University Of Dhaka 

Department of Marketing 

Report on Smartphone’s Effects on 

Health and Personal Economy

Submitted by 

Group Jacks-Jills

Submitted to 

Mr. Md Razib Alam 

Associate Professor 

Department of Marketing 

University of Dhaka 

14 November 2019, Thursday   

 Group Jacks-Jills
Name ID Designation

Anhar Akhter RK-026-148 Member

Md. Istiaque Chowdhury SM-026-026 Member

Md. Mashrur Chowdhury MM-026-92 Member

Nadia Sultana SK-026-190 Member

Naimul Kabir MM-026-074 Member

Umme Sadia Sima RK-026-128 Leader

 Letter of Transmitter

14 November 2019, Thursday

Mr. Md. Razib Alam

Associate Professor,

Department of Marketing,

University of Dhaka

Subject: Submission of report on “Smartphone’s effects on health and personal

economy”

Dear Sir,

Here is the assignment that we assigned on the topic as per your request. The assignment has
been completed by the knowledge that we have gathered from the course “Business Statistics
– II”. We are thankful to all those persons who provided us important information and gave
us valuable advices. We would be happy if you read the report carefully and we will be trying
to answer all the questions that you have about the assignment.

We have tried our label best to complete this assignment meaningfully and correctly, as much
as possible. We do believe that our tiresome effort will help you to get ahead with this sort of
venture. In this case it will be meaningful to us. However, if you need any assistance in
interpreting this assignment please contact us without any kind of hesitation.

Thanking you.

Yours obediently,

Umme Sadia Sima

On behalf of ​Group Jacks-Jills

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our deepest appreciation to all those who provided us the
possibility to complete this report. A special gratitude We give to our hounourable faculty,
Mr. Md. Razib Alam, whose contribution in stimulating suggestions and encouragement,
helped us to coordinate our survey especially in writing this report.

Furthermore We would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of
the staff of our Department lab, who gave the permission to use all required equipment and
the necessary materiasl to complete the report on “Smartphone’s Effects on health and
personal economy”. Last but not least, many thanks go to all the respodents who have helped
us to complete this report easily.
Table of Contents

Letter of Transmitter 3

Acknowledgement 4

Introduction 6
Objectives 6

Methodology 6

Analysis 8
Overview 8
Relationship between Daily use and age 9
Interpretation 10
Relationship between cost, message and call 10
Relationship between headache and hours of daily use 11

Conclusion 13

References 14

Appendix 15
Introduction
Smartphones are a class of mobile phones and of multi-purpose mobile computing devices. It
has become the must-have components of our life. Smartphones are seen by many as a great
invention that allows us to have access to global communication, directions and maps,
constant source of information, the ability to know a simple fact within a matter of seconds,
and a way to find almost anything you are looking for. Not to mention having a plethora of
games, tv, books, movies, and other forms of entertainment at your fingertips 24/7. Phones
are used to communicate on all different types of platforms, provide music, cameras, weather,
time, and even flashlights. With all of these accommodations on one device it is no wonder
we never leave home without it. However, there have been numerous studies showing
negative effects of having these devices constantly in hand. Some of those effects have direct
relation to mental health and addiction. In this assignment we have discussed about the bad
effects caused by smartphone by discussing the relationship between age, message amount,
calls amount, and cost behind phone and headache in every week. We have used IBM SPSS
Statistic, R Programming Language, Libreoffice Calc and Google Sheets to analyze the bad
effects of smartphone on our mental health and personal economy.

Objectives

The report is an evaluation of smartphone’s effects on health and personal economy. We have
tried to understand the underlying relationship between age and the addiction towards
smartphone. And the relationship of costs behind smartphone and the number of calls and
messages one makes. We have also tried to find out if there is a relationship between
headache and hours of daily usage.

