Smartphone and the Self: Experimental Investigation of Self-Incorporation of and Attachment to Smartphones
<p>Set-up and test objects: (<b>a</b>) rubber hand, (<b>b</b>) neutral control object wooden block, (<b>c</b>) smartphone neutral and (<b>d</b>) smartphone plus activated self-relevance.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Research flow of the laboratory experiment. SUB = smartphone usage behavior. * Product quality was assessed in smartphone conditions only.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Standardized descriptive statistics of smartphone usage behavior (SUB). Box-plots depict the range of the inner 50% (box), the median (line dividing the box), minimum (bottom whisker), maximum (upper whisker) and the mean (X).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theory and Hypothesis
1.1.1. Rubber Hand Illusion Paradigm to Investigate Self-Incorporation
1.1.2. Self-Incorporation of Smartphone
1.1.3. Self-Related Product Qualities: Subjective Perception and Evaluation of Product Quality
1.1.4. Self-Relevance through Social Communication
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure
2.1.1. Experimental Design
2.1.2. Sample
2.1.3. Materials
2.1.4. Research Flow
2.2. Measurements
2.2.1. Explicit Measurement of BOI
2.2.2. Implicit Measure of BOI
2.2.3. Self-Related Product Quality
2.2.4. Smartphone Usage Behavior (SUB)
2.2.5. Demographical Questionnaire
3. Results
3.1. Manipulation Check
3.2. Descriptives: Smartphone Usage Behavior (SUB)
3.3. Rubber Hand Illusion (H1)
3.4. Attachment to and Self-Incorporation of a Smartphone (H2)
3.5. Subjective Perception and Evaluation of Product Quality (H3)
3.6. Self-Relevance (H4)
3.7. Interaction of Self-Relevance and Subjective Perception and Evaluation of Product Quality (H5)
4. Discussion
4.1. Attachment to and Self-Incorporation of a Smartphone
4.2. Subjective Perception and Evaluation of Product Quality and ITS Influence on Self-Incorporation and Attachment
4.3. Self-Relevance and Its Influence on Self-Incorporation and Attachment
4.4. Interaction of Self-Relevance and Subjective Perception and Evaluation of Product Quality
4.5. Practical Implications
4.6. Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tenzer, F. Prognose zur Anzahl der Smartphone-Nutzer Weltweit Bis 2023. 2021. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/309656/umfrage/prognose-zur-anzahl-der-smartphone-nutzer-weltweit/ (accessed on 27 August 2021).
- Montag, C.; Błaszkiewicz, K.; Sariyska, R.; Lachmann, B.; Andone, I.; Trendafilov, B.; Eibes, M.; Markowetz, A. Smartphone usage in the 21st century: Who is active on whatsapp? BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diefenbach, S.; Hassenzahl, M. Psychologie in der Nutzerzentrierten Produktgestaltung: Mensch-Technik-Interaktion-Erlebnis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; ISBN 9783662530269. [Google Scholar]
- Hassenzahl, M. Experience Design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synth. Lect. Hum. Cent. Inform. 2010, 3, 1–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elhai, J.D.; Hall, B.; Levine, J.C.; Dvorak, R.D. Types of smartphone usage and relations with problematic smartphone behaviors: The role of content consumption vs. social smartphone use. Cyberpsychol. J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 2017, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Deursen, A.J.; Bolle, C.L.; Hegner, S.M.; Kommers, P.A. Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 45, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Belk, R.W. Extended Self in a Digital World: Table 1. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 477–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, S.; Kim, K.J.; Kim, J.H. Understanding nomophobia: Structural equation modeling and semantic network analysis of smartphone separation anxiety. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017, 20, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirk, C.P.; Peck, J.; Swain, S.D. Property lines in the mind: Consumers’ psychological ownership and their territorial responses. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 45, 148–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harter, S. The Construction of the Self: Developmental and Sociocultural Foundations, 2th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781462522729. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, U.; Schreier, M.; Janiszewski, C. The self-expressive customization of a product can improve performance. J. Mark. Res. 2017, 54, 816–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, A.; Forehand, M.R.; Puntoni, S.; Warlop, L. Identity-based consumer behavior. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2012, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shank, D.B.; Lulham, R. Products as affective modifiers of identities. Sociol. Perspect. 2016, 60, 186–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallagher, S. Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, H.L.; Frith, C.D. Functional imaging of ‘theory of mind’. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2003, 7, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Botvinick, M.M.; Cohen, J.D. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nat. Cell Biol. 1998, 391, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsakiris, M. My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damasio, A.R. