Compulsive Phone Checking: Why We Keep Reaching for the Phone

1 day ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

You put the phone down. A minute later, your hand reaches for it again. There may be no notification, no task to complete, and no conscious decision to check anything in particular. That pattern is often described as compulsive phone checking. In everyday and research language, the term can describe repeated checking that feels automatic or difficult to resist. It does not, by itself, establish an addiction, an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) compulsion, or any other clinical diagnosis.

The strongest behavioral explanation is not a single chemical, app feature, or personality trait. Repeated checking can emerge from an interaction among learned habits, external cues such as notifications, internal cues such as boredom or uncertainty, easy access to the device, anticipation of useful or rewarding information, social expectations, and the immediate context. Classic smartphone research identified brief, repetitive inspections of dynamic content as a checking habit, while newer work distinguishes externally prompted checking from spontaneous checking that occurs without an alert or a specific conscious goal. Oulasvirta and colleagues described checking habits across multiple smartphone-use studies, and Berntsen and colleagues developed a measure of spontaneous smartphone checking specifically for unprompted, goal-free checks.

That distinction matters. The number of minutes you spend on a phone is not the same variable as how often you check it, why you check it, what you do after unlocking it, whether the behavior conflicts with your goals, or whether it causes meaningful impairment. A person can have high screen time for work and little unwanted checking; another person can accumulate many brief, unwanted checks without an unusually high daily total. The broader cluster article on Digital Well-Being explains why context, purpose, control, and outcomes matter alongside time.

What Compulsive Phone Checking Means

Compulsive phone checking is best treated here as a behavioral description, not a diagnosis. The word compulsive is useful when people report a strong pull to check, repeated checking despite an intention not to, or a sense that the action happens before deliberate choice. Research papers also use terms such as habitual checking, urge to check, spontaneous checking, and compulsive checking. Those terms overlap, but they do not all measure the same thing.

Purposeful checking

Purposeful checking begins with a clear goal: reading a message you were expecting, looking up an address, approving a work request, checking a boarding pass, or opening a calendar before a meeting. Repetition alone does not make that behavior problematic.

Habitual checking

Habitual checking becomes strongly linked to recurring situations or cues. Seeing the phone, finishing a task, sitting down on a train, waiting for an elevator, opening a laptop, or encountering a quiet moment can become contexts in which checking is likely to occur with little deliberation. Habit is a mechanism of behavioral automaticity; it is not synonymous with a disorder.

Spontaneous checking

Spontaneous checking refers to attention turning toward the phone without an external prompt and without a specific conscious goal. The Spontaneous Smartphone Checking Scale was developed around exactly this phenomenon. It helps explain why turning off alerts may reduce one route into checking while leaving internally initiated checks intact.

Problematic or dysregulated checking

Checking becomes more clinically relevant when the pattern is persistently difficult to control and is associated with distress or functional problems: repeated disruption of work or study, unsafe checking while driving, persistent conflict with other people, loss of sleep opportunity, or repeated failure to carry out important tasks. Even then, the appropriate description depends on the broader pattern. Recent systematic work on problematic technology use emphasizes substantial heterogeneity in behavioral markers, measurement, and construct validity rather than a single universal signature. A 2026 systematic review of digital phenotyping for problematic technology use found major variation in how technology-related problems are operationalized and measured.

Why Do We Keep Reaching for the Phone?

There is no single cause of repeated phone checking. The same visible behavior can serve different functions at different moments. A useful explanation therefore starts with the trigger, the expected outcome, and the context in which the check occurs.

External cues can start the sequence

A sound, vibration, banner, badge, lock-screen preview, or screen lighting up can capture attention and make checking immediately relevant. Experimental evidence supports the idea that notifications can interrupt ongoing cognitive processing. In a 2026 experiment on social-media notifications, alerts produced a brief processing slowdown of about seven seconds on average, and the disruption varied with notification relevance and habitual interaction frequency. Fournier and colleagues reported these effects in Computers in Human Behavior. This is evidence about transient interruption and cue salience; it is not evidence that notifications permanently damage attention.

