CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Impact of Technology on AdolescentsChild Development and Digital TechnologyDigital Media and Philosophy

The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda

Kushlev, Kostadin, Leitao, Matthew R·2020·Current Opinion in Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As smartphones become ever more integrated in people's lives, a burgeoning new area of research has emerged on their well-being effects. We propose that disparate strands of research and apparently contradictory findings can be integrated under three basic hypotheses, positing that smartphones influence well-being by (1) replacing other activities (displacement hypothesis), (2) interfering with concurrent activities (interference hypothesis), and (3) affording access to information and activities that would otherwise be unavailable (complementarity hypothesis). Using this framework, we highlight methodological issues and go beyond net effects to examine how and when phones boost versus hurt well-being. We examine both psychological and contextual mediators and moderators of the effects, thus outlining an agenda for future research.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes a displacement–interference–complementarity (D.I.C.) framework to integrate contradictory findings on how smartphones affect well-being, arguing that phones can both hurt and boost well-being depending on when and how they are used. It concludes that net effects are typically small to negligible but can become substantial with heavy, problematic use, and it calls for experimental and objective-measurement research.

Key findings

  • Screen time predicts slightly lower well-being across large representative adolescent samples, but the net negative effect is small and non-linear: some screen time is better than none, while heavy use is worse. One cited study found screen media use accounted for only 0.4% of variance in well-being; another found adolescents spending 5+ hours/day on digital screens were twice as likely as light users to have attempted suicide.
  • Self-reported phone use is imprecise and biased: subjective estimates of average screen time share as little as 10% variance with objective measures; light users tend to overestimate and heavy users underestimate. Frequency and time of phone use are distinct, sharing only about 10%–15% variance; people check phones about 50 times/day, usually just over a minute at a time, with only 5% of instances lasting longer than 10 minutes.
  • Interference effects are supported by a 14-day field experiment in which batching notifications three times daily made users happier and less stressed, mediated by improved subjective quality of attention. Mere-presence effects on social connection remain uncertain: one small study found effects for meaningful but not casual topics, but a replication failed, and both studies were likely underpowered (Ns < 100).
  • Complementarity effects show phones can boost well-being when they afford otherwise unavailable information, communication, or comfort—for example, after social exclusion, phone access reduced salivary alpha-amylase reactivity in a 148-participant experiment, and phone use provided comfort in stressful situations.

Methods

  • Design: theoretical integration and research agenda, not a new empirical study; the authors synthesize disparate findings into three hypotheses—displacement, interference, and complementarity—and present a D.I.C. framework in Table 1.
  • Data: review focuses on research published since 2018, drawing on earlier work when needed; cited evidence includes large representative adolescent samples, experience-sampling and objective usage-tracking studies, field experiments, and lab experiments.
  • Analysis: conceptual review and framework development, specifying primary predictors, mediators/mechanisms, and moderators/interactions for each hypothesis; no formal meta-analysis or new data collection is reported.

Limitations

  • Stated: correlational findings need experimental tests for causal conclusions; measurement must distinguish screen time, frequency of use, notifications, and mere presence, and move beyond imprecise, biased self-reports to objective measures obtained over multiple days via mobile sensing.
  • Stated: research needs to focus more on when multifunctional devices are beneficial versus detrimental; the authors describe their conclusions as “(very) preliminary,” and note that mere-presence studies were likely underpowered (Ns < 100).
  • Evident: as a review and agenda-setting article, it does not provide new empirical tests of the D.I.C. framework, and its integration relies on selected findings rather than a systematic meta-analytic synthesis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.001

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 59 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    The relationship between screen time and well-being is not linear.

    “Importantly, these studies also show that this net negative effect is small and that the relationship is not linear: People who spend some time in front of screens feel better than those who spend no time, but heavy users feel notably worse [5, 6*].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] [5]. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N: A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychol Sci 2017, 28: 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6*]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    People who spend some time in front of screens feel better than those who spend no time.

    “Importantly, these studies also show that this net negative effect is small and that the relationship is not linear: People who spend some time in front of screens feel better than those who spend no time, but heavy users feel notably worse [5, 6*].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] [5]. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N: A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychol Sci 2017, 28: 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6*]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    People's subjective estimates of their average screen time share as little as 10% variance with their actual screen time when measured objectively.

    “People's subjective estimates of their average screen time share as little as 10% variance with their actual screen time when measured objectively [9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] [9]. Araujo T, Wonneberger A, Neijens P, de Vreese C: How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use. Commun Methods Meas 2017 , 11: 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    Heavy screen users feel notably worse than people who spend some time in front of screens.

    “Importantly, these studies also show that this net negative effect is small and that the relationship is not linear: People who spend some time in front of screens feel better than those who spend no time, but heavy users feel notably worse [5, 6*].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [5] [5]. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N: A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychol Sci 2017, 28: 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6*]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 2. It Is Not All About Screen Time: From Displacement to Interference · p. 4

    Even when phone use is not replacing other activities, phones can still interfere with concurrent activities.

