Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

© 2022 American Psychological Association 2023, Vol. 29, No. 1, 149–161

ISSN: 1076-898X https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000430

Finding the “Sweet Spot” of Smartphone Use: Reduction or Abstinence to

Increase Well-Being and Healthy Lifestyle?! An Experimental
Intervention Study
Julia Brailovskaia, Jasmin Delveaux, Julia John, Vanessa Wicker, Alina Noveski, Seokyoung Kim,
Holger Schillack, and Jürgen Margraf
Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Department of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The present experimental study compared the impact of a total abstinence from smartphone use and of a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reduction of daily smartphone use by 1 hr on well-being and healthy lifestyle. Participants (Ntotal = 619) were
smartphone users in Germany. The first experimental group (N = 200) waived smartphone use for 7 days, the
second experimental group (N = 226) reduced its daily use by 1 hr, and the control group (N = 193) used
smartphone as usual. Variables of smartphone use (time, intensity, problematic tendencies), life satisfaction,
depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, physical activity, and smoking behavior were assessed via online
surveys at four measurement time points (baseline; postintervention; 1 and 4 months after postintervention).
Both interventions reduced smartphone use intensity, problematic use tendencies, depressive, and anxiety
symptoms. In both groups, life satisfaction and physical activity increased. Most effects were stronger and
remained more stable over 4 months in the reduction group than in the abstinence group. Moreover, in the
reduction group only, the number of daily smoked cigarettes decreased. Thus, less time spent on the
smartphone leads to more well-being and a healthier lifestyle; a complete smartphone abstinence is not
necessary. Programs that focus on the increase of well-being and a healthier lifestyle could benefit from the
integration of controlled reduction of smartphone use. A potential “sweet spot” of smartphone use is discussed.

Public Significance Statement

The present study suggests that conscious and controlled changes of daily time spent on smartphone use
can contribute to subjective well-being (less depressive and anxiety symptoms, less problematic use
tendencies, more life satisfaction) and to a healthier lifestyle (more physical activity, less smoking
behavior) in the longer term. Already, a reduction of daily smartphone use by 1 hr can result in this
positive effect, a complete abstinence is not necessary.

Keywords: abstinence from smartphone use, reduction of smartphone use, subjective well-being, physical
activity, smoking behavior

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000430.supp

In the past decade, the smartphone has become people’s “best online and offline applications, smartphone use makes our daily
friend.” Today, more than 3.5 billion people own a smartphone lives easier from work to leisure. In addition to permanent
and use it on average more than 3 hr daily (Kroker, 2020; Spajic, availability, it allows people to stay up-to-date about news,
2020). Through the mobile Internet access and the numerous to access emails and social media accounts, to play games, to

This article was published Online First April 7, 2022. Materials used in the present study are available on reasonable request
Julia Brailovskaia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7607-1305 from the corresponding author.
Jasmin Delveaux https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8572-0506 The study design and hypotheses were not preregistered. The analytic plan
Alina Noveski https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7098-4242 was not preregistered.
Seokyoung Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1110-1109 Julia Brailovskaia and Jasmin Delveaux conducted the study design. Julia
Holger Schillack https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5022-6970 Brailovskaia wrote the first draft of the article and conducted the statistical
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in analysis. Julia Brailovskaia and Holger Schillack conducted literature
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no searches. Julia Brailovskaia, Jasmin Delveaux, Julia John, Vanessa Wicker,
conflicts of interest to disclose. Alina Noveski, and Seokyoung Kim conducted data collection and data
All data, program code, and other methods developed by others are preparation. Holger Schillack and Jürgen Margraf reviewed and edited the
appropriately cited in the text and listed in the References section. first draft. All authors contributed to and have approved the final article.
Data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julia
author. Brailovskaia, Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Department
The analytic code that was used in the present study is available as of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Massenbergstr. 9–13, 44787
Supplemental Materials. Bochum, Germany. Email: Julia.Brailovskaia@rub.de

