Running head: SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Understanding the Relationship between Smartphone Use, Flow, and Productivity

Bachelor Thesis

Samuel Dittrich

S1923137

B.sc Psychology

University of Twente

23 – 06 – 2020

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof

Second Supervisor: Syl Slatman
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 2

Abstract

Smartphones are widely prevalent in today's society, they have not only changed the
way we communicate with others, but also the way we work. While there are clear benefits to
using a smartphone, being constantly online and available could affect the way we work and
how productive we are. This study aimed to address the relationship between smartphone
addiction risk, the ability to experience flow states, and productivity. Specifically, it was
examined whether flow acts as a mediator between smartphone addiction risk and productivity.
While this relationship has been suggested before, studies examining it are scarce. Participants
(N = 134) were assessed using a cross-sectional self-report questionnaire about smartphone
addiction risk, flow proneness and the degree to which their productivity is inhibited due to the
smartphone. The results indicated that all three concepts were correlated, and that flow
proneness partially mediated the relationship between smartphone addiction risk and
productivity. Smartphone addiction risk was associated negatively with flow proneness, which
in turn had a positive effect on productivity. These results suggest that being able to experience
flow might help to be less affected by the smartphone in one’s productivity. At the same time,
smartphones seem to threat the proneness to experience such states of flow. Implications and
other important factors contributing to this relationship are discussed and suggestions for future
research are provided.
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 3

Understanding the Relationship between Smartphone Use, Flow and Productivity

Smartphones are found in almost every aspect of most people’s lives, they are operated
on the go, on the bus and at the dinner table, but often also while working. Indeed, since their
introduction about a decade ago, smartphones are widely prevalent in today’s society. In
Germany, for example, 81% of the population is using a smartphone to access the internet
(Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016). Having a small device in your pocket to communicate with
others and to access almost every piece of information and entertainment available makes
smartphones particularly attractive to use. Generally, smartphones are used for process usage
or social usage. The former refers to the gratification the user receives by consuming media
content, while the latter refers to the gratification received from maintaining social
relationships over the smartphone (van Deursen, Bolle, Hegner, & Kommers, 2015).
Although the use of smartphones certainly makes our lives easier, there are also increasing
concerns about them. One domain of concern is privacy, particularly the commercial use of
user data by applying so-called data mining methods (Cheng & Wang, 2018). Another domain
of concern, however, is the increased use of the smartphone and its potential to over-use.

Smartphone Addiction

Large parts of smartphone use behaviour can be described as a ‘checking habit’

(Oulasvirta, Rattenbury, Ma, & Raita, 2012). Thus, using the smartphone can become habitual.
Oulasvirta et al. (2012) found that this checking habit leads to a shorter duration of use per
session compared to traditional computers, while it might lead to increased overall usage time.
Research indicates that smartphones can lead to addiction and interfere with everyday life
(Duke & Montag, 2017b; Roberts, Yaya, & Manolis, 2014). According to Kwon, Kim, Cho,
and Yang (2013) smartphone addiction can be considered a serious behavioural addiction. How
smartphone addiction should be classified and whether it is a distinct diagnosis or part of a
broader internet addiction remains a subject of discussion (see Duke & Montag, 2017a; Lin,
Lin, Yang, & Kuo, 2017 for a discussion). Nonetheless, a range of addiction-related symptoms
were described in the context of smartphones, such as a failure to control smartphone usage
(Kwon, Lee, et al., 2013), withdrawal symptoms and a preoccupancy with the smartphone
(Duke & Montag, 2017a). Moreover, poor quality of sleep (Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014)
and pain in neck and wrist (İNal, Demİrcİ, Çetİntürk, Akgönül, & Savaş, 2015) were found to
be associated with smartphone use. Tools to examine smartphone addiction, such as the
Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (Kwon, Kim, et al., 2013) are not intended for
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 4

purpose of pathological diagnosis but more to indicate tendencies toward addiction and to
identify high-risk groups.
While discussing over-use or addiction, however, one has to be careful not to
pathologize everyday smartphone use (Duke & Montag, 2017a). Montag and Walla (2016)
argue that overuse begins when one’s smartphone is distracting on a permanent minute-to-
minute basis. Hence, it is crucial to investigate how this constant distraction of the smartphone
affects an individual. Specifically, this paper aims to examine the interrelatedness between
smartphone addiction risk, productivity, and flow among young adults between 18 and 30 years
of age, as this age group used smartphones as a primary communication device for most of
their lifetime. Moreover, there are indications that this younger generation is more inclined to
be constantly online using the smartphone, and to see it as necessarily integrated into daily life
(Anshari et al., 2016; Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016).

Smartphones and Productivity

Several studies have investigated the effects of smartphones on productivity. For

example, frequent interruptions by the smartphone were found to increase attentional deficits
and hyperactivity, resulting in a decrease in self-reported productivity, as shown in a sample
of 221 undergraduate University students (Kushlev, Proulx, & Dunn, 2016). Duke and Montag
(2017b) report a similar association between smartphone addiction tendencies and lowered
self-reported productivity. An increased risk of smartphone addiction can also increase
perceived stress and negatively influence academic performance (Samaha & Hawi, 2016).
Students using their smartphone while reading a text, for instance, needed significantly more
time to do so compared to the control group not using the phone (Bowman, Levine, Waite, &
Gendron, 2010).
Generally, technology has the potential to increase our productivity (Montag & Walla,
2016), for instance, one can use the smartphone for navigation or easily find important
information on the smartphone. If, however, it is overused it can have the opposite effect.
Montag and Walla (2016) hypothesize this relationship as a reverted ‘U-shape’. To a certain
extent, the smartphone supports us in being more productive, but at one point it stops being
supportive and instead decreases our productivity and distracts us. This might be the case for
individuals who display increased smartphone addiction tendencies. However, Montag and
Walla (2016) emphasize that more research is needed to support this finding. It remains unclear
whether there is a specific amount of usage time at which productivity decreases; it might be
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 5

