Smartphone and self-extension: Functionally,anthropomorphically,and ontologically extending self via the smartphone

Abstract

This paper focuses on the blurring boundary between the “human self” and the smartphone, using interviews with 60 heavy smartphone users. The interview responses reveal three types of self-extension via the smartphone—functional extension, anthropomorphic extension, and ontological extension. Smartphone users assert that their phone has become an indispensable part of their self and thus influences their identity and sense of being in both positive and negative ways.

Keywords

anthropomorphic extension extended-self thesis functional extension ontological extension smartphone technology-cultured thesis

Smartphones and other portable communication devices represent the most recent step in the evolution of the mobile phone (Park & Lee, 2012). With 24/7 access to the Internet, music, information, friends, and family, smartphones provide an “always-on” connectivity, which is unrivaled throughout the course of human history. A smartphone’s multifunctionality serves many purposes—phonebook, appointment calendar, Internet portal, calculator, map, gaming device, to name a few. Furthermore, smartphones supplement and supplant various mental functions (Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2015) and are capable of performing an almost limitless range of cognitive activities (Wilmer, Sherman, & Chein, 2017). For example, Apple’s virtual assistant, Siri, understands what users say, knows what they mean, and even talks back to them.

The smartphone has become an invaluable tool for everyday living (Lee et al., 2014; van Deursen, Bolle, Hegner, & Kommers, 2015)—46% of U.S. smartphone owners think their smartphone is something they cannot live without (Smith, 2015). Almost 9 out of 10 millennials say their smartphone never leaves their side (Zogby Analytics, 2014), and about one half of users in general experience nomophobia, the fear of being without their smartphone (King et al., 2013; Yildirim, Sumuer, Adnan, & Yildirim, 2016).

Several studies have proposed that smartphones extend the human self beyond the human body, and that smartphones are becoming part of the “human self.” For example, the smartphone might be considered an extension of the human body (Davel, 2017; Katz, 2003; Walsh & White, 2007), part of a user’s identity (Vykoukalová, 2007), and part of the fabric of everyday life (Ling, 2004).

The present research is based on the contention that the connection between smartphones and the human self can be conceptualized by the extended-self thesis (Belk, 1988, 2003, 2013; Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which posits that the human self is not internally confined to the body, but can be extended beyond the body through the interaction between humans and technology. Specifically studied is the concept of self-extension, and how self-extension via the smartphone can take three different forms—functional, anthropomorphic, and ontological.

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 60 heavy smartphone users in South Korea. As of May 2018, 94% of South Korean population in Korea owned a smartphone, the highest smartphone ownership rate in the world (Poushter, Bishop, & Chwe, 2018). This study enlightens the phenomenon of self-extension with a theoretical discussion about self and extended self and focuses on three types of self-extension commonly experienced by smartphone users.

The smartphone and self-extension

Self and extended self

The self is a theoretical entity that can explain an array of important human perceptions and behavior. Philosophers and psychologists have long contemplated the pressing question about the self: “Who am I?” The traditional philosophical answer (for example by Aristotle and Plato) is that the self is an immortal soul that transcends the physical, and that there is a firm boundary between the individual as a discrete entity (self) and her/his environment (Brooks, 2004). The self is set against the external world and controls the body and the will.

Since the 1900s, social scientists have shied away at the conceptualization of the self as a distinct entity. For example, in sociology, Cooley (1902) argued that our sense of self is our perception of society’s evaluation of us; and later, the symbolic interactionism perspective stressed the fluidity of the self as an ongoing project of negotiated meaning (Solomon, 1983). Similarly, psychologists started viewing the human self as an entity defined by multiple points of reference based upon fantasies and aspirations (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

Technological advancements have led some philosophers to consider whether the self extends into the world and beyond the being. In 1988, Russell Belk, a consumer behavior researcher, proposed a paradigm-shifting concept—the extended self. The extended-self thesis moves beyond the concept of “fluid self” proposed by social interactionists and psychologists, and posits that the human self is not confined within an organism, but can be extended outward over the boundary of the body (Belk, 1988, 2013; Clark, 2008; Clark & Chalmers, 1998). The extended-self thesis also contends that if external objects play a role in constructing or modifying beliefs, then those objects can reasonably be said to form part of those beliefs (Clark & Chalmers, 1998).

When the self performs a cognitive activity with the help of external tools, the tools become part of the cognitive process. For example, when a carpenter performs a task with a hammer, it becomes an extension of the body that is needed to complete the task (Clark, 2008), thus the material and the self are linked to each other, and the material becomes an extension of the self (Dittmar, 1992).

From the extended-self perspective, humanity as a whole is constituted by the totality of all the experiences of individual human existence. The result is that the conception of human beings must include the wider technological environment. In short, the extended-self thesis postulates that people and technology coconstitute each other, and as a result, human beings form their identity as a combination of biological brains, bodies, and external devices.