Methodology
For the purposes of this report, we have decided to use a classic social science tools
questionarries with the help of modern technology. Questionarries were chosen for this report
as they are quick and reliable method for collecting information from a large amount of
respondents in an efficient and timely manner. Most of the tools and programs we have used
are free of charge and open source. The questionarries were distributed among peoples of
different age, taste and interest in both online and offline. Describe the materials and
equipment used in the research. Upon embarking on this research, we initially considered
focus groups and participant observation as possible research methods, due to the behavioural
elements contained in this research. However, because of time constraints, these research
methods were not opted for.
The questionnaries were distributed using Google Sheet, a freeware cloud-based spreadsheet
software by Google Inc. For the sake of a better output and visualization we have used
different tools and packages. And because of the quantitative research approach of this report
we have used statistical and spreadsheet tools like-

1. GNU PSPP (https://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/)

2. IBM SPSS (https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software)
3. R Programming Language (https://www.r-project.org/)
4. Google Data Studio (https://datastudio.google.com/)
5. Libreoffice Calc (https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/calc/)

Different R packages were also used to load the data and to do different statistical analysis,
such as dplyr, ggplot2, car, knitr, gridExtra, readxl etc.

We have used several statistical techniques to complete this report based on our objectives.
We have used ANOVA Table, Correlation Coefficients, Least Squared Methods, Mean,
Median, Mode, Chi Square and several other minor techniques. The results from the
questionnaires were presented in the format of tables and charts. The major findings of this
dissertation will be discussed in details in later of this report.
Analysis

Overview

We have collected the data by conducting a survey by using Google Forms. We have chosen
the questionnaires and data types and
data related to them with care. Our
collected and added variables are
Name Code, Name, Age, Smartphone
Brand, First time they have used
smartphone, House of use on a daily
basis, headache in every week, the
number of messages and calls, check
in time, cost behind smartphone, number of likes on their facebook profile picture, number of
blocked persons in their social media, number of social media accounts and if they have ever
tried to abandon their smartphone. The oldest person we have found using smartphone was
64 and lowest age was 19, the average people using smartphone was 23. A minimum amount
of using smartphone daily was 1 hour and the highest amount of using was 20 hours daily.
People use their smartphone 6.48 hours daily on an average. A person sends at least 4
messages a day and received at best 32 messages a day excluding their work messages.
Average amount of message a person gets was 15. 14. People make at least 1 call every day
and makes 18 calls at best, the average amount of calls was 4.21. Cost behind their
smartphones was at least
Tk 118 and at best Tk
1003. Average amount of
spending money behind
smartphone was 616. Some
of them don’t get headache
at all, and one gets 6 times
in a week, the average was
2.57. We have also collected data about likes on every person’s facebook profile picture,
minimum likes were 12 and maximum was 542.

Relationship between Daily use and age

The regression equation of this relationship is,

Ẏ = 9.508-.126(Age)

Here,

Dependent Variable Daily usage

Independent Variable Age

And the correlation coefficient,

R, value is .264, which means
there is a weak positive
relationship between hours of
use and age, which leads us to
the decision that people’s age
and smartphone using behavior
are not related that much.

For hypothesis test,

Null Hypothesis, H0: β=0

Alternate Hypothesis, H1: Not all the β is same

From the ANOVA table we have also found the F-value, DF for regression and DF for
Residual. Analyzing these values we have found, the critical p-value is 0.05, numerator is 1
and denominator is 35. That leads us to the decision rule, ‘rejecting the null hypothesis if
computed F value is greater than 4.17. For age, F value is 2.629, which is smaller than 4.17.
We can accept the null hypothesis here. Using P-value for calls we get the calculated P-value
as 0.114 or 11% which is larger than critical P-value 5%. So we can accept the Null
Hypothesis.
Interpretation
As we accept the null hypothesis, that means the value β is equal to 0. That means there is no
relation between age and daily usage. From the ANOVA table we also find for R​2 ​= .07 that
means 7% of the dependent variable R explained by the independent variables and rest of the
amount r not explained by the independent variables and that is 93% which is also known as
residuals. For Adjusted R​2 = 0.043, we can conclude that, means the difference between R
and adjusted R2 is .221 which means if we increase an independent variable than dependent
variable will increase 22.1%. (Appendix B)

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
(Const
ant) 9.508 1.944 4.891 0
1 Age -0.126 0.078 -0.264 -1.621 0.114

Relationship between cost, message and call

Here, the multiple regression equation is,

Ẏ = 593.608 +3.309 (the message amount) -6.241(the call amount)

Here,

Dependent Variable: Cost behind smartphone

Independent variable: The message amount & the call amount

So after giving different value on this equation we found different value of ANOVA table.

