Homo smartphonus: Psychological Aspects of Smartphone Use—A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review supports the idea that smartphones have become an essential part of modern life, offering numerous benefits such as instant communication, access to information, navigation assistance, entertainment, and support for individuals with disabilities. They enhance productivity, well-being, and emergency responsiveness.

The review covers multiple psychological domains, including health, individual differences, social psychology, and cognition, providing a well-rounded perspective. It acknowledges both positive and negative aspects of smartphone use, rather than solely focusing on detrimental effects, and the inclusion of studies from both Western and Asian countries strengthens its generalizability across different cultural backgrounds.

On the other side, excessive smartphone use can pose psychological risks, prompting some individuals to limit their usage to improve efficiency and maintain well-being. Rather than advocating for smartphone abandonment, this review highlights the importance of mindful and balanced usage to maximize benefits while minimizing potential drawbacks.

Nevertheless this review did not face some ‘deviant’ use of the smartphone, like informative disorders (fake or misleading news) that can encourage negative social relationships, like the ones toward minority groups, elicited by informative disorders toward people belonging to ethnic or religious groups. This lack could be fulfill, for instance in limitations also in terms of intervention side: at this purpose you can consult Faragò et al., 2024 or also  D’Errico, F et al (2024). Addressing racial misinformation at school: A psycho-social intervention aimed at reducing ethnic moral disengagement in adolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 27(3), 611-630.).

In terms of clarity, the review mentions “methodological challenges” but does not specify what they are explicitly, thus clarifying this (e.g., sample biases, self-report limitations, experimental constraints) would add depth.

In the same vein while the study calls for more research on positive effects, it does not elaborate on existing positive findings. Including examples (e.g., cognitive stimulation, enhanced connectivity) would make this discussion more balanced.

Furthermore, authors should also consider the role played by social emotions that usually are associated to negative dynamics of social media, see for instance the moral-emotion contagion of Brady e& colleagues or also the role played by negative emotions like indignation, feeling offended  (see Mihailov, E., Voinea, C., & Vică, C. (2023). Is online Moral Outrage Outrageous? Rethinking the indignation machine. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(2), 12.or also Poggi, I., et al. (2018). Feeling offended: a blow to our image and our social relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 308059.

In the abstract some sentences feel slightly dense or repetitive. For example:

• “The review incorporates findings from various studies conducted in highly developed Western and Asian countries.”

→ Consider specifying how cultural differences influence findings.

• “The cognitive effects of smartphone use, particular attention and memory, are discussed.”

→ This phrase is slightly awkward; “particularly in relation to attention and memory” would be clearer.

 

In the conclusion

The phrase “nearly every individual on Earth who can afford it [3]” is a bit vague. Consider rewording it as “a vast majority of people worldwide who can afford one [3].”

• The transition to discussing psychological threats could be smoother. Instead of “It is important to note that our intention is not to advocate for abandoning smartphones…”, consider:
• “While smartphones offer numerous benefits, it is essential to recognize the potential psychological risks associated with excessive use.”

The final part of the paper could more explicitly summarize key takeaways. Instead of just emphasizing the need for future research, it could highlight which areas are most pressing and it can strengthen the discussion of positive effects and interventions to contrast negative ones.

Author Response

R 1

Comment 1 - This review supports the idea that smartphones have become an essential part of modern life, offering numerous benefits such as instant communication, access to information, navigation assistance, entertainment, and support for individuals with disabilities. They enhance productivity, well-being, and emergency responsiveness.

The review covers multiple psychological domains, including health, individual differences, social psychology, and cognition, providing a well-rounded perspective. It acknowledges both positive and negative aspects of smartphone use, rather than solely focusing on detrimental effects, and the inclusion of studies from both Western and Asian countries strengthens its generalizability across different cultural backgrounds.

On the other side, excessive smartphone use can pose psychological risks, prompting some individuals to limit their usage to improve efficiency and maintain well-being. Rather than advocating for smartphone abandonment, this review highlights the importance of mindful and balanced usage to maximize benefits while minimizing potential drawbacks.

Response 1 - We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the balanced approach we aimed for in addressing both the positive and negative aspects of smartphone use across various psychological domains and cultural contexts.

Comment 2 - Nevertheless this review did not face some ‘deviant’ use of the smartphone, like informative disorders (fake or misleading news) that can encourage negative social relationships, like the ones toward minority groups, elicited by informative disorders toward people belonging to ethnic or religious groups. This lack could be fulfill, for instance in limitations also in terms of intervention side: at this purpose you can consult Faragò et al., 2024 or also  D’Errico, F et al (2024). Addressing racial misinformation at school: A psycho-social intervention aimed at reducing ethnic moral disengagement in adolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 27(3), 611-630.).

