This is the final version of the manuscript sent to journal for publication after

acceptance. Note the final printed version might be different from this one due to the
editing process.

The full citation:

Konok V., Gigler D., Bereczky B.M., Miklósi Á. (2016) Humans’ attachment to their
mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style. Computers in
Human Behavior, 61, 537–547.

1
Humans’ attachment to their mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment
style

Veronika Konok1,2, Dóra Gigler2, Boróka Mária Bereczky2, Ádám Miklósi1,2

1: MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group, Budapest, Hungary

2: Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány P. s. 1/c, H-1117 Budapest,

Hungary

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Veronika Konok

Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány P. s. 1/c, H-1117 Budapest,

Hungary

Tel: +36-1-381-2179; fax.: +36-1-381-2180.

E-mail address: [email protected]

2
Abstract
Humans have a biological predisposition to form attachment to social partners, and they seem
to form attachment even toward non-human and inanimate targets. Attachment styles
influence not only interpersonal relationships, but interspecies and object attachment as well.
We hypothesized that young people form attachment toward their mobile phone, and that
people with higher attachment anxiety use the mobile phone more likely as a compensatory
attachment target. We constructed a scale to observe people’s attachment to their mobile and
we assessed their interpersonal attachment style.
In this exploratory study we found that young people readily develop attachment toward their
phone: they seek the proximity of it and experience distress on separation. People’s higher
attachment anxiety predicted higher tendency to show attachment-like features regarding their
mobile. Specifically, while the proximity of the phone proved to be equally important for
people with different attachment styles, the constant contact with others through the phone
was more important for anxiously attached people.
We conclude that attachment to recently emerged artificial objects, like the mobile may be the
result of cultural co-option of the attachment system. People with anxious attachment style
may face challenges as the constant contact and validation the computer-mediated
communication offers may deepen their dependence on others.

Keywords: attachment, attachment styles, attachment anxiety, cell phone, cell phone
attachment, mobile phone, human-mobile interaction, gender differences

3
1 Introduction

Bowlby (1969) claimed that humans and many animal species are born with an innate
attachment system that motivates them to seek and maintain proximity to significant others. In
many animal species, the functioning of this system is only observable in the context of
parent–offspring attachment, the ultimate function of which is to protect against predators and
maintain the supply of resources for the offspring if they remain in proximity to the parent(s).
In humans, however, the attachment system plays an important role also in adulthood and in
different kinds of relationships, e.g. in romantic relationships (Fraley, Brumbaugh, & Marks,
2005) or friendships (Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006). It is supposed that in
these cases the attachment system (originally organizing infant-mother attachment) has been
co-opted by natural selection to serve other survival/reproduction functions (Fraley et al.,
2005; Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Alternatively, humans’ increased tendency to develop
attachment relationship in adulthood and to various targets may be a by-product of their
prolonged neotenous state (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). According to this theory, the attachment
system continues to be sensitive to certain cues and is readily activated in contexts that
resemble the infant-parent relationship or elicit similar feelings or behaviours (Fraley &
Shaver, 2000). This may explain why people readily develop attachment even toward non-
human targets, e.g. companion animals (Archer & Ireland, 2011; Zasloff & Kidd, 1994),
places (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Scannell & Gifford, 2010; Wickler, 1976), material
objects (Cipriani & Kreider, 2009; Myers, 1985) or God (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992;
Kirkpatrick, 1994). In all forms of attachment, the proximity of the attachment figure provides
a sense of security to the individual, and the separation from the attachment figure results in
separation stress (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1994).
According to Bowlby (1969), interactions with available and responsive attachment figures
facilitate the optimal functioning of the attachment system and promote a sense of attachment
security in the child. However, when attachment figures are not reliably available and
supportive, the child develops defensive secondary attachment strategies by deactivating or
hyperactivating the attachment system. These strategies are called attachment avoidance
(maximizing autonomy and distance from others, avoiding intimacy) and attachment anxiety
(compulsively seeking proximity and protection, hypersensitivity to signs of possible rejection
or abandonment). Characteristic attachment strategies developed in childhood are supposed to
continue into adulthood, forming the typical adult attachment style (secure, anxious or

4
avoidant) of the individual that characterizes his/her attitudes and emotions towards close
others.
When a primary attachment target is not available, another solution to attain security is to
search for alternative attachment targets. People are thought to use compensatory attachment
targets descending a hierarchy with the primary attachment figure at the top (Hazan & Shaver,
1994; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). The structure of the hierarchy can include non-human
targets as well (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1994), e.g. material objects.
Many assume that one of the hallmarks of the human species is material culture (e.g. Dant,
1999; Schaik, Deaner, & Merrill, 1999). From religious fetishism (Dant, 1999) to the
materialism of modern consumer society (Belk, 1985), we have a special interest in objects.
However, attachment to objects has been scarcely studied, and its appearance in adulthood has
been considered for long as a sign of pathology (Hooley & Wilson-Murphy, 2012; Winnicott,
1971). However, there is evidence which support that healthy, well-functioning adults also
report significant emotional attachment to special objects (Myers, 1985; Wapner et al, 1990).
The possession of these objects seems to be soothing or psychologically helpful in times of
stress (George; 2013), contributes to better mood, higher life satisfaction (Sherman, 1991),
greater psychological health (Wiseman & Watt, 2004) and facilitates attachment to the living
environment (Cipriani & Kreider, 2009; Whitmore, 2001).
One of the most prevalent material objects of modern society is the mobile phone. The
number of active mobile subscriptions exceeds the total world population (Ericsson, 2014;
Kemp, 2014). The amount of time spent on mobile use also increases, especially with the
spreading of smartphones and with the much more functions they can offer. In the USA
people use their smartphones 3.3 hours a day in average, and in young adults aged between 18
and 24 this number is 5.2 hours a day (Salesforce Marketing Cloud, 2014). Many authors
assume that mobile phone or smartphone use can become an addiction as it is accompanied by
addictive features like withdrawal, tolerance, etc (e.g. Walsh, 2014). However, mobile phone
addiction is not an accepted diagnostic category (it has not been included in the DSM-5;
American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Additionally, there is no standard measure for this
type of addiction and there is no consensus about terminology: many terms are used for the
phenomena such as mobile phone addiction, mobile phone dependence, excessive mobile use
or problematic mobile use (e.g. Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Hong, Chiu, & Huang, 2012; Toda,
Monden, Kubo, & Morimoto, 2006).
Besides these concerns, it seems that some degree of dependence on the mobile phone is a
general and increasingly prevalent phenomenon. For example, according to a survey in 2013,

