The association of motives with problematic smartphone use: A systematic review

Vol.17,No.1(2023)

Abstract

Motives for smartphone use may be key factors underlying problematic smartphone use (PSU). However, no study has reviewed the literature investigating the association of motives with PSU. As such, we conducted a systematic review to: (a) determine which smartphone use motives were associated with PSU; and (b) examine the potential indirect and moderating effects of motives in the relationship of psychosocial factors with PSU. We identified 44 studies suitable for inclusion in our systematic review. There was extensive heterogeneity in smartphone use motives measures across the studies, including 55 different labels applied to individual motives dimensions. Categorisation of these motives based on their definitions and item content identified seven motives that were broadly assessed across the included studies. Motives which reflected smartphone use for mood regulation, enhancement, self-identity/conformity, passing time, socialising, and safety were generally positively associated with PSU. There were indirect effects of depression, anxiety, and transdiagnostic factors linked to both psychopathologies on PSU via motives, particularly those reflecting mood regulation. Stress and anxiety variously interacted with pass-time, social, and a composite of enhancement and mood regulation motives to predict PSU. However, the heterogeneity in the measurement of smartphone use motives made it difficult to determine which motives were most robustly associated with PSU. This highlights the need for a valid and comprehensive smartphone use motives measure.


Keywords:
problematic smartphone use; smartphone addiction; smartphone use disorder; motives; compensatory internet use theory; pathway model; systematic review
Author biographies

Beau Mostyn Sullivan

Discipline of Psychology, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Beau Mostyn Sullivan is a PhD candidate (Clinical Psychology) at the University of Canberra. His research interests include aetiological mechanisms underlying problematic technology use, particularly personality traits, psychopathology, and motives.

Amanda M. George

Discipline of Psychology, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

Amanda M. George is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Canberra on Ngunnawal Country, Australia. Her research focuses on risk-taking behaviours among young adults. She has a particular interest in alcohol use/consequences, risky driving practices and problematic smartphone use.

References

Agu, E., Pedersen, P., Strong, D., Tulu, B., He, Q., Wang, L., & Li, Y. (2013). The smartphone as a medical device: Assessing enablers, benefits and challenges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON) (pp. 76–⁠⁠80). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAHCN.2013.6644964

AlBarashdi, H. S., & Bouazza, A. (2019). Smartphone usage, gratifications, and addiction: A mixed-methods research. In X. Xu (Ed.), Impacts of mobile use and experience on contemporary society (pp. 86–111). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7885-7.ch006

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Augner, C., Vlasak, T., Aichhorn, W., & Barth, A. (2022). Tackling the ‘digital pandemic’: The effectiveness of psychological intervention strategies in problematic internet and smartphone use—A meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 56(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674211042793

Bachrach, R. L., Merrill, J. E., Bytschkow, K. M., & Read, J. P. (2012). Development and initial validation of a measure of motives for pregaming in college students. Addictive Behaviors, 37(9), 1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.04.013

Baggio, S., Starcevic, V., Studer, J., Simon, O., Gainsbury, S. M., Gmel, G., & Billieux, J. (2018). Technology-mediated addictive behaviors constitute a spectrum of related yet distinct conditions: A network perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 32(5), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000379

Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39

Billieux, J., Maurage, P., Lopez-Fernandez, O., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Can disordered mobile phone use be considered a behavioral addiction? An update on current evidence and a comprehensive model for future research. Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-015-0054-y

Brand, M., Wegmann, E., Stark, R., Müller, A., Wölfling, K., Robbins, T. W., & Potenza, M. N. (2019). The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model for addictive behaviors: Update, generalization to addictive behaviors beyond internet-use disorders, and specification of the process character of addictive behaviors. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032

Brand, M., Young, K. S., Laier, C., Wölfling, K., & Potenza, M. N. (2016). Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033

Busch, P. A., & McCarthy, S. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of problematic smartphone use: A systematic literature review of an emerging research area. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, Article 106414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106414

Canale, N., Moretta, T., Pancani, L., Buodo, G., Vieno, A., Dalmaso, M., & Billieux, J. (2021). A test of the pathway model of problematic smartphone use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(1), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00103

Casale, S., Fioravanti, G., Gioia, F., Redditi, E., & Spada, M. (2022). Fear of missing out and fear of not being up to date: Investigating different pathways towards social and process problematic smartphone use. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03368-5

Casale, S., Fioravanti, G., & Spada, M. M. (2021). Modelling the contribution of metacognitions and expectancies to problematic smartphone use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(3), 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00066

Chang, K., Li, X., Zhang, L., & Zhang, H. (2022). A double-edged impact of social smartphone use on smartphone addiction: A parallel mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 808192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808192

Chen, A., & Roberts, N. (2019). Connecting personality traits to social networking site addiction: The mediating role of motives. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-01-2019-0025

Chen, C., Zhang, K. Z. K., Gong, X., & Lee, M. (2019). Dual mechanisms of reinforcement reward and habit in driving smartphone addiction. Internet Research, 29(6), 1551–1570. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-11-2018-0489

Chen, C., Zhang, K. Z. K., Gong, X., Zhao, S. J., Lee, M. K. O., & Liang, L. (2017). Examining the effects of motives and gender differences on smartphone addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.002

Chen, H. T., & Kim, Y. (2013). Problematic use of social network sites: The interactive relationship between gratifications sought and privacy concerns. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(11), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0608

Chen, I. H., Pakpour, A. H., Leung, H., Potenza, M. N., Su, J.-A., Lin, C.-Y., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). Comparing generalized and specific problematic smartphone/internet use: Longitudinal relationships between smartphone application-based addiction and social media addiction and psychological distress. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(2), 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00023

Chen, Y., Li, R., & Liu, X. (2021). Problematic smartphone usage among Chinese adolescents: Role of social/non-social loneliness, use motivations, and grade difference. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02458-0

Cheng, Y., & Meng, J. (2021). The association between depression and problematic smartphone behaviors through smartphone use in a clinical sample. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.258

Chóliz, M. (2012). Mobile-phone addiction in adolescence: The Test of Mobile Phone Dependence (TMD). Progress in Health Sciences, 2(1), 33–44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284690452_Mobile-phone_addiction_in_adolescence_The_Test_of_Mobile_Phone_Dependence_TMD

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.

Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and validation of a four-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.2.117

Cooper, M. L., Kuntsche, E., Levitt, A., Barber, L. L., & Wolf, S. (2015). Motivational models of substance use: A review of theory and research on motives for using alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. In K. J. Sher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of substance use disorder: Volume 1 (pp. 375–421). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199381678.013.017

Cougle, J. R., Fitch, K. E., Fincham, F. D., Riccardi, C. J., Keough, M. E., & Timpano, K. R. (2012). Excessive reassurance seeking and anxiety pathology: Tests of incremental associations and directionality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.10.001

Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (1988). A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.97.2.168

Cox, W. M., & Klinger, E. (2004). A motivational model of alcohol use: Determinants of use and change. In W. M. Cox & E. Klinger (Eds.), Handbook of motivational counseling: concepts, approaches, and assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Csathó, Á., & Birkás, B. (2018). Early-life stressors, personality development, and fast life strategies: An evolutionary perspective on malevolent personality features. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00305

Davazdahemami, B., Hammer, B., & Soror, A. (2016). Addiction to mobile phone or addiction through mobile phone? In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1467–1476). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.186.

Deloitte. (2018). Global Mobile Consumer Survey: US edition. https://www2.deloitte.com/tr/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/global-mobile-consumer-survey-us-edition.html

Deloitte. (2019a). Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2019: Australian cut. https://content.deloitte.com.au/mobile-consumer-survey-2019

Deloitte. (2019b). Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2019: UK cut. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-plateauing-at-the-peak-the-state-of-the-smartphone.pdf

De-Sola Gutiérrez, J., Rodríguez de Fonseca, F., & Rubio, G. (2016). Cell-phone addiction: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, Article 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00175

Elhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 207, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030

Elhai, J. D., Gallinari, E. F., Rozgonjuk, D., & Yang, H. (2020). Depression, anxiety and fear of missing out as correlates of social, non-social and problematic smartphone use. Addictive Behaviors, 105, Article 106335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106335

Elhai, J. D., Hall, B. J., Levine, J. C., & Dvorak, R. D. (2017). Types of smartphone usage and relations with problematic smartphone behaviors: The role of content consumption vs. social smartphone use. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(2), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2017-2-3

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Alghraibeh, A. M., Alafnan, A. A., Aldraiweesh, A. A., & Hall, B. J. (2018). Fear of missing out: Testing relationships with negative affectivity, online social engagement, and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.020

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Non-social features of smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.023

Elhai, J. D., Yang, H., Dempsey, A. E., & Montag, C. (2020). Rumination and negative smartphone use expectancies are associated with greater levels of problematic smartphone use: A latent class analysis. Psychiatry Research, 285, Article 112845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112845

Elhai, J. D., Yang, H., & Montag, C. (2019). Cognitive- and emotion-related dysfunctional coping processes: Transdiagnostic mechanisms explaining depression and anxiety’s relations with problematic smartphone use. Current Addiction Reports, 6(4), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-019-00260-4

Farhat, K., Aslam, W., Arif, I., & Ahmed, Z. (2021). Does the dark side of personality traits explain compulsive smartphone use of higher education students? The interaction effect of dark side of personality with desirability and feasibility of smartphone use. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 11(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779752211000479

Foerster, M., Roser, K., Schoeni, A., & Röösli, M. (2015). Problematic mobile phone use in adolescents: Derivation of a short scale MPPUS-10. International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-015-0660-4

French, D., McKillop, D., & Stewart, E. (2020). The effectiveness of smartphone apps in improving financial capability. The European Journal of Finance, 26(4–5), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847x.2019.1639526

Frost, R. L., & Rickwood, D. J. (2017). A systematic review of the mental health outcomes associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.001

Fu, X., Liu, J., Liu, R.-D., Ding, Y., Wang, J., Zhen, R., & Jin, F. (2020). Parental monitoring and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: The mediating role of escape motivation and the moderating role of shyness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), Article 1487. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051487

Fullwood, C., Quinn, S., Kaye, L. K., & Redding, C. (2017). My virtual friend: A qualitative analysis of the attitudes and experiences of smartphone users: Implications for smartphone attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.029

Gentina, E., & Rowe, F. (2020). Effects of materialism on problematic smartphone dependency among adolescents: The role of gender and gratifications. International Journal of Information Management, 54(2), Article 102134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102134

George, A. M., Zamboanga, B. L., Martin, J. L., & Olthuis, J. V. (2018). Examining the factor structure of the Motives for Playing Drinking Games measure among Australian university students. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(6), 782–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12830