The smartphone and the extended self

The question of how and to what extent the smartphone influences the human self has been approached by several scholars (Cohen & Wakeford, 2003; Hulme & Peters, 2001; Katz, 2003; Lorente, 2002). For instance, the book Machines That Become Us (Katz, 2003) focuses on how people modify and control technology for their own advantage, and delineates how mobile devices “become” extensions and representations of the communicators and “become” physically integrated with the user’s body. Other perspectives assert that smartphone use is closely related to the development of self-identity (Batat, 2009), and that the phone is intimately connected to human identity (Hulme & Peters, 2001). Further, self-extension can take several forms: functional (Campbell, 2016; Mutchler, Shim, & Ormond, 2011; Sugiyama, 2009; Wolpin, 2014), anthropomorphic (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2003; Oulasvirta & Blom, 2007; Wang, 2017), and ontological (Carr, 2011; Dickinson, 2013; Winner, 2004).

Functional extension and the smartphone

Human beings have been trying to enhance their physical and mental capabilities for thousands of years. Humans have long embraced basic tools to free themselves from the limits of the human condition and extend the capabilities of the self (Masci, 2016). External objects become a part of the self when they can be controlled, just as an arm or a leg. The greater the control, the more closely the object becomes allied with the self (McClelland, 1951).

Digital technology is a new way to further enhance mental and physical capabilities (Campbell, 2016; Sugiyama, 2009). The latest generation of smartphones are equipped with a galaxy of apps and built-in features that transform them into a “digital Swiss Army knife” (Mutchler et al., 2011, p. 1), through which users can expand their mind and intellect. Through an infinite stream of data, smartphone users have at their fingertips facts about almost any subject—users can quickly become an expert in almost any field. Moreover, knowledge that was once stored in memory is now outsourced to the smartphone. For example, users not only rely on their smartphone contact list to help them remember telephone numbers and addresses, but their actual remembering is partly constituted by the smartphone itself.

The smartphone also functionally expands human physical capability (Wolpin, 2014). For example, a smartphone can morph into a flashlight, thus allowing a human to see in the dark. The human presence is expanded via the smartphone’s communication tools, such as apps that connect people from around the world or video tools that monitor pets at home—it is almost like being in two places at the same time, an otherwise impossible feat.

Because the smartphone can expand human mental and physical capabilities, this study asks the following research question:

RQ1: To what degree do people regard their smartphone as a functional extension of their self?

Anthropomorphic extension and the smartphone

Anthropomorphic extension is closely associated to the human biological predisposition to form attachments to social partners and even to nonhuman and inanimate objects (Konok, Gigler, Bereczky, & Miklósi, 2016). Imbuing the imagined or real behavior of nonhuman agents (e.g., animals, natural forces, religious deities, and mechanical or electronic devices) with humanlike characteristics, motivations, intentions, and emotions is the essence of anthropomorphism (Leyens et al., 2003; Nass & Moon, 2000).

When faced with a machine that shows any degree of “intelligence,” many people treat the machine as though it were a person (Turkle, 2005). Anthropomorphism is apparent in the design of robots and humanoids that take anthropomorphic form as well as in the design of anthropomorphic interfaces that facilitate social behavior and interactions between users and robots/computers (Wang, 2017).

Using a smartphone often mirrors the communication cycle of human-to-human interactions. In this sense, the smartphone becomes a social entity (Kim & Sundar, 2012). Some people attribute humanlike qualities to their smartphones, such as emotions, personalities, and preferences (Oulasvirta & Blom, 2007), and they sometimes even give their phone a name (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2003). By speaking of their phone as if it were a living being with a body and vital functions, and by exhibiting nurturing behavior toward it, such as “dressing” it with a special cover or giving it its own voice through a particular ringtone, smartphone users gradually become one with the instrument (Binark & Sütcü, 2009), thus extending their self (Gant & Kiesler, 2001; Hulme & Peters, 2001) and forming a special relational bond through anthropomorphic extension.

Anthropomorphic extension involves going beyond attributing humanlike characteristics to the smartphone (e.g., the smartphone is affectionate, the smartphone loves me), to some users attributing their own characteristics to their smartphone. For example, users can personalize their smartphone by giving it their own name, and personalize the lock screen with their own photo, thus making the smartphone a digital “mini-me” or avatar that reflects the user’s own personality and characteristics (Kim & Sundar, 2012). Such personalization imprints the self onto the smartphone, and thus extends one’s self beyond the human body and symbolically onto a mechanical body.

It is easy to set smartphone preferences either to give it its own personality or to make it a reflection of its owner’s personality, therefore this study asks the following research question:

RQ2: To what degree do people regard their smartphone as an anthropomorphic extension of their self?

Ontological extension and the smartphone

In the case of functional extension, the smartphone does what the user tells it to do. With anthropomorphic extension, a user can create a separate personality for the phone, or a representation of her/his real self. These two types of self-extension are based on the user’s control of the smartphone. In other words, in functional and anthropomorphic extensions, the human self is extended beyond the human body, but such extension takes place by the will of the user instead of the smartphone. In contrast, ontological extension arises from a lack of control and/or a sense of ontological insecurity (Ashman & Gibson, 2010). An ontologically insecure person lacks the capacity to feel a sense of order and continuity (Laing, 1990).

