Mobile phone wallpapers, despite their seemingly small presence, may have significant psychological consequences due to the pervasive and recurrent exposure experienced by millions of people during their phone usage. We conducted two-field experiments, each spanning a duration of 2 weeks (Study 1: n = 81; Study 2: n = 166), to evaluate the influence of phone wallpaper image on individuals’ implicit connectedness with nature. Results consistently showed that urban wallpapers lacking natural elements resulted in lower connectedness with nature compared with nature wallpapers. Our findings identify one pathway through which screen time can adversely impact human-nature relations and highlight the psychological impacts of often overlooked background images on display interfaces.
AdamsW. M., SandbrookC., & TaitE. (2024). Running wild: Encountering digital animals through exercise apps. In TurnbullJ., SearleA., Anderson-ElliottH., & GiraudE. H. (Eds.), Digital ecologies (pp. 31–49). Manchester University Press. doi: 10.7765/9781526170354.00009
2.
AhernA. L., BennettK. M., & HetheringtonM. M. (2008). Internalization of the ultra-thin ideal: Positive implicit associations with underweight fashion models are associated with drive for thinness in young women. Eating Disorders, 16, 294–307; doi: 10.1080/10640260802115852
3.
AltrudiS. (2021). Connecting to nature through tech? The case of the iNaturalist app. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 27, 124–141; doi: 10.1177/1354856520933064
4.
AnshariM., AlasY., HardakerG., JaidinJ. H., SmithM., & AhadA. D. (2016). Smartphone habit and behavior in Brunei: Personalization, gender, and generation gap. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 719–727; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.063
5.
ArendtF., & MatthesJ. (2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10, 453–472; doi: 10.1080/17524032.2014.993415
6.
ArtsI., FischerA., DuckettD., & van der WalR. (2021a). Information technology and the optimisation of experience—The role of mobile devices and social media in human-nature interactions. Geoforum, 122, 55–62; doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.03.009
7.
ArtsI., FischerA., DuckettD., & van der WalR. (2021b). The instagrammable outdoors – investigating the sharing of nature experiences through visual social media. People and Nature, 3, 1244–1256; doi: 10.1002/pan3.10239
8.
Barragan-JasonG., LoreauM., de MazancourtC., SingerM. C., & ParmesanC. (2023). Psychological and physical connections with nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biological Conservation, 277, Article 109842; doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109842
9.
BauerJ. S., ConsolvoS., GreensteinB., SchoolerJ., WuE., WatsonN. F., & KientzJ. (2012). ShutEye: Encouraging awareness of healthy sleep recommendations with a mobile, peripheral display. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, USA. doi: 10.1145/2207676.2208600
10.
BeeryT., Stahl OlafssonA., GentinS., MaurerM., StålhammarS., AlbertC., BielingC., BuijsA., FagerholmN., Garcia-MartinM., PlieningerT., & RaymondC. M. (2023). Disconnection from nature: Expanding our understanding of human–nature relations. People and Nature, 5, 470–488; doi: 10.1002/pan3.10451
11.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
12.
BruniC., BallewM., WinterP., & OmotoA. (2018). Natural history museums may enhance youth’s implicit connectedness with nature. Ecopsychology, 10, 280–288; doi: 10.1089/eco.2018.0025
13.
BruniC. M., & SchultzP. W. (2010). Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from an IAT game. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 95–102; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.004
14.
ButtS., & PhillipsJ. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 346–360; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.019
15.
CapaldiC. A., DopkoR. L., & ZelenskiJ. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 976; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
16.
CarpenterT. P., PogacarR., PulligC., KourilM., AguilarS., LaBouffJ., IsenbergN., & ChakroffA. (2019). Survey-software implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2194–2208; doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01293-3
17.
CastreeN. (2005). Nature: the adventures of a concept. Routledge.
ConsolvoS., KlasnjaP., McDonaldD. W., AvrahamiD., FroehlichJ., LeGrandL., LibbyR., MosherK., & LandayJ. A. (2008). Flowers or a robot army? Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, Seoul, Korea. doi: 10.1145/1409635.1409644
20.
ConsolvoS., McDonaldD. W., ToscosT., ChenM. Y., FroehlichJ., HarrisonB., KlasnjaP., LaMarcaA., LeGrandL., LibbyR., SmithI., & LandayJ. A. (2008). Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of ubifit garden. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy. doi: 10.1145/1357054.1357335
21.
