4.7 Article

Dynamics of adolescents' smartphone use and well-being are positive but ephemeral

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05291-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [175874]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used continuous time dynamic models to investigate the reciprocal relationship between well-being and smartphone use. The results showed that changes in the frequency and duration of smartphone use predicted subsequent changes in well-being, and vice versa. Additionally, individual differences and the finding that changes in well-being tend to persist longer than changes in smartphone use were also observed.
Well-being and smartphone use are thought to influence each other. However, previous studies mainly focused on one direction (looking at the effects of smartphone use on well-being) and considered between-person effects, with self-reported measures of smartphone use. By using 2548 assessments of well-being and trace data of smartphone use collected for 45 consecutive days in 82 adolescent participants (M-age = 13.47, SDage = 1.62, 54% females), the present study disentangled the reciprocal and individual dynamics of well-being and smartphone use. Hierarchical Bayesian Continuous Time Dynamic Models were used to estimate how a change in frequency and duration of smartphone use predicted a later change in well-being, and vice versa. Results revealed that (i) when participants used the smartphone frequently and for a longer period, they also reported higher levels of well-being; (ii) well-being positively predicted subsequent duration of smartphone use; (iii) usage patterns and system dynamics showed heterogeneity, with many subjects showing reciprocal effects close to zero; finally, (iv) changes in well-being tend to persist longer than changes in the frequency and duration of smartphone use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available