The smartphone brings about ontological insecurity by disrupting balance and interrupting mental flow with its relentless pinging and beeping with every new e-mail, or text, or notification. Smartphone users sometimes overallocate their cognitive and emotional resources to the extent that their smartphone unconsciously becomes part of the self (Merzenich, 2007). Instead of manipulating a smartphone, users become unwittingly manipulated by the phone and often alter or direct their mind unconsciously to fit into the digital technology’s logic (e.g., Carr, 2011; Winner, 2004). Some smartphone users are so afraid of missing out on something that they incessantly update and check their social media feeds, and their mood fluctuates depending on the amount of affirmation they receive. Smartphone users sometimes experience a “divided self” that confuses the line between the self on their smartphone and the self in the real world (Dickinson, 2013).

But the smartphone could also create a sense of ontological security (Giddens, 1991)—when users know they are a separate self from their smartphone but still draw personal benefits from its use while maintaining their identity. Although not directly referring to smartphones, the function of the extended self is described as having, doing, and being, such that “having a possession functions to create and maintain a sense of self definition and that having, doing and being are integrally related” (Belk, 1988, p. 145). When users hold a smartphone in their hand while walking, driving, or exercising, or even by just having a smartphone in their pocket or purse, it becomes like a force field or a shield that protects them from danger and can make them feel almost invincible, yet they recognize they are separate from the phone. In short, the smartphone’s always-on connectivity and self-reflective tools and apps (i.e., photos, videos, diaries/logs) help users construct a personal narrative of self (von Pape, 2018) and thus facilitate ontological security.

By succumbing to a “plugged-in life,” smartphone users may be unwittingly allowing the phone to change who they are (Turkle, 2015), or at least question the boundary between self and phone. Therefore, this study asks:

RQ3: To what degree do people regard their smartphone as an ontological extension of their self?

Method

For this line of research, in-depth face-to-face interviewing was used as the most thorough way to explore the subtle relationship between a person and his/her smartphone. Skillful interviewing puts participants at ease, and through in-depth probing, follow-up questions, and circling back to key comments, generates a rich understanding of attitudes, perceptions, and motivations (Johnson, 2002).

Two rounds of in-depth interviews were conducted with a total of 60 smartphone users in Korea. For the first round conducted in 2014, a research firm in Korea provided a representative sampling pool of 10,000 smartphone users. Based on the four demographic variables of age, gender, education, and household income, a target sample of 300 people was constructed. The target participants were then provided a preliminary question via e-mail: “How many hours do you use your smartphone on a typical day for non-education and non-work-related purposes?” (M = 1 hr 52 min). Based on these responses, subjects whose score was 1 standard deviation above the mean of smartphone use time were selected for an in-depth interview (35 participants: 17 males, 18 females). Heavy smartphone users were specifically selected for this study because they are more likely than light users to experience some form of self-extension via their smartphone and to experience self-extension more intensely (e.g., Leong, 2016). Indeed, many studies about the smartphone’s impact on human cognition, perception, and behavior have focused on heavy smartphone users (Shin & Lin, 2016; Wilmer et al., 2017).

The average amount of time the selected participants for this round of interviews reported being on their smartphones each day was 4 hours 23 minutes. The average age of the participants was 29 (SD = 13.6), ranging from 18 to 53. Interviews were conducted between May 12 and June 23, 2014. Each interview lasted about 1 hour, following a semistructured approach.

For the second round of interviews, which was conducted between December 10, 2017 and January 10, 2018, the same sampling protocol was followed. However, this time the representative sampling pool of 10,000 smartphone users and a target sample of 300, yielded 25 final interviewees (13 males and 12 females). The average amount of time of smartphone use among the selected 25 participants was 4 hours 26 minutes a day. The average age of the participants was 30 (SD = 14.2), ranging from 18 to 50.

For both rounds of interviews, the opening questions regarded how often and in what ways the subjects use their smartphone. The interviewer then asked the participants about the aesthetics of their smartphone, what the phone means to them in terms of their quality of life, how they use the phone, how it affects their identity and personality, and how they regard the phone in terms of it as an extension of their real self or as a separate entity or tool. For example, “How much do you think the smartphone as an instrument helps your thinking ability?”; “Do you personalize your smartphone using ringtones, color, or welcome messages?”; “How strongly are you emotionally attached to your phone?”; “Have you ever had the feeling of emptiness or insecurity when you lost your smartphone?”; “How much do you think the smartphone reflects your identity?” The interviewer asked follow-up questions and probed for in-depth responses. All interviews from both rounds were recorded and transcribed, after which the data were analyzed. Repeated patterns of the meanings participants attach to their smartphone, as well as their emotional experiences and ontological thoughts involving their smartphone, were analyzed to understand the perceived connection between the self and the smartphone.