Golubchik, P., Manor, I., Shoval, G., & Weizman, A. (2020). Levels of proneness to boredom in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on and off methylphenidate treatment. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 30(3), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2019.0151

Griffiths, M. D. (2021). Internet use disorders: What's new and what's not? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(4), 934–937. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00072

Hallauer, C. J., Rooney, E. A., Billieux, J., Hall, B. J., & Elhai, J. (2022). Mindfulness mediates relations between anxiety with problematic smartphone use severity. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2022-1-4

Han, J., & Hur, G.-H. (2004). Construction and validation of mobile phone addiction scale. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 48(6), 138–165. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE00957680

Hao, Z., Jin, L., Huang, J., & Wu, H. (2022). Stress, academic burnout, smartphone use types and problematic smartphone use: The moderation effects of resilience. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.019

Harris, B., Regan, T., Schueler, J., & Fields, S. A. (2020). Problematic mobile phone and smartphone use scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00672

Hind, J., & Sibbald, S. L. (2014). Smartphone applications for mental health—A rapid review. Western Undergraduate Research Journal: Health and Natural Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/wurjhns.2014-15.16

Horwood, S., & Anglim, J. (2018). Personality and problematic smartphone use: A facet-level analysis using the five factor model and HEXACO frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.013

Horwood, S., & Anglim, J. (2019). Problematic smartphone usage and subjective and psychological well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.028

Horwood, S., Anglim, J., & Mallawaarachchi, S. R. (2021). Problematic smartphone use in a large nationally representative sample: Age, reporting biases, and technology concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106848

Hwang, Y., & Park, N. (2015). Adolescents’ characteristics and motives in predicting problematic mobile phone use. International Telecommunications Policy Review, 22(2), 43–66. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2635956

Jiang, X., Lu, Y., Hong, Y., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2022). A network comparison of motives behind online sexual activities and problematic pornography use during the COVID-19 outbreak and the post-pandemic period. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), Article 5870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105870

Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Sage.

Khang, H., Kim, J. K., & Kim, Y. (2013). Self-traits and motivations as antecedents of digital media flow and addiction: The internet, mobile phones, and video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2416–2424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.027

Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J. K., & Chung, Y. (2014). Development of Korean smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. PloS One, 9(5), Article e97920. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097920

Kim, J.-H. (2017). Smartphone-mediated communication vs. face-to-face interaction: Two routes to social support and problematic use of smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.004

Kim, J.-H., Seo, M., & David, P. (2015). Alleviating depression only to become problematic mobile phone users: Can face-to-face communication be the antidote? Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Part A), 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.030

Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmel, G., & Engels, R. (2005). Why do young people drink? A review of drinking motives. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(7), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.06.002

Kuntsche, E., Wiers, R. W., Janssen, T., & Gmel, G. (2010). Same wording, distinct concepts? Testing differences between expectancies and motives in a mediation model of alcohol outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18(5), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019724

Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The Smartphone Addiction Scale: Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PloS One, 8(12), Article e83558. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083558

Kwon, M., Lee, J.-Y., Won, W.-Y., Park, J.-W., Min, J.-A., Hahn, C., Gu, X., Choi, J.-H., & Kim, D.-J. (2013). Development and validation of a Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS). PloS One, 8(2), Article e56936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056936

Lee, C., & Lee, S.-J. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of smartphone addiction proneness among Korean adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 77, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.04.002

Leung, L. (2008). Linking psychological attributes to addiction and improper use of the mobile phone among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Children and Media, 2(2), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790802078565

Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700206

Li, J., Zhan, D., Zhou, Y., & Gao, X. (2021). Loneliness and problematic mobile phone use among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of escape motivation and self-control. Addictive Behaviors, 118, Article 106857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106857

Lin, Y.-H., Fang, C.-H., & Hsu, C.-L. (2014). Determining uses and gratifications for mobile phone apps. In J. J. Park, Y. Pan, C.-S. Kim, & Y. Yang (Eds.), Lecture notes in electrical engineering: Future information technology (Vol. 309, pp. 661–668). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55038-6_103

Malkovsky, E., Merrifield, C., Goldberg, Y., & Danckert, J. (2012). Exploring the relationship between boredom and sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research, 221(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3147-z

Männikkö, N., Billieux, J., Nordström, T., Koivisto, K., & Kääriäinen, M. (2017). Problematic gaming behaviour in Finnish adolescents and young adults: Relation to game genres, gaming motives and self-awareness of problematic use. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(2), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9726-7

Melodia, F., Canale, N., & Griffiths, M. D. (2022). The role of avoidance coping and escape motives in problematic online gaming: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(2), 996–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00422-w

Meng, H., Cao, H., Hao, R., Zhou, N., Liang, Y., Wu, L., Jiang, L., Ma, R., Li, B., Deng, L., Lin, Z., Lin, X., & Zhang, J. (2020). Smartphone use motivation and problematic smartphone use in a national representative sample of Chinese adolescents: The mediating roles of smartphone use time for various activities. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00004

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Montag, C., Wegmann, E., Sariyska, R., Demetrovics, Z., & Brand, M. (2021). How to overcome taxonomical problems in the study of internet use disorders and what to do with “smartphone addiction”? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(4), 908–914. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019.59

Nabilla, S. P., Christia, M., & Dannisworo, C. A. (2019). The relationship between boredom proneness and sensation seeking among adolescent and adult former drug users. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 229, 420–443. https://doi.org/10.2991/iciap-18.2019.35

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2014). Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort

Paek, K.-S. (2019). The factors related to the smartphone addiction of undergraduate students. Medico Legal Update, 19(1), 732–737. https://doi.org/10.37506/mlu.v19i1.1007

Panova, T., & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(2), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.49

Park, N., Kim, Y.-C., Shon, H. Y., & Shim, H. (2013). Factors influencing smartphone use and dependency in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1763–1770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.008

Park, N., & Lee, H. (2014). Nature of youth smartphone addiction in Korea: Diverse dimensions of smartphone use and individual traits. Journal of Communication Research, 51(1), 100–132. https://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2014.51.1.100

Pivetta, E., Harkin, L., Billieux, J., Kanjo, E., & Kuss, D. J. (2019). Problematic smartphone use: An empirically validated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.013

Rozgonjuk, D., Elhai, J. D., Täht, K., Vassil, K., Levine, J. C., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2019). Non-social smartphone use mediates the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and problematic smartphone use: Evidence from a repeated-measures study. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.013

Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525–548). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Sever, M., & Özdemir, S. (2022). Stress and entertainment motivation are related to problematic smartphone use: Fear of missing out as a mediator. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 9(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.5152/ADDICTA.2021.21067

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, Article g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

Shen, X., & Wang, J.-L. (2019). Loneliness and excessive smartphone use among Chinese college students: Moderated mediation effect of perceived stress and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.012

Shen, X., Wang, H.-Z., Rost, D. H., Gaskin, J., & Wang, J.-L. (2021). State anxiety moderates the association between motivations and excessive smartphone use. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1937–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0127-5

Song, I., Larose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Lin, C. A. (2004). Internet gratifications and internet addiction: On the uses and abuses of new media. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.384

Starcevic, V., King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Schimmenti, A., Castro-Calvo, J., Giardina, A., & Billieux, J. (2021). “Diagnostic inflation” will not resolve taxonomical problems in the study of addictive online behaviours. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(4), 915–919. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00083

Su, S., Pan, T.-T., Liu, Q.-X., Chen, X.-W., Wang, Y.-J., & Li, M.-Y. (2014). Development of the Smartphone Addiction Scale for college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 28(5), 392–397. http://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/41739378/Development_of_the_Smartphone_Addiction_Scale_for_College_Students.htm

Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039

Vanden Abeele, M. M. (2016). Mobile lifestyles: Conceptualizing heterogeneity in mobile youth culture. New Media & Society, 18(6), 908–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814551349

Vezzoli, M., Zogmaister, C., & Coen, S. (2021). Love, desire, and problematic behaviors: Exploring young adults’ smartphone use from a uses and gratifications perspective. Psychology of Popular Media. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000375

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2009). The phone connection: A qualitative exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use amongst Australian youth. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.983

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. M. (2010). Needing to connect: The effect of self and others on young people’s involvement with their mobile phones. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530903567229

Wang, J.-L., Wang, H.-Z., Gaskin, J., & Wang, L.-H. (2015). The role of stress and motivation in problematic smartphone use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.005

Wanga, H. P., Joseph, T., & Chuma, M. B. (2020). Social distancing: Role of smartphone during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic era. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 9(5), 181–188. https://ijcsmc.com/docs/papers/May2020/V9I5202016.pdf

Wei, R. (2008). Motivations for using the mobile phone for mass communications and entertainment. Telematics and Informatics, 25(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2006.03.001

Wen, F., Ding, Y., Yang, C., Ma, S., Zhu, J., Xiao, H., & Zuo, B. (2022). Influence of smartphone use motives on smartphone addiction during the COVID-19 epidemic in China: The moderating effect of age. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03355-w

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00064-7

Wickord, L.-C., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. M. (2022). Does the type of smartphone usage behavior influence problematic smartphone use and the related stress perception? Behavioral Sciences, 12(4), Article 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12040099

World Health Organization. (2018). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics (11th revision). https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en

Yang, Z., Asbury, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). “A cancer in the minds of youth?” A qualitative study of problematic smartphone use among undergraduate students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 934–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00204-z

Yu, S., & Sussman, S. (2020). Does smartphone addiction fall on a continuum of addictive behaviors? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), Article 422. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020422

Zhang, K. Z. K., Chen, C., & Lee, M. K. (2014). Understanding the role of motives in smartphone addiction. PACIS 2014 Proceedings, Article 131. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/131

Zhang, K. Z. K., Chen, C., Zhao, S. J., & Lee, M. K. O. (2014, December 14–17). Compulsive smartphone use: The roles of flow, reinforcement motives, and convenience [Paper presentation]. 35th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014), Auckland, New Zealand. https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication(8e37651b-6664-4d45-a285-f35648368203).html

Zhang, M. X., & Wu, A. M. S. (2022). Effects of childhood adversity on smartphone addiction: The multiple mediation of life history strategies and smartphone use motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 134, Article 107298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107298

Zhen, R., Liu, R.-D., Hong, W., & Zhou, X. (2019). How do interpersonal relationships relieve adolescents’ problematic mobile phone use? The roles of loneliness and motivation to use mobile phones. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), Article 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132286

Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Blau, M. (2016). Cross-generational analysis of predictive factors of addictive behavior in smartphone usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 682–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.061

Additional information

Authors’ Contribution

Beau Mostyn Sullivan: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—original draft. Amanda M. George: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, supervision, writing—review & editing.

