How to Reduce Screen Time: Practical Strategies Without Quitting Technology

2 days ago

20 min read

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

Reducing screen time works best when the goal is not to make technology disappear, but to make digital use more intentional. For most adults, phones, computers, messaging, maps, banking, work platforms, entertainment, health tools, and social media are woven into ordinary life. A useful plan therefore protects the functions you value while reducing the forms of use that repeatedly consume time, fragment attention, displace sleep or movement, interrupt relationships, or feel difficult to stop.

The evidence does not support a single universal rule such as “all adults should stay under two hours.” Screen time is a duration measure, not a diagnosis, and the same number of hours can represent very different activities. World Health Organization adult sedentary-behavior guidance recommends limiting sedentary time and replacing it with physical activity, but it does not establish a universal daily smartphone or total-screen cutoff for all adults.

The practical target is therefore a better fit between technology and the rest of life. This is the same broader principle used in our guide to digital well-being: duration matters, but so do purpose, content, timing, context, control, social meaning, and the consequences of use.

How to Reduce Screen Time: The Short Answer

Start by identifying the screen use you actually want to change. Measure it for several ordinary days, separate required use from discretionary use, and choose one high-impact pattern rather than attacking every minute at once. Then combine a specific target with environmental changes: reduce nonessential notifications, make distracting apps less immediately accessible, add stopping cues or app limits, keep the phone physically farther away during protected activities, and decide in advance what you will do instead. Review the result after a week or two and adjust the system rather than treating a lapse as failure.

Experimental studies support several parts of this approach. A randomized field experiment found that grayscale produced an immediate reduction in objectively measured smartphone screen time, while self-set time limits produced a smaller, more gradual reduction; the study did not find an immediate causal improvement in well-being or academic performance simply from reducing time. Zimmermann & Sobolev, 2023

Other intervention studies suggest that moderate reduction can be more sustainable than total abstinence. In a study of 619 smartphone users, reducing daily smartphone use by one hour produced effects that were generally stronger and more stable over four months than a seven-day abstinence condition. Brailovskaia et al., 2023 A 2026 experimental study also reported longer-term changes after participants reduced daily smartphone use by 60 minutes for 14 days, although its findings should not be converted into a universal prescription for every adult. Weingarten et al., 2026

First Decide What You Mean by “Too Much” Screen Time

A useful reduction plan begins with the problem you are trying to solve. “I want less screen time” is too broad to guide behavior. “I want to stop losing forty minutes to short videos after I get into bed,” “I want two uninterrupted work blocks each afternoon,” or “I want dinner conversations without repeated phone checking” each points to a different intervention.

Separate at least five questions: How much time are you spending? How often are you checking? What are you doing on the device? When and where does the use occur? What happens because of it? High-frequency use can be completely functional in one context and disruptive in another. A designer working on a laptop, a person navigating a disability with digital tools, a remote worker, and someone repeatedly scrolling past their intended bedtime may all accumulate long screen hours for different reasons.

This distinction also protects against medicalizing ordinary digital behavior. A long day of necessary screen use is not, by itself, evidence of a disorder. A habit is not automatically an addiction. Distress, repeated loss of control, and functional impairment deserve more attention than a raw hour count.

Required use and discretionary use

For many adults, work and study make large reductions in total screen time unrealistic. Instead of setting one daily ceiling, divide use into required, useful, and discretionary categories. Required use includes tasks you cannot reasonably avoid. Useful use serves a chosen purpose, such as talking with family or following a workout. Discretionary use includes entertainment and browsing that you may want to keep, reduce, or restructure. The categories can overlap, but the exercise prevents a work-heavy day from being treated as a personal failure.

Quantity and pattern

Two hours of continuous evening scrolling and two hours distributed across messages, navigation, reading, and a video call are not equivalent exposures. Daily time is useful for tracking, while frequency, session length, time of day, content, and interruption patterns often tell you more about what needs to change.

