Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Student perspectives on banning mobile phones in South Australian

secondary schools: A large-scale qualitative analysis
Eran Bar a , Marcela Radunz a , Christina R. Galanis a , Blake Quinney a,b ,
Tracey D. Wade a , Daniel L. King a
a
Flinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, College of Education, Psychology & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
b
School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Bjorn de Koning Background: There has been a global trend to ban mobile phones in schools, with the aim of reducing distraction,
improving focus on learning, and increasing prosocial behaviour. Survey evidence suggests tentatively that bans
Keywords: may increase academic performance and reduce bullying. However, an understudied but important aspect of
Adolescent understanding the impact of phone bans is students’ personal views on, and experiences of, these policies. To
Phone ban
address this gap, this study investigated students’ perspectives on the benefits and challenges related to phone
School
bans in schools.
Digital technology
Qualitative Methods: This study was a preregistered policy experiment conducted across five secondary schools in South
Addiction Australia. A total of 1549 students provided 7188 responses to open-ended survey questions.
Results: Thematic analysis of 69,589 words identified five categories with 16 themes. In terms of undesired effects
of the bans, students reported: (i) feeling less independent and trustworthy, (ii) losing access to digital learning
tools, and (iii) difficulties in regulating emotional distress without phones. However, students also reported
benefits in areas of: (i) face-to-face social interaction, (ii) personal health and safety, and (ii) classroom
engagement. Some students expressed a desire for education on responsible phone use, as well as approaches to
managing digital devices with flexibility and personal agency, as an alternative to banning phones outright.
Conclusions: These findings underscore the urgent need to monitor and address students’ overreliance on phones
for socialising, emotion regulation, and coping with mental health issues. Students contribute valuable insights to
inform policies and guidelines at the nexus of digital technology and student learning and well-being.

1. Introduction cyberbullying (Adams, 2019; Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021; Zhu et al., 2021)
and its negative mental health consequences including suicide risk
Young people are among the most prevalent and frequent users of (Santre, 2023).
smartphones (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2020; To address the negative effects of mobile phones in schools, in 2023
Nawaz et al., 2024, Ratan et al., 2022). More than 90% of Australian the Government of South Australia, 2024 introduced the “off and away”
adolescents own a mobile phone and spend an average of 5 h per day phone policy, a mandate to restrict all phone use in public secondary
online (Armstrong et al., 2021). As mobile phones have become more schools (South Australian Department for Education, 2023). The policy
ubiquitous in schools over the past two decades, teachers, parents, and prohibits students from using mobile phones (and smartwatches) for the
policymakers have expressed concerns about their potential impact on entirety of the school day and during off-site school activities. The policy
students’ learning and socialisation (Haidt, 2023; Montag & Elhai, 2023; objectives include: (1) establishing secure school environments by
Rose et al., 2022). Research has linked student phone use in schools to minimising device misuse, including cyberbullying and exposure to
worse academic performance (Alghamdi et al., 2020; Dietz & Henrich, harmful content; (2) creating classroom settings with no learning dis­
2014; Domoff, Foley, & Ferkel, 2019a,b; Lepp et al., 2014), less tractions from phones; and (3) promoting more physical activity and
face-to-face socialising (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021; van den Abeele et al., face-to-face interactions with peers. Similar bans have been imple­
2019) and reduced physical activity (Lepp et al., 2013; Zagalaz-Sánchez mented in all other Australian states and globally in around one in four
et al., 2019). Phones have also been the focus of studies of youth countries (UNESCO, 2023), including the US, Canada, France, Sweden,

E-mail address: daniel.king@flinders.edu.au (D.L. King).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108603
Received 29 November 2024; Received in revised form 28 January 2025; Accepted 9 February 2025
Available online 14 February 2025
0747-5632/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

