Science, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
Computer Science, Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Huma, Zil E
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
There is a growing concern that many individuals overuse smartphones in the presence of their family members, which sometimes creates frustration and relationship stress among them. Though couples remain co-located for a substantial portion of each day, very little effort has been made in quantifying couples’ co-located smartphone usage and exploring ways to reduce it. As such, I first conduct a two-week study quantifying couples' co-located smartphone usage. Results show that couples spend a considerable amount of time on smartphones while being co-located than when they are not with their partners. Inspired by the results, I conducted a four-week long study exploring smartphone notifications as a medium to motivate couples to limit their co-located smartphone use. The results suggest that notification has potential to help couples in reducing their co-located usage. Based on the findings, I present a set of recommendations for designing solutions to limit smartphone usage among couples.
Quantifying and Mitigating Couples’Co-Located Smartphone UsagebyZIL E HUMAA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Computer Science)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Okanagan)February 2021c© ZIL E HUMA, 2021The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommendto the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation en-titled:Quantifying and Mitigating Couples’ Co-Located Smartphone Usagesubmitted by ZIL E HUMA in partial fulfilment of the requirements of thedegree of Master of ScienceMohammad Khalad Hasan. Irving K. Barber Faculty of ScienceSupervisorYves Lucet. Irving K. Barber Faculty of ScienceCo-SupervisorPatricia Lasserre, Irving K. Barber Faculty of ScienceSupervisory Committee MemberRamon Lawrence, Irving K. Barber Faculty of ScienceSupervisory Committee MemberKasun Hewage, School of Engineering Faculty of Applied ScienceUniversity ExamineriiAbstractThere is a growing concern that many individuals overuse smartphones inthe presence of their family members, which sometimes creates frustrationand relationship stress among them. Though couples remain co-locatedfor a substantial portion of each day, very little effort has been made inquantifying couples’ co-located smartphone usage and exploring ways toreduce it. As such, I first conduct a two-week study quantifying couples’ co-located smartphone usage. Results show that couples spend a considerableamount of time on smartphones while being co-located than when they arenot with their partners. Inspired by the results, I conducted a four-week longstudy exploring smartphone notifications as a medium to motivate couples tolimit their co-located smartphone use. The results suggest that notificationhas potential to help couples in reducing their co-located usage. Based onthe findings, I present a set of recommendations for designing solutions tolimit smartphone usage among couples.iiiLay SummarySmartphones have become an essential commodity over the past decade.It has completely changed the way people access information and commu-nicate with others. Prior research showed that people often overuse smart-phones, however, there is a lack of studies conducted on exploring smart-phones overuse in the presence of co-located individuals such as family mem-bers, friends etc. Smartphone overuse in co-located context could potentiallydisrupt the sense of community and add to the relationship stress. Therefore,I first conducted two studies to examine the smartphone usage behaviouramong couples who spend a considerable amount of time with their partner.With a four-week long study, I further explored the use of notifications tomotivate couples to limit their smartphone usage in the presence of theirpartner. Based on our findings, I provided design solutions for future re-search aimed at mitigating co-located smartphone usage.ivTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiLay Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xDedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiChapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Chapter 2: Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Smartphone Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.1 To Stay Connected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1.2 Coordinating activities/Micro Coordination . . . . . . 52.1.3 To Access Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Smartphone Usage Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Use . . . . . . . . . . 72.3.1 Relationship Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3.2 Social Disconnect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3.3 Impact on Parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3.4 Lack of concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3.5 Mental and Physical Health issues . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4 Co-located Activity Awareness and Interaction . . . . . . . . 132.5 Mitigating Smartphone Over Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.6 Smartphone Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15vTABLE OF CONTENTSChapter 3: Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.1 App Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.1.1 Installed apps on the phone: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.1.2 GPS coordinates: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1.3 Currently running apps: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1.4 Lock/Unlock events: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.1.5 App duration: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.2 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.4.1 Basic Statistics on Individual and Co-located usage . . 233.4.2 Temporal Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.4.3 Gender-Based Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Chapter 4: Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.1 Smartphone App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.2 Designing Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.2.1 Notification style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.2.2 Notification text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.2.3 Notification frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.5.1 Notification Received and Ignored . . . . . . . . . . . 344.5.2 Effect of Notifications on Smartphone Usage . . . . . 364.5.3 Subjective Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.5.4 Steps taken to reduce co-located smartphone usage . . 404.5.5 Perception on smartphone usage in couples . . . . . . 41Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . 435.1 Considering the usage context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445.2 Notification strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445.3 Offering usage analytic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445.4 Detecting precise co-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.5 Designing battery efficient solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Chapter 6: Limitations and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . 466.1 Participant Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466.2 Family Dynamics and Usage Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47viTABLE OF CONTENTS6.3 Accuracy of indoor locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476.4 Pre-pandemic and During Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Chapter 7: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Chapter A: Implementation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52A.1 App 1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52A.1.1 Background Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52A.1.2 Installed application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52A.1.3 Lock/Unlock events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53A.1.4 Currently running app . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53A.1.5 GPS coordinates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54A.1.6 App use duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54A.1.7 Data Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55A.2 App 2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56A.3 Technologies explored for Co-location detection . . . . . . . . 57A.3.1 GPS Data via Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57A.3.2 Bluetooth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57A.3.3 RFID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58A.3.4 Wi-Fi Direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60viiList of TablesTable 1 Top 10 most used app categories for WFH . . . . . . . 23Table 2 Top 10 most used app categories for NWFH . . . . . . 24Table 3 Top 10 most used app for WFH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Table 4 Top 10 most used app for NWFH . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Table 5 Top 10 most used app categories for Males . . . . . . . 27Table 6 Top 10 most used app categories for Females . . . . . 28Table 7 Top 10 most used app for Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Table 8 Top 10 most used app for Females . . . . . . . . . . . 29Table 9 10 app categories of notifications received per day forWFH couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Table 10 10 app categories of notifications received per day forNWFH couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Table 11 Top 10 app categories of notifications per day ignoredfor WFH couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Table 12 Top 10 app categories of notifications ignored per dayfor NWFH couples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36viiiList of FiguresFigure 1 An icon is always visible in the status bar to indicatethe app’ status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 2 Once the user drags down the notification bar, itshows details information about the app . . . . . . . 19Figure 3 App interface showing the permissions and other fea-tures about the app . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 4 Average Smartphone usage by hours for NWFH couples 26Figure 5 Average Smartphone usage by hours for WFH couples 26Figure 6 Male vs Female Average Smartphone usage by hours 27Figure 7 Smartphone usage for 28 days for NWFH couples . . 37Figure 8 Smartphone usage for 28 days for WFH couples . . . 37Figure 9 An icon is always visible in the status bar to indicatethe app’ status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Figure 10 User Interface of the app . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Figure 11 Data stored in files on smartphone . . . . . . . . . . . 55Figure 12 Screenshot of programming work on Background service 56Figure 13 Screenshot of programming work on Installed Apps . 57ixAcknowledgementsI would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. MohammadKhalad Hasan who provided me with his invaluable guidance, encourage-ment and generous help. I will always remember how patiently and calmlyhe would listen and acknowledge my ideas during our long discussions andbrainstorming sessions at each phase of the thesis. His work ethics, immenseknowledge and enthusiasm for his work inspired me during the strugglingphases of the thesis. I would not have been able to complete the challengingpart of the thesis without his help.I would like to thank my co-supervisor Dr. Yves Lucet, for his invalu-able input and support throughout this thesis. His inputs were enlighteningand nudged me in the right direction. From Dr. Yves I learnt the value ofhard-work, patience and dedication. His contribution to the various brain-storming sessions helped in shaping the thesis. I am indebted to him for hishelp during the demanding part of thesis.I would like to acknowledge helpful suggestions from my committee mem-bers: Dr. Ramon Lawrence and Dr. Patricia Lasserre.I owe a huge gratitude to my loving family. Their love and confidencein me encouraged me throughout the course of thesis. I would also like tothank my siblings Khalaf Hassan and Zahanat for providing me with a senseof escape when everything got a little bit overwhelming.Lastly, but not the least I express my gratitude to my friends and col-leagues especially Mayeesha Mariam, for her constant love, understandingand encouraging words.With regards to my experience a quote by Rumi sums it all up “As youstart to walk on the way, the way appears.”xDedicationI dedicate my thesis to my loving parents, Zahoor Hussain Khan andHalima Kar. I want to thank them for supporting me through thick andthin and standing like a rock beside me.xiChapter 1IntroductionSmartphones continue to play a pivotal role in daily communicationswith family and friends [6]. Besides voice calling, these devices offer connec-tivity through other communication channels such as text messages, videocalls, and even virtual reality simulations of face-to-face interactions. More-over, these devices provide easy access to information and help people withtheir day-to-day activities. For instance, people use smartphones to ac-cess their email, social media accounts, maps, news and other information.Thus, the devices enable not only seamless communication without impos-ing physical constraints but also allow access to information anywhere, any-time. However, there is growing evidence that the convenience of smart-phones (e.g., notifications and updates) can sometimes be counterproductiveand foster unwanted excessive device usage behavior [81, 99]. Additionally,smartphones are typically considered to be personal devices where the ac-tivities that are happening on them often remain unknown to co-locatedpeople. Further, often people get absorbed into their “virtual interactions”,thus ignoring or taking little notice of co-located persons (e.g., family mem-bers) in the “real world” [45, 108].Prior research explored smartphone overuse and its consequences [4, 60,122]. Researchers have shown various negative effects associated with co-located smartphone usage, especially among family members. They havesuggested that smartphone usage in the presence of family members cansometimes negatively affect family relationships [51, 109, 123]. Additionally,smartphone usage in the presence of one’s partner can sometimes contributeto relationship dissatisfaction and frustration [97, 111]. To overcome suchsituations, researchers investigated different strategies such as creating co-located awareness [38, 57, 69], facilitate collaboration in group through smartdevices [31, 42, 59], and supporting face-to-face interaction while being co-located [23, 52, 102]. These studies have shown promising results in burstingthe bubble created due to the smartphone usage thus, creating a sense oftogetherness and nurturing the social interaction.There are extensive studies that highlight the smartphone usage patternin different groups such as teens [7], adults [44], college students [75] etc.1Chapter 1. IntroductionHowever, only few studies talk about the smartphone usage behaviours incouples [29, 88, 116]. These studies mostly support the data through con-ducting qualitative studies such as interviews, questionnaires, and surveys.Therefore, there is a lack of quantitative data to establish the smartphoneusage pattern among couples. To reduce the negative effects of excessivesmartphone usage, various strategies have been explored by the researchersranging from lock-out strategies [83, 124] to allowing users to monitor theirsmartphone usage [65, 66, 140]. However, due to the lack of self-control fromusers, the success of these strategies often became challenging [81]. Otherresearchers aim at regulating smartphone usage as a group [18, 70] whichhas received positive response as well. However, much less attention hasbeen devoted to possible solutions to mitigate smartphone overuse amongcouples.In this thesis, the aim was quantifying individual and co-located smart-phone usage among couples and exploring the use of notifications as a meansto reduce couples’ smartphone usage activities. Consequently, two studieswere conducted where, in a two-week long first study, I investigated couples’smartphone usage patterns such as what type of apps they use, how longthey use them, and the average usage duration, both when they were aloneand co-located. In the second follow-on four-week long user study, I exploredsmartphone notifications as a medium to remind couples about the presenceof their partner and encouraged them to reduce their co-located smartphoneactivities.I developed two smartphone apps with the purpose of (i) logging couples’smartphone usage behaviour (e.g., what apps they use, how long they usethe apps) and (ii) sending notifications on their smartphones to reduce theirsmartphone usage when they were co-located. The app developed for thefirst study was written as a background service and was capable of auto-matically logging users’ smartphone usage activities. Thus, users used theirsmartphone without any interference from the app. The second app devel-oped for the second study was also written as a background service withautomatically logging smartphone usage activities. In addition, this appsent a notification to the participants when they spent more than 5 minutescontinuously on their smartphone while being co-located with their partner.Both the apps stored the smartphone usage activities of users in files in-side their smartphone. As the research was interrupted due to COVID-19,there were couples working from home (WFH) and not working from home(NWFH). Thus, I provide the results in terms of WFH and NWFH couples.My thesis makes the following contributions:2Chapter 1. Introduction− design and implementation of a smartphone app that tracks couples’individual and co-located smartphone usage− quantification of smartphone usage pattern among couples− exploration of notifications as a way to reduce co-located smartphoneusage− design guidelines for future research at nurturing co-located interper-sonal interaction.The chapters of this thesis are structured as follows. First, chapter 2discusses the work related to smartphone usage statistics, merits and de-merits of smartphone usage and their associated consequences. Chapter 2also includes the work conducted on various strategies for increasing co-located activity awareness and co-located communication, reducing smart-phone over-use and smartphone notifications. Then, chapter 3 presents thestudy goals, app design procedure, study design, participants, results anddiscussions based on the