Use and consequence

Choose outcomes that matter to you: fewer unplanned pickups, fewer interruptions during focused work, an earlier bedtime, more movement, more face-to-face attention, less time spent on content you regret, or a stronger sense that you can stop when you intend to. Screen-time reduction is a means; the desired life change is the endpoint.

There Is No Universal Adult Screen-Time Cutoff

Adults frequently search for a medically approved maximum number of daily screen hours. Current authoritative guidance does not provide one universal smartphone or total-screen limit that applies across adult occupations, needs, and contexts. The WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behavior advise adults to limit sedentary behavior and replace sedentary time with physical activity, while recognizing that sedentary exposure and screen exposure are related but not identical.

This matters when interpreting intervention studies. A 2025 randomized controlled trial asked healthy university students to reduce smartphone screen time to two hours or less per day for three weeks and reported small-to-medium improvements in several mental-health and sleep measures immediately after the intervention. The participants were young healthy students, the intervention was brief, and screen time rose rapidly toward baseline afterward. The two-hour target was a study condition, not a universal clinical threshold.

The trial is valuable causal evidence for that specific sample and intervention, while its result should remain within those limits. Pieh et al., 2025

What the Intervention Evidence Actually Shows

Research on reducing smartphone and social-media use is increasingly experimental, but it remains heterogeneous. Studies use different populations, technologies, target behaviors, durations, adherence rules, outcomes, and definitions of “detox,” “restriction,” or “reduction.” This is why practical guidance should draw from patterns across studies rather than turn one intervention into a universal rule.

Reduction can change behavior

The clearest finding is behavioral: specific interventions can reduce measured use. In a 2026 randomized controlled trial of 70 iPhone users, personalized full-screen reminders appeared after a self-defined social-media session limit and gave users the option to quit or continue. The intervention reduced daily use of the targeted app by about 29 minutes over three weeks, although it did not significantly reduce the study's measure of problematic social-media use or increase self-efficacy. Mertens et al., 2026

A randomized trial of a multi-strategy “nudge” intervention—strategies included disabling nonessential notifications and using grayscale—reported reductions in problematic smartphone-use scores and screen time compared with a screen-time-monitoring control group, with improved sleep quality in the intervention group. Olson et al., 2022

Less time does not guarantee better well-being

Behavioral change and psychological benefit are separate outcomes. Some trials report improvements in well-being, stress, depressive symptoms, sleep, or related measures after reducing use; other studies find small, mixed, or null effects. The meaning of the activity being removed, the replacement activity, baseline vulnerability, adherence, and social context can all matter.

A secondary analysis of the same personalized social-media intervention described above found no significant overall time-by-group effects for the main well-being outcomes, although some follow-up differences favored the intervention and participants with higher perceived problematic smartphone use appeared to benefit more for stress. Brockmeier et al., 2025

Abstinence and “digital detox” results are mixed

The evidence does not justify presenting complete abstinence as a universal treatment. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of ten studies involving 4,674 participants found no significant overall effects of social-media abstinence on positive affect, negative affect, or life satisfaction. Lemahieu et al., 2025

Another systematic review and meta-analysis found small improvements in subjective and psychological well-being across digital-detox studies, while also reporting substantial heterogeneity for subjective well-being. Ansari et al., 2024 These findings are compatible rather than contradictory: intervention definitions and outcomes differ, and average effects can depend heavily on which studies and endpoints are pooled.

A scoping review published on September 26, 2026, synthesized 45 social-media reduction studies and identified widespread methodological limitations, including weak theory-intervention alignment and limits on causal and policy inference. Calvert et al., 2026 The practical conclusion is modest: reduction strategies are worth testing, while sweeping promises about what a “detox” will cure go beyond the evidence.

A Practical, Evidence-Informed Screen-Time Reduction Plan

The following steps are designed for ordinary adult digital behavior. You do not need to use every strategy. Choose the smallest set that directly addresses the pattern you want to change, then make the environment do part of the work.

