EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

Record: 1
Title: The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Emotion-regulation Style on
College Students' Learning.
Authors: Lee, Seungyeon1 [email protected]
Kim, Myeong W.1
McDonough, Ian M.2
Mendoza, Jessica S.2
Kim, Min Sung3
Source: Applied Cognitive Psychology. May/Jun2017, Vol. 31 Issue 3,
p360-366. 7p. 2 Charts.
Document Type: Article
Subject Terms: *CELL phone users
*COGNITIVE psychology
*STUDENTS
*PERFORMANCE
*COGNITION
*LEARNING
*EDUCATION
NAICS/Industry Codes: 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction
611710 Educational Support Services
923110 Administration of Education Programs
Abstract: Cell phones are becoming an inevitable part of the classroom,
but extant research suggests that using cell phones in the
classroom impairs academic performance. The present study
examined the impact of different cell phone policies on learning
and emotion-regulation style. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of four experimental conditions: cell phone
usage allowed, cell phone possession allowed but without
usage, cell phones removed, and a no-instruction control group.
All participants watched a 20-minute lecture and were sent text
messages to mimic classroom distractions. Afterward,
participants took a multiple-choice test and filled out
questionnaires assessing their level of obsessiveness,
nomophobia, and mindfulness. Participants who had their cell
phone taken away performed best on the test with no other
differences. None of the emotional-regulation measures
moderated the results. These findings provide important insight
as to how cell phone policies can optimize learning in the
classroom.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：1/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This
abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original
published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright
applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations: 1Universityof Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello USA
2The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa USA

3
Buros Center for Testing, University of Nebraska–Lincoln,
Lincoln USA
Full Text Word Count: 6535
ISSN: 0888-4080
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3323
Accession Number: 123458697
Database: Academic Search Alumni Edition
The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Emotion-regulation Style on College Students'
Learning.

Summary: Cell phones are becoming an inevitable part of the classroom, but extant research
suggests that using cell phones in the classroom impairs academic performance. The present study
examined the impact of different cell phone policies on learning and emotion‐regulation style.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: cell phone usage
allowed, cell phone possession allowed but without usage, cell phones removed, and a no‐instruction
control group. All participants watched a 20‐minute lecture and were sent text messages to mimic
classroom distractions. Afterward, participants took a multiple‐choice test and filled out questionnaires
assessing their level of obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindfulness. Participants who had their cell
phone taken away performed best on the test with no other differences. None of the emotional‐
regulation measures moderated the results. These findings provide important insight as to how cell
phone policies can optimize learning in the classroom.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cell phone use has become increasingly common among college students. Pew Internet and
American Life Project's recent data showed that 74% of college students used their cell phones as a
primary device for accessing online instructional materials and other needs (Fox & Duggan, [ 20] ;
Smith & Page, [ 56] ). These data converge with other studies finding that a large majority of students
report almost always carrying their phones with them to class (Fried, [ 24] ; Froese et al., [ 25] ;
Gingerich & Lineweaver, [ 26] ). Excessive cell phone use during class often leads students to engage

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：2/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

in academic disengagement by surfing the Internet (Kirschner & Karpinski, [ 34] ; Taneja, Fiore, &
Fischer, [ 57] ), checking social media accounts (Gupta & Irwin, [ 29] ), multitasking (Bowman, Levine,
Waite, & Gendron, [ 7] ; Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, [ 53] ), texting messages during class time (Dietz &
Henrich, [ 17] ; Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, [ 23] ; Gingerich & Lineweaver, [ 26] ; Levine, Waite, &
Bowman, [ 40] ; Taneja et al., [ 57] ), contacting friends, or exploring new applications (Gingerich &
Lineweaver, [ 26] ; Lepp, Barkley, & Karpinski, [ 37] ; Tindell & Bohlander, [ 58] ; Wei & Lo, [ 61] ).
These nonacademic cell phone uses have often been shown to be detrimental to the learning process,
students' mental well‐being, and their grade point average (Froese et al., [ 25] ; Gikas & Grant, [ 28] ;
Gingerich & Lineweaver, [ 26] ; Jenaro, Flores, Gómez‐Vela, González‐Gil, & Caballo, [ 31] ; Lepp et
al., [ 39] ; Rosen, Carrier, & Cheever, [ 49] ). Naturally, this brings concerns to educators about how to
develop policies to buffer the negative consequences of cell phone use during class. Nowadays,
students show more emotional reliance on their cell phone for both academic uses and social
activities (Gikas & Grant, [ 28] ). The present study aims to further the research on how different
classroom policies impact learning and emotion regulation.

