Previous Article in Journal
Refugees, Homelessness and the ‘Move-On’ Process
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/socsci14120676
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Talk More, Tech Less 30-Day Family Life Education Program Promoting Psychological Well-Being at an American University

by
Michael Langlais
1,* and
Dawn Wible
2
1
Department of Human Sciences and Design, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7346, USA
2
Talk More, Tech Less, Waco, TX 76710, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(12), 676; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120676
Submission received: 27 August 2025 / Revised: 17 November 2025 / Accepted: 18 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Family Studies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The Talk More, Tech Less program was developed to promote healthier technology habits through a 30-day series of daily activities and reflections. This pilot study examined the short-term effectiveness of this program in improving mobile media habits. In Study 1, 30 participants who had already participated in the program completed post-program surveys reporting weekly device use before and after the program, rating their regulation skills (1–7), and offering feedback. Average self-reported weekly device use dropped from 26.02 to 15.93 h (p < 0.001), and self-regulation significantly improved (p < 0.05). Study 2, conducted during the 2025 Lenten season with 39 participants (66.7% female), used pre/post assessments and weekly surveys to track device use, mental health, and family rapport. The objective smartphone use captured by screenshots showed declines of 118 min on average (p < 0.001), with reductions in anxiety, stress, and depressive symptoms, alongside gains in regulation skills and confidence. Thematic coding reliability analysis showed participants valued the daily activity cards and increased awareness of their tech habits. Preliminary findings suggest that intentional reflection on technology use can reduce screen time, improve well-being, and strengthen family connections, offering a model for future healthy technology initiatives. The lack of diversity and control group, as well as the time period in which the program was administered, are limitations that future studies can address.

1. Introduction

Mobile media use among families surged by 180% during the pandemic, raising concerns about its negative impact on family interactions, which are vital for child and adolescent development, family rapport, and mental well-being (Braune-Krickau et al. 2021; Hedderson et al. 2023; Konrad et al. 2021). Increased screen time may lead to fragmented communication, reduced emotional availability, and fewer opportunities for shared experiences among family members (Kildare and Middlemiss 2017; Konrad et al. 2021; McDaniel and Radesky 2020). As parents and children become more engrossed in individual screens, quality time together can diminish, weakening the development of secure attachments and shared routines (McDaniel and Radesky 2018; Ochoa et al. 2021; Porter et al. 2024). This shift in interaction patterns has also been linked to higher levels of stress, behavioral issues in children, and increased feelings of isolation within the family unit (Golden et al. 2020; McDaniel et al. 2024). Consequently, the widespread reliance on mobile media during and after the pandemic presents important implications for family functioning and child outcomes.
Despite increasing scholarly attention to the role of mobile media in family functioning, several important gaps remain in the literature. First, most prior research has been observational or cross-sectional, limiting causal inferences about how daily technology habits influence family interactions and well-being (McDaniel and Radesky 2020; Radesky et al. 2020). Few studies have tested structured interventions aimed at reducing problematic mobile media use within families, and even fewer have examined short-term, behaviorally focused programs that attempt to shift daily habits in naturalistic settings. Second, existing wellness initiatives typically rely on asynchronous online modules, applications, or psychoeducational materials (Schraggeová and Bisaha 2025; Theopilus et al. 2025), but research has not yet evaluated programs that require active, daily, offline engagement to cultivate healthier technology practices. Third, much of the literature has focused on parental behavior or child outcomes independently, rather than examining mobile device use as a shared family process that shapes relational quality, emotional availability, and collective well-being (Brown and Kuss 2020). These gaps highlight the need for accessible, empirically tested interventions that promote balanced technology use and support family relationships in everyday life.
In response to these limitations, the Talk More, Tech Less program was created to educate families about the healthy use of technology. Healthy technology use refers to the purposeful and balanced use of digital devices and media that supports physical, psychological, social, and cognitive well-being, while minimizing negative effects such as distraction, dependency, or interpersonal disconnection (American Academy of Pediatrics 2016). Participants engaged in a 30-day program involving daily notecard readings and practices designed to promote awareness of current technology habits and encourage adjustments to digital behaviors. The goal of this study was to gather pilot data to assess the program’s short-term efficacy in improving mobile media habits, such as reducing time on a mobile media device. Specifically, the study aimed to explore whether engagement with the program could foster more intentional technology use and enhance the quality of family interactions, essentially promoting well-being. Insights from this study can inform future iterations of the program and guide large-scale interventions focused on digital wellness within families. Taken together, this pilot study provides an innovative contribution by offering one of the first empirically evaluated, habit-based, 30-day interventions designed to reduce mobile media use, strengthen intentional technology habits, and enhance family well-being. By addressing an urgent yet understudied need for family-centered digital wellness strategies, this work lays foundational evidence for scalable interventions that target both individual behavior and relational processes.