 

Editorial Record

First submission received:
April 3, 2022

Revisions received:
September 18, 2022
November 28, 2022

Accepted for publication:
December 11, 2022

Editor in charge:
Maèva Flayelle

Full text

Introduction

Smartphones can offer a range of benefits, such as helping people connect (Wanga et al., 2020), manage their finances (French et al., 2020), and access physical (Agu et al., 2013) and mental health (Hind & Sibbald, 2014) interventions. Given these benefits, it is unsurprising that smartphones have become ubiquitous (Deloitte, 2018, 2019a, 2019b). However, despite the smartphone’s popularity, around 42% of Australians report a belief that they use them excessively, with this rising to 70% among young adults aged 18–24 years (Deloitte, 2019a). Similar rates of excessive use have been reported in other Western countries (Deloitte, 2018, 2019b). For some people, excessive and uncontrolled smartphone use results in harm or functional impairment in daily life, termed problematic smartphone use (PSU; Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020).

Conceptualising Problematic Smartphone Use

PSU is referred to synonymously with various terms in the literature, including smartphone addiction, smartphone use disorder, and problematic smartphone use (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020). Likened to a behavioural addiction, research has found PSU to include the core components of addiction, such as excessive use, withdrawal, salience, mood modification, and loss of control (De-Sola Gutiérrez et al., 2016; Yu & Sussman, 2020). Despite similarities to addictive disorders, it has been argued that the consequences of PSU are less severe (Panova & Carbonell, 2018) and it is not recognised as a behavioural addiction in diagnostic manuals (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; World Health Organization, 2018). While some authors have emphasised understanding how PSU is similar to established addictive behaviours, others have focussed on its unique presentation. For example, Billieux et al. (2015) proposed that PSU is comprised of three distinct addictive (e.g., cravings), antisocial (e.g., phubbing), and risky (e.g., use while driving) patterns of smartphone use.

In addition to debate about whether PSU should be considered an addiction, there has been controversy about whether people become addicted to smartphone devices or their content (i.e., applications; Davazdahemami et al., 2016). There is now relative consensus that smartphone content is the primary object of problematic engagement (Elhai et al., 2019; Griffiths, 2021). Given this, it has been suggested that, like problematic internet use, PSU is an umbrella construct masking a spectrum of discrete problematic behaviours (e.g., social networking, gaming; Panova & Carbonell, 2018; Starcevic et al., 2021). However, it has also been argued that generalised PSU—that is, the excessive engagement in a range of content on a smartphone—may be a unique construct (I. H. Chen et al., 2020; Griffiths, 2021; Montag et al., 2021), an assertion supported with network analysis (Baggio et al., 2018). The distinctiveness of PSU may be due to the portability of the smartphone facilitating constant access to online (and offline) content (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020) and unique patterns of problematic behaviour. This can include attachment to the device, use while driving, or use during face-to-face social interactions (Baggio et al., 2018). Therefore, the present study focuses on generalised PSU.

Regardless of conceptual controversy, PSU has been associated with several negative outcomes. In a recent systematic review, Busch and McCarthy (2021) found that PSU was robustly associated with poorer emotional health, such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness. PSU has also been associated with several other negative outcomes across a range of domains, including poor time management, lack of sleep, reduced productivity, interpersonal conflict, and use of a phone while driving (Busch & McCarthy, 2021). A challenge is that many emotional health variables may also be considered antecedents, and research is yet to confirm casual direction (see Elhai, Dvorak, et al., 2017). Notwithstanding this limitation, given the potential harms associated with PSU, it is important to identify risk factors for PSU.

Risk Factors and Aetiology of Problematic Smartphone Use

Research has generally found that adolescents and young adults report higher levels of PSU compared with older age groups (reviewed in Busch & McCarthy, 2021). Horwood et al. (2021) found that PSU levels remained consistent and relatively high from 18–35 years of age, before declining. However, Horwood et al. (2021) noted that higher levels of PSU among younger people may be a generational cohort effect. Most studies have also found that PSU levels are higher among females, but results are somewhat inconsistent (reviewed in Busch & McCarthy, 2021). While understanding demographic risk factors may be important for directing interventions, it is crucial that research identifies psychosocial factors associated with PSU. This will enhance understanding of what causes PSU and may inform interventions, such as challenging maladaptive motives for smartphone use in a clinical setting.

Arguably, the most comprehensive model of PSU proposes that it is driven by three causal pathways (Billieux et al., 2015). The excessive reassurance pathway describes those whose PSU is related to low psychosocial wellbeing (e.g., depression, anxiety) driving a desire to excessively maintain relationships and seek reassurance from others via a smartphone. The impulsive pathway describes those whose PSU is due to heightened levels of impulsive, aggressive, or psychopathic traits, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Finally, the extraversion pathway asserts that some people with heightened levels of extraversion, sensation seeking, and reward sensitivity engage in PSU for stimulation and socialising (Billieux et al., 2015). These pathways were proposed to differentially drive addictive, antisocial, and dangerous patterns of PSU (Billieux et al., 2015). Research has empirically validated the model, although risk factors from the extraversion pathway (except for sensation seeking) have shown limited associations with PSU (Canale et al., 2021; Pivetta et al., 2019). While this pathway model synthesises how various psychosocial factors may influence PSU, it does not explicitly identify variables that may mediate the pathways—except for excessive reassurance seeking, a safety behaviour engaged in by people with psychopathological symptoms, such as depression and anxiety (Cougle et al., 2012). In recent years, research has shifted to investigating variables that may mediate the effects of more distal risk factors (e.g., psychopathology, personality) on PSU (Brand et al., 2019; Elhai et al., 2019), with motives identified as one promising construct (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014; Panova & Carbonell, 2018).

The Role of Motives in Problematic Smartphone Use

Motives have been defined as the reasons why a person engages in a behaviour, reflecting the needs and desires they seek to gratify (Cox & Klinger, 2004; Rubin, 2002; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Motives, as they are conceptualised in the PSU literature, have roots in the media and substance use literature. The Alcohol Use Motivational Model (Cox & Klinger, 1988) describes motives as the value placed on achieving a desired effect of drinking (e.g., I drink to have fun; Cox & Klinger, 2004). This is in contrast with the related construct of expectancies, which reflects beliefs about the effects of a given behaviour (e.g., drinking is fun; Cox & Klinger, 2004). In the Alcohol Use Motivational Model, expectancies are thought to be important for forming motives, but motives are the more proximal determinant of behaviour (Kuntsche et al., 2010). In fact, the model considers motives to be the final common pathway to behaviour, funneling all other influences, such as psychosocial wellbeing and personality (Cox & Klinger, 2004). The model proposes four categories of motives based on crossing dimensions of valence (desired effect is reward or avoidance of punishment) and source (desired effect is derived internally or externally; Cox & Klinger, 2004). A couple of studies have found that coping, enhancement, and conformity smartphone use motives, which were adapted from the Alcohol Use Motivational Model (Cooper, 1994), predicted PSU, but social motives did not (C. Chen et al., 2017; K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014). However, given the model was developed to explain alcohol use, further research is required to determine whether it is applicable to PSU.

The majority of research which has investigated the association of motives with PSU has been conducted from a Uses and Gratifications Theory (Katz, 1974) and/or Compensatory Internet Use Theory (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014) perspective. The Uses and Gratifications Theory proposes that motives drive the choice to use different types of media (Rubin, 2002; Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Based on this premise, research has identified a range of motives for using different types of media, including the internet (Song et al., 2004), mobile phones, and smartphones (e.g., Leung & Wei, 2000; Lin et al., 2014; Wei, 2008). The Compensatory Internet Use Theory builds on the Uses and Gratifications Theory by integrating it with research that has investigated the association of psychosocial wellbeing with problematic internet use (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). Specifically, it frames problematic internet use as an effort to avoid negative emotions or circumstances, so motives to alleviate negative emotions should mediate or moderate the association of low psychosocial wellbeing with problematic internet use (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). Several studies grounded by the Uses and Gratifications Theory and/or Compensatory Internet Use Theory have found that a range of motives are associated with PSU and mediate or moderate the effect of other psychosocial factors on PSU (e.g., Cheng & Meng, 2021; Elhai, Hall, et al., 2017; J.-H. Kim et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2021). However, neither theory was developed to explain PSU specifically and the latter does not consider the role of motives in potential positive reinforcement pathways to PSU, such as Billieux et al.’s (2015) extraversion pathway.

Motives for Generalised and Specific Problematic Smartphone Use

Of note, theoretical models of problematic internet use, such as the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution model (Brand et al., 2016, 2019), have conceptualised motives as important for identifying problematic engagement in specific types of online content accessible via a smartphone. For example, motives reflecting a desire for achievement were found to be a key predictor of problematic video gaming (Männikkö et al., 2017), whereas self-presentation motives were found to be a key predictor of problematic social networking (H. T. Chen & Kim, 2013). However, findings from research that identified unique motives for the problematic use of specific types of online content also suggests there are likely core motives (e.g., motives to cope with negative emotions) that influence the problematic engagement in content generally, irrespective of the type (A. Chen & Roberts, 2019; Jiang et al., 2022; Melodia et al., 2022). A body of literature has focussed on identifying what core motives influence generalised PSU (e.g., C. Chen et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2015; K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen & Lee, 2014), but there remains a lack of consensus on what these motives are. Therefore, the present review focusses on understanding the core motives associated with generalised PSU.

The Present Study

Despite the theoretical importance of motives to problematic behaviour, a growing literature investigating their role in PSU, and prior reviews of motives for substance use (Cooper et al., 2015; Kuntsche et al., 2005), no prior study has reviewed the literature investigating the association of motives with PSU. Through our review, we aimed to identify which motives were associated with PSU. Moreover, we aimed to examine whether motives mediate and/or moderate the association of other psychosocial factors with PSU. This was to assess the theoretical proposition that motives act as a final common pathway to PSU, and their integration with the pathway model.

Method

Search Strategy

We used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2015; Shamseer et al., 2015) to inform methodology. We searched for articles in the Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, SAGE, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar. Our search terms included synonyms used in the literature for motives and PSU. We used proximity operators limited to five words and restricted our search to title, abstract, and keywords were possible and appropriate. For example, to search Web of Science we entered “(motiv* OR gratification* OR reason* OR need*) AND ((problem* OR addict* OR dependen* OR compulsive OR excessive) NEAR/5 (smartphone* OR “smart phone*” OR mobilephone* OR “mobile phone*” OR cellphone* OR “cell phone*”))”. All citations identified were uploaded into Covidence.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included studies which quantitatively tested the motives-PSU relationship, were written in English, and were published from 2008 to the time of writing this paper.1 Studies were considered to have measured PSU if they included scales labelled with synonymous terms, such as smartphone addiction, problematic mobile phone use, and mobile phone involvement. Studies which examined the association of motives with objective measures of PSU would have also been retained, but none were identified through our search strategy. While young adults are the primary population of interest, we included all relevant studies irrespective of the age range of the sample. This was because initial searches indicated that there were a limited number of total studies (N = 44), with only seven restricting their sample to young adults and seven to adolescents. However, several additional studies (n = 16) used university student convenience samples not restricted to young adults, but likely comprised primarily of young adults.2 Therefore, while young adults are not the only sampled population in the included studies, they and adolescents constituted the majority of participants across most included studies (n = 30). We excluded qualitative studies (Fullwood et al., 2017; Walsh et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2021).