Researchers have argued that the primary mechanism underlying the negative effects of cell phone
use is through reduced attention to the classroom lecture. By reducing attention during class,
information is not properly stored, thus resulting in poor retention of the material. Evidence has shown
that at least 30% of the information is lost when texting during a lecture (Froese et al., [ 25] ) and as
many as 89% of students shifted their attention to leisure activities during class rather than paying full
attention to the lecture (Levine et al., [ 40] ). These distracting effects of cell phone use in the
classroom also extend to nearby students who are not using their cell phone (End, Worthman,
Mathews, & Wetterau, [ 21] ). These distractions have even led to the notion that cell phone usage is
more disruptive than talking during classroom lectures, which can lead to students' impaired
concentration and missing key class concepts (Aagaard, [ 1] ; Cutino & Nees, [ 16] ; King, Valença, &
Nardi, [ 33] ; Shaw, [ 54] ; Wood et al., [ 62] ). A second mechanism proposed for the negative effects
of cell phone usage is suboptimal learning strategies, beyond poor attention. Kuzenkoff and Titsworth
([ 36] ) found that frequent texting during class resulted in less note taking and lower multiple‐choice
test scores. This attention shift led to decreased participation, impaired ability to allocate their study
time outside of the classroom, and prevented students from being able to optimize learning.

Although there is sufficient literature demonstrating the detriments of cell phones in the classroom,
educators are being increasingly encouraged to learn more about the effective use of technology in
the classroom and to integrate technology use into the curriculum (Bitner & Bitner, [ 6] ; Kuzenkoff,
Munz, & Titsworth, [ 35] ). With the advancement of technology usage, the way in which students learn
will likely change. Supporting this idea, some studies have found positive relationships between
technology usage and self‐directed learning. The more students engage in activity on their phone, the
more likely they are to seek out information to better their understanding of the material (Loughran et
al., [ 42] ; Rashid & Asghar, [ 46] ). Students also feel that technology use could enhance their learning
experience by boosting their confidence in seeking external information (Jan, Ullah, Ali, & Khan, [ 30]
). Through a quasi‐experimental approach, another study found that using instructional technology
helped students retain information better than those who were exposed in traditional classroom

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：3/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

settings (Eyyam & Yaratan, [ 22] ). Thus, understanding the ways that technology integration alters the
traditional methods in which students accumulate knowledge is important. At the same time, one
challenge for educators is how to balance the increasing need for technology in the classrooms with
the negative effects of excessive cell phone use to maximize learning and minimize distraction.

In addition to distractions in the classroom, the excessive use of cell phones has found to have some
negative impacts on psychological well‐being. Research has challenged the idea of excessive cell
phone use of being a clinical disorder (Cutino & Nees, [ 16] ; Drouin et al., [ 18] ). Other research
found that even the absence of one's mobile device leads to increased anxiety and discomfort. This
feeling is currently known as a situational anxiety called nomophobia (King et al., [ 33] ; Yildirim &
Correia, [ 63] ). This anxiety may stem from a ‘fear of missing out’. In other words, students might be
concerned that their friends are having rewarding experiences without them while class is in session,
which may result in students looking at their cell phone frequently to disconfirm these fears or even
join in remotely (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, [ 44] ; Walsh, White, Cox, & Young, [ 60]
). The frequent behavior of checking their cell phone resembles obsessive–compulsive or addictive
behaviors (Kim, Lee, Lee, Nam, & Chung, [ 32] ). Obsessive individuals tend to lack attention to the
current tasks because they dislike change, engage in compulsive behaviors, and ruminate about trivial
events. With observed similarities when it comes to phone usage, it leads researchers to examine
whether symptoms of obsessiveness and/or addiction are closely related to the negative effects of
excessive cell phone use.

To combat the disruptions of cell phone use in class, researchers suggest that mindfulness, or tending
to daily experiences without keen judgment, might help maintain attention in the face of distraction
(Bakosh, Snow, Tobias, Houlihan, & Barbosa‐Leiker, [ 3] ; Bellinger, DeCaro, & Ralston, [ 4] ; Bishop
et al., [ 5] ; Creswell & Lindsay, [ 15] ; Ramsburg & Youmans, [ 45] ). The converse, mind wandering
has been found to be negatively related to academic performance (Risko, Anderson, Sarwal,
Engelhardt, & Kingstone, [ 47] ; Smallwood, Fishman, & Schooler, [ 55] ). In fact, it has been estimated
that mind wandering occurs about one‐third of the time during classroom lectures, thus representing a
significant barrier to learning (Lindquist & McLean, [ 41] ). However, there are few studies that
examine how mindfulness relates to their cell phone use in class.