Findings

The primary focus of this study was to uncover, through in-depth interviews, the smartphone’s influence on the “extended self.” The findings presented in what follows combine both rounds of interviews with all 60 participants. Although many of the participants think the smartphone extends their self in one way or another, their interpretations about or perceptions of self-extension vary. Some articulate that they control self-extension; others are not sure about whether they control the smartphone or whether their smartphone controls them.

Functional extension and the smartphone

The first research question asked the degree of functional extension. One dominant theme drawn from the interviews is the view that the smartphone extends and advances human capabilities to a dramatic extent. About three quarters of the interviewees said that smartphone use needs to be understood in terms of what it can do to enhance humans’ physical and intellectual capabilities. They stressed the functional roles of the smartphone, such as convenient access to news or information, job search, road navigation, and keeping tabs on their children.

All the interviewees pointed out that the smartphone plays a pivotal role in how they manage their life. Some explained that without the smartphone they cannot do their job. A small business owner said that his smartphone helps manage his daily life—it wakes him up in the morning, keeps his daily schedule, receives complaints from his customers, and helps him deal with workplace conflict through texting and messaging. A construction company worker (male, 40-year-old) made a similar comment: “I have phone numbers, e-mail addresses of all my friends. If I lose my smartphone, I lose all my connections. It’s like an information storage.”

Slightly more than half (32) of the interviewees said they believe smartphones help them accomplish practical goals. For example, a college student mentioned that her smartphone offers her live web streaming to her online course, social media links, and a chance to interact with the instructor. A 50-year-old interviewee¹ (male, photographer) described the smartphone as a “window to news.” He said,

I used to watch television a lot for news. But since 5 years ago, I get news mostly through my smartphone. Now I subscribe to five news websites and they feed me breaking news all the time. I also check my Facebook newsfeed. I feel I am getting smart with my smartphone.

Eight respondents mentioned that the smartphone makes them feel knowledgeable; for example, “My knowledge is definitely outsourced to my smartphone. That is why I often feel 100% less knowledgeable when I don’t have ready access to it” (Male, 35-year-old, cook).

Another interviewee emphasized the multifunctionality of the smartphone, “The smartphone is an everything device. Whenever I need any help to do my work, my smartphone is right there to help me. I can extend my physical capabilities by transforming my smartphone into a multipurpose army knife” (female, 33-year-old, PR agent).

Overall, the study participants connected functional extension to the unique features of the smartphone. The smartphone’s functionality compels them to rely on it, and they are convinced that such reliance is eventually for the betterment of their life. In other words, they embrace the smartphone for the sake of enhancing their cognitive and physical abilities and communication skills. But as much as they rely on their smartphone, some participants do not necessarily believe that it outsmarts other digital technologies. It is not the smartphone itself that they love, but its functionality, thus they would be willing to replace their phones with some other portable device if it offered a similar or higher level of instrumentality.

Anthropomorphic extension and the smartphone

As per the second research question, almost all of the participants extend their self anthropomorphically by attributing their personal characteristics to their smartphone. For example, participants store photos in their phones, set personal ringtones for specific friends, and select background colors and designs to their liking. One third of the participants mentioned that they use various smartphone functions and tools to reveal their personality and identity, and sometimes feel their smartphone is part of their self.

A female (23-year-old, college student) interviewee commented, “My smartphone is like my avatar. It tells me who I am. That’s why I decorate it so that it can show the authentic me.” Although she emphasized the utilitarian aspect of the smartphone, she also described that the smartphone is like a symbol that represents her identity. She added that she feels more like herself if her smartphone resembles more of her. A male (23-year-old) college student said,

My smartphone looks like me. I tailor my smartphone to my personality by changing the ringtone, adding logos, stickers, the interface, and the color. For example, my friends all know that I am a super fan of hip-hop and my ringtone is absolutely hip-hop. No one can find the same smartphone because mine is unique.

Further, more than half of the respondents use welcome messages that pop up on the screen every time they turn it on, to encourage, motivate, greet, advise, or make fun of themselves. For example, “Be happy,” “Good morning princess,” “You are gorgeous,” “You’ll make it,” “Get back to work, Jim,” and “Have a good day.”

Of 60 participants, 20 reported that they feel friendship or the sense of another intelligent being’s presence from their smartphone. A 30-year-old female (homemaker) participant said, “My smartphone is my closest friend and I am the closest friend to my smartphone. It’s like the smartphone is something like a friend living in myself. I live with my phone all the time, it never leaves me.” Another interviewee told the researcher that,

After two years of trying, I finally landed a job I wanted to get. The first thing I did after receiving the acceptance call was to kiss my phone. In such a joy, unwittingly I called my phone by my name. And I hugged it for more than 5 minutes and kissed it more than a dozen times. (Insurance company employee, male, 27-year-old)

Anthropomorphic extension also occurs through the presence of smartphone tools like Apple’s Siri, which uses voice recognition to interpret a user’s questions and commands, and answers verbally as well. As a female interviewee remarked,

When I am alone, lonely, I start talking with Siri—she becomes my friend. But she’s more than that. She engages with me. She jokes around with me or “sings” me a lullaby if I ask her to do. She is something that makes up my mood and often directs my feelings. Siri is another me to me because she represents my feeling. (Female, 38-year-old, homemaker)

In one way or another, the smartphone has become an anthropomorphic extension of the self for all of the respondents. All of the users customized their smartphone to some extent to reflect their own personality and to give the smartphone its own “self.” Many keep their smartphone with them at all times as if it were part of them. Physical proximity, constant connectivity, and customization strengthen the bond between self and machine.