that constant interruptions have a greater negative effect than overall usage time (Montag &
Walla, 2016).
Moreover, the sole presence of the smartphone has been shown to have detrimental
effects on task performance. Thornton, Faires, Robbins, and Rollins (2014) demonstrated that
the mere presence of the smartphone, while one is working on a difficult task, can lead to a
decrease in task performance. This effect was, however, not apparent on simple tasks. It might
be that the presence of the smartphone evokes thoughts unrelated to the task at hand so that the
mind wanders and therefore interferes with task performance (Thornton et al., 2014). A study
by Ward, Duke, Gneezy, and Bos (2017) further emphasised the pertinence of the smartphone’s
mere presence. In a set of experiments, they found that participant’s cognitive capacity was
affected by the presence of the smartphone, as shown by less capacity of working memory and
functional fluid intelligence. This effect was stronger (also in terms of benefits of the absence
of the mobile device) for people who had an increased smartphone dependency (Ward et al.,
2017). Yet, using the smartphone while taking a break from a cognitively demanding task was
also shown to result in cognitive depletion similar to not taking a break at all. It appears that
we interact differently with different types of screens; cell phones seem to make returning to
focused attention more difficult than computers (Kang & Kurtzberg, 2019).

Flow States

While smartphones were found to decrease cognitive capacities and undermine task
performance, they could do so to an extent which hinders experiences of flow. Flow “describes
a particular kind of experience that is so engrossing and enjoyable that it becomes autotelic,
that is, worth doing for its own sake even though it may have no consequence outside itself”
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 824). Being in a state of flow, a person’s action and a person’s
awareness merge. One is consciously acting but at the same time, one is not aware of one’s
awareness (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). In other words: One is not preoccupied with one’s
thoughts, but instead purely absorbed by the task at hand; not thinking about past or future but
only the present action itself. The tendency to experience these states of flow frequently can be
referred to as flow proneness.
Flow experiences are also linked to productivity, Duke and Montag (2017b) argue that
one can be very productive during flow states. Furthermore, concentration and creativity,
among other factors, were found to be increased during flow states compared to non-flow states
(Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) suggest that
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 6

working might be more enjoyable in a state of flow and therewith, one might work more
effectively. Moreover, Ara et al. (2009, p. 1) argue that finding means for people to achieve
more flow states “could be a lever of more productive work”. Still, flow does not only enhance
productivity. People who experience feelings of flow often also report more positive feelings
and experience more purpose and meaning in their lives (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).
In order to enter a state of flow, the situation has to be specific as to its outcome, there
need to be opportunities for action or a specific goal and the means for action need to lie within
the person's abilities or skills. If so, then one enjoys the moment and achieves increased
capabilities for learning (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). Importantly, however,
one needs some time of unbroken attention to be fully focused and absorbed by the task at hand
(Montag & Walla, 2016). Csikszentmihalyi (2014, p. 139) emphasizes that “to insure that
people will concentrate on their actions, potentially intruding stimuli must be kept out of
attention.”

Smartphone Notifications and Self-Interruptions

Unbroken attention is a focal point when it comes to smartphones and flow. In a

sequence task experiment, Altmann, Trafton, and Hambrick (2014) showed that interruptions
as short as 2.8 seconds lead to increased error rates and thus, can derail our train of thoughts.
Smartphone use can act as an interruption and thus might interrupt the state of flow.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that one does not immediately return to focused attention after
being disrupted. It took participants in a computing exercise on average 10 to 15 minutes until
they continued to work on their task in focused activity after being disrupted (Iqbal & Horvitz,
2007). Thus, even short interruptions can cause a considerate delay in concentration until full
attention is restored. Smartphones might be a factor which undermines attention during flow,
as a study by Lee, Cho, Kim, and Noh (2015) found that increased smartphone addiction levels
lead to decreased levels of self-regulated learning and learning flow.
One way in which the smartphone might interrupt states of flow is via notifications.
Notifications can be of auditory or haptic (vibration) nature and are used to inform the user
about incoming messages, calls, emails etc. (Chang, Chung, Shih, Chang, & Lin, 2017). The
study by Chang et al. (2017) found that 68% of users who get notifications on their smartphone
while not actively using the phone did immediately attend to the notification. Moreover, there
is evidence that smartphone notifications are greater interruptions compared to interruptions
which take place face-to-face (Glushakow, as cited in Smith & Dulay, 2014). Thereby the
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 7

smartphone has the potential to disrupt users in their state of flow and may therefore negatively
reduce the users’ productivity (Duke & Montag, 2017b).
Nonetheless, receiving notifications is not a necessity for the smartphone to be
interruptive. The habit-forming nature of smartphones can be another source of distraction in
the context of flow, as the average person operates the smartphone 88 times per day, which
means the phone is unlocked approximately every 18 minutes (Markowetz, 2015). Habits,
together with the symptoms of addiction such as withdrawal symptoms, as described
previously, can lead users to distract themselves by using the smartphone whilst working on a
task. In a study by Oulasvirta et al. (2012), users who accessed a specific piece of information
on the smartphone, were also likely to use this as a gateway to seek more information or
entertainment on their smartphone, beyond their original goal. Similarly, Kushlev et al. (2016)
argue that while turning off audio or haptic notifications can help some people to have fewer
distractions, others might display increased self-interruptions because they fear to miss
important notifications. Hence, using the smartphone as self-interruption can lead to not
entering, or disrupting the state of flow and therewith potentially reduce productivity.
It is important to note, however, that it is also possible to experience flow in activities
which are not productive but instead have a destructive or addictive nature, or simply are a
waste of time (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). Therewith, one might also experience flow while using
the smartphone (Duke & Montag, 2017b).