5
79% of smartphone owners keep their phone with them for all but two hours of their waking
hours, and one quarter of smartphone users cannot even recall the last time their phone was
not within ear shot (Levitas, 2013). About two thirds of mobile users report distress on being
separated from the phone (left at home, run out of buttery, etc.) which phenomenon is called
„nomophobia” (Bivin, Mathew, Thulasi, & Philip, 2013; King et al., 2013; SecureEnvoy,
2012) and this proportion is even higher in young adults (Sharma, Sharma, Sharma, &
Wavare, 2015). These proportions suggest that dependence on mobile phones is not an
extremity or a disorder but a normative phenomenon which may have biological basis and
function.
Vincent (2006) claimed that investment into the phone (e.g. personalization like adjusting
individual background picture, ringtone, etc.) leads to attachment to the phone (although she
uses the term ‘attachment’ not in a Bowlbian but in a broader sense). The phone can be
considered as a store of memories and social connections (in the forms of phone numbers,
photos, messages, etc.). Thus, the phone does not simply enhance our social life but also
embodies it (Vincent, 2006). In line with this, Srivastava (2005) regarded the mobile phone as
a social object which gives users the impression that they are constantly connected to the
world and therefore feel less alone. Ribak (2009) considered the mobile phone as a
transitional object which is especially important in the teenager-parent relationship by
providing a way of negotiating between dependence and independence. Cheever, Rosen,
Carrier, & Chavez (2014) and Clayton, Leshner, & Almond (2015) demonstrated that
separation from the phone resulted in increased anxiety; however, they did not interpret this
result in an attachment framework.
As mentioned above, attachment to objects can be interpreted as compensatory attachment
strategies when primary attachment targets are not available (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver,
1994). In line with this assumption, attachment to objects has been reported mainly in cases
when important social relationships (primary attachment targets) are diminished (e.g. in
nursery home: Wapner et al., 1990; Cipriani & Kreider, 2009), momentarily not available
(e.g. in war: George, 2013) or lost (photos and reminiscences of dead loved ones, e.g. Cipriani
& Kreider, 2009). The perceived unreliability of primary attachment figures also triggers
compensatory attachment to objects in general, and to the mobile phone as well: participants
primed with uncertainty about their relationships reported increased attachment to their
belongings, greater separation stress from their absent phone and increased motivation to
reunite with it (Keefer, Landau, Rothschild, & Sullivan; 2012). Thus, the mobile phone may
also function as a compensatory attachment target providing a sense of security and

6
substituting for the person’s social connections. At the same time, it has a relationship-
facilitating function with which primary attachment relationships can be maintained and
fostered. Perhaps the latter facilitates the former: as the mobile phone represents a
relationship-maintaining tool and a store of social connections and memories, it may become
more easily a target of compensatory attachment than other material objects.
As uncertainty about the primary attachment figure’s availability seems to contribute to the
use of compensatory attachment strategies (e.g. attachment to objects), we expect that those
who are permanently uncertain about closely related people’s responsiveness are especially
susceptible to form attachment to objects. People with anxious attachment style are
hypersensitive to signs of possible rejection or abandonment, and they constantly perceive
others as being unavailable and unresponsive. In line with our expectation, it was found that
those who have higher level of attachment anxiety show an increased attachment to objects
(Hooley & Wilson-Murphy, 2012; Keefer et al., 2012) and brands (Proksch, Orth, & Bethge,
2013), and that hoarders (who have higher levels of emotional over-involvement with
inanimate objects; Nedelisky & Steele, 2009) are higher in attachment anxiety and avoidance
than non-hoarders (Medard & Kellett, 2014). Regarding the mobile phone, there is no data on
whether people with insecure attachment style use more the mobile as a compensatory
attachment target. However, Billieux (2012) also assumed that attachment anxiety can
contribute to excessive mobile phone use. In the empirical field, Ge (2014) found that mobile
phone addiction was positively correlated with attachment anxiety, and two studies (Drouin &
Landgraff, 2012; Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011) reported an association between anxious
attachment and sending sexual text messages on the phone. However, Morey & Gentzler
(2013) did not find an association between attachment anxiety and the frequency of mobile
use.
In contrast to attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance has been reported to have no (Ge,
2014) or negative (Jin & Peña, 2010; Morey & Gentzler, 2013) association with mobile use
frequency/addiction. Instead, people with avoidant attachment style prefer email
communication over phone (Morey & Gentzler, 2013) which offers a greater psychological
distance and less intimacy.
Our study is the first empirical study which investigates people’s mobile use in an attachment
framework. Thus, our first aim was to collect data on young people’s attachment to their
mobile phone and to investigate different aspects of mobile attachment (i.e. relationship-
facilitating function and attachment to the object itself). Secondly, we were also interested in
how attachment style influences attachment to the phone, and which aspect of mobile

7
attachment is more important for people with different attachment styles. We assumed that for
people with anxious attachment style both attachment functions of the mobile phone
(relationship-facilitating function and compensatory attachment to the object) would be more
important than to others, as they constantly need to be in contact with others and tend to use
compensatory attachment strategies to gain a sense of security. Our additional aim was to
explore the effect of some other independent variables on mobile attachment and mobile
usage: gender and type of the phone (smartphone versus traditional cell phone).

1.1 Hypotheses
We assumed that attachment to the mobile phone would have different aspects: e.g. the
relationship-maintaining aspect could have been separated from the compensatory attachment
to the object itself.
Additionally, we expect that people with high attachment anxiety (but not with high
attachment avoidance) (1) show higher proximity-seeking and separation stress in connection
with their mobile phone (which is indicative of compensatory attachment to the phone), (2)
show a higher need to be constantly in contact with others through the phone and (3) (as a
consequence of these) they use the phone more frequently than other people.
We assume also that because smartphones give more opportunity to be in contact with others
(as they allow to communicate and contact via different communication channels and media,
like Social Network Sites, chat, call, short message service etc.) and also more opportunity for
the storing of social memories and connections (e.g. photos, individual ringtones, etc.), they
may become more easily targets of attachment, so the possession of a smartphone may be
associated with higher proximity-seeking and separation stress behaviour related to the
mobile, and a more frequent use of it.
We assume that there are gender differences in mobile use: women use the phone more for
communication, and men use it more for playing games (see Sánchez-Martínez & Otero,
2009). Additionally, as women have been reported to use mobile phone more intensely (e.g.
Sánchez-Martínez & Otero, 2009), we expect that they show higher proximity-seeking and
separation stress in connection with their mobile phone (which is indicative of compensatory
attachment to the phone).