Ontological extension and the smartphone

The last research question examined the degree of ontological extension, which is less the result of a voluntary action by smartphone users, but rather an involuntary or unexpected outcome stemming from smartphone use.

Eighteen participants remarked that their smartphone gets them to think about who they are—their original self in relation to their phone. As one male (30-year-old, restaurant worker) interviewee commented, “The smartphone is embedded in almost all aspects of my life—information, entertainment, talk, search [pause] occasionally, I am surprised to find I am stuck somewhere between my phone and real me.” For one fourth of the participants, their smartphone has developed into a natural part of their own presence, and by extension, a natural part of their own body. They feel that they are gradually merging with the smartphone, referring to it as another limb, like an arm or a leg. For example, a 42-year-old (clothing sales company manager) woman said, “My smartphone is part of me, so intimately connected with who I am. I can’t live without it. If I lose my smartphone, I would probably feel a rip at my heart.” Another female (32-year-old, self-employed) interviewee said, “I am holding my smartphone in my hand. Always! Many times I tried to put it away from me, but failed. It keeps following me. Without my smartphone, I as a person may not exist.”

Some interviewees explained how their emotional states fluctuate depending on the presence of their smartphone, and some said they tend to see themselves through new identities offered by their smartphones. A 40-year-old female (local government employee) explained, “It’s like I am five different people in my cell phone world.” And a (male, 41-year-old) factory worker said, “I think the smartphone will gradually replace many parts of myself.” Four interviewees even said the smartphone offers them an experience equivalent to a religion; for example, “Through my smartphone, the world opens up to me. I feel like I can finally breathe. I feel comfortable in my own skin. It’s kind of a religion to me” (male, 28-year-old, car dealer). When asked if he could imagine not having a smartphone, a male (20-year-old) college student responded, “If I didn’t have it I would die. All my life depends on it. Being without my phone would be like a death.”

Even though some respondents feel they cannot live without their phones, five expressed resentment that they are becoming a slave to their smartphone. As a female (34-year-old, event planner) interviewee commented, “Constant text alarms, e-mail notifications, news updates from news media. Sometimes I feel like I am being dragged into somewhere by my smartphone.”

Preoccupation with the smartphone is also connected to ontological extension in the sense that it sometimes results in perceptual confusion about the self. Five interviewees had experienced some trouble telling who they are and where they are while using the smartphone,

Every day I am immersed in my smartphone. Sometimes like literally the whole day. One day, I suddenly realized that I am confused about where I am and who I am. Occasionally, I feel my smartphone is the world I live in now. (Male, 29-year-old, salesperson)

I’d say I am insecure. I feel like something is missing in my life. I feel quite low, basically empty. It’s hard to tolerate who I am when I am not connected to my friends and acquaintances via my smartphone. Sometimes I feel miserable, but this is true. I count on my smartphone because I want to remove loneliness, isolation, and emptiness. (Female, 49-year-old, homemaker)

The previous comments indicate that humans and the smartphone are forming an interdependent relationship that is not easy to separate.

Ontological extension, however, is not always related to negative perceptions. Three users said they use their smartphone to attempt to evoke a specific and consistent image of their self; for example, “While using my cell phone, I feel like I am becoming more competent about who I am. When I need to do and think anything, my smartphone is right there and that makes me more positive” (female, 24-year-old, student). A female (29-year-old, fashion designer) also mentioned, “I try to stick to the most ideally looking ‘I’ and this gives me comfort.”

In summary, the ontological extension frame describes the role of the smartphone in blurring the boundaries between the smartphone and the human self. The interviewees expressed both resistance and resignation to ontological extension. On the one hand, they fear the merging of their self with the smartphone, on the other hand, they feel that the benefits of using a smartphone exceed the consequences and so willingly or unconsciously give in to its powers. As one interviewee summed up, “I cautiously expect that the smartphone will be implemented into a human body as a chip in the near future. If that happens, the smartphone would become an indispensable human organ like the brain” (male, 49-year-old, science teacher).

Discussion

The rise of the smartphone creates unique opportunities and tensions in the relationship between humans and digital technology. Prior studies proposed that mobile technologies have become an integral part of the human self. For example, mobile technologies are capable of representing “an extension of our physical selves—an umbilical cord, anchoring the information society’s digital infrastructure to our very bodies” (Harkin, 2003, p. 16). However, little research has focused on the degree to which the smartphone influences the existential meaning of human self. This study offers an account of the subtle relationship between humans and smartphone technology and the nature of human existence in the smartphone age, through the extended-self thesis (Belk, 1988, 2003, 2013; Clark & Chalmers, 1998) and the technology-cultured thesis (Pepperell, 2003; Roden, 2015). Based on the interviews with 60 smartphone users in Korea, this study expands the literature on the extended self by exploring how smartphone users perceive their use of the smartphone in terms of three types of self-extension—functional, anthropomorphic, and ontological.