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, 1st ed.; Harcourt Brace: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Liepelt, R.; Dolk, T.; Hommel, B. Self-perception beyond the body: The role of past agency. Psychol. Res. 2016, 81, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowlby, J. Attachment: Attachment and Loss, 1st ed.; The Tavistock Institute of Humans Relations: London, UK, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Konok, V.; Gigler, D.; Bereczky, B.M.; Miklósi, Á. Humans’ attachment to their mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassenzahl, M. The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, 1st ed.; Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A.F., Wright, P.C., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 31–42. ISBN 1402029667. Available online: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402012525 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Diefenbach, S.; Kolb, N.; Hassenzahl, M. The ‘hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: History, contributions, and future research directions. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Designing Interactive Systems 2014. ACM SIGCHI Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 21–25 June 2014; Wakkary, R., Ed.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 305–314, ISBN 9781450329026. [Google Scholar]
- Diefenbach, S.; Hassenzahl, M. Combining model-based analysis with phenomenological insight: A case study on hedonic product quality. Qual. Psychol. 2019, 6, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Initiative D21e.V. D21-DIGITAL-INDEX 2018/2019: Jährliches Lagebild zur Digitalen Gesellschaft; Initiative D21 e.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Diefenbach, S.; Borrmann, K. The Smartphone as a Pacifier and its Consequences. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’19), Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullwood, C.; Quinn, S.; Kaye, L.K.; Redding, C. My virtual friend: A qualitative analysis of the attitudes and experiences of Smartphone users: Implications for Smartphone attachment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trub, L.; Barbot, B. The paradox of phone attachment: Development and validation of the Young Adult Attachment to Phone Scale (YAPS). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, M.; Marlow, C.; Lento, T. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the 2010 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10), Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 1909–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clayton, R.; Leshner, G.; Almond, A. The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology. J. Comput. Commun. 2015, 20, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bielefeld, K. Beliebte-Vornemen.de: Die beliebtesten Vornamen des Jahres 1994. Available online: https://www.beliebte-vornamen.de/jahrgang/j1994 (accessed on 2 May 2019).
- Dempsey-Jones, H.; Kritikos, A. Handedness modulates proprioceptive drift in the rubber hand illusion. Exp. Brain Res. 2018, 237, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moseley, G.L.; Olthof, N.; Venema, A.; Don, S.; Wijers, M.; Gallace, A.; Spence, C. Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 13169–13173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weser, V.; Proffitt, D.R. Tool Embodiment: The Tool’s Output Must Match the User’s Input. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 12, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsakiris, M.; Haggard, P. The Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Visuotactile Integration and Self-Attribution. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2005, 31, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Longo, M.R.; Schüür, F.; Kammers, M.; Tsakiris, M.; Haggard, P. What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 2008, 107, 978–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ni Choisdealbha, A.; Brady, N.; Maguinness, C. Differing roles for the dominant and non-dominant hands in the hand laterality task. Exp. Brain Res. 2011, 211, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassenzahl, M.; Monk, A. The Inference of Perceived Usability From Beauty. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2010, 25, 235–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsakiris, M.; Carpenter, L.; James, D.; Fotopoulou, A. Hands only illusion: Multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Exp. Brain Res. 2009, 204, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armel, K.C.; Ramachandran, V.S. Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2003, 270, 1499–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holle, H.; McLatchie, N.; Maurer, S.; Ward, J. Proprioceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the “rubber hand illusion” paradigm. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011, 2, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmes, N.P.; Snijders, H.J.; Spence, C. Reaching with alien limbs: Visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Percept. Psychophys. 2006, 68, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riemer, M.; Bublatzky, F.; Trojan, J.; Alpers, G.W. Defensive activation during the rubber hand illusion: Ownership versus proprioceptive drift. Biol. Psychol. 