Response 2 - Thank you for this valuable comment. We fully agree that deviant uses of smartphones, such as the spread of misinformation and its impact on intergroup relations, represent an important area of concern. However, given the psychological focus and space limitations of this review, we chose to concentrate on individual-level mechanisms. We have now acknowledged this limitation in Section 6 and included relevant references (Faragò et al., 2024; D’Errico et al., 2024) to guide future research in this direction.

In terms of clarity, the review mentions “methodological challenges” but does not specify what they are explicitly, thus clarifying this (e.g., sample biases, self-report limitations, experimental constraints) would add depth.

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the term “methodological challenges” was too general in the original version. We have now revised (Section 6) the relevant section to specify key limitations in smartphone research, including reliance on self-report data, sample biases (e.g., overrepresentation of WEIRD populations), low ecological validity in experimental settings, and difficulties in comparing studies due to methodological heterogeneity. We hope these clarifications address your concern and add greater depth to the review.

Comment 3 - In the same vein while the study calls for more research on positive effects, it does not elaborate on existing positive findings. Including examples (e.g., cognitive stimulation, enhanced connectivity) would make this discussion more balanced.

Response 3 - Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that it is important to highlight the positive aspects of smartphone use. While your comment encouraged us to reflect further on this issue, we believe the current version of the manuscript already presents a fairly rich set of examples across various domains, but we have additionally expanded the relevant section to include concrete examples, such as cognitive stimulation via learning and memory apps. In the summary section, these benefits are outlined to ensure a balanced perspective. We hope this approach adequately addresses your concern.

Comment 4 - Furthermore, authors should also consider the role played by social emotions that usually are associated to negative dynamics of social media, see for instance the moral-emotion contagion of Brady e& colleagues or also the role played by negative emotions like indignation, feeling offended  (see Mihailov, E., Voinea, C., & Vică, C. (2023). Is online Moral Outrage Outrageous? Rethinking the indignation machine. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(2), 12.or also Poggi, I., et al. (2018). Feeling offended: a blow to our image and our social relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 308059.

Response 4 - Thank you for this important and timely observation. We agree that moral and social emotions—such as indignation, outrage, or feeling offended—play a significant role in online dynamics and deserve more attention. While our current review focuses primarily on individual-level mechanisms, we have now acknowledged this broader emotional-social dimension in the discussion section and cited relevant studies (e.g., Brady et al., 2023; Mihailov et al., 2023; Poggi et al., 2018) to point toward this important line of future research.

Comment 5 - In the abstract some sentences feel slightly dense or repetitive. For example:

• “The review incorporates findings from various studies conducted in highly developed Western and Asian countries.”

→ Consider specifying how cultural differences influence findings.

• “The cognitive effects of smartphone use, particular attention and memory, are discussed.”

→ This phrase is slightly awkward; “particularly in relation to attention and memory” would be clearer.

Response 5 -  Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions regarding the abstract. We have revised it to improve clarity and flow. Specifically, we clarified the influence of cultural differences by noting how usage patterns and psychological outcomes may vary across Western and Asian countries. We also refined the phrasing related to cognitive effects to say “particularly in relation to attention and memory” for greater precision. We appreciate your input, which helped enhance the overall readability and balance of the abstract.

 

Comment 6 - In the conclusion

The phrase “nearly every individual on Earth who can afford it [3]” is a bit vague. Consider rewording it as “a vast majority of people worldwide who can afford one [3].”

• The transition to discussing psychological threats could be smoother. Instead of “It is important to note that our intention is not to advocate for abandoning smartphones…”, consider:
• “While smartphones offer numerous benefits, it is essential to recognize the potential psychological risks associated with excessive use.”

The final part of the paper could more explicitly summarize key takeaways. Instead of just emphasizing the need for future research, it could highlight which areas are most pressing and it can strengthen the discussion of positive effects and interventions to contrast negative ones.

Response 6 - Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. We have revised the conclusion to more explicitly summarize the key takeaways from our review. We highlighted the most pressing areas for future research, including psychological mechanisms of addiction, personality influences, and the need for effective interventions. Additionally, we strengthened the discussion of positive effects and the role of conscious usage strategies as potential interventions to counterbalance negative impacts. We believe these changes provide a clearer, more balanced closure to the paper and appreciate your helpful suggestions.

 

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable suggestions have greatly improved the quality of our work, and we hope that the revised version meets your expectations and satisfies your concerns.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It was a pleasure to me. I congratulate the authors for the hard work on such a relevant topic. 