In general, the interviewees expressed that their “self” is being extended through the smartphone but in varying ways and degrees. The smartphone has become a routinized and an important part of each interviewee’s life and their human self. The participants’ responses reflect the idea that smartphone technology has become seamlessly incorporated into the flow and rhythm of daily life (Burchell, 2015).

The interviewed participants think of their smartphone as an essential tool in maintaining their life and identity. The interviewees use their smartphone to extend their mental and physical abilities (e.g., memory, navigation), to form and maintain relationships, to help shape their identities (real self and virtual self), and consciously or unconsciously, to incorporate it into the instrumental (functional), expressive (anthropomorphic), and existential (ontological) dimensions of their self.

Smartphone users functionally extend their self by utilizing their smartphone for instrumental purposes. The participants in this study explained that smartphone apps, flexibility, portability, and always-on connectivity dramatically expand their physical and mental capabilities. This finding is in line with the assertions that intellectual technologies extend or support mental capabilities by finding and classifying information, formulating ideas, taking measurements, performing calculations, and expanding the capacity of human memory (Bell, 2013; Carr, 2011). With the increasing incorporation of artificial intelligence apps, the smartphone is expected to play a bigger role in extending humans’ intelligence abilities (Koksal, 2018).

The theme of anthropomorphic extension is quite notable in the present study. Smartphone users tend to personify their smartphone, treating it as a pet, a friend, or a loved one. Personification indicates that humans extend their self by forming a special relationship with their smartphone. Considering that today’s technological developments are yielding more automated, intelligent, portable devices, anthropomorphic extension may become much easier and more frequent than before.

Anthropomorphic extension also takes place by imbuing the smartphone with its own personality and with the user’s own attributes, intentions, and preferences. Users give their smartphone its own “self” by customizing its color, ringtone, interface, logo, and stickers. Users also customize their smartphone as a reflection of their own self with, for example, their photo on the lock screen. A smartphone can be set up to promote the owner’s image, as he/she wishes to be seen. In other words, the physical design and presence of a smartphone has alternative implications for the self that go beyond its utilitarian features (Alexander, 2000). In this sense, anthropomorphic extension of the smartphone seems to be closely associated with the creation and/or reinforcement of the identity of the user, which demonstrates that the smartphone has become an important mediator that links the identity and personality of the user to the mobile device.

Moreover, the smartphone extends the self anthropomorphically by becoming a secondary self. For example, when in his joy of getting a new job, an interviewee kissed and hugged his phone and called it by his own name. In his excitement, he thought of his phone as both a friend and as an equivalent self and congratulated his phone as he did himself. Such actions indicate that users think of their phone as an entity inseparable from their self and as a part of their self. Additionally, thinking of Siri and similar smartphone tools as an extension of one’s knowledge further blurs the line between self and smartphone. The more someone uses Siri, the more it adapts to the user’s preferences (Naftali & Findlater, 2014), and thus becomes part of the extended self.

Beyond functional and anthropomorphic extension, the findings concerning ontological extension indicate that the smartphone has spurred users to question “Who am I?” and “Is my smartphone part of me?” and “What is a human being?” Such ontological insecurity, the intermingling of self-identity with smartphone identity (Amigo, Osorio, & Bravo, 2017; Roberts, Pullig, & Manolis, 2015), was evident among the interviewees. Ontological insecurity is especially heightened among those who are captivated by their smartphone, and blurs the boundary between their human self and the self as manifested by their smartphone.

Many interviewees expressed concern that the human self is becoming secondary to digital devices. This sentiment is also articulated by scholars who forwarded the technology-cultured thesis, which posits that advancements in digital technology have turned a human-centered world into a technology-centered world (Pepperell, 2003; Roden, 2015), in which the human self is increasingly running the risk of becoming an appendage to digital technology (Fortunati, 1998; Greenfield, 2015).

On the positive side, however, some interviewees maintain ontological security by warding off melding their human self with their smartphones. Ontologically secure users acknowledge the benefits of smartphone use, but they also recognize that they are separate from their phone and they strive to maintain their self-identity by limiting their time with their phone and not letting it control their daily life. With the help of various intelligent smartphone tools, some users form a more integrated picture of themselves, thus enhancing ontological security.

This study’s findings advance the theorization of the increasingly complicated relationship between humans and smartphone technology. The three categorizations of self-extension through smartphone use illuminate how heavy smartphone users perceive their self to be extended in different (although overlapping) ways. The current study, by unpacking the complex nature of smartphone use and its impact on the human self, provides a crucial hint that the smartphone, one of the most advanced personal communication tools of today, is transforming the relationship between technology and human beings, and blurring the line between “human self” and the “self” created through digital technology.