2015, 109, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- LaRose, R.; Eastin, M.S. A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward a New Model of Media Attendance. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2004, 48, 358–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Preester, H.; Tsakiris, M. Body-Extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 2009, 8, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lriki, A.; Tanaka, M.; Iwamura, Y. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport 1996, 7, 2325–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maravita, A.; Iriki, A. Tools for the body (schema). Trends Cogn. Sci. 2004, 8, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maravita, A.; Spence, C.; Driver, J. Multisensory integration and the body schema: Close to hand and within reach. Curr. Biol. 2003, 13, R531–R539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mugge, R.; Schoormans, J.P.; Schifferstein, H. Emotional bonding with personalised products. J. Eng. Des. 2009, 20, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harkin, L.J.; Kuss, D. “My smartphone is an extension of myself”: A holistic qualitative exploration of the impact of using a smartphone. Psychol. Popul. Media Cult. 2021, 10, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Atakan, S.S.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Yoon, C. Consumer participation in the design and realization stages of production: How self-production shapes consumer evaluations and relationships to products. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2014, 31, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzler, K.; Pichler, E.; Fuller, J.; Mooradian, T.A. Personality, person–brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand communities. J. Mark. Manag. 2011, 27, 874–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, M.; MacInnis, D.J.; Park, C.W. The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2005, 15, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, J.; Schwarz, N. Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. J. Consum. Psychol. 2010, 20, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Waytz, A.; Heafner, J.; Epley, N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 52, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.; Kim, K.J. Feeling connected to smart objects? A moderated mediation model of locus of agency, anthropomorphism, and sense of connectedness. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019, 133, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Freeman, B.; Li, M. Can Mobile Phone Apps Influence People’s Health Behavior Change? An Evidence Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lachmann, B.; Sindermann, C.; Sariyska, R.Y.; Luo, R.; Melchers, M.C.; Becker, B.; Cooper, A.; Montag, C. The Role of Empathy and Life Satisfaction in Internet and Smartphone Use Disorder. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sha, P.; Sariyska, R.; Riedl, R.; Lachmann, B.; Montag, C. Linking Internet Communication and Smartphone Use Disorder by taking a closer look at the Facebook and WhatsApp applications. Addict. Behav. Rep. 2018, 9, 100148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lachmann, B.; Duke, É.; Sariyska, R.; Montag, C. Who’s addicted to the smartphone and/or the Internet? Psychol. Popul. Media Cult. 2019, 8, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oulasvirta, A.; Rattenbury, T.; Ma, L.; Raita, E. Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2011, 16, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Average Daily unlocks Among U.S. Smartphone Users 2018, by Generation. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050339/average-unlocks-per-day-us-smartphone-users/ (accessed on 27 August 2021).
- Markowetz, A. Digitaler Burnout: Warum Unsere Permanente Smartphone-Nutzung Gefährlich Ist; Droemer: München, Germany, 2015; ISBN 978-3426276709. [Google Scholar]
- Duke, É.; Montag, C. Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported productivity. Addict. Behav. Rep. 2017, 6, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Montag, C.; Walla, P. Carpe diem instead of losing your social mind: Beyond digital addiction and why we all suffer from digital overuse. Cogent Psychol. 2016, 3, 1157281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yogesh, S.; Abha, S.; Priyanka, S. Mobile usage and sleep patterns among medical students. Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2014, 58, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Przybylski, A.K.; Weinstein, N. Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2012, 30, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Richer, R.; Zhao, N.; Eskofier, B.M.; Paradiso, J.A. Exploring Smart Agents for the Interaction with Multimodal Mediated Environments. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sub-Construct | Item |
---|---|
Standard BOI-items | Q1: It seemed as if I were feeling the touch of the paintbrush in the location where I saw the [smartphone] touched. |
Q2: It seemed as though the touch I felt was caused by the paintbrush touching the [smartphone]. | |
Q3: I felt as if the [smartphone] was my hand. | |
Body Part | Q4: It seemed like the rubber hand was part of my body. |