Step 1: Measure a normal week before setting a target

Use the screen-time or digital-well-being dashboard already built into your devices and record several ordinary days, including at least one weekend day if your routine changes. Look beyond the daily total. Note your most-used apps, typical session lengths, pickups or unlocks if available, and the times when use tends to expand beyond your intention.

The purpose is diagnostic in the everyday sense of locating a behavior, not clinical diagnosis. A baseline helps you distinguish a real pattern from a bad day and prevents you from choosing an arbitrary target because a number sounded virtuous online.

Step 2: Choose one target behavior

Pick the behavior with the clearest cost. Examples include social-media use after 11 p.m., short-video sessions during work, repeated news checking, phone use during meals, or gaming that routinely pushes other commitments aside. A narrow target is easier to measure and easier to redesign than “use screens less.”

When several patterns bother you, start with the one that is frequent, occurs in a predictable context, and would create a meaningful benefit if reduced. Success there can make later changes easier.

Step 3: Set a reduction target that preserves needed use

A target can be time-based, frequency-based, context-based, or event-based. You might reduce one app by 30 minutes, limit it to two planned sessions, stop recreational scrolling during the first hour of work, or keep the phone away during dinner. The target should name both the behavior and the boundary.

Evidence supports testing moderate reduction rather than assuming total abstinence is necessary. In the 619-participant experiment comparing smartphone abstinence with a one-hour daily reduction, the reduction condition produced generally stronger and more durable effects. Brailovskaia et al., 2023

Step 4: Add friction to the behavior you want less of

Friction means adding a small step between an impulse and the digital behavior: move the app off the home screen, log out after each session, use the browser instead of the app, require a passcode for a limit override, remove saved shortcuts, or keep the device in a bag rather than on the desk. The goal is not punishment. It is to create a moment in which an automatic action can become a choice.

Grayscale is one low-cost form of friction. A randomized field experiment found an immediate screen-time reduction with grayscale, and a 2026 crossover feasibility study in 51 medical students found about 28 fewer minutes of mean daily screen time during the grayscale condition. The newer study was small and short, so grayscale should be treated as a practical experiment rather than a guaranteed intervention. Hagerty et al., 2026 Zimmermann & Sobolev, 2023

Step 5: Use app limits as stopping cues, not moral verdicts

Time limits can be useful because many digital environments have few natural stopping points. A limit creates an external cue that asks whether you still want to continue. Make the limit specific to the app or category that matters. A blanket limit across maps, messages, work tools, reading, and social media often produces noise rather than control.

Self-defined limits can influence behavior, although the size and persistence of the effect vary. The 2023 field experiment found gradual reductions with goal-setting limits, and the 2026 Wellspent trial found that personalized session-limit reminders reduced time spent in the targeted social-media app. Zimmermann & Sobolev, 2023 Mertens et al., 2026

If you routinely override a limit within seconds, change the architecture instead of simply making the number stricter. Add a second layer of friction, change the time or location of access, or decide on a replacement activity before the urge arrives.

Step 6: Turn off notifications that do not deserve immediate attention

Notifications are not just information; they are cues that can pull attention toward a device. Keep alerts for functions that are genuinely time-sensitive for your life—such as calls from selected people, security alerts, or necessary work systems—and silence promotional, social, news, game, retail, and engagement notifications that can wait.

A 2026 experimental study found that social-media notifications produced a transient slowdown in ongoing cognitive processing, with effects varying by relevance and habitual smartphone interaction frequency. Fournier et al., 2026 This supports treating alerts as an attention-management variable. It does not establish that every notification is harmful or that disabling all alerts is necessary.

Step 7: Put distance between the phone and protected activities

Physical distance can be more reliable than repeated internal negotiation. During a work block, place the phone in a drawer, bag, or another room if your responsibilities allow it. During exercise, reading, meals, or conversation, choose a consistent parking place. If you need to remain reachable, allow calls from specific contacts while keeping attention-seeking apps silent.

The useful unit here is not “phone-free life.” It is a protected activity. A thirty-minute walk, a meeting, or a meal can have a clear device rule while the rest of the day remains fully connected.

