Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Mobile phone use motivation

Mobile phone use motivation:
What are the motivations for mobile phone use?

Overview

Figure 1. People using their phone on the train. Imagine this ... You are sitting on a crowded train after a long day. A young boy nearby laughs at a meme on Instagram. A woman beside him scrolls through her messages. Across the aisle, a student types reminders into a calendar app. Next to you, a man endlessly scrolls through social media updates. What draws each of these people to their phone? Is it comfort, connection, distraction, or control? These are everyday actions, yet behind them lie hidden motivations that shape our relationship with smartphones.

Mobile phones are central to modern life, influencing how people work, connect, and cope with stress. Their use is driven by complex psychological needs that affect daily behaviour and wellbeing. Understanding these motivations reveals why people engage with phones in unique ways, and why these behaviours can bring both benefits and challenges. Smartphones enhance productivity, entertainment, and social bonds. Yet, excessive or compulsive use can lead to procrastination, anxiety, and emotional avoidance. This chapter explores how motivations shape phone use and offers strategies for healthier, intentional smartphone use that supports wellbeing.

Focus questions What motivates people to use smartphones in their daily lives? What psychological theories explain these motivations? How do different motivations impact wellbeing in positive and negative ways? What strategies can encourage mindful and beneficial phone use?

Key motivations for mobile phone use

People use mobile phones to satisfy different psychological needs. These needs are typically categorised as instrumental (task-focused), hedonic (pleasure-oriented), social (connection-based), and emotional (coping-related) (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). These motivations explain how phones are integrated into daily life and how they influence wellbeing (Davis, 1989).

Instrumental and pragmatic motivations

Case example: Alex Alex starts each morning by checking the weather app, navigating traffic with GPS, reviewing lecture notes, and setting assignments reminders. Each action is purposeful and task-oriented. His smartphone works as a practical assistant, helping him manage academic and daily tasks.

Instrumental motivations describe using phones to achieve specific goals. These motivations support productivity, scheduling, navigation, and information access (Joo & Sang, 2013). Pragmatic motivations are a subtype of instrumental motivations, focusing on immediate benefits such as reassurance during emergencies or quick information access (Meng et al., 2020). Together, these motivations position smartphones as essential tools for managing everyday life (Wilson et al., 2022).

Figure 2. An example of an online calendar used daily to organise and schedule tasks.

Theoretical explanation

Two psychological models explain these motivations.

• The technology acceptance model (TAM): TAM proposes that technology use depends on perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989). When phones are both effective and effortless, they are more likely to be integrated into daily routines. This aligns with the theory of reasoned action, which views attitudes as strong predictors of behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
• The uses and gratifications theory (UGT): UGT views smartphone users as active decision-makers who adopt media to fulfil personal needs (Katz et al., 1973). Instrumental use reflects utility-based gratifications, such as finding directions, setting reminders, or contacting help (Park et al., 2009).

These models show how technology design and user choice shape instrumental motivation.

Research evidence

Instrumental phone use is consistently linked to positive outcomes. Purposeful engagement such as accessing information, improving productivity, and navigating with GPS supports daily functioning (Wilson et al., 2022). For older adults, instrumental use helps coordinate activities and supports both cognitive and social functioning (Wilson et al., 2022). Pragmatic motivations extend these benefits by providing reassurance and safety, especially during emergencies (Meng et al., 2020). From TAM's perspective, these outcomes illustrate how perceived usefulness encourages routine phone behaviour (Davis, 1989).

Meng et al. (2020) found that instrumental use is less likely to lead to dependency compared to hedonic or emotional motivations. This suggests instrumental use promotes a balanced engagement with smartphones. However, risks exist. An over-reliance on GPS may impair spatial awareness (Ruginski et al., 2019), and habitual checking of reminders can weaken memory and problem-solving skills (Elhai et al., 2017). UGT helps explain this shift from adaptive to maladaptive outcomes. While users initially select tools for convenience, {{g]} however reliance can turn into habit, diminishing autonomy and flexibility (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014).