results. Chapter 4 provides an overview of thesecond study, including the goal, app design, study procedure and results.Moreover, chapter 4 also discusses factors explored while designing the notifi-cation. Chapter 5 discusses the recommendations to design similar strategiesthat aim at reducing co-located smartphone activities. Chapter 6 includesthe limitations of the work and future work. Finally, chapter 7 provides aconclusion.3Chapter 2Related WorkThis section discusses prior research that focus on smartphone usagestatistics, merits and demerits of smartphone usage and their associatedconsequences. In this section, I also review the work conducted on variousstrategies for increasing co-located activity awareness and co-located com-munication. Finally, I conclude with a discussion on previous literature onmitigating smartphone over-usage as well as a review on smartphone notifi-cations.2.1 Smartphone Usage2.1.1 To Stay ConnectedSmartphones have reformed the ways we communicate with one another.They have become a central part of our everyday lives by supporting con-nections with friends and families that are far away [47, 77, 95]. Devitt etal. [28] conducted a semi-structured interview with 60 families to explorethe merits and demerits of mobile phones in family communication. Theresult showed that mobile phones played a key role in ensuring the safetyand whereabouts of family members. However, the demerits showed thatmobile phones often gave a false sense of security in youngsters in additionto becoming addicted to it. Toke Christensen [20] conducted a qualitativeinterview with families in Denmark to explore the role smartphones playedin closeness while the family members are physically separated. The resultssuggested that the sense of togetherness was based on the calls and messagesexchanged between the family members. A study conducted with Taiwanesecollege students by Wei et al. [134] made similar observations regarding theuse of cell phones providing a sense of togetherness and strengthening thefamily bond.Furthermore, smartphone use has transcended from being a connectivitytool to maintaining security and safety [77] and social interaction. A studyby Ling et al. [79] proposed that the use of cell phones had two forms: socialinteraction and expressive. Social interaction included phone calls done for42.2. Smartphone Usage Studiesstaying connected, safety and security whereas expressive forms of cell phoneusage included self-presentation and expressing one’s views.2.1.2 Coordinating activities/Micro CoordinationSmartphones play a significant role in coordinating activities among im-mediate family, friends as well as colleagues [77]. Brush et al. [11] in theirstudy showed how smart devices were used in a family dynamic by conduct-ing a home visit to the 15 participating families. In these home visits theyconducted a demographic questionnaire followed by a sketching exercise,tour around the house, and final interview. Their study result suggestedthat family members often shared the use of technology such as computers,and laptops in family setting. Martin Hand [46] argued that smartphoneswere rendering devices like calendars, clocks, cameras as temporary deviceswithin every social context. They conducted a semi-structured interview toexplore how users coordinated and organized using their personal devices.In their paper they highlighted the ways that the smartphone schedulingapplications often mediate in synchronizing daily life.2.1.3 To Access InternetUse of a smartphone to access internet services is becoming more andmore common. Internet-enabled phone activities include social networking,online gaming, communication, shopping, and video watching anywhere [60,133]. Nylander et al. [96] conducted a diary study and interview with 19participants and found that most of the participants preferred use of interneton cell phones rather than computers. The participants reported that theyfound cell phones quicker and more accessible since they carried cell phoneswith them most of the times. A survey conducted by Smith, Aaron [121]suggested that most of the users preferred the use of cell phones for theironline activities. The use of the smartphone throughout the various homesettings has also been expanding into areas such as the kitchen, living room,and even the bathroom [60].2.2 Smartphone Usage StudiesAs smartphones become more prominent, there has been growing re-search in the recent decades exploring peoples’ smartphone usage pattern.Bo¨hmer et al. [10] conducted a large study with 4100 smartphone users to52.2. Smartphone Usage Studiesexplore their smartphone usage. They reported that users spent on an aver-age 59.23 minutes per day on their phones and an app usage session lastedfor an average of 71.56 seconds. They also found that app usage time differsextensively between app categories and also differs based on their locationand the time of the day. Falaki et al. [37] conducted a similar study with255 smartphone users to explore their smartphone usage patterns. Theirresults showed that the mean number of interaction with the smartphoneranged between 10 to 200 per day and the number of applications used var-ied between 10 to 90. Smartphone usage pattern has also been investigatedamong older adults [44], teenagers [7], and students [4, 75].Gordon et al. [44] investigated smartphone usage in older adults wherethey found that older adults use fewer apps with long durations and theirphones were most active during early hours in a day. Bentley et al. [7] inves-tigated smartphone usage patterns among teenagers where they showed thatthis population group spent approximately 3 hours per day on their phone.Their study results also revealed that teens were mostly active on their phonein afternoon (between 3 pm and 5 pm) and in the evening (between 8 and 9pm). Similarly, Lee et al. [75] conducted a study to investigate smartphoneusage among college students where they separated the participants into twoself-reported groups: risk group where participants use smartphones exces-sively and non-risk group who use smartphones moderately. They observedthat the risk group spent more time (i.e., 253.0 minute per day) on theirsmartphone than the non-risk group (207.0 minutes per day). In addition,their results also indicated that the risk group had more online presence toprovide them with instant pleasure or engagement during their leisure.Though smartphone usage has been extensively explored for different agegroups, few studies reported on couples’ smartphone use patterns. Salmelaet al. [116] explored the use of mobile devices (e.g., smartphone and tablets)by couples in bed where 74% of participants reported using mobile devices inthe shared bed at least once a week and 18% reported using a shared smart-phone or tablet together in bed. Other studies explored couple’s smartphoneusage in leisure and impact of the excessive use on the quality of relationship[29, 89]. However, most of the studies were focusing on qualitative evalu-ations through interviews or online questionnaire. Hence there is a lack ofquantitative data outlining smartphone usage among couples.62.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Use2.3 Consequences of Excessive Smartphone UseA number of studies analyzed smartphone over-usage and its conse-quences. The unhealthy attachment with smartphones can lead to physical,mental and emotional health issues in a person. The following sub-sectionsdiscuss various research done on this subject.2.3.1 Relationship SatisfactionThe use of smartphones have reformed the experience of a romantic rela-tionship. They play a role of moderator when it comes to the interpersonalrelationship by providing easy communication to couples. This has drawnthe attention of the researchers on the impact that smartphone use has on re-lationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction comes from the degree thatthe partner feels that their desires and expectations are met [105]. Addi-tionally, interpersonal communication between the partners is also identifiedas one of the factors for relationship satisfaction [2].The ever-increasing importance of smartphone has made it difficult toseparate our smartphone use from our relationships [17]. This has led tothe “partner phubbing” which is an amalgamation of two words “phone”and “snubbing” [111] which means when one partner is ignoring the otherin favor of the smartphone usage when co-located [111]. Consequently, sucha behaviour makes smartphone users inattentive to the conversation result-ing in mishearing information. As such, smartphone user often asks theirpartner to repeat the information. Therefore, rendering the conversationless qualitative and creating a feeling of neglect in their partner [53].Roberts et al. [111] explored the impact of the partner phubbing on therelationship satisfaction by conducting two studies. In the first study, theydeveloped a 9-item phubbing measure by conducting an exploratory factoranalysis on the pre-test survey data. The result from the first study showedthat the scale developed could be applicable to different demographic groupsand different stages of relationship. In their second study, the participantsresponded to their 9 item scale as well as other cell phone conflict andrelationship satisfaction scale. The result showed that partner phubbingresulted in conflict which had a negative impact on relationship satisfaction.This often affected their personal well-being as well.Coyne et al. [22] conducted a user study to explore how the differ-ent types of technology (computer-mediated and non computer-mediated)is used among romantic partners. They reported that there was a corre-lation between a stable couple and family well-being. Wang et al. [132]72.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Useconducted a study with 243 married Chinese adults to explore the indirecteffect of partner phubbing on mental well-being. The results showed thatpartner phubbing had an indirect negative effect on the mental well-beingsince partner phubbing had a negative effect on relationship satisfaction, andrelationship satisfaction had a negative effect on mental well-being. Theyalso investigated the role of relationship length in this indirect effect andfound that this indirect effect was more common in adults married for morethan 7 years.Furthermore, Przybylski et al. [108] conducted two experimental studiesto explore the effect that the presence and absence of mobile phone had inshaping the relationship quality in a dyadic setting in a laboratory. The aimof the first experiment was to investigate the general effects that the pres-ence of mobile phone had on the relationship between the participants. Thesecond experiment explored the effects that the presence of mobile phonehad on the relationship between the participants when having casual ver-sus meaningful interactions. The results from both experiments suggestedthat the presence of mobile phones had the potential to interfere with theconnections, quality of conversation, and closeness of a human relationship.The displacement theory [22, 129] also highlighted how there is a decreasein the quality of meaningful conversation with one’s partner because of thedistraction caused by the mobile phones. Oudour et al. [97] conducted a di-ary study and interview to understand the merits and demerits of co-locatedsmartphone use on the human relationship. The participants in the studyidentified the feeling of frustration associated with the family members to-wards the non-urgent use of smartphone while co-located with others.2.3.2 Social DisconnectSmartphones have resulted in an increase in the social disconnectedness.Dwyer et al.[32] conducted two studies to see the effect that the use of thesmartphone has on face-to-face conversations. In the first study, which isconducted as a field experiment, they randomly assigned phone or phone-less condition to the participants during a meal with friends or family. Theresult of this study indicated that the use of the smartphone caused dis-tractions and reduced the enjoyment of sharing the meal with friends andfamily members. In the second study, they conducted a series of surveysover the course of a week that enabled them to capture the correlation be-tween the phone use and interactions across a broad range of social contexts.The second study results also showed that the participants felt distractedwhen they were in a face-to-face conversations setting due to the presence82.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Useof smartphones. Overall, the two studies showed that the use of the smart-phone had an indirect negative effect such as distractions, boredom, andmood swings. An empirical study was conducted by Rotondi et al. [114]over a period of 4 years to determine the effect of smartphone use on con-versations. Their results showed that the quality of conversation seemed todecline in the presence of the smartphone.Tateno et al. [125] studied the smartphone and internet addiction amongJapanese young adults by using a questionnaire with 478 college/universitystudents where they found that the young adults spent more time online ascompared to connecting with people in the real-world. Muhammad et al.[94] highlighted the role smartphone and iPad use plays in creating socialdisconnectedness by presenting results from various related literary works.Oduor et al. [97] conducted a user study consisting of survey, diary studyand final interview to explore the effects of smartphone usage when in pres-ence of others such as family members, and friends. They reported that co-located smartphone use often caused the partner feeling excluded and henceisolated. However, they also showed that at times, co-located smartphoneusage was preferred in some situations such as looking up places to have din-ner, and contributors in a conversation. Moreover, Richard Ling [78] arguedthat the interactions through the smartphones are sometimes given prefer-ence over currently occurring face-to-face conversations that result in thedissociation and disconnection from the people who are co-located. Misra etal. [91] showed that the constant use of smartphone diverted one’s attentionfrom the ongoing interpersonal interactions to the interactions happening onthe screen thus rendering face to face interaction useless. Thus, the presenceof smartphone could hinder social etiquette and change human behavioursas a result [73, 123].Enez et al. [35] conducted a study with 367 Turkish university studentsto investigate if there existed a correlation between smartphone addiction,social phobia and loneliness. The result suggested that both social anxietyand loneliness were found to be related to excessive use of the smartphone.Increase in the online social presence often seemed to result in the decreasein social support which has detrimental effects on the person’s well-being[50].2.3.3 Impact on ParentingVarious studies have explored the smartphone usage pattern of parentsin presence of their children. Adair et al. [122] conducted a series of in-terviews with the children and reported that children often observed when92.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Usetheir parents were distracted because of the smartphone use. Thus, resultingin the reduced emotional connections with their parents that has negativeeffect on their cognitive and social development.Radesky et al. [109] conducted an observational study in a restaurantto report on how the parents and caregivers used their smartphone in thepresence of their children while having lunch. They noticed that the care-takers had minimum social interactions with their children due to their useof mobile phone. They also observed that the children took notice of theirparents and demanded attention by misbehaving. A study conducted byHiniker et al. [51] that consisted of a secret observation of caregivers (117adult caregivers) at seven different playgrounds, semi-structured interview(25 adult caregivers) and a final online survey (N=154 adult caregivers).They found that the caregivers engaged in mobile phone while watchingchildren in the playground which cause a delay in their responses to theirchildren needs. Kevin Moran [93] conducted an observational study followedby an online survey to examine the behaviors of parents of young children atthe beach. Their results showed that around 27% of the caregivers presentat the beach were distracted due to their smartphones. Simon et al. [120]in their paper explored the reason behind the parent leaving their childrenunsupervised while in the bathtub. The results indicated that attending totheir smartphone was one of the many other reasons that contributed to thisaction.Hawi et al. [49] revealed an indirect relationship between smartphoneaddiction and family relations and emphasized the need of developing strate-gies to educate parents and children about the severances caused becauseof smartphone addictions. McDaniel et al. [88] conducted an online surveywith 213 mothers having at least a child of age 3 years or younger to in-vestigate their acknowledgement of the technology interference while caringfor kids, its frequency and effect on co-parenting. The results showed thatthe frequency of interference from smartphone was greater in comparisonto other devices such as computers/laptops. Furthermore, they found thatplaytime was often disrupted more in comparison to other activities withtheir child because of the presence of technology. Kildare et al. [63] exploredthe effect that the distractions caused due to smartphone use by parents hadon the parent-child relationships. Their paper highlighted that when chil-dren noticed their parents distracted due to the smartphone, they wouldoften adopt dangerous attention-seeking behaviours. They also showed thatthe use of the smartphone was often one of the contributing factors in familyconflict and tension. Alixandra Blackman [9] reported that children oftencopy the behaviour of their parents and as such there was a positive rela-102.