By Ella Quijada
It is widely recognized that smartphone use can be compulsive and problematic. Humans are consumed by the allusion of connection. The reward pathway in our brain chases notifications, the bright blue lights, and endless scrolling. Our biology trades reason for mere seconds of dopamine. Many refer to this smartphone dependence an addiction. Excessive use of smartphones shares similarities with other recognized impulse disorders and behavioral addictions as recognised by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (Chen & Ting, 2020). Defined symptomatology of smartphone addiction includes forms of physical, psychological, and social harm. Problematic characteristics of excessive smartphone use compare to the criteria for gambling disorder and substance abuse in the DSM-5 such as: “Tolerance/increased in frequency, duration, and quality in order to attain the same level of satisfaction; Preoccupied/obsessive thoughts; Dangerous use/continue behavior despite the negative impact; Difficulty in controlling; Impact negatively on functioning in occupational, social, and daily life; Withdrawal” (APA, 2013). Using a questionnaire consisting of psychological-social and technological dimensions relating to these criteria, 48% of 416 sampled university students were identified to be smartphone addicts (Aljomaa, Al.Qudah, Albursan, Bakhiet, & Abduljabbar, 2016).
People around the globe, specifically young adults, are not ignorant of these statistics. A growing number of Gen Z-ers are taking this concern into their own hands in what The New Yorker identifies as a “dumbphone boom” (Chayka, 2024). Whether or not abandoning a smartphone is a genuine trend, there is no question that a less advanced phone would decrease time spent online. The author of the New York Times best-selling books Chasing The Scream, Lost Connections, and Stolen Focus, explained that “The opposite of addiction isn’t sobriety – it’s connection” (Hari, 2018). Therefore, in pursuit of real connection, smartphone users should consider transitioning to a flip phone to nurture their social, psychological, and physical safety.
While most people who use technology agree that cell phone dependence has negative consequences, many would not consider the flip phone as a practical solution. Critics have argued that smartphones are essential for staying connected and accessing information. A survey from 500 respondents from two different universities reveals that students perceive smartphones to have a “positive influence on their communication pattern” (Adelabu, Esiri & Sanusi, 2015). This is largely valid in terms of long distance communication and convenience. However, smartphones do not offer any essential communication that flip phones cannot accomplish. On the contrary, research has shown many downsides to the compulsive connectivity of smartphones.
The addictive nature of smartphones often leads to safety hazards, unproductive tendencies, and decreased intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Intrapersonal skills involve the management of one’s own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Interpersonal skills enable collaborative and empathetic interactions with others. Competencies from both intrapersonal and interpersonal realms are critical to authentic connection and overall-well being. However, technology has the potential to hinder this emotional intelligence and communication. A quantitative correlational survey revealed that “the significant value of interpersonal skill (p= .73) and cell phone addiction is (p = .19)” (Niaz & Qasim, 2022). This demonstrates an inverse relationship between cell phone addiction and interpersonal skills. Nonverbal decoding skills were further measured using self reported data measured from the Emotional Sensitivity subscale along with objective measures from standardized tests such as the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-Adult Faces and the Workplace Interpersonal Perception Skill (Blanch-Hartigan, Correale, Ruben, & Stosic, 2020). The findings categorized two types of participants, active and passive technology users. Active users who posted content and frequented digital applications performed significantly worse on objective measures of nonverbal decoding skill (Blanch-Hartigan, Correale, Ruben, & Stosic, 2020). In contrast, flip phones embody passive technology that protects both digital and physical interpersonal communication.
The lack of both intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are also correlated to mood, anxiety and attention disorders. Experimental studies have revealed that “emotions happen within a social context and are partly regulated through other people” (Hofmann, 2015). Excessive screen time averts this interaction and in term coincides with psychological disorders like “social anxiety, depression, impulsivity, and loneliness, as well as attention deficit problems” (Ting & Chen, 223). Problematic smartphone use also fosters body image dissatisfaction and negative influence on productivity and quality of life (Lee, Lee & Suh, 2016; Wright, 2021). There are biological explanations for why screen time diminishes productivity. Smartphone use results in neurological changes by increasing levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the brain, which decreases an individual’s attention and control (Sigman, 2017).
This attention and control deficit, as well as impulsive smartphone activity, poses safety threats, specifically on the road. Using a flip phone minimizes distractions, such as impulsive texting and browsing, and therefore reduces the risk of driving accidents. Multiple studies have found that the traditional tactical button interface of a flip phone encourages intentionality. This interface has advantages “in a driving context in terms of lower visual demand due to the existence of enhanced tactile discrimination of key location and textual cues that are present on and between keys” (Donmez, Mehler, & Reimer, 2014). Texting and driving and mindless scrolling is of course less convenient on a flip phone.
There are many solutions to subsidizing digital addictions and protecting one’s psychological and physical safety. Digital critics suggest blocking certain apps, restricting screen time, or even discarding the mobile phone all together. After failing at the above attempts, transitioning to a flip phone is what worked for me. It is minimalistic, cost effective, and still supports the basic pillars of digital communication. As the New York Times author professed when ditching his $1,300 iPhone 15 for a $108 Orbic Journey, “the more boring, the better”, (Hill, 2024).
Adelabu, O., Esiri, M. & Sanusi, O. (2015). Smartphones and communication patterns among students in higher institutions. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics and Management Studies, 4(1), 56–63. https://platform.almanhal.com/Files/Articles/70117
Aljomaa, S. S., Al.Qudah, M. F., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Pub.
Blanch-Hartigan, D., Correale, J., Ruben, M. A., Stosic, M. D. (2021). Is technology enhancing or hindering interpersonal communication? A framework and preliminary results to examine the relationship between technology use and nonverbal decoding skill. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.611670
Chayka, K. (2024). The dumbphone boom is real. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-dumbphone-boom-is-real
Chen, Y. Y., Ting C. H., 2020. Practical resources for the mental health professional. Adolescent Addiction, 2(8), 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818626-8.00008-6.
Donmez, B., Mehler, B. & Reimer, B., 2014. A study of young adults examining phone dialing while driving using a touchscreen vs. a button style flip-phone. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 23, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.12.017.
Hari, J. (2016). The opposite of addiction isn’t sobriety – it’s connection. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/12/johann-hari-chasing-the-scream-war-on-drugs
Hill, K. (2024). I was addicted to my smartphone, so I switched to a flip phone for a month. International New York Times. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A778627865/AONE?u=anon~412c637b&sid=googleScholar&xid=5927539c.
Hofmann, S. G. (2014). Interpersonal emotion regulation model of mood and anxiety disorders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38(5), 483–92. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10608-014-9620-1
Lee, S. B., Lee, S. C., & Suh, Y. H. (2016). Technostress from mobile communication and its impact on quality of life and productivity. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(7–8), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1187998
Niaz, A. & Qasim, A. (2022). Cell Phone addiction and interpersonal skills among youth. International Journal of Innovative Science, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7525338
Sigman, A. (2017). Screen dependency disorders: A new challenge for child neurology. Journal of the International Child Neurology Association. https://doi.org/10.17724/jicna.2017.119
Wright, M. F. (2021). The negative online experiences of maltreated children and adolescents. Child and Adolescent Online Risk Exposure, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817499-9.00014-4