Here,

Null Hypothesis, H0: β1=β2=0

Alternate Hypothesis, H1: not all β’s are 0

The significance level is 0.05 and the critical value from the F distribution using,df for
numerator is 2 and df for denominator is 34. So for testing hypothesis reject the null
hypothesis if F-value is greater than 3.23. Here from the ANOVA table we find that the
computed value for the global test (F) is 0.534. so we can see that the computed value is less
than the critical value . Hence we cannot reject the null hypothesis. So we get to know that
independent variable is not 0. (Appendix C) Again, R=.174 and R​2 is 0.03 or 3% of the
dependent variable is affected by the independent variables (message amount and calls
amount). And others are not explained by the independent variable.

Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
593.60
(Constant) 8 111.251 5.336 0
Message
Amount 3.309 4.424 0.132 0.748 0.46
Calls
1 Amount -6.241 13.211 -0.083 -0.472 0.64

Relationship between headache and hours of daily use

Here, regression equation is,

Ŷ = .812+.370(daily usage)

HERE,

Dependent Variable: Headache in a week

Independent variable: Daily Usage

So after giving different value on this equation we found different value of ANOVA table
After analyzing the value we come to know that here, the critical value at the 0.05
significance level and for nominator 1 and for denominator 35 is 4.08 So for hypothesis test,

Null Hypothesis, H0: β​1`​=0

Alternate Hypothesis, H1: β is not equal to 0

Reject null hypothesis critical value F-value is greater than 4.08.

Here, for daily usage f value 64.022 is greater than 4.08 so reject it null hypothesis if we try
to evaluate this value on the basis of p value we find P<.05 reject null hypothesis P Value of
daily usage is .000 which is less than .05 (Appendix D). R=.804 and R squares=.647 or 64.7%
of the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables (daily usage). And rest of
the amount are not explained by the independent variables (Appendix D).

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t
1 (Constant) .812 .363 2.235 .032
Daily usage .370 .046 .804 8.001 .000
Conclusion
There is a strong relationship between headache and hours of daily use, when there’s a little
relationship cost and message and cost amount. By observing these two analysis we can
conclude the effect of smartphones on mental health is of a significance amount, but the
personal costs are not affected that much. So, we people should use smartphone less to avoid
the harm causing by it.
References
● Lind, D., Manson, R. and Marshall, W. (2000). ​Basic statistics for business and economics​.
2nd ed. Boston, MA: Irwin, pp.50-80.
● Hodeghatta, U. and Nayak, U. (2015). ​Business analytics using R - A practical approach.​ 5th
ed.
● Datastudio.google.com. (2019). ​Data Studio Product Overview​. [online] Available at:
https://datastudio.google.com/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2019].
● Ibm.com. (1990). ​SPSS Software.​ [online] Available at:
https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019].
● Nayeem, Kabir (2019). ​Smartphone Affection Analysis​. [online] GitHub. Available at:
https://github.com/kabirnayeem99/smartphone_addiction_analysis [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019].
● R-project.org. (1986). ​R: The R Project for Statistical Computing.​ [online] Available at:
https://www.r-project.org/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2019].
Appendix

Appendix A

summary​(​data​)