The Present Study

Taking this information into consideration, it is the positive influence that frequently
being in a flow state has on one’s meaning of life and positive emotions which makes the
relationship between smartphone addiction tendencies, flow states, and productivity
particularly important to study. Moreover, being more productive and less distracted might lead
to increased efficiency, leaving the individual more time to pursue other interests. Studying the
role that smartphone usage behaviour has on productivity and the frequency of flow states is
therefore crucial. The following research question and sub-questions can be drawn from this:

1. To what extent is the relationship between smartphone addiction risk and inhibited
productivity mediated by the frequency of self-reported flow states?
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 8

a. To what extent is smartphone addiction risk correlated to inhibited

productivity?
b. To what extent are flow states correlated to inhibited productivity?
c. To what extent is smartphone addiction risk correlated to flow states?

Method

Design

A quantitative, cross-sectional design was employed, using a digital Questionnaire.

This study was part of a larger study, including several topics related to smartphone use, only
those topics relevant to this research are described here. Three variables were assessed, namely
smartphone addiction risk, flow proneness and the dependent variable about the degree to
which productivity is inhibited.

Participants

A total of 181 voluntary participants were gathered. Inclusion criteria were sufficient
English language proficiency and the possession of a smartphone, as well as being between 18
and 30 years of age. Participants outside the targeted age range were excluded (n = 2).
Removing partial data resulted in a total of N = 134 participants. The average age of the
participants was 21.91 (SD = 2.25) years. 69% of the participants were female (n = 92) and
31% were males (n = 42). Participants from 12 nationalities were included in the sample, most
participants were German (72 %), Dutch (14 %), and Turkish (4%). The sample consisted of
students (n = 118), employees (n = 12) and others (n = 4).

Materials

An online questionnaire was created using the survey software Qualtrics. The
questionnaire contained demographic questions, namely age, gender, nationality, and
occupation.
In order to assess tendencies towards smartphone addiction, the Smartphone Addiction
Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) was used (Kwon, Kim, et al., 2013) (Appendix A). The SAS-
SV does indicate the risk level but does not diagnose addiction. This questionnaire uses a ten-
item scale where each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale, covering a range from one
(strongly disagree) to six (strongly agree). Several items of the scale were rephrased to a first-
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 9

person format to enhance understanding. For instance, the item “Feeling pain in the wrists or
at the back of the neck while using a smartphone” was reworded into “I feel pain in the wrists
or at the back of the neck while using a smartphone.” Additionally, the item “Constantly
checking my smartphone so as not to miss conversations between other people on Twitter or
Facebook” was changed to “I constantly check my smartphone so as not to miss conversations
between other people on WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook”, to incorporate more recent
instant messaging and social media platforms. The SAS-SV’s internal consistency was verified
by Kwon, Kim, et al. (2013) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91, in this study, Cronbach’s alpha
was .81. Moreover, the original SAS-SV demonstrated concurrent and content validity (Kwon,
Kim, et al., 2013). The 10 items of the SAS-SV were feasible for factor analysis, as the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .85 and Bartlett's test of sphericity was
significant (χ2 (45) = 347.81, p < .001). Two initial Eigenvalues indicated to explain 39% and
12% of the variance, respectively. However, a single factor solution was chosen to fit one single
score of smartphone addiction risk. Factor loadings for the single factor ranged from .39 to .78.
The questionnaire has total scores ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 60, which
indicates the highest risk towards smartphone addiction.
To assess self-reported productivity, two items of the Work Productivity and Activity
Impairment – General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire (Reilly, Zbrozek, & Dukes, 1993)
were adapted to smartphone-related productivity and a third question using the same response
scale was added (Appendix B). The items use a response system on an 11-point Likert scale
from 0 to 10, where 0 was labelled as not at all and 10 was labelled as a great deal. The items
originally ask to what extent health-related problems affected the participant’s productivity at
work, as well as in daily activities, such as housework. A score of zero indicates that
productivity was not at all affected by health, while a score of ten indicates a complete inability
to be productive. In the original questionnaire, both items use term health, which was
exchanged for the word smartphone in this study. A third question about self-reported
productivity was added, asking for the effect of the smartphone on productivity in leisure
activities, for instance, meeting friends. Internal consistency for productivity was acceptable
(α = .73). As the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .58 and Bartlett's test
of sphericity was significant (χ2 (3) = 103.71, p < .001), factor analysis was applied. A single
factor solution explained 65% of the variance and showed that all three items were correlated
strongly to one single component, with factor loadings ranging from .73 to .90. The mean score
of all three items was calculated into one score for productivity, the highest possible score
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 10

being 10 and the lowest score being zero, describing to what extent productivity was inhibited
by the smartphone.
Lastly, the frequency of flow states was examined using the Swedish Flow Proneness
Questionnaire (SFPQ) (Ullén et al., 2012), which is a self-report measure to examine how
frequently participants experience flow in three different areas of life, namely work,
maintenance and leisure. For this study, however, participants were asked to imagine
themselves in their most prominent domain of life and respond to the questions considering the
chosen domain. For example, one item states “how often does it happen that you have a sense
of complete control?” The questionnaire contains 22 items, seven for each life domain. The
seven items aim to resemble the seven main dimensions of flow. Hence, for this study, seven
items were used (Appendix C). Each item follows a response scheme on a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from one (never) to five (every day, or almost daily). One item had to be reversed to
indicate flow proneness. Factor Analysis proved the content validity of the questionnaire and
internal consistency assessed by Cronbach’s alpha was found to be high (α > .80) (Ullén et al.,
2012). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .66. Factor analysis was feasible, indicated by a
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin score of .72 and a significant result of Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2 (21)
= 141.40, p < .001). Initial Eigenvalues showed two factors can account for 36% and 15% of
variance, respectively. A one factor solution was favoured, as a single score of flow proneness
was intended and to keep the integrity of the scale. The items correlated to the one factor with
correlations between .41 and .71, with the exception of one item which had a factor loading of
-.003. Lastly, the mean of all items was used to quantify one single score of flow proneness,
with five being the highest, and one being the lowest possible score.

