Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Are smartphones really that bad? Improving the psychological measurement T

of technology-related behaviors
David A. Ellis
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Understanding how people use technology remains important, particularly when measuring the impact this
Behavioral analytics might have on individuals and society. To date, research within psychological science often frames new tech-
Psychometrics nology as problematic with overwhelmingly negative consequences. However, this paper argues that the latest
Smartphones generation of psychometric tools, which aim to assess smartphone usage, are unable to capture technology
Technology use
related experiences or behaviors. As a result, many conclusions concerning the psychological impact of tech-
nology use remain unsound. Current assessments have also failed to keep pace with new methodological de-
velopments and these data-intensive approaches challenge the notion that smartphones and related technologies
are inherently problematic. The field should now consider how it might re-position itself conceptually and
methodologically given that many ‘addictive’ technologies have long since become intertwined with daily life.

1. Introduction cognitive impairment (Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015), and poor
academic performance (Lepp, Barkley, & Karpinski, 2015). This repeats
Behavioral science has spent many years attempting to understand a pattern of research priorities, which previously focused on the ne-
how our interactions with technology might impact on numerous psy- gative impacts of many other screen-based technologies, systematically
chological outcomes (Shaw, Ellis, & Ziegler, 2018). This lends itself to a moving from television and video games, to the internet and social
wide variety of research questions from problematic use (e.g., do media (Rosen et al., 2014).
smartphones cause depression or anxiety?), to the effects of engaging While some research has reported many beneficial effects of tech-
with feedback as part of a behavior change intervention (e.g., does nology use (e.g., Barr, Pennycook, Stolz, & Fugelsang, 2015; Przybylski
monitoring physical activity improve health?) (Ellis & Piwek, 2018). & Weinstein, 2017; Ward, Dill-Shackleford, & Mazurek, 2018), ominous
Approaches within psychology have almost exclusively focused on results have had a far greater impact on public opinion. This has re-
correlational research that involves asking people to consider their cently led to a UK government enquiry concerning the effects of screen
personal experience with a technology rather than measuring their time on health (UK Parliament, 2018). However, regardless of whether
actual behavior (Ellis, Kaye, Wilcockson, & Ryding, 2018a). This re- research aims to focus on narrow or broad definitions of technology
flects a general trend within social psychology as a whole (Baumeister, use, our current understanding is based around a set of popular mea-
Vohs, & Funder, 2007; Doliński, 2018), but remains surprising when sures that present several methodological shortcomings (Shaw et al.,
considered alongside automated systems (e.g., smartphones (Miller, 2018; Ryding & Kaye, 2018). This has become particularly pertinent as
2012)) that can record human-computer interactions directly (Piwek, methods of investigation have remained static despite exponential
Ellis, & Andrews, 2016). For example, behavioral interactions can be changes in the availability and processing power afforded by modern
measured ‘in situ’ with applications. However, this is not an avenue technology (Shaw et al., 2018).
explored by the majority of psychological research, despite having
spent over a decade attempting to define ‘problematic’ or ‘addictive’ 2. Capturing smartphone behaviors from self-report
smartphone behaviors (Panova & Carbonell, 2018). Conclusions sur-
rounding use have therefore been largely negative and smartphones Historically, time has been the primary focus when attempting to
have repeatedly been associated with depression (Elhai, Dvorak, quantify experiences with technology. Respondents are often asked to
Levine, & Hall, 2017), anxiety (Richardson, Hussain, & Griffiths, 2018), report their frequency or duration of use, but even simple self-reported
disrupted sleep (Rosen, Carrier, Miller, Rokkum, & Ruiz, 2016), estimates concerning mobile phone use (e.g., number of calls made, or

E-mail address: d.a.ellis@lancaster.ac.uk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.006
Received 17 September 2018; Received in revised form 5 March 2019; Accepted 6 March 2019
Available online 08 March 2019
0747-5632/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.A. Ellis Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

