Popular Press Comparison

Daniela Clarke

Brock University

PSYC 3P30

Cameron Muir

November 22, 2017

 Abstract

When considering the popular press article by Graff (2017) he suggested that young

people form some sort of attachment to their mobile phones. This is correlated to the results

presented in the journal article by Konok et al. (2016) who also concluded that adolescents form

attachments to their phones which can be influenced by their attachment style, whether anxious

or avoidant. Given this, there were some existing limitations that may have allowed the results to

be skewed in the researchers favor. These include the generalizability of the study, the individual

differences, and phones being a generational norm. This can be solved by the study broadening

their sample group, both in size and diversity, while controlling for external factors.
 Introduction

In Psychology Today, a press article was presented by Martin Graff (2017) where he

discussed “Why You Can’t Be Without Your Phone”. He derives the need for people to

constantly be in reach of their phones to the term nomophobia, which is described as one’s fear

of being parted from their phone, which is experienced by 60% of mobile phone users (Graff,

2017). This can be driven by certain attachment tendencies that humans have from birth,

described by John Bowlby. Additional factors that result in one becoming more dependent on

their phone are relationship-facilitating function and human attachment substitute. A

relationship-facilitating function is based on the attachments that are primary in one’s life, such

as family and friends, that can be directly contacted through a mobile device. In addition, there is

also the human attachment substitute where there are benefits that a phone provides as an object

of attachment through its personalized features such as ringtones, personal information, photo

storage etc (Graff, 2017). One of the main aspects that was explored within the confounds of

mobile attachment was how one’s attachment style, anxious or avoidant, influenced one’s

general attachment to their phones and what specific phone features were primarily important to

those different attachment styles. Overall, the article claims that the study found that young

people have some kind of attachment to their phones (Graff, 2017). Based on further

investigation, the press article accurately represents the information outlined in the original

journal article. However, there are some limitations present that may cause the concluded data to

not be generalizable while also not taking into consideration individual differences and phone

usage being a generational norm.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

 In the original journal article presented by Konok, Gigler, Bereczky, and Miklosi (2016),

their main focus is to convey that attachment is not only towards people but also non-human and

inanimate objects. The different attachment styles that one may have can impact these object

attachments. This study predominantly stems from previous research done by John Bowlby

(1969) where he suggests that at birth, humans are motivated to keep a certain degree of

attachment and proximity to others. This actively encourages children’s attachment security,

resulting in the development of secondary attachment strategies such as phones, toys and food,

when primary attachment figures are not dependable. These strategies, which can continue into

adulthood, include attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. Attachment avoidance is

distancing oneself from others and abstaining from intimacy, while attachment anxiety is

actively seeking closeness as well as being hyper-aware of possible abandonment. Furthermore,

Billieux (2012) also conducted a literature review where they concluded that attachment anxiety

can contribute to excessive mobile phone use. Another article mentioned in the original study

was conducted by Vincent (2006) where they made the claim that one’s investment in their

phone leads to a broader sense of attachment, such as unique background pictures. The main

suggestion Vincent (2006) makes is that a phone does not only boost one’s social life but also

represents it. Konok et al. (2016) takes all the previous research presented and used that to create

a study that looks at individuals cell phone use in relation to their specific attachment styles. In

the article, they hypothesize that those with higher attachment anxiety will have higher

proximity- seeking and separation stress in association with their mobile phone, have more of a

need to constantly be in contact with people through their phones thus resulting in them using

their phones more than others. They also hypothesize that women use their phones more heavily
than men, causing them to have higher proximity-seeking and separation stress regarding their

mobile phone.

Methods

Konok et al. (2016) used 142 Hungarian people, where 48 were males and 94 were

females, between the ages of 19 and 25. They picked this specific age group because they were

the first generation of adults that grew up with access to cell phones. The participants were

recruited through Facebook, where they started by answering demographic questions including

their gender and whether their phone was a smartphone or a traditional phone. Following this,

the respondents had to fill out three scales: the mobile usage scale, the mobile attachment scale,

and the adult attachment scale. In the mobile usage scale the participants had to rate, on a five

point Likert scale, how often particular task are done on their phone including calling, texting,

multimedia messaging service, internet browsing, social networking sites, chatting, and playing

games. Another scale that had to be completed was the mobile attachment scale, where those

involved in the study had to evaluate ten statements, according to how much they related to

them. Finally, the last scale the participants had to undertake was the adult attachment scale,

where they had to rate 18 items based on whether it described them or not. These items were

separated into three subsections: closeness, dependence and anxiety. These, questionnaires were

filled out online.

Results and Conclusion

Overall, Konok et al. (2016) found that youth form some attachments to their phones and

experience distress in it’s absence. This partially supports the researcher’s hypothesis showing

people with higher attachment anxiety have higher attachment to their phones, as expressed by
the higher total mobile attachment scale score. It was also shown that those with an anxious

attachment style viewed the relationship-facilitation function as the most important part of the

phone more than the other participants. On the contrary, participants with higher attachment

anxiety were not correlated to having increased proximity seeking of their phones, hence

attachment anxiety did not increase one’s attachment to their phone, differing from the

researcher’s predictions. They also found that there were gender differences in terms of phone

usage. Women were found to use their phones more for communicating through texting and

calling and social media, while also being more dependent on them thus forming easier

attachments than men. In contrast, men use their phones more for information seeking purposes

and playing games. All in all, Konok et al. (2016) concluded that the reasoning for the process of

attachment is based on the cultural co-option that takes place in terms of newly evolving

inanimate objects, such as mobile phones. In addition, those with anxious attachment styles may

be at a greater risk because of their amplified dependence on others through the constant contact

and reassurance that communication through a phone provides.

Comparison

All things considered, when relating the information presented in the press article by

Graff (2017) and the original journal article by Konok et al. (2016), the former replicates the

latter in an accurate manner. The digital paper by Graff (2017) was an authentic replication of

the information given in the journal article and presents all necessary data. However, given the

authentic nature of the journal article, there are some limitations present that can allow the digital

paper to be seen as exaggerating their claims. These limitations include the study not being

generalizable, in addition of to not bearing in mind individual circumstances and the generational

norm of using a mobile phone. All the participants involved came from Hungary which made
them demographically restricted, especially since a small sample sized was used. They also only

recruited people between the ages of 19-25. These all cause the results to not pertain to everyone

on a global scale across all ages and cultures based on the bias participation pool and small

sample size. Based on certain situations in a person’s life, they may need their phone more then

others. This does mean that they are necessarily attached to their mobile devices but rely on it for

other reasons. For example, a parent could rely on their phone to ensure their children’s safety

when not in close proximity. It also has become a norm within society, especially for the

millennial generation, to have the latest phone and never leave the house without it, not because

of attachment but based on everyone else doing it. They could have fixed these restraining

factors by having a more culturally diverse and larger sample while also trying to control for

certain external variables. Overall, Graff (2017) did an appropriate job of portraying the material

provided in the original journal article and does not make any outrageous claims that are

incorrect or harmful to one’s life.

 References

Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic Use of the Mobile Phone: A Literature Review and a

Pathways Model. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8(4), 299.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss, 1.

Graff, M. (2017). Why You Can't Be Without Your Phone.

Konok, V., Gigler, D., Bereczky, B. M., & Miklosi, A. (2016). Humans' attachment to their

mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style. Computers in

Human Behaviour, 61, 537-547.

Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology & Policy,

19 (1), 39-44.