Notifications are only one route. Once checking is well learned, the phone can be opened without any incoming alert. This is why a person can silence every notification and still notice their hand moving toward the device.

Internal cues can be just as important

Boredom, a pause between tasks, mental fatigue, uncertainty, waiting, social awkwardness, or the wish to avoid an effortful task can all become occasions for checking. A qualitative study of 39 smartphone users found that downtime was the most commonly reported trigger, alongside tedious tasks, social awkwardness, and anticipation of social or informational outcomes. Tran and colleagues mapped these engagement and disengagement triggers in a CHI study of compulsive phone use. Because the study was qualitative, it describes common experiences and mechanisms reported by participants rather than estimating how often each trigger occurs in the population.

Anticipation and uncertainty make checking useful enough to repeat

A check can answer a small uncertainty immediately: Did someone reply? Did the meeting move? Is there a new email? Did the score change? Is anything happening? Most checks are uneventful, but some deliver information, social connection, novelty, or relief from uncertainty. That intermittent usefulness is enough for checking to become a learned response in recurring contexts. It is more precise to describe this at the behavioral level than to claim that every check is a dopamine hit.

The phone has exceptionally low behavioral friction

Smartphones combine portability, constant proximity, fast unlocking, persistent connectivity, and many functions in one object. The action cost of checking is therefore tiny. Oulasvirta and colleagues argued that smartphones are particularly conducive to brief checking habits because dynamic informational content is quickly accessible. Their field studies described these checks as short, repetitive inspections rather than long sessions. Low friction does not force behavior, but it makes a learned response easy to perform whenever a cue appears.

Checking can become a default response to transitions

Many daily moments have no obvious next action: finishing a paragraph, waiting for software to load, walking into an elevator, standing in line, ending a conversation, or switching between work tasks. When checking repeatedly fills these micro-gaps, the transition itself can become a cue. Over time, the person may experience the reach as preceding conscious intention.

Checking can also function as short-term avoidance

A phone offers a rapid alternative to a boring, difficult, ambiguous, or emotionally uncomfortable task. That does not mean every check is emotion regulation, nor does it mean that anxiety is the hidden cause of every checking habit. In a five-day diary study of 532 student smartphone users, mobile checking habit strength, perceived interruptions, and urge to check together explained small-to-moderate amounts of procrastination, while direct associations with affective well-being and meaningfulness were very small or absent. Meier's study is useful precisely because it separates checking habits from problem outcomes rather than assuming that habitual use is inherently harmful.

How a Checking Habit Becomes Automatic

Habit learning does not require a person to lose all choice. It means that a behavior becomes increasingly likely in familiar contexts because the context has repeatedly preceded the same action. A notification can be one cue, but so can seeing the phone, feeling bored, reaching a difficult part of a task, or entering a familiar waiting situation.

A simplified sequence is: a cue appears; checking is easy and available; checking sometimes produces something useful, interesting, socially relevant, or relieving; the context and action become more tightly linked. With repetition, the check can begin before a person explicitly asks whether checking serves the current goal. The mechanism is learned automaticity plus expected outcomes, not proof of neurological damage or a special form of chemical dependence.

This also explains why the same person may check constantly in one context and hardly at all in another. Habits are often context-sensitive. A phone kept on the desk during concentrated work offers different cues and friction than a phone left in another room. A group chat during an active project creates different expectations than the same chat on a quiet weekend.

Notification-Driven Checking and Self-Initiated Checking Are Different

It is useful to separate push from pull. Push checking starts with something the device does: an alert, vibration, banner, badge, or preview. Pull checking starts with the user: a thought, urge, pause, question, anticipation, or habitual movement toward the phone. The two routes can interact, but an intervention aimed at one may leave the other untouched.

This distinction helps interpret notification research. Reducing nonessential alerts can remove external interruptions and cues. Yet a person with strong self-initiated checking may continue opening the phone. Conversely, someone who rarely checks spontaneously can still be repeatedly interrupted by high-priority alerts. For a broader treatment of interruptions and competing digital cues, see Digital Distraction: How Phones, Apps, and Online Environments Compete for Attention.