Noting motives and expectancies are conceptually distinct, we excluded one study (Y. Chen et al., 2021) because it operationalised smartphone use motives with items that appeared to include a mix of motives (e.g., because I don’t want to be alone) and expectancies (e.g., playing smartphone is cool). Five other studies (C. Chen et al., 2017, 2019; Wen et al., 2022; K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014; M. X. Zhang & Wu, 2022) operationalised motives with a variable labelled “perceived enjoyment”, the items of which better reflected expectancies. However, we retained these studies because they included other variables that reflected different motives, but we excluded perceived enjoyment from our analysis. We included three studies (Casale et al., 2021; Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020; Hallauer et al., 2022) that tested the associations of the Smartphone Use Expectancies Scale with PSU, given the measure’s items were more consistent with motives (e.g., I use my smartphone to experience pleasure).

As per PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2015; Shamseer et al., 2015), studies were assessed for risk of bias with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (NHLBI, 2014), consistent with prior research in the problematic social media use literature (Frost & Rickwood, 2017). The tool allows poor, fair, and good quality studies to be distinguished. The first and second authors independently assessed study quality and disagreements were resolved via discussion. Given almost all studies were cross-sectional and one was longitudinal (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019), clear causal inferences could not be drawn, so the maximum possible rating was fair.

Results

Our searches identified 8,288 journal articles for uploading into Covidence. A total of 2,463 duplicate articles were automatically removed by Covidence, with an additional seven duplicates removed during the screening process. A total of 41 articles met the inclusion criteria. One additional article was identified through examination of reference lists (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020) and two through other sources (Hallauer et al., 2022; Horwood & Anglim, 2019). The screening process is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart for Study Inclusion.

 

Note. PSU = problematic smartphone use.

Risk of Bias

Due to homogeneity of study design, the risk of bias findings lacked variation. Most studies (n = 40) were of fair quality. For example, they included clear research aims, adequately sized and described (albeit often convenience) samples, and/or key covariates (e.g., age, gender). A minority of studies (AlBarashdi & Bouazza, 2019; Lin et al., 2014; Park et al., 2013; Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016) were assessed as poor (e.g., did not control for confounds, used measures that were not well defined, and/or provided a limited description of the population sampled). Given this lack of variation, we have not emphasised the specific risk of bias grade, but discuss several factors that influence risk of bias (e.g., study characteristics, measures) throughout.

Heterogeneity in Smartphone Use Motives Measures

Across the 44 included studies, there were 19 different smartphone use motives measures with a combined 72 motives dimensions (characteristics of the 19 smartphone use motives measures are summarised in Table 1). The number of motives dimensions in each measure varied from two to eight and there were 55 different labels applied to those dimensions. This extensive heterogeneity limited our ability to integrate findings across studies and determine which motives were associated with PSU. Only one measure (Lin et al., 2014) developed items with in-depth interviews asking people why they used their smartphone. All other measures had either an unclear genesis (n = 6) or were largely adapted from prior measures designed to assess motives for using the internet, video games, social networking sites, email, instant messenger applications, online shopping sites, telephones, pagers, television, and alcohol (n = 13).

Table 1. Overview of Smartphone Use Motives Measures Used in the 44 Included Studies.

Title/Description

Authora

Motive Dimension Labelb

Genesisc

Smartphone Usage Behaviour Questionnaire

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

1)    Social interaction

2)    Information sharing and entertainment

3)    Self-identity and conforming

4)    Self-developing and safety

5)    Freedom and privacy

6)    Self-express and gossip

  • Adapted from internet use motives measures

Smartphone Use Expectancies Scale

Elhai, Yang, et al. (2020)

1)    Positive expectancies

2)    Negative expectancies

  • Adapted from internet use expectancies measure
  • Items in measure reflect motives not expectancies

Motives for Mobile Phone Use

Hwang and Park (2015)

1)    Instrumental

2)    Entertainment

3)    Self-identity

  • Adapted from television and internet use motives measures
  • Incorporated earlier qualitative data on mobile phone use

Dispositional Media Use Motives

Khang et al. (2013)

1)    Information seeking

2)    Social relationship

3)    Pastime

4)    Self-presence

  • Adapted from dispositional media use motives measure, not in English

Motivations for Smartphone Use

J.-H. Kim (2017)

1)    Escape

2)    Relationship

  • Adapted from telephone, pager, television, and internet use motives measures

Motivations for Mobile Phone Use

J.-H. Kim et al. (2015)

1)    Alleviation

2)    Pass-time

  • Adapted from telephone, pager, television, and internet use motives measures

Motives for Smartphone Use

Lee and Lee (2017)

1)    Obtaining infotainment

2)    Gaining peer acceptance

3)    Finding new people

  • Adapted from smartphone use motives measures, not in English

Motives for Mobile Phone Application Use

Lin et al. (2014)

1)    Social benefits

2)    Immediate access and mobility

3)    Entertainment

4)    Self-status seeking

5)    Pursuit of happiness

6)    Information seeking

7)    Socialising

  • Adapted from internet and social network site use motives measures
  • Incorporated qualitative data collected by the authors

Smartphone Use Motivations

Meng et al. (2020)

1)    Instrumental

2)    Self-expression

3)    Hedonic

4)    Social relationship

  • Adapted from social networking site, email, and instant messaging application use motives measures

Motivation for Using a Smartphone

Paek (2019)

1)    Information seeking

2)    Convenience

3)    Social interaction

4)    Entertainment

5)    Passing time

  • Adapted from a tablet use motives measure, not in English

Smartphone Use Motivations

Park and Lee (2014)

1)    Search for information

2)    Chat with others

3)    Pass leisure time

4)    Care for others

5)    Follow the trend

6)    Easy access to others

  • Adapted from internet, telephone, and pager use motives measures

Motivation for Social Inclusion and Instrumental Use

Park et al. (2013)

1)    Social inclusion

2)    Instrumental

NR

Smartphone Usage Motivation Scale

Shen et al. (2021)

1)    Social interaction

2)    Entertainment

  • Adapted from social networking site use motives measure

Mobile Phone Uses and Gratifications Scale

Vanden Abeele (2016)

1)    Pass time

2)    Fashion, identity, and status

3)    Safety

4)    Micro-coordination, mobility, and immediacy

5)    School

6)    Love

7)    Social relationships

8)    Avoid face-to-face contact

  • Prior research investigating mobile phone use motives, references NR

Process and Social Smartphone Usage

Van Deursen et al. (2015)

1)     Process usage

2)     Social usage

  • Adapted from online communication application, telephone, pager, and internet use motives measures
  • Incorporated qualitative research from prior investigations into camera phone and photo tagging use

Smartphone Usage Motivation Scale

Wang et al. (2015)

1)    Entertainment

2)    Escapism

  • Adapted from a social networking site use motives measure

Smartphone Use Motives

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

1)    Perceived enjoyment

2)    Information seeking

3)    Social relationship

4)    Mood regulation

5)    Pastime

6)    Conformity

  • Adapted from social networking site, microblogging, internet, and alcohol use motives measures

Reinforcement Motives for Smartphone Use

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, Zhao, and Lee (2014)

1)    Mood regulation

2)    Instant gratification

  • Adapted from internet, alcohol, and online shopping site use motives measures

Motivations for Smartphone Use

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

1)    Virtual community

2)    Emotional

3)    Information

4)    Follow the social environment

  • Prior research investigating mobile phone use motives, references NR

Note. a The Author column includes references for the study where the motives measure was first used/constructed in the context of smartphone use, as opposed to the study where the measure was first developed to assess motives for different behaviours. b The Motive Dimension Label column includes all motives dimensions assessed in the smartphone use motives measures. c The Genesis column describes how items for the smartphone use motives measures were developed. NR = not reported.

Categorising Smartphone Use Motives

Despite heterogeneity in the labels applied to smartphone use motives dimensions across the 19 measures, examination of the definitions/items used to operationalise them suggested many measured similar constructs. For example, J.-H. Kim’s (2017) “relationship” motives included the item I use/play with my smartphone to improve relationships with friends and family and Shen et al.’s (2021) “social interaction” motives included the item I use my smartphone to keep in touch with my friends and family. Therefore, to enable synthesis of findings, we used the same approach as Kuntsche et al. (2005) in their systematic review of drinking motives, grouping smartphone use motives dimensions into categories based on their items (where available) and descriptions. These motives categories were: (a) smartphone use to communicate, maintain relationships, and obtain social benefits (“social”); (b) smartphone use to gain identity and approval from a social group, and avoid social disapproval (“self-identity/conformity”); (c) smartphone use to obtain information (“information seeking”); (d) smartphone use to reduce negative emotions (“mood regulation”); (e) smartphone use to avoid boredom (“pass-time”); (f) smartphone use to obtain pleasure (“enhancement”); and (g) smartphone use to feel safe (“safety”). How each of the motives dimensions from the included studies aligns with our proposed motives categories is included in the Appendix.

It is important to note that there remained some heterogeneity within our proposed motives categories, particularly “social” motives. Four smartphone use motives measures (AlBarashdi & Bouazza, 2019; Lin et al., 2014; Park & Lee, 2014; Vanden Abeele, 2016) differentiated multiple types of social motives (e.g., smartphone use for general socialising, smartphone use for more meaningful social interactions, and smartphone use because it facilitates constant access to others). Given few studies/measures distinguished between different social motives, we grouped them together as “social” motives for the purpose of synthesising results, consistent with Kuntsche et al.’s (2005) approach in their review of drinking motives.

Ten motives dimensions could not be categorised due to conceptual overlap (see superscript in Table 2). For example, Van Deursen et al.’s (2015) process motives included the item I use my smartphone in order to escape from real-life, consistent with “mood regulation” motives. However, it also included the items I use my smartphone because it is entertaining, I use my smartphone in order to stay up to date on the latest news, and I use my smartphone because it helps me passing time, consistent with “enhancement”, “information seeking”, and “pass-time” motives, respectively. We were also unable to categorise the five motives dimensions in Paek’s (2019) study, given descriptions or example items were not available. Motives that could not be categorised were excluded from the following synthesis, except where we examined demographic differences, indirect effects, or moderating effects. This was because findings from the latter studies provide insight into how motives may operate in more complex mechanisms and whether they could be a final pathway to PSU.