8
2 Method

2.1 Participants
142 Hungarian people (48 men and 94 women) participated in this study. Participation
criterion was that participants had to be between 19 and 25 years old. We chose this age group
because this is the first adult generation that has grown up with cell phone access so they are
considered cell phone “natives” (Forgays, Hyman, & Schreiber, 2014). Additionally, this age
group is particularly vulnerable to problematic mobile use (e.g. Augner & Hacker, 2012).
Besides that participants had to be in this age continuum we asked no information about their
exact age. Participants were recruited on the Internet, on Facebook. The study has been
carried out in accordance with national and international ethical guidelines. The filling out of
the questionnaires was anonym so the study does not violate respondents' privacy. Informed
consent was included in the introductory letter of the questionnaire. The Ethical Committee of
Eötvös Loránd University provided a written ethical approval for the study.

2.2 Materials
Demographic questions: We asked participants about their gender, and whether their cell
phone is Internet-enabled or not (referred to as „type of the phone” in the followings, and the
two types as “smartphone” versus “traditional phone”).
Mobile Usage Scale (MUS): We constructed this scale to investigate which specific activities
participants usually use their phones for, such as calling, texting (short message service:
SMS), multimedia messaging service (MMS), browsing the Internet, etc. (Appendix A).
Participants had to rate on a 5-point Likert scale how frequently they use the phone for a
specific activity, ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often).
Mobile Attachment Scale (MAS) (see Appendix B): We constructed this scale to measure
attachment-like features of mobile phone usage. We included items regarding different
aspects of social attachment, like proximity seeking or separation stress (Ainsworth et al.,
1971; Bowlby, 1969) with regards to the phone, and items specifically from the topic of
mobile dependence /nomophobia like e.g. the fear of running out of battery (e.g. Bivin et al.,
2013; Toda et al., 2006). Participants had to rate these statements (10 items) according to how
characteristics they are to them, ranging from 1 (not characteristic at all) to 5 (very
characteristic).
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, 1990; see Appendix C; the Hungarian
translation can be found in 75 papír-ceruza teszt [75 paper and pencil tests], n.d.): the scale

9
contains 18 items. AAS is based on a dimensional view of attachment and it originally
contains three subscales: closeness (the degree to which a person is comfortable with
closeness and intimacy), dependence (the extent to which a person feels he/she can depend on
others or expect them to be available when needed) and anxiety (the extent to which a person
is worried about being abandoned or unloved).
From these three subscales Collins (1996) derived two main scales: anxiety (six items) and
avoidance (12 items). We used these two derived scales in the analysis. Avoidance means
attachment avoidance, and it is the reverse of the original dependence and closeness scales.
The advantage of using these two dimensions is that they fit to other attachment models (e.g.
Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). Items are rated by the
subjects on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic).

2.3 Procedure
The data collection began in September 2012 and ended in October 2012. Participants filled
out the questionnaires on an online interface that took approximately 10-15 minutes. They
were allowed to fill in the questionnaires at any place with Internet access. The questionnaires
had to be filled in at once as subjects could not save them for subsequent editing.

2.4 Statistical analysis

Assumptions of statistical tests were considered prior to the analyses (SPSS 18.0.0.). If the
analysis and our data required, the appropriate transformation was applied to normalise
distribution.
Principal component analyses were made with Varimax rotation on items of the mobile usage
(MUS) and mobile attachment (MAS). Items that had 0.4 or greater loading on a particular
factor were retained (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Component scores were used for the further
GLM analyses.
To test whether mobile usage (MUS) and attachment (MAS) was influenced by adult
attachment dimensions, gender and type of the phone, we used general linear models (GLMs)
with mobile attachment (MAS) total score/ MAS component scores/ MUS component scores
as dependent variables, adult attachment scales (AAS) as covariates and gender and type of
the phone as fixed factors. Initial models included the above main effects and all two-way
interactions. We used bidirectional stepwise model selection based on p-values: we reduced
the full model by excluding the variable with the highest p-value in a stepwise manner until

10
only significant (p < 0.05) effects remained. The effects of previously excluded variables were
re-checked by adding them one-by-one to the minimum adequate model. The argument in
favour of the GLM method is that it tests more hypotheses at once hereby reducing the Type I
error.
Additionally, we tested also gender differences in all individual MUS items with Mann-
Whitney tests and applied Bonferroni correction because of multiple comparisons.

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive analysis and reliability of the scales

The descriptives of the MUS items are presented in Table 1. One item, MMS was excluded
because of low variance in the data (from the 5 response options only two were chosen). The
descriptives of the MAS items are presented in Table 2. The internal consistency of the scales
was acceptable: the Cronbach’s alfa was 0.71 for MUS and 0.77 for MAS.

Media Lower Upper

N Minimum Maximum
n quartile quartile
Calls 142 4 2 5 4 5
SMS 142 4 1 5 3 5
MMS 141 1 1 2 1 1
Browsing 142 1 1 5 1 4
Social Network 142 1 1 5 1 4
Chat 140 1 1 5 1 2
Games 142 1 1 5 1 2
Table 1 Descriptives (sample size, median, minimum-maximum and quartiles) of the
Mobile Usage Scale items (MUS)

N Median Minimum Maximum Lower Upper

quartile quartile
Checking 142 4 1 5 3 5
Separation 142 4 1 5 3 5
Proximity at night 141 5 1 5 4 5
Go_home 142 3 1 5 2 4
Mobile_see 141 2 1 5 1 4
Nervous 138 2 1 5 1 3
Nerv_other 142 3 1 5 2 4
Worry 142 3 1 5 2 4
Uneasy 142 1 1 5 1 2
Debate 142 1 1 5 1 1

11
Table 2 Descriptives (sample size, median, minimum-maximum and quartiles) of the
Mobile Attachment Scale items (MAS). For the full description of the scale items see
Appendix B

3.2 Principal component analysis of Mobile Usage Scale and Mobile Attachment Scale
items
The principal component analysis of the remaining 6 MUS items resulted in two components
(Eigenvalue>1) which accounted for 67.3% of the total variance. Items such as using the
phone for browsing the web, chatting, visiting social networking sites and playing games
loaded highly on the first component (43.8%). We labelled this component as Smart Mobile
Phone Use (as these functions are those which can be executed via personal computers and
notebooks). Items using the phone for calls and SMS loaded highly on the second component
(23.5%), so we labelled it as Traditional Mobile Phone Use (Table 3).