Is Compulsive Phone Checking the Same as Phone Addiction?

No. Repeated checking is one behavior. Problematic smartphone use is a broader research construct that can include impaired control, conflict, functional interference, distress, or other problematic patterns depending on the instrument and study. Researchers sometimes use labels such as smartphone addiction, but terminology and measurement remain heterogeneous. A high checking count, a high screen-time total, or a strong urge to check does not by itself establish an addiction diagnosis.

This distinction is not semantic housekeeping; it changes what should be measured. If the problem is interruption during focused work, checking frequency and context may be more informative than total daily screen time. If the problem is a broader pattern of impaired control across many phone activities, a problematic-use framework may be more relevant. If the phone is primarily being used to perform a specific clinical compulsion, the clinical condition owns the diagnostic question rather than the device.

Is Repeated Phone Checking an OCD Compulsion?

Repeated phone checking is not automatically an OCD compulsion. The National Institute of Mental Health describes OCD as involving uncontrollable recurring thoughts, repetitive excessive behaviors, or both, with symptoms often becoming time-consuming, distressing, or interfering with daily life. NIMH's current OCD overview explains these defining features. A phone can be involved in OCD—for example, if it becomes a tool for reassurance seeking or checking driven by obsessions—but frequency of phone checking alone cannot establish OCD.

The practical question is therefore not whether the hand movement looks repetitive. It is what function the checking serves within the person's broader symptom pattern. Habitual checking for novelty during downtime and a clinical compulsion performed to neutralize obsessional fear can look superficially similar while belonging to different psychological processes and requiring different assessment.

What Phone Checking Does to Attention

Repeated checking can fragment an activity because each check creates an opportunity to switch goals, process new information, and potentially remain on the device longer than intended. This is an interruption and task-switching problem, not evidence that a single biological attention span has been permanently shortened.

The 2026 notification experiment by Fournier and colleagues found a short-lived cognitive slowdown following social-media alerts, while disruption depended in part on relevance and habitual interaction frequency. That study supports a momentary interruption account, not a claim that smartphones destroy the brain or irreversibly rewire attention. When checking repeatedly breaks a task, the cumulative practical cost can still matter even if each interruption is brief.

The broader Attention Economy article examines how digital products compete for attention. For this page, the narrower issue is the learned checking response: why the user reaches for the device again and again, including when no platform has just sent an alert.

Does Constant Checking Mean the Phone Is Harming Your Mental Health?

Not necessarily. Checking frequency, distress, digital stress, procrastination, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, sleep, and well-being are different variables. Cross-sectional associations can identify patterns, but they cannot establish which factor caused the other.

A large cross-country study of young adults in the United States and Indonesia distinguished habitual from compulsive smartphone checking and examined their associations with digital stress. Compulsive checking showed stronger relationships with digital stress than habitual checking, but the study was cross-sectional, so it cannot demonstrate that checking caused stress. Koban's study is valuable for separating habitual and compulsive checking instead of treating all frequent use as one exposure.

Likewise, Meier's diary research found that checking-related variables were associated with procrastination while direct links to affective well-being were minimal. The results argue for studying concrete problems rather than treating a behavior count as harm by definition. If online life feels broadly overwhelming, the separate article on Digital Stress covers overload, availability pressure, interruptions, and other stress pathways.

When Is Phone Checking Actually a Problem?

There is no universal medical cutoff for a healthy number of phone checks per day. A useful assessment asks how the pattern functions in the person's life rather than comparing a count with a supposedly normal number.

Look at control

Do you check because you decided to, or do you repeatedly find yourself checking despite a clear intention to stay with another task? Does the urge feel strong but manageable, or does it repeatedly override goals you care about?

Look at context

A hundred brief work-related checks during an emergency is a different exposure from a hundred purposeless checks during study, driving, meals, or time with a partner. Context determines what the behavior competes with.

Look at consequences

Does checking repeatedly delay important work, interrupt conversations, create conflict, reduce sleep opportunity, or lead to unsafe behavior? Functional impact is more informative than frequency alone.

