Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 105–114 | Cite as

Habits make smartphone use more pervasive

  • Antti Oulasvirta
  • Tye Rattenbury
  • Lingyi Ma
  • Eeva Raita
Original Article

Abstract

Examining several sources of data on smartphone use, this paper presents evidence for the popular conjecture that mobile devices are “habit-forming.” The form of habits we identified is called a checking habit: brief, repetitive inspection of dynamic content quickly accessible on the device. We describe findings on kinds and frequencies of checking behaviors in three studies. We found that checking habits occasionally spur users to do other things with the device and may increase usage overall. Data from a controlled field experiment show that checking behaviors emerge and are reinforced by informational “rewards” that are very quickly accessible. Qualitative data suggest that although repetitive habitual use is frequent, it is experienced more as an annoyance than an addiction. We conclude that supporting habit-formation is an opportunity for making smartphones more “personal” and “pervasive.”

Keywords

Smartphones Habits Logging data Diary studies 

References

  1. 1.
    Charng HW, Piliavin JA, Callero PL (1988) Role identity and reasoned action in the prediction of repeated behavior. Soc Psychol Q 51(4):303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogg B, Hreha J (2010) Behavior wizard: a method for matching target behaviors with solutions. In: Proceedings of persuasive 2010, pp 117–131Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fogg B (2003) Persuasive technology. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    James W (1890) The principles of psychology, vol 1 & 2. Holt, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    LaRose R, Lin CA, Eastin MS (2003) Unregulated internet usage: addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychol 5(3):225–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA (2004) A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 306(5702):1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klasnja P, Consolvo S, McDonal D, Landay J, Pratt W (2009) Using mobile and personal sensing technologies to support health behavior change in everyday life: lessons learned. Annual Conference of the American Medical Informatics Association, pp 338–342Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowry D, Moskos M (2005) Hanging on the mobile phone: experiencing work and spatial flexibility. In: Unpublished paper presented as critical management studies conference (Flexibility Stream), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Donovan DM, Kivlahan DR (1988) Addictive behaviors: etiology and treatment. Annu Rev Psychol 39(1):223–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morsella E, Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM (eds) (2008) Oxford handbook of human action. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oulasvirta A, Tamminen S, Roto V, Kuorelahti J (2005) Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 928–937Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oulasvirta A, Petit R, Raento M, Tiitta S (2007) Interpreting and acting on mobile awareness cues. Hum Comput Interact 22(1):97–135Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pantzar M (2010) Future shock: discussing the changing temporal architecture of daily life. J Future Stud 14(4):1–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Partridge K, Golle P (2008) On using existing time-use study data for ubiquitous computing applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, pp 144–153Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel S, Kientz J, Hayes G, Bhat S, Abowd G (2006) Farther than you may think: an empirical investigation of the proximity of users to their mobile phones. UbiComp 2006, pp 123–140Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raento M, Oulasvirta A, Petit R, Toivonen H (2005) ContextPhone: a prototyping platform for context-aware mobile applications. IEEE pervasive computing, pp 51–59Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rattenbury T, Nafus D, Anderson K (2008) Plastic: a metaphor for integrated technologies. In: Proceedings of UbicompGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Towers I, Duxbury L, Thomas J (2006) Time thieves and space invaders: technology, work and the organisation. Management 19(5):593–618Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verkasalo H (2009) Contextual patterns in mobile service usage. Pers Ubiquit Comput 13(5):331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walsh SP, White KM (2007) Me, my mobile, and I: the role of self-and prototypical identity influences in the prediction of mobile phone behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 37(10):2405–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wood W, Neal DT (2007) A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychol Rev 114(4):843–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antti Oulasvirta
    • 1
  • Tye Rattenbury
    • 2
  • Lingyi Ma
    • 1
  • Eeva Raita
    • 1
  1. 1.Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIITAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Intel LabsPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations