Original article
Psychological factors associated with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phones

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.05.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

Some people report symptoms associated with mobile phone use. A minority also report “electrosensitivity,” experiencing symptoms following exposure to other electrical devices. Research suggests that electromagnetic fields do not trigger these symptoms. In this study, we examined the differences between these two “sensitive” groups and healthy controls.

Methods

Fifty-two people who reported sensitivity to mobile phones, 19 people who reported sensitivity to mobile phones and “electrosensitivity,” and 60 nonsensitive controls completed a questionnaire assessing the following: primary reason for using a mobile phone, psychological health, symptoms of depression, modern health worries (MHW), general health status, symptom severity, and the presence of other medically unexplained syndromes.

Results

Perceived sensitivity was associated with an increased likelihood of using a mobile phone predominantly for work (3% of controls, 13% of those sensitive to mobile phones, and 21% of those reporting “electrosensitivity”) and greater MHW concerning radiation [mean (S.D.) on a scale of 1–5: 2.0 (1.0), 2.7 (0.9), and 4.0 (0.8), respectively]. Participants who reported “electrosensitivity” also experienced greater depression, greater worries about tainted food and toxic interventions, worse general health on almost every measure, and a greater number of other medically unexplained syndromes compared to participants from the other two groups. No group differences were observed with regards to psychiatric caseness.

Conclusions

The data illustrate that patients reporting “electrosensitivity” experience substantially worse health than either healthy individuals or people who report sensitivity to mobile phones but who do not adopt the label “electrosensitivity.” Clinicians and researchers would be wise to pay greater attention to this subdivision.

Introduction

Mobile phone use in the United Kingdom has grown exponentially since the mid-1990s, with almost all households now owning at least one handset [1]. This rapid uptake has been accompanied by a persistent low level of concern [2], [3], with the perceived association between mobile phone use and the onset of nonspecific symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, and concentration problems being of particular concern to the public [4]. There exist no generally accepted bioelectromagnetic mechanisms that might explain this correlation [2], and experiments that have exposed healthy adults to mobile phone signals under blind placebo-controlled conditions suggest that exposure to this form of electromagnetic radiation is not causally linked to symptom onset [5]. Nonetheless, a small percentage of the population report being “sensitive” to mobile phone signals, experiencing subjective symptoms almost every time they use one or, in some cases, even approach one.

This apparent sensitivity represents a subcategory within a broader illness referred to as “electrosensitivity,” “electrical sensitivity,” or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity.” As no consistent objective signs of disease have been observed in patients reporting electrosensitivity and as the symptoms they describe do not form any coherent syndrome, it has not been possible to set any formal diagnostic criteria for the condition. Instead, a working definition, which simply emphasizes a person's attribution of symptoms to the presence of weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs), has been proposed [6]. Within this definition, one subdivision has also been suggested between people with discrete problems relating to a specific electrical device and those who report a more complex illness involving multiple symptoms associated with several electrical stimuli [7]. People in this second group are more likely to adopt a label for their condition (such as “electrosensitivity”), to have more severe symptoms, to have a worse prognosis, and to exhibit a psychological profile different from those of people in the first group [7], [8], [9].

Whether the symptoms experienced by electrosensitivity suffers are caused by the presence of weak EMF has been tested in >30 blind or double-blind experiments [5], [10]. These have consistently demonstrated that people who report electrosensitivity cannot differentiate between conditions involving genuine EMF and conditions involving sham EMF, and are just as likely to experience symptoms during sham exposure as during genuine exposure. Several authors have therefore suggested that psychological factors may be particularly relevant to the etiology of the condition [11]. As electrosensitivity often initially manifests itself as an apparent intolerance to work-related electrical devices [12], one hypothesis is that the stress associated with having to deal with a new piece of equipment in an occupational setting may initially cause someone to experience symptoms while using it [13]. Attributing these stress-related symptoms to the device's electrical fields might be more likely if the individual has preexisting concerns about the health effects of EMF and modern life [14] and if the individual tends to experience negative affect [15]. Once the attribution has been made, every new use of the technology is then likely to be accompanied by expectations of further symptoms and heightened anxiety—factors that, in turn, can lead to increased symptom perception [16], [17].