Procedure

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Behavioural,
Management and Social Sciences of the University of Twente (request number 200335).
Participants were recruited using convenience sampling (e.g. Etikan, 2016). As the
questionnaire was distributed online, participants were able to enter the survey from any device
with a working internet connection, either through the test subject pool website of the
University of Twente, Sona, or they entered the survey via a direct, anonymous link to
Qualtrics. The direct link was distributed by the researchers through instant messengers (e.g.
WhatsApp) and social media (Facebook) among their network(s), aiming for participants in the
targeted age range (below 30 years of age) and participants who are actively using a
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 11

smartphone. The 51 participants who entered the survey via Sona were compensated by gaining
0.25 virtual credit points, the remaining 130 participants were not compensated for their
participation.
First, a brief description of the study was shown to the participants. Afterwards,
anonymity and confidentiality were assured by informed consent, and the participants were
asked to actively give their consent. If consent was denied, participants were not directed to
the questionnaire. First, demographic questions were to be answered, followed by the specific
items to measure smartphone addiction risk, productivity, and frequency of flow. Participants
were also asked to fill out several other questionnaires for other research. After completion of
the questionnaire, the participants were thanked for their participation and informed that their
responses were collected.

Data Analysis

All analyses were done using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 for Windows-PC. First,
descriptive statistics were calculated to illustrate participants demographic information. The
data were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test. Gender differences in SAS-SV scores
were examined using a Mann-Whitney-U test to see whether previous findings apply to the
current sample. Due to the non-parametric distribution of the data, a series of Spearman’s Rho
correlations were run to answer sub-question a, b and c about the relationship between
smartphone addiction risk, flow proneness and inhibited productivity. A correlation was
considered weak (.10), moderate (.30) or strong (.50) (Cohen, 1988). Lastly, to answer the main
research question about a mediation effect of flow proneness on the relationship between
smartphone addiction risk and inhibited productivity, the SPSS add-on PROCESS (Hayes,
2013) was used, applying a 95% confidence interval using 5000 bootstrap samples. A
mediation effect was present when the confidence interval of the indirect effect did not include
zero.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The average score for smartphone addiction risk was 29.94 (SD = 8.26). The respective
means for females and males were 29.92 (SD = 7.92) and 29.97 (SD = 9.08), however, this
difference was non-significant (U = 1929.00, z = -.01, p = .99). These average scores fall
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 12

beneath the suggested cut-off score of 31 for males and 33 for females for a high-risk of
smartphone addiction (Kwon, Kim, et al., 2013). Nonetheless, split by gender, 19 males (45%)
and 29 females (32%) exceeded the respective cut-off scores. The result indicates that the mean
of smartphone addiction risk in this sample inclined towards a high-risk of smartphone
addiction. The smartphone addiction scale was validated by Kwon, Kim, et al. (2013), who
found the mean score for females was 27.89 and for males 23.75 in their sample of 540 South
Korean high school students. In contrast, the average score in this study was two points higher
for females and six points higher for males.
The mean score of flow proneness was 3.35 (SD = .47). This average score indicates a
slight tendency toward flow proneness, as the maximum score obtainable is five. The score in
this study was slightly lower than in the original sample used to validate the SFPQ (3.56) (Ullén
et al., 2012). Still, the scores are comparable.
Lastly, the average score on inhibited productivity was 4.20 (SD = 2.08), which
suggests that in this sample, the participants perceived to be inhibited in productivity by their
smartphone by around 42% on average.

Correlations

All three variables were not distributed normally, as the Shapiro-Wilk test indicated a
significant difference from normality of data for smartphone addiction risk, W(134) = .98, p =
.04, flow proneness, W(134) = .96, p < .001, and inhibited productivity ,W(134) = .96, p = .001.
Hence, Spearman’s Rho correlations were feasible.

Sub-question 1a.

There was a strong positive correlation between smartphone addiction risk and the
degree to which productivity is inhibited, rs(132) = .55, p < .001. Accordingly, higher scores
on smartphone addiction risk are associated with more inhibited productivity.

Sub-question 1b.

Flow proneness and the degree to which productivity is inhibited were found to
correlate moderately negative, rs(132) = -.32, p < .001. Thus, higher scores on flow proneness
are related to less inhibited productivity.
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 13

Sub-question 1c.

Smartphone addiction risk and flow proneness showed a weak negative correlation,
rs(132) = -.21, p = .01. Hence, higher scores on smartphone addiction risk are associated with
less flow proneness.

Mediation

The relationship between smartphone addiction risk and the degree to which
productivity was inhibited was mediated by flow proneness. As can be seen in Table 1 and
Figure 1, smartphone addiction risk was significantly associated with inhibited productivity
both without controlling for flow (path c) and with controlling for flow (path c’), while the
standardized coefficient was reduced by around 10% when flow was included. Still, the
relationship remained significant, which indicates that there was no full mediation. Participants
who had higher tendencies towards smartphone addiction also experienced slightly less flow
(path a) and participants who were more prone to flow states experienced less inhibited
productivity (path b).
The standardized indirect effect was (-.272)(-.176) = .048. The bootstrap confidence
interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples showed the unstandardized indirect effect of
smartphone addiction risk on inhibited productivity through flow proneness (ab = .012) was
significant, as it was entirely above zero (.0019 to .0246). Thus, indicating a mediation effect.
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 14

Table 1
Results of the different pathways in the simple mediation model.