2. Literature Review

As mobile media technology has rapidly evolved since 2013, daily screen use has increased by an average of 50 min per day, with a global average of individual screen time consumption at approximately seven hours per day (Howarth 2023). This rise is driven by greater accessibility to smartphones, tablets, and streaming services, as well as the integration of screens into work, education, entertainment, and social communication. Increased screen time has been linked to changes in daily routines, including reduced physical activity, shorter sleep duration, and diminished face-to-face social interactions (Alotaibi et al. 2020; Nakshine et al. 2022). Additionally, the pervasive nature of mobile media has blurred the boundaries between work and leisure, contributing to higher rates of digital fatigue and stress (Gordon-Hacker and Gueron-Sela 2020; Wang et al. 2021). These trends raise important questions about the long-term impact of sustained screen exposure on cognitive, emotional, and social well-being across the lifespan.
Theoretically, the negative consequences of excessive technology use within families can be explained by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 1986; Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006), which explains that development is influenced by context, and the individual is at the center of their own development (Rosa and Tudge 2013). The most recent version of this theory emphasizes factors that influence developmental outcomes, referred to as proximal processes, and accounts for the interplay of process, person, context, and time (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). Essentially, a child develops within an intricate system of relationships that are impacted by different aspects of the environment. There are five systems in a nested structure that include the home but also extend to other spaces where the child spends time, including: the microsystem (the innermost system), the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem (the outermost system).
The current study primarily focuses on the microsystem and the exosystem. The microsystem focuses on close, personal relationships, which includes family relationships, like the child–parent dyad. Mobile media use can detract from these personal relationships, such as inhibiting parental responsiveness (Konrad et al. 2021; McDaniel and Radesky 2018; Ochoa et al. 2021). Yet, using mobile media to connect with one another could help promote these relationships within the microsystem (Reid Chassiakos et al. 2016; Grose 2021). At an external environment level, the exosystem illustrates how secondary environments can influence behavior, either directly or indirectly. Children can be directly impacted by the environment of their exosystem as the information they consume on their mobile devices could influence their behavior, such as a child wanting to act like an animal after engaging in an application about animals. Some parents may indirectly impact their children by using their mobile device for work when they are at home, which distracts from face-to-face interaction (Devine and Smith 2023; Kildare and Middlemiss 2017). It is important to note that there are other theories that can explain why individuals are driven to use mobile technology, particularly at the detriment of face-to-face interactions, such as uses-and-gratifications theory (Katz et al. 1973), which says that individuals are driven by the benefits of using mobile media, including ease of communication and accessibility for entertainment and occupational tasks. According to self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), people might prefer mobile communication because it supports autonomy (choosing when/how to communicate) and relatedness (maintaining social bonds efficiently). This theoretical information is supported by other studies that have shown that individuals use mobile media to combat loneliness (Bordini et al. 2021), seek social support, ward off social anxiety (Langlais and Rahm 2024), and to communicate and connect with others for convenience (Langlais et al. 2024).
Given the increased use of mobile media by children and parents (Auxier et al. 2020; Howarth 2023), many individuals, families, and cultures have normalized mobile device use in different environments, such as using tablets in preschool or working virtually from home. Yet, proximal processes come into play when children and parents engage in mobile media use together, such as playing games or watching movies together. There are three characteristics that influence these proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). First, resource characteristics explain how access and/or knowing how to use mobile technology is likely to impact the interactions between children and others. A parent who does not have access to a mobile device or knows how to use a mobile device to support a child’s development (e.g., through virtual calls or educational apps), has different resources than a parent who has access to mobile media and is experienced in using this technology. The second is demand characteristics, which are best described as observable traits that elicit or discourage communication. For instance, introverted parents may be less apt to use mobile media to connect with others while extroverted parents may be more comfortable engaging in virtual communication. The third is force characteristics, which are behavioral dispositions, such as self-control. For example, some parents may have poor self-control with their smartphone or tablet, which can disrupt the parent–child relationship. Studies have identified that excessive parental use of mobile devices inevitably detracts from interactions with young children (McDaniel and Radesky 2018, 2020; Pempek et al. 2014). Alternatively, children with a more difficult temperament may prompt parents to be more engaged with their devices or to give a device to their child to redirect the child’s behavior (Radesky et al. 2020). Essentially, increased mobile media within families can be disruptive to individual development and family relationships.
It is also important to recognize some of the benefits of mobile media use. For instance, mobile media offers numerous positive applications that enhance education, health communication, and social connectivity. In education, mobile devices facilitate access to digital textbooks, podcasts, and online lectures, enabling students to engage in continuous learning and improve academic performance (Alrasheedi et al. 2015). Health communication is also transformed through mobile media; platforms serve as effective tools for disseminating public health information, allowing for real-time updates and broader reach (Wu and Gong 2023). Additionally, social media platforms provide individuals with opportunities to build relationships, express creativity, and access support networks, contributing to improved mental health and well-being (American Public University System 2024). Mobile media also presents a mechanism to connect with others, particularly those far away, and to identify current information expediently (Langlais et al. 2025; von Fedak and Langlais 2024). These examples illustrate how mobile media, when used thoughtfully, can serve as powerful instruments for positive societal impact.