Components
Smart Mobile Traditional Mobile
Phone Use Phone Use
Browsing ,906 ,023
Chat ,862 -,083
Social Network ,846 ,093
Games ,582 ,048
Calls -,006 ,842
SMS ,056 ,832
Table 3 Item loadings on the principal components of the Mobile Usage Scale (MUS)

The principal component analysis of the MAS items resulted in three components (Eigenvalue
>1), which accounted for 61.7% of the total variance. Items regarding the need of the phone
being constantly close to the subject and the stress upon separation from the phone loaded
highly on the first component (33.6%). Thus, we labelled this component as Phone Proximity
Seeking. Items regarding the constant need for being in contact with people and the stress
upon being unable to answer a call or reach somebody loaded highly on the second
component (15.8%). Thus this component reflects the importance of not the phone itself but
rather the connections it represents. We labelled this component as Need for Contact. The
third component (12.4%) is characterized by the tendency to prefer mobile communication
over live communication for discussing awkward things or for debates, so we labelled this

12
component as Preference for Mobile Communication (Table 4). One item (“Mobile_see”)
loaded almost equally on two components, so we did not include this item in the interpretation
of the components.

Components
Preference for
Phone Proximity Need for
Mobile
Seeking Contact
Communication
Proximity at night .748 -.208 .058
Separation .667 .389 -.153
Go_home .649 .392 -.033
Checking .608 .093 .196
Worry -.181 .793 .181
Nerv_other .249 .774 .002
Nervous .515 .603 .103
Mobile_see .400 .451 .254
Uneasy .127 .059 .875
Debate -.002 .132 .853
Table 4 Item loadings on the principal components of the Mobile Attachment Scale
(MAS). For the full description of the scale items see Appendix B

3.3 Effects of Adult Attachment Scale, gender and type of phone on mobile usage and
mobile attachment
We used six GLMs with the MUS components (Smart Mobile Phone Use, Traditional Mobile
Phone Use) scores, the MAS total score and the MAS components (Phone Proximity Seeking,
Need for Contact, Preference for Mobile Communication) scores as dependent variables.
The GLM analysis with the Smart Mobile Phone Function component of the MUS as
dependent variable revealed that the type of the phone had a main effect on it (Table 5), i.e.
people with smartphones use the phone for smart phone functions more frequently than
people with traditional phones. Attachment anxiety also had a significant main effect on this
dependent variable (Table 5): people with higher attachment anxiety use the phone for smart
phone functions more frequently than people with lower attachment anxiety. There were no
significant interactions, and no significant main effect of attachment avoidance and gender on
this dependent variable.

13
The GLM analysis with the Traditional Mobile Phone Function component of the MUS as
dependent variable revealed that gender had a main effect on Traditional Mobile Phone
Function (Table 5): women use the phone for traditional functions more frequently than men.
There were no significant interactions, and no significant main effect of attachment scales and
type of the phone on this dependent variable.
The GLM analysis with the MAS total score as dependent variable revealed that gender, the
type of the phone and attachment anxiety had a significant main effect (Table 5): women,
people with smartphones and people with higher attachment anxiety had higher mobile
attachment (MAS) total score than men, people with traditional phones or with lower
attachment anxiety. There were no significant interactions, and no significant main effect of
attachment avoidance on MAS total score.
When Phone Proximity Seeking and Preference for Mobile Communication were the
dependent variables, no significant main effect or interaction was found. However, when the
dependent variable was Need for Contact, attachment anxiety had a significant positive main
effect (Table 5): people with higher attachment anxiety scores have higher Need for Contact
scores. The other independent variables had no significant main effects on Need for Contact
and there were no significant interactions.

Independent Degrees
Parameter Standard
Dependent variable variables in of F p
estimate Error
the final model freedom
Type of phone
MUS_Smart 1.57 0.16 1 94.98 <0.001
(TrSm)
Mobile Phone
Function Attachment
0.18 0.09 1 3.98 0.048
anxiety
MUS_Traditional
Gender
Mobile Phone -1.47 0.38 1 14.9 <0.001
(FM)
Function
Gender
-0.26 0.12 1 4.9 0.029
(FM)
Type of phone
MAS total score 0.32 0.12 1 7.1 0.009
(TrSm)
Attachment
0.17 0.07 1 6.5 0.01
anxiety
MAS_Need for Attachment
0.38 0.18 1 4.5 0.035
contact anxiety
Table 5 Results of the general linear models (GLMs) with Smart Mobile Phone Function
(MUS component) score, Traditional Mobile Phone Function (MUS component) score,
mobile attachment (MAS) total score and Need for Contact (MAS component) score as

14
dependent variables, subscales (attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance) of the
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) as covariates, gender and type of the phone as fixed
factors. Only the independent variables of the final models are presented, with direction
of change of factor levels indicated in brackets (where applicable); Tr: traditional
phone, Sm: smartphone, F: females, M: males.

3.4 Gender differences in mobile use

Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni corrections were run to find gender differences in the
individual MUS items. Results show that women use the phone more for calling (U=1661.5;
p=0.006) and SMS (U=1483; p=0.001), while men use it more for playing games (U=1600;
p=0.002), and the results remained significant after Bonferroni correction (adjusted
significance level for 7 tests: 0.007).

4 Discussion

4.1 Attachment to the mobile phone and its different aspects

The results show that young people readily form some kind of attachment to their mobile
phone. The descriptive statistics (e.g. medians are 4 or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale) of the
Phone Proximity Seeking items of the MAS (see the medians in Table 3) show that young
people usually try to maintain proximity to the phone and feel distressed when they are
separated from it. These traits are the two main indicators of attachment. The principal
component analysis of the MAS suggests that this kind of (compensatory) attachment to the
phone is independent from its relationship-facilitating function (Need for contact), and also
from the preference of mobile communication in uneasy social situations.
We assume that – while attachment to e.g. romantic partners may be a product of evolutionary
co-option of the infant-mother attachment system (see Introduction) – attachment to the
mobile phone (and also to other recently emerged artificial objects, like robots, artificial
agents; see e.g. Sung et al., 2007) may be the consequence of cultural co-option of the
neuronal circuits of the attachment system (‘neural recycling hypothesis’, Dehaene & Cohen,
2007; see also Parkinson & Wheatley, 2015). This may be the reason why our relationship
with the mobile phone shows many constraints and features that infant-mother attachment has
(e.g. proximity-seeking, separation stress).