Self-localization | Q5: It felt as if my hand was drifting towards the [smartphone]. |
Q7: It appeared as if the [smartphone] was drifting towards my hand. | |
Body transformation | Q6: It felt as if my hand was turning into the [smartphone]. |
Attachment | Q8: I felt emotionally connected to the [smartphone]. |
Q9: The [smartphone] is very dear to me. |
a | b | c | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Smartphone versus Neutral control OBJECT (H2). T-Test for Paired Samples. N = 75, df = 74 | Smartphone Plus Activated Self versus Smartphone Neutral (H4b). T-Test for Independent Samples. N = 38, df = 74 | Smartphone Plus Activated Self versus Neutral Control Object (H4a). T-Test for Paired Samples. N = 38, df = 37 | |||||||||||||
Scale | M | SD | t | |d| | M | SD | t | |d| | M | SD | t | |d| | |||
Standard BOI-Items | SM | 3.27 | 2.23 | 0.47 | SM_N | 3.12 | 1.90 | −0.69 | SM_SR | 3.47 | 2.53 | 0.19 | |||
NEUT | 3.16 | 2.23 | SM_SR | 3.47 | 2.53 | NEUT | 3.40 | 2.39 | |||||||
Body Part | SM | 1.81 | 2.07 | 1.76 * | 0.20 | SM_N | 1.55 | 1.83 | −1.17 | SM_SR | 2.10 | 2.25 | 2.21 * | 0.36 | |
NEUT | 1.41 | 1.86 | SM_SR | 2.10 | 2.25 | NEUT | 1.51 | 1.90 | |||||||
Self-localization | SM | 2.38 | 2.27 | 1.56 | SM_N | 2.01 | 1.77 | −1.48 | SM_SR | 2.76 | 2.63 | 0.95 | |||
NEUT | 2.07 | 2.01 | SM_SR | 2.76 | 2.63 | NEUT | 2.47 | 2.29 | |||||||
Body transformation | SM | 1.53 | 1.97 | −0.05 | SM_N | 1.48 | 1.86 | −0.31 | SM_SR | 1.62 | 2.08 | −0.01 | |||
NEUT | 1.54 | 2.00 | SM_SR | 1.62 | 2.08 | NEUT | 1.62 | 2.15 | |||||||
Attachment | SM | 2.76 | 2.60 | 4.24 ** | 0.49 | SM_N | 1.85 | 2.16 | −3.22 * | 0.70 | SM_SR | 3.65 | 2.69 | 4.56 ** | 0.74 |
NEUT | 1.52 | 1.96 | SM_SR | 3.65 | 2.69 | NEUT | 1.73 | 2.01 |
Smartphone Hedonic High versus Smartphone Hedonic Low (H3). T-Test for Independent Samples. Nhedonic high = 46, Nhedonic low = 30, df = 74 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scale | M | SD | t | |d| | |
Standard BOI-Items | Low | 2.89 | 2.29 | −1.28 | |
High | 3.56 | 2.17 | |||
Body Part | Low | 1.49 | 2.06 | −1.15 | |
High | 2.04 | 2.05 | |||
Self-localization | Low | 1.74 | 2.11 | −2.06 * | 0.47 |
High | 2.81 | 2.27 | |||
Body transformation | Low | 1.28 | 1.93 | −0.98 | |
High | 1.73 | 1.98 | |||
Attachment | Low | 1.57 | 2.29 | −3.41 * | 0.75 |
High | 3.51 | 2.50 |
Research Question and Experimental Conditions | Hypothesis | Significant Results for Explicit Measurement of BOI | |
---|---|---|---|
Basic rubber hand illusion: Rubber hand–neutral control object | H1 | The rubber hand will evoke indicators of a body ownership illusion compared to the neutral control condition. | The explicit measurement of BOI supports the hypothesis for standard BOI-items, body part, self-localization, body transformation and attachment. |
Self-incorporation of smartphones: smartphones–neutral control object | H2 | Overall smartphones (smartphone plus activated self-relevance and smartphone neutral) will evoke indicators of a body ownership illusion and a higher level of attachment than the neutral control condition. | The explicit measurement of BOI supports the hypothesis for body part and attachment. |
Product quality high hedonic–low hedonic | H3 | The perception of a smartphone as of high hedonic product quality (in contrast to low hedonic perception) will evoke indicators of a body ownership illusion and a higher level of attachment. | The explicit measurement of BOI supports the hypothesis for self-localization and attachment. |
Self-relevance: H4a: Smartphone plus activated self-relevance–neutral control object H4b: Smartphone plus activated self-relevance–smartphone neutral H4c: Smartphone neutral–neutral control object | H4 | Smartphone plus activated self-relevance will have a higher level of attachment and evoke more indicators of a body ownership illusion than the neutral control object (H4a) and more than smartphone neutral (H4b), whereby Smartphone neutral will evoke more indicators of a body ownership illusion than the neutral control object (H4c). | The explicit measurement of BOI supports H4a for attachment and H4b for body part and attachment. |
Interaction of self-relevance and hedonic product quality | H5 | Smartphone plus activated self-relevance and high hedonic product perception will evoke more indicators of a body ownership illusion and a higher level of attachment than the condition smartphone neutral and low hedonic product perception. | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gertz, M.; Schütz-Bosbach, S.; Diefenbach, S. Smartphone and the Self: Experimental Investigation of Self-Incorporation of and Attachment to Smartphones. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021, 5, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5110067
Gertz M, Schütz-Bosbach S, Diefenbach S. Smartphone and the Self: Experimental Investigation of Self-Incorporation of and Attachment to Smartphones. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2021; 5(11):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5110067
Chicago/Turabian StyleGertz, Marlene, Simone Schütz-Bosbach, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2021. "Smartphone and the Self: Experimental Investigation of Self-Incorporation of and Attachment to Smartphones" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, no. 11: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5110067