The Present Study

As mobile media continues to increase in our society, more needs to be performed to address the negative consequences of excessive technology use in families and to promote digital wellness. To address this concern and support families and their healthy use of technology, the Talk More, Tech Less program was created by the second author in 2018 to educate families about the healthy use of technology. For this program, participants engage in a 30-day program involving daily notecard readings and practices designed to promote awareness of current technology habits while encouraging adjustments to digital behaviors. Some example activities include asking participants to notice others in public on their devices, notice making eye contact when in conversation, notice nature while sitting outside, and begin to create new habits by taking walks, taking up new hobbies, or reaching out to meet a friend. Each day, participants are given an activity card that teaches a new mobile regulation behavior for them to practice. Each of these activities builds on each other to minimize mobile media use and maximize other activities. Participants are provided with a journal for personal documentation in addition to answering the ‘Talk More’ questions for each day. Each activity takes anywhere from 10 to 20 min to complete. This program is novel in a number of ways. First, it is not asynchronous, which is different from other digital well-being applications and programs (which involve completing online learning modules). Second, it lasts 30 days, which is longer than a weekend retreat or a one-time program, which are often not successful for long-term changes. Studies have shown that engaging in a behavior over time, particularly 30 days, can help curb behavior (Scott 2020). Third, this study involves participants being intentional with how they engaged in the program, requiring them to complete an activity, rather than simply passively learning about healthy mobile media behavior. The goal of the program is to help participants develop healthy digital behaviors, to support their mental health, and improve their family’s well-being. Given these goals of the program, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
After participating in the Talk More, Tech Less 30-day program, participants will significantly reduce time using their mobile device in the short-term (within a week of completing the program).
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
After participating in the Talk More, Tech Less 30-day program, participants will significantly increase their confidence and ability to regulate their mobile media use in the short-term (within a week of completing the program).
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
After participating in the Talk More, Tech Less 30-day program, participants will improve their well-being (less anxiety, stress, and depressive symptoms) in the short-term (within a week of completing the program).

3. Methods

3.1. Procedures

This research was conducted in two studies, both involving participants who engaged in the Talk More, Tech Less 30-day program (see Figure 1). For Study 1, participants who already completed the Talk More, Tech Less 30-program in previous years were asked to provide answers to retrospective questions regarding their regulation skills and confidence in their mobile media habits from before the program to after, while also commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the program (N = 30). More specifically, people who participated in the program were sent an online survey hosted by Qualtrics and provided retrospective data regarding their improvements since being in the program. Members of the research team sent emails to former participants in the program (who were 18 and older), informing them about the goal of the study and sharing a link with them to complete an online survey. When participants selected the link, they were directed to an online consent form and could not proceed with the survey unless they consented to participate. The online survey took 5–10 min to complete.
For Study 2, participants were recruited to participate in the Talk More, Tech Less 30-day program concurrently (N = 39). For this study, participants were recruited via convenience sampling through organizations and departments at a midsized university in the southern central United States. Emails were sent to organizational and department heads requesting that information regarding the program be shared with members of their department. At least five leaders agreed to share it with their faculty, staff, and students. These emails provided details about the study, information about the Talk More, Tech Less program, and the benefits of participating in the program. Those who were interested in participating were instructed to send an email to the research team. Once they reached out to the research team, the research team ensured that they were at least 18 years or older, a member of a family, and currently use a mobile device (such as a smartphone or tablet). If they met the inclusion criteria, they were assigned a random three-digit code that they would enter on the online surveys associated with this study. Participants were then mailed materials to engage in the program, which included 30 activity notecards and a journal. Participants were recommended to start the program on March 5, which coincided with the Lenten season to align with individuals’ approach to changing their behavior (such as reducing their technology use), which is common a common spiritual activity for Christians.
Prior to participating in the Talk More, Tech Less program, participants completed a pre-test, where they answered questions regarding their mobile media use, their regulation skills, and their mental well-being. On the first page of this pre-test was the consent form, for participants to review prior to participating in the study and the program. Next, participants were active in the 30-day program, performing daily activities to work on regulating their mobile media use. Example activities include observing others’ device use in public, maintaining eye contact during conversations, noticing elements of nature, and engaging in alternative behaviors such as walking, starting new hobbies, or meeting friends in person. Participants will be provided with a journal for personal documentation in addition to answering the ‘Talk More’ questions for each day. Once the program was completed, participants were asked to complete a post-test online survey, which asked the same questions as the pre-test, but the following stem was added to the beginning of each question: “After completing the program…” These surveys took approximately 10–15 min to complete. Of the 45 participants who completed the pre-test, 39 completed both the pre- and post-test (86.7% retention). Incomplete data were removed prior to analysis. Participants were not compensated for their participation in Study 1 or Study 2. All aspects of both studies were approved by the appropriate institutional review board, and all participants provided their consent to participate.

3.2. Participants

For Study 1, 30 participants provided feedback of their past participation in the program. Of these participants 80% were female and 20% were male. The average age of participants was 35.34 (SD = 7.22). A total of 39 individuals participated in the Talk More, Tech Less program for Study 2. For the second study, participants were predominantly female (66.7%), with the rest identifying as male (33.3%). Participants’ ethnicities included white (89.7%), mixed (7.7%), and Chinese (2.6%). The average age of participants was 37.32 (SD = 16.63) and the average income per participant was between USD 70,000 and USD 79,999 annually.

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Time on Mobile Media

On the pre- and post-test, participants first answered the following questions: “Using the mobile device you use the most often, submit a screenshot of your mobile media use for the last 24 h.” In addition to submitting this screenshot, participants were asked to manually type the total hours listed on the screenshot, to avoid issues with accessing the screenshot (all participants successfully uploaded their screenshots; i.e., this data is not missing). Second, participants answered the following open-ended question: “How many minutes per day do you typically use your mobile device?” Third, participants answered the following question: “About how much do you use your mobile device on a typical day?” with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (all the time). The first two questions were asked in both Study 1 and Study 2, and the question regarding subjective device use was asked only in Study 2. Self-reported estimates of mobile media time have demonstrated acceptable convergent validity with objective logs (e.g., Ellis et al. 2019) and combining both objective (screenshot-based) and subjective (self-report) indicators enhances the measurement reliability and ecological validity of media use data (Parry et al. 2021). In the present study, high agreement between screenshot-derived and self-reported time further supports the internal consistency and accuracy of this composite approach. This multimethod assessment captures both objective usage patterns and participants’ perceived engagement, providing a robust indicator of total mobile media exposure.