Summary

Instrumental and pragmatic motivations generally support adaptive outcomes. Phones act as practical assistants, helping people stay organised, informed, and safe. TAM and UGT show that when phones are useful and easy to use, they integrate smoothly into daily life. Yet, the same convenience may reduce independence if it replaces critical skills. These motivations are most beneficial when phones complement rather than replace human capabilities (Joo & Sang, 2013).

Hedonic and entertainment motivations

Case example: Sarah After a long day of studying, Sarah relaxes by watching videos on TikTok or playing mobile games like Clash of Clans. These activities improve her mood and distract her from her current stress. But sometimes these activities delay her sleep and cut into her study time.

Hedonic motivations describe using phones for enjoyment, escape, and relief from boredom. This includes watching videos, gaming, scrolling social media, or listening to music. These activities provide quick pleasure and immersion (Granic et al., 2014). Theoretical explanation

Three psychological perspectives explain how hedonic motivations drive mobile phone use.

• The uses and gratifications theory: People actively select media to meet needs such as entertainment, diversion, and relaxation (Katz et al., 1973). Smartphones amplify these gratifications because they combine many entertainment functions in one portable device (Sundar & Limperos, 2013).
• Self-determination theory (SDT): Hedonic use can satisfy the basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence, enhancing intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) For example, choosing a playlist supports autonomy. Beating a level in a game provides competence. Sharing a video with friends strengthens relatedness. When these needs are met, hedonic use can enhance wellbeing (Jeno et al., 2017).
• The compensatory internet use theory (CIUT): People use online entertainment to cope with stress, loneliness, or unmet needs (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). For students like Sarah, this may mean escaping academic pressure through binge-watching or gaming. While this coping strategy may provide temporary relief, it can also become maladaptive if it replaces healthier habits like rest or social interaction (Elhai et al., 2019).

Together, these theories show that hedonic use is about mood regulation, need fulfilment, and distraction.

Figure 3. A person enjoying watching a video on their phone.

Research evidence

Short bursts of gaming or video watching can reduce stress and help recovery from daily strain (Reinecke & Eden, 2016). Adolescents who engage in these activities with peers also report stronger friendships and an increased sense of belonging (Granic et al., 2014). From the perspective of self-determination theory, these hedonic activities satisfy psychological needs for competence and relatedness, supporting wellbeing when used in moderation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

However, risks arise when hedonic use becomes excessive. A meta-analysis by Kuss et al. (2018) found a moderate association between hedonic phone use and poorer sleep quality. This corroborates findings from national survey data. For instance, 70% of Australian teenagers use their phones in bed, with half of them reporting shorter sleep durations (Sleep Health Foundation, 2022). The compensatory internet use theory helps explain this pattern. While entertainment can offer short-term stress relief, excessive reliance may reinforce avoidance coping, negatively affecting wellbeing over time (Elhai et al., 2017).

The uses and gratifications theory further clarifies these risks by showing how entertainment use can shift from intentional choice to automatic checking. This diminishes autonomy and reinforces distraction habits (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Similarly, the self-determination theory suggests that hedonic use dominated by stress or obligation fails to satisfy basic needs and may undermine health (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Summary

Hedonic motivations highlights the double-edged nature of mobile entertainment. When balanced, these activities fulfil psychological needs and aid recovery from stress (Reinecke & Eden, 2016). Conversely, when driven by avoidance or habit, they can impair sleep, learning, and overall wellbeing (Kuss et al., 2018). The impact depends less on the technology itself and more on whether people use it as a balanced form of enjoyment or as a substitute for healthier coping strategies.

Reflection box: How do you use your phone for entertainment? Think about the last time you used your phone just for enjoyment (e.g., watching videos, playing games, scrolling social media). Did it help you feel more relaxed or energised? Did it ever interfere with your sleep? What needs (autonomy, competence, connection) do you think were met by that phone use?

Social motivations

Case example: Taylor Taylor recently moved to a new city for university. She uses messaging apps, video calls, and social media to stay in touch with old friends. These interactions help her feel connected to her community, despite the distance.