149
 150 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.
watch videos, and to use web mapping services and organizers
(Elhai et al., 2019b).
However, despite the advantages, excessive smartphone use can
negatively impact subjective well-being, physical health state, and
academic performance (Elhai et al., 2017; Sohn et al., 2019; Vahedi
& Saiphoo, 2018). People often engage in excessive smartphone use
to escape overwhelming problems and negative mood (Elhai et al.,
2019a). Active interaction with friends via social media or a passive
following of other-generated content can in the short term contribute
to relief, mood improvement, and inspiration. But in the longer term,
time spent on smartphone use and the positive experiences can foster
the development of a pathological emotional bond to the technical
device that is linked to an obsessive need to permanently continue
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the use (Elhai et al., 2018; Lapierre et al., 2019; Montag et al., 2015).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Nonuse can evoke physical and mental withdrawal symptoms and
an often unconscious grasp of the smartphone (Cheever et al., 2014;
Sapacz et al., 2016).
This phenomenon is often termed as problematic, compulsive, or
addictive smartphone use (Elhai et al., 2017), but a consensus about a
standardized term is currently missing. In the present study, we will use
the term “problematic smartphone use” (Ting & Chen, 2020). In
addition to withdrawal, problematic smartphone use is defined by
characteristics like salience, tolerance, mood modification, lack of
control and relapse, and conflicts (Elhai et al., 2017; Sohn et al., 2019).
So far, problematic smartphone use has not been recognized as a
formal psychiatric disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association,
2013) and in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11;
World Health Organization, 2018). Nevertheless, available research
emphasizes the negative effects of excessive smartphone use on
well-being (Thomée, 2018). Longitudinal correlation studies that
investigated time periods up to 3 years described that both the time
spent on smartphone use in general and problematic smartphone use
are positively linked to depressive and anxiety symptoms (Bickham
et al., 2015; Lapierre et al., 2019; Rozgonjuk et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2020). In cross-sectional studies, their relationship with life
satisfaction was negative (Lachmann et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2019).
Time spent on smartphone use was positively related to enhanced
daytime sleepiness, and decreased sleep quality and sleepiness
during bedtime, especially when using blue light smartphones
(Heo et al., 2017; Li et al., 2015; Ng et al., 2020). Furthermore,
excessive smartphone use negatively impacts physical health. In-
dividuals who engaged in excessive use had enhanced levels of
muscle fatigue and pain in the neck–shoulder region caused by the
forward-leaning head posture, decreased posture, and respiratory
function (Cuéllar & Lanman, 2017; İnal et al., 2015; Jung et al.,
2016; Kim & Koo, 2016; Xie et al., 2016). Time spent on smart-
phone use was associated with decreased physical activity and
fitness, as well as enhanced obesity especially in adolescents and
young adults (Fennell et al., 2019; Kenney & Gortmaker, 2017;
Lepp et al., 2013). Moreover, smartphone use time and problematic
use were negatively linked to academic performance in young
students (Lepp et al., 2014, 2015); their association with academic
procrastination was positive (Yang et al., 2019). In a longitudinal
study, an increase of smartphone use time positively predicted a
decrease in academic achievement of students over a 3-year period
(Amez et al., 2019).
Considering the described negative impact of smartphone use, it
seems highly desirable to understand how well-being and physical
health can be protected in the age of the digital revolution. Available
experimental research on social media use (e.g., Facebook, Insta-
gram, Twitter) that can also negatively impact subjective well-being
(Brailovskaia, Teismann, et al., 2020; Brailovskaia et al., 2019)
showed that individuals who completely waived the use for a
1-week period had higher levels of life satisfaction than those
who maintained their usual usage time (Tromholt, 2016). Reduction
of daily time spent on social media for 30 min—which is less
challenging than complete abstinence—for 3 weeks resulted in a
decrease of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hunt et al., 2018).
Reducing the daily social media time for 20 min over a 2-week
period contributed to an increase of life satisfaction and physical
activity (e.g., jogging, cycling), whereas the intensity of social
media use, problematic use, depressive symptoms, and smoking
behavior decreased. The positive effects remained stable for up to
3 months (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020). Thus, abstinence from
social media use as well as its reduction have positive effects on
well-being and lifestyle.
However, can these findings be applied to smartphone use? In the
past years, several experimental studies investigated the abstinence
from smartphone use. Most of them were conducted in laboratories
where participants had to completely waive smartphone use for up to
several hours while waiting or working on specific tasks (e.g.,
puzzles). Their results mostly reveal an increase of withdrawal and
anxiety symptoms, especially in individuals who tend to excessive
smartphone use (Cheever et al., 2014; Clayton et al., 2015; Cutino &
Nees, 2017). This corresponds to our knowledge about restrictive
interventions on addictive behavior such as alcohol, nicotine, and
drug use (Gawin, 1991; Wetterling et al., 1996). In the initial craving
stage that can continue for days or weeks, the individual typically
experiences enhanced withdrawal and anxiety. In the later stage, the
negative symptoms decrease. Because of the brief abstinence periods
and lack of follow-up measurements in the available studies, it
remains unclear how long the withdrawal and anxiety symptoms
could persist in the context of smartphone use. Also, the external
validity of the effects outside the laboratory is unclear.
Two experimental studies on the abstinence from smartphone use
were conducted outside of the laboratory. In the first study, parti-
cipants of the experimental group (N = 67) who completely waived
smartphone use for 72 hr had significantly higher withdrawal and
anxiety symptoms than the control group (N = 60) who used the
smartphone as usual (Eide et al., 2018). In the second study (N =
19), after a 10-day abstinence from smartphone use, withdrawal
symptoms decreased and experience of relief increased (Zinn &
Rademacher, 2019). Thus, the craving stage seems to continue for at
least 3 days, but for less than 10 days.
Considering the available experimental studies that lack follow-
up measurements and focus on a small number of variables of well-
being, it can be concluded that the current state of research cannot
answer the question of whether the findings with respect to social
media (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2018;
Tromholt, 2016) are applicable to smartphone use: Abstinence
from and/or reduction of the use can positively influence well-
being and lifestyle in the longer term. However, finding an answer to
this question is urgent considering the potential negative effects of
excessive smartphone use (Elhai et al., 2019a).
Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the influence of
both the controlled experimental abstinence from smartphone use
and the controlled experimental reduction of daily time spent on
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING
smartphone use on subjective well-being and lifestyle over a longer
period of time (up to 4 months). Because of the limited experimental
findings on smartphone use, we formulated our hypotheses and
designed our study mainly following the experimental research on
social media (i.e., Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020; Hunt et al.,
2018; Tromholt, 2016).
Regarding the smartphone use variables, we hypothesized that the
abstinence from/reduction of daily time spent on this technical
device is accompanied by a reduction of smartphone use inten-
sity/integration into daily life (Hypothesis 1a). Previous research
described time spent on smartphone use to foster problematic
tendencies (e.g., Lapierre et al., 2019). Therefore, we assumed
that abstinence from/reduction of daily smartphone use decreases
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the level of problematic smartphone use (Hypothesis 1b).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Following the dual-factor models (e.g., Keyes, 2005), subjective
well-being consists of two interrelated but distinct dimensions:
positive and negative. Only the investigation of both dimensions in
parallel enables a comprehensive picture of a person’s well-being.
Thus, based on earlier findings (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020;
Hunt et al., 2018; Tromholt, 2016), we assumed that the abstinence
from/reduction of smartphone use time contributes to an increase of
life satisfaction (Hypothesis 2a) and a decrease of depressive
(Hypothesis 2b) and anxiety symptoms (Hypothesis 2c).
Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al. (2020) showed that the reduction of
social media time influenced (un)healthy lifestyle—operationalized
as physical activity (e.g., jogging: healthy lifestyle) and smoking
behavior (consumed tobacco products: unhealthy lifestyle). They
described that positive emotions experienced during physical
activity could replace positive emotions evoked by social media
use. Furthermore, reduction in social media use, enhancement of
physical activity time and of well-being could contribute to the
conscious striving for a healthier lifestyle in general, and thus at
least partly explain the reduction of smoking behavior. On the
basis of this framework, we expected that the abstinence from/
reduction of smartphone use time increases the frequency of
physical activity (Hypothesis 3a) and decreases smoking behavior
(Hypothesis 3b).
So far, no study on social media or smartphone use directly
compared the effects of complete abstinence from the use and its
reduction. To avoid speculations, we additionally formulated two
research questions:
Research Question 1: Do the effects of abstinence from smart-
phone use and of a reduction of time spent on smartphone use
on well-being and lifestyle differ?
Research Question 2: If they differ, how do the effects of
abstinence from smartphone use and of a reduction of time
spent on smartphone use on well-being and lifestyle differ?
Materials and Method
Transparency and Openness
Data
Data used in the present study are available on reasonable request
from the corresponding author.
151
Analytic Methods
The analytic code needed to reproduce current analyses is
included as Supplemental Materials Analytic Code.
Materials
Materials used in the present study are available on reasonable
request from the corresponding author.
Procedure
The present study was designed as a randomized controlled trial
that included two experimental groups (i.e., abstinence group,
reduction group) and a control group. Over a period of 7 days
(= experimental manipulation period), participants of the abstinence
group waived their daily smartphone use (= first experimental
manipulation), participants of the reduction group reduced their
daily smartphone use time (= second experimental manipulation),
and participants of the control group did not change their usual
smartphone use time. Smartphone use was defined as the use of all
internet-based and not internet-based applications and features on
the smartphone, except the use of telephony service (i.e., calling
somebody, accepting incoming calls) in very urgent cases, such as
for parents to find out whether a child has arrived at the place of
destination.
In 2019, the mean daily smartphone use time ranged around 3 hr
(e.g., MacKay, 2019; Wurmser, 2019). Following Brailovskaia,
Ströse, et al. (2020), who chose a third of the mean social media
use time for the reduction condition, we advised the reduction group
to reduce the duration of daily smartphone use time by 60 min (i.e.,
one third of the 3 hr) over the 7 intervention days.
Data of the three groups were collected at four measurement time
points via online surveys in German language. Participants received
the online links to the surveys by email. Measurements took place on
the day prior to the beginning of the experimental manipulation
period (baseline, day 0) to assess a baseline of the investigated
variables, after the 7 days of the manipulation period (postinterven-
