TITLE: How bad is the mere presence of a phone?  A replication of Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)  and an extension to creativity, PLoS ONE 16(6), 2021
AUTHORS: Claire Linares, Anne-Laure  Sellier

[DESCRIPTION]
<div class = "text-blocks"><div class = "text-block"><span>A 2013 article reported two experiments suggesting that the mere presence of a cellphone (vs. a notebook) can impair the relationship quality between strangers. The purpose of the present research is twofold: (1) closely replicate this article’s findings, and (2) examine whether there may be an impact of the mere presence of a phone on creativity, whether at a group- or an individual- level. In two experiments (</span><span style = "font-style:italic;">N </span><span>= 356 participants, 136 groups), we followed the original procedure in the 2013 article. In particular, groups of participants who had never seen each other before the study had a conversation in the mere presence of either a smartphone or a notebook. The participants then carried out creative tasks, in groups (Studies 1 and 2) or alone (Study 1). In both studies, we failed to replicate the original results on relationship quality. We also failed to find any effect of the mere presence of a phone on creativity. We discuss possible reasons which may have caused differences between our results and the original ones. Our main conclusion is an effect of the mere presence of a phone on relationship quality and creativity is at minimum harder to find than what was previously assumed in the literature. More generally, this research contributes to qualify the view that smartphones are harmful.</span></div></div>

[STEPS]
?. [Lab sessions: Preparation of the study room and manipulation]
Preparation of the room layoutThe study rooms have two tables, one with the smartphone or notebook and the second one for the creativity tasks.Please see the schemas for the layout of the rooms.Figure 2. Layout of the study rooms during the conversation and creativity tasks (Studies 1 and 2).Schematic drawings of a bird’s eye view of the study rooms during the conversation for dyads (A) and triads (C), and during the creative tasks for dyads (B) and triads (D). In the rooms, the smartphone or notebook (1) was placed on a paper sleeve (2), next to a clock (3) on the main table. Chairs (4) were placed next to the main table. A second table (5) was added for the creative tasks. Adapted from Przybylski and Weinstein (2013).
?. [Replication of Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)]
?. [Lab sessions: Replication of Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)]
Groups are randomly assigned either to the smartphone or notebook procedure and settled in the corresponding room.
?. [Replication of Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)]
?. [Lab sessions: Preparation of the study room and manipulation]
Preparation of the manipulation (mere presence of a smartphone versus a notebook)- In the smartphone condition, the smartphone is a nondescript black smartphone with a minimal design and a brand not well-know and not visible. The smartphone's screen is facing up.- In the notebook condition, the pocket notebook is approximatively the same size and color (black) as the smartphoneUnderneath the object is placed a purple paper sleeve.In both conditions, there is a clock next to the smartphone or notebook.Please see the pictures attached.
?. [Lab sessions: Reception of participants]
While waiting for the beginning of the session, participants sign a consent form.At the beginning of the session, we ask participants whether they have ever talked to another member of the session before or while waiting for the study to start.Based on the responses, we form either one or two groups of participants who have never talked to each other.
?. [Lab sessions: Reception of participants]
Before entering the study room, participants leave their personal belonging (including their phones) in a locker room.Each group is settled in its own room.
?. [Lab sessions: Replication of Przybylski and Weinstein (2013)]
Once participants are settled, they are asked for their first names and given a participant number to trace their group creation and later on their questionnaire answers.The experimenter gives the instructions for the relationship formation task from Przybylski and Weinstein (2013). Specifically, he/she asks groups of participants to "discuss an interesting event that occurred to them over the past month" during 10 minutes.
?. [Lab sessions: Group creativity task]
When the 10 minutes of discussion are over, the experimenter comes back in the study room and adds the second table next to the first one (see the layout in step 1).Participants are given the instructions for the toy task (Moreau and Dahl 2005).Each group is asked to design a new toy, as creative as possible, for a child from 5 to 11, using shapes from a given list. See material for the instructions attached. They are given a piece of paper (A3 format), pencils and a rubber, as well as scrap paper.Participants have 15 minutes to draw the group toy and list five reasons why they think their toy is creative.
