Rhetorical Analysis of Geoffrey Miller’s
The Smartphone Psychology Manifesto

Rhetorical Analysis of Geoffrey Miller’s
“The Smartphone Psychology Manifesto” Geoffrey Miller (2012), a psychology professor at the University of New Mexico, has conducted many psychological studies over the years, however, he claims the emergence of the smartphone has forever changed how current and future studies will be conducted. In the article “The Smartphone Psychology Manifesto”, Miller’s credibility and presentation of facts clearly portray a pro smartphone perspective to his audience. He argues that the smartphones are “powerful computers” (p. 223, para. 7) that will continue to develop for decades. One of Miller’s main points in this article conveys how smartphones can present real-world behavioral analysis that would “revolutionize all fields of psychology and other behavioral sciences” (p. 221, para. 1). In the article, Miller successfully uses his experience with psychology, facts pertaining to the advancement of smartphone technology, and persuasive appeals directed at his readers’ curiosity about this technology to convince them that smartphones are ultimately becoming the best research method for quickly collecting enormous amounts of precise real-world data during psychological research. Miller (2012) focuses on persuading his audience initially through his abstract, appealing to reason, or logos. He does so by stating that “although smartphones were not designed for psychological research, they can collect vast amounts of ecologically valid data, easily and quickly, from large global samples” (p. 221, abstract). The establishment of reasoning behind a psychologist view of smartphone technology initiates the pro smartphone perspective for psychological research to the audience. Miller (2012) creates additional appeals to logos by strengthening his approach using statistical evidence that supports the number of smartphone users worldwide that could potentially be used for research. The author states that as of 2011, the year prior to this article, there are about “720 million” (p. 221, para. 2) smartphone users and “will reach 1.8 billion by 2014” (p. 221, para. 2). He continues his statistical evidence contending that money is a driving factor for technological advancements and could potentially save psychologists from attempting to secure billions of dollars in grant money to develop hardware and software that could possibly allow psychological research to advance into the modern age. According to Miller (as cited by Portio Research, 2011) “global mobile telecoms service revenue is expected to reach about $1.7 trillion by 2015” (p. 222, para. 2). Miller (2012) develops a very clear opinion of how smartphones would revolutionize psychological research, stating that it would be “scientific malpractice if we were still giving paper-and-pencil questionnaires to a few hundred people to participate in laboratory tasks, or running internet studies for people just sitting at desks” (p 222, para. 3). By referencing these archaic forms of research, Miller appeals to his reader’s emotions and their basic need to evolve. Additionally he is appealing to ethos, as he is portraying his own ethics and his credibility that it would be irresponsible not to take the opportunity to advance with the continuous improvements of mobile technology. Miller (2012) contends, “to understand the full potential of smartphones for psychology, we should consider the features typical of current state-of-the-art smartphones, the likely improvements in those features up to around 2025, and the utility of each feature for research” (p. 224, para. 2). The author appeals to logos through the use of subtitles and statistical sections for all of the internal and external components of smartphone technology. Miller uses an optimistic tone in his writing to describe how these devices have impacted the past and how they will affect the present as well as the future. He organized his information to clearly present how a psychologist would view each of the individual components of smartphones and how they impact their research. This method also appeals to ethos as he is continuing to construct his credibility and understanding of how the technology would benefit psychology. Miller (2012) illustrates how the use of smartphones could work in psychology research with a hypothetical example on women’s fertility studies. The author appeals to logos, organizing the information again into subtitled statistical sections based on the different components of a smartphone and how they would gather pertinent information for the study. The use of call logs, media capture, GPS tracking, and sensor logging would revolutionize the psychology industries understanding of how a woman’s fertility will affect her everyday visual appearance, interaction with others, and daily routines. Miller uses his expertise in psychology to persuade his audiences’ curiosities on how a woman’s fertility affects individuals, both men and women, drawing an emotional response that directly relates to their own individual lives, therefore appealing to both ethos and pathos. Miller (2012) acknowledges that the use of smartphones in psychological research does not come without limitations and challenges. He documents a list of possible disadvantages that could result in loss of data due to volatile memory, battery life of smartphones when strained with constant information collection and distribution, or something as simple as the participant forgot or lost their phone. The author maintains his perception of pro smartphone mentality while attempting to persuade his readers’ by stating,
Despite these disadvantages, smartphones can do almost everything that the other methods can do and more. They render paper-and-pencil studies, mail surveys, and traditional internet studies largely obsolete. For some research questions, lab and field observations will remain more useful that smartphone studies for a while. For perception and cognition experiments that demand high contextual control, lab computers will remain better than smartphones. Otherwise, psych apps for smartphones could become the default research method for most of psychology. (p. 233, para. 1)
Miller again alluded to his creditability, appealing to ethos, by demonstrating his understanding of how the technology will be advantageous to different forms of psychological research. In his article “The Smartphone Psychology Manifesto”, Miller (2012) utilizes great organizational proficiency and demonstrates a positive tone to project a clear and concise writing style that attempts to persuade the audience. While he does admit that there are some disadvantages in using smartphones for psychological research, he ultimately supports his pro smartphone perspective with an abundance of well-organized statistics that outline his reasoning. The author continues his persuasion by reflecting on his personal accounts and credibility in the field of psychology. Categorically, Miller maintains that as smartphone technology continues to develop, they should be considered the next technological breakthrough in psychological research.

References
Miller, G. F. (2012). The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(3), 221-237