15
We do not say, however, that attachment to the mobile phone is the same in every aspect as
attachment to animate targets. Objects (e.g. mobile phones) have no agency, and their
presence can be fully controlled. The “responsiveness” they offer is “decoupled from the care
and compassion people typically seek from a human caregiver”/ partner (Keefer et al., 2012, p
913). However, it is so reliable and controllable that it may be attractive for many people.
Unlike other targets, objects are exceptionally reliable, being always present when we need
them, and they can be completely controlled. This is in accordance with Winnicott's (1971)
theory of transitional objects stating that children cope with the temporary absence of their
caregivers with the reliable presence of a valued object (e.g. blanket).
Because of complete controllability, the attachment styles (secure, avoidant, anxious)
described in case of interpersonal (Bowlby, 1969) and interspecies (e.g. human-dog: Zilcha-
Mano, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011) attachment are naturally irrelevant in connection with
inanimate objects, such as the mobile phone. Despite the differences, we assume that viewing
our behaviour toward the mobile phone in an attachment framework is useful as not only
extreme behaviour (e.g. addiction or “problematic mobile use”) but also normal behaviour can
be discussed and studied (additional benefits of using the attachment framework are discussed
in ‘Future direction’ section).

4.2 Interpersonal attachment style and mobile attachment

The results partly support our hypotheses as people’s higher attachment anxiety predicted
higher tendency to show attachment-like features regarding their mobile phone as expressed
by a higher total score on MAS. When we analysed different aspects of mobile attachment
(different components of the PCA) we found that higher attachment anxiety predicted higher
scores on the Need for contact component, which means that for anxiously attached people
the most important aspects of the phone is the relationship-facilitating function (being
constantly connected to others). This may be the result of their constant fear of being
abandoned or rejected. However, in contrast to our expectations, people’s higher attachment
anxiety did not predict higher proximity seeking toward the phone which suggests that
attachment anxiety does not necessarily lead to higher tendency to form compensatory
attachment toward the phone (as an object). This is in contrast with previous findings that
people with higher attachment anxiety show an increased attachment to objects (Hooley &
Wilson-Murphy, 2012; Keefer et al., 2012). However, our negative result may be the
consequence of a ceiling effect: people (independently of their attachment style) scored the

16
Phone Proximity Seeking items so high that it could not be significantly increased. It seems
that the proximity of the phone is equally important for most of the people, but the constant
contact with others through the phone is more important for anxiously attached people.
The persistent contact the mobile offers seems to trigger ambivalent feelings in most people:
e.g. while being able to contact others is one of the most liked qualities of the mobile, being
continuously available for others’ contact is also one of its most disliked qualities (Baron &
Ling, 2007; Baron, 2008). In friendships the mutual expectation to maintain the relationship
through the phone has contradictory consequences: it leads to dependence, which increases
relationship satisfaction, but also to overdependence, which decreases satisfaction (Hall &
Baym, 2011).The constant contact the mobile encourages and the expectations of friends to
maintain relationships through the phone may lead to “hyper-coordination” (i.e. the
experience of anxiety-provoking relational dependence; Ling, 2004) or “feelings of
imprisonment and entrapment” (Baym, 2010; Hall & Baym, 2011). Thus, the mobile phone is
a tool of negotiating between dependence and independence (Ribak, 2009). The degree how
much people need dependence and independence is influenced by their attachment style,
avoidant people need more independence, people with anxious attachment style need more
dependence, and secure individuals between. Thus, for anxiously attached people the
dependence the mobile offers may be a valued feature, while for secure and mostly for
avoidant people it can cause feelings of overdependence and entrapment.
This raises the question whether mobile communication helps people with anxious attachment
style to overcome their emotional difficulties or it just worsens the situation by increasing
their dependence on others. According to Turkle (2006), the mobile phone (and Internet)
gives us an opportunity to communicate “whenever we have a feeling”, which may make us
to be unable to reflect on our own emotions. As people with insecure attachment style have
difficulties with self-reflection (Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Moran, & Higgitt, 1991; Fonagy,
Steele, Steele, & Leigh, 1995; Fonagy & Target, 1997), the reliance on the outside validation
of their inner states through the mobile (and Internet) communication may increase their
dependence on others and may also expose them to the danger of e.g. ‘oversharing’.
We have found a marginally significant association between mobile use frequency and
attachment anxiety, but only in case of smart phone functions: anxiously attached people use
the phone more for e.g. chatting or visiting social network sites, but do not use it more for
calls or SMS-s. We suppose that because of their higher need for being constantly connected
to others, people with anxious attachment style use the phone more. However, we would have
expected that they would use the phone more also for calling and SMS-s, but the results do

17
not support this. In the literature, results are also contradictory: while some authors found an
association between attachment anxiety and mobile phone addiction (Ge, 2014) or “sexting”
(sending sexual text messages) on phone (Drouin & Landgraff, 2012; Weisskirch & Delevi,
2011), Morey & Gentzler (2013) did not find an association between mobile use frequency
and attachment anxiety. It is possible that people with different attachment style use the phone
with different motivations, but the amount of time they spend on it is almost the same.
Alternatively, while the frequency of usage is the same, their usage could have different
features, e.g. anxiously attached people may show more addiction-like features in their mobile
use (Ge, 2014). Thus, frequency of use may not be a good indicator of the user’s attachment
style, while other features like the need for contact through the phone are better.

4.3 Smartphones and mobile attachment/mobile usage

We found that people owning a smartphone have a higher tendency to show attachment-like
features to the phone (expressed by higher scores on the MAS). However, when we analyzed
the attachment components separately, we found no significant effect of type of phone on
these components. Thus, neither aspects of mobile attachment is prominently important for
smartphone users, instead they have an increased tendency to develop attachment toward the
phone in general. As far as we know no study has compared phone attachment of smartphone
and traditional cell phone users, so this study is the first in this field. Neither do we know
about any data on the ratio of mobile addiction/problematic mobile use between these two
populations. However, an increase in the number of smartphone subscriptions and an increase
in the intensity (duration, frequency, etc.) of mobile use (Ericsson, 2014) in recent years
suggest that with the emergence of smartphones a more substantial engagement with the
phone has emerged.

