This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

advertisement

advertisement

advertisement

But my collaborator, Samantha Heintzelman, and I recently found that combining digital and face-to-face socializing is not as enjoyable as putting down the phone and just spending time together. In a study at the University of Virginia, we tracked the social behavior and well-being of 174 millennials over the course of a week. At five random times each day, we sent each person a one-minute survey to complete on their mobile phone. We asked what they had been doing in the previous 15 minutes, including whether they were socializing in person or digitally (such as by texting or using social media). We also asked how close or distant they were feeling to other people, and how good or bad they were feeling overall. We weren’t particularly surprised to find that people felt better and more connected during times when they only socialized face-to-face, as compared with when they weren’t socializing at all. This fit with decades of existing research. We didn’t find any benefits of digital socializing over not socializing at all, though our study wasn’t designed to explore that distinction. We did find, however, that when socializing face-to-face only, people felt happier and more connected to others than when they were socializing only through their phones. This is notable because the people in our study were the generation of so-called “digital natives,” who had been using smartphones, tablets, and computers to interact since very young ages. Even for them, the benefits gleaned from good old face-to-face talking exceeded the well-being of digitally mediated communication. Most critically, people felt worse and less connected when they mixed face-to-face with digital socializing, compared to when they solely socialized in person. Our results suggest that digital socializing doesn’t add to, but in fact subtracts from, the psychological benefits of nondigital socializing. Giving people a fighting chance As people’s useful digital devices start to provide more and better options for limiting screen time and staving the flow of digital interruptions, deciding when to use those powers is neither obvious nor intuitive. Behavioral science provides some promising solutions to this predicament.

advertisement

Rather than having to decide activity by activity when not to be interrupted, people could make Do Not Disturb the default, only seeing notifications when they want to. My recent research–with Nicholas Fitz and Dan Ariely at Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight–suggests, however, that never receiving notifications hurts well-being by increasing fear of missing out. The best way is the middle way: We found that setting the phone to deliver batches of notifications three times a day optimized well-being. To set their users up for optimal psychological benefits from both their digital and nondigital activities, Google and Apple could make batching notifications easier. Google and Apple should also expand their proactive recommendations for managing interruptions. The iPhone, for example, already offers the option to automatically turn on Do Not Disturb while driving, and in the forthcoming features, while sleeping. The growing evidence on how smartphones are compromising well-being during social interactions suggests that social and family time also warrants protection from digital disturbance. People spend more time in the company of their digital gadgets than with friends and even romantic partners. It is only fair that these devices should learn more about what makes people happy, and provide a chance to reclaim the happiness lost to digital activity–and from the companies that need people’s attention to thrive. Kostadin Kushlev is an assistant professor of psychology at Georgetown University.