Coefficients Model
Path B β SE t p F R2
a -.015 -.272 .005 -3.25 .001 (1, 132) 10.57* .07
b -.778 -.176 .324 -2.40 .017 (2, 131) 35.15* .35
c (total effect) .143 .566 .018 7.89 <.001 (1, 132) 62.26* .32
c’ (direct effect) .130 .518 .019 7.07 <.001 (2, 131) 35.15* .35
Note. Degrees of freedom for the corresponding F-value are in parentheses. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; β =
standardized regression coefficient.
* p < .05.

Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between smartphone addiction risk,
flow proneness and productivity and more specifically, whether the relationship between
smartphone addiction risk and productivity was mediated by flow proneness. All three
constructs were associated with each other, although the strengths of these correlations
differed. The association between smartphone addiction risk and inhibited productivity turned
out to be strong, while flow proneness and inhibited productivity were found to correlate
moderately. Smartphone addiction risk and flow proneness were associated weakly. The results
indicated that flow proneness mediated the relationship between smartphone addiction risk and
inhibited productivity, however, this effect was rather small.

Main Findings

Smartphone addiction risk was strongly correlated to inhibited productivity in this

study. Individuals with a higher smartphone addiction risk were found to be stronger inhibited
in their productivity. The strong correlation in this study favours the results of Duke and
Montag (2017b), who reported a moderate correlation between smartphone addiction
tendencies and productivity. The association can be explained in light of prior research about
the smartphone’s effect on productivity (Kushlev et al., 2016) and cognitive capacities
(Thornton et al., 2014; Ward et al., 2017), which is stronger in highly dependent individuals
(Ward et al., 2017). Considering the proposed U-shaped relationship between smartphone use
and productivity (Montag & Walla, 2016), the findings suggest that being at risk of smartphone
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 15

addiction might be beyond the inflection point, significantly decreasing productivity.

A further finding was that the degree to which a participant was prone to experience
flow states was moderately correlated to inhibited productivity. Participants who were more
prone to experience flow showed a lower tendency to be inhibited productivity. This result
supports the finding that increased concentration was associated with flow states
(Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989), as well as the proposed direct link between flow and
productivity (Duke & Montag, 2017b).
Nonetheless, the relationship was of moderate nature. Productivity is perhaps not only
dependent on experiencing flow, but one can also be less disturbed in one’s productivity by the
smartphone due to other factors. For instance, simply having the phone in another area,
physically separated, might help people to be less inhibited in productivity. Physically
separating the phone was demonstrated to make more cognitive capacities available (Ward et
al., 2017). While this, on the other hand, might make some individuals more nervous due to
possible withdrawal symptoms or a fear of missing out (Kushlev et al., 2016).
As it is crucial to be uninterrupted to experience flow states (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014;
Montag & Walla, 2016), a tendency towards smartphone addiction could be expected to hinder
experiences of flow. This was the case in the current study; surprisingly, however, the effect
was relatively small. Still, higher tendencies towards smartphone addiction were negatively
associated with flow states, meaning that people who experienced a higher tendency towards
smartphone addiction showed less proneness to experience flow. This finding is in line with a
study which found that smartphone addiction levels were associated with lower levels of
learning flow (Lee et al., 2015). Frequent habitual checking-behaviour and self-interruptions
(Kushlev et al., 2016; Markowetz, 2015; Oulasvirta et al., 2012), as well as the immediate
attending of notifications (Chang et al., 2017) offer plausible explanations for this finding.
Yet, the rather weak correlation raises questions. As no causal evidence can be derived
from the current study, it might be due to the potential to experience flow during activities
which are addictive (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999), that some individuals were, in fact, more prone
to experience flow while using their smartphone. This might have decreased the overall
strength of the association, as in the latter case, the relationship would be positive and not
negative. Another possible explanation might be that participants in this study did, on average,
not exceed the cut-off threshold for actual high-risk of smartphone addiction and therefore
might use their smartphone a lot but not to an extent which strongly hinders experiences of
flow. The results may be clearer when the sample actually falls stronger within the high-risk
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 16

category. Additionally, as discussed in the limitations below, the author tentatively suggests
the measurement of flow proneness as a possible explanation for the weak association.
While smartphone addiction, flow proneness, and inhibited productivity were all
associated in a bivariate nature, this study ought to illustrate all three concepts in a single
framework. The results indicated that the relationship between smartphone addiction risk and
inhibited productivity was partially mediated by flow proneness. This provides evidence for
the line of argumentation made by Duke and Montag (2017b), who stated that smartphones
might interrupt users in their state of flow and consequently reduce their productivity. In line
with prior research (Lee et al., 2015), this study found smartphone addiction tendencies being
related to less flow proneness, possibly due to habitual self-interruptions (Kushlev et al., 2016;
Markowetz, 2015; Oulasvirta et al., 2012) as flow states require long periods of
uninterruptedness. Moreover, less experience of flow was found to result in a higher loss of
productivity. The mediating role of flow in this framework suggests that the habitual use of
smartphones has the potential to undermine an individual’s ability to experience flow and
substantially affect productivity as a result. As productivity was assessed in terms of the extent
to which the smartphone affects it, this finding indicates that flow might, to a certain extent,
prevent the negative consequences that the smartphone has on self-reported productivity.
Therefore, supporting Ara et al. (2009) in their proposal that helping people to experience more
flow will result in more productive work. Flow states can, on the one hand, be promoted by
less phone usage and one the other hand, they can enhance productivity. This underscores the
crucial role that smartphone usage behaviour has. Being more conscious about the frequency
one picks up the phone is important in order to avoid constant distractions and be able to
achieve such states of flow to work more efficiently. As smartphones are widely prevalent in
today’s life, buffering its’ negative effects, particularly in the work environment, is crucial.
Thus, achieving an increase in flow states might be a possible tool against the threat of impaired
productivity due to the phone. One should strive to achieve more of these flow states, as this
can be very beneficial, not only for one’s productivity but also because flow states can lead to
more positive feelings in general (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).
The indirect effect of flow was, however, rather small and might not be sufficient to be
fully conclusive; flow did not fully explain this relationship. Hence, other factors also play a
role in explaining why individuals who are increasingly addicted to their smartphone are less
productive. In light of research which suggests a deficit in inhibitory control in excessive
smartphone users (Chen, Liang, Mai, Zhong, & Qu, 2016), one possible factor might be self-
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 17