Future research and limitations

The current study contributes to the literature on mobile communication by illuminating three nuanced types of self-extension via the smartphone. Although this paper distinguishes three types of self-extension, they are not mutually exclusive. For example, a smartphone user might experience only functional extension, or all three types of self-extension, or some combination thereof. Subsequent studies, thus, could investigate other factors that may influence self-extension, such as a comparison of light and heavy smartphone users. Additionally, the present study focused on the smartphone, but future work could examine if the theoretical types of self-extension can be applied to other types of digital media, such as tablets.

Overall, the self-extension thesis and the technology-cultured thesis, both inform research fields involving human interaction with an ever-expanding array of humanlike technological agents. This study tapped into underlying meanings of the human–digital technology relationship, an ever-changing phenomenon that brings about the creation of new digital tools that alter the human experience.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

Chang Sup Park (PhD, Southern Illinois University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication, University at Albany, SUNY. His research agenda include news use on social/mobile media, mobile communication, emerging journalistic practices, and civic engagement via digital media.

Barbara K. Kaye (PhD, Florida State University) is a professor in the School of Journalism & Electronic Media at the University of Tennessee – Knoxville. Her research interests include media effects and how the Internet, blogs, and social media influence political attitudes and behaviors.

References

Alexander

P. S.

(2000, April). Teens and mobile phones growing-up together: Understanding the reciprocal influences on the development of identity. Paper presented at Wireless World Workshop Conference, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

Amigo

Osorio

Bravo

M. C.

(2017). Mobile communication technologies and ontological security. Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 74, 39–61.

Ashman

Gibson

(2010). Existential identity, ontological insecurity and mental well-being in the workplace. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 2(2), 126–147.

Barr

Pennycook

Stolz

J. A.

Fugelsang

J. A.

(2015). The brain in your pocket: Evidence that smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(4), 473–480.

Batat

(2009). The impact of technology development on youth consumption culture: An empirical investigation of French teenage’ use of mobile phone device. Communications of the IBIMA, 7(18), 153–163.

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

Belk

R. W.

(2003). Shoes and self. Advances in Consumer Research, 30(1), 27–33.

Belk

R. W.

(2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.

Bell

(2013). Communication technology: For better or for worse? In Salvaggio

J. L.

(Ed.), The information society: Economic, social, and structural issues (pp. 89–103). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Binark

Sütcü

G. B.

(2009). Practicing identity in the digital game world: The Turkish tribes’ community practices in “Silkroad Online.” In Abbas

Dervin

(Eds.), Digital technologies of the self (pp. 61–83). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

11.

Brooks

(2004). Kant’s view of the mind and consciousness of self. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/kant-mind/

12.

Burchell

(2015). Tasking the everyday: Where mobile and online communication take time. Mobile Media & Communication, 3(1), 36–52.

13.

Campbell

H. A.

(2016). Framing the human–technology relationship: How religious digital creatives engage posthuman narratives. Social Compass, 63(3), 302–318.

14.

Carr

(2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

15.

Clark

(2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Clark

Chalmers

(1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

17.

Cohen

Wakeford

(2003, July). The making of mobility, the making of self. Paper presented at the INCITE Project conference, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.

18.

Cooley

C. H.

(1902). Human nature and the social order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

19.

Davel

(2017). The mobile phone as an extension of the self: A study among adolescents in a secondary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

20.

Dickinson

. (2013). How the Internet, social media, and smartphones are dividing and conquering our consciousness. Retrieved from https://www.elle.com/culture/tech/a14005/social-media-smartphones-influence-on-our-lives/

21.

Dittmar

(1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

22.

Fortunati

(1998). The ambiguous image of the mobile phone. In Haddon

(Ed.), Communications on the move: The experience of mobile telephony in the 1990s (pp. 131–145). Farsta, Sweden: Telia.

23.

Gant

Kiesler

(2001). Blurring the boundaries: Cell phones, mobility, and the line between work and personal life. In Brown

Green

Harper

(Eds.), Wireless world: Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age (pp. 121–131). London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.

24.

Giddens

(1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

25.

Greenfield

(2015). Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains. New York, NY: Random House.

26.

Harkin

(2003). Mobilisation: The growing public interest in mobile technology. London, UK: Demos.

27.

Hulme

Peters

(2001). Me, my phone and I: The role of the mobile phone. CHI 2001 workshop: Mobile Communications: Understanding Users, Adoption, and Design (pp. 3–6). New York, NY: ACM.

28.

Johnson

J. M.

(2002). In-depth interviewing. In Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 103–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Katz

J. E.

(2003). Machines that become us: The social context of personal communication technology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

30.

Kim

Sundar

S. S.

(2012). Visualizing ideal self vs. actual self through avatars: Impact on preventive health outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1356–1364.

31.

King

A. L. S.

Valença

A. M.

Silva

A. C. O.

Baczynski

Carvalho

M. R.

Nardi

A. E.

(2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144.

32.

Koksal

. (2018, February 27). Artificial intelligence may know you better than you know yourself. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilkerkoksal/2018/02/27/artificial-intelligence-may-know-you-better-than-you-know-yourself/#7694fe054058

33.