Step 8: Protect transitions and vulnerable times

Many long sessions begin during predictable transitions: waking up, commuting, waiting, finishing work, getting into bed, or feeling briefly bored. Identify the two transitions most likely to trigger unwanted use and assign them an alternative routine. The alternative can be tiny: make coffee before opening feeds, listen to a saved podcast on a commute, read three pages before bed, or take a short walk after work.

Nighttime use deserves special attention when it delays sleep, but screen-time reduction is not a substitute for assessment or treatment of a sleep disorder. The useful boundary for this article is behavioral: reduce the digital activity that repeatedly pushes bedtime later, rather than treating all evening screen exposure as a single mechanism.

Step 9: Restore stopping cues

Endless feeds and autoplay can remove natural moments at which an activity would otherwise end. Recreate those moments yourself: one episode, one saved article list, one twenty-minute timer, one news check after lunch, or a rule that a session ends when a particular task is complete. The cue should define the endpoint before you become absorbed.

A stopping cue works best when the next action is already clear. If the timer ends and there is nothing else to do, returning to the feed is easy. If the timer ends and your shoes are by the door, your book is on the table, or the next work document is open, the transition requires less effort.

Step 10: Replace, do not merely remove

Screen time often fills a function: stimulation, social connection, relief from effort, escape from worry, information, entertainment, or simple relief from boredom. Removing the device without replacing the function leaves a vacuum. Choose alternatives that match the reason you were reaching for the screen.

For boredom, keep a low-effort alternative nearby. For social connection, schedule a call or in-person contact rather than only suppressing messaging. For decompression, choose music, movement, a shower, cooking, reading, or another activity that actually feels restorative to you. For information-seeking, replace continuous checking with scheduled checks.

Step 11: Change social and work expectations

Some screen use is maintained by expectations about availability. If colleagues, clients, friends, or family expect immediate responses, personal app limits will keep colliding with social demands. Where possible, make response windows explicit: tell people when you are offline, define what counts as urgent, and preserve one channel for true emergencies.

Screen reduction can also protect in-person attention. If phones repeatedly interrupt time with a partner, our evidence review on phubbing and technoference in relationships explains why the social context of phone use can matter more than the mere presence of a device.

Step 12: Review the system weekly

At the end of a week, compare the target behavior with baseline and ask three questions: Did the behavior decrease? Did the change improve the outcome I cared about? Was the plan easy enough to repeat? A technically successful reduction that makes daily life needlessly difficult is a poor long-term system.

Keep what worked, remove what created pointless friction, and change one variable at a time. Sustainable digital behavior is usually built through iteration.

A Seven-Day Screen-Time Reduction Experiment

If you want a concrete starting point, use the following seven-day experiment. It is a behavior-change test, not a detox and not a medical treatment.

Day 1: Baseline

Record your total screen time, top three apps, approximate number of pickups or unlocks if available, and the time of day when unplanned use is most common. Write one sentence describing why you want a change.

Day 2: Choose the target

Select one behavior. Define it precisely: “Reduce Instagram from 85 to 50 minutes,” “No recreational feeds during the first work hour,” or “Phone parked away from the table during dinner.” Avoid changing five behaviors at once.

Day 3: Change the environment

Turn off nonessential alerts for the target app, move it away from the first home screen, log out, add a limit, or place the phone physically farther away during the target context. Choose one or two forms of friction.

Day 4: Add a replacement

Decide what happens when you would normally reach for the device. Make the alternative visible and easy. The replacement does not have to be productive; it has to be genuinely preferable to an empty prohibition.

Day 5: Protect one recurring window

Choose a daily period that matters—focused work, exercise, dinner, the commute, or a pre-bed routine—and give it a stable screen rule. Keep necessary accessibility and emergency functions available.

Day 6: Notice overrides

When you break your own rule, record the trigger without moral commentary. Was it boredom, a notification, work pressure, social expectation, fatigue, anxiety, habit, or lack of an alternative? Use the answer to redesign the environment.

