Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Digital akrasia: a qualitative study of phubbing

Abstract

The present article focuses on the issue of ignoring conversational partners in favor of one’s phone, or what has also become known as phubbing. Prior research has shown that this behavior is associated with a host of negative interpersonal consequences. Since phubbing by definition entails adverse effects, however, it is interesting to explore why people continue to engage in this hurtful behavior: Are they unaware that phubbing is hurtful to others? Or do they simply not care? Building on interviews with students in a Danish business college, the article reveals a pronounced discrepancy in young people’s relationship to phubbing: While they emphatically denounce phubbing as both annoying and disrespectful, they readily admit to phubbing others. In other words, they often act against their own moral convictions. Importantly, participants describe this discrepancy as a result of an unintentional inclination to divert attentional engagement. On the basis of these results, the article develops the notion of digital akrasia, which can be defined as a tendency to become swept up by ones digital devices in spite of better intentions. It is proposed that this phenomenon may be the result of bad technohabits. Further implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although perhaps less evidently, other concepts in the field of phubbing research have similarly negative desirability characterizations in that these concepts explicitly refer to illicit disturbances of ongoing social interactions. Technoference, for instance, is a portmanteau of technology and interference (McDaniel and Coyne 2016b), while parallel communication refers to “the phenomenon of mobile mediated communication with absent people that interrupts ongoing face-to-face conversations with physically present interaction partners” (Keidinger-Müller, 2017:328, emphasis added).

  2. 2.

    Interestingly, empirical research on habit-breaking currently favors the reflective strategy of thinking, “Don’t do it” and being mindful of slipups (Quinn et al. 2010). This result, however, may be an artifact of the study’s construction as a diary study in which participants were instructed to make reports “when they recognized the need for self-control” (p. 501). Participants were thus asked to report the strategies they employed after they became aware that they wished to refrain from performing certain behaviors.

References

  1. Aagaard J (2015) Drawn to distraction: a qualitative study of off-task use of educational technology. Comput Educ 87:90–97

  2. Aagaard J (2016) Mobile devices, interaction, and distraction: a qualitative exploration of absent presence. AI Soc 31(2):223–231

  3. Anderson M, Jiang J (2018) Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  4. Baumer E, Guha S, Quan E, Mimno D, Gay G (2015) Missing photos, suffering withdrawal, or finding freedom? How experiences of social media non-use influence the likelihood of reversion. Soc Media Soc 1(2):1–14

  5. Billieux J, Schimmeti A, Khazaal Y, Maurage P, Heeren A (2015) Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. J Behav Addict 4(3):119–123

  6. Boesel W (2013) Rudeness as resistance: presence, power, and those Facebook Home Ads. Cyborgology. http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/04/25/rudeness-as-resistance-presence-power-and-those-facebook-home-ads/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  7. Brinkmann S, Kvale S (2015) InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

  8. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas K (2016) How “Phubbing” becomes the norm: the antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Comput Hum Behav 63:9–18

  9. Chotpitayasunondh V, Douglas K (2018) The Effects of “Phubbing” on Social Interaction. J Appl Soc Psychol 48(6):304–316

  10. Crossley N (2013) Habit and Habitus. Body Soc 19(2&3):136–161

  11. Dewey J (2007) Human nature and conduct: an introduction to social psychology. Cosimo Classics, New York

  12. Dotson T (2012) Technology, choice and the good life: questioning technological liberalism. AI Soc 34(4):326–336

  13. Gergen K (2002) The challenge of absent presence. In: Katz J, Aakhus M (eds) Perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  14. Goldberg G (2016) Antisocial media: digital dystopianism as a normative project. New Media Soc 18(5):784–799

  15. Hammersley M, Gomm R (2008) Assessing the radical critique of interviews. In: Hammersley M (ed) Questioning qualitative inquiry: critical essays. Sage Publications, London

  16. Jiang J (2018) How teens and parents navigate screen time and device distractions. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/08/22/how-teens-and-parents-navigate-screen-time-and-device-distractions/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  17. Karadağ E, Tosuntas Ş, Erzen E, Duru P, Bostan N, Şahin B, Çulha I, Baradağ B (2015) Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a structural equation model. J Behav Addict 4(2):60–74

  18. Kneidinger-Müller B (2017) Mobile communication as invader in face-to-face interactions: an analysis of predictors for parallel communication habits. Comput Hum Behav 73:328–335

  19. Lenhart A (2015) Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  20. Lenhart A, Duggan M (2014) Couples, the internet, and social media. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  21. McDaniel B, Coyne S (2016a) “Technoference”: the interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol Popul Media Cult 5(1):85–98

  22. McDaniel B, Coyne S (2016b) Technology interference in the parenting of young children: implications for mothers’ perceptions of coparenting. Soc Sci J 53(4):435–443

  23. McDaniel B, Radesky J (2018) Technoference: parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Dev 89(1):100–109

  24. McDaniel B, Galovan A, Cravens J, Drouin M (2018) “Technoference” and implications for mothers’ and fathers’ couple and coparenting relationship quality. Comput Hum Behav 80:303–313

  25. Mele A (2012) Backsliding: understanding weakness of will. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  26. Miller J, Glassner B (2004) The ‘inside’ and the ‘outside’: finding realities in interviews. In: Silverman D (ed) Qualitative research: theory, method and practice, 2nd edn. Sage, London

  27. Oulasvirta A, Rattenbury T, Ma L, Raita E (2012) Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(1):105–114

  28. Phubbing: A Word is Born (2013) Phubbing: A Word is Born [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBCYpAl6jpk. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  29. Potter J, Hepburn A (2005) Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qual Res Psychol 2(4):281–307

  30. Quinn J, Pascoe A, Wood W, Neal D (2010) Can’t control yourself? monitor those bad habits. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36(4):499–511

  31. Rainie L, Zickuhr K (2015) Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette/. Accessed 14 Jan 2019

  32. Roberts J, David M (2016) My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among partners. Comput Hum Behav 54:134–141

  33. Roberts J, David M (2017) Put down your phone and listen to me: how boss phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement. Comput Hum Behav 75:206–217

  34. Romaioli D, Faccio E, Salvini A (2008) On acting against one’s best judgment: a social constructionist interpretation for the akrasia problem. J Theory Soc Behav 38(2):179–192

  35. Rosenberger R (2014) The phenomenological case for stricter regulation of cell phones and driving. Techné 18(1/2):20–47

  36. Stockdale L, Coyne S, Padilla-Walker L (2018) Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: a nationally representative study of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Comput Hum Behav 88:219–226

  37. Taylor C (1980) Understanding in human science. Rev Metaphys 34(1):25–38

  38. Vallor S (2016) Technology and the virtues: a philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  39. Vanden Abeele M, Antheunis M, Schouten A (2016) The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Comput Hum Behav 62:562–569

  40. Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jesper Aagaard.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aagaard, J. Digital akrasia: a qualitative study of phubbing. AI & Soc 35, 237–244 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Distraction
  • Habits
  • Phubbing
  • Smartphones