Cited by 139Impact of Technology on AdolescentsChild Development and Digital TechnologyDigital Media and Philosophy

How psychosocial well-being and usage amount predict inaccuracies in retrospective estimates of digital technology use

Sewall, Craig J. R., Bear, Todd M., Merranko, John, Rosen, Daniel·2020·Mobile Media & Communication

Abstract

Using Apple’s Screen Time application to obtain reported actual iPhone and social media (SM) use, we examined the accuracy of retrospective estimates of usage, how inaccuracies bias associations between use and psychosocial well-being (depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction), and the degree to which inaccuracies were predicted by levels of well-being. Among a sample of 325 iPhone users, we found that (a) participants misestimated their weekly overall iPhone and SM use by 19.1 and 12.2 hours, respectively; (b) correlations between estimated use and well-being variables were consistently stronger than the correlations between reported actual use and well-being variables; and (c) the degree of inaccuracy in estimated use was associated with levels of participant well-being and amount of use. These findings suggest that retrospective estimates of digital technology use may be systematically biased by factors that are fundamental to the associations under investigation. We propose that retrospective estimates of digital technology use may be capturing the construct of perceived use rather than actual use, and discuss how the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of perceived use may be distinct from those of actual use. Implications of these findings are discussed in view of the ongoing debate surrounding the effects of digital technology use on well-being.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2050157920902830

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Self-report measures can be particularly ill-fitting for gaining accurate data on people's technology-related use.

    “evidence suggests that these can be particularly ill-fitting for the purposes of gaining accurate data on people’s technology-related use [27,37,38]”
  • iPhone users' estimates of daily social media use are less accurate than their reports of overall daily iPhone use.

    “iPhone users’ estimates of daily social media use are less accurate than their reports of overall daily iPhone use [38]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sewall, C. J. R., Bear, T. M., Merranko, J., & Rosen, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sewall, Craig J. R.
Venue
Mobile Media & Communication
Published
2020-03-31
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
379-399
ISSN
  • 2050-1579 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-1587
OpenAlex
W3014723656
Cited by
139
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 8
FWCI
28.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mobile Media & Communication (publishedVersion)
Funders
Robert and Sally Schwartz Endowed Resource Fund
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
digital technology use, actual use, psychosocial well-being, depression, loneliness, life satisfaction, social media use, measurement bias

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