RF Safe

The Distracting Effects of a Ringing Cell Phone: An Investigation of the Laboratory and the Classroom Setting.

Journal of environmental psychology · 2009 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream
HarmLow evidencePaper 3316

Across four experiments, exposure to a ringing cell phone (and other sounds) was associated with slower responses versus silence, with slower recovery in the ring and song conditions. In a classroom setting, quiz accuracy was low for material presented while …

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of environmental psychology · 2009
Study typeother
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The detrimental effects of a ringing phone on cognitive performance were investigated in four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, the effects of different types of sounds (a standard cell phone ring, irrelevant tones and an instrumental song commonly encountered by participants) on performance were examined. In Experiment 1, slower responses were observed in all auditory groups relative to a silence condition, but participants in the ring and song conditions recovered more slowly. In Experiment 2, participants who were warned about the potential for distraction recovered more quickly, suggesting a benefit of this prior knowledge. This investigation continued in a college classroom setting (Experiments 3a and 3b); students were exposed to a ringing cell phone during the lecture. Performance on a surprise quiz revealed low accuracy rates on material presented while the phone was ringing. These findings offer insight into top-down cognitive processes that moderate involuntary orienting responses associated with a common stimulus encountered in the environment.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionharm
PopulationParticipants in laboratory experiments and college classroom students
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across four experiments, exposure to a ringing cell phone (and other sounds) was associated with slower responses versus silence, with slower recovery in the ring and song conditions. In a classroom setting, quiz accuracy was low for material presented while the phone was ringing; warning participants about distraction improved recovery speed in one experiment.

Outcomes measured

  • Cognitive performance (response speed/recovery)
  • Quiz accuracy on lecture material presented during ringing

Limitations

  • No sample size reported in abstract
  • Exposure is auditory distraction from ringing rather than EMF/RF exposure; no RF parameters (frequency/SAR) reported
  • Details of methods and statistical results not provided in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Participants in laboratory experiments and college classroom students",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Cognitive performance (response speed/recovery)",
    "Quiz accuracy on lecture material presented during ringing"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across four experiments, exposure to a ringing cell phone (and other sounds) was associated with slower responses versus silence, with slower recovery in the ring and song conditions. In a classroom setting, quiz accuracy was low for material presented while the phone was ringing; warning participants about distraction improved recovery speed in one experiment.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "No sample size reported in abstract",
    "Exposure is auditory distraction from ringing rather than EMF/RF exposure; no RF parameters (frequency/SAR) reported",
    "Details of methods and statistical results not provided in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "ringing cell phone",
    "auditory distraction",
    "cognitive performance",
    "classroom",
    "lecture",
    "quiz accuracy",
    "involuntary orienting",
    "top-down processes"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.001
PubMed: 21234286

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library