked to our cognitive function, it is important that we continue collecting detailed usage metrics in order to better understand the impact of these interactions on us and how they shape our lives.
It is possible to imagine endless “next steps” based on the research presented in this paper. The potential for further research with psychologists, as well the rest of the public to gain a deeper understanding of both the short and long-term outcomes of smartphone technology is immense.
App Retention Rates
A low percentage of users abandon smartphone apps after one use is typical. Apps are abandoned by 25% of the users after only one use (Rodde). The app retention rate for both Android smartphones and Apple phones was only 4% after just 90 days in 2016, according to Statistica 2019b. The wildly successful Pokemon Go app lost 80% in just a few months. Score 2017a Similarly, reports for health apps, including mental health related, show limited downloads and poor retention, especially outside of clinical trials and research settings. National surveys conducted in Germany showed that 20% of smartphone owners aged 35+ used a healthcare app, and 16.5% used it (Ernsting et.al.
). 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 ). Another study using national data found that health app users were healthier, younger and better off than those who did not use them (Carroll et. al.
), and a heath app was downloaded by 12% of those with depression (Robbins et al.
It is. Study of mentally ill patients revealed that 10.7% downloaded a mental-health app at a VA facility. (Lipschiz et al.
). Around 10% of patients, both in a clinic that is state-run and in private insurance facilities used a mental health application (Torous et al.
These are the results. An analysis of 8-40,000 monthly downloads and registrations for digital self-help programs or apps for anxiety and depression revealed that 21-88% used the app at least once and that 0.5-28.6% continued to use it after six weeks (Fleming and al.
. Only 18.7% of a US Hispanic/Latino community enrolled in a depression clinical study downloaded the treatment application (Pratap et al.
Which Smartphone Is the Most Popular in 2016?
Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Rs 50,900 Samsung’s flagship smartphone for the year 2016, Galaxy S7 edge, was launched at the sidelines of MWC 2016. Galaxy S7 Edge boasts a dual-curved display screen and a new UI to complement its hardware. Nov 2, 2020
What were the top-rated phones in 2016?
- Samsung Galaxy S7/S7 Edge. There is no surprise in my choice of the top 2016 picks.
- HTC 10.
- Apple iPhone 6s Plus/6s.
- Samsung Galaxy Note 5.
- LG V10.
- LG G5.
- Google’s Huawei Nexus 6P.
- Nextbit Robin.
Which Phone was Popular in 2016?
iPhone 7 Plus / iPhone 7 Plus Samsung Galaxy S7, S7 edge. Google Pixel / Google Pixel XL.Nov 28, 2016
Which Smartphone Was Sold Most in 2016
IHS Markit’s iPhone 7 tops Q4, and the iPhone 6s has been named as IHS Markit’s Best-Selling Smartphone for 2016. iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 7 Plus were the top-selling smartphones in the fourth quarter of 2016, while IHS Markit named iPhone 6s the most-sold smartphone overall for 2016. Mar 24, 2017
.Smartphones Review 2016