4.4 Gender differences in mobile usage and mobile attachment

As expected, women used the phone more frequently for traditional functions: calling and
SMS, which is in accordance with Sánchez-Martínez & Otero’s (2009) finding that women
use the phone more to communicate. Similarly, females have been found to use the mobile
phone more likely for social purposes (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005; Wei & Lo, 2006), compared
to men who are more likely to use it for seeking information (Wei & Lo, 2006), for business
purposes (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005) or for playing games (see our results or the results of
Sánchez-Martínez & Otero, 2009). Perhaps because the phone is mainly a communication
device, women have been reported to use the mobile phone more intensely (e.g. Billieux,

18
2008; Sánchez-Martínez & Otero, 2009; but see: Bianchi & Phillips, 2005), as they did in the
case of the fixed phone (Fischer, 1994; Smoreda & Licoppe, 2000). Perhaps because the
social function is more important for women, they have been reported to be more prone to
experience dependence on the mobile phone (Billieux, 2008; Geser, 2006). Similarly, we
found that women have a higher tendency to form attachment toward the phone than men.

4.5 Limitations of the study

The aim of this exploratory study was to collect data for future more experimentally oriented
research. It is possible that the items we included in the Mobile Attachment Scale do not
cover all aspects of mobile attachment. For example, we did not include items regarding
secure base and safe haven effects in connection with the mobile phone. Additionally, items
may need to be rephrased for eliminating e.g. ceiling effect. Thus, a more rigorous scale
development process with larger item pool would be important to carry out in the future, and
further studies are needed to establish the psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of
the scales.
Additionally, our sample is limited in size and representativeness, e.g. all participants were
Hungarian, Facebook-user, etc. A culturally/demographically varied and larger sample would
be beneficial to use in future work.

4.6 Future directions

Additional questionnaire studies are necessary to carry out to get a more subtle picture about
mobile attachment (e.g. regarding secure base and safe haven effect). In addition,
experimental studies are needed to validate the results and to show attachment to mobile
phones in a behavioural and physiological level.
We hope that with this work we establish a new approach that views people’s behaviour
toward the mobile phone in an attachment framework rather than considering it as an
abnormal/ extreme behaviour (e.g. addiction). Additionally, the hypothesis that mobile
attachment co-opts the same neuronal circuits as infant-mother or romantic attachment can be
tested through neuroimaging studies and findings can widen our knowledge about neuronal
recycling/ cultural repurposing with a case of a socioemotional phenomenon besides the
purely cognitive skills (like reading, arithmetic; see e.g. Dehaene & Cohen, 2007; Sievers,
Polansky, Casey, & Wheatley, 2012). And if we discover that our new kind of relationship
with the mobile phone alters somehow our relationships with humans (as in case of other
cultural skills which have been found also to shape the recycled neural circuits; Pegado et al,

19
2014; Ventura et al, 2013), new directions of future technology development should be
considered in order to avoid/overcome negative consequences.

4.7 Conclusion
In summary, our results suggest that 1) people show some form of attachment toward their
mobile phone and 2) some features of their attachment to the phone are influenced by their
interpersonal attachment style. Specifically, anxiously attached people need more contact
through the phone, and perhaps because of this they use the phone more for smart phone
functions (but not for traditional mobile phone functions). However, in contrast to our
expectations, people with anxious attachment style do not show more proximity seeking and
separation stress behaviour in connection with their phone, which suggest that they do not use
the phone more as a compensatory attachment target than other people.

20
5 Appendix A

How often do you use your phone for the following functions?
1- very rarely 5- very often
Calls 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
SMS 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
MMS 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
Browsing the Internet 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
Social networking sites 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
Chat 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5
Games 1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5

21
6 Appendix B

To what extent are the following statements characteristic of you?

Short name Item

Checking I regularly check my phone even if it does not ring.

Separation I feel bad when I leave my phone at home/ when it runs out of
battery.

Night_proximity My phone is within my reach even at night.

Go_home If I left my phone at home, I would be willing to go home for it.

Mobile_see When I sit down somewhere (e.g. in a cafe, a lecture, to a dining

table, etc.), I put my phone at a visible place, within my reach.

Nervous I’m nervous if I cannot be reached on the phone.

Nerv_other I’m nervous if I cannot get through somebody immediately.

Worry If a close friend/ family member doesn’t pick up the phone, I start to
worry/ have a bad feeling.

Uneasy I prefer talking about awkward things on the phone rather than face
to face.

Debate I prefer settling a dispute (with partner, family members, etc.) on the
phone rather than face to face.

1---------------2---------------3---------------4---------------5

Not at all characteristic of me Very characteristic of me

22
7 Appendix C

Adult Attachment Scale

Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it describes your

feelings about close relationships.

Please use the scale below by placing a number between 1 and 5 in the space provided to the

right of each statement.

1---------------2---------------3---------------4---------------5

Not at all characteristic of me Very characteristic of me

(1) I find it relatively easy to get close to others. ________

(2) I do not worry about being abandoned. ________

(3) I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others. ________

(4) In relationships, I often worry that my partner does not really love me. ________

(5) I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. ________

(6) I am comfortable depending on others. ________

(7) I do not worry about someone getting too close to me. ________

(8) I find that people are never there when you need them. ________

(9) I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. ________

(10) In relationships, I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me. ________

(11) I want to merge completely with another person. ________

(12) My desire to merge sometimes scares people away. ________

(13) I am comfortable having others depend on me. ________

(14) I know that people will be there when I need them. ________

(15) I am nervous when anyone gets too close. ________

23
(16) I find it difficult to trust others completely. ________

(17) Often, partners want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being. ________

(18) I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them. ________

24
8 References

75 papír-ceruza teszt (75 paper and pencil tests). (n.d.). Budapest: Animula.

Ainsworth, M., Bell, S., & Stayton, D. (1971). Individual differences in strange-situation
behaviour of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social
relations. New York: Academic Press.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://amberton.mylifeblue.com/media/Syllabi/Winter 2015/Graduate/CSL6820_01.pdf

Archer, J., & Ireland, J. L. (2011). The Development and Factor Structure of a Questionnaire
Measure of the Strength of Attachment to Pet Dogs. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary
Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 24(3), 249–261.