tion, Day 8), 1 and 4 months after the postintervention measurement
(see Figure 1). This procedure enables an investigation of the short-
and long-term (up to 4 months) effects of the experimental manipu-
lation of smartphone use time.
Participants
Data collection took place from April 2019 to November 2020.
Participants were recruited by invitations displayed at public places
in Germany, at German universities, and on social media such as
Facebook and Twitter. Persons who were interested in participation
contacted the principal investigators by email. In addition to their
wish to participate, the email should include their mean daily
smartphone use time (in min). The requirements for participation
—voluntary and compensated by course credits for students—were
the possession of a smartphone and its daily use for at least 75 min (to
prevent a complete abstinence in the reduction group). Participants
had to be at least 18 years old. All requirements were included in the
invitation. All participants fulfilled the requirements. No participants
were excluded. Implementation of the present study was approved by
the responsible Ethics Committee. Persons who were interested in the
 152 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.
Figure 1
Investigation Timeline (Measurement Time Points: Baseline, Day 0; Postintervention, Day 8; 1 Month After Postintervention; 4 Months After
Postintervention)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
participation received an email with the link to the baseline survey.
At the beginning of the baseline survey, they were randomly assigned
to one of the three groups. Participants were properly informed about
the study and provided informed consent to participate online. The
same day, members of both experimental groups received an email,
including a Microsoft Word document (“Daily compliance diary”).
The document included a table where participants entered daily
whether they had complied with the instruction of their experimental
condition (0 = no, 1 = yes). After the intervention period, the
compliance diary was sent back by email to the principal investiga-
tors. Compliance was assessed when participants reported to comply
with the group instruction for at least 5 of the 7 days of the
experimental period. In addition to the diary, in the email of the
reduction group, participants were asked to cut down their daily
smartphone use time by 1 hr a day. To clarify this instruction, each
participant was provided a concrete maximal time that he/her was
allowed to spend on daily smartphone use for the duration of the
experimental period (= daily smartphone use time indicated by the
participants in their email to the principal investigators minus 60
min). For example, if a person usually used the smartphone for about
180 min a day, we calculated “180 min − 60 min = 120 min.” Thus,
the person was allowed to engage in smartphone use for no longer
than 120 min daily. To prevent increased attention on smartphone
use, the control group did not receive a compliance diary.
Experimental Group Abstinence
Overall, 227 persons were assigned to the abstinence group. At
different stages of the investigation, 27 persons (11.9%) dropped
out. Thus, the abstinence group consisted of 200 participants who
completed all surveys, 79.5% women; Mage (SDage) = 25.35 (8.91),
range: 18–67; occupation: 78.5% university students, 20% employ-
ees, two unemployed persons, and one retired person; marital status:
41% single, 49.5% in a relationship but not married, 9.5% married;
all Caucasian. Analyses of the compliance diaries revealed a
compliance rate of 89.5% (n = 179).
Experimental Group Reduction
Overall, 242 persons were assigned to the reduction group. The
dropout rate was 6.6% (n = 16). Thus, the reduction group consisted
of 226 participants, 77.9% women; Mage (SDage) = 25.38 (7.14),
range: 18–57; occupation: 77% university students, 22.6% employ-
ees, and one unemployed person; marital status: 42.5% single,
48.7% in a relationship but not married, 8.8% married; all Cauca-
sian. Analyses of the compliance diaries revealed a compliance rate
of 92.9% (n = 210).
Following Tromholt (2016) and Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al.
(2020), noncompliers were kept in the samples.
Control Group
Overall, 232 persons were assigned to the control group. The
dropout rate was 16.8% (n = 39). Thus, the control group consisted
of 193 participants (75.1% women; Mage (SDage) = 27.15 (10.08),
range: 18–63; occupation: 69.4% university students, 29.5% em-
ployees, one unemployed person, and one retired person; marital
status: 37.8% single, 45.6% in a relationship but not married, 16.6%
married; all Caucasian).
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed no significant group
differences of demographic variables. Also, there were no signifi-
cant differences of demographic variables between persons who
dropped out and those who participated in all surveys. A priori
power analyses (G*Power program, Version 3.1) indicated that at
least a total sample size of N = 174 (n = 58 per group) was required
for valid results (repeated measure ANOVAs, within-between
factor-design; power ≥ 0.80, α = .05, effect size: f = 0.10; Mayr
et al., 2007). However, much more people revealed the wish to
participate in the study. As the study aimed to improve subjective
well-being and lifestyle, each person was included in the study that
wanted to participate based on ethical considerations.
Measures
Smartphone Use
Duration of Smartphone Use. Participants indicated the dura-
tion of their daily smartphone use (in min; current mean test–retest
reliability calculated over all four measurement time points [rmtrr]:
abstinence group: rmtrr = .62, reduction group: rmtrr = .56, control
group: rmtrr = .73).
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING
Intensity of Smartphone Use. Intensity of smartphone use and
its integration into daily life was measured with a modified version of
the Facebook Intensity Scale (FIS; original version: Ellison et al.,
2007; German version: Brailovskaia, Rohmann, et al., 2018). The
term “Facebook” was replaced by the term “Smartphone”; four of the
overall six items were included in the present investigation (i.e.,
“Smartphone use is part of my everyday activity,” “Smartphone use
has become part of my daily routine,” “I feel out of touch, when I
haven’t used my Smartphone for a while,” and “I would be sorry, if
my Smartphone malfunctioned”). Two items of the original FIS were
excluded because their content could not be transferred to smart-
phone use. The items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 =
disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly; current reliability: abstinence
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
group: Cronbach’s α = .72–.77, rmtrr = .63; reduction group: α =
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.65–.69, rmtrr = .67; control group: α = .64–.76, rmtrr = .64).
Problematic Smartphone Use. The level of problematic smart-
phone use was measured with a modified version of the brief Bergen
Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS; original Version:
Andreassen et al., 2016; German Version: Brailovskaia,
Schillack, et al., 2020). In all six items that are formulated according
to the six characteristics of problematic media use (i.e., salience,
tolerance, mood modification, relapse, withdrawal, conflict), the
term “Social Media” was replaced by “Smartphone” (e.g., “Felt
an urge to use the Smartphone more and more?”). Items are rated on
a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very rarely, 5 = very often; current
reliability: abstinence group: α = .83–.89, rmtrr = .56; reduction
group: α = .81–.89, rmtrr = .63; control group: α = .83–.93, rmtrr
= .51).
Subjective Well-Being
Life Satisfaction. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS;
original Version: Diener et al., 1985; German Version: Glaesmer
et al., 2011) was used to measure global life satisfaction. This
instrument includes five items that are rated on a 7-point Likert-
type scale (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”; 1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; current reliability: abstinence
group: α = .86–.89, rmtrr = .73; reduction group: α = .86–.89, rmtrr =
.76; control group: α = .84–.89, rmtrr = .70).
Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms. The depression and the
anxiety subscales of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21
(DASS-21; original Version: Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; German
Version: Nilges & Essau, 2015) measured depressive and anxiety
symptoms with seven items, respectively, that are rated on a 4-point
Likert-type scale (depression subscale: e.g., “I couldn’t seem to
experience any positive feeling at all”; anxiety subscale: e.g., “I felt
scared without any good reason”; 0 = did not apply to me at all; 3 =
applied to me very much or most of the time; current reliability:
depression subscale: abstinence group: α = .86–.89, rmtrr = .65;
reduction group: α = .79–.89, rmtrr = .55; control group: α = .84–.87,
rmtrr = .60; anxiety subscale: abstinence group: α = .76–.86, rmtrr =
.64; reduction group: α = .82–.84, rmtrr = .62; control group: α =
.77–.88, rmtrr = .64).
(Un)healthy Lifestyle
Physical Activity. Following Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al. (2020),
the frequency of physical activity was assessed with the item “How
frequently do you engage in physical exercise (e.g., swimming,
153
cycling, jogging)?” rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never,
5 = four times a week and more; current reliability: abstinence group:
rmtrr = .61, reduction group: rmtrr = .47, control group: rmtrr = .71).
This brief instrument has been repeatedly reported to be a valid and
reliable measure of physical activity (Brailovskaia, Teismann, et al.,
2018; Milton et al., 2011).
Smoking Behavior. Following previous research (Brailovskaia,
Ströse, et al., 2020), participants were asked whether they regularly
consume any tobacco products, such as cigarettes (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Those who indicated to consume tobacco products were asked how
many of them they consume daily (current reliability: abstinence
group: rmtrr = .93, reduction group: rmtrr = .73, control group:
rmtrr = .76).
The time instructions (e.g., over the last week, over the last
month) of the questionnaires were adapted to the requirements of the
individual surveys. For all used instruments, higher scores indicated
higher levels of the measured variable. Investigated variables were
assessed at all four measurement time points in all groups. Exception
was duration of daily smartphone use (only baseline, 1 and 4 months
after postintervention measurement). Note that between baseline
and postintervention measurement, the duration of daily smartphone
use of both experimental groups was experimentally manipulated.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were conducted with the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS 26). There were no missing data.
After descriptive analyses, repeated measure analyses of variance
(ANOVAs; within-between factor-design) to test possible short-
and long-term effects (up to four measurement time points) and to
compare the three investigated groups (abstinence group vs. reduc-
tion group; abstinence group vs. control group; reduction group vs.
control group) were calculated. For all variables, there was a
violation of the assumption of sphericity (Mauchly’s test). Thus,
the Greenhouse–Geisser correction (ε) was applied. Partial eta-
squared (η2p ) was included as the effect–size measure of main effects
(measurement time point; group condition) and of interaction effect
(measurement time point × group condition), Cohen’s d was used
as effect–size measure of post hoc comparisons between groups,
Cohen’s dRepeated Measures (Morris, 2008) was assessed as effect–size
measure of post hoc comparisons within groups. All post hoc
comparisons were Bonferroni-corrected (level of significance:
p < .05, two-tailed).
Results
Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics of the investigated
variables in all groups at the four measurement time points.
Note, 20.5% (n = 41) of the abstinence group, 15.9% (n = 36)
of the reduction group, and 14.5% (n = 28) of the control group
regularly consumed tobacco products.
Figures 2 (time and intensity of smartphone use) and 3 (variables
of well-being including problematic smartphone use and lifestyle)
visualize the results of the ANOVAs.
The Supplemental Materials Table S1 presents results of pairwise
comparisons within each group, whereas results of the pairwise
comparisons between the three groups are summarized in the
Supplemental Materials Table S2.
 154 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Investigated Variables (Baseline to 4 Months)

