CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Attachment and Relationship DynamicsDigital Communication and LanguageImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Replication of the mere presence hypothesis: the effects of cell phones on face-to-face conversations

Crowley, John P., Allred, Ryan J., Follon, Julianna, Volkmer, Carly·2018·Communication Studies
DOI 10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on the mere presence hypothesis shows mixed findings for the effects of cell phone presence on various conversation outcomes. The current study performed a partial replication of Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) study, which showed that strangers were likely to report lower levels of relational quality and empathy (among other variables) when a cell phone was placed in their view, particularly when their conversations were rated as meaningful. The results of the current study failed to replicate Przybylski and Weinstein’s (2013) findings, because cell phone presence did not significantly influence relational quality or empathy, nor was meaningfulness a moderator of cell phone presence on conversation outcomes. Changing norms in cell phone usage and competing explanations for cell phone effects are explored as possible explanations for the failure to replicate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both the original and failed replication studies of mere presence effects were likely underpowered (Ns < 100) to detect an interaction effect from a subtle manipulation.

    “Though a recent study failed to replicate these findings [35], both studies were likely underpowered ( N s < 100) to detect an interaction effect from a subtle manipulation [36].”

    From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Crowley, J. P., Allred, R. J., Follon, J., & Volkmer, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Crowley, John P.
ORCID
Venue
Communication Studies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-05-14
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
283-293
ISSN
  • 1051-0974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1035
DOI
10.1080/10510974.2018.1467941
OpenAlex
W2804808733
Cited by
48
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Communication Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
mobile devices, face-to-face communication, relationship quality, empathy, meaningfulness, replication failure, competing explanations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review