Augner, C., & Hacker, G. W. (2012). Associations between problematic mobile phone use
and psychological parameters in young adults. International journal of public health,
57(2), 437–41. doi:10.1007/s00038-011-0234-z

Baron, N. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=pq4PJv3xZ5UC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Always+on:
+Language+in+an+online+and+mobile+world&ots=k_XXGkdjZK&sig=nMxAK4bZFt0
Bcsm5--oQPSQ4BHA

Baron, N. S., & Ling, R. (2007). Emerging patterns of American mobile phone use:
Electronically mediated communication in transition. Mobile media, 218–230. Retrieved
from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rich_Ling/publication/228634663_Emerging_patter
ns_of_American_mobile_phone_use_Electronically-
mediated_communication_in_transition/links/02e7e52a5722ed9a1a000000.pdf

Baym, N. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=N4jk7DZbR1oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Personal+Connections+in+the+
Digital+Age&ots=Usv68ykB5S&sig=FiIoAv1MRLn0lBSANydVwujAdbM

Belk, R. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of
Consumer research, 265–280. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/254373

Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 39–51. Retrieved from
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39

Billieux, J. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone.
Applied Cognitive Psychology Psychology, 22(9), 1195–1210. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1429/full

25
Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: a literature review and a pathways
model. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1–9. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cpsr/2012/00000008/00000004/art00011

Bivin, J. B., Mathew, P., Thulasi, P. C., & Philip, J. (2013). Nomophobia-do we really need to
worry about? Reviews of Progress, 1. Retrieved from
http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?
target=ijor:jnt&volume=5&issue=3&article=003

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An
integrative overview. Attachment theory and close relationships relationships, 46–76.
Retrieved from http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/measures/measures.html

Cheever, N. a., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. 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.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002

Cipriani, J., & Kreider, M. (2009). Understanding object attachment and meaning for nursing
home residents: an exploratory study, including implications for occupational therapy.
Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 27(6), 405–422. Retrieved from
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/02703180903183164

Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The Extended iSelf: The Impact of iPhone
Separation on Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 20(2), 119–135. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12109

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion,

and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.4.810

Collins, N., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in
dating couples. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54, 644–663.

Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world. McGraw-Hill Education. Retrieved
from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=BUPlAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Material+culture+in+the+soci
al+world&ots=OfpKs8tdPv&sig=fDWvQAgGJVMlKr_OXRxZqOgAz2s

Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2007). Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron, 56(2), 384–98.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.004

Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’
romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 444–449.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015

26
Ericsson, J. (2014). Ericsson mobility report, (November). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Ericsson+mobility+report#1

Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin and social affiliation in humans. Hormones and behavior,
61(3), 380–91. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.01.008

Fischer, C. (1994). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Univ of
California Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0yE-
CP4SmlYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=America+calling:
+A+social+history+of+the+telephone+to+1940&ots=R1u1HBfGNZ&sig=xuBu_Y4fqFt
XzgCKJBe_so5cSEQ

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., & Leigh, T. (1995). Attachment, the reflective self, and
borderline states: The predictive specificity of the Adult Attachment Interview and
pathological emotional development. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1995-99050-008

Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G., & Higgitt, A. (1991). The capacity for
understanding mental states: The reflective self in parent and child and its significance
for security of attachment. Infant mental health journal, 12, 201–218. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+capacity+for+understanding+mental+states:
+The+reflective+self+in+parent+and+child+and+its+significance+for+security+of+attac
hment#0

Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self-
organization. Development and psychopathology, 9(04), 679–700. Retrieved from
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0954579497001399

Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender
and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31,
314–321. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053

Fraley, Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult
attachment: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 89(5), 731–46. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.751

Fraley, R., & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of general psychology, 4(2),
132–154. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.4.2.132

Ge, X. (2014). Adolescent attachment and the mobile phone addiction: mediating effects of
social support. In H. C. Liu, W. P. Sung, & W. L. Yao (Eds.), Computer, Intelligent
Computing and Education Technology (pp. 41–44). Hong Kong: CRC Press. Retrieved
from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=OO0xAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=Adolescent+attachment+an
d+the+mobile+phone+addiction:
+Mediating+effects+of+social+support&ots=OFbje6Mgza&sig=qKm6EgF27-
pk1R7SG32mvlRb4S8

27
George, J. S. (2013). The things they carry: a study of transitional object use among US
military personnel during and after deployment. Retrieved from
https://dspace.smith.edu/handle/11020/24248

Geser, H. (2006). Are girls (even) more addicted? Some gender patterns of cell phone usage.
Retrieved from http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/32700

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 67(3), 430. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/67/3/430/

Hall, J. a., & Baym, N. K. (2011). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance
expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media &
Society, 14(2), 316–331. doi:10.1177/1461444811415047

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Deeper into attachment theory. Psychological Inquiry, 51(1),
68–79. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_15

Hidalgo, M., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions.
Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 273–281. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027249440190221X

Hodder, I. (2013). The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic expression.
Routledge. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=T0cVAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+meanings+of+things:
+material+culture+and+symbolic+expression&ots=PvYxucvhyu&sig=L6eexXWdUquT
QxkBD4kRamY7p1o

Hong, F.-Y., Chiu, S.-I., & Huang, D.-H. (2012). A model of the relationship between
psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by
Taiwanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152–
2159. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.020

Hooley, J., & Wilson-Murphy, M. (2012). Adult attachment to transitional objects and
borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders, 26(2), 179–191.
Retrieved from http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.2.179

Jin, B., & Peña, J. F. (2010). Mobile Communication in Romantic Relationships: Mobile
Phone Use, Relational Uncertainty, Love, Commitment, and Attachment Styles.
Communication Reports, 23(1), 39–51. doi:10.1080/08934211003598742

Keefer, L., Landau, M., Rothschild, Z. K., & Sullivan, D. (2012). Attachment to objects as
compensation for close others’ perceived unreliability. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 48(4), 912–917. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112000194

Kemp, S. (2014). Social, Digital & Mobile in 2015. Retrieved from

http://zenithmalaysia.com/infobank/Digital_social_and_mobile_in_2015_Executive_sum
mary.pdf

28
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M. R., & Nardi, A.
E. (2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia?
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.025

Kirkpatrick. (1997). A longitudinal study of changes in religious belief and behavior as a

function of individual differences in adult attachment style. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 207–217. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387553

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1994). The role of attachment in religious belief and behavior. Advances
in personal relationships. Advances in personal relationships, 5, 239–265.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1992). An Attachment-Theoretical Approach to Romantic

Love and Religious Belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 266–275.
doi:10.1177/0146167292183002

Levitas, D. (2013). Always Connected: How Smartphones And Social Keep Us Engaged.
International Data Corporation (IDC). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Always+Connected:
+How+Smartphones+and+Social+Keep+Us+Engaged#0

Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. Morgan
Kaufmann. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=oSwCQ6y6wq8C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+Mobile+Connection:
+The+Cell+Phone
%E2%80%99s+Impact+on+Society&ots=6L1E0plzcQ&sig=5cvel9jCaTjTDTbDeenoG
AvzgSY

Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H., Doyle, A. B., & Haggart, N. (2006). Developmental
Differences in Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Use of Mothers, Fathers, Best Friends,
and Romantic Partners to Fulfill Attachment Needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
35(1), 121–134. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9014-5

Medard, E., & Kellett, S. (2014). The Role of Adult Attachment and Social Support in
Hoarding Disorder. Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy, 42(05), 629–633.
Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1352465813000659

Morey, J., & Gentzler, A. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within
their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321300085X

Myers, E. (1985). Phenomenological analysis of the importance of special possessions: An

exploratory study. Advances in consumer research, 12(1), 560–565. Retrieved from
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6447

Nedelisky, A., & Steele, M. (2009). Attachment to people and to objects in obsessive-
compulsive disorder: an exploratory comparison of hoarders and non-hoarders.
Attachment & human development, 11(4), 365–383. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616730903016987

29
Parkinson, C., & Wheatley, T. (2015). The repurposed social brain. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 19(3), 133–41. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.003

Pegado, F., Nakamura, K., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Nunes Filho, G., Pallier, C., ... &
Dehaene, S. (2014). Literacy breaks mirror invariance for visual stimuli: a behavioral
study with adult illiterates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 887

Proksch, M., Orth, U., & Bethge, F. (2013). Disentangling the influence of attachment anxiety
and attachment security in consumer formation of attachments to brands. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 12(4), 318–326. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.1434/full

Ribak, R. (2009). Remote control, umbilical cord and beyond: The mobile phone as a
transitional object. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 183–196.
doi:10.1348/026151008X388413

Salesforce Marketing Cloud. (2014). 2014 mobile behavior report. Retrieved from
http://www.exacttarget.com/2014-mobile-behavior-report

Sánchez-Martínez, M., & Otero, A. (2009). Factors associated with cell phone use in
adolescents in the community of Madrid (Spain). Cyberpsychology & behavior: the
impact of the Internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society, 12(2),
131–7. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0164

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494409000620

Schaik, C. Van, Deaner, R., & Merrill, M. (1999). The conditions for tool use in primates:
implications for the evolution of material culture. Journal of Human Evolution, 36(6),
719–741. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248499903044

SecureEnvoy. (2012). 66% of the population suffer from nomophobia the fear of being
without their phone. Retrieved from https://www.securenvoy.com/blog/2012/02/16/66-
of-the-population-suffer-from-nomophobia-the-fear-of-being-without-their-phone/

Sharma, N., Sharma, P., Sharma, N., & Wavare, R. (2015). Rising concern of nomophobia
amongst Indian medical students. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences,
3(3), 705. doi:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20150333

Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social and
Personal relationships, 5(4), 473–501. Retrieved from
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/5/4/473.short

Sherman, E. (1991). Reminiscentia: Cherished objects as memorabilia in late-life

reminiscence. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development. Retrieved
from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-01158-001

30
Shin, S.-E., Kim, N.-S., & Jang, E.-Y. (2011). Comparison of problematic internet and
alcohol use and attachment styles among industrial workers in Korea. Cyberpsychology,
behavior and social networking, 14(11), 665–72. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0470

Sievers, B., Polansky, L., Casey, M., & Wheatley, T. (2012). Music and movement share a
dynamic structure that supports universal expressions of emotion. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(1), 70–75.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1209023110/-/DCSupplemental.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/
pnas.1209023110

Smoreda, Z., & Licoppe, C. (2000). Gender-specific use of the domestic telephone. Social
psychology quarterly, 238–252. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695871

Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24(2), 111–129. doi:10.1080/01449290512331321910

Sung, J., Guo, L., Grinter, R., & Christensen, H. (2007). “My Roomba Is Rambo”: Intimate
Home Appliances. In J. Krumm, G. D. Abowd, A. Seneviratne, & T. Strang (Eds.),
UbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 145–162). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_9

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston Massachusetts
Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved from https://www.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/tocs/135813948.pdf

Toda, M., Monden, K., Kubo, K., & Morimoto, K. (2006). Mobile phone dependence and
health-related lifestyle of university students. Social Behavior and Personality: an
international journal, 34(10), 1277–1284. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2006/00000034/00000010/art00008

Trinke, S., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young

adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 14(5), 603–625. Retrieved from
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/14/5/603.short

Turkle, S. (2006). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.), Erscheint in

Handbook of Mobile Communication and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=kZAWAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA274&dq=Always-on/Always-on-
you:+The+Tethered+Self&ots=WQyC2chEDe&sig=FvvnNMx3sbsH-wvgfidq-GSbANo

Ventura, P., Fernandes, T., Cohen, L., Morais, J., Kolinsky, R., & Dehaene, S. (2013).
Literacy acquisition reduces the influence of automatic holistic processing of faces and
houses.  Neuroscience letters, 554, 105-109

Walsh, E. (2014). A study of object use: adults, special objects, and contemporary American
culture. Retrieved from https://dspace.smith.edu/handle/11020/24509

Wapner, S., Demick, J., & Redondo, J. (1990). Cherished possessions and adaptation of older
people to nursing homes. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development.
Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-13627-001

31
Wei, R., & Lo, V. (2006). Staying connected while on the move Cell phone use and social
connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53–72. Retrieved from
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/1/53.short

Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers
in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008

Whitmore, H. (2001). Value that marketing cannot manufacture: Cherished possessions as

links to identity and wisdom. Generations, 25(3), 57–63. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asag/gen/2001/00000025/00000003/art00013

Wickler, W. (1976). The ethological analysis of attachment. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie,

42(1), 12–28. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-
0310.1976.tb00953.x/abstract

Winnicott, D. (1971). Playing and reality. Psychology Press. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=JHMdZC08HhcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Playing+and+reality&ots=y0G
KdT9WEb&sig=xxUfi3mPYszZFKEqHNN6_oDX80w

Wiseman, R., & Watt, C. (2004). Measuring superstitious belief: Why lucky charms matter.
Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1533–1541. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904000418

Zasloff, R., & Kidd, A. (1994). Attachment to feline companions. Psychological Reports,
747–752. Retrieved from http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.3.747

Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2011). An attachment perspective on human–
pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations.
Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 345–357. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656611000584

32