Baseline Postintervention One month Four months

Investigated variables Group M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Smartphone use time (in min) Abstinence 199.74 (105.79) 157.43 (91.00) 162.02 (111.89)
Reduction 215.96 (84.78) 176.26 (80.88) 170.96 (80.81)
Control 202.75 (125.41) 198.20 (125.41) 187.33 (111.34)
Smartphone use intensity Abstinence 15.86 (2.80) 14.60 (3.42) 14.57 (3.42) 14.12 (3.44)
Reduction 16.03 (2.59) 14.92 (2.78) 14.78 (2.77) 14.51 (2.95)
Control 15.99 (2.56) 15.39 (2.96) 15.51 (2.56) 15.35 (2.80)
Life satisfaction Abstinence 26.33 (5.46) 26.92 (5.43) 27.14 (5.52) 27.10 (5.82)
Reduction 26.28 (5.35) 26.88 (5.23) 27.09 (5.06) 27.44 (5.18)
Control 26.33 (5.06) 26.16 (5.33) 26.15 (5.45) 26.09 (5.70)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Problematic smartphone use Abstinence 13.39 (5.15) 12.80 (4.81) 11.22 (4.80) 11.40 (4.83)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Reduction 12.91 (4.81) 13.01 (4.10) 10.96 (4.47) 11.05 (4.09)

Control 12.37 (4.74) 12.14 (4.54) 12.28 (5.05) 12.16 (4.95)
Depressive symptoms Abstinence 4.28 (4.05) 3.29 (3.80) 3.60 (4.14) 3.50 (3.77)
Reduction 3.81 (3.98) 3.09 (3.58) 3.19 (3.60) 2.92 (2.94)
Control 3.60 (3.50) 3.58 (3.87) 3.61 (3.63) 3.82 (4.07)
Anxiety symptoms Abstinence 3.39 (3.42) 2.38 (3.52) 2.47 (3.27) 2.53 (3.46)
Reduction 3.09 (3.63) 2.50 (3.33) 2.46 (3.23) 2.08 (2.70)
Control 2.88 (3.17) 2.81 (3.87) 2.76 (3.45) 2.89 (3.67)
Physical activity Abstinence 3.36 (1.15) 3.59 (1.06) 3.50 (1.08) 3.51 (1.07)
Reduction 3.39 (1.01) 3.58 (.97) 3.63 (.85) 3.77 (.87)
Control 3.35 (1.11) 3.38 (1.12) 3.41 (1.09) 3.27 (1.06)
Smoking behavior Abstinence 5.76 (5.41) 5.61 (5.13) 5.44 (5.60) 5.49 (6.83)
Reduction 5.50 (4.84) 3.89 (4.42) 3.75 (4.87) 3.39 (4.07)
Control 5.25 (4.67) 5.25 (5.03) 5.86 (5.83) 5.75 (5.23)
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Experimental Group Abstinence: N = 200, Experimental Group Reduction: N = 226, Control Group: N = 193,
exception: smoking behavior: Experimental Group Abstinence: n = 41, Experimental Group Reduction: n = 36, Control Group: n = 28; baseline to 4 months =
measurement time points; smoking behavior: number of daily consumed tobacco products.

The ANOVA for time spent daily on smartphone use revealed a
significant main effect for measurement time point, F(1.93, 1186.95)
= 53.675, p < .001, η2p = .080, a significant main effect for group
condition, F(2, 616) = 3.343, p = .036, η2p = .011, and a significant
interaction effect, F(3.85, 1186.95) = 6.754, p < .001, η2p = .021.
Pairwise comparisons indicated that in both experimental groups,
smartphone use time was lower 1 and 4 months after postinterven-
tion measurement than at baseline. The within-group effects were
stronger in the reduction group than in the abstinence group (see
Supplemental Materials Table S1). Furthermore, pairwise compar-
isons indicated significant lower smartphone use time in the absti-
nence group than in the control group 1 and 4 months after

Figure 2
Results of Repeated Measure Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) for Smartphone Use: (A) Daily Time (in min), and (B) Intensity

Note. Experimental group abstinence: n = 200, Experimental group reduction: n = 226, Control group: n = 193; Baseline to 4 months = Measurement time
points.
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING 155