and Spain. participants). Phone ban policies have received criticism from some
Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of phone bans in academic commentators, but these arguments have lacked input from
achieving their desired objectives. Quantitative research varies greatly students with first-hand or ‘lived’ experience of the ban. Therefore, there
in its focus on the potential effects of bans (Campbell et al., 2024). In the is a need for research that investigates student perspectives on phone
first study of its kind, Beland and Murphy (2016) examined UK student bans based on real-world experience of attending school with a phone
data and reported that phone bans improved exam performance among ban policy.
low-achieving students. However, these findings were not replicated in a
similar study in Sweden (Kessel et al., 2020). Beneito and 1.1. The present study
Vicente-Chirivella (2022) reported that phone bans in Spain improved
students’ math scores and reduced bullying. In Denmark, a phone ban With the rollout of policies internationally to ban or restrict student
during recess increased physical activity among younger students aged access to phones and certain other digital devices in classrooms and on
10–14 years (Pawlowski et al., 2022). schoolgrounds, it is important to understand how these policies are
Although some research indicates positive but nuanced effects of perceived and experienced by students. Empirical evidence on school
phone bans on academic performance and well-being (Böttger & Zierer, phone bans is limited but indicates some academic benefits for lower-
2024), some researchers have expressed criticisms of the evidence and achieving students, among other improvements. To gather in-depth in­
the policy in general (e.g., Campbell & Third, 2020). Arguments against formation about student experiences of a phone ban, this qualitative
banning phones have cited students having less or no communication study leveraged a major evaluation of a state-wide phone ban, with the
with their parents (NB: this can also be an advantage of the ban), and the following aims: (1) to understand students’ perceptions of the benefits
notion that young people need to learn to handle environments with and drawbacks of phone use in schools; (2) to investigate students’ views
distractions (Montag & Elhai, 2023). Others claim that phones may help on the effectiveness of phone bans in schools; (3) to identify student-
to promote student engagement and self-directed learning initiatives in supported approaches or suggestions to manage phones and similar
the classroom (Rashid & Asghar, 2016; Tessier, 2013). Another impor­ devices in schools.
tant issue is the financial burden of securely quarantining students’
phones (e.g., using magnetically locked pouches), which can cost 2. Method
thousands of dollars (Montag & Elhai, 2023). As an alternative, some
commentators have proposed that students should be taught to manage 2.1. Participants
their phone use more effectively (Campbell et al., 2024; Montag & Elhai,
2023). Participants were 1549 secondary school students (752 females, 729
Students’ perspectives have been largely overlooked in research males, 62 other) aged 12 years–18 years (M = 14.4, SD = 1.5), from five
evaluations of phone bans, despite studies that show students can public schools across South Australia. Most participants (96.2%) owned
contribute valuable insights into how education policies affect them a mobile phone and 48.1% reportedly used their phone at school.
(Gao et al., 2017; Wall et al., 2005). Students are uniquely positioned to Further descriptive statistics are reported in King et al. (2024). There
identify unforeseen benefits as well as potential problems of policies, were 2015 valid responses across the two surveys and 76.8% completed
and identify practical ways to improve them (Hamzah et al., 2010; the optional open-ended questions that contributed qualitative data.
Schratz, 2005). To date, there have been only a few studies that have
assessed students’ perspectives on phone use in schools. Gao et al.’s 2.2. Design and procedure
(2017) study of 435 Chinese students reported that students generally
agreed that phones should be prohibited during classes and exams but This study was part of a larger research project involving evaluation
permitted during breaks. A focus group study of 19 students by Ott et al. of the 2023 South Australian school phone ban (OSF link: https://osf.
(2018) reported that mobile phones could be disruptive in class but io/pnjtk/). The project was designed as a natural policy experiment in
students believed that phones had mostly benefited their education. A which schools differed naturally in their timing of implementation of the
phone ban was viewed as an unfair punishment for those who used their phone ban policy, which enabled comparisons of schools on variables of
phone responsibly. interest. However, the research team did not have any control over the
The few studies on students’ perspectives show that generally stu­ ban or the implementation of bans in schools, and, in this regard, the
dents believe that there should be some access to phones at school, but study was quasi-experimental. The study was preregistered (i.e., its
also restrictions. For example, Rose et al. (2022) interviewed nine par­ methodological details and predictions were submitted to the Open
ents and children aged 10–11 years about guidelines for phone use in Science Framework prior to data analysis) because it involved confir­
school. Students believed that mobile phones in school were necessary matory hypotheses related to the quantitative data, but there were no
to contact parents for safety, support, and logistical reasons. They re­ such predictions for the qualitative data. This phase of the project
ported that phone use should be regulated by limits (e.g., switched off employed qualitative methodology to examine students’ perspectives on
during class) and there should be punishments for misuse. Gath et al. phones in schools and their personal views and experiences of the phone
(2024) surveyed 332 students, who tended to agree that phones should ban. It should be noted that, although this paper refers to the phone ban
be prohibited during class because they disrupted their ability to focus policy (i.e., ban as a singular term), each school had some flexibility in
and affected socialising. Some students endorsed concerns about inap­ their implementation of the ban (hence, ‘bans’ may be more accurate to
propriate phone activities, including cyberbullying and recording stu­ convey the variability of the state ban policy in practice across schools).
dents without permission. Overall, participants supported University ethical clearance was obtained in April 2023 (ID: 5954)
age-dependent regulations, advocating for stricter rules for younger followed by ethical clearance from the DECD in May 2023. Students
students and more autonomy and choice for senior students. Notably, gave informed consent to participate; parents were informed of the
this study gathered students’ views on phone use guidelines and was not study and gave passive consent (i.e., opt-out consent). The Department
specifically about perceptions of a mandated phone ban policy. for Education (DECD) provided a list of 16 schools suitable for inclusion.
Taken together, studies suggest that students perceive phones in Five schools agreed to participate. Non-participating schools declined
schools as having some benefits for learning and socialising. Some stu­ due to insufficient staff or resources, competing engagement in other
dents support phone restrictions and fair penalties for misuse. However, projects, concerns about sensitive survey questions, or they did not
there is limited data on how students experience the specific effects of respond to invitations. Data were collected from June to September
phone bans in schools. Most studies have either involved surveys with 2023.
forced choice items or employed small focus groups (i.e., fewer than 20 Two surveys were administered online in schools during class hours.

