Quantity and Quality of Screen Time: The relationship between Screen-Related Psychological Needs and Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

IF 3.7 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2026-09-09 DOI:10.1007/s10902-026-01106-3

Katie E. Gunnell, Andrea L. Howard, Joshua C. Remedios, Madeline E. Wadlow

{"title":"Quantity and Quality of Screen Time: The relationship between Screen-Related Psychological Needs and Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being","authors":"Katie E. Gunnell, Andrea L. Howard, Joshua C. Remedios, Madeline E. Wadlow","doi":"10.1007/s10902-026-01106-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rather than focusing on hours spent on screens (i.e., screen time), examining if key psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are met during screen time (i.e., screen-related needs) might differentiate the quality of screen time and its relationship with well-being. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement of screen-related psychological needs as quality indicators of screen time and their relationship with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being beyond the effect of screen time quantity (i.e., hours). Cross-sectional (Study 1; <italic>N</italic> = 348; Mage = 19.56 years, 74.1% female) and 1-week daily experience sampling (Study 2; <italic>N</italic> = 645; Mage = 20.34 years, 80.1% woman at Time 1) studies with self-report surveys were conducted with Canadian university students. Across studies, the modified measure to assess quality of screen time was best represented as 6 correlated factors. In both studies, at one time point, satisfaction variables were related to positive indicators of well-being whereas frustration variables were related to negative affect beyond screen time duration with practically meaningful effects (<italic>R</italic>2 = .23-.67 and Δ<italic>R</italic>2 = .14-.67). In Study 2, at the daily level, higher screen-related need satisfaction was associated with better well-being (within- and between-persons; fixed effects <italic>R</italic>2 = .15-.24). Overall, researchers interested in links between screen time and well-being should include assessments of the quality of screen time rather than just how long people spend on the screens.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-026-01106-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rather than focusing on hours spent on screens (i.e., screen time), examining if key psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are met during screen time (i.e., screen-related needs) might differentiate the quality of screen time and its relationship with well-being. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement of screen-related psychological needs as quality indicators of screen time and their relationship with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being beyond the effect of screen time quantity (i.e., hours). Cross-sectional (Study 1; N = 348; M_age = 19.56 years, 74.1% female) and 1-week daily experience sampling (Study 2; N = 645; M_age = 20.34 years, 80.1% woman at Time 1) studies with self-report surveys were conducted with Canadian university students. Across studies, the modified measure to assess quality of screen time was best represented as 6 correlated factors. In both studies, at one time point, satisfaction variables were related to positive indicators of well-being whereas frustration variables were related to negative affect beyond screen time duration with practically meaningful effects (R² = .23-.67 and ΔR² = .14-.67). In Study 2, at the daily level, higher screen-related need satisfaction was associated with better well-being (within- and between-persons; fixed effects R² = .15-.24). Overall, researchers interested in links between screen time and well-being should include assessments of the quality of screen time rather than just how long people spend on the screens.

查看原文本刊更多论文

屏幕时间的数量和质量：屏幕相关心理需求与快乐和幸福的关系

与其关注花在屏幕上的时间（即屏幕时间），不如检查在屏幕时间内是否满足了能力、自主性和相关性的关键心理需求（即屏幕相关需求），这可能会区分屏幕时间的质量及其与幸福感的关系。本研究的目的是检验屏幕相关心理需求的测量作为屏幕时间的质量指标，以及它们与屏幕时间数量（即小时数）影响之外的享乐和幸福的关系。横剖面（研究1，N = 348；年龄为19.56岁，74.1%为女性）和为期1周的每日经验抽样（研究2，N = 645；年龄为20.34岁，时间1为80.1%为女性）研究采用自我报告调查对加拿大大学生进行。在所有研究中，评估屏幕时间质量的改进措施最好地表示为6个相关因素。在两个研究中，在一个时间点，满意度变量与幸福感的积极指标相关，而挫折变量与屏幕时间持续时间以外的负面影响相关，具有实际意义的影响（R2 = 0.23 - 0.67， ΔR2 = 0.14 - 0.67）。在研究2中，在日常水平上，更高的屏幕相关需求满意度与更好的幸福感相关（在内部和人与人之间；固定效应R2 = 0.15 - 0.24）。总的来说，对屏幕时间和幸福感之间的联系感兴趣的研究人员应该包括对屏幕时间质量的评估，而不仅仅是人们花在屏幕上的时间。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?