Due to conflicting findings on whether cell phone use hinders or facilitates learning, the current study
aims to extend the knowledge of students' performance in a classroom to understand how to minimize
distraction and improve learning in a low‐stakes testing environment. In addition, we surmise that
students' emotional‐regulation style (e.g., their levels of obsession, nomophobia, and mindfulness)
shares a relationship with their cell phone use, which in turn should impact their ability to retain
information during instruction. In the present study, we experimentally manipulated numerous cell
phone policies to test under what condition distractions can be reduced to optimize learning outcomes.
In addition, we tested whether individual differences in emotion regulation might serve as an additional
distracting influence on learning outcomes. Based on these goals, the following hypotheses were
developed:

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：4/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

Hypothesis
Replicating previous research, participants who are allowed to have their cell phones (regardless of
the cell phone policy) will become more distracted and thus perform worse on the multiple‐choice test
than those students who do not have access to their phones.

Hypothesis
Participants who are not permitted to use their phone (whether they are permitted to keep it or have it
removed) will become more distracted and thus will perform worse on the multiple‐choice test than
those students who are permitted to use their cell phone without any restrictions.

Hypothesis
Regardless of cell phone policy, participants reporting low levels of obsessiveness and nomophobia,
but high levels of mindfulness, will perform better on the multiple‐choice test than those who report
high levels of obsessiveness and nomophobia, but low levels of mindfulness.

Hypothesis
Individual differences in emotion‐regulation style will moderate the impact of cell phone policy
condition on multiple‐choice test performance. Specifically, the size of the individual differences effect
hypothesized earlier ([NaN] ) will be larger in cell phone policy conditions when participants are not
allowed to use their cell phone compared with the conditions when participants are allowed to use
their cell phone.

Method
Participants
Participants (N = 160) were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at a small, liberal arts
college in Southeastern Arkansas. Participants received partial course credit for their completion of
the study, but neither the study nor the lecture content was directly related to any of the psychology
courses. All participants were randomly assigned to one of the four group conditions, and each group
consisted of 40 participants: Group 1 (cell phone possession and use permitted), Group 2 (cell phone
possession permitted but cannot use), Group 3 (complete removal of cell phone from participants'
possession), and a Control Group (no instruction on cell phone use). All sessions were conducted in a
classroom, with the number of participants per session ranging from 5 to 14.

Measures
Participants were presented with a 20‐minute TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) talk given
by Dr. Sam Richards, called ‘A Radical Experiment in Empathy’. The 20‐minute talk was selected
based on the research of Rosen, Lim, Carrier, and Cheever ([ 51] ) and Kuzenkoff et al. ([ 35] ) on the
video lectures. After the lecture was given, participants took a multiple‐choice test that consisted of 20
questions that covered content from the talk, simulating a class quiz. Each question had four choices,
and participants were asked to choose one correct answer. All questions were created to ensure that
participants sufficiently comprehended the given lecture. As a measure of reliability, Cronbach's alpha
was applied to this study. TED talk test showed.62 alpha value. Cronbach's alpha values between.70
and.90 are commonly regarded as satisfactory. However, in exploratory research, reliability values of

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：5/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

0.60 to 0.70 are acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, [ 43] ).

Following the test, participants filled out several self‐report measures. The Obsessiveness (OBS)
Content Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 assessed participants' level of
obsessiveness (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, [ 10] ; Tonsager, [ 59] ). Research
has shown that individuals who obtain a raw score of 10 or higher (i.e., T‐score greater than 65 in men
and T‐score greater than 62 in women) on the OBS scale tend to have difficulty making decision,
dislike change, engage in compulsive behaviors, and ruminate about trivial events (Graham, [ 27] ).
The OBS scale has been shown to be both valid and reliable. Butcher et al. ([ 10] ) measured an
internal consistency of the scale and found that Cronbach's alpha was.82 and it was.74 in the study.

The Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP‐Q) was used to measure nomophobia (Yildirim & Correia, [ 63]
). The NMP‐Q consists of 20 items that covers four main dimensions of nomophobia: not being able to
communicate, losing connectedness, not being able to access information, and giving up
convenience. Each item is measured by a 7‐point Likert scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and with
7 being strongly disagree. The NMP‐Q is designed to assess situational emotional distress or anxiety
resulting from being unable to access a cell phone or other mobile device, which has a Cronbach's
reliability of.94 in the study of Yildirim and Correia ([ 63] ) and.94 was also reported in this study. Both
Bragazzi et al. ([ 8] ) and Yildirim and Correia ([ 63] ) provided empirical evidence of the construct
validity of the NMP‐Q. Individuals who obtained a raw score of 61 and higher can be classified as
having ‘severely or moderately’ nomophobia. Individuals who obtained a raw score of 60 and lower
can be classified as having ‘mildly or no’ nomophobia.

The Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, [ 9] ; Carlson & Brown, [ 13] ) was
used to measure mind wandering—an opposing construct of mindfulness. The MAAS is a 15‐item
questionnaire designed to assess sustained non‐direction and attention to or self‐awareness of the
current tasks. Higher scores indicate higher levels of dispositional mindfulness. Cronbach's alphas
range from.80 to.90, based on Brown and Ryan ([ 9] ). The reported alpha value of this study was.89.