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Usetionship between the parents’ screen time and children screen time. Theyalso found that parents were often non-responsive and distracted while ontheir phonesKushlev et al. [73] conducted two studies to explore whether smart-phones use caused parents to distract thus resulting in compromising thebenefits of spending time with their children. The first study was a field ex-periment conducted at a science museum in which they randomly assignedthe parents to either use their phones frequently or limit their phone use.The first study result showed that the parents who were asked to use theirphone frequently were often distracted that affected the time they werespending with their children. In the second study, they conducted a seriesof surveys over the course of a week in a broad range of social contexts.The result of their second study further proved that smartphones causeddistractions that resulted in undermining the enjoyment that they wouldget by spending time with their children.2.3.4 Lack of concentrationVarious studies have shown that constant use of smartphone could im-pede the concentration level thereby affecting the productivity. For instance,Duke et al. [141] conducted a questionnaire to investigate whether thereexisted any correlation between smartphone addiction, interruptions due tosmartphone, and productivity during working. They reported in their paperthat the constant use of smartphone resulted in less productivity at work-place as well as at home. In a similar study, Montag et al. [92] reportedon decrease in productivity due to the smartphone and internet use. Otherstudies have also reported that the use of smartphone at work could be oneof the factors in the decrease in productivity while working [30, 128, 131].Interruptions due to the smartphones at times makes it hard to attaina state of flow [110]. People have also developed a constant need to checktheir smartphones even when they are not triggered by any external stimuli(such as a notification) which makes smartphones persuasive [100]. Vari-ous studies highlighted that though the use of smartphones could benefitstudents; at the same time, the excess and unwanted use of smartphoneshave a detrimental effect [12, 48, 61]. Samaha et al. [117] through an onlinesurvey questionnaire with 300 university students reported that smartphoneaddiction had a negative effect on academic performance and affected lifesatisfaction as well.112.3. Consequences of Excessive Smartphone Use2.3.5 Mental and Physical Health issuesExcessive smartphone use is a serious issue which has negative effectsnot only on a person’s behaviour but also sense of well-being. Excessivesmartphone usage could also contribute to the depression, loneliness andsleep disturbances [35, 43]. A study by Lee et al. [74] used self-reportedquestionnaires with 370 middle school students and suggested that smart-phone addiction displayed itself in the form of preoccupation, lack of control,withdrawal, mood modification, conflict, lies, and loss of interest. Anothersimilar study conducted by Alhassan et al. [3] also showed that an interre-lation between smartphone addiction and depression.Various studies have also highlighted a correlation between the smart-phone addiction and negative well-being [86, 117]. Continuous use of tech-nology is related to increase in psychological stress [17]. It was reportedthat high levels of smartphone addiction had a positive relationship withlow self-esteem, loneliness, depression and shyness [8]. A study conductedby Demirci et al. [26] reported the excessive use of smartphone amonguniversity students resulted in depression, anxiety and poor sleep quality.Thome´e et al. [126] studied the compulsive smartphone usage behaviourand found that it often affected mental health causing sleep disturbancesand depression. A study conducted by Lee et al. [76] with 325 Taiwaneserespondents, found that the compulsive smartphone usage has a negativeimpact on user’s mental health.We have seen in the earlier section how the use of smartphone leads torelationship dissatisfaction. Researchers have reported that there is a directrelationship between the personal well-being and relationship satisfaction.According to Proulx et al. [107] frequent marital disputes tends to reducethe spousal support and hence could lead to risk of stress and depression.Various studies supported the claim that relationship satisfaction has a di-rect relationship with the personal well-being [13, 103, 135]. Some otherpsychological problems include Nomophobia (the fear of being without aphone) [39], Phantom Vibration Syndrome (checking of phone frequently)[113] and Textaphrenia (the fear of not sending or receiving any text fromsomeone due to weak signals and poor network) [130].There are various physiological concerns related with the over-use ofsmartphone ranging from musculoskeletal disorders to ocular discomfort anddisorders (itching eye, burning eye, dry-eye, blurred vision, double vision)to headache to sleep-disturbances to exposure to the electromagnetic radia-tions.122.4. Co-located Activity Awareness and Interaction2.4 Co-located Activity Awareness andInteractionThere have been various studies related to encouraging the co-locatedface-to-face interaction. One approach is to provide awareness about theusers’ activities to the co-located people through public or semi-public dis-plays such as the work by Jarusriboonchai et al. [57] explored the use ofadditional displays attached to the back of the smartphone to make theco-located people aware of the users mobile activities. They conducted a10-day field study with 13 participants and found that the display helpedin creating awareness to the co-located people about the user’s activitiesand often triggered conversations. Cowan et al. [21] explored the use ofprojectors attached to the mobile phones to increase the chances of face-to-face interactions by making user’s mobile activity visible. Consequently,they conducted an in-the-wild four week long study with 10 participants.Their study showed that such projectors had potential to create a sense oftogetherness by sharing information and activities with the co-located peo-ple. Kleinman et al. [69] developed a software that displayed the texts andimages on the outer screen of a two-screen laptop. They evaluated their de-sign through an exploratory study and found that it helped in bridging thegap between the user and the co-located people and enhanced the chancesof face to face interaction. The work by Lucero et al. [84] explored the useof a large public display for sharing a comic strip with co-located people.Their result showed that people enjoyed such an activity and it influencedsocial interaction between them. The use of public displays for collaborativephotography between co-located people was also explored by Kim et al. [64].They found that their approach promoted group awareness and encouragedgroup coordination.There has also been research to increase chances of face-to-face interac-tions with co-located strangers such as Seeburger et al. [119] who developeda mobile application called Capital Music that provided a way for sharingmusic choices with co-located strangers and a channel to comment about themusic to create interactions between co-located strangers. They conducteda study to explore its implication on co-located interaction. The resultsshowed that it helped in creating a sense of community between strangers.Cuotto et al. [23] also studied the face-to-face interaction between co-locatedstrangers by implementing idliketoknow, a mobile application that allowedanonymous interaction with nearby people. A similar work in this domainby Paasovaara et al. [102] showed the increase in the face-to-face interac-132.5. Mitigating Smartphone Over Usagetions between strangers with the help of their prototype that nudged theinteractions through gamification. Some researchers have explored use ofcollaborative games to engage social interactions among co-located peoplesuch as Huang et al. [52] who explored the use of stitching the differentmobile phones to play games with co-located people. They found that it en-hanced the social interaction among users. Paasovaara et al. [101] exploredhow location-based mobile phone games encourage co-located social inter-action between people by conducting an online survey. The results showedthat the game design contributed to the chances of social interaction be-tween players such as some games allowed exchanging information in theidle time during game play.Furthermore, there are various researchers aiming at enhancing the inter-personal interaction or to collectively engage families in co-located activitieswhich could result in meaningful and engaging interactions. Romero et al.[112] explored the use of an awareness system for domestic setting. Assuch they developed a system called ASTRA, that connected all the devicespresent in the household to promote awareness of activity among the familymembers. To evaluate their system, they conducted a two-week user studywith 2 families and found that it helped families to stay in touch with eachother. They also reported that there was an increase in device activityawareness, and it created a sharing experience as a family. Christensen etal. [19] also contributed in creating a shared experience for the familiesthat could help in promoting togetherness and increase their bond. Yuill etal. [139] explored the design of app on an iPad to create a shared space tocreate and co-create drawings in a family setting. Their result showed thedevices such as iPads had a potential to be used for a variety of collaborativeactivities as they allowed a smooth transition between individual and groupactivities. Ferdous et al. [40] developed TableTalk, as system that combinedthe personal devices into a single shared display during mealtime. Theirresults showed that it helped in triggering conversations, increased theirbond thus, made a positive impact on their time together.2.5 Mitigating Smartphone Over UsageThere have been various solutions explored by industry and academiaaiming to reduce smartphone overuse [83, 85, 118]. For instance, there aredifferent app-based solutions available in the market allowing users to mon-itor their smartphone usage [83, 124] and limiting smartphone app accessafter a certain amount of time [65, 66, 140]. However, the success of these142.6. Smartphone Notificationstrategies, in many cases, has proved to be challenging due to the lack ofusers’ self-regulation. For instance Lo¨chtefeld et al. [81] designed an appthat allowed users to create rules to restrict smartphone usage. They foundthat users frequently broke rules that they had set before.Researchers also showed that teenagers and young children are oftensusceptible to smartphone addiction due to their low self-regulation [16,54]. Consequently, there have been notable efforts in exploring various ap-proaches regulating smartphone use through parental mediation. The studyconducted by Chang et al. [16] showed that the parent-child relationshipand the way parents restrict the smartphone use plays important role inprevention against the smartphone addiction in children. A similar work byHwang et al. [54] also suggested that parental mediation could be beneficialin preventing the negative impact caused by smartphones. Various appsaiming at regulating the smart-phone usage through parental mediation in-clude using remote monitoring and remote locking such as KidsManager[142], xKeeper [58], Parental Control [36] and using remote locking appssuch as Kids Zone [104], Qustodio [80], and Parental Control Kroha [72].Researchers also explored the use of intervention apps to limit smart-phone usage in a group. For instance, Ko et al. [71] designed an app forgroup-based intervention to regulate smartphone usage during activities suchas when studying and chatting. With a user study, they showed that theapp helped reduce smartphone usage time. Reducing smartphone use in agroup has also been explored by Choi et al. [18] where they used an ambientdesign technology to gently intervene when anyone in the group was usingtheir smartphone. Their study results showed that the constant remindershelped users to become more careful with their smartphone usage in a groupsetting. In a similar study, Ko et al. [70] showed that participants coordi-nated their activities better with others and felt like a unit when smartphoneusage was regulated in a group setting. These study results highlighted theimportance of having solutions that regulated smartphone usage both inindividual and group settings.2.6 Smartphone NotificationSmartphone notifications are commonly used to provide users with infor-mation such as reminders, information on the incoming emails or messages,and system updates [27]. Notifications are considered as a direct line ofcommunication with people by sending real-time updates and remindersthat facilitates a strong engagement. Notifications are generally displayed152.6. Smartphone Notificationin the notification bar which is located at the top of the smartphone screen.Smartphone applications also rely on notification to grab attention of theusers such as reminding them of offers (like shopping apps, gaming apps).A user is alerted about a notification arrival via sounds, vibrations accom-panied by icons or badges of the app that the notification is from.Notifications are commonly triggered either by apps or system. Thenumber of notifications depends on the apps users’ are using and other rel-evant factors. Pielot et al. [106] on the mobile phone notifications with15 participants by installing an app Notification Monitor. The app ran asa background service and logged information related to notifications suchas the number of notifications received by the participants, when users re-ceived notifications and, actions taken related to the notifications. Theirresults revealed that participants received an average of 65.3 notificationsper day with a majority of notifications from apps related to communica-tion such as WhatsApp, and email. Another study conducted by Sahamiet al. [115] collected information on the mobile phone notifications thatconsisted of quantitative (i.e., logging notifications) as well as a qualitativedata (subjective feedback and comments from participants). Their studyshowed that users received most notification from apps that belonged tocommunication (messenger, SMS) and reminders (calendar). Their resultsalso revealed that the source of the notification (such as system, type ofthe app) was considered to be a factor in determining the importance of anincoming notification. Similar studies also revealed that some notificationswere given more preference than others such as notifications received frommessaging applications and updates on people or events (e.g. news) weregiven importance over notifications received from system (e.g battery low ordownload completed) [82, 90].Prior research also showed that notifications are often considered to bedisruptive. For instance, with a study, Czerwinski et al. [25] concluded thatinterruptions due to notifications made it difficult for workers to return totheir work. Similarly, Cutrell et al. [24] conducted a study to explore theeffects of the notifications on the participants’ performance and memory.They observed that the disruption due to notifications had more effect oncognitively demanding tasks. Though notifications were considered disrup-tive users often welcome the awareness on activities (e.g., reminder, email)that they provided [55, 85].Smartphone usage is often triggered due to the incoming notifications[97]. Consequently, various research aimed at reducing the notification suchas Okoshi et al. [98] conducted a three-week long study with 687,840 users.Their study results showed that the response time to incoming notifications162.6. Smartphone Notificationreduced when notifications were delayed to a more appropriate time of theday. Iqbal et al. [55] conducted a field study with 20 users for two weeksto explore the notification usage preference and to reduce email notificationoverload. Their study results showed that users kept frequently checking forany notifications; as such disabling notifications to minimise the disruptioncould prove to be counterproductive. Figueroa et al. [41] developed anapp named FamilyTime to limit smartphone usage in a family. The appsent a notification to the users if they spent more than 10 minutes on theirsmartphone via one of the features of the app called App Disrupt.Prior research showed that people use smartphone activities when theyare co-located with their family member. However, none of the prior workquantified smartphone usage among couples who often spend a significantportion of their time in co-location. Hence, in this thesis, I tried to quantifythe smartphone usage pattern among couples when they are co-located andwhen they are not around each other. Additionally, researchers revealeda need for solutions to mitigate the negative impacts of smartphone usageamong close ones. However, not many studies have focused on mitigatingsmartphone overuse in couples. Therefore, in this thesis, I leverage smart-phone notifications to reduce co-located smartphone usage among couples.17Chapter 3Study 1The goal of this study was to gain insights into couples’ smartphoneusage when they are alone and co-located with their partner. Relation-ship satisfaction is a vital factor in building a healthy and nurturing familydynamics. Prior research suggests that co-located smartphone usage couldlead to frustrations among couples and could have a negative impact on theirrelationships [97]. Consequently, in the studies, I only focus on exploringsmartphone usage among couples rather than including other family mem-bers such as their children or parents. In the context of this thesis, a coupleis defined as a co-located couple when they are in close proximity, i.e., within100m from each other. I acknowledge that couples could be co-located eitherin a face-to-face setting (e.g., both are in the same room in the same house)or a non-face-to-face setting (e.g., they are in different rooms, however, lo-cated in the same house). However, it is difficult to detect all these settingsthrough smartphones without any additional instrumentation. As such, Ionly focus on distance-based co-location and leave the exploration of otherco-located settings as future work.Figure 1: An icon is always visible in the status bar to indicate the app’statusNote that I started the studies in January 2020; however, data collec-tion had to be stopped from March to June 2020 due to the COVID-19pandemic. This was done to ensure that the data was not biased as other183.1. App Designresearchers have pointed to increased smartphone usage during the earlypandemic months [68]. The data collection was resumed in July 2020 as theCanadian government declared Phase 3 of re-opening (i.e., opening malls,offices, restaurants, etc.) [5]. Of course, there is a chance that becausemany people remained working from home after July 2020, the amount ofco-located phone usage was higher than pre-pandemic times.3.1 App DesignI developed an Android app to track couples’ smartphone usage in thepresence of each other. The app is compatible with Android version 7.0 (APIlevel 14) and above. I wanted the app to be less intrusive so that participantswould be able to use their smartphones without any interference