Figure 3
Results of Repeated Measure Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) for Variables of Well-Being Including Problematic Smartphone Use and
Lifestyle: (A) Life Satisfaction, (B) Problematic Smartphone Use, (C) Depressive Symptoms, (D) Anxiety Symptoms, (E) Physical Activity,
(F) Smoking Behavior
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Experimental group abstinence: N = 200, Experimental group reduction: N = 226, Control group: N = 193; Exception: Smoking behavior:
Experimental group abstinence: n = 41, Experimental group reduction: n = 36, Control group: n = 28; Baseline to 4 months = Measurement time points.
 156 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.
postintervention measurement (see Supplemental Materials
Table S2).
For intensity of smartphone use, the ANOVA revealed a signifi-
cant main effect for measurement time point, F(2.90, 1783.37) =
64.236, p < .001, η2p = .094, a significant main effect for group
condition, F(2, 616) = 4.802, p = .009, η2p = .015, and a significant
interaction effect, F(5.79, 1783.37) = 3.999, p < .001, η2p = .013.
Pairwise comparisons revealed that use intensity was significantly
lower at other measurement time points than at baseline in all three
groups. The effects were stronger in both experimental groups than
in the control group. In addition, use intensity was significantly
lower 4 months after postintervention measurement than 1 month
after it in the abstinence group (see Supplemental Materials
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table S1). Furthermore, pairwise comparisons revealed that use
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
intensity was significantly lower in the abstinence group (at post-
intervention, 1 and 4 months measurement) and in the reduction
group (at 1 and 4 months measurements) than in the control group
(see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
For problematic smartphone use, the ANOVA showed a signifi-
cant main effect for measurement time point, F(2.93, 1805.79) =
34.504, p < .001, η2p = .053, a non-significant main effect for group
condition, F(2, 616) = .274, p = .761, and a significant interaction
effect, F(5.86, 1805.79) = 8.400, p < .001, η2p = .027. As shown by
pairwise comparisons, there was a significant decrease of problem-
atic smartphone use in both experimental groups between baseline
and measurements 1 and 4 months after postintervention, as well as
between postintervention measurement and both later measurements.
The effects were stronger in the reduction group than in the absti-
nence group (see Supplemental Materials Table S1). Furthermore,
problematic smartphone use was significantly lower in the reduction
group than in the control group 1 and 4 months after postintervention
measurement (see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
For life satisfaction, the ANOVA showed a significant main effect
for measurement time point, F(2.69, 1657.78) = 4.860 p = .003,
η2p = .008, a non-significant main effect for group condition,
F(2, 616) = 1.487, p = .227, and a significant interaction effect,
F(5.38, 1657.78) = 2.625, p = .020, η2p = .008. Pairwise comparisons
showed that life satisfaction was significantly higher 1 month after
postintervention measurement than at baseline in the abstinence group.
In the reduction group, life satisfaction was significantly higher at all
other measurement time points than at baseline (see Supplemental
Materials Table S1). Moreover, life satisfaction was significantly
higher in the reduction group than in the control group 4 months after
postintervention measurement (see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
For depressive symptoms, the ANOVA revealed a significant
main effect for measurement time point, F(2.84, 1749.69) = 7.119,
p < .001, η2p = .011, a non-significant main effect for group
condition, F(2, 616) = 1.206, p = .300, and a significant interaction
effect, F(5.68, 1749.69) = 2.677, p = .016, η2p = .009. Pairwise
comparisons revealed that depressive symptoms were significantly
lower at other measurement time points than at baseline in the
abstinence group. In the reduction group, they were significantly
lower at postintervention measurement and 4 months later than at
baseline (see Supplemental Materials Table S1). Furthermore,
depressive symptoms were significantly lower in the reduction
group than in the control group 4 months after postintervention
measurement (see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
Considering anxiety symptoms, the ANOVA showed a significant
main effect for measurement time point, F(2.89, 1782.09) = 12.166,
p < .001, η2p = .019, a non-significant main effect for group condition,
F(2, 616) = .579, p = .561, and a significant interaction effect, F(5.79,
1782.09) = 3.422, p = .003, η2p = .011. As shown by pairwise
comparisons, there was a significant decrease of anxiety symptoms in
both experimental groups between baseline and other measurement
time points (see Supplemental Materials Table S1). The effects were
stronger in the abstinence group than in the reduction group. More-
over, anxiety symptoms were significantly lower in the reduction
group than in the control group 4 months after postintervention
measurement (see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
For physical activity, the ANOVA showed a significant main
effect for measurement time point, F(2.75, 1691.22) = 8.261, p <
.001, η2p = .013, a significant main effect for group condition,
F(2, 616) = 3.988, p = .019, η2p = .013, and a significant interaction
effect, F(5.49, 1691.22) = 4.968, p < .001, η2p = .016. Pairwise
comparisons indicated a significant increase of physical activity
between baseline and postintervention measurement in the absti-
nence group. In the reduction group, physical activity was signifi-
cantly higher at all other measurement time points than at baseline.
Also, it was significantly lower at postintervention measurement
than 4 months later (see Supplemental Materials Table S1). More-
over, physical activity was significantly higher in the reduction
group than in the abstinence group and in the control group 4 months
after postintervention measurement (see Supplemental Materials
Table S2).
For smoking behavior, the ANOVA revealed a non-significant
main effect for measurement time point, F(2.30, 234,59) = 1.761,
p = .169, and a non-significant main effect for group condition,
F(2, 102) = 1.008, p = .368, but a significant interaction effect,
F(4.60, 234.59) = 2.549, p = .033, η2p = .048. The non-significant
main effects might be due to the fact that only a small percentage of
all three groups engaged in smoking behavior. A larger subsample
size could lead to a significant finding. As shown by pairwise
comparisons, smoking behavior was significantly lower at other
measurement time points than at baseline in the reduction group (see
Supplemental Materials Table S1). There were no significant differ-
ences between groups (see Supplemental Materials Table S2).
Discussion
Smartphone use is a curse and a blessing in the age of the digital
revolution. It enables a permanent access to information and social
interaction and facilitates many tasks of everyday life. However, an
excessive use of the many possibilities can negatively influence
well-being, physical health, and different areas of a person’s offline
life (Amez et al., 2019; Elhai et al., 2019a; Xie et al., 2016).
Our findings reveal that abstinence from smartphone use, but also
already an 1-hr reduction of daily time spent on the smartphone use
over the period of 1 week significantly influences smartphone use
habits. Moreover, both have a similar substantial positive effect on
subjective well-being and lifestyle for up to 4 months. Effects of the
reduction are even more stable than those of the abstinence with
respect to variables such as life satisfaction and physical activity (see
Research Questions 1 and 2).
Four months after the intervention, participants reduced their
daily initial smartphone use time for about 38 min in the abstinence
group and for about 45 min in the reduction group. No significant
longitudinal changes of usage time were found in the control group.
The intensity of smartphone use decreased in all three groups (partly
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING
confirmation of Hypothesis 1a). Thus, the regular completion of our
survey could increase awareness of one’s own smartphone use in all
participants, which might contribute to a more conscious and
reflected consideration of its meaning for one’s own life (Hunt et
al., 2018). However, the effect was stronger in the experimental
groups than in the control group. This underlines that filling out of
surveys can be the first step to increase awareness for one’s own
smartphone use intensity, but the conscious manipulation of usage
time is necessary to increase and consolidate the effect.
Withdrawal symptoms belong to main characteristics of addictive
behavior (Elhai et al., 2017). Following previous research, complete
abstinence from smartphone use increases withdrawal symptoms at
least in the first 3 days (Eide et al., 2018); after 10 days of abstinence,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
they decrease (Zinn & Rademacher, 2019). Our present findings
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
refer to problematic smartphone use in general. The level of
problematic tendencies did not significantly change between base-
line and postintervention measurement in all groups. Because of
missing between-intervention measurements, for example, at Day 3,
the present study design does not allow conclusions about potential
changes of problematic smartphone use within the intervention
week. But in both experimental groups, problematic tendencies
decreased 1 and 4 months after the intervention (confirmation of
Hypothesis 1b), with a stronger long-term effect in the reduction
group than in the abstinence group (see Research Questions 1 and 2).
Thus, our results emphasize the positive long-term effect of the use
time manipulation.
Moreover, our present results show that abstinence from and
reduction of daily smartphone use contribute to a significant
improvement in both dimensions of subjective well-being: Life
satisfaction increases, whereas depressive and anxiety symptoms
decrease (confirmation of Hypothesis 2a to Hypothesis 2c). Fol-
lowing considerations may at least partly explain the findings.
Smartphones belong to the main technical devices used to enter
the online world (Kemp, 2019; Vahedi & Saiphoo, 2018). Humans
are social beings, and thus social interaction is one of the main
reasons for online activity (Brailovskaia, Schillack, et al., 2020).
Users engage in intensive social interactions on their smartphones
via social platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, as well as
messenger services such as WhatsApp and Telegram (Elhai et al.,
2018). Online interaction contributes to perception of social support
and increases the sense of belonging in the short term (Brailovskaia,
Schillack, et al., 2020). However, in the longer term, smartphone
interaction cannot serve as “a favorable surrogate compared to
offline interaction in terms of social support” (Lapierre et al.,
2019, p. 10). Written smartphone interaction—even enriched by
photos and emoticons—and voice messages often do not tend to
achieve the same level of intimacy and attachment as offline
interaction (Lapierre et al., 2019). Furthermore, permanent smart-
phone use—often performed in parallel with offline interactions—
contributes to an alienation from social contacts in the offline world,