Procedure
After participants read and signed a consent form, the experimenter informed them that they would
watch a 20‐minute‐long, video‐recorded lecture. In the current study, students were recruited to watch
a 20‐minute video lecture in one of four different cell phone policies. A multiple‐choice test on the
lecture material and assessments of mental states (obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindful
awareness) were given last.

Participants in Group 1 were allowed to use their cell phone during the lecture, as long as they used it
for educational purpose. Participants in Group 2 were instructed that they needed to put their cell
phone in silent mode and no usage is allowed during the lecture. Participants in Group 3 were asked
to turn in their cell phone to the experimenter prior to the lecture. Participants in Control Group did not
receive any instructions on their cell phone use to simulate most current classroom situations.

During the lecture, the experimenters sent four text messages to the participants to serve as a

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：6/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

distraction. All groups except for those in Group 3 (cell phone removed) received the text messages
sent by a student research assistant at predetermined times ( 3, 7, 11, and 15 minutes after the
lecture started). All messages were unrelated to the lecture content. Rather, the messages were
meant to resemble those they might receive from friends. The text messages were sent in the
following order: ‘Hey!’ ‘Are you there?’, ‘We are waiting at the McDonalds. Are you coming?’, and
‘Sorry! I got the wrong number’. After a 1‐minute break, all participants took the 20‐item test about the
lecture, the OBS Content Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2, the NMP‐Q, and
the MAAS. A research assistant who was blind to the group membership of participants hand‐scored
their responses to the test and questionnaires. All experimenters verified the accuracy of scoring and
coding the participant's responses.

Statistical analyses
One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the effect of cell phone use on test
performance. The independent variable was the type of instruction given to the participants about their
cell phone use. The dependent variable was the test score participants earned from the multiple‐
choice test based on the lecture. The test score was converted to have full score of 100 points.
Follow‐up Tukey's HSD (honest significant difference) tests were conducted to further investigate the
main effect of condition.

For each emotion‐regulation measure, participants were divided into two groups by using previously
established cutoff scores to test whether or not two groups achieved different learning outcomes
(Brown & Ryan, [ 9] ; Graham, [ 27] ; Yildirim & Correia, [ 63] ). To investigate the effects of
obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindfulness on test performance, participants were classified as
obsessive versus not obsessive, nomophobic versus non‐nomophobic, and mindful versus not mindful
based on previously established cutoffs in mean scores on the OBS, NMP‐Q, and MAAS, respectively.
Participants who obtained a raw score of 10 or higher were classified as ‘obsessive’, otherwise as ‘not
obsessive’ (Graham, [ 27] ). Participants who obtained a raw score of 61 or higher were classified as
‘nomophobic’, otherwise as ‘not nomophobic’ (Yildirim & Correia, [ 63] ). Participants who obtained a
raw score of 40 or higher were classified as ‘mindful’, otherwise as ‘not mindful’ (Brown & Ryan, [ 9] ).
For each of three emotion‐regulation measures, a t‐test was performed between low and high groups:
a group with below or equal to the cutoff score and the other group above the cutoff score. The
independent variable of t‐test was a group variable of diagnostic results, and the dependent variable
was test score out of 100. We also took a continuous rather than a categorical approach by
conducting Pearson r correlations between emotion‐regulation styles and test performance.

The interaction effects of the cell phone policy and diagnostic results were analyzed using a two‐way
ANOVA. Specifically, a 2 (Emotion‐regulation Style) × 4 (Instructional Condition) ANOVA on test
performance was conducted separately for each of the three measures (OBS, NMP‐Q, and MAAS).
The cell phone policy was fixed as a group variable, and each of three emotion‐regulation measures
was added as a second group variable in each analysis. Two main effects and one interaction effect
were examined to find any significant difference among groups.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：7/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

Results
Consistent with [NaN] , there was a significant main effect of the instruction type on test performance
(F( 3, 156) = 3.14, p < .05, η2 = 0.06). Follow‐up Tukey's Studentized Range (honest significant
difference) tests were conducted to further investigate this main effect. A post‐hoc Tukey test showed
that two pairwise comparisons differed significantly at p < .05. First, participants in Group 3 (no
possession) scored significantly higher (M = 61.62, SD = 14.87) than participants in Group 1
(possession and use; M = 53.12, SD = 15.14), adjusted p = .05. Second, participants in Group 3 also
scored significantly higher than participants in Group 2 (possession but no use; M = 52.88,
SD = 13.91), adjusted p = .04. The results suggest that possession of a cell phone during the lecture
negatively affected learning regardless of the type of instruction participants received about their cell
phone use. This finding supported [NaN] , but not [NaN] .