2
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

At the first survey, two schools had recently experienced the introduc­ Academic Engagement, and Health and Safety; Category 4: Negatives of
tion of a phone ban, and three did not have a ban. At the time of the Ban, included themes of Social Disconnection and Distress, Loss of Au­
second survey, all schools had introduced a phone ban. As per COREQ tonomy, Loss of Utility, and Inadequate Ban Implementation; and Category
requirements, data collection was led by a female postdoc (MR) and 5: Strategies to Manage Phones, included themes of Education, Rules and
female PhD candidate (CRG) who facilitated survey administration in Guidelines, and Enforcement. Fig. 1 presents a visual summary of the
schools and provided personalized feedback reports to all participating major categories and themes. Documents containing data and analyses
schools. The project was supervised by a male academic (DLK) with a are available upon request.
PhD and clinical psychology qualification with more than 15 years of
experience. Students gave informed consent or assent to participate; 3. Results
parents were informed of the study and gave passive consent (i.e., opt-
out consent). The study procedures were carried out in accordance This section presents the results of the thematic analysis. To repre­
with the Declaration of Helsinki. sent each theme, a selection of quotes is included with qualifiers indi­
cating gender (M: Male; F: Female; NB: Non-Binary) and age (years). For
2.3. Measures example, the qualifiers [F, 15] denote a 15-year-old female. Sections 4.1
and 4.2 pertain to the first study aim (i.e., to understand students’
The complete survey questionnaire is available on the OSF website. perceived benefits and drawbacks of phone use in schools), whereas
Participants provided demographic information (e.g., date of birth, sections 4.3 and 4.4 relate to the second aim (i.e., to examine the
gender, and school grade). There were eight open-ended questions perceived effectiveness of phone bans on academic engagement and
across two surveys. These questions, designed to allow elaborated re­ well-being) and section 4.5 addresses the third aim (i.e., to explore
sponses, were developed by three of the authors who are registered students’ perspectives on alternative strategies to manage phones and
clinical psychologists. The first survey contained four questions that devices in schools).
asked about phone use in school generally, specifically in relation to: (1)
benefits (“What are some of the best aspects of having a mobile phone at 3.1. Benefits of phone use
school?”); (2) drawbacks (“Do mobile phones at school ever create any
problems for you (e.g., social, learning, mood)? Any examples?”); and (3) Participants were asked to report some of the most positive aspects of
potential regulations (“Do you think that schools should have mobile phone having a mobile phone in school. The first theme was ‘Social and
rules for students? What do you think would be helpful?”). Another question Emotional Support’, which referred to using the phone to feel connected
sought general feedback (We really appreciate your feedback and insights. with others and enhance one’s emotions or feelings. This included
Do you have any other comments or experiences you would like to share?). feeling socially connected (e.g., Never feeling too lonely [F, 15]) and
The follow up survey included questions about the mobile phone ban providing support for others (e.g., You could see if your friend is ok when
in each school. Four items examined: (1) positive aspects of the ban they aren’t at school [F, 14]). Participants noted being able to receive
(“Have there been any positives or benefits related to the Mobile Phone Ban in immediate emotional support and having a sense of safety with their
your school? What have you experienced?”); (2) downsides of the ban phones nearby (e.g., I can contact family and friends. This is especially
(“What have been the main downsides, if any, of the Mobile Phone Ban in helpful when I’m struggling, feel left out, feel scared or anxious. With my
your school? What have you disliked?); and, (3) potential strategies to phone near me I know I have direct communication with my family and
manage phones in schools (“Do you think that schools should consider a friends [F, 15]). Participants indicated that using the device helped in
different strategy to managing mobile phones? Do you have any ideas?”). regulating mood (e.g., Helps me be happy [F, 14]), specifically in
Consistent with the first survey, another question asked for general reducing anxiety (e.g., It helps me regulate my anxiety levels [F, 15]), and
feedback or comments. escaping from stress (e.g., A place for my mind to escape when everything
feels like it is getting too much and too stressful, a way to calm down [F, 18]).
2.4. Analysis The second theme was ‘Autonomy and Skill-Building’, which
referred to feeling independent when using a mobile phone, and using
Data were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). phones to develop certain skills or handle challenges. Some participants
Responses from each survey were compiled and extracted into an Excel referred to using phones to communicate with others privately without
spreadsheet. A total of 7188 written responses totalling 69,589 words using school services (e.g., A girl gets her period and needs to call her mum
were analysed. Each question received the same level of consideration, to talk to her about it and again you don’t want people to overhear [F, 14]).
ensuring a thorough and inclusive process. The process involved trans­ Phones were described as enabling independence (e.g., Having a bit of
ferring responses to each question into individual Word documents, self-agency/freedom [M, 16]) and having access to a phone provided a
coding each unique response, grouping similar codes into categories, sense of trust or privilege (e.g., Feeling treated like an adult; not treated like
identifying themes across categories, and iteratively refining the anal­ a child untrustworthy with their own belongings [F, 18]). Some stated that
ysis through review and multiple discussions between the first and se­ managing their phones independently was an important skill or com­
nior authors to confirm themes were internally consistent, coherent, and petency to enter the workforce (e.g., It prepares students for the workplace
distinct. It is important to note that the analysis treats all content on face as at work your phone won’t be taken away [F, 18]).
value and does not seek to infer any subtext nor question the veracity of The third theme was ‘Utility and Convenience’, which referred to the
responses. However, the process did involve some discretionary filtering practical features of phones that assist with various needs. Participants
of mischievous or nonsensical responses (<5% of data). To ensure described how phone features assisted with learning (e.g., Taking photos
integrity, the senior author conducted an independent coding of re­ of the whiteboard whenever I am falling behind at writing. This way I can
sponses using the categories, which resulted in total agreement with the write the stuff we learned in class while at home [F, 15]), planning and
initial ratings. A complete CORE-Q checklist (Tong et al., 2007) for the organisation (e.g., Productivity apps aid in staying organised and managing
qualitative analysis is included in Supplementary Material 1. time effectively [M, 15]) and gaining concentration (It helps with my
The thematic analysis identified five main categories with 16 themes. concentration, where I can put on some music or take some breaks [F, 17]).
Category 1: Benefits of Phone Use included themes of Social and Some expressed that phones could be used to prevent bullying by
Emotional Support, Autonomy and Skill-Building, and Utility and Conve­ providing evidence of wrongdoing (You can capture people bullying to
nience; Category 2: Drawbacks of Phone Use, included themes of Un­ hold them accountable, of course you need to step in but for evidence’s sake)
wanted Social Effects, Esafety Concerns, and Academic Interference; [F, 14]). Other features included entertainment tools, financial man­
Category 3: Positives of Ban, included themes of Social Interaction, agement, and the ability to record memories.

3
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

Fig. 1. Students’ perspectives regarding phone use and phone bans in schools.