Konok

Gigler

Bereczky

B. M.

Miklósi

. (2016). Humans’ attachment to their mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 61(4), 537–547.

34.

Laing

R. D.

(1990). The divided self. London, UK: Penguin.

35.

Lee

Y. K.

Chang

C. T.

Lin

Cheng

Z. H.

(2014). The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(2), 373–383.

36.

Leong

(2016). Mobile identities: Managing self and stigma in iPhone app use. Observatorio (OBS*), 10(1), 1–25.

37.

Leyens

J.-P.

Cortes

B. P.

Demoulin

Dovidio

J. F.

Fiske

S. T.

Gaunt

. . . Vaes

(2003). Emotional prejudice, essentialism, and nationalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 703–717.

38.

Ling

(2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier.

39.

Lorente

(2002). Youth and mobile telephones: More than a fashion. Revista de Estudios de Juventud, 57(2), 9–24.

40.

Markus

Nurius

(1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.

41.

Masci

(2016). Human enhancement: The scientific and ethical dimensions of striving for perfection. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/essay/human-enhancement-the-scientific-and-ethical-dimensions-of-striving-for-perfection/

42.

McClelland

D. C.

(1951). Personality. New York, NY: William Sloane.

43.

Merzenich

(2007). Computers go to school. Retrieved from https://www.onthebrain.com/2007/04/computers-go-school/

44.

Mutchler

L. A.

Shim

J. P.

Ormond

(2011). Exploratory study on users’ behavior: Smartphone usage. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.mx/&httpsredir=1&article=1408&context=amcis2011_submissions

45.

Naftali

Findlater

(2014). Accessibility in context: Understanding the truly mobile experience of smartphone users with motor impairments. Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 209–216). New York, NY: ACM.

46.

Nass

Moon

(2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.

47.

Oksman

Rautiainen

(2003). “Perhaps it is a body part”: How the mobile phone became an organic part of the everyday lives of Finnish children and teenagers. In Katz

J. E.

(Ed.), Machines that become us (pp. 293–308). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

48.

Oulasvirta

Blom

(2007). Motivations in personalisation behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 20(1), 1–16.

49.

Park

Lee

(2012). Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college students’ smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 491–497.

50.

Pepperell

(1995). The posthuman condition: Consciousness beyond the brain. Oxford, UK: Intellect Books.

51.

Poushter

Bishop

Chwe

(2018). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries but plateaus across developed ones. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/#table

52.

Roberts

J. A.

Pullig

Manolis

(2015). I need my smartphone: A hierarchical model of personality and cell-phone addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 13–19.

53.

Roden

(2015). Posthuman life: Philosophy at the edge of the human. New York, NY: Routledge.

54.

Shin

Lin

T. T. C.

(2016). Who avoids location-based advertising and why? Investigating the relationship between user perceptions and advertising avoidance. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(5), 444–452.

55.

Smith

(2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

56.

Solomon

M. R.

(1983). The role of products as social stimuli. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 319–329.

57.

Sugiyama

(2009). The decorated mobile phone and emotional attachment for Japanese youths. In Vincent

Fortunati

(Eds.), Electronic emotion: The mediation of emotion via information and communication technologies (pp. 85–103). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

58.

Turkle

. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

59.

Turkle

(2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin.

60.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Bolle

C. L.

Hegner

S. M.

Kommers

P. A

. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 45(2), 411–420.

61.

Von Pape

. (2018). Living in the moment: Self-narratives of permanently connected media users. In Vorderer

Hefner

Reinecke

Klimmt

(Eds.), Permanently online, permanently connected: Living and communicating in a POPC world (pp. 97–106). New York, NY: Routledge.

62.

Vykoukalová

(2007). Adolescent mobile communication: Transformation of communication patterns of Generation SMS? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 1(1). Retrieved from https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4206

63.

Walsh

S. P.

White

K. M.

(2007). Me, my mobile, and I: The role of self- and prototypical identity influences in the prediction of mobile phone behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2405–2434.

64.

Wang

(2017). Smartphones as social actors? Social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior, 68(2), 334–344.

65.

Wilmer

H. H.

Sherman

L. E.

Chein

J. M.

(2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16.

66.

Winner

(2004). Who will be in cyberspace? In Webster

(with Blom

Karvonen

Melin

Nordenstreng

Puoskari

) (Eds.), The information society reader (pp. 45–54). London, UK: Routledge.

67.

Wolpin

(2014, July 16). 7 new smartphone features that will help define your future. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/23/business/future-smartphone-mobile-world-congress/index.html

68.

Yildirim

Sumuer

Adnan

Yildirim

(2016). A growing fear: Prevalence of nomophobia among Turkish college students. Information Development, 32(5), 1322–1331.

69.

Zogby Analytics. (2014). Z-file: Executive insights. Retrieved from https://www.miteksystems.com/sites/default/files/Documents/zogby_final_embargo_14_9_25.pdf