We next tested the extent that individual differences in emotion‐regulation style impacted test
performance, regardless of cell phone group (Table [NaN] ). We did not find evidence supporting
[NaN] . No differences in performance were found based on emotion‐regulation style and mental
condition (all p's > .05). Taking a continuous approach did not alter the findings. None of the
correlations were significant (all p's > .10).

Test performance means and standard deviations by classification and group for participants low and
high in obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindfulness

Classification Group N M (SD)

Obsessiveness
Low 1 (Use permitted)15 51.80 (14.92)
2 (Not permitted) 26 51.92 (12.73)
3 (Removed) 17 60.00 (10.31)
4 (Control) 19 58.42 (12.92)
All 87 54.89 (13.32)
High 1 (Use permitted)25 55.33 (15.75)
2 (Not permitted) 14 54.64 (16.23)
3 (Removed) 23 62.83 (17.63)
4 (Control) 21 51.67 (15.52)
All 73 56.51 (16.68)
Nomophobic
Low 1 (Use permitted)7 65.00 (10.00)
2 (Not permitted) 9 53.89 (18.16)
3 (Removed) 17 62.65 (17.15)
4 (Control) 11 53.64 (12.67)
All 44 58.98 (15.69)
High 1 (Use permitted)33 50.61 (14.94)
2 (Not permitted) 31 52.58 (12.77)
3 (Removed) 23 60.87 (13.28)
4 (Control) 29 55.34 (15.41)

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：8/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

All 11654.35 (14.48)

Mindful
Low 1 (Use permitted)6 51.67 (17.80)
2 (Not permitted) 7 48.57 (13.14)
3 (Removed) 8 55.00 (12.54)
4 (Control) 6 56.67 (13.29)
All 27 52.96 (13.68)
High 1 (Use permitted)34 53.38 (14.91)
2 (Not permitted) 33 53.79 (14.09)
3 (Removed) 32 63.28 (15.11)
4 (Control) 34 54.56 (14.94)
All 13356.17 (15.15)
We next investigated how the effect of the cell phone instruction on test performance was affected by
the extent to which individuals were obsessive, nomophobic, and mindful. Inconsistent with [NaN] , no
significant interactions were found between any of the measures and cell phone condition on test
performance. For the OBS, the results showed a significant main effect of the type of instruction (F( 3,
152) = 3.13, p < .05, η2 = 0.06), but no significant main effect of obsession (F( 1, 152) = 0.04, p = .84,
η2 < 0.01), and no significant interaction between the type of instruction and obsession (F( 3,
152) = 1.1, p = .35, η2 < 0.01). For the NMP‐Q, the analysis showed a significant main effect of the
type of instruction (F( 3, 152) = 3.18, p < .05, η2 = 0.06), but no significant main effect of nomophobia
(F( 1, 152) = 1.43, p = .23, η2 < 0.01), and no significant interaction between the type of instruction
and nomophobia (F( 3, 152) = 1.52, p = .21, η2 < 0.01). For the MAAS, the analysis showed a
significant main effect of the type of instruction on learning (F( 3, 152) = 3.12, p < .05, η2 = 0.06), but
no significant main effect of mindfulness (F( 1, 152) = 1.11, p = .24, η2 < 0.01), and no significant
interaction between the type of instruction and mindfulness (F( 3, 152) = 0.53, p = .66, η2 < 0.01).
Testing these interactions using continuous variables resulted in the same conclusions (Table [NaN] ).

One‐way analysis of variance of TED scores by cell phone policies

Source df SS MS F value p
Between groups3 2015 671.73.14 .0271
Within groups 15633372213.9
Total 15935387
Discussion
We examined the impact of various cell phone policies on learning and how individual differences
related to emotion‐regulation style (i.e., being less obsessive, less nomophobic, and more mindful)
might be differently affected by these policies. While cell phone use in the classroom has been
associated with poorer learning outcomes (Lepp, Barkley, & Karpinski, [ 37] ; Lepp, Li, & Barkley, [ 38]
), technology in the modern classroom seems inevitable. Thus, a test of how cell phone policies relate
to distraction, learning, and student characteristics is critical.

The study first evaluated the relationship between the impact of restricting participants' cell phone use
and their learning. The findings of the study supported [NaN] . When cell phones were taken away

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…6sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：9/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

from participants (i.e., Group 3), performance on the multiple‐choice test was highest compared with
the other groups. When converting the learning score into a letter grade (i.e., 100–91 = A+, 90–
81 = A, 80–71 = B, 70–61 = C, and 60–51 = D), Group 3 had an average grade of a ‘C’, but the other
groups had average grades in the ‘D’ range. The findings are in line with previous studies investigating
the overall impact of cell phone use in relation to college students' negative academic performance
(Cheever, Rosen, Carrier, & Chavez, [ 14] ; Lepp, Li, & Barkley, [ 38] ; Rosen, Cheever, & Carrier, [ 50]
). Cell phones can serve as distractions and reduce attention during the lecture, thus negatively
impacting learning if students are permitted to use it.