3.2. Drawbacks of phone use The third theme was ‘Academic Interference’, which encompassed
the ways that phones could hinder learning and school engagement.
Participants were asked to describe the main downsides of mobile Students described how phones could cause distraction in their learning
phones in school. The first theme was ‘Unwanted Social Effects’, which environment (e.g., Kids in the back can be loud about stuff on their phones -
referred to the negative influences of phones on social interactions. This or they play videos way too loudly [M, 16]) and disrupt their focus (e.g.,
included feeling socially left out (e.g., When I’m with my friend and During class, people aren’t able to focus [M, 12]). Participants described
they’re on their phone, it makes me uncomfortable and left out [F, 17]) and how phones could reduce their motivation to learn (e.g., You find that
downward social comparisons focussed on phone type or ownership (e. you’re not really in the mood to learn or do any work. It’s used mainly to take
g., Sometimes, some people’s phones are newer and they make fun of people if a break but sometimes those breaks can be quite long and you can get carried
they have older one [F, 13]). Participants described how phone use could away [F, 16]) and teachers’ frustration about their capacity to teach
hinder or disrupt face-to-face interactions (e.g., Whenever I want to while phones are in use (e.g., Teachers yelling at you [F, 15]).
engage in a conversation with someone the other person just sits on their
phone and it is very upsetting [F, 14]) and interfere with basic interper­
sonal skills that do not rely on phones (e.g., I don’t know what to talk 3.3. Positives of the ban
about without showing imagery through photos [F, 13]) or having empathy
for others (e.g., Becoming less empathetic [M, 17]). This section reports on students’ experiences of the phone ban after
The second theme was ‘Esafety Concerns’, which referred to the risks its implementation. Participants were first asked about the positives
associated with the digital features of mobile devices. Participants related to the mobile phone ban in their school. The first theme was
described experiences of cyberbullying (e.g., I have been bullied online ‘Social Interaction’, referring to ways the ban had improved social in­
many times before to a severe point [NB, 12]) and exposure to inappro­ teractions between students. This included increased face-to-face inter­
priate content (e.g., Yes, videos or pictures that aren’t nice or are inap­ action (e.g., The mobile phone ban has caused more interactions between
propriate get shown [M, 16]). Participants referred to being recorded students. Students have been interacting more face-to-face [M, 13]) and
without permission and feeling embarrassed (e.g., Sometimes people re­ quality interactions (e.g., My friends are more present when I’m speaking to
cord me without consent which causes me a bit of embarrassment [F, 14]) or them as they are on their phones less [F, 18]). They referred to experiences
ridiculed (e.g., Taking photos of you and making fun of them [F, 14]). They of being more aware and mindful of others and the environment (e.g.,
described how phones could be used excessively (e.g., Kids are wild, like- More people talking and actually paying attention to what is happening
they even use their phone when walking down the stairs [F, 13]), including around them [F, 13]).
overuse of social media (e.g., Too much social media [M, 12]) and The second theme was ‘Academic Engagement’, which encompassed
problematic screen time (e.g., Screen addictions can set me back [F, 15]). the ways the ban had enhanced learning potential and activities. This
included increased concentration in class (e.g., People overall are paying