Taylor’s behaviour reflects social motivations. These motivations stem from the human need for connection, belonging, and validation. Phones allow people to maintain relationships, share updates and feel included regardless of distance. Social motivations include messaging, posting content, and joining online groups. While often rewarding, social use can also create pressure to stay available and can increase stress when users feel excluded (Kim & Lee, 2011).

Theoretical explanation

Three psychological models explain how social motivations drive mobile phone use.

• Self-determination theory: SDT identifies relatedness as a basic psychological need, alongside autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Phones support relatedness by offering frequent contact (Joo & Sang, 2013). However, when connections are pursued out of obligation or fear of exclusion, the benefits of relatedness decline (Kushlev et al., 2016).
• Uses and gratifications theory: UGT sees users as active decision-makers who choose media that fulfils needs such as belonging, reassurance, or identity expression (Katz et al., 1973). Phones make this easy by providing instant connection.
• Compensatory Internet Use Theory (CIUT): CIUT proposes that people use online communication to compensate for offline social challenges (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). For example, students may rely on group chats or social media to reduce loneliness or social anxiety. While this can provide temporary comfort, it may also reinforce dependence and reduce engagement in offline interactions.

Together, these perspectives suggest that social motivations can be both supportive and anxiety-driven.

Research evidence

Research highlights both benefits and risks associated with social phone use. On the positive side, social interactions via smartphones strengthen perceived support and bonding. Tools like messaging, video calls, and group chats help reduce loneliness and help students adapt to new environments (Joo & Sang, 2013). Surveys show that sharing humour, updates, and encouragement online is linked with higher wellbeing and a stronger sense of belonging (Mission Australia, 2022). These benefits are strongest when social media use is intentional. Sundar and Limperos (2013) found that focusing on meaningful exchanges rather than constant scrolling reduces loneliness and supports resilience. From the perspective of SDT, this shows how social needs for relatedness can be fulfilled in autonomy-supportive ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Figure 4. A group of friends using video calls to socialise with each other.

However, risks arise when social use is excessive or driven by anxiety. FoMo is strongly linked to compulsive checking, increased stress, and sleep disturbances (Przybylski et al., 2013). Longitudinal studies show that students who mainly use phones to alleviate social anxiety report heightened distress over time (Elhai et al., 2017). This aligns with the CIUT, which suggests that digital connection can serve as avoidance coping. It offers temporary relief but reinforces dependence (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). UGT further explains that repeated reliance on phones for reassurance fosters habitual checking rather than active coping, increasing vulnerability to problematic use (Kuss et al., 2018).

Summary

Social motivations demonstrate how phones serve as tools for belonging. When use is selective and autonomy-supportive, phones enhance wellbeing by fulfilling relatedness needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Conversely, when driven by FoMo or avoidance, social phone use may foster stress, dependence, and reduced offline interaction (Elhai et al., 2019). A positive balance depends on whether social phone use supports authentic connection or substitutes for healthier coping strategies.

Emotional and mood regulatory motivations

Case example: Sam Sam often feels anxious before giving class presentations. To cope, he checks his phone for supportive messages and scrolls through Instagram to distract himself. This brings temporary relief but prevents him from addressing the root of his anxiety.

Sam’s behaviour reflects emotional and mood regulatory motivations, where phones are used to manage stress, loneliness, anxiety, sadness, or boredom. Smartphones provide immediate outlets for distraction, reassurance, or self-expression. This helps stabilise mood in the short term. These motivations stem from the basic psychological drive to regulate emotions and regain a sense of control. However, reliance on phones can shift from adaptive coping to maladaptive dependence when overused.

Theoretical explanation

Three psychological models explain these dynamics.

