Does smartphone addiction exist? A critical evaluation of the validity of behavioural addiction symptoms in problematic smartphone use

Background

The current debate raises the question of whether “smartphone addiction” really exists and whether the phenomenon can be considered as a distinct, clinically relevant disorder. This question is examined from three perspectives: 1) the terminology and definition of the problematic behaviour, 2) the evidence of clinical relevance, the theoretical embedding and empirical robustness of negative consequences and related psychological mechanisms, and 3) a critical reflection of current measurement tools.

Argument

The assumption that problematic smartphone use is a distinct behavioural addiction is not valid. Clear evidence for clinical relevance, the integration in theoretical framework models from addiction research, and a standardized definition and classification for deriving diagnostic criteria distinguishing the usage from other problematic behaviours and activities are needed.

Therefore, we provide the following specific recommendations for future research: 1) investigating the clinical relevance of potential impairments solely due to smartphone use, which also includes a methodological paradigm shift; 2) focusing on a more comprehensive theoretical embedding for and against the addiction argumentation; 3) investigating underlying mechanisms by additionally considering smartphone‐specific mechanisms (e.g., usage types, availability).

Summary

Current evidence does not support problematic smartphone use as a distinct behavioural addiction. Future research should use more robust methods to clarify whether it can be conceptualised within the addiction framework or as an alternative mechanism or medium for a different type of disorder.