We attempted to vary classroom policy to test whether simply being in possession of a cell phone
without being allowed to use it also served as a distraction. Consistent with this idea, participants who
were not allowed to use their cell phone (i.e., Group 2) performed as poor as those students who were
permitted to use their cell phone during the lecture (i.e., Group 1). This finding suggests that simply
implementing a policy that restricts cell phone use is not sufficient to reduce distraction during
classroom lectures.

One possible mechanism underlying this impaired performance is that students might suspect that
their friends are engaged in more enjoyable activities outside of class than the student what the
student is experiencing. This ‘fear of missing out’ might cause an increase in anxiety and dependence
on their cell phone (Przybylski et al., [ 44] ). One of the goals of the present study was to use
measures that might capture individual differences in anxiety and emotion‐regulation style. We did not
find that individual differences emotion‐regulation style impacted distraction and subsequent test
performance. Specifically, individual differences in obsessiveness, nomophobia, and mindful
awareness did not predict or moderate test performance.

One reason for this null result could be because the test was conducted in a low‐stakes environment.
Many instructors provide tests that are a very small contributor to students' grades or do not contribute
at all. Rather, these types of low‐stakes tests can serve as a learning tool to improve retention of the
material (Roediger & Karpicke, [ 48] ; Rowland, [ 52] ) and to increase awareness of students' current
learning state (Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, [ 11] ; Butler & Winne, [ 12] ; Dunlosky & Thiede, [ 19] ).
The current study might speak most closely to these types of low‐stakes environments because
performance on this test would have no effect on any of their course grades or grade point average.
Perhaps in a situation in which the test had more ramifications on real academic performance, these
personality factors might be more influential on learning outcomes. More research is needed to further
substantiate the relationship between student learning and personality characteristics that might lead
to a greater emotional reliance on one's cell phone.

While participants were tested in a classroom environment, the study was still conducted in a
controlled environment in the context of a research study. Making the study more realistic such as
having a face‐to‐face lecture than video segment, but would have come at the sacrifice of having a
controlled environment. The total length of video lecture was also another limitation of the study
because it only lasted 20 minutes. The majority of classroom lectures typically run about 50 to

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：10/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

80 minutes. Perhaps over a longer lecture, emotion‐regulation styles (e.g., obsessiveness,

nomophobia, and mindful awareness) might be revealed to impact learning.

In conclusion, the study provides promising support for the benefit of having a strict no cell phone
policy in the classroom. By specifically targeting students' cell phone use and evaluating their learning
and personality characteristics, setting an appropriate classroom policy on cell phones may benefit
students and their learning environment. Despite the increasing use of technology such as cell phones
in the classroom, the present study cautions against doing so as attention can be compromised in
even a short 20‐minute lecture because of cell phone distraction. Although yet to be tested, this
recommendation will likely hold for the use of electronic devices, in general, that often lead to
distractions in classrooms (Baker, Lusk, & Neuhauser, [ 2] ).

References
1 Aagaard, J. ( 2015 ). Drawn to distraction: A qualitative study of off‐task use of educational
technology. Computers & Education, 87, 90 – 97 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.010.

2 Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. ( 2012 ). On the use of cell phones and other
electronic devices in the classroom: Evidence from a survey of faculty and students. Journal of
Education for Business, 87 ( 5 ), 275 – 289.

3 Bakosh, L. S., Snow, R. M., Tobias, J. M., Houlihan, J. L., & Barbosa‐Leiker, C. ( 2015 ). Maximizing
mindful learning: Mindful awareness intervention improves elementary school students' quarterly
grades. Mindfulness, https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1007/s12671‐015‐0387‐6.

4 Bellinger, D. B., DeCaro, M. S., & Ralston, P. A. S. ( 2015 ). Mindfulness, anxiety, and high‐stakes
mathematics performance in the laboratory and classroom. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 123 –
132 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.concog.2015.09.0011053‐8100.

5 Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., … Devins, G. ( 2004
). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11 ( 3 ),
230 – 241 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1093/dipsy/bph077.

6 Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. ( 2002 ). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 ( 1 ), 95 – 100.

7 Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. ( 2010 ). Can students really multitask?
An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54, 927 – 931
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.

8 Bragazzi, N. L., Del Puente, G., Advastro, G., Pompei, V., Siri, A., Rania, N., … Yildirim, C. ( 2016 ).
Translation and validation of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP‐Q) in Italian language: Insights
from factor analysis. European Psychiatry, 33, 5390 – 5390 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.1110.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：11/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

9 Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. ( 2003 ). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well‐being. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 84, 822 – 848 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1037/0022‐3514.84.4.822.