Even if current measures do correlate with behavior, there is still

reason to question the extent to which they measure constructs as ex-
pected. First, given the range of activities that can be performed on a
smartphone, scores will have little bearing on a person's overall ex-
perience with that technology. One may speculate that active versus
passive use will be an important mitigating factor when quantifying
outcomes. For example, engaging in positive conversation online can
bring many health benefits, with passive consumption likely to be less
valuable (Day, Ong, & Perry, 2018). Second, scales present leading
questions that focus on worries surrounding a participant's relationship
with their smartphone, which may be more representative of general
traits. For example, measures used to assess problematic smartphone
use are also likely to detect core elements of impulsivity, anxiety, or
extraversion. Items that ask participants about levels of impatience
associated with reduced use may instead reveal a general impulsivity
Fig. 1. Publication of self-report instruments between 2004 and 2018 (ex- that is not smartphone specific and could apply to any other personal
tracted from Table 1), which aim to assess a variety of constructs associated product used on a regular basis (Belk, 2013). Indeed, how unique these
with smartphone use in the general population. results are to a specific technology and not a globalized behavior that
filters into other daily activities (e.g., exercise, coffee consumption)
text messages sent) have been described as ‘sub-optimal’ when com- remains unknown.
pared to phone operator data (Boase & Ling, 2013). Nevertheless, many Our current understanding is therefore based around a set of mea-
studies continue to rely on estimates alone when making links between sures, which will struggle to capture and understand the subsequent
technology use and other psychological constructs (Butt & Phillips, impact of technology. However, this has not prevented the development
2008). When such estimates are scaled to larger samples, these often of theoretical models that are based entirely around data generated
explain very little of the variance when predicting health or subsequent from these psychometric tools (Billieux, Maurage, Lopez-Fernandez,
behavior (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017; Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, & Kuss, & Griffiths, 2015). Of course, and as with any psychological
Martin, 2018). The use of multiple technologies simultaneously (e.g., a phenomenon, several of these scales and the constructs they aim to
smartphone and a laptop) also make such estimates problematic due the measure are likely to go beyond behavior. However, the scales are
level of cognitive burden required to quantify many different types of routinely used without this broad conceptualization in mind and are
automatic behavior (Boase & Ling, 2013; Doughty, Rowland, & Lawson, framed as an assessment of usage alone. In recent years, these problems
2012; Jungselius & Weilenmann, 2018). have become magnified further as theoretical and methodological ad-
Perhaps in response to this criticism, a growing number of promi- vances have allowed for dynamic and fluid approaches to data collec-
nent self-report instruments have been developed in an attempt to tion. These can provide greater specificity and flexibility when ex-
quantify smartphone related technology experiences (Fig. 1; Table 1). ploring our relationship with technology (Jankowska, Schipperijn, &
These scales, built around a conceptualization of problematic use, are Kerr, 2015).
often derived from previous measures that were developed to assess a
specific type of technology engagement (e.g., social media or video 3. Objective measures of smartphone usage
game use). This in itself is problematic as issues associated with
smartphone use may be secondary to another behavior (Panova & If technology use cannot be controlled experimentally, then ex-
Carbonell, 2018). For example, while a smartphone can be used to posure to general (e.g., hours of smartphone use) or specific use (e.g.,
engage with addictive behaviors such as gambling, its use can also hours of Facebook use on a device) provides an alternative source of
support and maintain a healthy lifestyle (Piwek et al., 2016). objective data (Scharkow, 2016). This removes issues concerning so-
Following traditional methods associated with scale development, cial-desirability and cognitive burden. However, while those in com-
factor analyses ensure that tools are reliable, but their validity remains puter science have been measuring such interactions with smartphone
highly questionable (Table 1). While measures are framed around technology since around 2010, these developments have had very little
‘smartphone behaviors’, the language used to describe subsequent re- impact on how psychology attempts to quantify, explain, and under-
sults becomes misleading. Paper titles including the words ‘smartphone stand technology use more generally (Oliver, 2010). For example, only
use’ are inaccurate when this has simply not been measured, causing a handful of papers have attempted to validate existing scales against
confusion for casual readers, policy makers, and even those who work behavior, with mixed results (Table 2).
within the field (Ellis et al., 2018a). There is also little evidence to These objective-based studies confirm that people use devices like
support the existence of the constructs under investigation (e.g., tech- smartphones and associated applications frequently and habitually
nology ‘addiction’), yet many papers and scales continue to use lan- (Andrews, Ellis, Shaw, & Piwek, 2015). However, this alone does not
guage associated with a specific diagnosis (see Panova & Carbonell, equate to any form of problematic usage. It may seem reasonable to
2018 for a recent review). assume that those who spend a long time in front of a screen have
These measures generally assess a respondent's attitudes and feel- problematic use, however, heavy users are not necessarily the same as
ings towards their smartphone or technology usage. While no less im- problematic users (Andrews et al., 2015; Oulasvirta, Rattenbury, Ma, &
portant, the constructs under investigation may be fundamentally dif- Raita, 2012). This research also challenges the notion that mobile
ferent to the very behavior they seek to explain. To date, current self- technology use is becoming more prevalent. For example, the quantity
report measures do not align well with or predict simple objectively of short checking behaviors observed in research conducted in 2018 for
measured smartphone behaviors (Table 2). It would appear that ob- example (Ellis, Davidson, Shaw, & Geyer, 2018b) are remarkably con-
jectively measured time spent on a device may correlate with some self- sistent with those recorded in 2015 and 2009 (Andrews et al., 2015;
report scales or duration estimates, but this relationship appears Oulasvirta et al., 2012). In addition, while at a population level it would
patchy. Current scales have therefore yet to demonstrate an ability to appear that smartphone use is high, within-participant patterns are
predict comparatively simple behaviors that appear to be stable within consistent and establishing a true absolute baseline of typical usage for
participants (Ellis et al., 2018a; Wilcockson, Ellis, & Shaw, 2018). an individual appears possible (Fullwood, Quinn, Kaye, & Redding,
2017; Wilcockson et al., 2018).