CrononW. (1996). The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Environmental History, 1, 7–28; doi: 10.2307/3985059
22.
DavisJ. L., GreenJ. D., & ReedA. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
23.
Dillon ThomasB., ShealynS. M., LauraC., Pamela Hurst-DellaP., DimitriC., TracyA., LaurenH., KatiaD.-H., JenniferA. E., AlexanderG. F., SheriM., GregP., Hans-JürgenR., DarcyT., StephenU., JackieS., RossN., & HeatherP. (2021). From screen time to the digital level of analysis: A scoping review of measures for digital media use in children and adolescents. BMJ Open, 11, Article e046367; doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046367
24.
Domingues-MontanariS. (2017). Clinical and psychological effects of excessive screen time on children. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 53, 333–338; doi: 10.1111/jpc.13462
25.
DuffyS., & VergesM. (2010). Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature. Environment and Behavior, 42, 723–739; doi: 10.1177/0013916509338552
26.
EdwardsR. C., & LarsonB. M. H. (2020). When screens replace backyards: Strategies to connect digital-media-oriented young people to nature. Environmental Education Research, 26, 950–968; doi: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1776844
27.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., BuchnerA., & LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160; doi: 10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
FlynnM. A., VeilleuxE., & StanaA. (2022). A post from the woods: Social media, well-being and our connection to the natural world. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 5, Article 100171; doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100171
30.
FoersterM., HennekeA., Chetty-MhlangaS., & RöösliM. (2019). Impact of adolescents’ screen time and nocturnal mobile phone-related awakenings on sleep and general health symptoms: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, Article 518; doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030518
31.
FrumkinH., BratmanG. N., BreslowS. J., CochranB., KahnP. H., LawlerJ. J., LevinP. S., TandonP. S., VaranasiU., WolfK. L., & WoodS. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125, Article 075001; doi: 10.1289/EHP1663
32.
FunderD. C., & OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168; doi: 10.1177/2515245919847202
33.
GawronskiB., & BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
34.
GengL., XuJ., YeL., ZhouW., & ZhouK. (2015). Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PloS One, 10, Article e0127247; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127247
35.
GreenwaldA. G., & BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27; doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
36.
GreenwaldA. G., McGheeD. E., SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480; doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464
37.
GreenwaldA. G., NosekB. A., & BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
38.
HartigT., MitchellR., de VriesS., & FrumkinH. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228; doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
39.
HowellA. J., DopkoR. L., PassmoreH.-A., & BuroK. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166–171; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
40.
HoyleH., HitchmoughJ., & JorgensenA. (2017). All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 109–123; doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011
41.
KellertS. R., & WilsonE. O. (1993). The Biophilia hypothesis (KellertS. R. & WilsonE. O., Eds.). Island Press.
42.
KimJ.-H., & LennonS. J. (2007). Mass media and self-esteem, body image, and eating disorder tendencies. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25, 3–23; doi: 10.1177/0887302X06296873
43.
KurdiB., & BanajiM. R. (2017). Repeated evaluative pairings and evaluative statements: How effectively do they shift implicit attitudes? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 146, 194–213; doi: 10.1037/xge0000239
44.
KurdiB., SeitchikA. E., AxtJ. R., CarrollT. J., KarapetyanA., KaushikN., TomezskoD., GreenwaldA. G., & BanajiM. R. (2019). Relationship between the Implicit Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. The American Psychologist, 74, 569–586.
45.
LaneN., LinM., MohammodM., YangX., LuH., CardoneG., AliS., DoryabA., BerkeE., CampbellA. T., & ChoudhuryT. (2014). BeWell: Sensing sleep, physical activities and social interactions to promote wellbeing. Mobile Networks and Applications, 19, 345–359; doi: 10.1007/s11036-013-0484-5
46.
LarsonL. R., SzczytkoR., BowersE. P., StephensL. E., StevensonK. T., & FloydM. F. (2019). Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature: Troubling trends among rural youth? Environment and Behavior, 51, 966–991; doi: 10.1177/0013916518806686
LeeJ.-Y. (2015). Personal computer wallpaper user segmentation based on Sasang typology. Integrative Medicine Research, 4, 34–40; doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2015.01.001
49.