control. Individuals with higher addiction tendencies might be less in control of their
smartphone usage and therefore experience a loss of productivity. Furthermore, Duke and
Montag (2017b) found a mediating effect of the hours lost due to smartphone use on the
relationship between smartphone addiction level and productivity, indicating that the actual
time spent on the phone is an important element. Another possible factor could be the fear of
missing out. Individuals who are addicted to their phone might particularly cherish the social
functions of the smartphone and increasingly use it to prevent from missing out any important
information. This assumption seems credible considering findings that fear of missing out was
strongly associated with problematic smartphone use and particularly social use of the
smartphone (Wolniewicz, Tiamiyu, Weeks, & Elhai, 2018). Thereby, these individuals might
experience a significant decrease in productivity because they fear to miss out on something
while working. Similarly, attention span and working memory capacity might also play a role,
as smartphones, with all their distracting features, can lead to less available cognitive capacities
(Ward et al., 2017) and might, in turn, lead to less productive working.
Nonetheless, considering the associations found in this study, no causal evidence was
examined, and alternative explanations are also plausible. It might be possible that individuals
who are not being productive start to use their phones more often, consequently leading to
higher addiction tendencies. Similarly, it might also be that individuals who are generally
working more productively are consequently able to experience states of flow more often. They
might, for instance, display more self-control, as studies have found that differences in self-
control can account for differences in managing distractions (Mark, Czerwinski, & Iqbal, 2018;
Mark, Iqbal, & Czerwinski, 2017). High self-control might result in allowing fewer
distractions, therewith enabling flow states more often.
Lastly, another noteworthy finding was the increased average result of the SAS-SV
compared to the original study. At the same time, it likewise did not exceed the cut-off
threshold for a high risk of smartphone addiction. This difference might be explained by a
different cultural background as well as a different age group; while Kwon, Kim, et al. (2013)
assessed junior high school students from South Korea, this study consisted of adults with a
European background. High-school students might be regulated by parents in their smartphone
use, which does not apply to adults. Moreover, smartphone addiction risk in South Korea
perhaps differs compared to Europe.
Contrary to the original study (Kwon, Kim, et al., 2013), no significant gender
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 18

difference was found in this study, which might be due to the smaller sample size and a
difference in gender distribution in the current sample.

Strengths and Limitations

A particular strength of this study was the sample, which consisted of adults between
18 and 30 years of age. This age group grew up using smartphones and most individuals this
age have a very tight relationship to their phones. As the prevalence of smartphones will likely
increase in the future, studying this age group can give insight into how the relationship
between the smartphone, flow states and productivity is developing, also in future generations.
As this generation grows older and is in its active working years, having ideas about their
smartphone use and its diverse effects will become increasingly important for them and their
employers.
A further strength is that this study might, to the best of the authors' knowledge, be one
of the first to provide evidence for a relationship between smartphone addiction risk, flow and
productivity. While this relationship has been suggested before (Duke & Montag, 2017a,
2017b), research so far focused on either the relationship between smartphone addiction level
and learning flow (Lee et al., 2015), smartphone addiction and productivity (Duke & Montag,
2017b), or flow and productivity (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989), but did not examine all
three in a single framework.
Still, some limitations apply to this study. One limitation to be mentioned are the
psychometric properties of the Swedish Flow Proneness Questionnaire (SFPQ). The reliability
was rather low (α = .66) and one item did not properly function with the one-factor solution.
However, this item was not removed as the seven items of this questionnaire all add to the
content validity of this scale. Each of the seven items is meant to measure a distinct dimension
of flow and could therefore not be removed. A possible explanation for the low psychometric
properties might be the difference in how this questionnaire was administered. The original
SFPQ is intended to measure flow in three distinct dimensions of life. Hence, all seven items
are used three times in three different contexts. In this study, in order to keep the overall
questionnaire as user-friendly and short as possible, only one of these three dimensions was
used, and each item was only used once, possibly leading to the difference in psychometric
properties and reliability. This perhaps contributed to the rather weak correlation between SAS-
SV results and flow, and the small mediation effect.
A further point that needs to be mentioned in terms of limitations applies to the general
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 19

quantifications of the three variables measured. All three concepts, smartphone addiction risk,
flow proneness and productivity are rather complex phenomena, which might be difficult to
capture in their true extent using self-report questionnaires. Using self-report measures can be
problematic in terms of reliability, as individuals often do not recall past events correctly or
experience distorted or biased perceptions (see Montag, Duke, & Markowetz, 2016).
Moreover, using a single score for smartphone addiction risk does indicate usage tendencies
but does not offer insight into more specific factors, such as how the smartphone is used while
working, or quantification of the actual time spent on the phone.
Another limitation applies concerning the gender distribution of the current sample.
The vast majority of participants was female (70%) and thus, male participants were
underrepresented. Also, the cross-sectional design did not allow for any causal evidence,
therefore, one has to keep in mind the correlational nature of the findings. Lastly, the current
study was conducted during the acute COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Social life in Germany
and the Netherlands, where participants mostly came from, dramatically changed due to a lock-
down. This different situation might have led participants to answer the survey questions
differently than this would have been the case under other circumstances. For instance, most
people had to work from home and reduce social contacts to a minimum. As a result,
participants were potentially more drawn to use their phone, as it was the central tool to
maintain social relationships. Moreover, when working in isolation one is not observed by
others, potentially more inclined to use the phone more often. Therefore, SAS-SV scores were
potentially inflated.