61
 D.A. Ellis

Table 1
Examples of psychometric tools developed to assess general smartphone usage (translations to other languages are not included). Many of these are conceptually similar to those that assess internet,
social media or video game ‘addiction’ (e.g., Kwon et al., 2013a). Validation typically relies on duration estimates, which are themselves poorly aligned with related behaviours (Boase & Ling, 2013)
or by demonstrating a relationship with other constructs that are assumed to be related with increased technology use (e.g., impulsivity). Some measures (not listed) are built entirely around
duration-based estimates or frequencies of use via likert scales (e.g., Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2016). Others (not listed) ask about specific mobile functions (e.g., text messaging (Rutland,
Sheets, & Young, 2007)). Many non-peer reviewed scales are simply adapted directly from measures used to assess other technology behaviors (e.g., video games) without any subsequent reliability
or validation checks (e.g., Hussain, Griffiths, & Sheffield, 2017).
Reference Items Scale

Bianchi and Phillips (2005) 27 Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (MPPUS)
Billieux, Van der Linden, and Rochat (2008) 30 Problematic Mobile Phone Use Questionnaire (PMPUQ)
Chóliz (2012) 22 Test of Mobile Phone Dependence (TMD)
Chóliz et al. (2016) 12 Brief Multicultural Version of the Test of Mobile Phone Dependence Questionnaire (TMD brief)
Csibi, Griffiths, Cook, Demetrovics, and Szabo (2018) 6 Smartphone Application-Based Addiction Scale (SABAS)
Ehrenberg et al. (2008) 3 Mobile Phone Addictive Tendencies Scale (MPAT)
Foerster, Roser, Schoeni, and Röösli (2015) 10 Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale: short version (MPPUS-10)
Ha, Chin, Park, Ryu, and Yu (2008) 20 Excessive Cellular Phone Use Survey (ECPUS)
Jenaro, Flores, Gómez-Vela, González-Gil, and Caballo (2007) 23 Cell Phone Overuse Scale (COS)
Kawasaki et al. (2006) 20 Cellular Phone Dependence Tendency Questionnaire (CPDQ)
Kim, Lee, Lee, Nam, and Chung (2014) 15 Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (SAPS)
King et al. (2014) 29 Mobile Phone Use Questionnaire (MP-Use)

62
Koo (2009) 20 Cell Phone Addiction Scale (CAS)
Kuss et al. (2018) 16 Problematic Mobile Phone Use Questionnaire Revised (PMPUQ-R)
Kwon et al. (2013a) 33 Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS)
Kwon, Kim, Cho, and Yang (2013b) 10 Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS short version)
Lee et al. (2017) 28 Smartphone Overuse Screening Questionnaire (SOS-Q)
Leung (2008) 17 Mobile Phone Addiction Index (MPAI)
Lin et al. (2014) 26 Smartphone Addiction Inventory (SPAI)
Lin et al. (2017) 10 Smartphone Addiction Inventory: short-form (SPAI-SF)
Lopez-Fernandez, Honrubia-Serrano, Freixa-Blanxart, and Gibson (2014) 26 Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale for Adolescents (MPPUSA)
Lopez-Fernandez et al. (2018) 15 Short Version of the Problematic Mobile Phone Use Questionnaire (PMPUQ-SV)
Martinotti et al. (2011) 10 Mobile Addiction Test (MAT)
Marty-Dugas, Ralph, Oakman, and Smilek (2018) 20 Smartphone Use Questionnaires (SUQ-G & A)
Merlo, Stone, and Bibbey (2013) 22 Problematic Use of Mobile Phones Scale (PUMP)
Rosen, Whaling, Carrier, Cheever, and Rokkum (2013) 9 Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale (MTUAS) (smartphone items only)
Rozgonjuk, Rosenvald, Janno, and Täht (2016) 18 Short version of Estonian Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (E-SAPS18)
Toda, Monden, Kubo, and Morimoto (2004) 20 Cellular Phone Dependence Questionnaire (CPDQ)
Walsh, White, and Young (2010) 8 Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (MPIQ)
Yen et al. (2009) 12 Problem Cellular Phone Use Questionnaire (PCPU-Q)
Yildirim and Correia (2015) 20 Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q)
Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66
D.A. Ellis Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

Table 2
Research that has attempted to validate single estimates or self-report smartphone usage scales against objective behaviors.
Reference N Time (days) Findings

Andrews et al. (2015) 23 14 Estimated time spent using a smartphone correlated moderately with actual usage. Estimates concerning the number of times an
individual used their phone did not correlate with actual smartphone use. Neither estimated duration nor number of uses
correlated with the Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (MPPUS).
Elhai et al. (2018) 68 7 No overall relationship between likert estimations of use and average daily minutes. Weak overall relationship between average
daily minutes and Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS short version). Likert estimates and SAS scores predicted weekend, but not
weekday averages.
Ellis et al. (2018b) 238 6 Weak relationships observed between objective smartphone measures and a variety of self-report measures (including single
duration estimates).
Foerster et al. (2015) 234 * Weak relationships observed between short version of Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (MPPUS-10) and phone calls/sent SMS
messages. Moderate correlation between MPPUS-10 and data traffic volume. *objective data was available for up to 6 months.
Rozgonjuk et al. (2018) 101 7 Weak relationship between Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS) and minutes of screen time in a week (Spearman). No relationship
between SAS and the number of times an individual used their smartphone (Spearman).
Lin et al. (2015) 66 30 Estimated time spent using a smartphone correlated moderately with actual usage. Note: Duration estimates were generated with
assistance from psychiatrists.
Wilcockson et al. (2018) 27 14 No relationship observed between Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (MPPUS) and actual usage or the number interactions with a
smartphone lasting less than 15 s (Spearman).

