"Based on the suggested cut-off scores from 31 to 33 (García-Manglano et al., 2021; Kwon et al., 2013), between 29% and 31% of the sample would be considered at a high risk of addiction. Similar prevalence rates have
SEX, AGE, AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION 6
been found in samples under 25 years old (14 to 31%, Sohn et al., 2019) and in a global survey of problematic smartphone use in adults with an average age of 26 (28%, Kalaitzaki et al., 2022)."
I initially read the title as "Sex (Addiction), Age (Addiction), and Smartphone Addiction [...]" - then I realized "Age Addiction" sounds strange, and they probably meant "Smartphone Addiction by Sex and Age"?
The Oxford comma (comma before "and") made it clearer for me. In contrast, "Sex, Age and Smartphone Addiction" would more likely lead me to the same conclusion as you.
As someone who always uses the Oxford comma in personal writing, works for an organization whose style guide forbids it, and therefore feels quite ambidextrous on the matter: this isn't one of the cases where it should affect the interpretation. Such cases absolutely do exist, though, like when a comma can serve as either a delimiter within a series or a way to offset clarification.
I am relieved to be way below the average but that was kinda expected as I have most notification but instant messages silenced and am mostly only using the browser on my phone and closed all social media accounts but a fediverse one.
And I would totally use it less and leave it at home more if it wasn't for my partner complaining when I am not answering her messages and calls.
This, to me, is a massive part of what’s wrong with smartphone and internet use in general. We want to believe it’s efficient, but I have the distinct sense that over 90% of what people do on smart phones is likely an unnecessary activity that interferes with things in their lives that are actually important.
Does it make wasting time or doing things we like efficient? Sure. Is it efficient to make these activities a big part of our lives? Maybe not.
I'm not saying it's necessary or efficient for all activities, but it means I can talk to people on the road, face time the kids with grandparents, respond to that important email at the soccer game, etc. Are these things necessary? No. But they help me accomplish goals I care about faster.
I agree. This test works well for me because I don’t have an internet problem so much as an “I need to keep my phone hidden” problem. On a computer, I partition time a lot more effectively and enjoy doing work on them. I regulate myself a lot better. On a phone, I do dumb things and I do it for too long. It’s a de-stressing habit that doesn’t work well, but is too easy to fall into.
I can see that for someone who has issues with internet or screen use in general, this survey would only be touching on a facet of the larger problem here, and it wouldn’t be entirely helpful to the surveyor or the surveyed.
It's hard to fault a study that is essentially a release of raw data collected with minimal analysis. It appears transparent with its methods as well as its biggest limitation (self-selected participants).
Still I wonder if the survey they administered is really measuring smartphone addiction vs social media addiction and smartphones happen to be the most convenient delivery mechanism. This makes the participant selection limitation a bigger issue because the paper says participants learned of the study through social media among other methods.
17 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] thread"Based on the suggested cut-off scores from 31 to 33 (García-Manglano et al., 2021; Kwon et al., 2013), between 29% and 31% of the sample would be considered at a high risk of addiction. Similar prevalence rates have SEX, AGE, AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION 6 been found in samples under 25 years old (14 to 31%, Sohn et al., 2019) and in a global survey of problematic smartphone use in adults with an average age of 26 (28%, Kalaitzaki et al., 2022)."
https://www.healthyscreens.com/scale
And I would totally use it less and leave it at home more if it wasn't for my partner complaining when I am not answering her messages and calls.
Understanding that a smartphone is a requirement for an efficient modern daily life doesn't seem like an indicator for addiction to me.
Does it make wasting time or doing things we like efficient? Sure. Is it efficient to make these activities a big part of our lives? Maybe not.
I can see that for someone who has issues with internet or screen use in general, this survey would only be touching on a facet of the larger problem here, and it wouldn’t be entirely helpful to the surveyor or the surveyed.
Still I wonder if the survey they administered is really measuring smartphone addiction vs social media addiction and smartphones happen to be the most convenient delivery mechanism. This makes the participant selection limitation a bigger issue because the paper says participants learned of the study through social media among other methods.