We have previously published the results of a double-blind provocation study in which the effects of mobile phone signal exposure were assessed in volunteers who reported being sensitive to mobile phones and in nonsensitive control volunteers; no specific effects of exposure to active signals were found for any outcome measure [5]. In this study, we have tested differences between our participants in terms of reason for using a mobile phone, general physical and psychological health, modern health worries (MHW), the presence of other medically unexplained syndromes, and utilization of different health care providers. Sensitive participants were subdivided according to whether they used a label such as electrosensitivity to describe themselves. We hypothesized that those who used such a label would report worse physical and psychological health, greater MHW, and greater treatment-seeking behavior compared to other participants, and would be more likely to use mobile phones for work-related reasons.

Section snippets

Ethics

Ethical approval for the study was given by the South London and Maudsley and Institute of Psychiatry NHS Research Ethics Committee. All participants gave informed written consent prior to completing the questionnaires.

Design

Three groups of participants were compared: those who reported mobile-phone-related symptoms and who also described themselves as suffering from electrosensitivity (ES group), those who reported mobile-phone-related symptoms but did not explicitly describe themselves as having

Demographics

One hundred and fifty-two eligible individuals answered our advertisements and provided verbal consent for the study (69 controls and 83 people reporting mobile-phone-related symptoms). Of these, 60 control participants (72%) and 71 symptomatic participants (86%) completed the questionnaires. Of the 71 symptomatic participants, 19 reported having electrosensitivity: the other 52 constituted the MP group. The demographic characteristics of the three groups are shown in Table 1. The ES group was

A psychological etiology of electrosensitivity

The results of experimental provocation studies have repeatedly shown that people who report electrosensitivity are unaffected by acute exposure to EMF [5], [10]. How then do some people come to believe that they are sensitive to EMF? For a minority, the answer may be that they are experiencing symptoms as a result of some other illness—symptoms that they mistakenly attribute to the presence of EMF. For instance, in three clinical trials of treatments for electrosensitivity, between 14% and 33%

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants who took part in this research, and Gary Hahn who helped to coordinate the study and to collect the data. This research was funded by the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program (www.mthr.org.uk).

References (39)

  • GJ Rubin et al.

    Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? A within-participants, double-blind, randomised provocation study

    BMJ

    (2006)
  • L Hillert et al.

    WHO workshop on electrical hypersensitivity: working group meeting report

    (2005)
  • B Stenberg et al.

    Medical and social prognosis for patients with perceived hypersensitivity to electricity and skin symptoms related to the use of visual display terminals

    Scand J Work Environ Health

    (2002)
  • J Schuz et al.

    The “Mainzer EMF-Wachhund”: results from a watchdog project on self-reported health complaints attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields

    Bioelectromagnetics

    (2006)
  • J Bergdahl

    Psychologic aspects of patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units

    Acta Odontol Scand

    (1995)
  • GJ Rubin et al.

    Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies

    Psychosom Med

    (2005)
  • G Rubin et al.

    A systematic review of treatments for electromagnetic hypersensitivity

    Psychother Psychosom

    (2006)
  • KJ Petrie et al.

    Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints after environmental pesticide spraying

    Psychosom Med

    (2005)
  • O Van den Bergh et al.

    Learning subjective health complaints

    Scand J Psychol

    (2002)
  • Cited by (74)

    • Symptoms of Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance associated with chemicals (IEI-C) are positively associated with perceptual anomalies

      2022, Journal of Psychosomatic Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      In addition to a variety of somatic symptoms (e.g. headache, tingling of skin, fatigue), typically affective and cognitive symptoms occur as well (e.g. anxiety, irritability, depression, concentration difficulties and memory loss [7–11]). In line with the observation of elevated affective and cognitive symptoms, various studies have recorded a high prevalence (31–75%) of mental disorders in patients with IEI [12–21] suggesting that psychopathological factors are highly prevalent and might contribute to the development and maintenance of IEI. Among the most frequent comorbid psychopathological symptoms are chronic somatic symptoms of unclear or insufficient medical origin, obsessive/compulsive behavior, interpersonal hypersensitivity, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid thoughts, delusions, and a lower health-related quality of life [22–25].

    • Modern health worries and idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields are associated with paranoid ideation

      2021, Journal of Psychosomatic Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, no empirical findings are known on this association in the general population. MHWs are closely related to perceived hypersensitivities to certain environmental factors, also called idiopathic environmental intolerances (IEIs) [2,19,20], such as multiple chemical sensitivity [19,21] and electrohypersensitivity (EHS) [11,22–25]. These IEIs can be explained as instances of medically unexplained symptoms or functional somatic disorders mistakenly attributed to a specific environmental factor [15,19,26,27].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text