a neglect of responsibilities, and an increase of interpersonal con-
flicts (Thomée, 2018). As a consequence, life satisfaction decreases,
whereas depressive and anxiety symptoms increase (Bickham et al.,
2015; Lapierre et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019).
Further enhancement of smartphone use intensity is a common
way to cope with negative offline experiences and emotions,
especially in individuals with increased levels of addictive tenden-
cies. However, this dysfunctional strategy contributes to further
offline conflicts, and thus closes the vicious circle (Elhai et al.,
157
2019b; Liu et al., 2019). To break the vicious circle without external
support is often impossible (Wang et al., 2019). Our present study
that requested abstinence from or reduction of daily smartphone use
time controlled by compliance diaries provided the required external
support to break the vicious circle. The experimental manipulation
contributed to the decrease of smartphone use intensity and of
problematic tendencies. The restricted online time enabled partici-
pants to consider functional coping strategies such as a direct facing
of daily challenges, and provided time to consciously enjoy offline
social interactions without a permanent disruption by smartphone
use. This could foster the well-being of participants in both experi-
mental groups. A comparison between the experimental groups
revealed that some effects were stronger in the abstinence group, but
the long-term positive changes of well-being (especially 4 months
after the intervention) were more stable in the reduction group (see
Research Questions 1 and 2).
The experimental manipulations contributed to significant
changes in (un)healthy lifestyle. In line with research on social
media (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020), in both experimental
groups, physical activity increased (confirmation of Hypothesis 3a).
Physical activity is an important protective factor of physical health
and subjective well-being (Eime et al., 2013). It fosters resilience
and reduces suicide-related outcomes (Vancampfort et al., 2018). At
least 150 min moderate physical activity throughout a week con-
tributes to significant positive effects (World Health Organization,
2020). Smartphone use is negatively linked to physical activity and
fitness. Furthermore, it is positively associated with obesity, muscle
fatigue, and pain (Kenney & Gortmaker, 2017; Kim & Koo, 2016;
Lepp et al., 2013). We did not advice our participants to engage in
physical activity. But the conscious dealing with one’s own smart-
phone activity and well-being by answering the surveys and the
experimental manipulation of smartphone use time seem to foster
the individual to strive for a healthier lifestyle. In addition, physical
activity can provide positive emotions through the achievement of
self-determined goals and social support when engaging in individ-
ual activities with a friend (e.g., jogging) or in team activities (e.g.,
football) (Vancampfort et al., 2018). Such positive experiences can
replace the positive effects of smartphone use (Brailovskaia, Ströse,
et al., 2020). This could explain why participants in the experimental
groups used the newly available time to engage in physical activity.
In the reduction group, we found a significant reduction of
smoking behavior (partly confirmation of Hypothesis 3b). Prior
to our investigation, participants consumed on average five to six
tobacco products daily; 4 months after the intervention, the consume
was reduced to an average of three to four products. This result
provides further evidence for the assumption of striving for a
healthier lifestyle by our participants. The striving could be evoked
by the conscious consideration of one’s own smartphone use and the
support to break the vicious circle. Moreover, the results underline
the close interplay between the different factors of health-related
behavior and well-being. Interventions that focus on one of the
factors can significantly influence the other factors. In our study, the
reduction of smartphone use time, improved well-being, enhanced
physical activity, and reduced smoking behavior. This finding is of
great importance considering the negative consequences of smoking
behavior for the individual and for the community caused by the
substantial costs of morbidity and mortality. Also, specific anti-
smoking companies are often cost-intensive (Ghenadenik et al.,
2020; Leventhal et al., 2015).
 158 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.
It is noteworthy that long-term effects on well-being, time spent
on smartphone use, and problematic smartphone use were more
stable in the reduction group than in the abstinence group. Further-
more, only in the reduction group, the increase of physical activity
remained stable 1 and 4 months after postintervention measurement.
In the abstinence group, the increase was only significant between
baseline and postintervention measurement. Moreover, there were
no changes of smoking behavior in the abstinence group, whereas
there was a long-term decrease of smoking behavior in the reduction
group. Thus, it seems that abstinence from smartphone use is an
effective method to improve well-being and lifestyle. But a moder-
ate reduction of use time has a similar or even more stable long-term
effect. Following considerations contribute to the explanation of this
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
phenomenon.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In addition to its social function, the smartphone combines many
functions of other devices such as an alarm clock, navigator,
organizer, electronic book reader, music, and video player. A
complete “smartphone detox” seems to be effective after an initial
craving phase (Eide et al., 2018; Zinn & Rademacher, 2019). But
strictly maintaining abstinence over several weeks or months can be
too demanding, especially for people who use the smartphone as a
substitute for other devices in everyday life. Furthermore, face-to-
face interaction is not always possible, and a complete deprivation of
online social interaction over a longer period of time can negatively
impact people’s social and/or working life (Brailovskaia, Ströse,
et al., 2020). Moreover, it is well-known that very restrictive diets
contribute to a quick weight loss, but often are followed by an yo-yo
effect and weight gain in the longer term (Amigo & Fernández,
2007). Considering the current lack of evidence on the effects of
abstinence from smartphone use for time periods longer than
4 months, we cannot exclude similar consequences with respect
to smartphone deprivation.
The controlled reduction of time spent on smartphone use is less
invasive and easier to maintain than a complete abstinence. It evokes
less resistance and can contribute to a better understanding of the
sense of the intervention. Notably, the present compliance rate was
slightly higher in the reduction group than in the abstinence group.
Also, the reduction group had the lowest dropout rate. The limitation
of daily smartphone time can foster a more conscious and efficient
handling of this technical device, and reduce the “just to beat
boredom” use. Time spent on smartphone use may become more
appreciated. Furthermore, the limitation provides smartphone-free
time for offline activities, their conscious perception, and enjoyment.
Against this background, it can be assumed that we got closer to a
“sweet spot” of smartphone use by reducing the time spent on
smartphone. A “sweet spot” is a state when “a combination of
factors comes together to produce the best results with greatest
efficiency” (Killion & Kennedy, 2012, p. 10). Excessive smart-
phone use negatively impacts well-being (Lapierre et al., 2019). A
complete nonuse over a longer time period is rather unrealistic and
can overwhelm users (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020). In contrast,
as shown by our results, the average moderate reduction contributes
to better well-being and a healthier lifestyle for at least 4 months.
This corresponds to previous research that described that the best
way to reach a “sweet spot” is a moderate change of the present state
to the novel direction, instead of too little or too much novelty (He &
Luo, 2017). Reaching of the individual “sweet spot” would allow to
gain the advantages of smartphone use without experiencing its
negative effects.
All participants of the reduction group reduced their smartphone
use time by 1 hr daily. Considering that the individual “sweet spot”
of smartphone use time can depend on different variables (e.g.,
personality traits, well-being, life conditions), we surely were not
able to reach the “sweet spot” for all participants. This goes beyond
the aim of our present study. However, our findings show that we
took a step into the right direction. On this background, we
recommend future studies to explicitly investigate the “sweet
spot” of smartphone use time for different population groups.
Furthermore, our findings emphasize the necessity to discuss the
time spent on smartphone use and to determine how much of its
reduction is most beneficial during treatments of depressive and
anxiety symptoms within the therapeutic setting. Moreover, consid-
ering the positive effects of the reduction of smartphone use on
lifestyle, its incorporation into specific intervention programs aim-
ing to enhance physical activity or to reduce smoking behavior is
recommended. In addition, it should be investigated whether the
reduction of smartphone use can positively influence further
unhealthy behavior, such as alcohol consumption and overeating.
If our results can be confirmed by future research, incorporating the
aspect of time spent on smartphone use into health prevention and
treatment programs may increase their effectivity and reduce their
costs. This is important considering that an increase of online media
use is accompanied by a decrease in well-being, especially in
adolescents and young adults in the last decade (Brailovskaia &
Margraf, 2020; Twenge et al., 2018).
Limitations and Further Research
It is important to consider some limitations when interpreting our
findings. First, the mostly young, female, and well-educated com-
position of the investigated samples limits the findings’ generaliz-
ability. Future studies should replicate the present results in more
population representative groups. Second, future research is
suggested to include between-measurement time points (e.g.,
Days 3 and 5), a longer intervention period (e.g., 2 weeks), and
longer follow-up periods (e.g., 12 months, 18 months) than those in
our study. Third, following previous experimental research on
problematic social media use (Brailovskaia, Ströse, et al., 2020),
we assessed problematic smartphone use with a modified version of
the BSMAS (Andreassen et al., 2016). Despite the similarity
between both forms of problematic behavior, future studies are
recommended to replicate our results with other measures of
problematic smartphone use such as the Smartphone Addiction
Scale-Short Version (SAS-SV; Kwon et al., 2013) to establish their
validity. Fourth, all data including smartphone use time and physical
activity were assessed by self-report measures that are prone to
social desirability, distortions of perception, and same-source bias
(Conway & Lance, 2010; Musch et al., 2002). To tackle this
limitation at least partly, participants were asked to provide the
daily smartphone use time that was tracked by their smartphone
when completing the surveys. However, we did not assess how
many participants had a smartphone with this feature. Therefore, the
