In recent years, there has been much effort to understand whether and when smartphone use is beneficial or detrimental to our well-being. Much of the previous research has found smartphone use to be related to lower levels of well-being (Khan, 2008; Augner and Hacker, 2012; Hall and Baym, 2012; Gentile et al., 2013; Harwood et al., 2014; Lepp et al., 2015; Roberts and David, 2016). However, the majority of research examining how smartphone use relates to well-being has focused on the amount of time that people spend on their screens: Those who spend more time in front of a screen have been shown to have lower levels of well-being (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017; Twenge et al., 2018). Importantly, this relationship appears to be nonlinear, with those who spend a moderate amount of time on a mobile device having higher levels of well-being compared to those who spend no time or an excessive amount of time on their devices (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017; Twenge and Campbell, 2019). Other evidence, however, suggests that the overall effect of screentime on well-being is negligible (Orben and Przybylski, 2019). Thus, recent research has shifted from examining the effects of simple screentime toward examining how the different ways in which people use their smartphones affect well-being.

The Displacement–Interference–Complementarity Framework, for example, posits three distinct mechanisms about how smartphones affect well-being (Kushlev and Leitao, 2020). First, the Displacement Hypothesis posits that phone use will relate to well-being to the extent that it replaces time spent doing other activities. For example, using one’s phone to replace face-to-face interactions—an established factor in higher well-being—may relate to lower levels of well-being (McDaniel et al., 2021). Conversely, phone use should relate to higher levels of well-being if it replaces time spent engaging in activities that are detrimental to well-being, such as ruminating on problems (Li et al., 2021). In this case, the displacement caused by the smartphone would allow for less time spent on the detrimental activity, thus improving one’s well-being.

The second mechanism, termed the Interference Hypothesis, states that phone use will relate to well-being to the extent that it interferes with concurrent activities. Past research suggests that distraction can be an effective emotion regulation strategy at least in the short term, dampening the impact of both positive (Quoidbach et al., 2010) and negative events (Sheppes and Meiran, 2007). Thus, people distracted by their smartphones during face-to-face interactions, for example, have been shown to experience lower levels of well-being (David et al., 2015; Kushlev et al., 2016; Roberts and David, 2016; Dwyer et al., 2018; Kushlev and Dunn, 2019). However, just as with the displacement hypothesis, it is possible that interference from smartphones will benefit well-being if it interferes with harmful activities. For example, if one is ruminating on a problem outside of their control, an alert or notification from their smartphone may break the cycle, thus allowing them to direct their attention to more beneficial activities.

Finally, the Complementarity Hypothesis posits that phone use will relate to well-being to the extent that it provides information or opportunities not otherwise available. For example, using a phone to stay in touch with others who are not geographically close would relate to higher levels of well-being (Neustaedter and Greenberg, 2012; Hampton et al., 2017; Holtzman et al., 2021). It is also possible, though, that complementary phone use would relate to lower levels of well-being if it allows for greater access to information or engagement in activities that are harmful to well-being, such as access to disturbing news stories or receiving negative feedback on a social media post.

Overall, the Displacement–Interference–Complementarity Framework states that smartphones will affect well-being in different ways depending on how and when they are used. The COVID-19 Pandemic drastically changed the ways in which we use our smartphones. That is, our social environments were suddenly changed at the onset of the Pandemic, thereby reducing the activities that phone use could replace or interfere with and enhancing the importance of phone use to maintain social contact. Therefore, it is important to consider how this global phenomenon has influenced the relationship between smartphone use and well-being.

The onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic drastically altered every aspect of people’s lives around the world. In the United States, a total of 42 states issued an official and mandatory stay-at-home order by the end of May 2020 (Moreland et al., 2020), thereby limiting social interactions with others to (a) those with whom one shares a dwelling or (b) those with whom one interacts via digital devices. As a result of this, the importance of mobile phones skyrocketed during this time. Indeed, people appear to be spending more time on their phones compared to pre-pandemic times, with one study finding a 10-h increase in weekly recreational screentime from pre-pandemic to pandemic times in children (McArthur et al., 2021). But how does this increased reliance on smartphones during the COVID-19 Pandemic relate to well-being?

In terms of the Displacement Hypothesis, it is possible that the increased screentime during times of social distancing may relate to lower levels of well-being as research has shown that high levels of screentime predict lower well-being and mental health (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017; Twenge and Campbell, 2019). Indeed, higher levels of screentime have been shown to be related to poorer mental health during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Smith et al., 2020). Furthermore, smartphone use during the COVID-19 Pandemic has been shown to be related to poorer sleep quality and duration (Islam et al., 2021; Koban et al., 2022), which could have negative effects on well-being (Mac Cárthaigh et al., 2020). However, this effect may not be as prominent during the COVID-19 Pandemic, seeing as those who work from home experience greater flexibility in their schedules and are not bound by the typical 8-h workday (Fukumura et al., 2021; Routley, 2021; Koban et al., 2022). It is also possible that smartphone use may increase levels of well-being as people use it as an escape from the stressful life events surrounding the COVID-19 Pandemic (de Freitas et al., 2022; Potas et al., 2022). That is, people may be using their smartphones to replace time spent ruminating on the personal and global issues surrounding the Pandemic, thus mitigating the effects of COVID-19 related rumination.