    “Thus, even when phone use is not replacing other activities, phones can still interfere with concurrent activities (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • May combine two claims. 12

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. It Is Not All About Screen Time: From Displacement to Interference · p. 4

    Smartphones influence well-being by replacing other activities (the displacement hypothesis).

    “According to the displacement hypothesis [16], screen time-regardless of whether it is on a desktop, TV, or phone-influences psychological outcomes by replacing other activities (c.f., Bowling Alone ; [17]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [16] [16]. Neuman SB: The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between television - viewing and reading performance. Read Res Q 1988 , 23: 414-440. https://doi.org/10.2307/747641 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] [17]. Putnam RD: Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. J Democr 1995 , 6: 6578. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    We cannot draw conclusions that screen time effects are negligible or that phone screen time explains recent upswings in depression and suicide based solely on correlational analyses of self-reported screen time.

    “We suggest that we cannot draw either of those conclusions based solely on correlational analyses of self-reported screen time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. It Is Not All About Screen Time: From Displacement to Interference · p. 4

    Frequency and time of phone use are distinct variables, estimated to share only about 10%-15% variance.

    “Thus, though positively related, frequency and time of phone use are distinct variables, estimated to share only about 10%-15% variance [12**,13**].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12**]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13**]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    Measurement error in self-reported screen time may change both the size of the effects and the shape of the relationship between screen time and well-being.

    “Such measurement error, which depends on the construct measured, may change both the size of the effects and the shape of the relationship.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Georgetown University · p. 1

    Disparate strands of research and apparently contradictory findings about smartphone well-being effects can be integrated under three basic hypotheses: displacement, interference, and complementarity.

    “We propose that disparate strands of research and apparently contradictory findings can be integrated under three basic hypotheses, positing that smartphones influence well-being by (1) replacing other activities ( displacement hypothesis ), (2) interfering with concurrent activities ( interference hypothesis ), and (3) affording access to information and activities that would otherwise be unavail”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1. Complementarity · p. 7

    Smartphones can boost well-being by affording access to information, communication, and experiences that would otherwise be unavailable (the complementarity hypothesis).

    “Thus, we must formulate a final complementarity hypothesis : Smartphones can boost well-being by affording access to information, communication, and experiences that would otherwise be unavailable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. It Is Not All About Screen Time: From Displacement to Interference · p. 4

    People check their phones frequently, an estimated 50 times a day, but they only spend a little over a minute on their phones at a time with only 5% of instances lasting longer than 10 minutes.

    “People check their phones frequently, an estimated 50 times a day, but they only spend a little over a minute on their phones at a time with only 5% of instances lasting longer than 10 minutes [15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15]. MacKay J: Screen time stats 2019: Here's how much you use your phone during the workday. 2019. [Accessed April 24 2020] In: https://blog.rescuetime.com/screen-timestats-2018/ -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Georgetown University · p. 2

    Researchers' contradictory conclusions about the well-being effects of phones are largely due to methodological issues and can be integrated under an overarching theoretical framework by considering when, how, and why phones promote versus hurt well-being.

    “We propose that researchers' contradictory conclusions about the well-being effects of phones are largely due to methodological issues and can be integrated under an overarching theoretical framework by considering when, how, and why phones promote versus hurt wellbeing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Net Effects of Screen Time: The Great Debate · p. 3

    Light users tend to overestimate their screen time, whereas heavy users tend to underestimate their screen time.

    “Furthermore, light users tend to overestimate their screen time, whereas heavy users tend to underestimate their screen time [9].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] [9]. Araujo T, Wonneberger A, Neijens P, de Vreese C: How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of internet use. Commun Methods Meas 2017 , 11: 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1. Complementarity · p. 7

    Smartphones can and do provide benefits for well-being, but those benefits depend on people's current emotional experience, the contextual affordances, and the relevance of their phone use to current goals and activities.

    “Smartphones can and do provide benefits for well-being, but those benefits depend on people's current emotional experience, the contextual affordances, and the relevance of their phone use to current goals and activities (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Conclusion and Future Research Agenda · p. 9

    The D.I.C. theoretical framework integrates apparently contradictory findings by considering how, when, and why phones impact well-being.

    “We have proposed an overarching displacement-interference-complementarity (D.I.C.) theoretical framework (Table 1), which integrates apparently contradictory findings by considering how, when, and why phones impact well-being.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3. Mere presence · p. 6

    Having one's phone within easy reach does not directly impair people's ability to sustain attention, but it does impair cognitive capacity, such as working memory.

    “Having one's phone within easy reach does not directly impair people's ability to sustain attention, but it does impair cognitive capacity, such as working memory [33].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] [33]. Ward AF, Duke K, Gneezy A, Bos MW: Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. J Assoc Consum Res 2017, 2: 140154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462 -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.1. Attention · p. 5

    The interference hypothesis predicts that phones will influence well-being to the extent that they distract people from other concurrent activities.