Look at distress without turning distress into a diagnosis

Frustration with a habit is real, but frustration alone does not identify its cause. People can dislike a checking pattern because it wastes time, breaks concentration, conflicts with personal values, fuels uncertainty, or disrupts relationships. Those possibilities call for different responses.

How to Reduce Compulsive Phone Checking

The goal does not have to be minimal phone use. A more precise goal is to reduce unwanted checking in the contexts where it competes with something more important. Current intervention research is promising but heterogeneous; there is no single universally proven setting, detox, app, or cutoff. A 2026 systematic review of 46 problematic-smartphone-use intervention studies found substantial gaps in long-term effectiveness and generalizability.

Start with the trigger, not the daily total

For several days, notice what immediately precedes unwanted checks. Was there a notification? A hard sentence to write? A pause in conversation? Waiting? Boredom? An unanswered message? The phone sitting in sight? This turns a vague goal such as use my phone less into a specific target such as stop opening messaging apps during writing blocks unless an urgent alert arrives.

Remove nonessential external cues

If alerts reliably trigger unwanted checks, disable or narrow the ones that do not need immediate attention. Keep genuinely time-sensitive channels available. This is a cue-management strategy, not a claim that all notifications are harmful.

Notification changes can have different effects depending on how they are implemented. In a randomized field experiment with 237 participants, batching notifications three times per day was associated with better self-reported attention, productivity, mood, control, and lower stress than receiving notifications as usual, while completely blocking notifications increased anxiety and fear of missing out in that study. Fitz and colleagues' trial therefore supports selective restructuring rather than a universal all-notifications-off rule.

Add friction in the contexts that matter

If the cue is visual proximity or effortless access, change the environment: place the phone outside arm's reach during a chosen work period, keep it in a bag during a meal, charge it away from the bed if nighttime checking is the target, or use a separate clock so checking the time does not open the rest of the device. Friction creates a pause in which intentional choice has a better chance to occur.

Create explicit check points instead of vague prohibition

When immediate availability is unnecessary, decide when you will check a particular channel next. An explicit plan can reduce the unresolved question of when to look again. This is especially useful for email, team chat, and social feeds that do not require continuous monitoring. The schedule should fit the real consequences of delayed response rather than an arbitrary rule.

Give downtime another default

If checking appears whenever nothing else is happening, removing the phone leaves the trigger intact: an unoccupied moment. A replacement can be very small—looking around, stretching, walking without opening an app, writing a note, or simply allowing a short pause. The point is not to romanticize boredom. It is to prevent every low-demand moment from automatically selecting the same behavior.

Target the shortest route into the unwanted behavior

A phone is a bundle of tools. If one home-screen position, widget, badge, app, or account repeatedly starts the unwanted sequence, redesign that route rather than imposing a blanket ban on the whole device. Moving an app, logging out, removing a shortcut, or using a browser instead of an app can add enough friction to make the check deliberate.

Do not assume awareness reminders are enough

A reminder that says you are using your phone a lot may increase awareness without changing the cue-response pattern. In a two-month experimental study, pop-up notifications about smartphone use did not reduce problematic smartphone-use scores, screen time, or phone-checking behavior. Loid, Täht, and Rozgonjuk found no effect from that reminder-style intervention. Information can help, but information alone may not change an established habit.

Use multicomponent changes when one lever is not enough

Some interventions combine notification changes, display changes, app organization, self-monitoring, and other nudges. A small randomized study found that a ten-strategy package reduced problematic smartphone-use scores and screen time compared with screen-time monitoring alone. Olson and colleagues tested this multicomponent approach. Because the components were bundled and the samples were modest, the study does not tell us that any one tactic will work for everyone.

For a broader practical guide that focuses on reducing total or unnecessary screen exposure rather than the checking mechanism itself, see How to Reduce Screen Time: Practical Strategies Without Quitting Technology.

What If Checking Is Mostly About Messages From One Person?

If the primary driver is romantic uncertainty, jealousy, fear of betrayal, or reassurance about a partner, the phone may be the mechanism while the psychological search intent belongs elsewhere. Repeatedly checking whether someone replied can still involve habit and anticipation, but partner surveillance, jealousy-driven checking, and infidelity-related checking require their own relationship-specific frameworks.