 

General comments

This is a well written and attractive scientific product and it represents an intensive search and analysis on relevant psychological dimensions related to smartphone use. Nevertheless, it fails to offer a methods section, which makes it problematic, in my opinion, to call it a review as there are no possibilities of reproducibility nor methodological critical appraisal.

Maybe a comprehensive overview of the available literature, as the authors themselves call it in one of the expressions used, would be more adequate. 

 

The discussion does not really discuss the results, in my opinion. It seems to me more coherent with a conclusion (a conclusive summary of the paper) than a discussion, which should problematize the “state of the art”. Section 6 could offer some stimulus for the discussion section, yet to be written.

 

I consider this paper to be a useful contribution to explore the connections between smartphone use and psychological functioning, as well as to discuss the current available evidence and identify future directions for research. However, a more prominent critical perspective on a robust discussion section would be interesting.

 

Detailed comments

Line 42 - the authors say they will “describe research related to…”. Since this is not a systematic review, I wouldn’t use the term “describe”, as it demands for a more rigorous method. I think that alternatives like “explore” would be more suitable for this paper. Also, the sentence “Therefore, we will describe research related to (a) health psychology and addictions, (b) individual differences in psychology, (c) selected areas of social psychology, and (d) cognitive functioning of smartphone users” could, in my opinion, be improved to make it more self explanatory and specific (connecting each item with smartphone use). Maybe it would make sense to use a more specific title than “Psychology of health and addiction” since the subsections are smartphone related and the title could express it more clearly. Besides that, all the titles of the other sections have a connection with smartphone use.

 

I find the sentence “Numerous factors can contribute to the aforementioned psychological issues, and due to the article's scope, let us briefly address one of them. One notable factor is the use of smartphones, which has been shown to have a detrimental impact on both the quality and duration of sleep…” a bit confusing, since smartphones are the core topic of the paper.

 

The sentence “The influence of negative social comparisons on well-being [101], self- 137 worth [102-104], and body satisfaction among Instagram users is evident [105,106]” is written twice. 

 

The title “2.4 Future research and doubts” is not written in bold, as the others. Title 7 has a full stop/period at the end, unlike the other titles.

Important missing reference: J. Yang, X. Fu, X. Liao, Y. Li. Association of problematic smartphone use with poor sleep quality, depression, and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychiatry Res., 284 (2020), Article 112686

Author Response

Comment 1 - Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It was a pleasure to me. I congratulate the authors for the hard work on such a relevant topic.

Response 1 - Thank you very much for your kind words and for taking the time to review our paper.
We truly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and are glad that you found the topic relevant and the manuscript worthwhile. Your encouraging remarks mean a lot to us.

Comment 2 - General comments

This is a well written and attractive scientific product and it represents an intensive search and analysis on relevant psychological dimensions related to smartphone use. Nevertheless, it fails to offer a methods section, which makes it problematic, in my opinion, to call it a review as there are no possibilities of reproducibility nor methodological critical appraisal.

Maybe a comprehensive overview of the available literature, as the authors themselves call it in one of the expressions used, would be more adequate.

Response 2 - We truly appreciate your recognition of the effort involved and your constructive suggestion regarding the terminology used.

We agree with your observation that the paper does not include a formal methods section, as it does not follow a systematic review or meta-analytic protocol. As you correctly noted, this limits reproducibility and methodological appraisal. Our aim was to conduct a narrative literature review, which is a recognized and commonly used format in psychological science, particularly when the goal is to provide a broad and integrative overview of existing findings.

To reflect this more accurately and transparently, we have:

• Added the phrase “A Narrative Literature Review” to the manuscript title, which now reads:
  Homo smartphonus: Psychological Aspects of Smartphone Use – A Narrative Literature Review.
• Included an explicit clarification in the Introduction, where we now state:

"This paper presents a narrative overview of the psychological literature on smartphone use, rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis."

We hope these adjustments resolve the ambiguity and align the presentation of the manuscript with standard academic expectations for this type of contribution.

Comment 3 - The discussion does not really discuss the results, in my opinion. It seems to me more coherent with a conclusion (a conclusive summary of the paper) than a discussion, which should problematize the “state of the art”. Section 6 could offer some stimulus for the discussion section, yet to be written. I consider this paper to be a useful contribution to explore the connections between smartphone use and psychological functioning, as well as to discuss the current available evidence and identify future directions for research. However, a more prominent critical perspective on a robust discussion section would be interesting.

Response 3 - We understand your concern that the final section of the manuscript functions more as a conclusive summary than as a critical discussion of the current state of the art.