from theapp. Therefore, the app was written as a background service to collectthe required information from smartphones. Figure 1 and figure 2 showscreenshots from the app.Figure 2: Once the user drags down the notification bar, it shows detailsinformation about the appOnce the app is installed and started on the smartphone, it continuesrunning in the background even if the phone is restarted. The app auto-matically logs the following information on files inside the smartphones:3.1.1 Installed apps on the phone:I used Android’s Activity Manager to record the list of apps that areinstalled on smartphones. It included both system applications that werepre-installed on the smartphone (e.g., Google Play Store) and non-systemapplications that were installed by the users either from Google Play Storeor through an APK file (e.g., Angry Birds).193.1. App DesignFigure 3: App interface showing the permissions and other features of theapp3.1.2 GPS coordinates:Google’s Location Service API [27] was used to obtain smartphone users’GPS coordinates (i.e, latitudes and longitudes). Whenever there was achange in users’ location, the GPS coordinates were updated automaticallybased on the user’s new locations.3.1.3 Currently running apps:Android’s Activity Manager was used to detect the app that was cur-rently in use on users’ smartphone. Along with the app name, my appalso recorded date and time, latitudes and longitudes associated with apps203.2. Participantsto establish the launches of each application combined with the time andlocation that the application was active in.3.1.4 Lock/Unlock events:I used Android’s Keyguard manager to detect whether the phone wasunlocked or locked. This data enabled me to observe information aboutwhether a phone is in active use or not.3.1.5 App duration:An application session started when the user launched an applicationand ended when the user closed the application, or when they pushed theapp to the background, or turned off the screen. This information was usedto calculate the total duration of app use.All the above information was stored on the participants’ smartphone inseveral files. For instance, the app stored participants’ aggregated smart-phone app usage data in a file. Additionally, to ensure that I can simu-late participants’ smartphone usage pattern, advanced information such asaggregated data, and locked/unlocked information about the smartphoneswere recorded every second. Note that my app did not collect details suchas the content shared within apps or data about who the participants werecommunicating with, etc. Additionally, though the app does not requireany user interface, I created one to control the app (e.g., stop the service orrestart the service) or perform data management activities (e.g., export thedata from the smartphone to researchers) as shown in Figure 3.3.2 ParticipantsI started recruiting participants before COVID-19, however, I had to stoprunning the study due to the pandemic. I recruited 14 couples (13 male-female couples, and 1 female-female couple) from various locations acrossNorth America. Before COVID-19, I used on-campus flyers and advertise-ments on online classified advertising services (e.g., Kijiji [62], Castanet [15])to recruit participants. However, after the Phase 3 re-opening, I posted theadvertisements online. I only recruited those couples who were living to-gether to ensure that they were co-located with their partners at least someportion of every day. Six couples were married, and 8 were living together(mean relationship length 7.9 years). Out of the 14 couples, 8 were workingfrom home due to the pandemic, 4 lived in homes with at least one child.213.3. ProcedureAll participants had experience with Android smartphones for at least oneyear. The participants belonged to a diverse ethnic background with theirages ranging between 23-60 (mean age 32, standard dev 10.13). Both stud-ies received approval from UBC research ethics board. All the participantsspoke English as their first language or as a second language. The partic-ipants were also requested to take part in the second study. Each couplereceived $100 for their participation in both studies. However, if a couplewithdrew before the second study, they received a $40 compensation fortheir participation.3.3 ProcedureI first obtained participants’ consent for participation in the study. Afterobtaining the consent forms, I conducted in-person (before COVID-19) orZoom online meetings (after the Phase 3 re-opening) with the couples whereI introduced the study and collected participants’ demographic informationand their preference towards receiving notification on their smartphones.Later, I installed the app on both of their smartphones. After installation, Iprovided information on how the app works (e.g., explained the backgroundservice). The participants were asked to keep the app running for two weekson their smartphone. After two weeks, I scheduled another meeting withthe couples. During the meeting, I showed the couples their data stored bythe app. They were asked to review the data and once they felt comfortablewith sharing the data, I collected the data files and removed the app fromtheir smartphone.3.4 ResultsMy app continuously (every one second) stored GPS coordinates of cou-ples’ smartphones. I used the coordinates to determine if a participantaccessed their smartphone when they were alone or co-located. I calculatedthe distance between couple’s smartphone GPS coordinates at a given timeand considered only those smartphone usages as co-located usage when thedistance was less than 100 meters. The remaining usage was consideredas individual usage. Additionally, some couples, who were recruited afterCOVID-19, were working from home. Thus, the result analysis is based onthe couples who were working from home (WFH) and who were not workingfrom home (NWFH).223.4. Results3.4.1 Basic Statistics on Individual and Co-located usageIn general, I observed that WFH couples spent more time (3.80 hoursper day) on smartphones than the NWFH couples (3.37 hours/day). I foundthat couples who were working from home spent an average of 2.86 hoursper day on using smartphones when they were surrounded by their partner.However, an average of 0.94 hours per day was logged from their individualsmartphone usage. Additionally, WFH couples launched on average 68.63apps per day when they were not surrounded by their partner where morelaunches were logged when their partners were co-located (i.e., 162.81 appsper day). Consequently, their app session durations were 49 and 63 secondsfor individual and co-located sessions, respectively. For NWFH couples, Ifound an opposite trend where they had spent more time and launched moreapps on individual usage (e.g., 1.70 hours/day, 136.96 launches/day) thanco-located usage (1.66 hours/day, 115.05 launches/day).Table 1: Top 10 most used app categories for WFHTo get an in depth understanding of the types of apps they used, Icategorized the apps into the corresponding Google Play Store categories.I manually searched the app categories of the apps that are assigned bydevelopers while uploading their apps on the Google Play store. I madesome minor modifications to these categories as also done in Bo¨hmer et al.[10] and Carrascal et al. [14]. For instance, instead of following the micro-categories for Games (e.g., Arcade, Puzzles etc.), I used a high-level category(e.g., Games). Table 1 and 2 shows the top 10 categories of apps based ontheir usage per day for couples WFH and NWFH respectively.For the number of app launches, I found that System & Settings was233.4. ResultsTable 2: Top 10 most used app categories for NWFHthe most accessed categories by WFH and NWFH couples, both in indi-vidual and co-located situations. Beside system apps such as Android Set-tings, this category also included launcher apps such as Pixel Launchers,Nova Launcher, which were commonly triggered when users unlocked theirphones or switched between apps. Consequently, I observed a large num-ber of launches from that category. Interestingly, I found that though thenumber of launches for the Game and Video Players & Editors categorieswere comparatively low than the other categories, couples spent more timeusing the apps from these categories. Thus, it could infer that the numberof launches does not relate to more app usage from a category.Table 3: Top 10 most used app for WFHWhile analyzing app usage duration, I found that the top 6 most used243.4. Resultscategories remained the same for individual and co-located usage for bothWFH and NWFH couples, with a difference in their order as shown inTable 1 and 2 respectively. WFH couples spent more time on using socialnetworking apps in the absence of their partners. However, in co-locatedsituations, they spent more time on using games related apps. For NWFHcouples, I observed more app usage from Video player & Editor categorywhen they were not co-located and from the Social networking categorywhen they were co-located.Table 4: Top 10 most used app for NWFHTable 3 and 4 show the top ten most used app by both WFH and NWFHcouples respectvely, including the number of launches. For individual appusage, I found that Instagram and YouTube were the most used app interms of duration for WFH and NWFH couples, respectively, when theywere not co-located. I observed a change in the pattern for co-located usagewhere WFH couples spent more time on browsing information on Chromewhereas NWFH couples spent most of their time on Facebook. Similar toapp categories, I did not see any correlation with the number of launchesand app usage duration. For instance, as shown in Table 3 and 4, both WFHand NWFH couples made less YouTube launches than other apps (4.5 and4.87 launches/day, respectively), however, they spent more time on this app(19.81 and 35.19 minutes/day, respectively).3.4.2 Temporal PatternsFigure 4 and figure 5 show information about the diurnal usage of thephone when in co-location and non co-location conditions, both for NWFHand WFH couples respectively. For NWFH couples, I found more individual253.4. ResultsFigure 4: Average Smartphone usage by hours for NWFH couplessmartphone usage between 9 AM and 4 PM than the other times of the day. Ianticipated that the couples were not co-located during the time due to theirjobs or other commitments. I observed more co-located smartphone usagethan individual usage for the remaining time of the day. I noticed the highestco-located smartphone usage for WFH couples between 8 PM and 9 PM(8.9 min/day). Additionally, NWFH couples were using more smartphonein co-location during the weekends (2.02 hours/day) than weekdays (1.71hours/day).Figure 5: Average Smartphone usage by hours for WFH couplesOn the contrary, WFH couples used smartphone more in co-locationthan when they were alone. I saw that both their individual and co-locatedsmartphone usage started increasing from 6 AM, and the trend continued263.4. ResultsFigure 6: Male vs Female Average Smartphone usage by hourstill 10 PM. I noticed the most co-located phone use at 10 PM (mean 10.92minutes/day). I observed less smartphone usage during the late-night, be-tween 12 AM to 6 AM since we anticipated that the couples were sleepingduring the time.Table 5: Top 10 most used app categories for Males3.4.3 Gender-Based AnalysisI included data from 13 male and 15 female participants in the analysis.I found that overall female participants spent more time using their smart-phones than male participants, both when they were either co-located or273.4. ResultsTable 6: Top 10 most used app categories for FemalesTable 7: Top 10 most used app for Malesnot.The average smartphone usage for females was 4.11 hours whereas formales it was 3.04 hours per day. I also observed that females launched moreapplications (268.5 apps/day) than the male participants (207.6 apps perday). Results also revealed that male participants had spent more time onVideo Players & Editors apps (refer to Table 5) whereas female participantsused more Social networking related apps (refer to Table 6). Table 7 and 8shows the top 10 apps used by males and females respectively. As shown inthe tables 7 and 8, YouTube was the most used app by male participants(average 34.0 minutes/day, SD=39.6) whereas female participants used In-stagram the most (average 30.91 minutes/day, SD=70.3). Figure 6 showsaverage smartphone usage by hours for males and females. As exhibited infigure 6, smartphone usage of males is most between 9 AM to 11 AM and283.5. DiscussionTable 8: Top 10 most used app for Femalesfor females smartphone usage increases in the morning (8 AM to 10:00 AM)and in the afternoon (2 PM to 4 PM).3.5 DiscussionFrom Study 1 results, I observed that both WFH and NWFH couplesspent a considerable amount of time on smartphones when being co-located.Results also showed that couples spent more time on apps from Games (e.g.Pokemon Go) and Video player & Editors (e.g., YouTube) categories. Theseapps are commonly used for spending leisure or entertainment purposes.Thus, it appears that most of the co-located smartphone usage are often usedfor non-urgent purposes. I also observed more smartphone usage startingfrom in the late afternoon (4:00 pm and onwards) for both WFH and NWFHcouples. This further suggests that couples were using more phone duringand after their work, which they also confirmed during the final interview. Ialso observed that participants app usage pattern changed based on whetherthe couples are working from home or not. For instance, WFH couplesspent more time on using apps on smartphones than the NWFH couples.Additionally, different app usage pattern was revealed by the two groups –Chrome was the most used app for WFH couples, whereas NWFH couplesspent more time on Facebook. I also found app sessions that last for morethan 5 minutes. Both for WFH and NWFH couples, I observed more 5-minutes sessions when they were co-located (6.71 and 4.37 for WFH andNWFH couples, respectively) than when they were not with their partner(2.23 and 3.90 for WFH and NWFH couples, respectively). This results alsosuggest that couples used apps with longer sessions in the presence of their293.5. Discussionpartner.30Chapter 4Study 2The Study 1 results quantify couples’ individual and co-located smart-phone usage where I observed that couple spent a considerable amount oftime on their phones in the presence of their partner. Additionally, many ofthe apps that they used in co-location were commonly for leisure or enter-tainment purpose. Prior research suggested that couples feel ignored whentheir partner are on their phone, which could have an impact on their re-lationship [97, 111]. Consequently, in this study, I aim to explore ways tohelp reduce co-located smartphone usage among couples by reminding themabout the presence of their partner.Smartphone notifications are commonly used to provide users with somepiece of information, such as sending them reminders to perform any tasks orshowing them information about apps. Notifications have been considered asa direct line of communication with people by sending real-time updates andreminders that facilitates a strong engagement. Smartphone apps commonlyuse notifications to provide attention-grabbing content, send lucrative offersor provide time-sensitive alerts. Consequently, I explored the idea of sendingnotifications to couples urging them to spend time with one another ratherthan on the smartphone when they are co-located.4.1 Smartphone AppFor Study 2, I developed another Android app, this time to send noti-fications to co-located smartphone users to reduce their smartphone usage.This app was written as a background service to collect data and send notifi-cations without interrupting users’ on-going activities. Additionally, the appsent a notification to a participant when they spent more than 5 minutes ontheir smartphone while co-located with their partner. If participants werestill using their smartphone after receiving a notification, the app kept send-ing notifications every 5 minutes until they stopped using their smartphone.The app collected the same information about smartphone usage patterns(e.g., app name, app duration) as it did in Study 1. In addition, the appstored information about notifications such as when they received notifica-314.2. Designing Notificationstions, what app they were using in files on smartphones. Note that the appalso did not collect any detailed data about the content participants werebrowsing, or data about who the participants were communicating with.Sending notifications in real-time to co-located couples can be done viaaccessing data (e.g., location and smartphone usage) from both devices viathe Internet. However, there might be cases where participants are not con-nected to the Internet (e.g., when in parks or shopping malls) and we mightlose valuable data. Consequently, I used Wi-Fi Direct API [27] that detectsand connects two co-located devices and enables data sharing between themwithout requiring a Wi-Fi access point or Internet connection. In general,the range of Wi-Fi Direct is approximately up to 200m in outdoors [136].However, like any wireless protocol, the range changes based on obstructionsand interferences such as a wall, furniture, mirrors etc. Additionally, on topof Wi-Fi Direct, I used GPS coordinates to verify that couples are within 100meters when considering co-location condition. When defining co-location, Iconsidered participants’ proximity and unmodified smartphones’ capabilitiesto detect such proximity. I found that line-of-sight co-location is not pos-sible with commercial smartphones without instrumentation. Additionally,prior work [97] used proximity-based co-location (eg. “home” rather than“in the same room”) to explore issues of using smartphones in the presenceof family members. Thus, I considered proximity-based solutions to detectco-location on unmodified smartphones4.2 Designing NotificationsI explored the following factors while designing notifications.4.2.1 Notification styleMy aim was to adopt a style of notification that would not create anyobtrusiveness and stress to users while displaying the required informationon their smartphone. I referred to the previous research done on mobilenotifications [33, 34] where pull notifications that commonly displayed noti-fications at the status bar were shown to be effective over push notificationswhere information are displayed with a pop-up window. Hence, I decidedto implement pull-style notifications in our application.324.3. Participants4.2.2 Notification textOulasvirta et al. [99] conducted three studies to investigate if thereexisted a habit-forming tendency (such as frequently checking one’s smart-phone) in smartphone users. Their results showed the existence of checkinghabits