The social price of constant connectivity: smartphones impose subtle costs on well-being
Abstract
Smartphones provide people with a variety of benefits, but they may also impose subtle social costs. We propose that being constantly connected undercuts the emotional benefits of face-to-face social interactions in two ways. First, smartphone use may diminish the emotional benefits of ongoing social interactions by preventing us from giving our full attention to friends and family in our immediate social environment. Second, smartphones may lead people to miss out on the emotional benefits of casual social interactions by supplanting such interactions altogether. Across field experiments and experience-sampling studies, we find that smartphones consistently interfere with the emotional benefits people could otherwise reap from their broader social environment. We also find that the costs of smartphone use are fairly subtle, contrary to proclamations in the popular press that smartphones are ruining our social lives. By highlighting how smartphones affect the benefits we derive from our broader social environment, this work provides a foundation for building theory and research on the consequences of mobile technology for human well-being.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Smartphones influence well-being by interfering with concurrent activities (the interference hypothesis).
“According to the interference hypothesis [24,25], the frequency of phone use is critical for understanding the effects of smartphones on well-being (Table 1).”
From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
The frequency of phone use is critical for understanding the effects of smartphones on well-being.
“According to the interference hypothesis [24,25], the frequency of phone use is critical for understanding the effects of smartphones on well-being (Table 1).”
From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
Across a variety of social situations, phones decrease well-being precisely by fragmenting people's attention.
“Indeed, across a variety of social situations-from spending time with one's children [29] to sharing a meal with friends [30]-phones decrease well-being precisely by fragmenting people's attention [24].”
From The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 114
- Authors
- Kushlev, K., Dwyer, R., & Dunn, E. W.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kushlev, Kostadin
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-05-16
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 347-352
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2946807389
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 32
- FWCI
- 30.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (H08-02739)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
- Keywords
- smartphones, constant connectivity, social well-being, face-to-face social interaction, attentional distraction, mobile technology, digital technology and well-being
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.
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