The Association of Motives with Problematic Smartphone Use

Table 2 summarises the characteristics and findings from all 44 reviewed studies. Only one study used a longitudinal design (Rozgonjuk et al., 2019) and the remainder were cross-sectional. University students (n = 21) and school students (n = 7) were the most sampled populations. Most studies were conducted in East Asia (n = 20) or the United States of America (n = 11). Ten previously validated PSU scales were used across 33 of the included studies and 10 studies adapted their own PSU measure from scales designed to assess different problematic behaviours (e.g., problematic internet use and online video gaming). While the established PSU scales used had somewhat varied content and factor structures, they were mostly developed through a behavioural addiction framework, incorporating previous behavioural addiction research, and adapting internet addiction measures and diagnostic criteria for gambling addiction. Only one of the PSU scales was developed by directly adapting the diagnostic criteria for substance dependence (Chóliz, 2012). For additional analysis of PSU measures, see reviews by Harris et al. (2020) and Yu and Sussman (2020). The following paragraphs synthesise findings for the association of motives with PSU; the strength of both bivariate and multivariate associations were described as per Cohen’s (1988) conventions.

Table 2. Summary of Reviewed Studies.

Author

Sample

Design

PSU measure

Motives measure

Bivariate Results with PSU

Multivariate Results with PSU

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

849 university students in Oman

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

Social interactiona;

Information sharing and entertainmenth;

self-identity and conformingc r = .12;

self-developing and safetyg = .16;

freedom and privacya;

self-express and gossipa = .15

N/A

Casale et al. (2022)

364 participants in Italy aged 18–75 years (Mage = 36.80, SD = 15.32)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh = .28;

Sociala = .19

Controlling for age and gender:

FOMO → social → PSU; FOMO → meta-cognitions → social → PSU;

FOBU → process → PSU β = .01;

FOBU → meta-cognitions → process → PSU β = .004

Controlling for age, gender, FOMO, meta-cognitions:

Social

Controlling for age, gender, FOBU, meta-cognitions:

Process β = .09

Casale et al. (2021)

535 participants aged 18–65 years (Mage = 27.38, SD = 9.05)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Smartphone Use Expectancies Scale (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020)

PSUEf r = .43;

NSUEb r = .57

Controlling for metacognitions about smartphone use, age, and gender:

Impulsivity → PSUEf;

Impulsivity → NSUEb;

psychological distress → PSUEf β = .17;

psychological distress → NSUEb β = .26;

boredom proneness → PSUEf β = .15;

boredom proneness → NSUEb β = .38;

PSUEf PSU β = .19;

NSUEb PSU β = .12

Chang et al. (2022)

909 university students in China aged 17–25 years (Mage = 20.21, SD = 1.27)

Cross-sectional

SAS—C

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Sociala r = .11

N/A

C. Chen et al. (2019)

379 participants in China (91.29% aged 18–30 years)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Smartphone Use Motives (K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014)

N/A

Controlling for age, income, education, habit, perceived enjoyment:

mood regulationb β = .42

C. Chen et al. (2017)

384 university students in China (91.1% aged 18–30 years)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Smartphone Use Motives (K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014)

N/A

Controlling for perceived enjoyment:

social relationshipsa;

mood regulationb β = .22;

pastimed β = .16;

conformityc β = .20

Cheng and Meng (2021)

317 participants in the USA aged 18–35 years (Mage = 30.25, SD = 6.04), previously diagnosed with depression

Cross-sectional

SAS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .56;

sociala r = .30

Controlling for depression and smartphone usage:

processh β = .35;

sociala

Elhai, Gallinari, et al. (2020)

316 university students in the USA aged 18–25 years (Mage = 19.21, SD = 1.74)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .31;

sociala r = .20

Controlling for gender:

depression → FOMO β = .39;

anxiety → FOMO β = .27;

FOMO → processh β = .24;

FOMO → sociala;

FOMO → PSU β = .09;

processh PSU β = .18;

sociala → PSU

Elhai, Hall, et al. (2017)

309 participants in the USA aged 18 years or more (Mage = 33.15, SD = 10.21)

Cross-sectional

SAS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh → PSU facets:
daily life disturbances;

positive anticipation r  = .50;

withdrawal r = .32;

cyberspace relationships = .34;

overuse = .38;

tolerance = .22
Sociala → PSU facets:
daily life disturbances = −.17;

positive anticipation r  = .27;

withdrawal r = .15;

cyberspace relationships;

overuse r = .23;

tolerance

Controlling for age, gender:

Processh → PSU facets:
daily life disturbances β = −.19;

positive anticipation β = .49;

withdrawal;

cyberspace relationships;

overuse β = .24;

tolerance
Sociala → PSU facets:
daily life disturbances β = −.34;

positive anticipation β = .28;

withdrawal;

cyberspace relationships;

overuse β = .25;

tolerance

Elhai et al. (2018)

305 university students in the USA (Mage = 19.44, SD = 2.16)

Cross-sectional

SAS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .53;

sociala r = .23

N/A

Elhai, Levine, et al. (2017)

308 participants in the USA aged 18 years or more (Mage = 33.15, SD = 10.21)

Cross-sectional

SAS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .40;

sociala r = .16

Controlling for age, gender:

processh β = .57;

sociala β = .19;
depression → processh → PSU;

depression → sociala → PSU;

anxiety → processh PSU β = .28;

anxiety → sociala → PSU

Elhai, Yang, et al. (2020)

286 university students in the USA aged 18–25 years (Mage = 19.72, SD = 2.60)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Adapted

PSUEf r = .39;

NSUEb r = .55

Controlling for gender, rumination, depression, and anxiety:

NSUEb B = .10;

PSUEf

Farhat et al. (2021)

200 participants (96% aged 36 years or less)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Reinforcement Motives for Smartphone Use (K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, Zhao, & Lee 2014)

N/A

Controlling for convenience and flow:

mood regulationb β = .16;

instant gratificationf β = .14

Fu et al. (2020)

584 school students in China aged 13–18 years (Mage = 16.13, SD = 2.80)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS—SV

Motivations for Smartphone Use (J.-H. Kim, 2017)

Escapeb r = .61

Controlling for age, gender:

Parental monitoring → escapeb β = .10; escapeb PSU β = .61

Gentina and Rowe (2020)

463 school students in France aged 16–18 years (Mage = 16.8)

Cross-sectional

MPI

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

N/A

Processh β = .39;

sociala β = .14;

youth materialism → processh → PSU β = .21;

youth materialism → sociala → PSU

Hallauer et al. (2022)

352 university students in the USA aged 18–53 years (Mage = 19.79, SD = 3.43)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Smartphone Use Expectancies Scale (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020)

PSUEf r = .49;

NSUEb r = .54

Controlling for mindfulness, gender, age, and social distancing:

Depression → PSUEf;

depression → NSUEb;

anxiety → PSUEf β = .21;

anxiety → NSUEb β = .23;

PSUEf → PSU β = .43;

NSUEb → PSU β = .39;

depression → PSUEf → PSU;

depression → NSUEb → PSU;

anxiety → PSUEf → PSU;

anxiety → NSUEb → PSU

Hao et al. (2022)

766 university students in China aged 17 year or more (Mage = 20.10, SD = 1.15)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .25;

sociala r = −.10

Controlling for age, gender, and academic burnout:

Processh β = .04;

Sociala

Horwood and Anglim (2018)

393 university students in Australia (Mage = 24.4, SD = 7.1)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .60;

sociala r = .27

N/A

Horwood and Anglim (2019)

539 university students in Australia aged 18–65 years (Mage = 25.1, SD = 7.8)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .64;

sociala r = .31

N/A

Hwang and Park (2015)

550 school students in South Korea aged 14–19 years (Mage = 17.68, SD = 3.35)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS

Adapted

N/A

Controlling for age, gender, peer conformity, impulsivity, imitation, loneliness, social anxiety, amount of smartphone use:

Regression on attachment PSU facet:

Instrumentalh β = .14;

entertainmenth;

self-identityc

Regression on withdrawal PSU facet:
instrumentalh β = .11;

entertainmenth;

self-identityc
Regression on intrusion PSU facet:
instrumentalh;

entertainmenth;

self-identityc

Khang et al. (2013)

290 university students in the USA (Mage = 21, SD = 3.72)

Cross-sectional

MPAS

Adapted

N/A

Controlling for time spent on smartphone, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-control, media flow:

information seekinge;

social relationshipa β = .11;

pastimed β = .24;

self-presencec β = .27

J.-H. Kim (2017)

930 participants in the USA aged 13–40 years (Mage = 25.56, SD = 8.20).

Cross-sectional

MPPUS and SAS

Adapted

Escapeb r = .58;

relationshipa r = .31

Loneliness → escapeb SMC → PSU b = 0.005;

Loneliness → relationshipa F2F contact → PSU b = 0.0003

J.-H. Kim et al. (2015)

395 participants in the USA aged 18–68 (Mage = 31.64, SD = 9.69).

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

N/A

Alleviationb β = .37;

pass-timed β = .26;

depression → alleviationb→ PSU β = .12;

depression → pass-timed → PSU

Lee and Lee (2017)

3,000 school students in South Korea from grade
7–12

Cross-sectional

SAPS

Adapted

Obtaining infotainmenth = .24;

gaining peer acceptancec = .46;

finding new peopleh = .21

Controlling for gender, school type, socio economic status, attachment to parents, attachment to friends, attachment to teachers:

Obtaining infotainmenth β = .10;

gaining peer acceptancec β = .37;

finding new peopleh β = .06

Li et al. (2021)

1,034 school students in China aged
12–19 years (Mage = 15.76, SD = 1.20)

Cross-sectional

MPAI

Motivations for Smartphone Use (J.-H. Kim, 2017)

Escapeb r = .52

Controlling for gender and loneliness:

escapeb β = .44

Controlling for gender:

loneliness → escapeb PSU β = .11;

Escapeb x self-control β = −.05;

Escapeb x Impulsivity

Lin et al. (2014)

441 participants

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

N/A

Social benefitsa β = −.23;

immediate access and mobilitya β = −.22;

entertainmentf β = −..24;

self-status seekingc β = .45;

pursuit of happinessh β = .49;

information seekinge β = .17;

socialisinga

Meng et al. (2020)

8,261 school students in China aged
10–16 years (Mage = 12.86, SD = 1.76)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

Instrumentale r = −.22;

self-expressionc r = .10;

hedonich r = .21;

social relationshipsa r = .09

Controlling for age, gender, school grade, relationship with parents, parents’ age, parents’ education level, living district location, living district type, family annual income, smartphone functions:

instrumentale β = −.23;

self-expressionc;

hedonich;

social relationshipsa β = −.17

Paek (2019)