In recent years, objective studies have also started to focus on the obvious benefits (Days, 2018; Surrat, 1999). For example, the idea that
potential negative impacts of smartphones on mood however, their problematic technology use can be framed as a behavioral addiction is
conclusions are dramatically different from previous findings, which widely accepted despite being poorly defined (Van Rooij et al., 2018).
rely on self-report alone. For example, Rozgonjuk, Levine, Hall, and As before, the enormity of activities that can be performed on a
Elhai (2018) observed that depression and anxiety severity were not smartphone immediately make this definition difficult (Doughty et al.,
associated with total smartphone usage. In addition, higher depression 2012; Ellis et al., 2018a; Ryding & Kaye, 2018). This has, in turn, led to
scores correlated with less phone checking over a week, suggesting that the proliferation of ‘treatment’ programs that lack empirical support.
periods of low-mood may lead to less engagement with technologies Based on associations between reduced objective use and social with-
that primarily enable social interaction. This supports the notion that a drawal, such programs could result in unintended negative con-
sudden lack of smartphone use may be an early warning sign of social sequences (Stieger & Lewetz, 2018). Of course, some forms of use could
withdrawal (Mou, 2016). Machine learning approaches have also de- satisfy a diagnostic criterion, but the evidence base required to support
monstrated that smartphone use alone does not predict negative well- such a claim has yet to appear and existing smartphone ‘addiction’
being. Katevas, Arapakis, and Pielot (2018) combined an experience scales do not correlate with the rapid checking behaviors one would
sampling methodology with 23 objective measures of behavior in- associate with a behavioral addiction (Andrews et al., 2015; Rozgonjuk
cluding phone unlocks, calls received, and battery drain. In one of the et al., 2018). It therefore remains difficult to classify something as a
largest studies of its kind, participants who reported lower levels of behavioral addiction without actually measuring behavior. A growing
well-being tended to use their smartphones more at night. However, body of evidence now supports the notion that psychology should start
this relationship was unidirectional as late-night smartphone usage was to move away from a behavioral addictions framework when studying
independent of low mood, which was assessed throughout the day over technology use (Panova & Carbonell, 2018).
several weeks. The repeated tendency to problematize technology behaviors can
While these results and methods are compelling, they remain diffi- also be explained by considering how little work in psychology has
cult to place in context because the majority of psychological research attempted to conceptualize technology use in a broader context. There
continues to rely on a very different methodological framework. They is some overlap with models, which emphasize the formation of habits
are also largely exploratory, consider a very limited definition of and planned behavior. Specifically, repeating a technology interaction
technology use, and remain correlational in nature. However, objective behavior in response to a cue over time will quickly lead to the auto-
studies do appear to repeatedly challenge the notion that smartphones maticity of that behavior (Lally, Van Jaarsveld, Potts, & Wardle, 2010).
are problematic for a large percentage of the population. Other recent attempts have considered everyday smartphone use in the
context of attentional lapses and mind wandering, which are of an ar-
guably greater concern to public health and include phone use that can
4. Conceptual and methodological challenges
demonstrably interfere with driving or walking (Ioannidou, Hermens, &
Hodgson, 2017; Marty-Dugas et al., 2018). However, other models
Research that attempts to develop methods, which can quantify
derived from computer science, information systems, marketing, and
smartphone and related technology use often aligns with a conceptual
management provide several high-level constructs that also attempt to
framework that problematizes usage without considering how typical
explain impacts associated with continued use. These range widely
these behaviors are in the general population. Conceptually, the field
from the measurement of individual differences to specific features of
appears to have taken this approach with video games, the internet, and
the technology under investigation (Shaw, Ellis & Zeigler, 2018).
social media however, smartphones may finally be the point where
Perhaps before considering the impact of technology on our psy-
psychologists consider going beyond these clinical definitions (Ellis
chology, more resources need to be devoted to defining what we mean
et al., 2018a). Similarly, while psychology now has access to new
by usage itself. Does the use of a smartphone, for example, only register
technologies that would improve current practices, a number of
when actively creating something with the device (e.g., writing a
methodological challenges also remain if new data collection methods
tweet), or would this also include time spent passively viewing content
and analytical routines are to prosper.
(e.g. reading the news)? Current definitions of use may be too narrow,
particularly when online and offline identities are intertwined. Much of
4.1. Conceptual the population are now permanently online (Vorderer, Krömer, &
Schneider, 2016) and smartphones have become a core part of a per-
Conceptual misunderstandings may, in part, help drive research that son's digital identity. Qualitative accounts often reflect the ability of
focuses on the negative implications of technology, despite many