    “In contrast, the interference hypothesis predicts that phones will influence well-being to the extent that they distract people from other concurrent activities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.3. Mere presence · p. 6

    Based on the interference hypothesis, the mere presence of one's phone should only interfere with one's ability to enjoy cognitively demanding activities, but not simpler pleasures.

    “Based on the interference hypothesis, we can predict that the mere presence of one's phone should only interfere with one's ability to enjoy cognitively demanding activities (e.g., a deep conversation), but not simpler pleasures (e.g., a beautiful sunset).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Beyond Net Effects: Context and Affordances · p. 7

    Although phone-mediated communication predicts lower well-being outcomes when people are concurrently socializing face-to-face, it has little effect on well-being when people are alone.

    “Indeed, although phone-mediated communication, such as text messaging, predicts lower well-being outcomes when people are concurrently socializing face-to-face, phone-mediated communication has little effect on well-being when people are alone [40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] [40]. Kushlev K, Heintzelman SJ: Put the phone down: Testing a complement-interfere model of computer-mediated communication in the context of face-to-face interactions. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2018, 9 :702-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722199 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3. Mere presence · p. 6

    Even the mere presence of one's smartphone can impair basic cognitive processes.

    “Recent research has suggested that even the mere presence of one's smartphone can impair basic cognitive processes [32,33].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [32] [32]. Canale N, Vieno A, Doro M, Rosa Mineo E, Marino C, Billieux J: Emotion-related impulsivity moderates the cognitive interference effect of smartphone availability on working memory. Sci Rep 2019, 9: 18519. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54911-7 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] [33]. Ward AF, Duke K, Gneezy A, Bos MW: Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. J Assoc Consum Res 2017, 2: 140154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462 -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4. Conclusion and Future Research Agenda · p. 9

    Because the D.I.C. framework is formulated around the distinguishing factor of smartphones-their portability-the framework can easily be applied to the increasingly portable technologies of the future.

    “Finally, because the D.I.C. framework is formulated around the distinguishing factor of smartphones-their portability-the framework can easily be applied to the increasingly portable technologies of the future.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 2.3. Mere presence · p. 6

    A small study found that the mere presence of a mobile phone during a dyadic social interaction prevented people from cultivating a sense of social connection, trust, and empathy when discussing a meaningful topic but not when discussing a more casual topic.

    “Consistent with these predictions, a small study found that the mere presence of a mobile phone during a dyadic social interaction, prevented people from cultivating a sense of social connection, trust, and empathy when discussing a meaningful topic but not when discussing a more casual topic: plastic holiday trees [34].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] [34]. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N: Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. J Soc Pers Relat 2012, 30: 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4. Conclusion and Future Research Agenda · p. 8

    The net effects of phones on well-being are typically small to negligible but become substantial with heavy, problematic (over)use (i.e., use that is likely to displace or interfere with other activities).

    “- 3) The net effects of phones on well-being are typically small to negligible but become substantial with heavy, problematic (over)use (i.e., use that is likely to displace or interfere with other activities).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.1. Attention · p. 5

    The displacement hypothesis suggests that attention should moderate the relationship between screen time and well-being.

    “Thus, the displacement hypothesis suggests that attention should moderate the relationship between screen time and well-being.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Complementarity · p. 7

    Receiving social support via text message is better for well-being than receiving no support at all, though not as impactful as talking with somebody in person.

    “While not as impactful as talking with somebody in person, receiving social support via text message is better for well-being than receiving no support at all [38].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [38] [38]. Holtzman S, DeClerck D, Turcotte K, Lisi D, Woodworth M: Emotional support during times of stress: Can text messaging compete with in-person interactions? Comput Human Behav 2017, 71: 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.043 - source

      Not checked in the free run.

21 of 21

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The net effects of phones on well-being at any given time depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones minus the well-being they would have gained had they not used their phones.

    “The displacement and interference hypotheses both assume that the net effects of phones on well-being, at any given time, will depend on the well-being people gain by using their phones, minus the well-being that people would have gained had they not used their phones.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The displacement hypothesis posits that time spent on social media may have detrimental effects by displacing activities beneficial to well-being and health, such as sleep, exercise, or face-to-face interactions.

    “This perspective aligns with the displacement hypothesis, which posits that time spent on social media may have detrimental effects by displacing activities that are beneficial to well-being and health—for example, sleep, exercise, or face-to-face interactions.7,26”

    From Social Media Use and Its Link to Physical Health Indicators (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Simonsohn, 2014, 5, e142559

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kushlev, K., & Leitao, M. R.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Corresponding author
Kushlev, Kostadin
ORCID
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
36
Pages
77-82
ISSN
2352-250X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.001
OpenAlex
W3027003509
Semantic Scholar
70d0db5af49d3987c0399094f95ea28a6c07914b
Cited by
129
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
smartphones, well-being, displacement theory, interference hypothesis, complementarity hypothesis, psychological mediators, contextual moderators
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review