339 university students in South Korea aged 18–28 years (Mage = 21.47, SD = 1.86)

Cross-sectional

SAPS

Adapted

Information seekingh;

convenienceh;

social interactionh r = .12;

entertainmenth r = .33;

passing timeh r = .23

Controlling for gender, academic achievement, perceived stress:
entertainmenth β = .24;

passing timeh β = .16

Park et al. (2013)

852 participants in South Korea aged 17–49 years

Cross-sectional

Not reported

NR

Social inclusiona r = .46;

Instrumentale use r = .36

Controlling for innovativeness, behavioural activation system, locus of control, perceived relationship control, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness:

Social inclusiona β = .25;

instrumentale

Park and Lee (2014)

275 university students in South Korea

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

Search for informatione;

chat with othersa t = 2.59;

pass leisure timed;

care for othersa t = 4.14;

follow the trendc t = 3.73;

easy access to othersa = 2.65

N/A

Rozgonjuk et al. (2019)

261 University students in the USA (Mage = 19.73, SD = 3.52)

Longitudinal

SAS—SV

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .31;

sociala r = .15

Processh β = .39;

sociala β = .16;

intolerance of uncertainty → processh PSU β = .17;

intolerance of uncertainty → sociala → PSU

Sever and Özdemir (2022)

380 university students in Turkey aged
18–36 (Mage = 21.22, SD = 2.02)

Cross-sectional

SAS—SV

Smartphone Usage Motivation Scale (Wang et al., 2015)

Entertainmenth r = .37;

escapismd r = .51

Controlling for perceived stress and FOMO:

Entertainmenth β = .15;

escapismd β = .29

Shen et al. (2021)

549 university students in China (Mage = 18.39, SD = 1.92)

Cross-sectional

SAS—C

Adapted

High PSU group:
social interactiona r = .17;

entertainmenth r = .29

Low PSU group:
social interactiona r = −.13;

entertainmenth

Controlling for age, gender, anxiety:

High PSU group entertainmenth model:
entertainmenth β = .45;

entertainmenth x anxiety β = .26
High PSU group social interactiona model:
social interactiona β = .31;

social interactiona x anxiety β = .79
Low PSU group entertainmenth model:
entertainmenth;

entertainmenth x anxiety
Low PSU group social interactiona model:
social interactiona β = −.39;

social interactiona x anxiety

Shen and Wang (2019)

549 university students in China (Mage = 18.39, SD = 1.92)

Cross-sectional

SAS—C

Smartphone Usage Motivation Scale (Wang et al., 2015)

Entertainmenth r = .24;

escapismd r = .41

Controlling for age, gender, stress, stress x entertainmenth:

Entertainmenth model:
entertainmenth β = .25;

loneliness → entertainmenth PSU β = −.05;

Stress x entertainmenth β = .29
Controlling for age, gender, stress, stress x escapismd:

Escapismd model:
escapismd β = .37;

loneliness → escapismd PSU β = .12;

stress x escapismd

Van Deursen et al. (2015)

386 participants in the Netherlands aged 15–88 years (Mage = 35.2, SD = 14.7)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS

Adapted

Processh r = .43;

sociala r = .18

Controlling for age, gender, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, habitual smartphone behaviour:

processh β = .15;

sociala

Vezzoli et al. (2021)

528 university students aged 18–29 years (Mage = 22.38, SD = 2.06)

Cross-sectional

TMPD

Mobile Phone Uses and Gratifications Scale (Vanden Abeele, 2016)

N/A

Pass-timed β = .35;

statusc β = .33;

safetyg β = .09;

avoid F2F contacta β = .09;

micro-coordinationa;

schoola;

lovea;

social relationshipsa

Wang et al. (2015)

549 university students in China (Mage = 18.39, SD = 1.92).

Cross-sectional

SAS—C

Adapted

High PSU group:
entertainmenth r = .29;

escapismd r = .22

Low PSU group:
entertainmenth;

escapismd r = .35

Controlling for age, gender, stress:

High PSU group entertainmenth model:
entertainmenth β = .29;

entertainmenth x stress β = .21
High PSU group escapismd model:
escapismd β = .17;

escapismd x stress β = .12
Low PSU group entertainmenth model:
entertainmenth;

entertainmenth x stress β = .13
Low PSU group escapismd model:
escapismd β = .28;

escapismd x stress

Wen et al. (2022)

746 adolescents aged 12–18 years (Mage = 15.83, SD = 1.89) and 600 adults aged 19–59 years (Mage = 38.50, SD = 10.64) in China

Cross-sectional

SAS-SV

Smartphone Use Motives (K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014)

Social relationshipsa r  = .11;

mood regulationb r = .33;

pastimed r = .36;

conformityc r = .30

Controlling for gender, education level, and perceived enjoyment:

Social relationshipsa r  = .15;

mood regulationb r = .14;

pastimed β = .13;

conformityc β = .16

Age x social relationships β = −.06;

Age x mood regulation;

Age x pastime;

age x conformity

Wickord and Quaiser-Pohl (2022)

108 participants in Germany aged 17–70 (Mage = 31.8, SD = 12.2)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS-SV

Process and Social Smartphone Usage (Van Deursen et al., 2015)

Processh r = .56;

sociala r = .28

Controlling for habitual use, age, and gender:

Processh β = .28;

sociala

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, Zhao, & Lee (2014)

384 university students in China (91.1% aged 18–30 years)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

N/A

Controlling for convenience, flow:

mood regulationb β = .38;

instant gratificationf β = .23

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee (2014)

394 university students in China (91.3% aged 18–30 years)

Cross-sectional

Adapted

Adapted

N/A

Controlling for perceived enjoyment:

information seekinge;

social relationshipsa;

mood regulationb β = .17;

pastimed β = .16;

conformityc β = .15

M. X. Zhang and Wu (2022)

956 university students in China aged
16–28 years (Mage = 19.35, SD = 1.07)

Cross-sectional

SPAI

Smartphone Use Motives (K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014)

Social relationshipsa r  = .19;

mood regulationb r = .34;

pastimed r = .40;

conformityc r = .32

Controlling for age, gender, perceived enjoyment, childhood adversity, and slow life history strategy:

social relationshipsa;

mood regulationb β = .10;

pastimed β = .27;

conformityc β = .18

Controlling for age and gender:

Slow life history strategy → pastime → PSU β = −.01;

Slow life history strategy → conformity → PSU β = .007;

Slow life history strategy → mood regulation → PSU;

Slow life history strategy → social → PSU

Zhen et al. (2019)

4,509 school students in China aged
10–19 years (Mage = 14.5, SD = 1.82)

Cross-sectional

MPPUS—SV

Motivations for Smartphone Use (J.-H. Kim, 2017)

Escapeb r = .64;

relationshipa r = .35

Escapeb β = .57;

relationshipa β = .08;

PCR → escapeb PSU β = −.08;

PCR → relationshipa PSU β = −.00;

PCR → loneliness → escapeb PSU β = −.02;

TSR → escapeb PSU β = −.04;

TSR → relationshipa → PSU;

TSR → loneliness → escapeb → PSU β = −.02

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

209 participants in Israel aged 13–68 years

Cross-sectional

SAS

Adapted

PSU behaviour factor:
virtual communitya;

emotionalb;

informatione;

social environmentc r = .32
PSU emotional factor:
virtual communitya;

emotionalb r = .30;

informatione;

social environmentc r = .33
PSU social factor:
virtual communitya;

emotionalb;

informatione r = −.24;

social environmentc r = .40

Controlling for Big 5 personality factors, PSU emotional and social factors, and smartphone application usage:

virtual communitya;

emotionalb;

informatione;

social environmentc

Note. All relationships at p ≤ .05 are in boldface. Sample size, country of origin, and age range and mean are reported where available. PSU = problematic smartphone use. USA = United States of America. Adapted = measure adapted by authors from prior measure designed for other problematic behaviour, or motives for other behaviour and/or prior research investigating motives for mobile phone/smartphone use. SAS—SV = Smartphone Addiction Scale—Short Version (Kwon, Kim, et al., 2013). SAS—C = Smartphone Addiction Scale for College Students (Su et al., 2014). SAS = Smartphone Addiction Scale (Kwon, Lee, et al., 2013). MPPUS—SV = Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale—Short Version (Foerster et al., 2015). MPI = Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire (Walsh et al., 2010). MPPUS = Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). MPAS = Mobile Phone Addiction Scale (Han & Hur, 2004). TMPD = Test of Mobile Phone Dependence (Chóliz, 2012). SAPS = Smartphone Addiction Proneness Scale (D. Kim et al., 2014). MPAI = Mobile Phone Addiction Index (Leung, 2008). ® = relationship between x and y variables. PCR = parent-child relationship. TSR = teacher-student relationship. F2F = face-to-face. SMC = smartphone mediated communication. FOMO = fear of missing out. FOBU = fear of not being up to date. PSUE = positive smartphone use expectancies. NSUE = negative smartphone use expectancies. NR = not reported. a Categorised as “social” motives. Categorised as “mood regulation” motives. Categorised as “self-identity/conformity” motives. Categorised as “pass-time” motives. Categorised as “information seeking” motives. Categorised as “enhancement” motives. Categorised as “safety” motives. Could not be categorised in motives categories.

Social Motives

Of the 29 studies that examined the association of “social” motives with PSU (see Table 2), most (24/29) found significant positive associations. In seven studies, significant positive associations of “social” motives with PSU became non-significant (Casale et al., 2022; Cheng & Meng, 2021; Elhai, Gallinari, et al., 2020; Van Deursen et al., 2015; Wickord & Quaiser-Pohl, 2022; M. X. Zhang & Wu, 2022) or changed direction (Meng et al., 2020) when additional motives and covariates were considered. One study (Shen et al., 2021) identified that “social” motives were positively and negatively associated with PSU among those who scored high (≥ M) and low (< M) on PSU, respectively, suggesting that “social” motives may maintain, but not precipitate PSU. Bivariate correlations and beta coefficients were generally small.

Three studies found evidence that specific sub-types of “social” motives may be differentially associated with PSU, although the pattern of significance is inconsistent. AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019) found that smartphone use to self-express and gossip with friends and family was positively associated with PSU, but use for general socialising and because it facilitates freedom to contact people at any time were not. Lin et al. (2014) also found that smartphone use for general socialising was not associated with PSU, but use for social benefits and because it allows immediate access to people were negatively associated with PSU. Finally, Vezzoli et al. (2021) identified that smartphone use to talk to people you do not want to talk to in person was positively associated with PSU, but smartphone use to maintain social/familial relationships, romantic relationships, collaborate with school friends, and because it allows immediate access to others was not.