63
D.A. Ellis Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

these devices to help support existing social activities. This in part ex- psychology has spent many years convincingly arguing that social
plains why many people develop strong psychological attachments to support and integration has many positive health benefits (Day et al.,
them (Belk, 2013; Bodford, Kwan, & Sobota, 2017; Fullwood et al., 2018; Haslam et al., 2018; Jao, Loken, MacAndrew, Van Haitsma, &
2017; Shaw, Ellis, Kendrick, Ziegler, & Wiseman, 2016). This ‘in- Kolanowski, 2018; Pachucki, Ozer, Barrat, & Cattuto, 2015). Even
dividualized’ perspective of smartphone usage fits well within the fra- priming topics associated with smartphones appears to make relation-
mework of the Uses and Gratifications model and reflect consistent, yet ship concepts become more accessible (Kardos, Unoka, Pléh, & Soltész,
individualized patterns of behavior (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; 2018). New technology also offers a host of new possibilities to improve
Wilcockson et al., 2018). Therefore, people appear to often use tech- physical and mental health (Ellis & Piwek, 2018). Conclusions from
nology in order to gratify very personal needs. However, such con- psychological science are therefore completely at odds with what might
ceptualization is very much at odds with the majority of research, be expected in the general population and a new wave of research is
which focuses on technology as a problem, rather than a device, which starting to challenge previous findings (e.g., Elhai et al., 2018). Given
supports everyday activities (Shaw et al., 2018). our current understanding, one might argue that the biggest threat fa-
cing those who engage regularly with a smartphone is that these in-
4.2. Methodological teractions take up time, which might have been traditionally spent
elsewhere. For example, a lack of physical activity is of a far greater
The use of duration estimations in isolation no longer seem suitable demonstrable risk to young people with previous research highlighting
when contrasted directly with how people describe their usage patterns, clear links between media exposure and childhood obesity (Chekroud
especially when this involves multiple devices (Doughty et al., 2012). et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2012; Vioque, Torres, & Quiles, 2000).
Once a technology has become intertwined with daily life, people are When it comes to understanding the impact of technology more
less able to accurately report on these behaviors, particularly when it generally, there is an intrinsic lack of high-quality evidence (Ellis et al.,
comes to estimating the number of single interactions in a 24-h period 2018a). Revised psychometric tests may hold some value in the future,
(Andrews et al., 2015). At the same time, research that aims to improve provided they are grounded in relevant theory and validated accord-
our understanding of technology use has become increasingly more ingly. However, psychological science should be in a position to go
technical, which poses a number of methodological challenges for beyond these, particularly as social psychology appears to be ac-
psychologists (Piwek et al., 2016). Standard measurements produce knowledging the limitations associated with a lack of behavioral mea-
small data sets and rarely go beyond interviews and psychometric as- surement and validation of self-report measures across the field
sessment. However, smartphone applications can measure both where (Doliński, 2018). Moving forward, researchers may also wish to con-
and how a device is being used allowing for distinctions to be made sider how behavioral data could be collected from other digital devices
between active (e.g., typing/photo taking) or passive (e.g., reading that can capture real-world behavior. Perhaps more importantly, a
tweets) use. It is also possible to distinguish between spontaneous use frank an open debate is required regarding how psychologists might
and response-based usage patterns, the latter of which involves re- conceptualize, measure, and understand general technology usage,
sponding to a specific notification (Piwek, Ellis & Andrews, 2016). This which has long since become a core component of daily life (Shaw
leaves many new methodological avenues open to exploration whereby et al., 2018).
technology use can be assessed longitudinally (Shaw et al., 2018).
Accordingly, it is essential that results and research materials are Disclosures
openly available for all researchers to scrutinize and build upon.
Generally, research that focuses on the effects of technology are single Funding
studies that do not engage with pre-registration or the sharing of data.
Recent attempts to validate self-report measures (Table 2) also make This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
replication very difficult (McKiernan et al., 2016). Commercial appli- agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
cations, for example, have not been robustly validated to ensure that
they are measuring behaviors reliably, store data securely, and comply Author contributions
with ethical guidelines (Elhai et al., 2018; Rozgonjuk et al., 2018). On
the other hand, source code, datasets, and related materials are avail- All authors contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors have
able from Andrews et al. (2015) and Wilcockson et al. (2018). However, read and approved the final manuscript.
the smartphone framework originally used to collect data is no longer
actively maintained (Piwek et al., 2016). Therefore, smartphone ap- Conflict of interest
plications and associated analytical tools that have been developed
specifically for the purposes of research are now urgently required. None of the authors have any financial, personal or organizational
Apple and Google are now providing more objective data that can be conflicts of interest.
used directly by researchers, but these approaches alone will not cap-
ture the complexity of psychological processes associated with ev- Acknowledgements
eryday technology use (Ellis et al., 2018b). An alternative, but more
elaborate proposition might focus on the development or adaption of I would like to thank Brittany I. Davidson, Heather Shaw and Kris
hardware attachments, which capture behaviors outside of a tech- Geyer for their many helpful discussions in relation to this work.
nology ecosystem (Liu et al., 2018). For example, small sensors which
measure light can be attached to screens directly. The reverse side could References
simultaneously measure movement or detect a face to confirm, in ad-
dition to a measure of screen activity, if someone is actively using the Andrews, S., Ellis, D. A., Shaw, H., & Piwek, L. (2015). Beyond self-report: Tools to
device (McGrath, Scanaill, & Nafus, 2014). compare estimated and real-world smartphone use. PLoS One, 10(10), e0139004.
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). The brain in your pocket:
Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human
5. Conclusion Behavior, 48, 473–480.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-
reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives
Results concerning the negative impact of smartphones on psycho- on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403.
logical well-being may surprise rather than worry many psychologists. Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3),
Smartphones are primarily used to facilitate social interactions and 477–500.