4
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

more attention in class when they attend [F, 15]) and engagement with functions included those which provide entertainment, financial man­
schoolwork (e.g., This boosts students’ engagement in learning at school agement, and other utilities (e.g., I can’t contact people to help me like my
rather than worrying about how much likes their TikTok post got [F, 12]). dad, use Apple Pay for the canteen or even listen to music in class to help
Participants also indicated their academic performance had improved concentrate and block out the bad thoughts [F, 14]).
(e.g., I feel as I have achieved a lot more in my grades [F, 13]) and less The fourth theme was ‘Inadequate Ban Implementation’, referring to
disruption for teachers (e.g., Less time teachers telling us to get off our the problems associated with the ban’s implementation and enforce­
phones so they can teach more [F, 16]). One participant highlighted that ment. This included a lack of compliance (e.g., People don’t follow the rule
banning phones removed an opportunity for cheating on tests or exams, and bring their phones out at recess and lunch [F, 12]) and the persistence
enabling the school to get ‘real data on how students actually perform’ of bullying (e.g., If anything the ban has made everything worse. A lot do
[M,15]. follow it and problems like vaping and bullying happen more as people find a
The third theme was ‘Health and Safety’, which referred to im­ way to make up for their boredom [F, 13]). Some participants perceived
provements in students’ general well-being and personal security at the ban enforcement as limited (e.g., Teachers aren’t strict enough on kids
school. This included reduced screen time (e.g., Well, my peers aren’t [M, 16]) and others felt it was excessive at times (e.g., I got my phone
glued to their screens watching dull content because that is what made me feel taken away before school started and I feel that should not be allowed
excluded [M, 13]), physical health benefits (e.g., People get more exercise considering the whole point of the phone ban is so that kids will be more
and spend more time with their friends [M, 12]), and improved mood (e.g., focused on school, but BEFORE SCHOOL?? Learning hasn’t even started yet
I feel more present in the moment and I am generally happier compared to the [F, 16]).
last school year [F, 15]). Participants also referred to a decrease in
cyberbullying (e.g., Less cyberbullying to others or being able to appreciate 3.5. Strategies to manage phones
the sunshine [M, 12]) or other forms of violence (e.g., There have been less
physical fights at school [F, 16]). Many described how the school envi­ Participants were asked to consider alternative strategies to bans to
ronment was safer and more prosocial since the ban (e.g., Ever since we manage mobile phone use in schools. The first theme was ‘Education’,
have had the phone ban we have no fights. People are making more friends which referred to education or training with a focus on responsible
and are socialising and playing more sports during break [F, 12]). phone use and etiquette. This was often framed as learning a skill that
would apply to a broader context than school (e.g., Mobile phones are a
3.4. Negatives of the ban part of society and can be used as a learning tool. It feels as if the people
making these rules don’t understand that. I would love to see more education
Participants were asked about the downsides of the mobile phone about social media and discussions about why/how to reduce phone use
ban. The first theme was ‘Social Disconnection and Distress’, which without eliminating it completely [F, 16]) and that bans did not align with
referred to losing or having less connection with others and consequent the perceived privileges of being close to adult age (e.g., Don’t ban them,
negative emotions. This included limited social communication and especially for the senior school students, they are nearly adults [F, 16]).
support, often related to parental contact (e.g., I don’t get to communicate The second theme was ‘Rules and Guidelines’, referring to views on
with my parents if I am having friendship problems or want to leave school [F, allowing student phone use in schools under certain conditions. This
13]) and reduced means of regulating negative mood states (e.g., I have included an approach permitting limited or restricted use (e.g., I believe
developed a bunch of strategies to cope with my anxiety using my phone. Now that students should be allowed their phones but for work purposes and
I can’t use my phone [F, 18]). The ban reportedly contributed to feelings messaging family only. I believe that it is not right to have to tell the office
of loneliness (e.g., If you don’t have friends at school, you just have to sit your private messages with your family [F, 13]). Another proposal
there and be alone without talking to anyone [M, 16]) and vulnerability in referred to allowing use in certain areas (e.g., We should be able to have
‘emergencies’ (e.g., I get a bit more nervous if I have an emergency because I our phones in our bags or the front office so we don’t have them in class but
can’t use my phone to call anyone [F, 14]). Some referred to unease or can still access them if we need to communicate with parents or employers [F,
tension in their school environment (e.g., Increased tension between stu­ 16]), or during emergencies (e.g., If there is an emergency let the kids use
dents and teachers and more frustration from students [M, 15]). their phone [M, 13]), and for educational purposes (e.g., Phones could be
The second theme was ‘Loss of Autonomy’, referring to feeling less valuable to use for educational purposes such as taking photos for home [F,
independent and trusted. This included being unable to practice 15]). Some proposed a ban for certain age groups (e.g., Yes, there should
responsible phone use (e.g., It doesn’t prepare us for the real world when we be a thing where only year 10 and older should be allowed their phones since
will have to deal with these distractions in our life [F, 16]). Participants they have work and get phone calls of their shifts [F, 12]).
described a perceived loss of trust by teachers (e.g., I have disliked how The third theme was ‘Enforcement’, which referred to the ways that
due to the mobile ban teachers have become untrusting of students. The level the ban could be enforced. Students’ views were diverse and fell along a
of trust and the relationship between students and teachers has diminished continuum ranging from more lenient enforcement (e.g., I think this
because of this ban [M, 16]) and a lack of independence (e.g., I am strategy is fine but they could be a little less harsh [M, 12]) to having stricter
completely able to control my ability to manage my phone and dislike being enforcement practices (e.g., I feel that the ban should be stricter and a bit
micro-managed as if I don’t attend a school that promotes ‘self-direction’ and more power should be given to teachers in order to control situations with
‘independence’ [M, 16]). Participants also mentioned a lack of privacy phones [M, 14]). Students did not refer to any specific monitoring ap­
when contacting parents or others through school (e.g., Not being able to proaches or practices to aid enforcement and there were few reported
easily contact parents/having to go through student services feels weirdly personal experiences of receiving penalties related to phone use.
invasive and many students are uncomfortable doing it [F, 15]).
The third theme was ‘Loss of Utility’, referring to less access to 4. Discussion
practical tools within a phone. This included planning and organisation
(e.g., Not having my phone means that I can’t communicate with my parents Current debates on the merits of banning phones in schools have
when they are running late to pick me up. I also can’t see messages from my lacked input from empirical research. The academic literature has very
employer asking me to fill in for someone until after school [F, 16]), and few quantitative evaluations and there has been a lack of qualitative
reduced ability to locate friends at school (e.g., Being a big school, it is studies that delve into students’ perceptions and experiences of phone
hard to find your friends at break times because things always change and bans. To address this gap, the present study leveraged data from a nat­
you can’t just text them [F, 15]). Participants stated that they had lost a ural policy experiment involving two surveys administered across five
tool that supports school-related work (e.g., I can’t take pictures of my schools. Most students (76%) chose to complete the optional open-ended
work with my phone so I forget things [F, 15]). Other important phone questions and expressed diverse views across 7188 text responses.