in smartphone use. Their results suggested these habits resulted in in-creased smartphone usage. Moreover, lack of control, withdrawal were someof the characteristics of smartphone addiction suggested by Lee et al. [74].As such, prior researchers have explored the use of persuasion technique tochange the behaviour of users [67, 127].This study aimed at helping couples reduce co-located smartphone us-age through notifications; therefore, it was necessary to use suitable text tograb their attention. I found that the prior studies explored various noti-fication texts such as positive, negative, emotional and rational argumentsthat can be adapted to changes users’ attitude to help them make healthylife choices. For instance, Mazzotta et al. [87] evaluated the strength ofusing these four strategies to change eating habits where they found thatemotional dialogues employing positive arguments were most persuasive.Similar results were also reported in [1]. Based on these findings, I framednotification texts to be positive emotional messages. Some of the exampletexts include: “Relationship cannot grow without communication, pleaseput your phone down and talk with your partner” or “Communication iskey to a healthy relationship, please put your phone away and considertalking to your partner.”4.2.3 Notification frequencyI did not want to overwhelm couples with many notifications; however,I still wanted to give them a reminder about the presence of their partnerand engage with them, and help them to reduce their co-located smartphoneusage. Choi et al. [18] showed that sending notifications every 5-minutescould help mitigate smartphone use during group activities. Consequently,I used five minutes as the threshold for repeating notifications. Note that ifa user ignores the first notification, the app continues sending notificationsevery 5 minutes.4.3 ParticipantsAll the participants from Study 1 were required to participate in Study2 to receive $100 compensation. However, one couple withdrew from the334.4. Procedurestudy as they started living in two different cities due to their job-relatedresponsibilities and two other couples withdrew due to personal reasons.Thus, the study 2 had six WFH couples and five NWFH couples. The studylasted for four weeks.4.4 ProcedureI invited the participants to meet me in-person (pre-pandemic) or online.During the meeting, I explained the study purpose and installed the app ontheir smartphones. Later, I provided information on how the app works,when it triggers notifications, and how to remove notifications from thestatus bar. I asked them to run the app on their phones for four weeks.After four weeks, I scheduled another meeting with the participants where Ishowed the data to participants, collected the data once they agreed to sharethe data and removed the application. Later, I conducted an individual semi-structured interview with the participants asking to provide their opinionon receiving notifications to reduce their co-located smartphone usage. Theinterview lasted between 30-40 minutes.4.5 ResultsThe primary goal of the study is to explore the use of notifications toreduce co-located smartphone usage among couples. Consequently, I onlypresent results related to notifications and relevant ones here.4.5.1 Notification Received and IgnoredOverall, WFH and NWFH couples received 28.23 and 15.75 notifications,respectively, per day from the app. Table 9 and table 10 show the top 10app categories that WFH and NWFH couples respectively received the mostnumber of notification per day from our app. Results revealed that WFHcouples received most notifications when they were using apps from Browser& Search category (4.45 notifications/day) whereas NWFH couples receivedmost notifications from Video Players & Editors related apps. I furtheranalyzed the apps that caused my app to trigger notifications. I observedthat Instagram and YouTube were the apps that WFH and NWFH couplesmostly used for more than 5 minutes in co-location. In a 24-hour time-frame, NWFH couples received more notifications in the morning between10:00 AM and 11:00 AM (1.03 notifications/day) and evening between 10:00344.5. ResultsTable 9: 10 app categories of notifications received per day for WFH couplesTable 10: 10 app categories of notifications received per day for NWFHcouplesPM and 11:00 PM (1.05 notifications/day) whereas WFH received more no-tifications between 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM (1.79 notifications/day).I also noticed that participants often ignored notifications and continuedusing their app. Table 11 and table 12 show the top ten app categories forWFH and NWFH couples respectively for which couples frequently ignorednotifications. On average, WFH and NWFH couples ignored 18.91 and 9.66notifications a day, respectively. In WFH couples ignored the most notifica-354.5. ResultsTable 11: Top 10 app categories of notifications per day ignored for WFHcouplesTable 12: Top 10 app categories of notifications ignored per day for NWFHcouplestions from Browser & Search apps and for NWFH couples most notificationswere ignored when users were on Video Players & Editors apps.4.5.2 Effect of Notifications on Smartphone UsageI analyzed the data of the participants related to notifications that theyreceived and the usage per day for 28 days. I observed that there was a364.5. ResultsFigure 7: Smartphone usage for 28 days for NWFH couplestrend in reduced smartphone usage for couples NWFH but I could not seethe same for couples WFH. Figure 7 and 8 respectively show NWFH andWFH couples’ smartphone usage for 28 days. I further did a linear regres-sion analysis to examine if notifications had an effect on their co-locatedsmartphone usage over the course of 28 days. For NWFH couples, resultsshowed a non-significant trend indicating that smartphone usage slightlyreduced over the time period (p = 0.06, R2 = 0.12). However, for WFHcouples, no significant relationship was found (p = 0.44, R2 = 0.02).Figure 8: Smartphone usage for 28 days for WFH couples4.5.3 Subjective FeedbackFor subjective feedback, I used a thematic analysis on the data. Tworesearchers separately reviewed the participants’ comments and performed374.5. Resultsopen coding. Next, the codes were consolidated and reconciled into a com-mon code set.Complaints about co-located smartphone usageI asked participants to identify how often they received complaints fromtheir partner about their smartphone usage. 12 out of 22 participants men-tioned that they received complaints from their partner on co-located smart-phone usage at least once a week while 7 participants stated that they re-ceived at least one complaint from their partner between once a week andonce a month. The remaining participants identified that they never receivedcomplaints from their partner about their co-located smartphone usage.I further asked participants to describe three situations where their part-ner was concerned about their co-located smartphone usage. Participantsmentioned a wide range of situations when they received complain fromtheir partners. I found that situations commonly arise when they are out-side. Some of the common contexts were when they were in a restaurant.“In a restaurant while eating, [I] got a notification and [I] picked upmy phone to check, my partner complained about it” [P2, male, 1 year inrelationship]I also observed other common contexts where partners raised their con-cerns about co-located smartphone usage. For instance, I found smartphoneusage during shopping, outdoor activities (e.g., walking in a park) were othercommon sources for the concerns.“While grocery shopping, I was on my phone and my partner complainedto about it” [P3, female, 4 years in relationship]Other instances mentioned by participants were when they were in-doors such as during mealtime and, spending quality time (such as watchingmovies together).“While watching movie together [I] just started to browse on my smart-phone he asked me to stop and do it later” [P16, female, 8 years in relation-ship]Participants also stated that smartphone usage during family time (e.g.,spending time with kids), checking smartphone during collaborative activi-ties (e.g., cooking) and bedtime were other situations where their partnersexpressed concerns.“During bedtime my partner does not like when I use the phone, he wouldrather have me be with him but not on the phone”[P7, female, 1 year inrelationship]384.5. ResultsUsers’ perception on notification for reducing co-locatedsmartphone usageDuring the post-study interview, I used a set of questions to collectparticipants’ feedback on receiving notifications to reduce their co-locatedsmartphone activities. I first asked them to share their overall feeling aboutreceiving notifications from the app on co-located smartphone usage. Out of22 participants (i.e., 11 couples), 20 mentioned that they felt positive aboutreceiving notifications to reduce co-located smartphone activities. They ex-pressed that notifications acted as a helpful reminder about the presenceof their partners, made them aware of their smartphone usage, and helpedthem to connect with their partner. One WFH participant was “partiallyneutral” and the other WFH participant expressed reservations on usingnotifications as they were receiving too many notifications from other appsand did not want to get any further notifications. Participants mentioned:“I like getting notification especially when you are in the presence ofsomeone you should not be using phone around” [P1, male, 1 year in therelationship]I further asked them if the notification helped them to stop using theirphone when they are co-located with their partner. Sixteen participantsmentioned that notifications helped them in some context to reduce theirsmartphone usage. They viewed our notifications as “healthy reminders” toreduce non-urgent smartphone usage. One participant mentioned:“. . . when I was on social media and aimlessly scrolling and I got thenotification and checked up on my partner” [P3, female, 4 years in the rela-tionship]However, four WFH and one NWFH participants said that the notifica-tions helped remind them of their smartphone usage for the first few days.Yet after that point they started ignoring notifications as they became de-sensitized to them and they tended to become background information thatwas unnoticed. For example, one WFH participant said:“First few days, it was interesting, and I did stop [using my phone];however, after that, it became background noise.” [P8, female, 2 years in therelationship]They were even suggesting using more aggressive text notifications suchas using sound or vibration and visual elements (e.g. icons/pictures) tograb their attention. Additionally, two participants were suggesting to makedaily/weekly statistics available to better understand their co-located usage.I also asked participants to share their feedback or concerns using notifica-tions. Six participants suggested using fewer notifications with longer dura-394.5. Resultstions to avoid frequent interruptions on their on-going smartphone activities.Additionally, 18 participants suggested providing them flexibilities to cus-tomize the notification parameters such as notification duration, notificationstyle (e.g., audio feedback instead of notification). A few even suggested tochange the notification frequency based on the app they are using (e.g.,Zoom vs Facebook).“[Notifications are] good reminders and I liked the use of notificationsto remind his presence. However, I disliked the frequency” [P12, female, 9years in the relationship]“Having a mix of notification like flash or sound as it would be moreimpactful than just the notification” [P8, male, 2 years in the relationship]I observed that the text used in the notifications also helped couplesto connect with each other. Participants expressed that the messages wereinteresting and helped remind them about the importance of communicationfor a healthy relationship. Two participants said that it could be helpful toinclude usage statistics and facts in the notification messages to make themmore persuasive.“Notification text was interesting and [I] would often ask my partner tocheck out what the text is saying so made it interactive” [P8, female, 2 yearsin the relationship]4.5.4 Steps taken to reduce co-located smartphone usageSteps or rules taken to reduce co-located smartphone usage ascouplesFurthermore, I asked the participants if they followed any rule as a coupleabout when not to use their smartphone. 9 participants mentioned thatthere was a rule regarding not using smartphone such as during mealtimeespecially, during dinner or when they do any co-located activity togethersuch as watching a movie, helping each other with chores, or before bed. 7participants mentioned that there was an unspoken agreement on when notto use their smartphone. Interestingly, 6 participants responded that theydid not have any rules about the smartphone non-usage with their partner.“No phones before bedtime and when we want to spend time in eachothers company ” [P16, female, 8 years in relationship]“We do not have a rule but there is an unspoken rule about it such asno smartphone usage while watching movie or dinner or during our conver-sations” [P10, male, 5 years in a relationship]404.5. ResultsSteps taken individually to reduce co-located smartphone usageI also wanted to know if the couples had any strategy of their own whichensured that they use limited smartphone around their partner. If they didnot have any such strategies would they be open to implementing any otherstrategies. 15 participants responded that they did not have any strategy.Out of 15 participants with no strategies, 13 participant welcomed the idea ofimplementing other strategies for decreasing their smartphone usage aroundtheir partner. The remaining participants felt no need for the use of anyrelated strategies.“No taking any steps nor implementing any strategy, but would be opento any such steps” [P14, male, 18 years in relationship]“No strategy implemented and do not really open because [I] feel [I] amgood at not using smartphone around my partner” [P2, male, 1 year inrelationship]7 participants mentioned that they indeed had implemented variousstrategies to limit their smartphone usage around their partner. Thesestrategies included putting the smartphone in a silent/vibration mode, en-abling “do not disturb” mode, reading out loud (e.g. text messages), keepingsmartphone out of reach (e.g on a bag or table).“Leave phone in my bag that way I am not tempted to pick it up. It justfollows out of sight, out of mind” [P15, female, 1 year in relationship]“I make sure if I am on my phone when he is around I make sure toinclude him as well e.g. If I get a text I tell him hey I got a text or I will belike come watch this funny video” [P7, female, 1 year in relationship]“When I am around my partner I try not to type too much or try to keepphone down. Sometimes if I sense that she is annoyed with my typing, Iwould read out the text loud so that she knows what I am doing” [P16, male,8 years in relationship]4.5.5 Perception on smartphone usage in couplesI also observed that participants welcomed the benefits that smartphonesprovided in a relationship.“Smartphone helps with quick communication, accessing information andhelps in topic of conversation” [P11, male, 15 years in relationship]“...when out shopping without my partner, [I] send him pics to ask forhis opinion on something” [P14, female, 18 years in a relationship]However, they also acknowledged the demerits that comes with it on arelationship such as, inattentiveness, disruption while having a conversation,414.5. Resultsshifts the focus to the virtual world, making it hard to connect with thepartner.“Not valuing his presence. Not feeling connected to the person in frontof you.” [P7, female, 1 year in relationship]42Chapter 5Discussion andRecommendationPrior research investigated couples’ perceptions of co-located smartphoneusage and issues through interviews [116] and online questionnaires [111,132]. Despite these research efforts in exploring co-located smartphone us-age – to the best of my knowledge – no approach has been taken to createan in-depth understanding of smartphone usage patterns among couples. Inthis thesis, I took a first attempt at quantifying and mitigating co-locatedsmartphone usage among couples. In Study 1, I saw that couples tend tospend a considerable amount of time on smartphones in the presence of theirpartner. I also found that many of the apps that participants used were fromthe categories of games, social networking, and videos, which are all com-monly used for pleasure and non-urgent purposes. Previously, researchersfound that non-urgent activities on smartphones could be a potential sourceof conflict and frustration among co-located partners [97]. People often ex-pressed their desire for “non-use” solutions to smartphone usage from theireveryday life [65, 81]. The results of this thesis also confirmed the same.Consequently, in Study 2, I introduced notifications as a channel to helppartners better understand and reduce co-located smartphone. Over 28days, I observed a trend in reduced smartphone usage among couples whowere not working from home. However, I did not find any significant changesin co-located smartphone usage for the couples who were working from home.I acknowledge that smartphone usage can be influenced by different fac-tors such as users’ social context, family dynamics, the urgency to attendto matters, etc [97]. Additionally, a recent study showed that COVID-19has significantly changed users’ smartphone usage behavior where users arespending more time on the Internet using social media, playing games, orshopping online [56]. During the interviews, WFH couples also expressedsimilar concerns which further indicates that smartphone notifications mightinfluence limiting their smartphone overuse; however, notifications did notstrongly contribute to reduce their co-located smartphone activities.I leveraged smartphone notifications to remind couples about the pres-435.1. Considering the usage contextence of their partner in co-located usage scenarios. I acknowledge that I useda simple form of notification (i.e., pull notification), leaving other forms ofnotifications (e.g., audio, vibration) and customization options unexplored.As an initial step to use notifications to reduce co-located usage, I felt itwas more reasonable to use a simple form of notification to understand itsimpact and generate possible guidelines for future designs, which, at a laterpoint, could be evaluated. Based on the results, I offer the following rec-ommendations to design similar strategies to reduce co-located smartphoneactivities:5.1 Considering