64
D.A. Ellis Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone 325–329). ACM.
use. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8(1), 39–51. Kardos, P., Unoka, Z., Pléh, C., & Soltész, P. (2018). Your mobile phone indeed means
Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Can your social network: Priming mobile phone activates relationship related concepts.
disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 84–88.
current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Katevas, K., Arapakis, I., & Pielot, M. (2018). Typical phone use habits: Intense use does not
Reports, 2(2), 156–162. predict negative well-being. arXiv preprint:1807.02472.
Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the
problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1195–1210. individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.). The uses of mass communications: Current
Boase, J., & Ling, R. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: Self-report versus log data. perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 508–519. Kawasaki, N., Tanei, S., Ogata, F., Burapadaja, S., Loetkham, C., Nakamura, T., et al.
Bodford, J. E., Kwan, V. S. Y., & Sobota, D. S. (2017). Fatal attractions: Attachment to (2006). Survey on cellular phone usage on students in Thailand. Journal of
smartphones predicts anthropomorphic beliefs and dangerous behaviors. Physiological Anthropology, 25(6), 377–382.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(5), 320–326. Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J. K., & Chung, Y. (2014). Development of Korean
Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. PLoS One, 9(5), e97920.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 346–360. King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., & Nardi, A. E.
Chekroud, S. R., Gueorguieva, R., Zheutlin, A. B., Paulus, M., Krumholz, H. M., Krystal, J. (2014). “Nomophobia”: Impact of cell phone use interfering with symptoms and
H., et al. (2018). Association between physical exercise and mental health in 1· 2 emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with a control group. Clinical
million individuals in the USA between 2011 and 2015: A cross-sectional study. The Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 10, 28–35.
Lancet Psychiatry, 5(9), 739–746. Koo, H. Y. (2009). Development of a cell phone addiction scale for Korean adolescents.
Chóliz, M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: The test of mobile phone Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 39(6), 818–828.
dependence (TMD). Progress in Health Science, 2(1), 33–44. Kuss, D., Harkin, L., Kanjo, E., & Billieux, J. (2018). Problematic smartphone use:
Chóliz, M., Pinto, L., Phansalkar, S. S., Corr, E., Mujjahid, A., Flores, C., et al. (2016). Investigating contemporary experiences using a convergent design. International
Development of a brief multicultural version of the test of mobile phone dependence Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(1), 142.
(TMDbrief) questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 650. Kwon, M., Kim, D. J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013b). The smartphone addiction scale:
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLoS One, 8(12),
iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer- e83558.
Mediated Communication, 20(2), 119–135. Kwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Won, W. Y., Park, J. W., Min, J. A., Hahn, C., ... Kim, D. J. (2013a).
Csibi, S., Griffiths, M. D., Cook, B., Demetrovics, Z., & Szabo, A. (2018). The psychometric Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS). PLoS One, 8(2),
properties of the smartphone application-based addiction scale (SABAS). International e56936.
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16(2), 393–403. Lally, P., Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed:
Day, F. R., Ong, K. K., & Perry, J. R. (2018). Elucidating the genetic basis of social in- Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology,
teraction and isolation. Nature Communications, 9(1), 2457. 40(6), 998–1009.
Days, K. T. (2018). Parents, media and panic through the years. Cham: Palgrave Pivot. Lee, H. K., Kim, J. H., Fava, M., Mischoulon, D., Park, J. H., Shim, E. J., ... Jeon, H. J.
Doliński, D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological (2017). Development and validation study of the smartphone overuse screening
Bulletin, 13, e25025. questionnaire. Psychiatry Research, 257, 352–357.
Doughty, M., Rowland, D., & Lawson, S. (2012, July). Who is on your sofa?: TV audience Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. Lancet
communities and second screening social networks. Proceedings of the 10th European Physical Activity Series Working Group. (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major
cßonference on interactive TV and video (pp. 79–86). ACM. non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem expectancy. The Lancet, 380(9838), 219–229.
as predictors of young people's technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6), Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between cell phone
739–741. use and academic performance in a sample of US college students. Sage Open, 5(1)
Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: 2158244015573169.
A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depres- Leung, L. (2008). Linking psychological attributes to addiction and improper use of the
sion psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 251–259. mobile phone among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Children and Media, 2(2),
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for 93–113.
touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers Lin, Y. H., Chang, L. R., Lee, Y. H., Tseng, H. W., Kuo, T. B., & Chen, S. H. (2014).