3.3.2. Mobile Media Behaviors and Regulation

Participants responded to the following four questions on both the pre- and post-test: “How well are you able to regulate your mobile device use?,” How confident are you in your ability to manage how much you use your mobile device(s)?,” and “How motivated are you to maintaining healthy mobile media behaviors?” The responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very). The first two questions were asked in Study 1 and Study 2, but the motivation item was only asked in Study 2. These items were adapted from prior research assessing self-regulation and digital media management, which have demonstrated strong construct validity and internal consistency (e.g., Ellis et al. 2019). Self-reported measures of digital self-control have shown good reliability (αs typically > 0.80) and meaningful associations with objective indicators of media use and well-being, supporting the convergent and criterion validity of this approach (Parry et al. 2021).

3.3.3. Well-Being

Psychological well-being was measured using the depression-anxiety-stress scale (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995). This 21-item scale poses seven items per measure of psychological distress: depression, anxiety, and stress. Examples include, “I felt down-hearted and blue” (depression), “I felt I was close to panic” (anxiety), and “I tend to over-react to situations” (stress). Responses ranged from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). Higher scores on this scale indicate poorer well-being, which is represented by higher stress, more anxiety, and more depressive symptoms. This information was only captured in Study 2. Reliability for each of the subscales was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89 for depression, 0.92 for anxiety, and 0.93 for stress).

3.3.4. Evaluation of Program

On the post-test, participants responded to the following open-ended questions: “What are the best parts of the Talk More, Tech Less program?,” “What are some ways the Talk More, Tech Less program can be improved?,” and “What activities or tools from the Talk More, Tech Less program have been the most useful for you and your family?” This information was only captured in Study 2.

3.4. Data Analysis

Both phases of this study used a pre–post-test design. Paired samples t-tests were used to address the study hypotheses. Prior to hypothesis testing, assumption checks were conducted. Based on this testing, the data were dependent of each other, based on correlations of the variables (Pearson’s r = 0.17 to 0.78). Additionally, the dependent variable is continuous and there were no extreme outliers in the difference scores, as captured by a visual inspection of the boxplots. Last, the data appeared to fit a normal distribution, as supported by the Shapiro–Wilk test (p = 0.54). Given that the assumptions were met, we proceeded with the paired samples t-test using SPSS v. 29.
Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to capture participants’ perceptions of the program through rich, descriptive accounts (Braun and Clarke 2022; Lambert and Lambert 2012). Analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework. First, two researchers independently immersed themselves in the data by reading and rereading all open-ended responses, making preliminary notes about initial impressions. Second, open coding was conducted to identify meaningful units of text related to participants’ experiences. Third, codes were systematically organized into potential themes and subthemes by clustering conceptually similar codes (e.g., codes related to “noticing device habits,” “being intentional,” and “recognizing distractions” were grouped under a preliminary theme of increased awareness). Fourth, themes were reviewed against the coded dataset to ensure internal coherence and distinctiveness from one another. During this stage, some themes were collapsed, and others were divided to better reflect the data structure. Fifth, a formal codebook was developed that defined each theme, listed related codes, and provided illustrative quotes to ensure analytic transparency. Finally, the themes were refined and integrated into a written narrative, contextualizing findings with relevant literature and study objectives. To bolster analytic rigor, two researchers independently coded 20% of the dataset using the finalized codebook. Percentage agreement was 87.67%, reflecting strong coding consistency. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, leading to minor refinements in code definitions. Additionally, an independent reviewer with no prior knowledge of the study’s hypotheses examined the thematic structure and supporting quotes to ensure alignment with participants’ perspectives (Braun and Clarke 2021).