Name_code Name Age Smartphone_brand

Length:37 Length:37 Min. :19.00 Length:37

Class :character Class :character 1st Qu.:20.00 Class :character

Mode :character Mode :character Median :21.00 Mode :character

Mean :23.27

3rd Qu.:21.00

Max. :64.00

First_smartphone_age Hours_use Headache_in_a_week Messages_amount

Min. :10.00 Min. : 0.000 Min. :0.000 Min. : 4.00

1st Qu.:12.00 1st Qu.: 4.000 1st Qu.:2.000 1st Qu.: 4.00

Median :14.00 Median : 6.000 Median :3.000 Median :12.00

Mean :13.81 Mean : 6.568 Mean :3.243 Mean :15.14

3rd Qu.:15.00 3rd Qu.: 9.000 3rd Qu.:5.000 3rd Qu.:24.00

Max. :17.00 Max. :15.000 Max. :6.000 Max. :32.00

Calls_amount Payment_on_phone Like_on_fb_pro Check_in_time

Min. : 1.000 Min. : 118.0 Min. : 12.0 Min. : 3.00

1st Qu.: 2.000 1st Qu.: 277.0 1st Qu.: 53.0 1st Qu.: 9.00

Median : 3.000 Median : 655.0 Median :109.0 Median :12.00

Mean : 4.297 Mean : 616.9 Mean :185.8 Mean :11.92

 3rd Qu.: 5.000 3rd Qu.: 804.0 3rd Qu.:270.0 3rd Qu.:15.00

Max. :18.000 Max. :1003.0 Max. :542.0 Max. :20.00

​ Num_of_soc_med_acc Num_Of_blkd Tried_to_abandon

Min. :1.000 Min. : 8.00 Length:37

1st Qu.:1.000 1st Qu.:12.00 Class :character

Median :3.000 Median :18.00 Mode :character

Mean :2.459 Mean :16.59

3rd Qu.:3.000 3rd Qu.:21.00

Max. :5.000 Max. :25.00

(Nayeem, 2019)

Appendix B
Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R Square Square Estimate
1 .264​a .070 .043 4.261
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Age

ANOVA​ ​TABLE
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 47.717 1 47.717 2.629 .114​a
Residual 635.365 35 18.153
Total 683.081 36
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age
b. Dependent Variable: Daily usage
 Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t
Model B Std. Error Beta Sig.
1 (Constant) 9.508 1.944 4.891 .000
Age -.126 .078 -.264 -1.621 .114
a. Dependent Variable: Daily usage

Appendix C
ANOVA​b
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 99714.702 2 49857.351 .534 .591​a
Residual 3176715.622 34 93432.812
Total 3276430.324 36
a. Predictors: (Constant), Calls Amount, Message Amount
b. Dependent Variable: Cost behind smartphone

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .174​a .030 -.027 305.668
a. Predictors: (Constant), Calls Amount, Message Amount

Coefficients
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 593.608 111.251 5.336 .000
 Message
3.309 4.424 .132 .748 .460
Amount
Calls Amount -6.241 13.211 -.083 -.472 .640
a. Dependent Variable: Cost behind smartphone

Appendix D
Model Summary​.

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .804​a .647 .636 1.209
a. Predictors: (Constant), Daily usage

ANOVA​ ​TABLE
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 93.626 1 93.626 64.022 .000​a
Residual 51.185 35 1.462
Total 144.811 36
a. Predictors: (Constant), Daily usage
b. Dependent Variable: Headache in a week

Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .812 .363 2.235 .032
Daily usage .370 .046 .804 8.001 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Headache in a week

Appendix E
 
Appendix F

# Loading the data set

data <- ​read_excel​('data/data.xlsx')

# Giving a summary of this dataset

summary(data)

# Creating models for ANOVA analysis

model_usage_age_connection <- lm(Hours_use ~ Age, data = data)

model_call_message_payment <- lm(Payment_on_phone ~ Calls_amount *

Messages_amount, data = data)

# Creating ANOVA Table

anova(model_usage_age_connection)

# Some plot, graphs

# Smartphone Brand usage share

labels <- paste(labels, percentage) # add percent to labels

labels <- paste(labels,"%",sep="") # ad % to labels

pie(table_smartphone_brand,labels = labels,

col=rainbow(length(labels)),

main="Pie Chart of Countries")

# Smartphone usage share and hours usage relationship plot

table_test <- table(data$Smartphone_brand, data$Hours_use)

table_test

hist(table_test)

# Histogram of first time use

hist(data$First_smartphone_age,

xlab = "In which age first used smartphone", ylab = "People",

col = rainbow(10), plot = TRUE,

xlim = c(10, 18), ylim = c(0, 10),

main = "The frequency of age of first smartphone use")

Appendix G

Hours Use and Age

Residuals:

Min 1Q Median 3Q Max

-6.7281 -2.8544 -0.9807 2.1456 10.2934

Coefficients:

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept) 9.50759 1.94398 4.891 2.23e-05 ***

Age -0.12634 0.07793 -1.621 0.114

---

Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 4.261 on 35 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.06985, Adjusted R-squared: 0.04328

F-statistic: 2.629 on 1 and 35 DF, p-value: 0.1139

Anova Table (Type II tests)

Response: Hours_use

Sum Sq Df F value Pr(>F)

Age 47.72 1 2.63 0.11

Residuals 635.36 35 

 ​ ttps://tinyurl.com/vmk8wu7>
<github link: h ​

Appendix H