Similarly, smartphone interference has been shown to be related to lower levels of well-being (David et al., 2015; Kushlev et al., 2016; Roberts and David, 2016; Kushlev and Dunn, 2019). For example, work-related email notifications have been shown to interfere with leisure activities outside of work hours (Derks and Bakker, 2014; Derks et al., 2015), which can reduce levels of well-being and the quality of time spent with family (Belkin et al., 2016). This effect could be heightened during the COVID-19 Pandemic as the lines between work and leisure have become less distinct (Routley, 2021). However, just as with the Displacement Hypothesis, the increased schedule flexibility, both in work and personal lives, may result in a reduced perception of interference, thus mitigating the negative effects of smartphone interference on well-being.

Finally, in line with the Complementarity Hypothesis, mobile phone use could benefit well-being by giving people the opportunity to interact with others when face-to-face interaction is not available. Indeed, people have been able to receive sufficient social support via online interactions during the pandemic, thus increasing levels of well-being (Canale et al., 2020). Furthermore, David and Roberts (2021) found that social distancing was related to lower levels of social connection and well-being, but only for those who had low levels of smartphone use. In contrast, those who used their smartphones more frequently did not experience lower levels of social connection and well-being as a result of social distancing. In other words, smartphone use mitigated the negative effect of social distancing on well-being. Consistent with the Complementarity Hypothesis, then, smartphone use may relate to higher levels of well-being by providing access to social support and communication that would otherwise not be available due to the social distancing measures during the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, it is also possible that the increased access to information related to the COVID-19 Pandemic afforded by smartphones will relate to lower levels of well-being. Indeed, previous research has found that the constant access to news about the COVID-19 Pandemic was related to higher levels of anxiety and psychological distress (Stainback et al., 2020). Therefore, it is possible that using one’s smartphone to access information that would otherwise not be available would relate to lower levels of well-being if the information that is being provided is distressing.

While there is a large amount of interest in examining the role of digital media during the COVID-19 Pandemic, no research has examined the moderating role of social distancing in the relationship between smartphone use and well-being. As such, the current study focuses on two primary research questions:

RQ1: How does mobile phone use relate to well-being during the COVID-19 Pandemic?

To gain a cohesive understanding of how smartphone use relates to well-being, we examine smartphone use through the lens of the Displacement-Interference-Complementarity Hypothesis. That is, how does the extent to which phone use (a) displaces time spent doing other activities, (b) interferes with concurrent activities, and (c) complements concurrent activities relate to well-being, and what is the role of social distancing in these relationships? Much of the previous research has found displacement and interference to predict lower levels of well-being during pre-pandemic times (David et al., 2015; Kushlev et al., 2016; Roberts and David, 2016; Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017; Kushlev and Dunn, 2019; Twenge and Campbell, 2019), but will these negative effects still be present during the COVID-19 Pandemic? In contrast, much of the previous research has found phone complementarity to predict higher levels of well-being (Neustaedter and Greenberg, 2012; Hampton et al., 2017; Holtzman et al., 2021). Will this effect remain positive during the COVID-19 Pandemic, given the importance of smartphones to maintain contact with others? Or will it be more negative given the constant access to distressing information that is afforded by smartphones?

To answer these questions, we conducted a longitudinal study examining the relationships between smartphone use, well-being, and social distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Using a community-based sample, we conducted weekly surveys over a six-month period to examine the extent to which smartphone use relates to well-being and the role that social distancing plays in this relationship. This study was pre-registered¹ and all data and exclusions can be found here.² Based on our preregistered power analyses, we aimed to recruit at least 200 participants reporting at least 779 episodes overall.

Participants were asked to complete a baseline survey assessing demographics, mobile phone use habits, social distancing measures, and well-being. The baseline survey also included our primary measures of interest in this report, including mobile phone use and social distancing over the previous 24 h. Participants then completed brief surveys every 2 weeks for a total of 11 surveys assessing their well-being, mobile phone use, and social distancing over the previous 24 h. The final survey was administered in October 2020³.