Day 7: Compare and keep only what helped

Compare the week with baseline. Retain the strategies that reduced the target behavior with acceptable effort. If use did not change, increase friction or narrow the target. If use fell but nothing meaningful improved, reconsider whether this was the right behavior to change.

What Usually Fails—and Why

Relying on willpower alone

Willpower is variable across stress, fatigue, context, and competing demands. A plan that requires dozens of successful decisions every day is fragile. Environmental design reduces the number of decisions you have to make.

Treating every screen minute as equal

A video call with a distant friend, a navigation app, a work document, a game, and an endless feed are different activities. A single total obscures those differences. Use the metric that matches the behavior you are trying to change.

Choosing an arbitrary severe cutoff

A drastic target can create quick numerical change while being impractical for work, education, caregiving, disability access, or social connection. A target is useful when it can be repeated inside real life.

Using “dopamine detox” as the mechanism

The popular phrase “dopamine detox” is not a scientific description of what happens when you reduce phone or social-media use. A review of the concept notes that the popular “dopamine fasting” idea lacks evidence for a literal neurochemical detoxification mechanism. Desai et al., 2024 Dopamine is involved in many normal brain functions; it is not a toxin that accumulates and then needs to be cleared. Practical screen-time changes can be explained through cues, attention, routines, reinforcement, environmental friction, and self-regulation without invoking a fictional detox process.

Expecting a digital detox to cure anxiety, depression, or attention problems

Some intervention studies report improvements in psychological outcomes, while systematic reviews show mixed and heterogeneous results. Lemahieu et al., 2025 Calvert et al., 2026 Reducing a digital behavior can be one useful experiment, but it is not a universal treatment for a mental-health condition.

Making the system so restrictive that you immediately abandon it

If your limit repeatedly blocks something you genuinely need, the system trains you to override it. Protect necessary functions and add friction selectively to the behavior you want to change.

How to Reduce Screen Time When You Need Screens for Work

For screen-heavy work, the goal is rarely fewer total device hours. It is fewer unnecessary digital interruptions and clearer separation between work-required and discretionary use. Track recreational use separately from work if your device allows it. Protect focused periods from social and promotional alerts, batch communication where the job permits, and use a different device or profile for entertainment if that separation helps.

You can also target the edges of the workday. A person who must spend eight hours on a computer may gain more from protecting breakfast, lunch, exercise, commuting, and the first hour after work than from trying to reduce necessary professional screen exposure.

How to Reduce Phone Use Without Missing Important Messages

Create a priority system instead of leaving every app equally urgent. Allow calls or messages from selected contacts, retain calendar and security alerts, and silence engagement notifications that can wait. Check nonurgent channels at planned times. If your phone supports focus modes, configure them around contexts such as work, sleep, exercise, or family time rather than switching the whole device off.

This approach respects the reality that phones are also safety, caregiving, accessibility, and communication tools. The goal is selective availability.

How to Reduce Screen Time in Relationships

When the problem is interpersonal, track interruption rather than total hours. A person can have high overall phone use and still protect shared moments, while relatively low daily use can be disruptive if it repeatedly interrupts conversation. Research on phubbing and technoference focuses on this relationship-specific mechanism.

Practical rules can be event-based: phones away during a shared meal, no nonurgent checking during a difficult conversation, or a mutually agreed charging location at night. Rules work better when they are negotiated around the relationship rather than used to police one person's total daily use.

When Screen-Time Reduction Is Not Enough

If digital use repeatedly causes marked impairment, severe conflict, major sleep displacement, academic or work failure, or a persistent inability to cut back despite important consequences, a simple productivity strategy may be insufficient. Problematic smartphone use is a research construct. The American Psychiatric Association states that technology addictions such as smartphone and social-media addiction are not currently included as disorders in DSM-5-TR; Internet Gaming Disorder is listed as a condition for further study, and its proposed criteria do not cover general smartphone or social-media use. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 classification lists gambling disorder and gaming disorder among disorders due to addictive behaviors rather than a standalone smartphone-addiction diagnosis. The distress and impairment associated with problematic digital use can still be real and worth discussing with a qualified mental-health professional.