10 Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. ( 1989 ). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 (MMPI‐2): Manual for the administration and scoring. Minneapolis,
MN : University of Minnesota Press.

11 Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. ( 2008 ). Correcting a metacognitive error:
Feedback increases retention of low‐confidence correct responses. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 918 – 928.

12 Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. ( 1995 ). Feedback and self‐regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 245 – 281.

13 Carlson, L. E., & Brown, K. W. ( 2005 ). Validation of the mindful attention awareness scale in a
cancer population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 29 – 33 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.04.366.

14 Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M., & Chavez, A. ( 2014 ). Out of sight is not out of mind: The
impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate, and high
users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290 – 297 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.0020747‐5623.

15 Creswell, J. D., & Lindsay, E. K. ( 2014 ). How does mindfulness training affect health? A
mindfulness stress buffering account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 ( 6 ), 401 – 407
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1177/0963721414547415.

16 Cutino, C. M., & Nees, M. A. ( 2016 ). Restricting mobile phone access during homework increases
attainment of study goals. Mobile Media & Communication, 5 ( 1 ), 63 – 79 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1177/2050157916664558.

17 Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. ( 2014 ). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students. Computers
in Human Behavior, 36, https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.0450747‐5632.

18 Drouin, M., Kaiser, D. H., & Miller, D. A. ( 2012 ). Phantom vibrations among undergraduates:
Prevalence and associated psychological characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 ( 4 ),
1490 – 1496 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.ch6.2012.03.013.

19 Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. ( 1998 ). What makes people study more? An evaluation of factors
that affect self‐paced study. Acta Psychologica, 98, 37 – 56.

20 Fox, S., & Duggan, M. ( 2013 ). Pew Internet and American Life Project. Health online, 2013.
Retrieved from: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health&#x2010;online.aspx.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：12/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

21 End, C. M., Worthman, S., Mathews, M. B., & Wetterau, K. ( 2009 ). Costly cell phones: The impact
of cell phone rings on academic performance. Teaching of Psychology, 37 ( 1 ), 55 – 57.

22 Eyyam, R., & Yaratan, H. S. ( 2014 ). Impact of use of technology in mathematics lessons on
student achievement and attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42 ( 1 ),
31S – 42S.

23 Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. ( 2009 ). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging
affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyperpsychology
& Behavior, 12 ( 1 ), 51 – 53 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1089/cpb.20098.0107.

24 Fried, C. B. ( 2008 ). In‐class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers &
Education, 50, 906 – 914 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006.

25 Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, D. A., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B., Brecht, P. W., &
Chacon, J. D. ( 2012 ). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual learning. College
Student Journal, 46 ( 2 ), 323.

26 Gingerich, A. C., & Lineweaver, T. T. ( 2014 ). OMG! Texting in class = U fail ☹ Empirical evidence
that text messaging during class disrupts comprehension. Teaching of Psychology, 41 ( 1 ), 44 – 51
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1177/0098628313514177.

27 Graham, J. R. ( 1993 ). MMPI‐2: Assessing personality and psychopathology, ( 2nd edn). New
York, NY : Oxford University Press, Inc.

28 Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. ( 2013 ). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher
Education, 19, 18 – 26 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002.

29 Gupta, N., & Irwin, J. D. ( 2016 ). In‐class distractions: The role of Facebook and the primary
learning task. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1165 – 1178 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.022.

30 Jan, S. R., Ullah, F., Ali, H., & Khan, F. ( 2016 ). Enhanced and effective learning through mobile
learning an insight into students perception of mobile learning at university level. International Journal
of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (IJSRSET), 2 ( 2 ) Print ISSN 2395 –
1990.

31 Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gómez‐Vela, M., González‐Gil, F., & Caballo, C. ( 2007 ). Problematic
internet and cell‐phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health correlates. Addiction research &
theory, 15 ( 3 ), 309 – 320 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1080/16066350701350247.

32 Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J. K., & Chung, Y. ( 2014 ). Development of Korean smartphone
addiction proneness scale for youth. PloS One, 9 ( 5 ), e97920 https://doi-

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：13/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1371/journal.pone.0097920.

33 King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., & Nardi, A. E. ( 2010 ). Nomophobia: The mobile phone in panic
disorder with agoraphobia: Reducing phobias or worsening of dependence? Cognitive and Behavioral
Neurology, 23 ( 1 ), 52 – 54 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1097/WNN.0b013e3181b7eabc.

34 Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. ( 2010 ). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 1237 – 1245 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024.

35 Kuzenkoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. ( 2015 ). Mobile phones in the classroom: Examining the
effects of texting, Twitter, and message content on student learning. Communication Education, 64 ( 3
), 344 – 365 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727.

36 Kuzenkoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. ( 2013 ). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning.
Communication Education, 62, 233 – 252 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917.