?. [Lab sessions: Group creativity task]
Participants are reminded when there are 5 minutes left.When the time is up, the experimenter returns in the study room and asks each group to write a small description about the toy and how it works on the sheet of paper with the toy drawing.
?. [Lab sessions: Individual creativity task (only in Study 1)]
Participants are given an individual convergent creative task, the Remote Associates Test (RAT, Mednick 1962).They have 10 minutes to solve up to 10 RATs individually. They are asked not to talk to each other.Please see material attached (translated in English).
?. [Lab sessions: Final questionnaire]
Participants leave the study room and are guided to individual cubicles to answer a questionnaire on a computer.The questionnaire includes three series of measures. First, self-assessments on the creativity of the group toys and satisfaction, and creative process measures. Then a second series of measures on the initial conversation (including measures from Przybylski and Weinstein 2013). Finally, questions on phone ownership and usage, and demographics and mood measures. See complete questionnaires attached.
?. [Lab sessions: Final questionnaire]
Before leaving the lab, participants are probed for suspicions. Participants are then debriefed, compensated and thanked.Participants are compensated 12€ for the whole session including the individual creativity task and 10€ for the study without the individual creativity task.
?. [Evaluation of group toys creativity]
Following the lab sessions, twelve to thirteen peer judges are invited to independently rate each toy created by the groups on a series of measures.
?. [Statistical analyses]
Different statistical methods are used depending on the level of the dependent variables. Covariates are included in the model for the replication measures following Przybylski and Weinstein (2013).See table below for the analysis corresponding to each category of dependent variables.Category of dependent variablesMain analysisRelationship measures (Przybylski and Weinstein 2013)Multilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect, and gender, age and positive affect covariates as level-1 fixed effectsCreativity scores of group toys rated by peer judgest&nbsp;test: mere presence of smartphone as predictor (no covariates)Remote associates testMultilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)Self-assessments of creativityMultilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)Creative measures&nbsp;Multilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)
Category of dependent variablesMain analysisRelationship measures (Przybylski and Weinstein 2013)Multilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect, and gender, age and positive affect covariates as level-1 fixed effectsCreativity scores of group toys rated by peer judgest&nbsp;test: mere presence of smartphone as predictor (no covariates)Remote associates testMultilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)Self-assessments of creativityMultilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)Creative measures&nbsp;Multilevel analysis: random intercept model with mere presence of smartphone as level-2 fixed effect (no covariates)
?. [Evaluation of group toys creativity]
A room is prepared with all the toy drawings, descriptions and reasons why they were creative displayed on the wall. The toys are presented in one of three random orders (the display is changed for different sessions of judges).
?. [Evaluation of group toys creativity]
Participants are first invited to read the instructions of the toy task and take an overview of all the toys. They are given booklets to indicate their ratings.They are asked to rate each toy on its overall creativity from 1 = "not at all creative" to 10 = "extremely creative".Then, they are asked to indicate  their ratings on sub-dimensions of creativity, pertaining to originality (i.e., originality, novelty, innovativeness) and appropriateness (i.e., usefulness, appropriateness, practicality). All the criteria are evaluated on ten-point scales.Finally, peer judges have to indicate how many euros they think parents would be willing to pay for each toy and complete a final questionnaire including demographics.
?. [Evaluation of group toys creativity]
Inter-rater agreement is computed for each item and if the cronbach alpha is acceptable (over 0.60), the ratings of all the judges are averaged for each item. The average scores for creativity and items pertaining to originality are entered in a factor analysis to confirm they load on one factor, and the same is done for the items pertaining to appropriateness. If it is the case, an average composite score is computed for the originality of the toys, and the same for the appropriateness of the toys.An index is also created for estimated parents' willingness to pay by averaging the amounts given for each toy by judges (provided the inter-rater agreement is high). This index is then logtransformed if it is not normally distributed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
?. [Lab sessions: Reception of participants]
Participants are invited in sessions of four participants to form two dyads or one triad in case of absence, or in sessions of six participants to form two triads.