The same principle applies when screen use is mainly a coping response to another problem. If you are scrolling for hours because of severe anxiety, depression, loneliness, trauma-related distress, or another condition, changing the phone environment can help with the behavior while the underlying issue may need its own assessment and treatment.

How to Know Whether Your Screen-Time Plan Is Working

Do not judge success only by the daily total. A useful plan should improve the specific outcome you selected while remaining sustainable. Depending on your goal, track one or two of the following: unplanned pickups, time in a target app, number of limit overrides, bedtime delay, interrupted work blocks, unfinished tasks, phone use during conversations, perceived control over stopping, or time available for a replacement activity.

A smaller number is useful when it represents a meaningful change. It is not useful when it simply shifts the same behavior to another device, creates constant anxiety about the metric, or removes a valued source of connection without replacing it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best way to reduce screen time?

The strongest practical approach is usually multicomponent: measure the specific behavior, choose a realistic target, reduce cues such as unnecessary notifications, add friction to high-use apps, protect certain contexts with physical distance, and prepare a replacement activity. Research suggests that combinations of environmental and self-regulation strategies can reduce use, while the best mix differs across people and purposes.

How much screen time is too much for an adult?

There is no universal medical cutoff for all adult screen use. Duration should be interpreted together with purpose, activity type, sedentary behavior, timing, distress, control, and functional consequences. An occupational eight-hour computer day and eight hours of discretionary entertainment are not the same exposure.

Is two hours of screen time the recommended adult limit?

No. A 2025 randomized trial used a two-hours-or-less smartphone target as its experimental intervention in healthy university students, but that does not make two hours a general adult guideline. Pieh et al., 2025

Do app limits work?

They can reduce use for some people, especially when they create a meaningful stopping cue and are paired with other changes. Effects vary, and limits are easy to override when the underlying cue or context remains unchanged. Trials of self-set limits and personalized session reminders show measurable reductions in targeted use. Mertens et al., 2026 Zimmermann & Sobolev, 2023

Does grayscale really reduce phone use?

There is experimental evidence that grayscale can reduce screen time, but it is not a magic switch. A randomized field experiment found an immediate reduction, and a small 2026 crossover feasibility trial found a mean reduction of about 28 minutes per day in medical students. Hagerty et al., 2026 Zimmermann & Sobolev, 2023

Should I delete social media?

Deletion is one option, not a requirement. If a platform provides real value, start with narrower changes: remove notifications, limit sessions, move the app off the home screen, use it only at planned times, or access it through a browser. Complete abstinence has mixed well-being evidence and can also remove connection or practical functions.

Is a digital detox better than gradual reduction?

Current evidence does not establish detox as universally superior. One experimental comparison found more stable effects from a one-hour daily smartphone reduction than from seven-day abstinence, while meta-analytic evidence on social-media abstinence is mixed. Brailovskaia et al., 2023 Lemahieu et al., 2025

Will reducing screen time improve depression or anxiety?

It may help some people under some conditions, but it is not guaranteed and it is not a substitute for mental-health care. Some randomized and experimental studies report improvements in symptom measures after reduction; other trials and reviews show mixed or null effects. The result depends on the population, behavior changed, outcome measured, and what replaces the digital activity.

How long does it take to reduce screen time?

Behavioral effects can appear quickly in some experiments, especially after environmental changes such as grayscale or hard session prompts. Long-term maintenance is a separate question. Some intervention effects weaken when restrictions end, which is why a sustainable routine matters more than a short period of perfect compliance.

Why do I keep picking up my phone without thinking?

Repeated checking can become strongly cued by location, boredom, notifications, task difficulty, transitions, or learned routines. That does not automatically make the behavior an addiction or an OCD compulsion. Identify the cue, then change the environment or the response that follows it.

What should I do with the time I get back?