Mood Regulation Motives

All 16 studies that examined the association of “mood regulation” motives with PSU (see Table 2) found significant positive associations. Although in one study (Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016) “mood regulation” was only associated with an emotional PSU facet and not behavioural or social PSU facets. However, Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016) measured motives with single items which may have attenuated relationships. Bivariate correlations and beta coefficients were mostly medium to large.

Self-Identity/Conformity Motives

All 13 studies that examined the association of “self-identity/conformity” motives with PSU (see Table 2) found significant positive results. Although the effect of “self-identity/conformity” motives was no longer significant in two of the 10 studies that adjusted for other motives and covariates (e.g., use of smartphone features, personality traits, demographic variables; Meng et al., 2020; Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016). This suggests that while self-identity/conformity motives are generally consistently associated with PSU, the association may be partly due to shared variance with other motives. Bivariate correlations were mostly medium, with two small effects. Conversely, beta coefficients were mostly small.

Pass-Time Motives

Ten of the 11 studies that examined the association of “pass-time” motives with PSU (see Table 2) found significant positive associations. The one study (Park & Lee, 2014) that found a non-significant effect used a dichotomised measure of PSU as the independent variable (high versus low), which may have attenuated the effect of motives. Notably, in contrast to “social” motives, “pass-time” motives were positively associated with PSU among those who scored high (≥ M) and low (< M) on PSU, suggesting “pass-time” motives may be both a precipitating and maintaining factor (Wang et al., 2015). Four of the six bivariate correlations were medium, one was large, and one was small. The beta coefficients were mostly small.

Information Seeking

Seven studies examined the association of “information seeking” motives with PSU (see Table 2), with mixed results. Two studies found significant positive associations (Lin et al., 2014; Park et al., 2013) and two found significant negative associations (Meng et al., 2020; Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016) of “information seeking” motives with PSU, with the remainder identifying no significant relationship. However, in two of the studies that found significant associations (Park et al., 2013; Zhitomirsky-Geffet & Blau, 2016), the effects became non-significant when motives and other psychosocial covariates were considered. Taken together, findings suggest “information seeking” motives likely have a limited association with PSU. Two of the three bivariate correlations were small and one was medium. The two beta coefficients were small.

Enhancement Motives

Of the six studies that examined the association of “enhancement” motives with PSU (see Table 2), five found significant positive associations and one (Lin et al., 2014) found a negative association. The study that found a negative association for “enhancement” motives with PSU also found a negative association for “social” motives with PSU, in contrast with the majority of findings. Lin et al. (2014) used a PSU measure not employed in any of the other reviewed studies, possibly explaining their divergent results. Another study (Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020) found “enhancement” motives were positively associated with PSU in a bivariate analysis, but the motives did not predict a severe PSU class from a mild PSU class (distinguished through latent class analysis). All bivariate correlations were medium and most of the beta coefficients were small.

Safety Motives

The association of “safety” motives with PSU were only examined in two studies, both finding significant positive associations (AlBarashdi & Bouazza, 2019; Vezzoli et al., 2021). The one bivariate correlation was small, as was the beta coefficient.

Demographic Differences in the Association of Motives with Problematic Smartphone Use

Of the 44 studies, one (Wen et al., 2022) tested whether there were age differences in the association of smartphone use motives with PSU. Wen et al. (2022) found that age interacted with “social” motives, but not “mood regulation”, “pass-time”, or “self-identity/conformity” motives, to predict PSU; specifically, “social” motives positively predicted PSU among adults, but not adolescents. Two studies examined potential gender differences in the association of motives with PSU (C. Chen et al., 2017; Gentina & Rowe, 2020). C. Chen et al. (2017) identified that “self-identity/conformity”’ motives were the strongest predictor of PSU for males, whereas for females, “mood regulation” motives were the strongest predictor. Gentina and Rowe (2020) identified indirect effects of youth materialism on PSU via “social” motives among females, and via process motives (conceptualised broadly to overlap with “information seeking”, “mood regulation”, “pass-time”, and “enhancement” motives) among males (Gentina & Rowe, 2020).

Motives as Mediators or Moderators of Pathways to Problematic Smartphone Use

The Alcohol Use Motivational Model proposes that motives are the final common pathway to behaviour (Cox & Klinger, 2004). To assess this claim in the context of PSU, we synthesised research which investigated the indirect or interacting effects of smartphone use motives on the association of various psychosocial factors with PSU. Moreover, we framed findings within Billieux et al.’s (2015) pathways to PSU, to judge whether different motives mediate or moderate each pathway.

Excessive Reassurance Pathway

Consistent with an excessive reassurance or compensatory pathway to PSU, 12 studies tested whether there were indirect effects for psychosocial factors linked to negative affectivity on PSU via motives. Six of those studies included depression and/or anxiety, with findings showing positive indirect effects on PSU via “mood regulation”, “enhancement”, and process motives (conceptualised broadly to overlap with “information seeking”, “mood regulation”, “pass-time”, and “enhancement” motives; Casale et al., 2021; Cheng & Meng, 2021; Elhai, Gallinari, et al., 2020; Elhai, Levine, et al., 2017; Hallauer et al., 2022; J.-H. Kim et al., 2015). Notably, two studies found that anxiety, but not depression, had positive indirect effects on PSU via process, (Elhai, Levine, et al., 2017), “mood regulation”, and “enhancement” motives (Hallauer et al., 2022). This suggests that the association of depression with motives reflecting “mood regulation” and “enhancement” may be at least in part due to shared variance with anxiety.

Four additional studies found that loneliness—a transdiagnostic factor linked to depression, anxiety, and other psychopathologies—had positive indirect effects on PSU via “mood regulation”, pass-time, and “social” motives (J.-H. Kim, 2017; Li et al., 2021; Shen & Wang, 2019; Zhen et al., 2019). Rozgonjuk et al. (2019) found another transdiagnostic psychopathological factor intolerance of uncertainty had a positive indirect effect on PSU via process motives. Crucially, Rozgonjuk et al. (2019) was the only study in this review that employed a longitudinal design, with intolerance of uncertainty and motives measured at time 1 and PSU at time 2, providing some evidence for process motives relating to a subsequent increase in PSU. Casale et al. (2022) found that fear of not being up to date on new information—which is simlar to the trasndiagnostic factor fear of missing out—was indirectly associated with PSU via process motives. Interestingly, several of these studies found non-significant indirect effects for depression, anxiety, loneliness, intolerance of uncertainly, or fear of missing out on PSU via “social” motives (Casale et al., 2022; Cheng & Meng, 2021; Elhai, Gallinari, et al., 2020; Elhai, Levine, et al., 2017; Rozgonjuk et al., 2019; Zhen et al., 2019). This indicates that smartphone use for social interaction or to maintain relationships may play a limited role in efforts to compensate for low psychosocial wellbeing.

Three studies tested whether psychosocial wellbeing factors interacted with motives to predict PSU. Shen et al. (2021) found that entertainment (conceptually overlapped with “enhancement” and “mood regulation” motives) and “social” motives positively predicted PSU when anxiety was high. Wang et al. (2015) identified that the same entertainment motives and “pass-time” motives were positively associated with PSU only when stress was high. However, using the same predictor and moderator variables, Shen and Wang (2019) found different results; stress only interacted with entertainment motives, not “pass-time” motives, with entertainment motives positively associated with PSU only when stress was low. These divergent results are probably due to different levels of PSU among the analytic samples. Wang et al. (2015) split their sample into those who scored high (≥ M) and low (< M) on PSU, with the above effect among those who scored high; whereas Shen and Wang (2019) did not split their sample based on level of PSU. This suggests that smartphone use for “enhancement”, “mood regulation”, or “pass-time” as a coping strategy for stress may be particularly important for maintaining or increasing PSU among those with already high levels of PSU.

Impulsive and Extraversion Pathways

Three studies tested whether motives had indirect or interacting effects on the association of psychosocial factors relevant to the impulsive and/or extraversion pathways with PSU. Casale et al. (2021) found that boredom proneness had indirect effects on PSU via “mood regulation” and “enhancement” motives. However, the same indirect effects of impulsivity on PSU were non-significant. Although, Li et al. (2021) found that self-control (conceptually similar to impulsivity), interacted with “mood regulation” motives to predict PSU, such that “mood regulation” motives were more strongly associated with PSU when self-control was low. M. X. Zhang and Wu (2022) found that a fast life history strategy, which involves impulsive behaviour and engagement in immediately gratifying activities, had an indirect effect on PSU via “pass-time” motives. Interestingly, they also found that a slow life history strategy, which describes those who are less impulsive and can delay immediate gratification for future benefits, was indirectly associated with PSU via “self-identity/conformity” motives.

Discussion

We reviewed the literature that investigated the association of smartphone use motives with PSU. We aimed to determine which motives are associated with generalised PSU and whether motives had indirect or moderating effects on the association of other psychosocial factors with PSU. The extensive heterogeneity of smartphone use motives measures made it challenging to identify which motives were associated with PSU. To help overcome this, we grouped motives dimensions from the included studies under seven broad motives categories, based on their item content and descriptions. Motives which appeared to be related to “mood regulation”, “self-identity/conformity”, “pass-time”, “social”, and “enhancement” were generally positively associated with PSU across the literature. “Mood regulation” motives generally showed the stronger effects, although there was limited evidence to indicate “social” motives may be particularly important for females and adults, and “self-identity/conformity” motives may be important for males. “Safety” motives were also associated with PSU, but they only appeared in two studies. Consistent with the theoretical proposition that motives are the final common pathway to behaviour, there were indirect and interacting effects of motives on the association of low psychosocial wellbeing with PSU, although more (particularly longitudinal) research is required to corroborate and extend these effects.

The Role of Motives in Pathways to Problematic Smartphone Use

Several studies found support for the role of motives in negative reinforcement pathways to PSU. Both the compensatory internet use theory and excessive reassurance pathway broadly frame PSU as excessive smartphone use to relieve negative emotions (Billieux et al., 2015; Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). Consistent with this, motives reflecting smartphone use for “mood regulation” had indirect and interacting effects on the associations of several psychosocial wellbeing variables with PSU. There was also limited support for indirect and interacting effects of “pass-time” and “social” motives on the associations of stress, anxiety, and loneliness with PSU (J.-H. Kim, 2017; Shen & Wang, 2019; Shen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2015), suggesting that some people use their smartphone to avoid boredom and socialise as a coping strategy for low psychosocial wellbeing. Although, “social” motives also had several non-significant indirect effects on the associations of depression and anxiety with PSU. Theoretically, “self-identity/conformity” and “safety” motives may also mediate the effect of low psychosocial wellbeing on PSU, given both reflect efforts to avoid negative feelings (i.e., social disapproval and fear, respectively), and both were positively associated with PSU. However, neither “self-identity/conformity” nor “safety” motives were included in indirect or interacting effects models with PSU. Moreover, indirect effects of some key excessive reassurance pathway risk factors—such as social anxiety and behavioural inhibition—on PSU via motives are yet to be examined.