in Human Behavior, 63, 509–516. Development and validation of the smartphone addiction inventory (SPAI). PLoS One,
Elhai, J. D., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., Levine, J. C., Picard, K. J., & Hall, B. J. (2018). 9(6), e98312.
Depression and emotion regulation predict objective smartphone use measured over Lin, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., Lee, Y. H., Lin, P. H., Lin, S. H., Chang, L. R., ... Kuo, T. B. (2015).
one week. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 21–28. Time distortion associated with smartphone addiction: Identifying smartphone ad-
Ellis, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Shaw, H., & Geyer, K. (2018b). Do smartphone usage scales diction via a mobile application (App). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 65, 139–145.
predict behavior? PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6fjr7. Lin, Y. H., Pan, Y. C., Lin, S. H., & Chen, S. H. (2017). Development of short-form and
Ellis, D. A., Kaye, L. K., Wilcockson, T. D., & Ryding, F. C. (2018a). Digital traces of screening cutoff point of the Smartphone Addiction Inventory (SPAI-SF). International
behavior within addiction: Response to Griffiths (2017). International Journal of Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 26(2), e1525.
Mental Health and Addiction, 16(1), 240–245. Liu, P. T., Ruan, D. B., Yeh, X. Y., Chiu, Y. C., Zheng, G. T., & Sze, S. M. (2018). Highly
Ellis, D. A., & Piwek, L. (2018). Failing to encourage physical activity with wearable responsive blue light sensor with amorphous indium-zinc-oxide thin-film transistor
technology: What next? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(9), 310–313. based architecture. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 8153.
Foerster, M., Roser, K., Schoeni, A., & Röösli, M. (2015). Problematic mobile phone use in Lopez-Fernandez, O., Honrubia-Serrano, L., Freixa-Blanxart, M., & Gibson, W. (2014).
adolescents: Derivation of a short scale MPPUS-10. International Journal of Public Prevalence of problematic mobile phone use in British adolescents. Cyberpsychology,
Health, 60(2), 277–286. Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 91–98.
Fullwood, C., Quinn, S., Kaye, L. K., & Redding, C. (2017). My virtual friend: A qualitative Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., Pontes, H. M., Griffiths, M. D., Dawes, C., Justice, L. V.,
analysis of the attitudes and experiences of smartphone users: Implications for ... Gässler, A. K. (2018). Measurement invariance of the short version of the pro-
smartphone attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 347–355. blematic mobile phone use questionnaire (PMPUQ-SV) across eight languages.
Ha, J. H., Chin, B., Park, D. H., Ryu, S. H., & Yu, J. (2008). Characteristics of excessive International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1213.
cellular phone use in Korean adolescents. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(6), Martinotti, G., Villella, C., Di Thiene, D., Di Nicola, M., Bria, P., Conte, G., ... La Torre, G.
783–784. (2011). Problematic mobile phone use in adolescence: A cross-sectional study.
Haslam, S. A., McMahon, C., Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2018). Journal of Public Health, 19(6), 545–551.
Social cure, what social cure? The propensity to underestimate the importance of Marty-Dugas, J., Ralph, B. C. W., Oakman, J. M., & Smilek, D. (2018). The relation be-
social factors for health. Social Science & Medicine, 198, 14–21. tween smartphone use and everyday inattention. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory,
Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into problematic Research, and Practice, 5, 46–64.
smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of McGrath, M. J., Scanaill, C. N., & Nafus, D. (2014). Sensor technologies: Healthcare, wellness
Behavioral Addictions, 6(3), 378–386. and environmental applications. Apress.
Ioannidou, F., Hermens, F., & Hodgson, T. L. (2017). Mind your step: The effects of mobile McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., ... Spies, J. R.
phone use on gaze behavior in stair climbing. Journal of Technology in Behavioral (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, 5, e16800.
Science, 2(3–4), 109–120. Merlo, L. J., Stone, A. M., & Bibbey, A. (2013). Measuring problematic mobile phone use:
Jankowska, M. M., Schipperijn, J., & Kerr, J. (2015). A framework for using GPS data in Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the PUMP Scale. Journal of
physical activity and sedentary behavior studies. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Addiction912807.
43(1), 48–56. Miller, G. (2012). The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspectives on Psychological
Jao, Y. L., Loken, E., MacAndrew, M., Van Haitsma, K., & Kolanowski, A. (2018). Science, 7(3), 221–237.
Association between social interaction and affect in nursing home residents with Mou, D. (2016). Battling severe mental illnesses with smartphones: How patients'
dementia. Ageing & Mental Health, 22(6), 778–783. smartphone data can help improve clinical care. mHealth, 2, 32.
Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Gómez-Vela, M., González-Gil, F., & Caballo, C. (2007). Problematic Oliver, E. (2010, June). The challenges in large-scale smartphone user studies. Proceedings
internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health correlates. of the 2nd ACM international workshop on hot topics in planet-scale measurement (pp. 5).
Addiction Research and Theory, 15(3), 309–320. ACM.
Jungselius, B., & Weilenmann, A. (2018, July). Conceptualizing 'use' in social media Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use
studies. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on social media and society (pp. more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105–114.

