I am quite skeptical of the results of this paper. The claims are very strong, but the paper was published in "Journal of the Association for Consumer Research". I would AT LEAST expect it to be published in a journal related to cognitive sciences (even low-impact cognitive science journals would be fine), this seems like a safety net journal that is not really related to any of that..<p>Anyway, reading through the paper, there are a few methodological issues that I believe severely weaken the claims made by the authors.<p>1. Even though the claims made specifically towards phones, there was no "control" item situation.<p>2. Participants were explicitly drawn to the item in 2 out of 3 conditions right before the task.<p>3. Experiment 1 does not randomize on task (OSpan and RSPM) order.<p>4. Item (phone) dependency tests were based on self-reporting. Why not some more objective measure like in a neutral situation, how many times does the participant take the phone out of their pockets to check it?<p>5. As far as I can tell, there is no control for differences in their population & their measure of phone dependency (ie, is phone dependency uncorrelated to factors like age?)<p>but really, the killer finding is: there is a (non-linear) interaction effect between phone dependence and phone location. In the phone on desk condition, there is a negative correlation between phone dependence and performance on the OSpan (working memory) task (which is the result the abstract talks about), but in the phone/bag AND other room condition, there is a POSITIVE correlation between phone dependence and performance on the OSpan test.<p>So based on these results, I can make the claim that we should use our phone MORE to increase our cognitive capacity. We should become more dependent on them. We just need to remember to put them away, out of sight, rather than leave them on the table nearby.<p>I would put as much trust in the claim above as the original claim by the paper's authors.<p>EDIT: continuous grammar improvements