4. Results

The first hypothesis of this study predicted that individuals would spend less time on their device after participating in the program, which was supported. Results from Study 1 revealed that participants spent significantly less time on their device after participating in the program, as the mean hours per week on a device was 26.02 h and the mean at the end of the program was 15.93 h (t = −4.05, p < 0.001). Additionally, participants ability to regulate their mobile media use improved (t = −5.81, p < 0.001) and their confidence in this ability marginally improved (t = −1.58, p = 0.08). The results for Study 2 are presented in Table 1. The mean of participants’ perceived daily minutes on their device at the pre-test (287.59 min) was significantly lower than the mean of perceived daily minutes at the post-test (204.88 min; t = 4.04, p < 0.001). Additionally, participants’ objective time spent on their device over the last 24 h at the pre-test (298.35 min) was significantly lower than the objective time spent on their device over the last 24 h at post-test (220.00 min; t = 3.79, p < 0.01). In Study 2, there were no significant differences in participants’ subjective screen time use (measures on a scale of 1 to 7) from pre-test (6.35) to post-test (5.18; t = 0.01, p = 0.95). Given these data, we have partial support for our first hypothesis.
The second hypothesis predicted that participants would report higher mobile media regulation skills and confidence in these skills as a result of participating in this program. The results of Study 1 revealed significant increases in their perceived ability to regulate their device from pre-test to post-test (4.05 to 6.35, respectively; t = −2.75, p < 0.05). Additionally, participants reported higher confidence in the post-test (6.90) to the pre-test (5.10; t = −2.43, p < 0.05). In Study 2, similar patterns emerged. Participants reported higher regulation skills in the post-test compared to the pre-test (6.53 to 5.53, respectively; t = −2.03, p < 0.05) and higher confidence scores in the post-test compared to the pre-test (7.00 to 6.00, respectively; t = −1.97, p < 0.05). In Study 2, we did not find a significant difference in motivation to regulate device use from pre-test to post-test (7.24 and 7.71, respectively; t = 0.26, p = 0.79). Given these findings, we have support for our second hypothesis.
The third hypothesis predicted that well-being would improve as a result of participating in this program. Data for well-being were collected only in Study 2, and results are presented in Table 1. Participants reported significantly fewer depressive symptoms at post-test (M = 8.18) than at pre-test (M = 10.18; t(32) = 2.15, p < 0.05). Similarly, perceived stress scores decreased significantly from pre-test (M = 13.82) to post-test (M = 10.71; t(32) = 2.95, p < 0.01). Anxiety scores also showed a marginal reduction from pre-test (M = 9.52) to post-test (M = 8.23; t(32) = 1.75, p < 0.10). These findings provide partial support for the hypothesis that program participation was associated with improved well-being. Despite statistical significance, the small number of participants makes it difficult to assess the magnitude.
To further contextualize the paired-samples t-test findings, effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s dz, which is recommended for within-subjects designs. Reductions in mobile device use showed the largest effects, with perceived minutes on the device (dz = 0.65) and reported minutes in the last 24 h (dz = 0.61) both reflecting medium-to-large improvements. Stress also demonstrated a medium effect (dz = 0.47), indicating a meaningful decrease following participation in the program. Small-to-medium effects emerged for regulation of device use (dz = 0.33), confidence in one’s ability to regulate use (dz = 0.32), depressive symptoms (dz = 0.34), anxiety (dz = 0.28), and communication with family (dz = 0.24). Motivation to regulate device use showed a small effect (dz = 0.20), whereas frequency of use (dz = 0.00) and feelings of family connectedness (dz = 0.04) demonstrated negligible changes. Taken together, these effect sizes suggest that the program produced the most substantial gains in reducing device use and improving stress, with more modest but consistent improvements across several additional psychosocial outcomes. To complement these quantitative findings, a reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to explore participants’ experiences with the program. This analysis produced two overarching themes describing participants’ experiences with the program: (1) positive views of the program, and (2) areas for improvement. Each theme included multiple subthemes that captured the depth and variation in participants’ responses.

4.1. Theme 1: Positive Views of the Program

4.1.1. Subtheme 1: Increased Awareness and Mindfulness of Technology Use

Participants frequently described gaining insight into their technology habits. Many realized how often they reached for their phones automatically or used devices to fill idle time. As one participant stated, “It made me aware of how dependent I am on my phone and how much I check it without even noticing.” Another shared, “I realized how often I scroll instead of being present with my kids.”

4.1.2. Subtheme 2: Improved Relationships and Communication

Several participants reported that reducing mobile media use created more opportunities for connection with family members. For example, one parent wrote, “We talked more, and I felt more in tune with what my kids needed.” Another added, “We were able to connect with each other and our kids more because we weren’t distracted by our phones.”

4.1.3. Subtheme 3: Useful and Practical Tools

Participants valued the daily notecards and structured activities, describing them as clear, manageable, and actionable. A participant explained, “The cards and dialog were great-they gave us a blueprint for what to focus on each day.” These tools were often described as easy to incorporate into family routines.

4.1.4. Subtheme 4: Positive Lifestyle Changes

Many participants described the program as prompting broader lifestyle adjustments, including spending more time outdoors, engaging in hobbies, or limiting social media use. One participant shared, “Taking a break from social media has been really good for my family; we feel calmer and more connected.”

4.2. Theme 2: Areas for Improvement

Subtheme: Suggested Program Enhancements

Although overall feedback was positive, participants suggested practical adjustments to improve usability. Suggestions included adding daily reminders, offering versions tailored to different life stages (e.g., parents with toddlers vs. teens), and providing clearer written instructions. One participant noted, “A reminder each day would help keep me on track,” while another commented, “Some activities didn’t fit our family’s age range—maybe there could be different levels.”
Together, the quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that the program produced measurable behavioral and emotional benefits while also being perceived as useful, engaging, and applicable to daily family life. The qualitative findings enrich and contextualize the quantitative trends, illustrating how participants understood and enacted changes in their technology habits and relationships.