When phone use itself interrupts a couple's interaction, the relevant bridge is Phubbing and Technoference in Relationships: How Phones Interrupt Couple Connection. That article addresses the relationship consequences of device interruption rather than the general habit mechanism covered here.

What If Checking Feels Driven by Anxiety or a Need for Certainty?

Uncertainty can be a strong trigger without making the behavior a disorder. If a check briefly answers a question—Did they reply? Did I miss something? Is there bad news?—the short-term reduction in uncertainty can make another check tempting later. The useful question is whether the checking is proportionate to the situation and whether it is helping you act effectively or repeatedly keeping the uncertainty cycle alive.

If checking is tied to persistent anxiety, obsessional fears, panic, or major functional impairment, it is worth evaluating the underlying problem rather than treating the phone as the whole diagnosis. A clinician can assess the pattern in context. The device may be a channel through which a broader difficulty appears, and changing device settings alone may leave that difficulty untouched.

Compulsive Phone Checking and ADHD

Repeated phone checking does not demonstrate that someone has ADHD, and phone checking research should not be used to claim that smartphones cause ADHD. Attention during digital behavior involves several separable processes—sustained attention, selective attention, executive control, task switching, working memory, and distraction. A person may struggle with unwanted checking for many reasons, with or without ADHD. Diagnostic questions require ADHD-specific assessment rather than inference from screen behavior.

Why the Dopamine Explanation Is Too Simple

Popular explanations often reduce phone checking to dopamine addiction. That language compresses a complex behavior into a catchy neurochemical story. Dopamine participates broadly in learning, motivation, and reward-related processes, but a person reaching for a phone cannot be explained or diagnosed by asserting a dopamine spike. The direct evidence relevant to everyday checking is much stronger at the behavioral level: cues, context repetition, learned expectations, accessibility, interruptions, urges, anticipation, and the functions the check serves.

This is why practical change can be designed around observable conditions. You can identify which alerts matter, which transitions trigger checking, which apps start a longer session, which contexts need protection, and which checks actually serve your goals. None of those steps requires a claim that your brain is fried, rewired, or addicted to dopamine.

A More Useful Way to Measure Progress

Daily screen time can be informative, but it may miss the target. If your problem is compulsive checking, track the behavior that matters: unwanted unlocks during a work block, checks triggered by a particular app badge, checks during conversations, or the number of times you open a feed without having intended to.

Pair the count with context and outcome. A useful record can answer three questions: What happened immediately before the check? What did I expect to find or change? What happened to the activity I was doing? This separates meaningful use from automatic use and makes it easier to test whether a change actually helps.

Progress can mean fewer unwanted checks, longer periods of goal-consistent attention, less conflict between intention and behavior, or fewer disruptions in protected contexts. It does not require reaching a universal number of checks or minutes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do I keep checking my phone when there are no notifications?

Because checking can become self-initiated. Internal cues such as boredom, anticipation, uncertainty, task difficulty, or a familiar transition can activate the behavior even when the phone has done nothing. Research on spontaneous smartphone checking explicitly measures unprompted, goal-free checking.

How many phone checks per day are too many?

There is no universal diagnostic cutoff. Frequency should be interpreted alongside context, control, distress, safety, and functional impact. A number cannot tell you whether the checks were necessary, unwanted, disruptive, or harmless.

Does compulsive phone checking mean I am addicted to my phone?

No. Repeated checking can be habitual or difficult to resist without establishing an addiction. Problematic smartphone use is a broader research construct, and research measures vary. The presence of one behavior is not enough for a clinical conclusion.

Is constant phone checking a sign of OCD?

Not by itself. OCD involves a broader pattern of obsessions, compulsions, or both, with symptoms that can be time-consuming, distressing, or impairing. NIMH provides the clinical overview. Phone checking can occur inside an OCD pattern, but ordinary repetitive checking is not automatically an OCD compulsion.

Does phone checking destroy attention span?