the usage contextI observed participants concerned about getting notifications withoutknowing their smartphone usage context. Thus, I suggest that notificationsshould be triggered based on users’ current usage context. For instance,notifications should not be sent to users if they are engaged in urgent orwork-related activities (e.g., checking official email or spending time in aZoom meeting) or even if they are in co-located collaborative activities (e.g.,watching videos together on a smartphone). Additionally, I observed thatcouples, in general, spent more time on smartphones during the evening.Thus, temporal patterns should be considered (e.g., morning vs. evening,weekdays vs. weekend) to trigger frequent notifications with short durationto limit co-located smartphone usage.5.2 Notification strategiesParticipants expressed their opinion on receiving different styles of no-tifications and different notification duration. Consequently, I suggest thatany app that uses notifications for reducing co-located smartphone activitiesshould offer users with options to customize notification-related parameters.For instance, users should be given options to control notification type (e.g.,text, audio, vibration), notification duration and notification styles (e.g.,using color, attention-grabbing content).5.3 Offering usage analyticA few participants expressed their desire to received usage analytics,such as reports on individual and co-located smartphone usage. I acknowl-edge that this form of information would help them better understand their445.4. Detecting precise co-locationsmartphone usage with and without the presence of their partner. Thus, Isuggest designers include an overview and detailed analytics on users’ smart-phone usage.5.4 Detecting precise co-locationMy app triggered notifications when couples came in the range of Wifidirect. However, I acknowledge that with advance sensing, this distancecan be narrowed down to detect co-location precisely. For instance, camera-based sensing like Surround-See [138] could be used to check whether thepartner is co-located in the same room and trigger notifications accordingly.5.5 Designing battery efficient solutionsI designed the app to use Wi-Fi direct to detect co-location without us-ing Wi-Fi or mobile data. However, Wi-Fi direct remains enabled duringthe participants’ smartphones and consumed a considerable amount of bat-tery power. Consequently, I received participants’ concerns on the batterydrainage issue. Designers should consider battery efficient solutions whiledetecting co-location through smartphones.The above recommendations are based on the analysis of the results fromboth the studies and the final interview. The first study results establish thatcouples spend a considerable amount of time on their smartphone when theyare co-located. Moreover, the apps belonging to games, social networkingand video player and editors categories are most active, which establishesthat most of the usage is non-urgent. The temporal usage from study 1also shows that more co-located usage is in the evening. The results fromstudy 2 establish that the notification has potential in reducing co-locatedsmartphone usage. However, by providing customization, users can be moremotivated to change their co-located smartphone usage. Though some ofthese recommendations seem fairly intuitive, the data and analysis helpus establish them. Therefore, the recommendations provide rich insightsfor future researchers to design strategies to reduce co-located smartphoneusage.45Chapter 6Limitations and Future WorkThe future work and some inherent limitations in the studies are dis-cussed below.6.1 Participant PoolDue to COVID-19 and other restrictions I conducted the studies with alimited number of participants over a period of 45 days. However, I believethat from a longer duration of study with a larger number of couples I couldfurther the results to show if the behavioural pattern I observed are consis-tent. Furthermore, since the participant pool is not large enough I cannotclaim that the result would be a representation of the huge population of An-droid users. I am, however, confident that the studies provides rich insightsthat could be used as a foundation for motivation and aiding the futureresearchers and practice initiatives working in the same field with a larger-scale studies. Additionally, since the studies were conducted in Canada,the participants who were recruited were living in Canada, which may con-tain its own societal patterns of smartphone usage. Thereby, little is knownabout how cultural differences could create different user experience in thestudy. Accordingly, the results cannot be generalized to users belonging todifferent cultures and countries. It would be interesting to conduct studiesthat explore if and how couples’ co-located smartphone usage may differ be-tween cultures. I understand that examining cultural differences with suchtype of technology would be challenging but it could open opportunities forsuch designs in the future. Moreover, most of the participants were het-erosexual couples. It would be valuable to explore if and how smartphoneusage patterns may differ with between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.Moreover, I conducted the studies with Android users only because theapps developed in this thesis were implemented on an Android platform.Android platform provides the openness and flexibility required to imple-ment a deployable system. Additionally, there are a staggering number ofdevices that run on Android operating system [137] and thus, it makes iteasier to test and deploy the developed app on various devices. However,466.2. Family Dynamics and Usage Contexthow difficult or easy an app could be deployable on a system depends on theoperating system and device policy. Therefore, I acknowledge that in thefuture I could target a larger audience by implementing the app on otherplatforms such as iOS, Windows Operating System etc.6.2 Family Dynamics and Usage ContextSmartphone usage pattern varies among different family members andmay even vary depending on the age or profession of the members. In theinterviews, participants suggested that smartphone usage behavior changesin the presence of other family members (e.g., number of children). However,I did not consider such factors in the study. The length of a relationshipcould be another factor that I did not consider in our study. It would beinteresting to see if there are any changes in smartphone usage based onfamily dynamics and relationship length.I built a custom smartphone usage tracking app for the purpose of thestudy, thus, I am only aware of what app is running, duration of the app etcbased on which users’ receive a notification. Note that I did not considerusers’ smartphone usage context as I wanted to quantify their smartphoneusage without adding more complex factors. For instance, I only considerhow much time they spend on an app rather than what actions triggeredthe app usage (e.g., due to the work-related or any other emergency).6.3 Accuracy of indoor locationsAnother limitation is the Wi-Fi-based tracking of proximity of couples.There are many variables such as devices policies, underlying hardware orobstacles between two phones that may have impact on the accuracy. Hence,it would be interesting to explore more accurate indoor locations such asdetermining whether couples were located in the same building but on adifferent levels.6.4 Pre-pandemic and During PandemicAs already established the study was interrupted due to COVID-19. Iwanted to take this opportunity to understand if and to what extent thesmartphone usage behaviour of users change in the light of the current sit-uation. Though I provided an insight into this aspect however, I believe476.4. Pre-pandemic and During Pandemicthat the participant pool in this case as well was generally low and hence Icannot generalize the results I found to a larger audience.Due to the same reason I lack the substantial data before the pandemicthat could have helped to compare the smartphone usage behaviour exten-sively. In the future, when everything returns back to normal and the pan-demic is finally over I could conduct an additional study that could explorethe post-pandemic co-located smartphone usage behaviour among couples.48Chapter 7ConclusionIn this thesis, I took an initial attempt in quantifying co-located smart-phone usage among couples and mitigating co-located smartphone usage byreminding the presence of their partner through notifications. I conductedtwo studies. The goal of the first study was to obtain insights into the cou-ples’ smartphone usage when they are in presence of their partner and whenthey are alone. As such, I developed an app as a background service thattracked the smartphone usage behaviour of couples’ without any interfer-ence. This app automatically logged the smartphone usage pattern such as,the app in use, duration of app etc. on the files inside their smartphones.I recruited participants before and during the COVID-19 pandemic andobserved that some of the participants were working from home due to thepandemic. Therefore, I analysed the results based on couples who wereworking from home (WFH) and couples who were not working from home(NWFH). Results from study 1 showed that both groups (i.e., WFH andNWFH couples) spent a considerable amount of time on smartphones inwith the presence of their partner. Overall, WFH couples spent 3.8 hoursper day on an average on their smartphones (co-located - 2.86 hours perday, individual - 0.94 hours per day). For NWFH couples, the average timespend on smartphone is 3.37 hours per day (individual - 1.70 hours per day,co-located - 1.66 hours per day). Results from study 1 also showed that bothgroups of couples spend more time on apps belonging to Games and Videoplayer & Editors, which indicates that most of the co-located smartphoneusage is often non-urgent. Additionally, there were also longer session du-ration when couples were co-located (6.71 and 4.37 for WFH and NWFHcouples, respectively) than compared to when they were not in the presenceof one another (2.23 and 3.90 for WFH and NWFH couples, respectively).I also analysed the study 1 result on the basis of gender to further theunderstanding of smartphone usage pattern and to compare if smartphoneusage pattern vary among males and females. Interestingly, I found thatfemale participants tend to spend more time on the smartphone (4.11 hoursper day on an average) than male participants with an average of 3.04 hoursper day spent on smartphone. I also discerned that Social networking re-49Chapter 7. Conclusionlated applications were popular among females and Video Players & Editorsapplications were popular among the male participants.Consequently, in a follow-up study, I explored smartphone notification asa channel to mitigate co-located smartphone usage. I observed that smart-phone notifications helped to reduce co-located smartphone usage amongcouples who were not working from home. However, for the working fromhome couples, notifications had no impact on their smartphone usage. Fur-thermore, results showed that WFH couples received more notifications(28.23 per day) than NWFH couples (15.57 per day). We also found thatNWFH couples received more notifications in the morning (between 10:00AM to 11:00 AM) and in the evening (between 10:00 PM and 11:00 PM)whereas WFH couples received more notifications during the evening (be-tween 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM). Further analysis also showed that Browser& Search apps, Social networking and Game apps were used heavily. There-fore, more notifications were received when participants were using the appsbelonging to these app categories. Participants, in general, also providedpositive feedback on receiving notifications to change their smartphone us-age. Finally, based on the results, I presented a set of design recommen-dations that could help future researches aiming at alleviating co-locatedsmartphone usage among couples.50Appendix51Appendix AImplementation DetailsA.1 App 1 DesignFor the first study I developed an Android application using Androidstudio with Java as the programming language. The application is compat-ible with Android version 7.0 (API level 14) and above. The applicationcreates a background service and runs even if users close the app. My ap-plication captures the events such as apps installed, locking and unlockingof the smartphone, and currently running app on smartphone. In addition,the application also keeps tracks of the location i.e., GPS coordinates togive an insight on the locations of the smartphone use. The app did notcollect any data about the content shared, or data about who the partici-pants were communicating with. The details of implementation of the appare described in the following sections.A.1.1 Background ServiceSince I wanted to gain insights about the everyday smartphone usagepatterns of the users, I wanted our app to be less intrusive so that the userwould be able to use his/her smartphone with less interaction required fromour app. Keeping this in mind I decided that the app should create a servicethat will run in the background. Once started, the service continues runningeven after the user has closed the app or switched to another application [27]as shown in figure 9. Thus, allowing users to use their smartphone withoutany interruptions.A.1.2 Installed applicationMy application identifies all the applications that are installed on theusers’ smartphone. It uses the method getInstalledApplications of the Pack-age Manager of Android studio [27] to get the list of the applications thatare installed on the smartphone.52A.1. App 1 DesignFigure 9: An icon is always visible in the status bar to indicate the app’statusThese applications can be system applications and non-system applica-tions. The system applications are the applications that are pre-installed onthe smartphone such as settings, messages, Google Play Store. These ap-plications are placed under the “/system/app” folder on an Android devicei.e. in the system partition with the ROM. Therefore, we do not generallysee an option to unistall these apps, however, they can be removed only ifthe device is rooted. The non-system applications are the ones that are in-stalled by the users either from Google Play Store or using APK file. Theseapplications can read and write on the smartphone and are installed under/data/app folder on an Android device.A.1.3 Lock/Unlock eventsUsing the Keyguard manager [27] of the android my app was able to de-tect the lock and unlock events of the smartphone. This information enabledme to observe participants’ app usage on a more fine-grained level. Addi-tionally, it also helped to identify apps that were running in the backgroundwhen the smartphone was in the locked stateA.1.4 Currently running appTo identify the apps that are currently active I implement getRunning-Tasks method of the Activity Manager [27] of android in my application.This method ensures to report on the most recently started application.53A.1. App 1 DesignA.1.5 GPS coordinatesIn order to determine the GPS coordinates I implemented Google’s Lo-cation Service API [27]. This class consists of getLatitude, getLongitudemethods to get the latitudes and longitudes respectively in degrees.A.1.6 App use durationFor a given day, the daily app usage time duration was calculated theapp usage duration by adding all the session time of an app. An applicationsession starts when the user launches an application and ends when the userexits the application, or the screen is turned off. This information obtainedgives the total duration of the app use.Figure 10: User Interface of the app54A.1. App 1 DesignFigure 11: Data stored in files on smartphoneA.1.7 Data StorageAll the above information was stored on the participants’ smartphone inseveral files. For instance, the app stored participants’ aggregated smart-phone app usage data in a file. Additionally, to ensure that I can simu-late participants’ smartphone usage pattern, advanced information such asaggregated data, and locked/unlocked information about the smartphoneswere recorded every second as shown in figure 10. Note that my app did notcollect details such as the content shared within apps or data about who theparticipants were communicating with, etc. Additionally, though the appdoes not require any user interface, I created one to control the app (e.g.,stop the service or restart the service) or perform data management activi-ties (e.g., export the data from the smartphone to researchers) as shown infigure 11.55A.2. App 2 DesignA.2 App 2 DesignFor the second study, I developed another Android application usingAndroid studio with Java as the programming language. This applicationis compatible with Android version 7.0 (API level 14) and above. Justlike the app for first study, this application creates a background serviceand runs even if users close the app. In addition to collecting informationon the apps installed, locking and unlocking of the smartphone, currentlyrunning app on smartphone and GPS coordinates this application notifiesthe participants if they spend too much time (i.e., a time threshold which is5 minute duration) on their smartphone while co-located with their partner.This app also does not collect any data about the content shared, or dataabout who the participants were communicating with. For the smartphoneusage pattern of the participants this app uses the same components asdescribed for the app for first study.In addition, the app stored information about notifications that users re-ceived from my second app for instance, when they received the notification.This was achieved with the help of NotificationListenerService provided byAndroid [27] that detects when a user receives or removes a new notification.Figure 12: Screenshot of programming work on Background service56A.3. Technologies explored for Co-location detectionFigure 13: Screenshot of programming work on Installed appsA.3 Technologies explored for Co-locationdetectionIn this section, I will be discussing the various technologies exploredfor detecting co-location of couples and challenges associated with thesetechnologies.A.3.1 GPS Data via InternetDetecting co-location of couples can be done by accessing the GPS coor-dinates from both smartphones using internet then determining the distancebetween the respective coordinates. However, since I wanted to send the no-tifications in real-time to the co-located couples we needed the distance tobe calculated in real-time. This could only be achieved if I would store theirrespective coordinates on a server then calculate the distance.However, there is a privacy concern by putting such a sensitive infor-mation on a server. Moreover, there might be cases where participants arenot connected to the Internet (e.g., when in parks or shopping malls) andvaluable data might be lost.A.3.2 BluetoothBluetooth could also be used to detect when two devices come in prox-imity of one another. However, calculating the distance is inaccurate dueto Bluetooth signal interference. Moreover, by using Bluetooth there was ahigher battery consumption that would be not be welcomed by the users.57A.3. Technologies explored for Co-location detectionA.3.3 RFIDUse of RFID tags to detect proximity between two smartphones is an-other promising way of detecting co-location. However, reading it fromanother smartphone over several meters becomes a challenge. Furthermore,the signal strength can be influences by factors such as a wall, the qualityof the tag.A.3.4 Wi-Fi DirectWiFi Direct API [27] in our app. WiFi Direct also called as P2P or peerto peer is supported on Android 4.0 (or API level 14 and above). It connectsthe two devices to each other via WiFi without a WiFi access point. Thesteps for wifi direct connection are as follows:− The two devices have to first discover each other, which is similar to atraditional Wifi scan. In this discover phase, the devices can discoverexisting Wifi networks.