LorimerJ. (2012). Multinatural geographies for the Anthropocene. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 593–612; doi: 10.1177/0309132511435352
50.
LouvR. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin books.
51.
MacKayJ. (2019. Screen time stats 2019: Here’s how much you use your phone during the workday. Rescue Time. Retrieved 6 August, 2022, from Available from: https://blog.rescuetime.com/screen-time-stats-2018/
52.
MarcianoL., OstroumovaM., SchulzP. J., & CameriniA.-L. (2021). Digital media use and adolescents’ mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 793868; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.793868
53.
MartinC., & CzellarS. (2017). Where do biospheric values come from? A connectedness to nature perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 56–68; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.009
54.
MartinL., WhiteM. P., HuntA., RichardsonM., PahlS., & BurtJ. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, Article 101389; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
55.
MartynP., & BrymerE. (2016). The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1436–1445; doi: 10.1177/1359105314555169
56.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
57.
MayerF. S., FrantzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE., & DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643; doi: 10.1177/0013916508319745
58.
MeidenbauerK. L., StenforsC. U. D., BratmanG. N., GrossJ. J., SchertzK. E., ChoeK. W., & BermanM. G. (2020). The affective benefits of nature exposure: What’s nature got to do with it? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72, Article 101498; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101498
59.
MontoyaR. M., HortonR. S., VeveaJ. L., CitkowiczM., & LauberE. A. (2017). A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: The influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 459–498; doi: 10.1037/bul0000085
60.
NeophytouE., ManwellL. A., & EikelboomR. (2021). Effects of excessive screen time on neurodevelopment, learning, memory, mental health, and neurodegeneration: A scoping review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 724–744; doi: 10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2
61.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740; doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748
62.
NisbetE., ZelenskiJ., & GrandpierreZ. (2019). Mindfulness in nature enhances connectedness and mood. Ecopsychology, 11, 81–91; doi: 10.1089/eco.2018.0061
63.
NosekB. A., GreenwaldA. G., & BanajiM. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180; doi: 10.1177/0146167204271418
64.
OhR. R. Y., FieldingK. S., ChangC.-C., NghiemL. T. P., TanC. L. Y., QuaziS. A., ShanahanD. F., GastonK. J., CarrascoR. L., & FullerR. A. (2021). Health and wellbeing benefits from nature experiences in tropical settings depend on strength of connection to nature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, Article 10149; doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910149
65.
OksmanV. (2006). Young people and seniors in Finnish ‘Mobile Information Society’. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2006, 2; doi: 10.5334/2006-3
66.
OlsonM. A., & FazioR. H. (2001). Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 12, 413–417; doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00376
67.
OulasvirtaA., RattenburyT., MaL., & RaitaE. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 105–114; doi: 10.1007/s00779-011-0412-2
68.
PandaA., & JainN. K. (2018). Compulsive smartphone usage and users’ ill-being among young Indians: Does personality matter? Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1355–1372; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.006
69.
PariserE. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin Publishing Group.
70.
ParkC. S. (2019). Examination of smartphone dependence: Functionally and existentially dependent behavior on the smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 123–128; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.022
71.
PascaL., CarrusG., LoureiroA., NavarroÓ., PannoA., Tapia FollenC., & AragonésJ. I. (2022). Connectedness and well-being in simulated nature. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 14, 397–412; doi: 10.1111/aphw.12309
72.
PergamsO. R. W., & ZaradicP. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80, 387–393; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001
73.
PritchardA., RichardsonM., SheffieldD., & McEwanK. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1145–1167; doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6
74.
RichardsonM., & SheffieldD. (2015). Reflective self-attention: A more stable predictor of connection to nature than mindful attention. Ecopsychology, 7, 166–175; doi: 10.1089/eco.2015.0010
75.
RichardsonM., HussainZ., & GriffithsM. D. (2018). Problematic smartphone use, nature connectedness, and anxiety. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 109–116; doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.10
76.
RydellR. J., & McConnellA. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 995–1008; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.995
77.
SamuelsonW., & ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59; doi: 10.1007/BF00055564
78.
SandbrookC., AdamsW. M., & MonteferriB. (2015). Digital games and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters, 8, 118–124; doi: 10.1111/conl.12113
79.
SchmittM. T., MackayC. M. L., DroogendykL. M., & PayneD. (2019). What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 20–29; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003
80.
SchultzP. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339; doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
81.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology Of Human-Nature Relations. In SchmuckP. & SchultzW. P. (Eds.), Psychology of Sustainable Development (pp. 61–78). Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4
82.
SchultzP. W., & TabanicoJ. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247; doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00210.x
83.
SchultzP. W., ShriverC., TabanicoJ. J., & KhazianA. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42; doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00022-7
84.
SmallG. W., LeeJ., KaufmanA., JalilJ., SiddarthP., GaddipatiH., MoodyT. D., & BookheimerS. Y. (2020). Brain health consequences of digital technology use. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22, 179–187; doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/gsmall
85.
SmithP. K., DijksterhuisA., & ChaikenS. (2008). Subliminal exposure to faces and racial attitudes: Exposure to Whites makes Whites like Blacks less. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 50–64; doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.006
86.
SogaM., & GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 94–101; doi: 10.1002/fee.1225
87.
SpohrD. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34, 150–160; doi: 10.1177/0266382117722446
88.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Echo Chambers: Bush V. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond. Princeton University Press.
89.
TamK.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
90.
TomczykŁ., & Selmanagic LizdeE. (2023). Is real screen time a determinant of problematic smartphone and social network use among young people? Telematics and Informatics, 82, Article 101994; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2023.101994
91.
TrigwellJ. L., FrancisA. J. P., & BagotK. L. (2014). Nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: Spirituality as a potential mediator. Ecopsychology, 6, 241–251; doi: 10.1089/eco.2014.0025
92.
TurnbullJ., SearleA., Hartman DaviesO., DodsworthJ., Chasseray-PeraldiP., von EssenE., & Anderson-ElliottH. (2023). Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance. Progress in Environmental Geography, 2, 3–32; doi: 10.1177/27539687221145698
93.
TwedtE., RaineyR. M., & ProffittD. R. (2016). Designed natural spaces: Informal gardens are perceived to be more restorative than formal gardens. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 88; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00088
94.
TwengeJ. M. (2019). More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-media use and psychological well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 372–379; doi: 10.1177/0963721419838244
95.
van DeursenA. J. A. M., BolleC. L., HegnerS. M., & KommersP. A. M. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411–420; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039
96.
VeselyS., & KlöcknerC. A. (2020). Social desirability in environmental psychology research: Three meta-analyses. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1395; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395
97.
von EssenE., TurnbullJ., SearleA., JørgensenF. A., HofmeesterT. R., & van der WalR. (2023). Wildlife in the Digital Anthropocene: Examining human-animal relations through surveillance technologies. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 6, 679–699; doi: 10.1177/25148486211061704
98.
WangC., GengL., & Rodríguez-CasallasJ. D. (2023). The role of nature-deficit disorder in the associations between Mobile phone overuse and well-being and mindfulness. Current Psychology, 42, 894–905; doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01453-9
99.
WeinmannM., SchneiderC., & BrockeJ. V. (2016). Digital nudging. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58, 433–436; doi: 10.1007/s12599-016-0453-1
100.
WeinsteinN., PrzybylskiA. K., & RyanR. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315–1329; doi: 10.1177/0146167209341649
101.
WhitburnJ., LinklaterW., & AbrahamseW. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 34, 180–193; doi: 10.1111/cobi.13381
102.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
103.
WilsonE. O. (1993). Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. In KellertS. R. & WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
104.
Wu-OuyangB. (2022). Are smartphones addictive? Examining the cognitive-behavior model of motivation, leisure boredom, extended self, and fear of missing out on possible smartphone addiction. Telematics and Informatics, 71, Article 101834; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2022.101834
105.
YongJ. C., LiN. P., ValentineK. A., & SmithA. R. (2017). Female virtual intrasexual competition and its consequences: An evolutionary mismatch perspective. In FisherM. L. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 657–680). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199376377.013.38
106.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27; doi: 10.1037/h0025848
107.
ZhangY., LiQ., HuW., ZhanN., ZouJ., WangJ., & GengF. (2022). The relationships between screen time and mental health problems among Chinese adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 146, 279–285; doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.11.017