A total of 202 people were recruited through Mechanical Turk in May 2020 for this study (112 man/trans-man, 82 woman/trans-woman, 8 other; M_age = 37.37, SD_age = 11.10; for detailed description of a priori power analysis).⁴ In total, 132 participants completed at least two of the brief weekly surveys (70 men/trans-men, 58 women/trans-women, 4 other; M_age = 40.02, SD_age = 12.64); 41 participants completed the final, 11th weekly survey (19 men/trans-men, 21 women/trans-women, 1 other; M_age = 40.49, SD_age = 13.38); 11 participants completed all 12 surveys (4 men/trans-men, 6 women/trans-women, 1 other; M_age = 49.82, SD_age = 13.88). To see a more detailed description of participant demographics for each week, see Tables 1A and 1B.

Participants completed three items assessing their well-being (Schimmack and Grob, 2000). Specifically, this scale assesses a three-dimensional model of affect. First, participants were asked to indicate how they were feeling over the past 24 h using a-3 (very bad) to 3 (very good) scale (M = 1.05, SD = 1.42). This item has been used in previous research to examine current mood (e.g., Killingsworth and Gilbert, 2010). We refer to this item as ‘feeling good’ and used it as our primary indicator of well-being.

In addition to current mood, as per Schimmack and Grob (2000), we measured two other aspects of affect. Tense arousal was measured by asking participants to indicate how they were feeling over the past 24 h using a − 3 (very tense/anxious) to 3 (very relaxed/calm) scale (M = 0.65, SD = 1.49). Similarly, energetic arousal was measured by asking participants to indicate how they were feeling using a—3 (very tired) to 3 (full of energy) scale (M = 0.67, SD = 1.59). We refer to these items as “feeling calm,” and “feeling energetic,” respectively.

Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they practiced social distancing over the past 24 h using a 1 (not at all) to 4 (completely) scale (M = 3.12, SD = 0.89).

Does the way in which people use their phones influence how they feel? At the within-person level, we found that phone complementarity was significantly positively associated with feeling good (b = 0.67, z = 5.88, p_bonf < 0.0001; Figure 1), feeling calm (b = 0.38, z = 3.85, p_bonf = 0.0004; Figure 2), and feeling energetic (b = 0.44, z = 4.79, p_bonf < 0.0001; Figure 3), while controlling for displacement and interference (see Table 2). That is, on days when people reported using their phones for more complementary purposes, they reported better mood, feeling calmer, and feeling more energetic. These effects were small-to-medium in size (Table 2). In contrast, indicators of phone displacement and interference were not significantly associated with feeling good (Figure 1), feeling calm (Figure 2), or feeling energetic (Figure 3; Table 2).

We found a similar pattern at the between-person level, such that phone complementarity was significantly positively associated with feeling good (b = 0.71, z = 6.17, p_bonf < 0.0001), feeling calm (b = 0.71, z = 5.93, p_bonf < 0.0001), and feeling energetic (b = 0.52, z = 3.83, p_bonf = 0.0005), while controlling for displacement and interference. In other words, those who reported using their phones for more complementary purposes compared to others in the study reported better mood, feeling calmer, and feeling more energetic. These effects were medium-to-large (Table 3). Similarly, phone displacement was significantly positively associated with feeling energetic at the between-person level (b = 0.42, z = 2.45, p_bonf = 0.05), although it was not significantly associated with feeling good (b = 0.20, z = 1.38, p_bonf = 0.51) or feeing calm (b = 0.19, z = 1.25, p = 0.64; Table 2). Phone interference was not significantly associated with feeling good (b = −0.14, z = −1.02, p_bonf = 0.93), feeling calm (b = −0.15, z = −1.05, p_bonf = 0.88), or feeling energetic (b = −0.08, z = −0.49, p_bonf > 0.99).

At the within-person level, all of the associations with phone complementarity and feeling good, calm, and energetic hold after controlling for the extent to which people socially distance (all p_bonfs < 0.0005). But does the relationship between phone use and how people feel differ depending on the extent to which they socially distance? Since the study was conducted in the early stages of the pandemic, the extent to which people varied in their social distancing from week-to-week practices was low (SD = 0.58 on our four-point scale). Accordingly, social distancing generally did not significantly interact with the phone use indicators to predict feeling good, calm, or energetic. However, social distancing did significantly interact with phone displacement to predict feeling calm. Specifically, phone displacement and social distancing significantly positively interacted to predict feeling calm (b = 0.63, z = 3.48, p_bonf = 0.002). In other words, using one’s phone to replace other activities was related to feeling calmer, especially on days when people reported social distancing more. However, given the lack of a main effect, these interactions should be interpreted with caution.

Similarly, at the between-person level, the associations between the phone use indicators and feeling good, calm, and energetic hold after controlling for social distancing (all p_bonfs < 0.05). The extent to which people varied in their social distancing practices was also low at the between-person level (SD = 0.71). Unsurprisingly, then, phone use indicators did not significantly interact with social distancing to predict feeling good, calm, or energetic.