− After the scan, the device alternates between two states: a search stateand a listen state. In the search state, the device is still in an activescanning while in the listen states the device listens to the incomingrequest from other devices.− Once the two devices have found each and the connection is confirmedthey are connected. For all the above steps the methods that arerequired during discover, request, and connection to peers are definedin the WifiP2pManager class.Thus, for detecting co-location, I implemented Wi-Fi direct in the secondapp because it is battery efficient and it can function without the need ofInternet. In the application, since I wanted the app to detect two specifieddevices (i.e. the couples smartphones), I manually entered the name of twodevices that the Wi-Fi direct should look for during the discovery mode.Thus, when two devices come within the Wi-Fi direct range, the app considerthe couples collocated.Wi-Fi Direct AccuracyI conducted an informal study to determine the range of Wi-Fi direct.I developed an app that triggers notifications when two smartphones cancommunicating between them via Wi-Fi direct. I considered both indoor and58A.3. Technologies explored for Co-location detectionoutdoor locations. For indoor location (e.g., house), I selected distances of10m and 20m both in same level and different level. For outdoor conditions,I selected 20m, 40m, 60m, 100m, 120m. For indoor distance, I measureddistance manually and for outdoor distances, I used Google Map to findtwo locations with the corresponding distances. I then physically went tothose selected locations with two phones and checked if the notifications arebeing triggered when two phones are in the corresponding distances (i.e., Iwent to point A with one smartphone and point B with another smartphoneand checked if the devices can send notifications. I repeat the process fivetimes for each distance. For all the indoor distances, the phones exchangednotifications without any issues (100% success rate). For outdoor locations,the phones sent notifications for 20m and 40m distances with 100% success.The success rate gradually decreased as the distance between the two phonesincreased. For instance for 60m, the success rate was 40%, for 100m it was20% and for 120m the phones were unable to detect each other. Pleasenote that like any other wireless protocols, there are many variables such asdevices policies, underlying hardware or obstacles between two phones thathave impact on the success rate. For this study, I used Google Pixel 2XLand Google Pixel 3a, running on android version 11 and 10 respectively.59Bibliography[1] Adler, R. F., Iacobelli, F., and Gutstein, Y. Are you con-vinced? a wizard of oz study to test emotional vs. rational persuasionstrategies in dialogues. Computers in Human Behavior 57 (2016), 75– 81. → pages 33[2] Ahlstrom, M., Lundberg, N. R., Zabriskie, R., Eggett, D.,and Lindsay, G. B. Me, my spouse, and my avatar. Journal ofLeisure Research 44, 1 (2012), 1–22. → pages 7[3] Alhassan, A. A., Alqadhib, E. M., Taha, N. W., Alahmari,R. A., Salam, M., and Almutairi, A. F. The relationship betweenaddiction to smartphone usage and depression among adults: a crosssectional study. BMC psychiatry 18, 1 (2018), 148. → pages 12[4] Ames, M. G. Managing mobile multitasking: The culture of iphoneson stanford campus. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Com-puter Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2013),CSCW ’13, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1487–1498. →pages 1, 6[5] BC, S. B. Phase 3 (current phase). June 2020. Retrieved Septem-ber 30, 2020 from https://covid.smallbusinessbc.ca/hc/en-us/articles/360047698694. → pages 19[6] Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker, J., Sellen,A., and Shaw, K. Lifestyles of working parents: Implications andopportunities for new technologies. Tech. rep., HP Tech report HPL-2003-88 (R. 1), 2004. → pages 1[7] Bentley, F., Church, K., Harrison, B., Lyons, K., andRafalow, M. Three hours a day: understanding current teen prac-tices of smartphone application use. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.05192(2015). → pages 1, 660Bibliography[8] Bian, M., and Leung, L. Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphoneaddiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital.Social science computer review 33, 1 (2015), 61–79. → pages 12[9] Blackman, A. Screen time for parents and caregivers: Parentalscreen distraction and parenting perceptions and beliefs. Pace Uni-versity, 2015. → pages 10[10] Bo¨hmer, M., Hecht, B., Scho¨ning, J., Kru¨ger, A., andBauer, G. Falling asleep with angry birds, facebook and kindle:A large scale study on mobile application usage. In Proceedings of the13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction withMobile Devices and Services (New York, NY, USA, 2011), MobileHCI’11, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 47–56. → pages 5, 23[11] Brush, A. B., and Inkpen, K. M. Yours, mine and ours? shar-ing and use of technology in domestic environments. In InternationalConference on Ubiquitous Computing (2007), Springer, pp. 109–126.→ pages 5[12] Bukhori, B., Said, H., Wijaya, T., and Nor, F. M. The effect ofsmartphone addiction, achievement motivation, and textbook readingintensity on students’ academic achievement. 09 2019. → pages 11[13] Carr, D., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., and Schwarz, N.Happy marriage, happy life? marital quality and subjective well-beingin later life. Journal of Marriage and Family 76, 5 (2014), 930–948.→ pages 12[14] Carrascal, J. P., and Church, K. An in-situ study of mobileapp amp; mobile search interactions. In Proceedings of the 33rd An-nual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (NewYork, NY, USA, 2015), CHI ’15, Association for Computing Machin-ery, p. 2739–2748. → pages 23[15] Castanet. Kelowna’s homepage. Retrieved September 30, 2020 fromhttps://www.castanet.net/. → pages 21[16] Chang, F.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Chen, P.-H., Chiang, J.-T., Miao,N.-F., Chuang, H.-Y., and Liu, S. Children’s use of mobile devices,smartphone addiction and parental mediation in taiwan. Computersin Human Behavior 93 (2019), 25 – 32. → pages 1561Bibliography[17] Chesley, N. Blurring boundaries? linking technology use, spillover,individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage andFamily 67, 5 (2005), 1237–1248. → pages 7, 12[18] Choi, S., Jeong, H., Ko, M., and Lee, U. Lockdoll: Providingambient feedback of smartphone usage within social interaction. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2016), CHI EA’16, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1165–1172. → pages 2,15, 33[19] Christensen, P. K., Skovgaard, C. O., and Petersen, M. G.Together together: Combining shared and separate activities in de-signing technology for family life. In Proceedings of the 18th ACMInternational Conference on Interaction Design and Children (NewYork, NY, USA, 2019), IDC ’19, Association for Computing Machin-ery, p. 374–385. → pages 14[20] Christensen, T. H. ’connected presence’ in distributed family life.New Media & Society 11, 3 (2009), 433–451. → pages 4[21] Cowan, L. G., Weibel, N., Griswold, W. G., Pina, L. R., andHollan, J. D. Projector phone use: practices and social implications.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 1 (2012), 53–63. → pages 13[22] Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., andGrant, D. M. “i luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use ofindividuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations 60, 2 (2011),150–162. → pages 7, 8[23] Cuotto, N., Krebs, T., and Bekkali, A. Idliketoknow: a mobiletool for interacting with strangers in a collocated area. → pages 1, 13[24] Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., and Horvitz, E. Notification, dis-ruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memoryand performance. 2001. Zitiert auf (2001), 12. → pages 16[25] Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., and Wilhite, S. A diary studyof task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York,NY, USA, 2004), CHI ’04, Association for Computing Machinery,p. 175–182. → pages 1662Bibliography[26] Demirci, K., Akgo¨nu¨l, M., and Akpinar, A. Relationship ofsmartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxietyin university students. Journal of behavioral addictions 4, 2 (2015),85–92. → pages 12[27] Developers, A. Build anything on android. Retrieved September30, 2020 from https://developer.android.com/. → pages 15, 20,32, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58[28] Devitt, K., and Roker, D. The role of mobile phones in familycommunication. Children & Society 23, 3 (2009), 189–202. → pages 4[29] Dietmar, C. Mobile communication in couple relationships. A senseof place: The global and the local in mobile communication (2005),201–208. → pages 2, 6[30] Donya, R. K., and Afari-Kumah, E. Cellular phone usage andproductivity among employees in a ghanaian sme: an assessment. In-ternational Journal of Computing and ICT Research 5, 1 (2011), 21–34. → pages 11[31] Dourish, P., and Bly, S. Portholes: Supporting awareness in adistributed work group. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 1992),CHI ’92, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 541–547. → pages1[32] Dwyer, R. J., Kushlev, K., and Dunn, E. W. Smartphone useundermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology 78 (2018), 233 – 239. → pages 8[33] Elslander, J., and Tanaka, K. A notification-centric mobile inter-action survey and framework. In International Conference on SocialInformatics (2013), Springer, pp. 443–456. → pages 32[34] Elslander, J., and Tanaka, K. Towards modular, notification-centric and ambient mobile communication. In International Confer-ence on Active Media Technology (2014), Springer, pp. 146–159. →pages 32[35] Enez Darcin, A., Kose, S., Noyan, C. O., Nurmedov, S.,Yılmaz, O., and Dilbaz, N. Smartphone addiction and its rela-tionship with social anxiety and loneliness. Behaviour & InformationTechnology 35, 7 (2016), 520–525. → pages 9, 1263Bibliography[36] ESET. Eset parental control - apps on google play. Retrieved Septem-ber 30, 2020 from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.eset.parental&hl=en. → pages 15[37] Falaki, H., Mahajan, R., Kandula, S., Lymberopoulos, D.,Govindan, R., and Estrin, D. Diversity in smartphone usage. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Systems,Applications, and Services (New York, NY, USA, 2010), MobiSys ’10,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 179–194. → pages 6[38] Falk, J., and Bjo¨rk, S. The bubblebadge: A wearable public dis-play. In CHI ’99 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in ComputingSystems (New York, NY, USA, 1999), CHI EA ’99, Association forComputing Machinery, p. 318–319. → pages 1[39] Farooqui, I. A., Pore, P., and Gothankar, J. Nomophobia: anemerging issue in medical institutions? Journal of Mental Health 27,5 (2018), 438–441. → pages 12[40] Ferdous, H. S., Ploderer, B., Davis, H., Vetere, F., O’Hara,K., Farr-Wharton, G., and Comber, R. Tabletalk: Integrat-ing personal devices and content for commensal experiences at thefamily dinner table. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM InternationalJoint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (New York,NY, USA, 2016), UbiComp ’16, Association for Computing Machinery,p. 132–143. → pages 14[41] Figueroa, C., Macke, J., Ong, C., and Vogels, S. Family-time: How to help smartphone users reduce problematic smartphonebehaviour, 2018. → pages 17[42] Fraser, C. A., Grossman, T., and Fitzmaurice, G. Webuild:Automatically distributing assembly tasks among collocated workersto improve coordination. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Confer-ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA,2017), CHI ’17, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1817–1830.→ pages 1[43] Gao, Y., Li, A., Zhu, T., Liu, X., and Liu, X. How smartphoneusage correlates with social anxiety and loneliness. PeerJ 4 (2016),e2197. → pages 1264Bibliography[44] Gordon, M. L., Gatys, L., Guestrin, C., Bigham, J. P., Tris-ter, A., and Patel, K. App usage predicts cognitive ability inolder adults. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2019), CHI ’19,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1–12. → pages 1, 6[45] Ha¨kkila¨, J., and Chatfield, C. ’it’s like if you opened someoneelse’s letter’: User perceived privacy and social practices with smscommunication. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conferenceon Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices Services (NewYork, NY, USA, 2005), MobileHCI ’05, Association for ComputingMachinery, p. 219–222. → pages 1[46] Hand, M. Recalibrating daily life: Synchronizing, coordinating, andscheduling through smartphones. AoIR Selected Papers of InternetResearch (2018). → pages 5[47] Hardill, I., and Olphert, C. W. Staying connected: Exploringmobile phone use amongst older adults in the uk. Geoforum 43, 6(2012), 1306 – 1312. Themed issue: Spatialities of Ageing. → pages 4[48] Hawi, N. S., and Samaha, M. To excel or not to excel: Strongevidence on the adverse effect of smartphone addiction on academicperformance. Computers Education 98 (2016), 81 – 89. → pages 11[49] Hawi, N. S., and Samaha, M. Relationships among smartphoneaddiction, anxiety, and family relations. Behaviour & InformationTechnology 36, 10 (2017), 1046–1052. → pages 10[50] Herrero, J., Uruen˜a, A., Torres, A., and Hidalgo, A. Sociallyconnected but still isolated: Smartphone addiction decreases socialsupport over time. Social Science Computer Review 37, 1 (2019), 73–88. → pages 9[51] Hiniker, A., Sobel, K., Suh, H., Sung, Y.-C., Lee, C. P., andKientz, J. A. Texting while parenting: How adults use mobile phoneswhile caring for children at the playground. In Proceedings of the 33rdAnnual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2015), CHI ’15, Association for ComputingMachinery, p. 727–736. → pages 1, 1065Bibliography[52] Huang, D.-Y., Lin, C.-P., Hung, Y.-P., Chang, T.-W., Yu,N.-H., Tsai, M.-L., and Chen, M. Y. Magmobile: Enhancing so-cial interactions with rapid view-stitching games of mobile devices. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiq-uitous Multimedia (New York, NY, USA, 2012), MUM ’12, Associationfor Computing Machinery. → pages 1, 14[53] Humphreys, L. Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wirelessera. New Media & Society 7, 6 (2005), 810–833. → pages 7[54] Hwang, Y., Choi, I., Yum, J.-Y., and Jeong, S.-H. Parentalmediation regarding children’s smartphone use: Role of protectionmotivation and parenting style. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and SocialNetworking 20, 6 (2017), 362–368. PMID: 28497990. → pages 15[55] Iqbal, S. T., and Horvitz, E. Notifications and awareness: A fieldstudy of alert usage and preferences. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACMConference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York,NY, USA, 2010), CSCW ’10, Association for Computing Machinery,p. 27–30. → pages 16, 17[56] Jakhar, D., Kaul, S., and Kaur, I. Increased usage of smart-phones during covid-19: Is that blue light causing skin damage? Jour-nal of Cosmetic Dermatology 19, 10 (2020), 2466–2467. → pages 43[57] Jarusriboonchai, P., Malapaschas, A., Olsson, T., andVa¨a¨na¨nen, K. Increasing collocated people’s awareness of the mo-bile user’s activities: A field trial of social displays. In Proceedings ofthe 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Workamp; Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2016), CSCW ’16, As-sociation for Computing Machinery, p. 1691–1702. → pages 1, 13[58] JIRANDATA. [xkeeper - apps on google play. Retrieved September30, 2020 from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jiran.xkeeperMobile&hl=en. → pages 15[59] Jokela, T., and Lucero, A. Flexigroups: Binding mobile de-vices for collaborative interactions in medium-sized groups with devicetouch. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices amp; Services (New York,NY, USA, 2014), MobileHCI ’14, Association for Computing Machin-ery, p. 369–378. → pages 166Bibliography[60] Kawsar, F., and Brush, A. B. Home computing unplugged: Why,where and when people use different connected devices at home. InProceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Per-vasive and Ubiquitous Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2013), Ubi-Comp ’13, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 627–636.→ pages1, 5[61] Khan, J., Malik, Z. K., and Amin, S. The impact of mobilephones on the performance of university students. Research Journalof Humanities and Social Sciences 6, 1 (2015), 61–66. → pages 11[62] Kijji. Buy, sell save with canada’s 1 local classifieds. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2020 from https://www.kijiji.ca/. → pages 21[63] Kildare, C. A., and Middlemiss, W. Impact of parents mobiledevice use on parent-child interaction: A literature review. Computersin Human Behavior 75 (2017), 579 – 593. → pages 10[64] Kim, A., Kang, S., and Lee, U. Letspic: Supporting in-situ col-laborative photography over a large physical space. In Proceedings ofthe 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2017), CHI ’17, Association for ComputingMachinery, p. 4561–4573. → pages 13[65] Kim, J., Jung, H., Ko, M., and Lee, U. Goalkeeper: Exploringinteraction lockout mechanisms for regulating smartphone use. Proc.ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 3, 1 (Mar. 2019).→ pages 2, 14, 43[66] Kim, J., Park, J., Lee, H., Ko, M., and Lee, U. Lockntype:Lockout task intervention for discouraging smartphone app use. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-puting Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2019), CHI ’19, Association forComputing Machinery, p. 1–12. → pages 2, 14[67] Kimura, H., Ebisui, J., Funabashi, Y., Yoshii, A., and Naka-jima, T. Idetective: A persuasive application to motivate healthierbehavior using smart phone. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Sym-posium on Applied Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2011), SAC ’11,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 399–404. → pages 33[68] Kira´ly, O., Potenza, M. N., Stein, D. J., King, D. L., Hod-gins, D. C., Saunders, J. B., Griffiths, M. D., Gjoneska, B.,67BibliographyBillieux, J., Brand, M., et al. Preventing problematic internetuse during the covid-19 pandemic: Consensus guidance. Comprehen-sive Psychiatry (2020), 152180. → pages 19[69] Kleinman, L., Hirsch, T., and Yurdana, M. Exploring mobiledevices as personal public displays. In Proceedings of the 17th In-ternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with MobileDevices and Services (New York, NY, USA, 2015), MobileHCI ’15,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 233–243. → pages 1, 13[70] Ko, M., Choi, S., Yatani, K., and Lee, U. Lock n’lol: group-based limiting assistance app to mitigate smartphone distractions ingroup activities. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (2016), pp. 998–1010. → pages 2, 15[71] Ko, M., Yang, S., Lee, J., Heizmann, C., Jeong, J., Lee, U.,Shin, D., Yatani, K., Song, J., and Chung, K.-M. Nugu: Agroup-based intervention app for improving self-regulation of limitingsmartphone use. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Com-puter Supported Cooperative Work amp; Social Computing (New York,NY, USA, 2015), CSCW ’15, Association for Computing Machinery,p. 1235–1245. → pages 15[72] Kroha, P. C. Parental control kroha - screen time, kidsmode - apps on google play. Retrieved September 30, 2020from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ua.com.tim_berners.parental_control&hl=en. → pages 15[73] Kushlev, K., Hunter, J. F., Proulx, J., Pressman, S. D., andDunn, E. Smartphones reduce smiles between strangers. Computersin Human Behavior 91 (2019), 12–16. → pages 9, 11[74] Lee, H., Kim, J. W., and Choi, T. Y. Risk factors for smartphoneaddiction in korean adolescents: smartphone use patterns. Journal ofKorean medical science 32, 10 (2017), 1674–1679. → pages 12, 33[75] Lee, U., Lee, J., Ko, M., Lee, C., Kim, Y., Yang, S., Yatani,K., Gweon, G., Chung, K.-M., and Song, J. Hooked on smart-phones: An exploratory study on smartphone overuse among collegestudents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-tors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2014), CHI ’14,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 2327–2336. → pages 1, 668Bibliography[76] Lee, Y.-K., Chang, C.-T., Lin, Y., and Cheng, Z.-H. The darkside of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behaviorand technostress. Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014), 373 –383. → pages 12[77] Ling, R. The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society.Elsevier, 2004. → pages 4, 5[78] Ling, R. New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshapingsocial cohesion. MIT press, 2010. → pages 9[79] Ling, R., and Yttri, B. Hyper-coordination via mobile phones innorway, perpetual contact: mobile communication, private talk, publicperformance, 2002. → pages 4[80] LLC, Q. Qustodio family - parental control screen time -apps on google play. Retrieved September 30, 2020 fromhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.qustodio.qustodioapp&hl=en. → pages 15[81] Lo¨chtefeld, M., Bo¨hmer, M., and Ganev, L. Appdetox: Help-ing users with mobile app addiction. In Proceedings of the 12th Inter-national Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (New York,NY, USA, 2013), MUM ’13, Association for Computing Machinery. →pages 1, 2, 15, 43[82] Lopez-Tovar, H., Charalambous, A., and Dowell, J. Manag-ing smartphone interruptions through adaptive modes and modulationof notifications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conferenceon Intelligent User Interfaces (New York, NY, USA, 2015), IUI ’15,Association for Computing Machinery, p. 296–299. → pages 16[83] Lu, S. App usage - manage/track usage – apps ongoogle play, 2018. Retrieved September 30, 2020 fromhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.a0soft.gphone.uninstaller&hl=en_CA. → pages 2, 14[84] Lucero, A., Holopainen, J., and Jokela, T. Mobicomics: Col-laborative use of mobile phones and large displays for public expres-sion. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (New York,NY, USA, 2012), MobileHCI ’12, Association for Computing Machin-ery, p. 383–392. → pages 1369Bibliography[85] Mark, G., Voida, S., and Cardello, A. ”a pace not dictated byelectrons”: An empirical study of work without email. In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2012), CHI ’12, Association for ComputingMachinery, p. 555–564. → pages 14, 16[86] Matar Boumosleh, J., and Jaalouk, D. Depression, anxiety, andsmartphone addiction in university students-a cross sectional study.PloS one 12, 8 (2017), e0182239. → pages 12[87] Mazzotta, I., and De Rosis, F. Artifices for persuading to im-prove eating habits. In AAAI spring symposium: argumentation forconsumers of healthcare (2006), pp. 76–85. → pages 33[88] McDaniel, B. T., and Coyne, S. M. Technology interference inthe parenting of young children: Implications for mothers’ perceptionsof coparenting. The Social Science Journal 53, 4 (2016), 435–443. →pages 2, 10[89] McDaniel, B. T., and Coyne, S. M. “technoference”: The in-terference of technology in couple relationships and implications forwomen’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of PopularMedia Culture 5, 1 (2016), 85. → pages 6[90] Mehrotra, A., Musolesi, M., Hendley, R., and Pejovic, V.Designing content-driven intelligent notification mechanisms for mo-bile applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International JointConference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (New York, NY,USA, 2015), UbiComp ’15, Association for Computing Machinery,p. 813–824. → pages 16[91] Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., and Yuan, M. The iphoneeffect: The quality of in-person social interactions in the presence ofmobile devices. Environment and Behavior 48, 2 (2016), 275–298. →pages 9[92] Montag, C., and Walla, P. Carpe diem instead of losing your so-cial mind: Beyond digital addiction and why we all suffer from digitaloveruse. Cogent Psychology 3, 1 (2016), 1157281. → pages 11[93] Moran, K. Watching parents, watching kids: Water safety supervi-sion of young children at the beach. International Journal of AquaticResearch and Education 4, 3 (2010), 6. → pages 1070Bibliography[94] Muhammad, N. M., Schneider, M., Hill, A., and Yau, D. M.How the use of ipad and smartphones creates social isolation. In So-ciety for Information Technology & Teacher Education InternationalConference (2019), Association for the Advancement of Computing inEducation (AACE), pp. 1060–1065. → pages 9[95] Neustaedter, C., Harrison, S., and Sellen, A. Connectingfamilies. The impact of new (2013). → pages 4[96] Nylander, S., Lundquist, T., and Bra¨nnstro¨m, A. At homeand with computer access: Why and where people use cell phonesto access the internet. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2009),CHI ’09, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1639–1642. →pages 5[97] Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C., Odom, W., Tang, A., Moallem,N., Tory, M., and Irani, P. The frustrations and benefits of mo-bile device usage in the home when co-present with family members.In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing InteractiveSystems (New York, NY, USA, 2016), DIS ’16, Association for Com-puting Machinery, p. 1315–1327. → pages 1, 8, 9, 16, 18, 31, 32,43[98] Okoshi, T., Tsubouchi, K., Taji, M., Ichikawa, T., andTokuda, H. Attention and engagement-awareness in the wild: Alarge-scale study with adaptive notifications. In 2017 ieee interna-tional conference on pervasive computing and communications (per-com) (2017), IEEE, pp. 100–110. → pages 16[99] Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., and Raita, E. Habitsmake smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Com-puting 16, 1 (2012), 105–114. → pages 1, 33[100] Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., and Raita, E. Habitsmake smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Com-puting 16, 1 (2012), 105–114. → pages 11[101] Paasovaara, S., Jarusriboonchai, P., and Olsson, T. Under-standing collocated social interaction between poke´mon go players. InProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiq-uitous Multimedia (New York, NY, USA, 2017), MUM ’17, Associationfor Computing Machinery, p. 151–163. → pages 1471Bibliography[102] Paasovaara, S., Olshannikova, E., Jarusriboonchai, P.,Malapaschas, A., and Olsson, T. Next2you: A proximity-basedsocial application aiming to encourage interaction between nearby peo-ple. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile andUbiquitous Multimedia (New York, NY, USA, 2016), MUM ’16, Asso-ciation for Computing Machinery, p. 81–90. → pages 1, 13[103] Papp, L. M., Mark Cummings, E., and Schermerhorn, A. C.Pathways among marital distress, parental symptomatology, and childadjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family 66, 2 (2004), 368–384.→ pages 12[104] Park, R. Kids zone - parental controls child lock -apps on google play. Retrieved September 30, 2020 fromhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ootpapps.kids.zone.app.lock&hl=en. → pages 15[105] Peleg, O. The relation between differentiation of self and maritalsatisfaction: What can be learned from married people over the courseof life? The American Journal of Family Therapy 36, 5 (2008), 388–401. → pages 7[106] Pielot, M., Church, K., and de Oliveira, R. An in-situ studyof mobile phone notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th Interna-tional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile De-vices amp; Services (New York, NY, USA, 2014), MobileHCI ’14, As-sociation for Computing Machinery, p. 233–242. → pages 16[107] Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., and Buehler, C. Marital qualityand personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage andFamily 69, 3 (2007), 576–593. → pages 12[108] Przybylski, A. K., and Weinstein, N. Can you connect withme now? how the presence of mobile communication technology influ-ences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships 30, 3 (2013), 237–246. → pages 1, 8[109] Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K.,Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., Augustyn, M., and Silver-stein, M. Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and childrenduring meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics 133, 4 (2014), e843–e849. → pages 1, 1072Bibliography[110] Rennecker, J., and Godwin, L. Delays and interruptions: A self-perpetuating paradox of communication technology use. Informationand Organization 15, 3 (2005), 247 – 266. Technology as Organiza-tion/Disorganization. → pages 11[111] Roberts, J. A., and David, M. E. My life has become a majordistraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationshipsatisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in human behavior54 (2016), 134–141. → pages 1, 7, 31, 43[112] Romero, N., Markopoulos, P., Van Baren, J., De Ruyter,B., Ijsselsteijn, W., and Farshchian, B. Connecting the familywith awareness systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 4(2007), 299–312. → pages 14[113] Rothberg, M. B., Arora, A., Hermann, J., Kleppel, R.,St Marie, P., and Visintainer, P. Phantom vibration syndromeamong medical staff: a cross sectional survey. Bmj 341 (2010), c6914.→ pages 12[114] Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., and Tomasuolo, M. Connecting alone:Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being. Journalof Economic Psychology 63 (2017), 17–26. → pages 9[115] Sahami Shirazi, A., Henze, N., Dingler, T., Pielot, M., We-ber, D., and Schmidt, A. Large-scale assessment of mobile notifi-cations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factorsin Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2014), CHI ’14, Associ-ation for Computing Machinery, p. 3055–3064. → pages 16[116] Salmela, T., Colley, A., and Ha¨kkila¨, J. Together in bed?couples’ mobile technology use in bed. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY,USA, 2019), CHI ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 1–12.→ pages 2, 6, 43[117] Samaha, M., and Hawi, N. S. Relationships among smartphoneaddiction, stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life.Computers in Human Behavior 57 (2016), 321 – 325. → pages 11, 12[118] Schoenebeck, S. Y. Giving up twitter for lent: How and why wetake breaks from social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Confer-ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA,73Bibliography2014), CHI ’14, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 773–782. →pages 14[119] Seeburger, J., Foth, M., and Tjondronegoro, D. The sound ofmusic: Sharing song selections between collocated strangers in publicurban places. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference onMobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (New York, NY, USA, 2012), MUM’12, Association for Computing Machinery. → pages 13[120] Simon, H. K., Tamura, T., and Colton, K. Reported level ofsupervision of young children while in the bathtub. Ambulatory Pedi-atrics 3, 2 (2003), 106 – 108. → pages 10[121] Smith, A. 17% of cell phone owners do most of their online browsingon their phone, rather than a computer or other device. Washington,DC: Pew Research Center (2012), 1–16. → pages 5[122] Steiner-Adair, C., and Barker, T. H. The big disconnect: Pro-tecting childhood and family relationships in the digital age. HarperBusiness, 2013. → pages 1, 9[123] Sukenick, S. Turkle, sherry. alone together: Why we expect morefrom technology and less from each other. new york: Basic books,2011. pp. ix. Journal of Analytical Psychology 57, 1 (2012), 128–129.→ pages 1, 9[124] Support, A. Use screen time on your iphone, ipad, or ipodtouch, September 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020 from https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208982. → pages 2, 14[125] Tateno, M., Teo, A. R., Ukai, W., Kanazawa, J., Katsuki,R., Kubo, H., and Kato, T. A. Internet addiction, smartphoneaddiction, and hikikomori trait in japanese young adult: social isola-tion and social network. Frontiers in psychiatry 10 (2019). → pages9[126] Thome´e, S., Ha¨renstam, A., and Hagberg, M. Mobile phoneuse and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression amongyoung adults-a prospective cohort study. BMC public health 11, 1(2011), 66. → pages 12[127] Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., and Gandhi, M. P. Chick clique:Persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise. In CHI ’0674BibliographyExtended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (NewYork, NY, USA, 2006), CHI EA ’06, Association for Computing Ma-chinery, p. 1873–1878. → pages 33[128] Vaghefi, I., and Lapointe, L. Can it hurt productivity? an inves-tigation of it addiction. → pages 11[129] Valkenburg, P. M., and Peter, J. Online communication andadolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displace-ment hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12,4 (2007), 1169–1182. → pages 8[130] Verma, R. K., Rajiah, K., Cheang, A., and Barua, A. Tex-taphrenia: an emerging silent pandemic. Afr J Psychiatry 17 (2014),510–1. → pages 12[131] Wahla, R. S., Awan, A. G., et al. Mobile phones usage andemployees’ performance: A perspective from pakistan. InternationalJournal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Manage-ment Sciences 4, 4 (2014), 153–165. → pages 11[132] Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., and Lei, L. Partnerphubbing and depression among married chinese adults: The rolesof relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality andIndividual Differences 110 (2017), 12–17. → pages 7, 43[133] Wei, R. Motivations for using the mobile phone for mass communi-cations and entertainment. Telematics and Informatics 25, 1 (2008),36 – 46. → pages 5[134] Wei, R., and Lo, V.-H. Staying connected while on the move: Cellphone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society 8, 1 (2006),53–72. → pages 4[135] Whisman, M. A. The association between depression and maritaldissatisfaction. → pages 12[136] Wi-Fi, A. The worldwide network of companies that brings you wi-fi. Retrieved September 30, 2020 from https://www.wi-fi.org/. →pages 32[137] Wikipedia. List of android smartphones, October 2020. RetrievedSeptember 30, 2020 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_smartphones. → pages 4675Bibliography[138] Yang, X.-D., Hasan, K., Bruce, N., and Irani, P. Surround-see: Enabling peripheral vision on smartphones during active use. InProceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User InterfaceSoftware and Technology (New York, NY, USA, 2013), UIST ’13, As-sociation for Computing Machinery, p. 291–300. → pages 45[139] Yuill, N., Rogers, Y., and Rick, J. Pass the ipad: Collabo-rative creating and sharing in family groups. In Proceedings of theSIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (NewYork, NY, USA, 2013), CHI ’13, Association for Computing Machin-ery, p. 941–950. → pages 14[140] Zenlabs. Screen time parental control app by zenscreen -apps on google play. Retrieved September 30, 2020 fromhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.zenlabs.zenfamily&hl=en. → pages 2, 14[141] E´ilish Duke, and Montag, C. Smartphone addiction, daily inter-ruptions and self-reported productivity. Addictive Behaviors Reports6 (2017), 90 – 95. → pages 11[142] a˘ng Thip, N. Kids manager- parental control - apps on googleplay. Retrieved September 30, 2020 from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.tantinh.kids&hl=en. → pages 1576
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Computer Science
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Quantifying and mitigating couples’ co-located smartphone usage
Text