5. Discussion

Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979), the Talk More, Tech Less program addresses technology use as a behavior embedded within multiple, interacting environmental systems. The microsystem comprising immediate relationships such as family members was a primary focus of the program, with daily activity cards designed to promote conversation, share experiences, and prompt reflection on device use. Across both studies, participants demonstrated significant reductions in mobile media use and increased self-regulation skills, suggesting that targeted changes within the microsystem can influence individual behaviors and relational dynamics. Additionally, the results provide some evidence that the program can potentially promote well-being while supporting interpersonal relationships. These findings highlight the potential of the Talk More, Tech Less program to meaningfully reduce mobile media use and improve well-being.
The program showed improvements in behaviors, such as reduced mobile media use; cognitions, such as increased confidence in mobile media regulation; and well-being, such as reduced depressive symptoms and stress. These results can be explained by elements of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) socioecological model. The mesosystem, which represents connections between microsystems (e.g., home, school, peer groups), may have been strengthened given participants’ reported improvements in family rapport and well-being. This finding suggests that reducing technology overuse in the home may positively influence interactions in other contexts, supporting research that links family communication quality to broader social and emotional outcomes (McDaniel et al. 2024; Nakshine et al. 2022; Porter et al. 2024). At the individual level, the Study 2 findings revealed reductions in anxiety, stress, and depressive symptoms, aligning with prior literature connecting mindful technology engagement with improved mental health (Golden et al. 2020; Gordon-Hacker and Gueron-Sela 2020). The thematic analysis indicated that participants valued structured, reflective activities, underscoring the role of intentionality in behavior change, which aligns with research on mindfulness interventions (e.g., Gawande et al. 2023). According to self-regulation theory (Carver and Scheier 1998), individuals attempt to align their behavior with internal goals through ongoing monitoring and adjustment. In the context of mobile media use, people who wish to reduce their phone time engage in self-regulatory processes such as tracking their usage and implementing strategies to limit access, although these efforts often compete with immediate gratifications that undermine long-term goals.
Collectively, the results of this study provide initial evidence regarding the potential of the Talk More, Tech Less program to meaningfully reduce mobile media use and improve well-being. Reductions in device use were accompanied by improvements in regulation skills, lower stress and anxiety, and improved rapport, suggesting that even modest behavioral adjustments can yield meaningful relational and psychological benefits. These findings have practical relevance for parents, educators, and mental health practitioners seeking strategies to promote healthier technology engagement within families. Furthermore, the program’s adaptability positions it well for integration into community organizations, schools, and faith-based initiatives, where it can reach diverse populations without requiring extensive resources.

5.1. Implications

The findings of this study offer several practical implications for families, educators, practitioners, and community organizations. For parents and families, the program offers a structured, accessible way to introduce intentional technology habits and increase awareness of everyday device use. Simple, daily activities may foster healthier routines, improved communication, and enhanced family rapport. For educators, integrating aspects of the program into classroom discussions or parent–teacher outreach may help encourage balanced media use that supports learning and well-being. For mental health practitioners, the program can serve as a low-cost tool to support clients seeking to reduce digital overwhelm, strengthen relationships, or manage stress and anxiety associated with excessive device use. For community and faith-based organizations, the 30-day structure and minimal resource requirements make the program easy to implement with large groups, offering opportunities for collective accountability and shared reflection. For workplace wellness programs, adapting portions of the intervention may help employees manage digital fatigue, improve work–life boundaries, and reduce stress linked to constant connectivity.

5.2. Limitations

Although this study provides initial support for the short-term effectiveness of the Talk More, Tech Less program, it is not without limitations. First, the participants in this research were predominantly White women, which limits generalizability. This demographic limitation reflects the participant population available at the university where recruitment occurred. Larger and more diverse samples are needed to validate the efficacy of this program across different racial, socioeconomic, and cultural groups. Second, this study employed a pre-post design without a control group. This approach was chosen to evaluate short-term changes in mobile media behaviors and regulation within the same participants, but the absence of a comparison condition limits causal conclusions. Improvements could partially reflect maturation, increased awareness, or external influences. Future research should include randomized controlled trials to strengthen internal validity. Third, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to retrospective bias (Study 1) and self-serving bias (Studies 1 and 2). Future research should incorporate objective measures such as mobile device logs to triangulate findings and capture concurrent changes in behavior.
Fourth, this study captured short-term changes (Study 2) and retrospective reports (Study 1). Long-term follow-up evaluations (e.g., at three- and six-month intervals) are needed to determine whether behavioral, cognitive, and emotional improvements are sustained over time. It would also be beneficial to examine exosystem and macrosystem influences—such as workplace expectations or cultural attitudes toward device use, to better understand ecological factors shaping technology habits. Another contextual limitation concerns the timing of Study 2 data collection, which occurred during the Lenten season. Participants’ decisions to reduce mobile media use may have been influenced by religious motivations, making it unclear whether improvements resulted from the program or seasonal practices. Replication at other times of the year is warranted. Finally, future studies should compare the Talk More, Tech Less program to other technological wellness approaches, such as automated mobile apps (e.g., Google Digital Wellbeing) or in-person retreats, to evaluate relative effectiveness. While this study offers promising preliminary data, there remain numerous areas for continued testing and refinement.

5.3. Conclusions

The Talk More, Tech Less program offers promising evidence that structured, intentional reflection on technology habits can reduce mobile media use, enhance self-regulation, and improve well-being. Grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986) ecological systems theory, the intervention demonstrates how targeted changes within the microsystem, particularly family interactions, can influence individual and relational outcomes. Reductions in device use were consistent across two studies, and qualitative feedback underscored the value of daily activity prompts in fostering awareness and connection. Although additional research is needed to evaluate long-term effects and to test the program with more diverse populations using stronger research designs, these preliminary findings suggest that this intervention may serve as a practical pathway toward healthier technology engagement and stronger interpersonal relationships.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and D.W.; methodology, M.L.; software, M.L.; validation, D.W.; formal analysis, M.L.; investigation, M.L. and D.W.; resources, D.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L. and D.W.; writing—review and editing, M.L.; visualization, D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Baylor (#2277767-1; date approved: 10 January 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Matthew Wible for assisting with the project content and the youth he mentors who inspired the program. We sincerely thank all the families who participated in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

Dawn Wible developed the Talk More, Tech Less program that is evaluated and discussed in this article, The author does not receive financial compensation or royalties from its use. This disclosure is made in the interest of full transparency.