37 Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. ( 2015a ). The relationship between cell phone use and
academic performance in a sample of U.S. college students. Sage Open, January‐March 2015, 1 – 9
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1077/2158244015573169.

38 Lepp, A., Li, J., & Barkley, J. ( 2015b ). Exploring the relationship between college students' cell
phone use, personality, and leisure. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 210 – 219 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.006.

39 Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Sanders, G. J., Rebold, M., & Gates, P. ( 2013 ). The relationship between
cell phone use, physical and sedentary activity, and cardiorespiratory fitness in a sample of U.S.
college students. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10 ( 79 ), 1 – 9
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1186/1479‐5868‐10‐79.

40 Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. ( 2007 ). Electronic media use, reading, and academic
distractibility in college youth. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 10 ( 4 ), 560 – 566 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1089/cpb.2007.9990.

41 Lindquist, S. I., & McLean, J. P. ( 2011 ). Daydreaming and its correlates in an educational
environment. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 ( 2 ), 158 – 167 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.12.006.

42 Loughran, S. P., Benz, D. C., Schmid, M. R., Murbach, M., Kuster, N., & Achermann, P. ( 2013 ).
No increase sensitivity in brain activity of adolescents exposed to mobile phone‐like emissions.
Clinical Neurophysiology, 124, 1303 – 1308 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.01.010.

43 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. ( 1994 ). Psychometric theory, ( 3rd edn). New York, NY :

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：14/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

McGraw‐Hill, Inc.

44 Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. ( 2013 ). Motivational, emotional,
and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 ( 4 ), 1841 – 1848
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.

45 Ramsburg, J. T., & Youmans, R. J. ( 2014 ). Meditation in the higher‐education: Meditation training
improves student knowledge retention during lectures. Mindfulness, 5 ( 4 ), 431 – 441 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1007/s12671‐013‐0199‐5.

46 Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. ( 2016 ). Technology use, self‐directed learning, student engagement
and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604 –
612.

47 Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. ( 2012 ). Everyday
attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 ( 2
), 234 – 242 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1002/acp.1814.

48 Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. ( 2006 ). The power of testing memory: Basic research and
implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181 – 210 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1111/j.1745‐6916.2006.00012.x.

49 Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. ( 2013 ). Facebook and texting made me do it:
Media‐induced task‐switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 ( 3 ), 948 – 958
https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001.

50 Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. ( 2012 ). iDisorder: Understanding our obsession with
technology and overcoming its hold on us. New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.

51 Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. ( 2011 ). An empirical examination of the
educational impact of text message‐induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications
and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 17, 163 – 177 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.5093/ed2011v17n2a4.

52 Rowland, C. A. ( 2014 ). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta‐analytic review of
the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432 – 1463 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1037/a0037559.

53 Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. ( 2013 ). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for
both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24 – 31 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003.

54 Shaw, K. ( 2009, August). Students and cell phones: Controversy in the classroom. Associated
Content. Retrieved from http://bluevaletgj2o.pbworks.com/f/Student+Cell+Phone+Use.pdf

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：15/16
EBSCOhost 2020/6/7 上午12:06

55 Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. ( 2007 ). Counting the cost of an absent mind:
Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 14 ( 2 ), 230 – 236 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.3758/BF03194057.

56 Smith, A., & Page, D. ( 2015 ). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center.

57 Taneja, A., Fiore, V., & Fischer, B. ( 2015 ). Cyber‐slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital
distraction in the new age. Computers and Education, 82, 141 – 151 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.009.

58 Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. H. ( 2012 ). The use and abuse of cell phones and text massaging
in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60, 1 – 9 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1080/87567555.2011.604802.

59 Tonsager, M. E. ( 1996 ). The factor stability of the MMPI‐2 validity, clinical, and content scales: An
investigation of the effect of sex and psychiatric‐status. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:
The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 56 (10‐B), pp. 5785. U.S.: ProQuest Information & Learning.

60 Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., Cox, S., & Young, R. M. ( 2011 ). Keeping in constant touch: The
predictors of young Australians' mobile phone involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 ( 1 ),
333 – 342 https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.011.

61 Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. ( 2006 ). Staying connected while on the move cell phone use and social
connectedness. New Media & Society, 8 ( 1 ), 53 – 72 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1177/1461444806059870.

62 Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. ( 2012 ). Examining
the impact of off‐task multi‐tasking with technology on real‐time classroom learning. Computers and
Education, 58, https://doi-org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029.

63 Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. ( 2015 ). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and
validation of a self‐reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130 – 137 https://doi-
org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059.

~~~~~~~~
By Seungyeon Lee; Myeong W. Kim; Ian M. McDonough; Jessica S. Mendoza and Min Sung Kim

Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ehost/deliv…sid%3da5ef60ca-2a24-4fde-9d6e-cd1cdd6b2b2d%2540sessionmgr4008 ⻚码：16/16