Future Research

While this study certainly introduces underlying tendencies between smartphone

addiction risk, flow proneness, and productivity, future research should shed a more
differentiated light when exploring these concepts more objectively. For instance, capturing
the frequency of unlocking the smartphone and its’ overall usage time might give conclusive
evidence of which of these two actions have a greater negative impact on both flow and
productivity. Similarly, productivity in this study was assessed by asking for the extent to
which the smartphone affected productivity in three different areas of life. While this was
sufficient for the scope of this study, other designs could be favourable. On the one hand, an
observational study, giving participants a task while introducing different levels of distractions
by the phone might be more conclusive. On the other hand, a longitudinal design, using several
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 20

points in time to collect data could provide more causal evidence.

Furthermore, future research could investigate specific personality features (such as
self-control) when examining the effect of smartphone addiction risk on flow proneness and
productivity, as this might yield interesting results which could help people to achieve more
states of flow. In a similar vein, it might be interesting to further study the motivation and cause
of using the smartphone while working on a task, as this can give more insight into how to
prevent such behaviour from arising.
While this study captured the perhaps most impacted age range, it would be interesting
to compare the results between different age cohorts. Specifically, comparing how the
relationship between smartphone addiction risk, flow and productivity may differ compared to
older individuals, where it would be expected that smartphones are less prevalent and perhaps
less addictive, as has been suggested before (Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016). Also, it could
be interesting whether the mediating effect of flow on the relationship between smartphone
addiction tendencies and productivity is increased in a generation, where notifications by the
smartphone are a rather recent experience.

Practical Implications

Smartphones are virtually used everywhere and while they are certainly a helpful tool,
this does not apply to every situation. In a very fast-moving society, the relationship with the
smartphone deserves our attention, as it is inconceivable that their prevalence will decrease
anytime soon. This study gave some more insight into the effect the smartphone can have on
one’s flow proneness and productivity. It became clear that, while not all of these effects may
be tremendously strong, our productivity and flow proneness are significantly related to
smartphone addiction risk. Certainly, to get work done more efficiently, it can only be
beneficial to enter flow states more often. However, to get there, one would be advised to be
conscious about the relationship with the smartphone and to put the smartphone out of sight
when trying to achieve an environment in which one can experience flow and be more
productive.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to illustrate the interrelatedness between tendencies towards
smartphone addiction, flow proneness, and productivity. All three concepts were related to
each other. A negative relationship between smartphone addiction risk and flow proneness was
evident but rather weak, while flow and productivity were moderately associated. A strong
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 21

negative correlation was found between smartphone addiction risk and productivity. This
relationship between smartphone addiction risk and productivity was, to a certain extent,
mediated by flow proneness. Hence, one’s smartphone use does not leave flow states and
productivity unaffected. Being able to enter states of flow more often can lead to more
productive working, while smartphone addiction tendencies not only negatively relate to
productivity directly but also through the frequency of experiencing states of flow.
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 22

References

Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2014). Momentary interruptions can
derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1),
215-226. doi:10.1037/a0030986
Anshari, M., Alas, Y., Hardaker, G., Jaidin, J. H., Smith, M., & Ahad, A. D. (2016).
Smartphone habit and behavior in Brunei: Personalization, gender, and generation
gap. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 719-727. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.063
Ara, K., Sato, N., Tsuji, S., Wakisaka, Y., Ohkubo, N., Horry, Y., . . . Hayakawa, M. (2009,
17-19 June 2009). Predicting flow state in daily work through continuous sensing of
motion rhythm. Paper presented at the 2009 Sixth International Conference on
Networked Sensing Systems (INSS).
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really
multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 927-931. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
Chang, Y.-J., Chung, Y.-J., Shih, Y.-H., Chang, H.-C., & Lin, T.-H. (2017). What do
smartphone users do when they sense phone notifications? Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and
Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium
on Wearable Computers, Maui, Hawaii. doi:10.1145/3123024.3124557
Chen, J., Liang, Y., Mai, C., Zhong, X., & Qu, C. (2016). General Deficit in Inhibitory
Control of Excessive Smartphone Users: Evidence from an Event-Related Potential
Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(511). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00511
Cheng, F.-C., & Wang, Y. S. (2018). The do not track mechanism for digital footprint
privacy protection in marketing applications. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 19(2), 253-267.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren't we happy? American Psychologist,
54(10), 821-827. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.821
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Play and Intrinsic Rewards. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow
and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 135-153). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 23

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological

studies of flow in consciousness: Cambridge university press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 56(5), 815-822.
Duke, É., & Montag, C. (2017a). Smartphone Addiction and Beyond: Initial Insights on an
Emerging Research Topic and Its Relationship to Internet Addiction. In C. Montag &
M. Reuter (Eds.), Internet Addiction: Neuroscientific Approaches and Therapeutical
Implications Including Smartphone Addiction (pp. 359-372). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Duke, É., & Montag, C. (2017b). Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported
productivity. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6, 90-95. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1. doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
İNal, E. E., Demİrcİ, k., Çetİntürk, A., Akgönül, M., & Savaş, S. (2015). Effects of
smartphone overuse on hand function, pinch strength, and the median nerve. Muscle
& Nerve, 52(2), 183-188. doi:10.1002/mus.24695
Iqbal, S. T., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study,
analysis, and directions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA.
doi:10.1145/1240624.1240730
Kang, S., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2019). Reach for your cell phone at your own risk: The
cognitive costs of media choice for breaks. Journal of behavioral addictions, 8(3),
395-403. doi:10.1556/2006.8.2019.21
Kushlev, K., Proulx, J., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). “Silence Your Phones”: Smartphone
Notifications Increase Inattention and Hyperactivity Symptoms. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
San Jose, California, USA. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858359
Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale:
development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLOS ONE, 8(12),
e83558-e83558. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083558
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 24

