Digital exhaustion: between scrolling, comparison and constant availability

You pick up your phone to answer a message. Then you watch a video, open another post and check work messages as well. When you put it down, you can barely remember what you originally wanted to do.

This fictional example is a starting point for observation. It establishes neither an addiction nor that a smartphone causes every unpleasant feeling.

Which kind of use do you mean?

Talking with a friend, navigating home and spending twenty minutes comparing yourself with other people's careers are different activities. One screen-time total says little about these distinctions.

You could ask more specifically: “What did I use, for what purpose, and how did I feel?” In our example, the answer might be: “I wanted connection and ended up with work tasks and comparisons.”

This creates a more personal question than “Is my phone bad?”: “Which use do I want to keep, and which does not fit my purpose right now?”

What less social media changes on average

A 2025 meta-analysis by Burnell and colleagues combined 32 randomised studies involving 5,544 people. Reduced use or temporary abstinence showed a small average benefit for combined wellbeing measures. Samples were predominantly young and female; the effect for life satisfaction alone was not statistically clear. [1]

Another preregistered meta-analysis, by Lemahieu and colleagues, examined ten studies involving 4,674 people and temporary complete abstinence. It found no statistically clear improvements in positive feelings, negative feelings or life satisfaction. The studies differed methodologically. [2]

The reviews ask different questions and combine different outcomes. Together, they do not support a general promise that logging off makes people happier. Conversely, an unclear average effect does not establish that nobody can benefit individually.

What a smartphone study adds

A preregistered randomised study in 2025 examined a two-week smartphone internet block while allowing calls and texts. It reported improvements in attention and mental health measures. However, only 119 of 467 originally enrolled participants met the predefined compliance threshold, and later data were missing. Generalisability and long-term effects remain limited. [3]

This intervention is broader than disabling selected notifications. Its findings therefore cannot simply be transferred to every smaller everyday tip.

A personal experiment with one clear question

The person in our example could change just one situation for a week: answering private messages and then keeping the phone out of sight during dinner. Essential availability and necessary functions remain considered.

Beforehand, they would record: “I want to explore whether I switch between activities less during dinner.” Afterwards, they could briefly note:

• Did I carry out the planned change?

• Was I interrupted less, or did I remain restless?

• Did I miss anything important or a helpful connection?

• What else was different that day?

The duration is a practical example, not a scientifically established ideal. Without a control group and random assignment, a personal experiment cannot prove causation. It can still inform a decision about a specific habit.

A comparison is not a complete picture

Perhaps the person notices that certain posts regularly prompt thoughts such as “Everyone is making more progress”. One reflection could be: “What can I actually see, and what missing information am I filling in myself?”

Perhaps online contact with people who share similar experiences is helpful. The appropriate change might then be keeping that exchange while visiting a distressing feed less often.

The goal does not have to be complete abstinence or a perfect screen-time number. It can be use that fits your needs and responsibilities better.

Availability also involves shared agreements

When work messages dominate the evening, a next question could concern the surrounding expectations: “When is a reply actually required?” A personal phone setting cannot resolve unspoken team rules.

Professional advice is appropriate when there is substantial loss of control, persistent sleep difficulty or serious psychological distress. An everyday experiment does not replace assessment.

The person in our example might initially learn: “Different kinds of phone use affect me differently.” That can inform a specific decision without devaluing their entire digital life.

This article provides information and does not replace individual assessment or treatment.

Sources and further reading

[1] Burnell, K., et al. (2025). The effects of social media restriction: Meta-analytic evidence from randomized controlled trials. SSM – Mental Health, 7, 100459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2025.100459

[2] Lemahieu, L., et al. (2025). The effects of social media abstinence on affective well-being and life satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 7581. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90984-3

[3] Blocking mobile internet on smartphones improves sustained attention, mental health, and subjective well-being (2025). PNAS Nexus, 4, pgaf017. Preregistered randomised trial. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf017

Sources checked on 14 October 2026.