present data should be interpreted with caution. Fifth, future studies
are suggested to additionally assess the time spent on other technical
devices (e.g., laptops, tablets) that enable the use of the online world
to control for a potential replacement of the smartphone use during
the experimental abstinence or reduction period. Sixth, data were
assessed between April 2019 and November 2020. Thus, the data
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING
collection took partly place during the global outbreak of the coro-
navirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; World Health Organization,
2021). To fight the pandemic spread, people had to reduce offline
social contacts (“social distancing”). As a consequence, online
activity as well as problematic smartphone use increased (Elhai et
al., 2021; Lemenager et al., 2021), whereas well-being decreased (Liu
et al., 2020; Rajkumar, 2020). The conceptualization of the present
study was completed previously to the pandemic outbreak and it was
not changed during the data collection to enable data comparability.
Therefore, we did not assess specific data on the impact of COVID-19
on smartphone use, well-being, or lifestyle. And we also did not
assess the participants’ location or whether they were affected by
COVID-19 due to health-related issues. Thus, we cannot clarify
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
whether and how our findings were influenced by the COVID-19
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
outbreak. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that the positive
effect of smartphone abstinence and reduced smartphone use time
was significant despite the pandemic and its consequences for
everyday life.
Conclusion
Smartphones can be very useful in everyday life, but their
excessive use can negatively influence well-being and physical
health (Elhai et al., 2019a). The experimental design of our study
adds to the causal interpretation of available correlational findings.
Our results indicate that abstinence from smartphone use could
contribute to the protection of subjective well-being and to a
healthier lifestyle. However, a moderate and controlled reduction
of daily time spent on smartphone use could be even more effective
and provide more stable effects over a longer period of time.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Amez, S., Vujic, S., De Marez, L., & Baert, S. (2019). Smartphone use and
academic performance: First evidence from longitudinal data. IZA dis-
cussion paper no. 12862. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). https://
www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/215258
Amigo, I., & Fernández, C. (2007). Effects of diets and their role in weight
control. Psychology Health and Medicine, 12(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13548500600621545
Andreassen, C. S., Billieux, J., Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., Demetrovics, Z.,
Mazzoni, E., & Pallesen, S. (2016). The relationship between addictive use
of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A
large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
30(2), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000160
Bickham, D. S., Hswen, Y., & Rich, M. (2015). Media use and depression:
Exposure, household rules, and symptoms among young adolescents in
the USA. International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 147–155. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0647-6
Brailovskaia, J., & Margraf, J. (2020). Decrease of well-being and increase of
online media use: Cohort trends in German university freshmen between
2016 and 2019. Psychiatry Research, 290, Article 113110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113110
Brailovskaia, J., Rohmann, E., Bierhoff, H.-W., & Margraf, J. (2018). The
brave blue world: Facebook flow and Facebook addiction disorder (FAD).
PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0201484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
.pone.0201484
Brailovskaia, J., Rohmann, E., Bierhoff, H.-W., Margraf, J., & Köllner, V.
(2019). Relationships between addictive Facebook use, depressiveness,
159
insomnia, and positive mental health in an inpatient sample: A German
longitudinal study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(4), 703–713.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.63
Brailovskaia, J., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2020). Tell me why are you
using social media (SM)! Relationship between reasons for use of SM, SM
flow, daily stress, depression, anxiety, and addictive SM use—An explor-
atory investigation of young adults in Germany. Computers in Human
Behavior, 113, Article 106511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106511
Brailovskaia, J., Ströse, F., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2020). Less Face-
book use—More well-being and a healthier lifestyle? An experimental
intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, Article 106332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106332
Brailovskaia, J., Teismann, T., & Margraf, J. (2018). Physical activity
mediates the association between daily stress and Facebook addiction
disorder (FAD): A longitudinal approach among German students. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 86, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb
.2018.04.045
Brailovskaia, J., Teismann, T., & Margraf, J. (2020). Positive mental health
mediates the relationship between Facebook addiction disorder and
suicide-related outcomes: A longitudinal approach. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 23(5), 346–350. https://doi.org/10
.1089/cyber.2019.0563
Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of
sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device
use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in
Human Behavior, 37, 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The
impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 119–135.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12109
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from
authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Jour-
nal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-010-9181-6
Cuéllar, J. M., & Lanman, T. H. (2017). “Text neck”: An epidemic of the
modern era of cell phones? The Spine Journal, 17(6), 901–902. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.009
Cutino, C. M., & Nees, M. A. (2017). Restricting mobile phone access during
homework increases attainment of study goals. Mobile Media & Com-
munication, 5(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157916664558
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1),
71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Eide, T. A., Aarestad, S. H., Andreassen, C. S., Bilder, R. M., & Pallesen, S.
(2018). Smartphone restriction and its effect on subjective withdrawal
related scores. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1444. https://doi.org/10
.3389/fpsyg.2018.01444
Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R.
(2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of
participation in sport for adults: Informing development of a conceptual
model of health through sport. The International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1479-5868-10-135
Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic
smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations
with anxiety and depression psychopathology. Journal of Affective Dis-
orders, 207, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Alghraibeh, A. M., Alafnan, A. A., Aldraiweesh,
A. A., & Hall, B. J. (2018). Fear of missing out: Testing relationships with
negative affectivity, online social engagement, and problematic smart-
phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 289–298. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.020
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2019a). Problematic smartphone use
and mental health problems: Current state of research and future
 160 BRAILOVSKAIA ET AL.
directions. Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological
Sciences, 32(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.14744/DAJPNS.2019.00001
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2019b). The relationship between
anxiety symptom severity and problematic smartphone use: A review of
the literature and conceptual frameworks. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
62, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.11.005
Elhai, J. D., McKay, D., Yang, H., Minaya, C., Montag, C., & Asmundson,
G. J. G. (2021). Health anxiety related to problematic smartphone use and
gaming disorder severity during COVID-19: Fear of missing out as a
mediator. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 137–146.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.227
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook
“friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network
sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Fennell, C., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. (2019). Smartphone use predicts being
an “active couch potato” in sufficiently active adults. American Journal of
Lifestyle Medicine, 15, 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276198
61383
Gawin, F. H. (1991). Cocaine addiction: Psychology and neurophysiology.
Science, 251(5001), 1580–1586. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2011738
Ghenadenik, A. E., Gauvin, L., & Frohlich, K. L. (2020). Smoking in young
adults: A study of 4-year smoking behavior patterns and residential
presence of features facilitating smoking using data from the interdisci-
plinary study of inequalities in smoking cohort. Nicotine & Tobacco
Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and
Tobacco, 22(11), 1997–2005. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa035
Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Braehler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German
version of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS): Psychometric proper-
ties, validity, and population-based norms. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 27, 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
a000058
He, Y., & Luo, J. (2017). The novelty ‘sweet spot’ of invention. Design
Science, 3, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.23
Heo, J.-Y., Kim, K., Fava, M., Mischoulon, D., Papakostas, G. I., Kim, M.-J.,
Chang, K. A. J., Oh, Y., Yu, B. H., & Jeon, H. J. (2017). Effects of
smartphone use with and without blue light at night in healthy adults: A
randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled comparison.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 87, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jpsychires.2016.12.010
Hunt, M. G., Marx, R., Lipson, C., & Young, J. (2018). No more FOMO:
Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1521/
jscp.2018.37.10.751
İnal, E. E., Demİrcİ. K., Çetİntürk, A., Akgönül, M., & Savaş, S. (2015).
Effects of smartphone overuse on hand function, pinch strength, and the
median nerve. Muscle & Nerve, 52(2), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mus.24695
Jung, S. I., Lee, N. K., Kang, K. W., Kim, K., & Lee, D. Y. (2016). The effect
of smartphone usage time on posture and respiratory function. Journal of
Physical Therapy Science, 28(1), 186–189. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts
.28.186
Kemp, S. (2019). Digital 2019: Global Internet use accelerates. https://wea
resocial.com/uk/blog/2019/01/digital-in-2019-global-internet-use-accele
