Notes

These notes give the sources behind each chapter and say where the book leans on my own reasoning. Nothing in this book is medical advice. If phone use is tied to anxiety, compulsive checking or low mood, see a GP.

All papers were checked against the PubMed record, the publisher's record on Crossref, or the OpenAlex record on 26 September 2026, and none carried a retraction or correction notice. Most were read as abstracts only, and the notes say so where it matters. The partner at dinner, the daughter on the climbing frame and the friend in the cafe are invented examples.

Chapter 1. The three scenes are invented. The counting exercise is my suggestion and hasn't been tested.

Chapter 2. The six reasons are my summary of what people say. No source.

Chapter 3. Dwyer, Kushlev and Dunn, "Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 78, 2018, pages 233 to 239. Over three hundred community members and students in the first study, phones on the table or put away, with distraction as the mediator, and an experience sampling second study. Abstract only. This paper was also used in the earlier book The phone can wait. Kushlev and Dunn, "Smartphones distract parents from cultivating feelings of connection when spending time with their children", Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36, 2019, pages 1619 to 1639. A field experiment at a science museum with parents assigned to frequent or infrequent phone use, and a week-long diary study. Abstract only. The abstract's opening figure about American smartphone users is left out because its source isn't given there. Ward, Duke, Gneezy and Bos, "Brain drain: the mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity", Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2, 2017, pages 140 to 154. Two experiments. Abstract only, from OpenAlex. The claim that you keep the words and lose the person is my interpretation.

Chapter 4. Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, "The effects of 'phubbing' on social interaction", Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48, 2018, pages 304 to 316. Participants watched a three-minute animation of a two-person conversation in which the partner phubbed them extensively, partially or not at all. Abstract only, from Crossref. The abstract reports that increased phubbing reduced perceived communication quality and relationship satisfaction, mediated by belongingness and affect. It doesn't report the partial condition separately, and my claim that partial phubbing wasn't safe is an inference from "increased phubbing". The account of the drop, from the first flicker to the full return, is mine.

Chapter 5. Radesky, Kistin, Zuckerman, Nitzberg, Gross, Kaplan-Sanoff, Augustyn and Silverstein, "Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants", Pediatrics 133, 2014, pages e843 to e849. Fifty-five caregivers observed, forty of whom used a device, qualitative analysis. Abstract only. The abstract reports the range of child responses from entertaining themselves to escalating bids for attention, and that highly absorbed caregivers often responded harshly to misbehaviour. Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas as above. The claim about why nobody says anything is mine.

Chapter 6. Reed, Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff, "Learning on hold: cell phones sidetrack parent-child interactions", Developmental Psychology 53, 2017, pages 1428 to 1436. Thirty-eight mothers and their two-year-olds, within-subjects, one of two teaching periods interrupted by a phone call. Abstract only. The two classes of message and the ten-minute test are my reasoning, as in the earlier book The phone can wait, which makes a related argument.

Chapter 7. Przybylski and Weinstein, "Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality", Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30, 2013, pages 237 to 246. Two experiments. Abstract only. Misra, Cheng, Genevie and Yuan, "The iPhone effect", Environment and Behavior 48, 2016, pages 275 to 298. A hundred pairs, ten-minute conversations, casual or meaningful topic, observer noted phone on table or in hand. Abstract only. Crowley, Allred, Follon and Volkmer, "Replication of the mere presence hypothesis: the effects of cell phones on face-to-face conversations", Communication Studies 69, 2018, pages 283 to 293. Partial replication that found no effect of phone presence on relational quality or empathy. Abstract only, from OpenAlex. The earlier book The phone can wait left the mere presence studies out because of the mixed replications, and this book uses them only for the meaningful-topic point, with the failed replication stated. The claim that the ordinary story is the audition for the meaningful one is mine.