• Emotion regulation theory: Gross (1998) distinguishes strategies such as distraction, reappraisal, and suppression. Phones support distraction (e.g., scrolling feeds) and can encourage reappraisal by offering uplifting or humorous content.
• Mood management theory: Zillmann (1988) suggests people choose media to reduce negative states or maintain positive ones. Smartphones provide instant access to entertainment, games, and social contact, making them powerful tools for mood adjustment.
• Compensatory internet use theory: Kardefelt-Winther (2014) proposes that individuals turn to media to offset offline stressors. While this can relieve tension, it may also fuel avoidance if deeper problems remain unresolved.

Together, these theories explain why emotionally motivated phone use can bring short-term relief but also carry long-term risks.

Research evidence

Moderate use of relaxation apps, mindfulness tools, or supportive messaging can reduce stress and improve wellbeing in the short term (Reinecke & Eden, 2016). Social sharing and online self-expression offer catharsis and strengthen social bonds, consistent with mood management theory (Kim & Lee, 2011). Additional evidence shows that reappraisal through positive online content may enhance emotional resilience (Park & Valenzuela, 2009).

However, risks arise when emotional regulation relies too heavily on smartphones. Escaping stress through constant phone use has been linked to procrastination, avoidance, and increased stress (Elhai et al., 2019). Heavy nighttime use is consistently linked with poor sleep quality and heightened anxiety (Sleep Health Foundation, 2022). Longitudinal studies further show that depending on phones as a primary coping mechanism predicts worsening depressive symptoms over time, especially in adolescents (Kuss et al., 2018). These findings illustrate the shift from adaptive distraction to maladaptive dependence when stressors remain unaddressed.

Figure 5. Illustration of a young boy struggling to fall asleep at night because he is using his phone before bed.

Summary

Emotion regulation theory highlights how phones provide quick access to distraction and reappraisal. Mood management theory explains why people seek uplifting or entertaining content. Compensatory internet use theory clarifies why these strategies sometimes slip into avoidance and dependency. Using digital tools is most beneficial when they complement healthy offline coping strategies such as problem-solving, rest, and social support, rather than replacing them (Kushlev et al., 2016).

Practical implications

To promote healthier smartphone use, strategies must address the different motivations that drive behaviour. Grounding these strategies in psychological theory ensures that they move beyond surface-level advice and instead build lasting skills for wellbeing. By tailoring strategies, smartphone use can shift from automatic or avoidant behaviours to intentional habits that enhance autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Instrumental use

Smartphones are valuable tools for organisation, navigation, and learning. Using calendar apps, focus timers, and note-taking platforms can strengthen autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Practical strategies could include driving offline routes to maintain spatial awareness while reducing an over-reliance on devices like GPS (Ruginski et al., 2019). Also, reflecting on which apps genuinely support goals helps build self-regulation (Hadlington, 2015). Workplaces, schools, and families can also encourage digital literacy training to help people use apps more intentionally, aligning with self-regulation theory, which emphasises feedback and planning in achieving goals.

Hedonic use

Phones provide entertainment and while these activities can improve mood, excessive use can disrupt sleep and concentration (Exelmans & Van den Bulck, 2016). Practical strategies include setting app timers, scheduling intentional leisure breaks, and prioritising stimulating media over passive media (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Choosing creativity-focused or interactive content enhances wellbeing. Also reducing device use before sleep supports circadian rhythms and reduces fatigue (Exelmans & Van den Bulck, 2016). From the perspective of mood management theory (Zillmann, 1988), these strategies work by channelling hedonic needs into intentional rather than automatic behaviours. This allows people to enjoy pleasure while minimising costs to health and productivity.

Social use

Connection with others is a central reason for phone use. Structured strategies, such as curated group chats, online communities, or family check-ins, allow people to maintain relationships without constant checking. Intentional social use through prioritising direct communication over passive scrolling strengthens bonds and wellbeing (Beyens et al., 2020). Reducing notifications or batching social media checks can lower compulsive behaviours (Przybylski et al., 2013). Reflecting on whether engagement arises from genuine interest or obligation helps protect autonomy in relationships (Kushlev et al., 2016). Compensatory Internet Use Theory (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014) suggests that many turn to digital connection to offset stress or loneliness. Pairing online interactions with offline opportunities for belonging, such as community groups or shared hobbies, can reduce dependence while still supporting relatedness.