References

  1. Alotaibi, Thekra, Rifan Almuhanna, Johara Alhassan, Ethara Alqadhib, Eman Mortada, and Reem Alwhaibi. 2020. The relationship between technology use and physical activity among typically-developing children. Healthcare 8: 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alrasheedi, Muasaad, Luiz F. Capretz, and Arif Raza. 2015. A systematic review of the critical factors for success of mobile learning in higher education (university students’ perspective). Journal of Educational Computing Research 52: 257–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. 2016. Media and young minds. Pediatrics 138: e20162591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. American Public University System. 2024. Social Media Impact: How Social Media Sites Affect Society. Charles Town: American Public University System. Available online: https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-and-management/resources/how-social-media-sites-affect-society/ (accessed on 14 June 2025).
  5. Auxier, Brooke, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, and Erica Turner. 2020. Parenting Children in the Age of Screens. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/ (accessed on 14 June 2025).
  6. Bordini, Rogerio A., Johann-Christoph Münscher, Kim A. Baumgartner, Sara Hagos, Jennifer Hornig, Stefano Gampe, Berkay Yaman, Oliver Korn, and Philipp Y. Herzberg. 2021. Strangers in a strange land: Designing a mobile application to combat loneliness and isolation among foreign university students. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science 6: 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18: 328–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9: 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Braune-Krickau, Katrin, Larissa Schneebeli, Jessica Pehlke-Milde, Michael Gemperle, Ramona Koch, and Agnes von Wyl. 2021. Smartphones in the nursery: Parental smartphone use and parental sensitivity and responsiveness within parent–child interaction in early childhood (0–5 years): A scoping review. Infant Mental Health Journal 42: 161–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist 34: 844–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22: 723–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bronfenbrenner, Urie, and Pamela A. Morris. 2006. The bioecological model of human development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, 6th ed. Edited by Richard M. Lerner and Willian Damon. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., vol. 1, pp. 793–828. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, Lorna, and Daria J. Kuss. 2020. Fear of missing out, mental wellbeing, and social connectedness: A seven-day social media abstinence trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 4566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carver, Charles S., and Michael F. Scheier. 1998. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Devine, Diana, and Cynthia L. Smith. 2023. Theoretical approaches to studying technology and digital media in parent–child relationships with young children. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 9: 305–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ellis, David A., Brittany I. Davidson, Heather Shaw, and Kristoffer Geyer. 2019. Do smartphone usage scales predict behavior? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 130: 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gawande, Richa, Lydia Smith, Alexandra Comeau, Timothy B. Creedon, Caitlyn L. Wilson, Todd Griswold, Benjamin L. Cook, Eric B. Loucks, and Zev Schuman-Olivier. 2023. Impact of warm mindfulness on emotion regulation: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Health Psychology 42: 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Golden, Stephen L., Jeannine W. C. Blake, and Karen K. Giuliano. 2020. Parental decision-making: Infant engagement with smartphones. Infant Behavior & Development 61: 101497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gordon-Hacker, Avigail, and Noa Gueron-Sela. 2020. Maternal use of media to regulate child distress: A double-edged sword? Longitudinal links to toddlers’ negative emotionality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 23: 400–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grose, Jessica. 2021. The Upside to Screen Time. The New York Times. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/parenting/kids-screen-time-benefits-covid.html (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  21. Hedderson, Monique M., Traci A. Bekelman, Mingyi Li, Emily A. Knapp, Meredith Palmore, Yanan Dong, Amy J. Elliott, Chloe Friedman, Maren Galarce, Diane Gilbert-Diamond, and et al. 2023. Trends in screen time use among children during the COVID-19 pandemic, July 2019 through August 2021. JAMA Network Open 6: e2256157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Howarth, Josh. 2023. Alarming Average Screen Time. Exploding Topics. Available online: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/screen-time-stats (accessed on 15 January 2025).
  23. Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. 1973. Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly 37: 509–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kildare, Cory A., and Wendy Middlemiss. 2017. Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior 75: 579–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Konrad, Carolin, Mona Hillmann, Janine Rispler, Luisa Niehaus, Lina Neuhoff, and Rachel Barr. 2021. Quality of mother-child interaction before, during, and after smartphone use. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 616656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lambert, Vickie A., and Clinton E. Lambert. 2012. Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research 16: 255–56. [Google Scholar]
  27. Langlais, Michael, and Abbigail Rahm. 2024. Does social media use help individuals with social anxiety form romantic relationships? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 52: 268–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Langlais, Michael, Lyra Toohey, and Arielle Podberesky. 2024. Dating applications versus meeting face-to-face: What is better for romantic relationship quality? Social Sciences 13: 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Langlais, Michael R., Ashley Thaler, and Elizabeth West. 2025. TikTok Too Much? A Qualitative Investigation of Adolescent TikTok Use, Motivation, and Consequences. Youth & Society 57: 593–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lovibond, Syd H., and Peter F. Lovibond. 1995. Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS--21, DASS--42) [Database Record]. APA PsycTests. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft01004-000 (accessed on 1 November 2025).