There was a lack of research investigating the role of motives in Billieux et al.’s (2015) impulsive and extraversion pathways to PSU. The impulsive pathway describes those who, due to heightened levels of impulsive traits and ADHD, are unable to control their smartphone usage. The extraversion pathway describes those who, due to heightened traits like sensation seeking and reward sensitivity, engage in PSU to socialise or for stimulation (Billieux et al., 2015). Consistent with motives operating within the impulsive pathway, one study found “mood regulation” motives had a stronger association with PSU when self-control was low (Li et al., 2021). Moreover, boredom proneness—which is associated with ADHD (Golubchik et al., 2020; Malkovsky et al., 2012) and sensation seeking (Nabilla et al., 2019), and reflected in facets of impulsivity (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)—was associated with PSU via both “enhancement” and “mood regulation” motives (Casale et al., 2021). There was also an indirect effect of fast life history strategy, which encompasses aspects of impulsivity and sensation seeking (Csathó & Birkás, 2018), on PSU via “pass-time” motives. However, no studies examined whether psychosocial factors from the extraversion pathway, such as sensation seeking or reward sensitivity, had indirect effects on PSU via “social” and “enhancement” motives, despite those motives aligning with the pathway.

As Billieux et al. (2015) proposed, research has found that psychological factors from the excessive reassurance (e.g., social anxiety), impulsive (e.g., urgency) and extraversion (e.g., sensation seeking) pathways differentially drive addictive, antisocial, and risky patterns of PSU (Canale et al., 2021; Pivetta et al., 2019). Therefore, it follows that certain motives may differentially influence these distinct patterns of PSU. However, no studies have tested such a model.

Measurement and Conceptual Heterogeneity of Smartphone Use Motives

There was significant diversity in smartphone use motives measures, with 19 different measures and 55 different labels applied to individual motives dimensions. This made it difficult to synthesise findings and draw strong conclusions about which motives were associated with PSU. Moreover, most smartphone use motives measures were comprised of items adapted from earlier measures designed to assess motives for other behaviours. Given research has identified unique motives for new media—such as televisions, mobile phones, social media, and video games (Sundar & Limperos, 2013)—there may be smartphone use motives integral to PSU still to be identified.

Some studies in the PSU literature appear to conflate motives and expectancies—that is, some measured expectancies with items that better reflect motives (Casale et al., 2021; Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020; Hallauer et al., 2022) and others measured motives with items that better reflect expectancies (C. Chen et al., 2017; Y. Chen et al., 2021; Elhai, Yang, et al., 2020; Hallauer et al., 2022; K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, & Lee, 2014). We treated motives and expectancies as separate constructs based on theoretical considerations. However, no studies concurrently examined the association of motives and their corresponding expectancies with PSU, so whether they are empirically discrete in the context of PSU, as they are in the context of substance use (Kuntsche et al., 2010), is yet to be determined.

Finally, as Cheng and Meng (2021) have previously argued, smartphone use motives and smartphone uses sometimes appear to be conflated in the PSU literature. In the alcohol use literature, motives have been conceptualised as the value placed on the desired effects of a behaviour (Cox & Klinger, 2004), with different categories of motives reflecting the valence (reward/avoidance) and source (internal/external) of the desired effect (Kuntsche et al., 2010). Most of the smartphone use motives identified through the present review are consistent with this definition of motives. “Social” and “enhancement” motives reflect externally and internally sourced rewards, respectively. “Mood regulation”, “pass-time”, and “safety” motives reflect internally sourced avoidance of negative feelings. “Self-identity/conformity” motives reflect externally sourced avoidance. However, “information seeking” motives do not have a clearly identifiable valence and may be better conceptualised as a type of smartphone use, rather than a motive for use. That is, people use smartphones to search for information, but a range of motives (e.g., “pass-time”, “mood regulation”, “enhancement”) could plausibly influence such use.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There were several limitations identified across the literature which should be addressed with future research. Due to a lack of prospective investigations, we were unable to infer temporal relationships of smartphone use motives with PSU. Moreover, most studies investigating the association of motives with PSU were conducted in East Asia, highlighting the need for further studies in Western contexts. More research focussing on whether motives have differential associations with PSU across age and gender groups would also be useful in understanding what motivates PSU. Additionally, nineteen of the studies were published between 2020 and 2022, so were more likely to have collected data during Covid-19. Perhaps, Covid-19 influenced motives for smartphone use, although this cannot be ascertained from the studies in the review.

Future research should address the measurement and conceptual heterogeneity of smartphone use motives. That is, a comprehensive and valid smartphone use motives measure that considers unique motives which may drive smartphone use, as opposed to any other behaviour is required. Moreover, this measure should be empirically and conceptually distinct from the related constructs of expectancies and uses. The measure should then be applied to investigating PSU. Specifically, research should focus on the role of motives as mediators of different pathways to PSU, such as Billieux et al.’s (2015) proposed excessive reassurance, impulsive, and extraversion pathways. Research should also examine whether motives differentially relate to distinct patterns of PSU (e.g., addictive, antisocial, and risky).

We acknowledge that this review does not provide insight into the differential association of motives with the problematic use of specific types of smartphone content (e.g., social networking, gaming). Consistent with substance use (Bachrach et al., 2012; George et al., 2018), it has been proposed that certain motives are likely unique to the problematic engagement in specific types of content accessible via a smartphone (Brand et al., 2019; Brand et al., 2016; Panova & Carbonell, 2018). However, as has been seen in the substance use literature (Cooper, 1994; Cooper et al., 2015; Kuntsche et al., 2005), there is also likely to be a set of core motives underlying generalised PSU, although there is yet to be consensus on precisely which motives. Therefore, the present review contributes to the identification of core motives which influence generalised PSU. Future research might expand upon it to identify motives which influence specific types of smartphone content.

Conclusions and Implications

Determining which motives are associated with PSU may help identify those at risk of developing PSU and inform early intervention strategies, such as school-based psychoeducation and group programs. Moreover, key treatments of problematic behaviours (i.e., motivational counselling) can help people recognise what motives drive their engagement in problematic behaviour (Cox & Klinger, 2004). Therefore, discovering which motives underlie PSU may inform the development of interventions which identify alternate means of satisfying those motives (Augner et al., 2022). Our findings support the application of motivational models to PSU. Specifically, some motives are robustly associated with PSU. Additionally, several factors were discovered which influenced the relationships of motives with PSU (e.g., psychopathology and personality). Perhaps then, motives may operate as a final pathway to PSU. However, heterogeneity in the measurement of motives, as well as potential overlap with expectancies and uses in some instances, makes it difficult to isolate which smartphone use motives were associated with PSU. To address this, it is imperative that a comprehensive smartphone use motives scale (distinct from expectancies and uses) is developed.

Footnotes

1 The cut-off was set at 2008 because the first iPhone was released in 2007, launching the era of smartphones. The final search was conducted on 13 September 2022.

2 For example, C. Chen at al.’s (2017) study was conducted with a sample of 384 university students in China, 91.1% of which were aged 18–30 years. However, some of the participants were up to 40 years of age.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendix

Table A1. The Seven Motives Categories Based on Motives Dimensions From the Reviewed Studies.

Motives Categorya

Motives Dimensionb

Authorc

 

Motives Category Description

Social

Smartphone use to communicate, maintain relationships, and obtain social benefits

 

1) Social interaction

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

 

2) Self-express and gossip

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

 

3) Freedom and privacy

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

 

4) Social relationship

Khang et al. (2013)

 

5) Relationship

J.-H. Kim (2017)

 

6) Social benefits

Lin et al. (2014)

 

7) Socialising

Lin et al. (2014)

 

8) Immediate access and mobility

Lin et al. (2014)

 

9) Social relationships

Meng et al. (2020)

 

10) Social inclusion

Park et al. (2013)

 

11) Chat with others

Park and Lee (2014)

 

12) Care for others

Park and Lee (2014)

 

13) Easy access to others

Park and Lee (2014)

 

14) Social interaction

Shen et al. (2021)

 

15) Micro-coordination, mobility, and immediacy

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

16) School

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

17) Love

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

18) Social relationships

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

19) Avoid face-to-face contact

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

20) Social usage

Van Deursen et al. (2015)

 

21) Social relationships

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

 

22) Virtual community

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

Self-identity/conformity

Smartphone use to gain identity and approval from a social group, and avoid social disapproval

 

1) Self-identity and conforming

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

 

2) Self-identity

Hwang and Park (2015)

 

3) Self-presence

Khang et al. (2013)

 

4) Gaining peer acceptance

Lee and Lee (2017)

 

5) Self-status seeking

Lin et al. (2014)

 

6) Self-expression

Meng et al. (2020)

 

7) Follow the trend

Park and Lee (2014)

 

8) Fashion, identity, and status

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

9) Conformity

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

 

10) Follow the social environment

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

Information seeking

Smartphone use to search for and learn new information

 

1) Information seeking

Khang et al. (2013)

 

2) Information seeking

Lin et al. (2014)

 

3) Instrumental

Meng et al. (2020)

 

4) Search for information

Park and Lee (2014)

 

5) Instrumental

Park et al. (2013)

 

6) Information seeking

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

 

7) Information

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

Mood regulation

Smartphone use to reduce negative emotions

 

1) Negative expectancies

Elhai, Yang, et al. (2020)

 

2) Escape

J.-H. Kim (2017)

 

3) Alleviation

J.-H. Kim et al. (2015)

 

4) Mood regulation

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

 

5) Mood regulation

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, Zhao, and Lee (2014)

 

6) Emotional

Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Blau (2016)

Pass-time

Smartphone use to avoid boredom

 

1) Pastime

Khang et al. (2013)

 

2) Pass-time

J.-H. Kim et al. (2015)

 

3) Pass leisure time

Park and Lee (2014)

 

4) Pass time

Vanden Abeele (2016)

 

5) Escapism

Wang et al. (2015)

 

6) Pastime

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, and Lee (2014)

Enhancement

Smartphone use to have fun and obtain pleasure

 

1) Positive expectancies

Elhai, Yang, et al. (2020)

 

2) Entertainment

Lin et al. (2014)

 

3) Instant gratification

K. Z. K. Zhang, Chen, Zhao, and Lee (2014)

Safety

Smartphone use to feel safe

 

1) Self-developing and safety

AlBarashdi and Bouazza (2019)

 

2) Safety

Vanden Abeele (2016)

Note. a The Motives Category column includes the seven motives that we propose have broadly been assessed in the reviewed literature. The Motives Dimensions column includes motives from each motives measure used across the reviewed studies. The Author column includes references for the study where the individual motives were first used in the context of smartphone use.

 

Metrics

1606

Views

764

PDF views