Do Smartphones Make Us Less Intelligent—and Why Blame Them?

Do Phones Really Make Us Less Intelligent?

To examine whether phones make us less intelligent, we can look at how they affect the brain through two concepts: attention and memory.

First, consider attention. As a source of distraction, phones are undeniably compelling: an endless stream of news alerts, fragmented messages, and jokes on social media can make it difficult to focus on the task at hand. But that does not mean phones make people less intelligent. It only shows that phones are appealing—and does anyone genuinely dislike them? The problem is that many people consequently use their phones while studying or working, creating what we commonly call multitasking [1].

Multitasking may look efficient, but it usually wastes both time and cognitive resources. An exception is combining conversation with a very basic activity, such as chatting with a roommate while mopping, because mopping is highly automatic and requires little mental effort. With more demanding combinations—such as writing a science explainer while talking on the phone—the brain lacks the capacity to perform both at once. It can only switch back and forth, adding to its workload [2].

Switching between tasks also carries a cost of its own. It gets in the way of efficient thought and full engagement while leaving you more tired. Under these multitasking conditions, then, we do not become more efficient; we perform worse and exhaust ourselves in the process [3].

What about memory, then? Do phones make our memory worse?

A 2023 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General found that people tend to store high-value information on external devices—much as the narrator photographs presentation slides in every class—and that they do remember better when they are allowed to consult their phones [4]. Of course, when information has been outsourced but phone access is then prohibited, memory performance is worse than it is for lower-value information that people relied on their brains to remember from the outset.

So far, those findings may seem fairly obvious. What made the study distinctive was its evidence of “cognitive spillover.” More specifically, if the narrator uses his phone to save more high-value information—deadlines or his crush’s birthday, for example—he has more mental capacity left for lower-value details, such as remembering to take a detour after school to try a milk-skin-coated candied hawthorn snack.

Phones, then, do not simply make memory better or worse. They change our memory strategies and how we distribute our cognitive resources. Storing information on a phone is efficient when that external storage is reliable. But when external support is unavailable—as in an examination where medical students cannot bring their notes—reliance on it comes at a cost.

So if the narrator forgot to wash the vegetables for his mother, it was probably less because he had been using his phone and more because he never took the request seriously in the first place. (Gets smacked.)

Research has also produced evidence running counter to the claim that phones make the brain less capable. For example, a 2025 meta-analysis published in a journal in the Nature portfolio and covering more than 400,000 middle-aged and older adults found that moderate use of digital technology—especially active uses such as chatting on WeChat, sending digital red envelopes, and reading articles—can effectively reduce the risks of cognitive impairment and dementia [5]. Used in moderation, technology may instead help keep the brain active.

Why Do Parents Like to Blame Phones?

Having answered whether phones actually make us less intelligent, the narrator could not help wondering why parents so often attribute problems large and small to them.

This tendency can be explained through attribution theory, a classic concept in social psychology. The theory examines how people consciously or unconsciously explain the behaviors and outcomes around them as they try to control and adapt to their environment. Fritz Heider initially divided causes into internal and external categories. B. Weiner later developed three dimensions of attribution: internal factors, such as personality and ability, versus external factors, such as circumstances and tasks; stable versus unstable causes; and controllable versus uncontrollable causes [6].

For parents, attributing every sort of problem to phones represents an external, stable—everyone is always using a phone—and relatively controllable form of attribution: confiscate the phone!

The advantage of this pattern is easy to see. For one thing, an internal attribution can readily create conflict and discord within a family. Imagine that the narrator forgets to wash the vegetables and his parents decide the reason is that he is stupid, mentally incapable, or lazy. Wouldn’t that easily start an argument?

For another, attributing problems to the stable and controllable factor of “using the phone” can ease parents’ sense of helplessness in the face of generational differences and give them a greater feeling of control over life. Our generation studies and works in a social environment unlike the one the previous generation encountered, so our parents’ experience is sometimes no longer applicable. They may simply want us to have better lives but not know what advice to give. Whether and how we use our phones offers them an easy point of intervention.

For children, meanwhile, the phone also provides an excellent external excuse. When problems arise with schoolwork or other areas of life, shifting the blame to the phone can protect self-esteem and confidence to some extent. Clearly, the narrator’s lack of a romantic relationship must be the phone’s fault.

Seen that way, the phone has sacrificed an extraordinary amount for this family!

The drawback, however, is that this attribution pattern can easily obscure a problem’s real causes and leave it unresolved for a long time. A typical example is the decline in grades that many students may experience just after entering high school or university. Numerous factors could lie behind it, including adjustment to a new environment and changes in coursework. If the decline is crudely blamed on excessive phone use, the attribution will not solve the problem and may even intensify the conflict.

Conclusion

After finishing his research, the narrator quietly put down his phone and became lost in thought.

On the one hand, his phone had stored many happy memories and saved his brain a great deal of effort. On the other, he really had been addicted to it for a period of time, and he had forgotten to help his mother wash the vegetables. The phone might have shouldered a lot for this family, but ultimately it was only a tool. It could not replace the thought and care that learning and relationships genuinely require.

Perhaps the answer is to let the phone be a phone and continue doing what it does well: recording, searching, and entertaining. Other important matters—communicating with family, finding the causes of problems, and solving them—should be left to us humans.