5
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

Several important areas of discussion emerged from the thematic anal­ including increased acts of kindness, empathy, humour, creativity, and
ysis. Students reported various benefits of the ban in areas beyond ac­ meaningful conversations, and fewer negative experiences including
ademic performance, including improvements in peer social interaction, gossip, sharing rumours, ‘drama’, and ‘dissociating’ from friends. Some
personal safety, and general well-being. These freely reported positive of these may be worthy target variables for examination in future
experiences provide an authentic student voice in support of the ban studies.
policy’s objectives related to ‘quality time away from screens’ (see www. Another interesting social aspect of the phone ban was students’
education.sa.gov.au/mobile-phones). However, this study also high­ reports of feeling more mindful of others and their surroundings. Stu­
lighted perceived disadvantages of the ban, particularly that some stu­ dents’ choice of words to express these experiences was consistent with
dents felt it had affected their sense of trustworthiness and autonomy in principles rooted in mindfulness, defined as the act of focusing on the
school. Additionally, these data seemed to uncover some deeper issues present moment purposefully and nonjudgmentally (Kabat-Zinn, 2003).
relating to students’ reliance on phones for socialising and coping with Students referred to being ‘more present’, ‘present in the moment’,
mental health issues that warrant further careful attention. ‘focused’, ‘not zoned out’, and ‘noticing their surroundings’. These data
The present study showed that students perceive many positive were consistent with research reporting a relationship between reduced
functions of phone use in school. This included learning and planning mindfulness and mobile phone ‘addiction’ (Regan et al., 2020; Xiang
functions (e.g., as a second-screen aid for searching and storing infor­ et al., 2024), and studies that have reported that mindfulness can posi­
mation) in addition to aiding more effective study (e.g., music, apps for tively influence social interactions by enhancing responsiveness to social
boosting productivity). An important theme referred to student experi­ cues in conversations (Don, 2020; Ketay et al., 2023). The extent to
ences of autonomy and skill-building afforded by phone use and access which reductions in phone use may support adolescents to increase their
privileges. For some participants, phone use in school provided valued capacity for mindfulness skills could be studied more closely, to com­
opportunities to feel ‘treated like an adult’ and practice responsible plement emerging research on mindfulness as a possible protective
phone use, whereas banning phones was seen as reducing this compe­ factor for excessive and problematic digital technology use.
tency. This was consistent with Gath et al.’s (2024) study which reported Academic performance was another important discussion point for
that students believed having continual access to a phone was a students. An emerging evidence base suggests that banning phones in
precondition to developing phone self-regulation skills (Gath et al., classrooms may improve academic performance, particularly for lower-
2024). In our study, some participants were frustrated with being unable achieving students (Beland & Murphy, 2016), although some research
to practice responsible phone use and reportedly felt less independent has failed to replicate this finding (Kessel et al., 2020). Generally, these
and trusted. Some criticised their school for promoting “self-directed studies have taken an interest in academic performance as indicated by
learning” and “independence” while not allowing them to demonstrate scores on standardized tests, usually high-pressure tests like exams. It is
these qualities. This view may be comparable to societal expectations of assumed that banning phones removes the general distracting effects of
being a ‘responsible’ driver while being denied use of a motor vehicle. devices on learning that then improves test performance. Phones could
On the other hand, many of the positive aspects of phone use in be distracting either passively (i.e., by their mere presence) or more
school identified by participants were counterbalanced or ‘mirrored’ by actively (e.g., multi-tasking, interrupting ringtones). The present study’s
acknowledgements of the downsides or disadvantages of phones. Stu­ findings contribute some more detailed observations of the potential
dents highlighted several types of unwanted social effects of phones, effects of banning phones aside from reducing distraction, which may be
including social awkwardness and relationship difficulties, social potential mechanisms for increases in academic performance for some
exclusion, and bullying that was enabled by, or otherwise implicated, students. Participants reported that removing phones had enhanced
phone use. Phones were described as integral to communication among concentration and attention (‘focus’), improved listening and commu­
peers, as their conversations could sometimes involve and rely on shared nication, boosted engagement with teachers, reduced time spent
screens and phone content. At the same time, social interaction thinking or worrying about social media, and improved teachers’ ca­
involving phones could have alienating effects where students felt that pacity for instructing and responding to students’ needs due to not
communication was hindered, disrupted, or superficial. Another dis­ having to manage phone-related distractions.
cussion point was that a phone was a visible part of a student’s Consistent with previous research, many students reportedly used
‘appearance’ and enabled self-expression and identity, in contrast to the their phones to receive emotional and practical support from parents
school uniform which may be more limited in this respect. According to (Rose et al., 2022). Further, many relied on their phones (e.g., using
participants, some students felt pressured to own, or were teased or apps, ‘escaping’) to regulate mood, particularly anxiety and stress. For
‘laughed at’ for not owning, an expensive or new model phone. Finally, some, the phone ban had removed their primary tool or strategy for
many participants referred to the distracting effects of phones in regulating emotion and handling distressing emotions. These data
learning environments, including that involving their own use (e.g., contribute to a growing literature on ‘digital emotion regulation’ (Smith
personal app notifications) or use by other students (e.g., playing loud et al., 2022), which includes research that suggests that up to half of
videos), which seemed to undermine the apparent learning benefits of smartphone use is dedicated to managing emotions like stress, sadness,
phones in the classroom. and loneliness through social apps, games, music, and online shopping,
An important strength and contribution of this study was the and that this ‘coping’ effect is relatively transient (Shi et al., 2023).
exploration of what students perceived as having experienced a mobile Other research proposes that phone use for coping might act as a safety
phone ban policy recently. Several major themes emerged from a series behaviour, meaning that phones provide a means of experientially
of questions on this topic. Many students perceived that their social avoiding (i.e., escaping from) distressing emotions (Gorday & Bardeen,
interactions with peers and the quality of relationships had improved 2022; Elhai et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2015). Providing students with
following the ban. The presence of phones in the schoolyard had guidance and education on managing emotions may help reduce their
seemed, in this way, to impose a ‘glass ceiling’ on the quality of some reliance on phones for emotion regulation.
social relationships. As one participant reflected, it had been difficult to The present study has implications for phone and related digital
find a ‘best friend’ before the phone ban because they had not been able device ban policies, including the proposed 2025 social media ban in
to get to know another person ‘well enough’. Similarly, many partici­ Australia. It was clear from the data that the mandated phone ban was a
pants reported that their social circle had expanded following the ban. significant learning and lifestyle change for many students and produced
These findings are significant because previous empirical studies have strong intrapersonal and interpersonal reactions. Many students were
not examined the social dimensions of banning phones, aside from po­ supportive of the total phone ban, whereas others would prefer a ban
tential reductions in bullying (e.g., Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022). that allows phone use during non-class periods or a ban for younger
These data draw attention to an array of potential social changes students only. Our data provides the following policy feedback based on