That claim is too broad. Alerts and checks can interrupt ongoing processing and promote task switching, but attention is not one single resource called attention span. Evidence of momentary disruption does not establish permanent neurological damage.

Does phone checking cause ADHD?

The evidence does not justify that causal conclusion. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental diagnosis with its own criteria and developmental history. Repeated checking can occur in people with or without ADHD, and digital-behavior studies should not be used as a substitute for diagnostic evidence.

Will turning off notifications stop the habit?

It can remove an important external cue, but it may not stop internally initiated checking. Notification strategies also differ: one field experiment found benefits from batching notifications while complete blocking increased anxiety and fear of missing out. The effect depends on the intervention and context.

Do screen-time reminders work?

Not reliably on their own. In one two-month experiment, pop-up reminders about smartphone use did not reduce screen time, phone checking, or self-reported problematic use. That null result is a useful warning against treating awareness as a complete intervention.

Should I do a digital detox?

A temporary break can be useful for some goals, but abstinence is not a universal treatment and effects vary by person, target behavior, and intervention. If the main problem is a checking habit, changing cues, friction, and checking routines may be more specific than removing all digital technology. The evidence and limitations of abstinence approaches are covered in Digital Detox: Does Taking a Break From Screens or Social Media Help?.

The Core Idea: Check the Function, Not Just the Frequency

Compulsive phone checking is most usefully understood as a repeated behavior that can become automatic through learned links among cues, contexts, expected outcomes, and low-friction access. Notifications can trigger it, but so can boredom, anticipation, uncertainty, task transitions, and the learned expectation that the phone may contain something worth knowing.

The behavior becomes important when it repeatedly conflicts with goals, causes distress, creates safety risks, disrupts relationships or work, or forms part of a broader clinical pattern. Frequency alone cannot tell you that. Neither can screen time, a viral dopamine explanation, or a self-applied addiction label.

The most precise response is therefore behavioral: identify the trigger, clarify what the check is doing for you, reduce the cues that do not serve your goals, add friction where automaticity is strongest, create intentional check points, and judge success by function rather than by a universal number.

References

Berntsen, D., Hoyle, R. H., Møller, D. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2023). Digital daydreaming: Introducing the spontaneous smartphone checking scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4034

Fitz, N., Kushlev, K., Jagannathan, R., Lewis, T., Paliwal, D., & Ariely, D. (2019). Batching smartphone notifications can improve well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.016

Fournier, H., Fournel, A., Osiurak, F., Koenig, O., Pâris, F., Gaujoux, V., & Ringeval, F. (2026). Attention hijacked: How social media notifications disrupt cognitive processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 179, 108926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2026.108926

Koban, K. (2026). When digital connectivity drivers meet digital disconnection: A cross-country study on smartphone checking, digital disconnection strategies, and digital stress. Mobile Media & Communication, 14(2), 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579251378561

Loid, K., Täht, K., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2020). Do pop-up notifications regarding smartphone use decrease screen time, phone checking behavior, and self-reported problematic smartphone use? Evidence from a two-month experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.007

Meier, A. (2022). Studying problems, not problematic usage: Do mobile checking habits increase procrastination and decrease well-being? Mobile Media & Communication, 10(2), 272–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579211029326

National Institute of Mental Health. (2024). Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd

Nwagu, C., Banire, B., Ataguba, G., Meier, S., & Orji, R. (2026). Insights, trends, gaps, and future direction in problematic smartphone use interventions: A systematic review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 42(17), 13735–13767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2605522

Olson, J. A., Sandra, D. A., Chmoulevitch, D., Raz, A., & Veissière, S. P. L. (2023). A nudge-based intervention to reduce problematic smartphone use: Randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 21(6), 3842–3864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00826-w

Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0412-2

Schroeder, G. L., Francisco, R., & Barbosa, J. L. V. (2026). Digital phenotyping for problematic technology use: A systematic literature review and taxonomy. Current Addiction Reports, 13, 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-026-00759-7

Tran, J. A., Yang, K. S., Davis, K., & Hiniker, A. (2019). Modeling the engagement-disengagement cycle of compulsive phone use. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300542

Psychological Encyclopedia