  31. McDaniel, Brandon T., and Jenny S. Radesky. 2018. Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development 89: 100–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McDaniel, Brandon T., and Jenny S. Radesky. 2020. Longitudinal associations between early childhood externalizing behavior, parenting stress, and child media use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 23: 384–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McDaniel, Brandon T., Lisa Linder, Mariek M. P. Vanden Abeele, Alison K. Ventura, Sarah M. Coyne, and Rachel Barr. 2024. Technoference in parenting and impacts on parent-child relationships and child development. In Children and Screens: A Handbook on Digital Media and the Development, Health, and Well-Being of Children and Adolescents. Edited by Dimitri A. Christakis and Lauren Hale. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nakshine, Vaishnavi S., Preeti Thute, Mahalaqua N. Khatib, and Bratati Sarkar. 2022. Increased screen time as a cause of declining physical, psychological health, and sleep patterns: A literary review. Curēus 14: e30051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ochoa, Wendy, Stephanie M Reich, and George Farkas. 2021. The observed quality of caregiver-child interactions with and without a mobile screen device. Academic Pediatrics 21: 620–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Parry, Douglas A., Brittany I. Davidson, Craig J. R. Sewall, Jacob T. Fisher, Hannah Mieczkowski, and Daniel S. Quintana. 2021. A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour 5: 1535–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pempek, Tiffany A., Heather L. Kirkorian, and Daniel R. Anderson. 2014. The effects of background television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents. Journal of Children and Media 8: 211–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Porter, Chris L., Sarah M. Coyne, Noah A. Chojnacki, Brandon T. McDaniel, Peter J. Reschke, and Laura A. Stockdale. 2024. Toddlers’ physiological response to parent’s mobile device distraction and technoference. Developmental Psychobiology 66: e22460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Radesky, Jenny S., Heidi M. Weeks, Rosa Ball, Alexandria Schaller, Samantha Yeo, Joke Durnez, Matthew Tamayo-Rios, Mollie Epstein, Heather Kirkorian, Sarah Coyne, and et al. 2020. Young children’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics 146: e20193518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reid Chassiakos, Yolanda L., Jenny Radesky, Dimitri Christakis, Megan A. Moreno, and Corinn Cross. 2016. Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics 138: e20162593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rosa, Edinete M., and Jonathan Tudge. 2013. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review 5: 243–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55: 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schraggeová, Milica, and Daniel Bisaha. 2025. The effect of digital detox through digital minimalism using the MinimalistPhone app on the behavior of young users and their emotional experience. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 18: 100699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Scott, Elizabeth. 2020. Do 30-Day Challenges Actually Work? Very Well Mind. Available online: https://www.verywellmind.com/do-thirty-day-challenges-work-4164524 (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  45. Theopilus, Yansen, Abdullah Al Mahmud, Hilary Davis, and Johanna R. Octavia. 2025. Persuasive strategies in digital interventions to combat internet addiction: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics 195: 105725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. von Fedak, Veronica, and Michael R. Langlais. 2024. TikTok too long? Examining time on TikTok, psychological distress, and the moderation of TikTok motivations among college students. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 29: 129–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, Ming-Te, Juan-Del Toro, Christina L. Scanlon, Jacqueline D. Schall, Angela L. Zhang, Allison M. Belmont, Sarah E. Voltin, and Keri A. Plevniak. 2021. The roles of stress, coping, and parental support in adolescent psychological well-being in the context of COVID-19: A daily-diary study. Journal of Affective Disorders 294: 245–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, Ying Qi, and Jiankun Gong. 2023. Mobile social media as a vehicle of health communication. Nature Partner Journals: Digital Medicine 6: 1–8. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02259-9 (accessed on 14 June 2025).
Socsci 14 00676 g001
Figure 1. Depiction of multi-study approach.
Figure 1. Depiction of multi-study approach.
Socsci 14 00676 g001
Table 1. Paired samples t-test for Study 2 (N = 39).
Table 1. Paired samples t-test for Study 2 (N = 39).
VariablePre-Test Mean (SD)Post-Test Mean (SD)95% Confidence Interval of the Differencet-Value
Perceived minutes on mobile device287.59 (157.15)204.88 (123.61)[38.32, 123.09]4.04 ***
Last 24 h on device (minutes)298.35 (121.06)220.00 (97.39)[34.49, 122.22]3.79 **
Frequency of use6.35 (2.03)5.18 (1.38)[0.30, 2.05]0.01
Regulation of device use5.53 (1.28)6.53 (1.70)[−2.04, 0.04]−2.03 *
Confident in regulation of device6.00 (1.17)7.00 (1.80)[−2.08, 0.08]−1.97 *
Motivation to regulate device use7.24 (1.56)7.71 (1.36)[−1.29, 0.34]−1.22
Feeling connected to family7.38 (0.92)7.25 (0.71)[−1.00, 1.26]0.26
Communication with family6.75 (1.16)7.38 (0.52)[−1.61, 0.37]−1.49
Anxiety9.52 (2.85)8.23 (1.56)[−0.28, 2.87]1.75
Stress13.82 (4.03)10.71 (1.90)[0.88, 5.36]2.95 **
Depressive symptoms10.18 (3.71)8.18 (0.95)[0.03, 3.97]2.15 *
Note: Frequency of use, regulation of use, confidence of use, motivation to use, feeling connected, and communication are on scales of 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating more of that behavior. Mental well-being variables are scored by summing 7 items ranging from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicated poorer well-being. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Langlais, M.; Wible, D. Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Talk More, Tech Less 30-Day Family Life Education Program Promoting Psychological Well-Being at an American University. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120676

AMA Style

Langlais M, Wible D. Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Talk More, Tech Less 30-Day Family Life Education Program Promoting Psychological Well-Being at an American University. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(12):676. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120676

Chicago/Turabian Style

Langlais, Michael, and Dawn Wible. 2025. "Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Talk More, Tech Less 30-Day Family Life Education Program Promoting Psychological Well-Being at an American University" Social Sciences 14, no. 12: 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120676

APA Style

Langlais, M., & Wible, D. (2025). Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Talk More, Tech Less 30-Day Family Life Education Program Promoting Psychological Well-Being at an American University. Social Sciences, 14(12), 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14120676

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop