Situating smartphones in daily life: Big Five traits and contexts associated with young adults’ smartphone use.

Abstract

We examine individual differences in smartphone behavior to understand the independent effects of Big Five traits and four different contextual factors (places, people, co-occurring activities, and psychological situations) on the frequency and duration of smartphone use in daily life. Using survey, experience sampling, and mobile sensing data collected over the span of 2 weeks from two samples of college students (Sample 1, N = 634; Sample 2, N = 211), we conducted a series of multilevel Bayesian gamma hurdle and negative binomial hurdle models to explain smartphone use (vs. nonuse) and the degree of use. Our pooled findings suggest that extraversion was associated with more frequent use, while conscientiousness was associated with smartphone nonuse and shorter durations of use. In terms of context, our findings show that smartphones were used more frequently when people were out and about in public places (e.g., cafes, stores) and less frequently in particularly social places (e.g., bars, friends’ houses). Smartphones were also used more frequently with weak ties (e.g., classmates, coworkers) and less frequently with close ties (e.g., roommates, family, significant others). Smartphones were also used less and for shorter durations when people were engaged in certain activities (e.g., studying, commuting, chores, exercising), and when in situations perceived to be romantic or involving work. We discuss the findings with regard to past work on smartphone use and describe the next steps for research on smartphone behavior.

Lifestyle Polarization: Do Liberals and Conservatives Behave Differently in Everyday Life?

“…However, we describe the studies as "exploratory" because we did not have a priori hypotheses about where or to what extent actual and perceived lifestyle polarization would be observed, and the Study 1 pre-registration was submitted after the fall (but not spring or pooled) sample was analyzed. (91)(92)(93)(94)(95). The current paper differs substantively from this previously published research in its focus on political orientation.…”