Figure 6. An illustration of a young girl listening to music on her mobile phone.

Emotional use

Smartphones are often used to cope with stress, sadness, or boredom. Adaptive strategies include guided relaxation apps, calming audio, or mood-tracking tools, which can reduce stress in the short term (Reinecke & Eden, 2016). However, coping is most effective when digital tools are paired with offline support such as rest, social support, or problem-solving (Gross, 1998). Reflective practices such as asking “Is this helping me cope, or am I avoiding?” can prevent avoidance cycles linked with poor sleep and heightened anxiety (Elhai et al., 2017). Mood management theory (Zillmann, 1988) explains why uplifting content helps regulate emotions. While compensatory internet use theory highlights the risks of relying on avoidance strategies without addressing underlying stressors.

Conclusion

Smartphone use is driven by instrumental, hedonic, social, and emotional motivations, reflecting basic psychological needs. Psychological theories like TAM, SDT, and UGT show that phones are not inherently good or bad. Their impact depends on the motivations guiding engagement. Smartphones can support productivity, enjoyment, connection, and stress relief, but the same patterns may also foster avoidance, dependency, and reduced wellbeing. This dual role highlights the importance of intentional use. Hedonic use is most rewarding when balanced, and social connection most beneficial when authentic. Instrumental and emotional use require reflection to avoid over-reliance. Recognising personal motivations helps individuals use smartphones as tools for growth, protecting autonomy, rest, and wellbeing. By understanding these dynamics, people can shape technology into an ally for resilience rather than a source of distraction.

See also

• Boredom and technology addiction (Book chapter, 2021)
• Mobile phone addiction (Book chapter, 2016)
• Mobile phone addiction (Book chapter, 2017)
• Mobile phone use motivation (Book chapter, 2023)

References

Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2020). The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent. Scientific Reports, 10, 10763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67727-7

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Non-social features of smartphone use are most related to depression, anxiety and problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.023

Elhai, J. D., Yang, H., McKay, D., & Asmundson, G. J. (2019). Depression and anxiety symptoms are related to problematic smartphone use severity in Chinese young adults: Fear of missing out as a mediator. Addictive Behaviors, 101, 105962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.020

Exelmans, L., & Van den Bulck, J. (2016). Bedtime mobile phone use and sleep in adults. Social Science & Medicine, 148, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.037

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley. https://people.umass.edu/aizen/f&a1975.html

Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Hadlington, L. (2015). Cognitive failures in daily life: Exploring the link with Internet addiction and problematic mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.036

Joo, T. M., & Sang, Y. (2013). Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2512–2518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.002

Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of Internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109

Kim, J., & Lee, J. E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

Kushlev, K., Proulx, J., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). Digitally connected, socially disconnected: The effects of relying on technology rather than other people. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.001

Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., Karila, L., & Billieux, J. (2018). Internet addiction: A systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20(25), 4026–4052. https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990617

Meng, H., Cao, H., Hao, R., Zhou, N., Liang, Y., Wu, L., Jiang, L., Ma, R., Li, B., Deng, L., Lin, Z., Lin, X., & Zhang, J. (2020). Smartphone use motivation and problematic smartphone use in a national representative sample of Chinese adolescents: The mediating roles of smartphone use time for various activities. Journal of behavioral addictions, 9(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00004

Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 357–360. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0003

Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

Reinecke, L., & Eden, A. (2016). Media use and recreation: Media-induced recovery as a link between media exposure and well-being. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being (pp. 106–117). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714752

Ruginski, I. T., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Stefanucci, J. K., & Cashdan, E. (2019). GPS use negatively affects environmental learning through spatial transformation abilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.001

Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827

Wilson, S. A., Byrne, P., Rodgers, S. E., & Maden, M. (2022). A systematic review of smartphone and tablet use by older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Innovation in Aging, 6(2), igac002. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac002

External links

• Technology and sleep (Sleep Health Foundation)
• Youth survey report 2022 (Mission Australia)