rates/
Kenney, E. L., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2017). United States adolescents’
television, computer, videogame, smartphone, and tablet use: Associations
with sugary drinks, sleep, physical activity, and obesity. Journal of
Pediatrics, 182, 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.11.015
Keyes, C. L. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating
axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X
.73.3.539
Killion, J., & Kennedy, J. (2012). The sweet spot in professional learning.
The Learning Professional, 33(5), 10–17. https://learningforward.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/jsd335.pdf
Kim, S.-Y., & Koo, S.-J. (2016). Effect of duration of smartphone use on
muscle fatigue and pain caused by forward head posture in adults. Journal
of Physical Therapy Science, 28(6), 1669–1672. https://doi.org/10.1589/
jpts.28.1669
Kroker, M. (2020). Die smartphone-trends 2020: Zahl der Nutzer wächst um
300 Millionen auf 3,5 Milliarden. https://blog.wiwo.de/look-at-it/2020/
05/13/die-smartphone-trends-2020-zahl-der-nutzer-waechst-um-300-
millionen-auf-35-milliarden/
Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone
addiction scale: Development and validation of a short version for
adolescents. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e83558. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0083558
Lachmann, B., Sindermann, C., Sariyska, R. Y., Luo, R., Melchers, M. C.,
Becker, B., Cooper, A. J., & Montag, C. (2018). The role of empathy and
life satisfaction in internet and smartphone use disorder. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, Article 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00398
Lapierre, M. A., Zhao, P., & Custer, B. E. (2019). Short-term longitudinal
relationships between smartphone use/dependency and psychological
well-being among late adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health,
65(5), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.06.001
Lemenager, T., Neissner, M., Koopmann, A., Reinhard, I., Georgiadou, E.,
Müller, A., Kiefer, F., & Hillemacher, T. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown
restrictions and online media consumption in Germany. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 14–26.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010014
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between
cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in
college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343–350. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between
cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of US college
students. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440
15573169
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Sanders, G. J., Rebold, M., & Gates, P. (2013). The
relationship between cell phone use, physical and sedentary activity, and
cardiorespiratory fitness in a sample of U.S. college students. The Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1),
Article 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-79
Leventhal, A. M., Strong, D. R., Kirkpatrick, M. G., Unger, J. B., Sussman,
S., Riggs, N. R., Stone, M. D., Khoddam, R., Samet, J. M., & Audrain-
McGovern, J. (2015). Association of electronic cigarette use with initiation
of combustible tobacco product smoking in early adolescence. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 314(7), 700–707. https://doi.org/10
.1001/jama.2015.8950
Li, J., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. E. (2015). Locus of control and cell phone use:
Implications for sleep quality, academic performance, and subjective well-
being. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 450–457. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.chb.2015.06.021
Liu, C. H., Zhang, E., Wong, G. T. F., Hyun, S., & Hahm, H. C. (2020).
Factors associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptomatology
during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clinical implications for U.S. young
adult mental health. Psychiatry Research, 290, Article 113172. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113172
Liu, J., Liu, C. X., Wu, T., Liu, B.-P., Jia, C.-X., & Liu, X. (2019). Prolonged
mobile phone use is associated with depressive symptoms in Chinese
adolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 259, 128–134. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.017
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative
emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales
(DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour
 LESS SMARTPHONE—MORE WELL-BEING
Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-
7967(94)00075-U
MacKay, J. (2019). Screen time stats 2019: Here’s how much you use your
phone during the workday. https://blog.rescuetime.com/screen-time-sta
ts-2018/
Mayr, S., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Faul, F. (2007). A short tutorial of
GPower. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 51–59.
https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p051
Milton, K., Bull, F. C., & Bauman, A. (2011). Reliability and validity testing
of a single-item physical activity measure. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 45(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.068395
Montag, C., Błaszkiewicz, K., Lachmann, B., Sariyska, R., Andone, I.,
Trendafilov, B., & Markowetz, A. (2015). Recorded behavior as a valuable
resource for diagnostics in mobile phone addiction: Evidence from
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
psychoinformatics. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 5(4),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
434–442. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040434
Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest–posttest-control
group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). An inventory for the
assessment of two factors of social desirability. Diagnostica, 48, 121–
129. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.3.121
Ng, K. C., Wu, L. H., Lam, H. Y., Lam, L. K., Nip, P. Y., Ng, C. M., Leung,
K. C., & Leung, S. F. (2020). The relationships between mobile phone use
and depressive symptoms, bodily pain, and daytime sleepiness in Hong
Kong secondary school students. Addictive Behaviors, 101, Article
105975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.033
Nilges, P., & Essau, C. (2015). Die Depressions-Angst-Stress-Skalen: Der
DASS—ein Screeningverfahren nicht nur für Schmerzpatienten. Schmerz
(Berlin, Germany), 29(6), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-015-
0019-z
Rajkumar, R. P. (2020). COVID-19 and mental health: A review of the
existing literature. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, Article 102066. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102066
Rozgonjuk, D., Levine, J. C., Hall, B. J., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). The
association between problematic smartphone use, depression and anxiety
symptom severity, and objectively measured smartphone use over one
week. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2018.05.019
Sapacz, M., Rockman, G., & Clark, J. (2016). Are we addicted to our cell
phones? Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 153–159. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.chb.2015.12.004
Sohn, S., Rees, P., Wildridge, B., Kalk, N. J., & Carter, B. (2019). Prevalence
of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes
amongst children and young people: A systematic review, meta-analysis
and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), Article 356. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2350-x
Spajic, D. J. (2020). How much time does the average person spend on their
phone? https://kommandotech.com/statistics/how-much-time-does-the-
average-person-spend-on-their-phone/
Thomée, S. (2018). Mobile phone use and mental health. A review of the
research that takes a psychological perspective on exposure. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), Article
2692. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122692
Ting, C. H., & Chen, Y. Y. (2020). Smartphone addiction. In N. Levy (Ed.),
Adolescent addiction (pp. 215–240). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-818626-8.00008-6
161
Tromholt, M. (2016). The facebook experiment: Quitting facebook leads to
higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Net-
working, 19(11), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0259
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018).
Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide
rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media
screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10
.1177/2167702617723376
Vahedi, Z., & Saiphoo, A. (2018). The association between smartphone use,
stress, and anxiety: A meta-analytic review. Stress and Health, 34(3), 347–
358. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2805
Vancampfort, D., Hallgren, M., Firth, J., Rosenbaum, S., Schuch, F. B.,
Mugisha, J., Probst, M., Van Damme, T., Carvalho, A. F., & Stubbs, B.
(2018). Physical activity and suicidal ideation: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 225, 438–448. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.08.070
Wang, P., Liu, S., Zhao, M., Yang, X., Zhang, G., Chu, X., Wang, X., Zeng,
P., & Lei, L. (2019). How is problematic smartphone use related to
adolescent depression? A moderated mediation analysis. Children and
Youth Services Review, 104, Article 104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.childyouth.2019.104384
Wetterling, T., Veltrup, C., & Junghanns, K. (1996). Craving-ein ausrei-
chend fundiertes Konzept? Fortschritte der Neurologie· Psychiatrie,
64(4), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-996380
World Health Organization. (2018). International classification of diseases
for mortality and morbidity statistics (11th revision). https://icd.who.int/
browse11/l-m/en
World Health Organization. (2020). Physical activity. https://www.who.int/
news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity
World Health Organization. (2021). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-
2019
Wurmser, Y. (2019). US time spent with mobile 2019. https://www.emarkete
r.com/content/us-time-spent-with-mobile-2019
Xie, Y., Szeto, G. P. Y., Dai, J., & Madeleine, P. (2016). A comparison of
muscle activity in using touchscreen smartphone among young people
with and without chronic neck–shoulder pain. Ergonomics, 59(1), 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1056237
Yang, Z., Asbury, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). An exploration of
problematic smartphone use among Chinese university students: Associa-
tions with academic anxiety, academic procrastination, self-regulation and
subjective wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health and Addic-
tion, 17(3), 596–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9961-1
Zhang, G., Yang, X., Tu, X., Ding, N., & Lau, J. T. F. (2020). Prospective
relationships between mobile phone dependence and mental health status
among Chinese undergraduate students with college adjustment as a
mediator. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 498–505. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jad.2019.09.047
Zinn, C. T., & Rademacher, U. (2019). Switching off—Is intentional
smartphone abstinence a strategy for recovery? Wirtschaftspsychologie,
21(1–2), 28–39.
Received February 25, 2021
Revision received February 25, 2022
Accepted February 26, 2022 ▪