Kwon, M., Lee, J.-Y., Won, W.-Y., Park, J.-W., Min, J.-A., Hahn, C., . . . Kim, D.-J. (2013).
Development and Validation of a Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS). PLOS ONE,
8(2), e56936. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056936
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already
depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.01.001
Lee, J., Cho, B., Kim, Y., & Noh, J. (2015, 2015//). Smartphone Addiction in University
Students and Its Implication for Learning. Paper presented at the Emerging Issues in
Smart Learning, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lin, Y.-H., Lin, S.-H., Yang, C. C. H., & Kuo, T. B. J. (2017). Psychopathology of Everyday
Life in the 21st Century: Smartphone Addiction. In C. Montag & M. Reuter (Eds.),
Internet Addiction: Neuroscientific Approaches and Therapeutical Implications
Including Smartphone Addiction (pp. 339-358). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Mark, G., Czerwinski, M., & Iqbal, S. T. (2018). Effects of Individual Differences in Blocking
Workplace Distractions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal QC, Canada.
doi:10.1145/3173574.3173666
Mark, G., Iqbal, S., & Czerwinski, M. (2017). How blocking distractions affects workplace
focus and productivity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM
International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers,
Maui, Hawaii. doi:10.1145/3123024.3124558
Markowetz, A. (2015). Digitaler Burnout: warum unsere permanente Smartphone-Nutzung
gefährlich ist. München: Droemer eBook.
Montag, C., Duke, É., & Markowetz, A. (2016). Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer
Science Meets Psychology. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine,
2016, 2983685. doi:10.1155/2016/2983685
Montag, C., & Walla, P. (2016). Carpe diem instead of losing your social mind: Beyond
digital addiction and why we all suffer from digital overuse. Cogent Psychology, 3(1),
1157281. doi:10.1080/23311908.2016.1157281
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 25

Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more
pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105-114. doi:10.1007/s00779-
011-0412-2
Reilly, M. C., Zbrozek, A. S., & Dukes, E. M. (1993). The Validity and Reproducibility of a
Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument. PharmacoEconomics, 4(5),
353-365. doi:10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006
Roberts, J. A., Yaya, L. H. P., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: cell-phone
activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of
behavioral addictions, 3(4), 254-265. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015
Samaha, M., & Hawi, N. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress,
academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior, 57,
321-325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.045
Smith, J., & Dulay, N. (2014, 24-28 March 2014). RingLearn: Long-term mitigation of
disruptive smartphone interruptions. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE International
Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PERCOM
WORKSHOPS).
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2016). 81 % der Internetnutzer gehen per Handy oder Smartphone
ins Internet [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2016/12/PD16_430_63931.ht
ml
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The Mere Presence of a Cell
Phone May be Distracting: Implications for Attention and Task Performance. Social
Psychology, 45, 479-488. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
Ullén, F., de Manzano, Ö., Almeida, R., Magnusson, P. K. E., Pedersen, N. L., Nakamura, J.,
. . . Madison, G. (2012). Proneness for psychological flow in everyday life:
Associations with personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52(2), 167-172. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.003
van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2015).
Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage
types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender.
Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411-420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 26

Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of
One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the
Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140-154. doi:10.1086/691462
Wolniewicz, C. A., Tiamiyu, M. F., Weeks, J. W., & Elhai, J. D. (2018). Problematic
smartphone use and relations with negative affect, fear of missing out, and fear of
negative and positive evaluation. Psychiatry Research, 262, 618-623.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2017.09.058
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Blau, M. (2016). Cross-generational analysis of predictive factors
of addictive behavior in smartphone usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 682-
693. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.061
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 27

Appendix A
Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version

Questionnaire Items

Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following ten statements concerning your
smartphone use.

I miss planned work due to smartphone use.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 28

I have a hard time concentrating in class, while doing assignments, or while working due to
smartphone use.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

I feel pain in the wrists or at the back of the neck while using a smartphone.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 29

I won’t be able to stand not having a smartphone.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

I feel impatient and fretful when I am not holding my smartphone.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 30

I have my smartphone in my mind even when I am not using it.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

I will never give up using my smartphone even when my daily life is already greatly affected by it.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 31

I constantly check my smartphone so as not to miss conversations between other people on

WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

I use my smartphone longer than I had intended.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 32

The people around me tell me that I use my smartphone too much.

o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Weakly Disagree
o Weakly Agree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 33

Appendix B
Productivity

Questionnaire Items

During the past 7 days how much did your smartphone use affect your productivity while you were
studying and/or working?

o 0 Not at all
o1
o2
o3
o4
o5
o6
o7
o8
o9
o 10 A great deal
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 34

During the past 7 days how much did your smartphone use affect your ability to do regular daily
activities, e.g. housework?

o 0 Not at all
o1
o2
o3
o4
o5
o6
o7
o8
o9
o 10 A great deal
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 35

During the past 7 days how much did your smartphone use affect your ability to engage in leisure
activities, e.g. doing sports or meeting friends?

o 0 Not at all
o1
o2
o3
o4
o5
o6
o7
o8
o9
o 10 A great deal
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 36

Appendix C
Flow Proneness

Questionnaire Items

Please think of a domain of your life where you work most for (e.g. University, Job, ... ). How often
does it happen that ...

... you feel bored?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday

... it feels as if your ability to perform what you do completely matches how difficult it is?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 37

…you have a clear picture of what you want to achieve, and what you need to do to get there?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday

…you are conscious of how well or poorly you perform what you are doing?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday

...you feel completely concentrated?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday
SMARTPHONE USE, FLOW, AND PRODUCTIVITY 38

...you have a sense of complete control?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday

...what you do feels extremely enjoyable to do?

o Never
o Rarely
o Sometimes
o Often
o Everyday, or almost everyday