Chapter 8. Myruski, Gulyayeva, Birk, Pérez-Edgar, Buss and Dennis-Tiwary, "Digital disruption? Maternal mobile device use is related to infant social-emotional functioning", Developmental Science 21, 2018, e12610. Fifty infants aged 7 to 24 months, modified still-face paradigm with phone use in the still phase, plus parent-reported typical use. Abstract only. The description of the original still-face procedure is drawn from the abstract's description of the three phases. Tronick and colleagues' 1978 paper introducing the paradigm was found on PubMed but has no abstract there and wasn't read, so it isn't cited in the text. The extension to adults is my interpretation.

Chapter 9. McDaniel and Radesky, "Technoference: longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems", Pediatric Research 84, 2018, pages 210 to 218. A hundred and eighty-three couples with a child aged 0 to 5, surveyed at baseline, one, three and six months, cross-lagged models. Abstract only. McDaniel and Radesky, "Technoference: parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems", Child Development 89, 2018, pages 100 to 109. A hundred and seventy families, parent report, cross-sectional. Abstract only. Both abstracts say the direction of effects isn't settled. Radesky 2014 as above. The distinction between availability and the glance is mine.

Chapter 10. No research source. The argument about norms and reciprocity is mine. The earlier books referred to are The next move is yours and They can't read your mind.

Chapter 11. No research source. The argument about timing is mine. The later book referred to is on bringing work home in your head.

Chapter 12. No research source. The distinction between the shared screen and the glance is mine.

Chapter 13. Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas as above, for belongingness as the mediator. The claim that the message is about rank is my interpretation. The earlier book is They can't read your mind.

Chapter 14. Radesky 2014 as above. The reading of the range of child responses as stages rather than types is mine, and the abstract doesn't support it directly. The account of how partners adjust is my observation.

Chapter 15. Dwyer and colleagues, and Kushlev and Dunn 2019, as above. McDaniel, Uva, Pater, Cornet, Drouin and Radesky, "Daily smartphone use predicts parent depressive symptoms, but parents' perceptions of responsiveness to their child moderate this effect", Frontiers in Developmental Psychology 2, 2024. Two hundred and sixty-four parents of infants over eight days, phone use measured by passive sensing, multilevel models. Abstract only. The abstract reports a within-person daily association between phone use around the infant and depressed mood, absent on days of higher perceived responsiveness. The claim about the flatness at the end of the evening is mine.

Chapter 16. Ward and colleagues as above. The claim that the tug thins over a couple of weeks isn't from any study of this habit. The earlier book is The feeling will pass without help.

Chapter 17. Dwyer and colleagues, and Misra and colleagues, as above, for phones on the table. Ward and colleagues as above. The earlier book is The phone can wait. The later book referred to is on using a phone while driving.

Chapter 18. No research source. The earlier book is You've apologised enough. The guess of one or two genuine exceptions a week is mine.

Chapter 19. No research source. The earlier books are You were waiting to talk and Let them finish.

Chapter 20. When-then plans are drawn from Gollwitzer and Sheeran, "Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 2006, pages 69 to 119, as used in earlier books in this series. The rule hasn't been tested as a package and what I say to expect is my expectation and not a finding.

Chapter 21. Myruski and colleagues as above. The NHS advice on low mood lasting two weeks or more and on anxiety affecting daily life is as recorded for earlier books in this series. The earlier book on checking is You've checked already. The later book referred to is on answering work messages at all hours. No claim is made about the effectiveness of any service.

Chapter 22. No research source.

Looked up and not used. Roberts and David, "My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners", Computers in Human Behavior 54, 2016, pages 134 to 141. No abstract was available from Crossref, OpenAlex or Semantic Scholar, so it isn't cited. The same authors' papers on phone use by managers, 2017 and 2020, likewise. Stockdale, Coyne and Padilla-Walker, "Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes", Computers in Human Behavior 88, 2018, pages 219 to 226. No abstract available. Ophir, Nass and Wagner, "Cognitive control in media multitaskers", PNAS 106, 2009, is about heavy media multitaskers as a group and not about phone use in conversation, so it isn't cited. Błachnio and colleagues' twenty-country studies of the phubbing scale, 2021, concern the measure and its relationship to distress, and weren't needed.