To address this, we have made the following changes:

• Expanded Section 6 (Limitations and Future Directions) to more clearly identify gaps in current research and methodological challenges, as well as underexplored areas that require further investigation.
• We have renamed Section 7 from “General Discussion” to “General Conclusion” to better reflect the actual content and intention of the section, while also enhancing it with several more nuanced observations about the limitations and complexities of current findings.
• Additionally, we have slightly revised the concluding remarks to improve clarity and cohesion with the rest of the manuscript.

Comment 4 - Detailed comments

Line 42 - the authors say they will “describe research related to…”. Since this is not a systematic review, I wouldn’t use the term “describe”, as it demands for a more rigorous method. I think that alternatives like “explore” would be more suitable for this paper. Also, the sentence “Therefore, we will describe research related to (a) health psychology and addictions, (b) individual differences in psychology, (c) selected areas of social psychology, and (d) cognitive functioning of smartphone users” could, in my opinion, be improved to make it more self explanatory and specific (connecting each item with smartphone use). Maybe it would make sense to use a more specific title than “Psychology of health and addiction” since the subsections are smartphone related and the title could express it more clearly. Besides that, all the titles of the other sections have a connection with smartphone use.

Response 4 - Thank you for your careful reading and very helpful suggestions regarding the wording and structure of the manuscript.

• In response to your comment about the use of the term “describe”, we agree that “explore” is more appropriate for a narrative literature review and have updated the relevant sentence accordingly.
• We have also rephrased the sentence at line 42 to make the scope of the review more specific and clearly linked to smartphone use.
• Furthermore, we have modified the section heading “Psychology of Health and Addiction” to “Psychological Health and Addiction in the Context of Smartphone Use”, to better align it with the thematic focus and maintain consistency with the rest of the section titles.

We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped improve both the clarity and coherence of our manuscript.

Comment 5 - I find the sentence “Numerous factors can contribute to the aforementioned psychological issues, and due to the article's scope, let us briefly address one of them. One notable factor is the use of smartphones, which has been shown to have a detrimental impact on both the quality and duration of sleep…” a bit confusing, since smartphones are the core topic of the paper.

Response 5 - Good point, corrected (Research has shown that smartphones can adversely affect both sleep quality and duration)

Comment 6 - The sentence “The influence of negative social comparisons on well-being [101], self- 137 worth [102-104], and body satisfaction among Instagram users is evident [105,106]” is written twice.

The title “2.4 Future research and doubts” is not written in bold, as the others. Title 7 has a full stop/period at the end, unlike the other titles.

Important missing reference: J. Yang, X. Fu, X. Liao, Y. Li. Association of problematic smartphone use with poor sleep quality, depression, and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychiatry Res., 284 (2020), Article 112686

Response 6 - Good points, corrected, added

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study. However, this study needs some major revisions. Moreover, the following queries need to be clarified in this study.

1. What are the objectives and scientific aims of this paper? The description is not very clear, please explain in detail.

2. What are the limitations of this study?

Author Response

R 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to review our manuscript.

We would like to clarify that this submission is a narrative literature review, not an empirical study. Its purpose is to synthesize and critically evaluate existing psychological research related to smartphone use across several domains, including health psychology, individual differences, social functioning, and cognitive processes.

Reviews of this kind — which do not present new data but instead aim to organize and interpret findings from prior studies — are a standard and widely accepted format in psychological science. Thousands of similar reviews have been published on topics ranging from mental health to media use and behavioral patterns. We understand that this may not have been fully apparent, and the misunderstanding might stem from differences in disciplinary conventions.

As for the concerns you raised:

• The scientific aims of the paper have now been clarified in the Introduction to make the scope and purpose of the review more explicit.
• Regarding limitations, we would like to note that this paper does not report its own empirical findings, so the limitations discussed refer to the studies reviewed. These limitations — such as sampling bias, overreliance on self-report measures, lack of experimental control, and cultural bias — are extensively addressed in Section 6. We have further expanded this section in response to feedback from you and another reviewer.

We hope these clarifications help position the paper within the expected structure of psychological review articles and that the revised manuscript better meets your expectations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the comments and improved the previously overlooked literature sections, and the manuscript can be accepted in its current version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you once again for the opportunity to review such an interesting paper.

I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the interpretation of my comments. Of course, this is not a primary study – it is clearly a secondary one, and that was never in question. That is precisely why I suggested using the expression "comprehensive overview of the available literature", as the authors themselves described it.

That said, secondary studies can vary widely in type and scope, and I consider it useful that the authors decided to classify it as a narrative review. I also insist that, even in a narrative review, a methods section that describes basic topics such as databases used or relevant selection processes is a good practice to add comprehensiveness, transparency and replicability to the work. Anyway, I find the final version to be considerably clearer and complete, and I have updated my comments accordingly. Congratulations on your work. I wish you all the best.