6
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

student input (NB: this does not necessarily reflect that the current Conceptualization. Daniel L. King: Writing – review & editing, Super­
policy is/was limited in any of these respects): (1) that changes to vision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal anal­
allowed device use in schools may be more positively received as a ysis, Conceptualization.
gradual rollout, rather than an abrupt change; (2) that students are
consulted or given ‘voice’ in the decision making about the imple­ Ethics approval and consent to participate
mentation of the ban and its promotional messaging, and that device
policies take into consideration that device use is particularly important University ethical clearance was obtained in April 2023 (ID: 5954)
to students’ sense of autonomy and desire to be treated ‘as an adult’; (3) followed by ethical clearance from the Department for Education
that the ban policy is supported by complementary education and re­ (DECD) in May 2023. Students gave informed consent to participate;
sources on responsible use, and that students who use phones to manage parents were informed of the study and gave passive consent (i.e., opt-
emotional and/or social difficulties receive additional support and out consent). Participants provided their consent by electronically sub­
assistance; (4) that students are provided with opportunities to mitting their affirmative response. Prior to the beginning of the survey,
demonstrate ‘active’ responsible phone use; and, (5) that policies sup­ participants were given instructions that explained consent, and notified
port discreet phone communication between students and parents, them if they do not consent to this study that they should not proceed
particularly in times of need. with the survey.
The present study had several strengths, including its natural
experiment design, its large sample with balanced representation across Consent for publication
age and gender, and participants’ strong engagement with the subject of
the phone ban. However, this study also had limitations. First, the nature Not applicable.
of self-report qualitative data produces results that preclude statements
of causality, e.g., the effect of the phone ban on mental health is unclear. Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing
Qualitative analysis is not equipped to assess the relative importance of
themes in relation to weighing up the positives and negatives of the No generative AI was used in this project or this manuscript
phone ban. Themes may be biased by more vocal minority views and submission.
lack representativeness of a ‘silent majority’. The study employed an
online survey, which restricted the ability to ask students to elaborate on Funding
or clarify their responses, or to corroborate or offer a contrasting
perspective on other students’ views. The study was also limited to This study was partially funded by a 2023 Flinders Foundation
South Australian schools that agreed to participate and likely had more Health Seed Grant.
resources to support data collection, which may affect data represen­
tativeness. Even with the support of the Department for Education, the Declaration of competing interest
research team was not able to recruit schools from lower SES areas and
our results may not be applicable to these schools. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
5. Conclusions the work reported in this paper.

As the group that is arguably most affected by education policies, Acknowledgements

students have a vested interest in school mobile phone bans. The present
study’s findings highlight the complexities of the phone ban from the We are grateful to the Department for Education for their support in
perspective of students and add to the currently limited evaluation identifying suitable schools to participate in this study, and to all the
studies. The positives and negatives of the ban may also highlight why school staff, parents, and students who participated.
quantitative studies obtain different results when examining this issue.
Positively, many students reported that the ban had improved their Appendix A. Supplementary data
academic engagement, peer interactions and friendships, and had mul­
tiple health and safety benefits. In this way, these data appear to provide Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
support for the policy’s main objectives. However, students also high­ org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108603.
lighted personal challenges related to the ban, including a reduced sense
of autonomy, having less available communication with parents, and Data availability
difficulties in managing emotions and well-being. It is clear from these
results than many of the practical benefits of phones and the phone ban Data will be made available on request.
are inextricably linked to the downsides of phones and the ban. These
findings provide insights into student values and priorities which can References
inform schools and policymakers in their communications about, and
management of, digital technologies for students. These data may guide Adams, M. (2019). Threading the cyber-needle: Protecting children by banning
smartphones in school while still embracing technology. McGeorge Law Review, 51,
future research undertakings on young people’s engagement with digital 245. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol51/iss2/5.
devices, including broadening the scope of potential outcome measures Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A. C., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. (2020). Online and face-to-face
in school-based interventions. classroom multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-
efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 102,
214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018
CRediT authorship contribution statement Armstrong, M., Halim, N. K., Raeside, R., Jia, S. S., Hyun, K., Boroumand, F., …
Partridge, S. R. (2021). How helpful and what is the quality of digital sources of
healthy lifestyle information used by Australian adolescents? A mixed methods
Eran Bar: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Marcela
study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23),
Radunz: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Article 12844. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312844
Conceptualization. Christina R. Galanis: Writing – review & editing, Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2020). Kids and mobiles: How
Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Blake Quinney: Australian children are using mobile phones. https://www.acma.gov.au/research.
Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill communication: Technology, distraction &
Writing – review & editing, Software, Methodology. Tracey D. Wade: student performance. Labour Economics, 41, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, labeco.2016.04.004

7
E. Bar et al. Computers in Human Behavior 167 (2025) 108603

Beneito, P., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2022). Banning mobile phones in schools: Evidence Nawaz, S., Bhowmik, J., Linden, T., & Mitchell, M. (2024). Validation of a modified
from regional-level policies in Spain. In Applied Economic analysis. Advance online problematic use of mobile phones scale to examine problematic smartphone use and
publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004. dependence. Heliyon, 10(2), Article e24832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Böttger, T., & Zierer, K. (2024). To ban or not to ban? A rapid review on the impact of heliyon.2024.e13878
smartphone bans in schools on social well-being and academic performance. Ott, T., Magnusson, A. G., Weilenmann, A., & Hård af Segerstad, Y. (2018). “It must not
Education Sciences, 14(8), 906. disturb, it’s as simple as that”: Students’ voices on mobile phones in the
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis. SAGE Publications. https://uk.sagepub. infrastructure for learning in Swedish upper secondary school. Education and
com/en-gb/eur/thematic-analysis/book248481. Information Technologies, 23(1), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-
Campbell, M., Edwards, E. J., Pennell, D., Poed, S., Lister, V., Gillett-Swan, J., … 9637-6
Nguyen, T. A. (2024). Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A Pawlowski, C. S., Nielsen, J. V., Knudsen, L. S., & Schmidt, T. (2022). A ban on
scoping review. J. Psychol. Counsell. School., 34(3), 242–265. smartphone usage during recess increased 10–14 year old children’s physical
Campbell, M., & Third, A. (2020). No, Education Minister, we don’t have enough activity: A Danish school intervention study. The European Journal of Public Health,
evidence to support banning mobile phones in schools. The Conversation [website]. 32. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac094.024
Retrieved online: https://theconversation.com/no-education-minister-we-donth Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student
ave-enough-evidence-to-support-banning-mobile-phones-inschools-151574. engagement, and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in
Dietz, S., & Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students. Human Behavior, 63, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Ratan, Z. A., Parrish, A. M., Alotaibi, M. S., & Hosseinzadeh, H. (2022). Prevalence of
chb.2014.03.029 smartphone addiction and its association with sociodemographic, physical, and
Domoff, S. E., Borgen, A. L., Foley, R. P., & Maffett, A. (2019a). Excessive use of mobile mental well-being: A cross-sectional study among the young adults of Bangladesh.
devices and children’s physical health. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), Article
(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.142 16583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416583
Domoff, S. E., Foley, R. P., & Ferkel, R. (2019b). Addictive phone use and academic Regan, T., Harris, B., Van Loon, M., Nanavaty, N., Schueler, J., Engler, S., & Fields, S. A.
performance in adolescents. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(1), 33–38. (2020). Does mindfulness reduce the effects of risk factors for problematic
https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.171 smartphone use? Comparing frequency of use versus self-reported addiction.
Don, B. P. (2020). Mindfulness predicts growth belief and positive outcomes in social Addictive Behaviors, 108, Article 106435.
relationships. Self and Identity, 19(3), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Rose, S. E., Gears, A., & Taylor, J. (2022). What are parents’ and children’s co-
15298868.2019.1571526 constructed views on mobile phone use and policies in school? Children & Society, 36
Gao, Q., Yan, Z., Wei, C., Liang, Y., & Mo, L. (2017). Three different roles, five different (6), 1418–1433. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12615
aspects: Differences and similarities in viewing school mobile phone policies among Santre, S. (2023). Cyberbullying in adolescents: A literature review. International Journal
teachers, parents, and students. Computers & Education, 106, 13–25. https://doi.org/ of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2022-
10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.007 0357
Gath, M. E., Monk, L., Scott, A., & Gillon, G. T. (2024). Smartphones at school: A mixed- Schratz, M. (2005). Big change question: Should pupils be able to make decisions about
methods analysis of educators’ and students’ perspectives on mobile phone use at school change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(4), 381–387. https://doi.org/
school. Education Sciences, 14(3), 351. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040351 10.1007/s10833-005-4088-0
Gorday, J. Y., & Bardeen, J. R. (2022). Problematic smartphone use influences the Selwyn, N., & Aagaard, J. (2021). Banning mobile phones from classrooms—an
relationship between experiential avoidance and anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction, and
and Social Networking, 25(1), 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0071 cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 8–19. https://doi.
Government of South Australia. (2024). Mobile phone ban driving decline in school org/10.1111/bjet.12919
incidents. Premier of South Australia. https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases Shi, Y., Koval, P., Kostakos, V., Goncalves, J., & Wadley, G. (2023). “Instant happiness”:
/news-items/mobile-phone-ban-driving-decline-in-school-incidents. Smartphones as tools for everyday emotion regulation. International Journal of
Haidt, J. (2023). Get phones out of schools now. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic. Human-Computer Studies, 170, Article 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
com/ideas/archive/2023/06/ban-smartphones-phone-free-schools-social-media ijhcs.2023.102958
/674304/. Smith, W., Wadley, G., Webber, S., Tag, B., Kostakos, V., Koval, P., & Gross, J. J. (2022).
Hamzah, M. I., Ismail, A., & Embi, M. A. (2010). The importance of student’s views Digital emotion regulation in everyday life. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference
regarding educational change. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 738–744. on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–15).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.100 South Australian Department for Education. (2023). Student use of mobile phones and
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and personal devices policy. https://www.education.sa.gov.au/policies/shared/studen
future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/ t-use-of-mobile-phones-and-personal-devices-policy.pdf.
10.1093/clipsy.bpg016 Tessier, J. (2013). Student impressions of academic cellphone use in the classroom.
Kessel, D., Hardardottir, H. L., & Tyrefors, B. (2020). The impact of banning mobile Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst13_
phones in Swedish secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 77, Article 043_01_25
102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102009 Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative
Ketay, S., Thorson, K. R., Roy, A. R., & Welker, K. M. (2023). Trait mindfulness is research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International
associated with self-disclosure and responsiveness during social interactions with Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.
new acquaintances. Mindfulness, 14(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671- UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms?. https://unesdoc.une
022-02055-x sco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723. (Accessed 12 April 2024).
Kim, J.-H., Seo, M., & David, P. (2015). Alleviating depression only to become Van den Abeele, M. M. P., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019).
problematic mobile phone users: Can face-to-face communication be the antidote? Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation
Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human
chb.2015.05.029 Behavior, 100, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004
King, D. L., Radunz, M., Galanis, C., Quinney, B., & Wade, T. D. (2024). “Phones off while Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the
school’s on": Evaluating problematic phone use and the social, wellbeing, and complicated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive
academic effects of banning phones in schools. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851–867. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00058 org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone Xiang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Li, X. (2024). The circular argument relationship between
use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. mindfulness and mobile phone addiction: Evidence based on the diary method. The
Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Journal of General Psychology, 151(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/
chb.2013.10.049 00221309.2023.2235290
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Sanders, G. J., Rebold, M., & Gates, P. (2013). The relationship Zagalaz-Sánchez, M. L., Cachón-Zagalaz, J., Sánchez-Zafra, M., & Lara-Sánchez, A.
between cell phone use, physical and sedentary activity, and cardiorespiratory (2019). Mini review of the use of the mobile phone and its repercussion in the deficit
fitness in a sample of US college students. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition of physical activity. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 455258. https://doi.org/
and Physical Activity, 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-1 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.455258
Montag, C., & Elhai, J. D. (2023). Do we need a digital school uniform? Arguments for Zhu, C., Huang, S., Evans, R., & Zhang, W. (2021). Cyberbullying among adolescents and
and against a smartphone ban in schools. Societal Impacts, 1(1–2), Article 100002. children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2023.100002 measures. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 634909. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpubh.2021.634909