Choose the replacement before you reduce. Use recovered time for something that serves the same need or a more important one: conversation, movement, sleep preparation, reading, music, a hobby, outdoor time, focused work, or deliberate rest. Replacement makes the change easier to sustain and keeps the goal anchored in what you want more of, not only what you want less of.

A Sustainable Goal: More Control, Not a Perfect Number

The most useful screen-time plan is one you can live with. It protects important digital functions, reduces the patterns that interfere with your goals, and leaves enough flexibility for work, relationships, accessibility, entertainment, and changing circumstances.

The research landscape increasingly supports practical reduction tools while also showing why broad promises should be resisted. Behavioral interventions can reduce use; psychological benefits are more variable; complete abstinence is not necessary for many people; and study methods remain heterogeneous. Calvert et al., 2026 Lemahieu et al., 2025

A good rule is simple: reduce the digital behavior that repeatedly costs you something you value, preserve the technology that genuinely serves you, and design the environment so your preferred behavior becomes easier to perform.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2024). What is technology addiction? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/technology-addictions-social-media-and-more/what-is-technology-addiction

Ansari, S., Iqbal, N., Azeem, A., & Danyal, K. (2024). Improving well-being through digital detoxification among social media users: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(11), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0742

Brailovskaia, J., Delveaux, J., John, J., Wicker, V., Noveski, A., Kim, S., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2023). Finding the “sweet spot” of smartphone use: Reduction or abstinence to increase well-being and healthy lifestyle?! An experimental intervention study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000430

Brockmeier, L. C., Mertens, L., Roitzheim, C., Radtke, T., Dingler, T., & Keller, J. (2025). Effects of an intervention targeting social media app use on well-being outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 17(1), e12646. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12646

Calvert, E., Vaidya, S., Ilagan, G., Swords, C. M., Goldberg, S. B., Ferguson, C. J., Linardon, J., & Torous, J. (2026). Mapping the methodological landscape of social media detox intervention through a scoping review of evidence relevant to social media restriction policies. Communications Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00540-6

Desai, D., Patel, J., Saiyed, F., Upadhyay, H., Kariya, P., & Patel, J. (2024). A literature review on holistic well-being and dopamine fasting: An integrated approach. Cureus, 16(6), e61643. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61643

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

Hagerty, J., Saretha, S., Phung, B., Le, V., Vargas, J., Khan, F., & Wright, D. (2026). A cross-over feasibility trial of smartphone grayscale mode in medical students. Frontiers in Digital Health, 8, 1816095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2026.1816095

Lemahieu, L., Vander Zwalmen, Y., Mennes, M., Koster, E. H. W., Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., & Poels, K. (2025). The effects of social media abstinence on affective well-being and life satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 7581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90984-3

Mertens, L., Brockmeier, L. C., Roitzheim, C., Radtke, T., Dingler, T., & Keller, J. (2026). Promoting self-regulated social media use on smartphones with a mobile intervention app (Wellspent): Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 14, e56824. https://doi.org/10.2196/56824

Olson, J. A., Sandra, D. A., Chmoulevitch, D., Raz, A., & Veissière, S. P. L. (2022). A nudge-based intervention to reduce problematic smartphone use: Randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00826-w

Pieh, C., Humer, E., Hoenigl, A., Schwab, J., Mayerhofer, D., Dale, R., & Haider, K. (2025). Smartphone screen time reduction improves mental health: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine, 23, 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03944-z

Weingarten, J., Mertens, F., Brickau, D., Kramm, R. J., Margraf, J., Precht, L.-M., Weingarten, A., & Brailovskaia, J. (2026). Taking the first step towards better mental health: Reduced daily smartphone use leads to less problematic smartphone use, fear of missing out, depression and dysfunctional emotion regulation. Acta Psychologica, 265, 106735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106735

World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Alcohol, drugs and addictive behaviours: Terminology and classifications. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/alcohol-drugs-and-addictive-behaviours/terminology

Zimmermann, L., & Sobolev, M. (2023). Digital strategies for screen time reduction: A randomized field experiment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0027

Psychological Encyclopedia