65
D.A. Ellis Computers in Human Behavior 97 (2019) 60–66

Pachucki, M. C., Ozer, E. J., Barrat, A., & Cattuto, C. (2015). Mental health and social 204–214.
networks in early adolescence: A dynamic study of objectively-measured social in- Stieger, S., & Lewetz, D. (2018). A week without using social media: Results from an
teraction behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 40–50. ecological momentary intervention study using smartphones. Cyberpsychology,
Panova, T., & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? Journal Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(10), 618–624.
of Behavioral Addictions, 7(2), 252–259. Surrat, C. G. (1999). Netaholics?: The creation of a pathology. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., & Andrews, S. (2016). Can programming frameworks bring Toda, M., Monden, K., Kubo, K., & Morimoto, K. (2004). Cellular phone dependence
smartphones into the mainstream of psychological science? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, tendency of female university students. Japanese Journal of Hygiene, 59, 383–386.
1252. Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after
Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science,
adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. 6(1), 3–17.
Richardson, M., Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Problematic smartphone use, UK Parliament (2018). Science and Technology Committee: Impact of social media and screen-
nature connectedness, and anxiety. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1), 109–116. use on young people's health inquiry. https://www.parliament.uk/business/
Rosen, L., Carrier, L. M., Miller, A., Rokkum, J., & Ruiz, A. (2016). Sleeping with tech- committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/
nology: Cognitive, affective, and technology usage predictors of sleep problems inquiries/parliament-2017/impact-of-social-media-young-people-17-19/, Accessed
among college students. Sleep Health, 2(1), 49–56. date: 14 August 2018.
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Felt, J., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Lara-Ruiz, J. M., ... Van Rooij, A. J., Ferguson, C. J., Colder Carras, M., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Shi, J., Aarseth,
Rokkum, J. (2014). Media and technology use predicts ill-being among children, E., ... Deleuze, J. (2018). A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the
preteens and teenagers independent of the negative health impacts of exercise and side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1), 1–9.
eating habits. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 364–375. Vioque, J., Torres, A., & Quiles, J. (2000). Time spent watching television, sleep duration
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The media and obesity in adults living in Valencia, Spain. International Journal of Obesity, 24(12),
and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in 1683.
Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511. Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online–Permanently
Rozgonjuk, D., Levine, J. C., Hall, B. J., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). The association between connected: Explorations into university students' use of social media and mobile
problematic smartphone use, depression and anxiety symptom severity, and objec- smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703.
tively measured smartphone use over one week. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2010). Needing to connect: The effect of self
10–17. and others on young people's involvement with their mobile phones. Australian
Rozgonjuk, D., Rosenvald, V., Janno, S., & Täht, K. (2016). Developing a shorter version Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 194–203.
of the Estonian smartphone addiction proneness scale (E-SAPS18). Cyberpsychology. Ward, D. M., Dill-Shackleford, K. E., & Mazurek, M. O. (2018). Social media use and
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4) article 4. happiness in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Rutland, J. B., Sheets, T., & Young, T. (2007). Development of a scale to measure problem Social Networking, 21(3), 205–209.
use of short message service: the SMS problem use diagnostic questionnaire. Wilcockson, T. D. W., Ellis, D. A., & Shaw, H. (2018). Determining typical smartphone
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 841–844. usage: What data do we need? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
Ryding, F. C., & Kaye, L. K. (2018). “Internet addiction”: A conceptual minefield. 21(6), 395–398.
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16(1), 225–232. Yen, C. F., Tang, T. C., Yen, J. Y., Lin, H. C., Huang, C. F., Liu, S. C., et al. (2009).
Scharkow, M. (2016). The accuracy of self-reported Internet use—a validation study using Symptoms of problematic cellular phone use, functional impairment and its asso-
client log data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(1), 13–27. ciation with depression among adolescents in Southern Taiwan. Journal of
Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., Kendrick, L. R., Ziegler, F., & Wiseman, R. (2016). Predicting Adolescence, 32(4), 863–873.
smartphone operating system from personality and individual differences. Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia:
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(12), 727–732. Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human
Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., & Ziegler, F. V. (2018). The Technology Integration Model (TIM). Behavior, 49, 130–137.
Predicting the continued use of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 83,

66