PONE-D-23-01416Does Putting Down Your Smartphone Make You Happier? The Effects of Restricting Digital Media on Well-BeingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walsh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alastair Van Heerden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Congratulations! The study is relevant, methodologically quite sound, and provides novel and interesting findings presented in a clear and straightforward way and interpreted correctly. I particularly enjoyed reading the literature review - it is very informative and well-written. The discussion is relevant and to the point.

Overall, the paper is so good that I do not have any suggestions for improvement: if it's not broken, don't fix it. Thank you for conducting this study and I'm looking forward to seeing it published.

Reviewer #2: Overall Structure: The manuscript is well-structured, starting with an introduction to the ubiquity of smartphones and digital media, followed by a review of existing literature on the impact of digital media and social media on well-being. The paper then presents the need for further research and the objective of the study.

Clarity: The manuscript is generally clear, but there is room for improvement in certain areas. The introduction section could benefit from a sharper focus on the relationship between smartphone use and well-being. Additionally, it may be helpful to provide more context on the specific research questions and hypotheses in the introductory section.

Methodology: The methodology is well-described, with information on participant selection, study design, and measures used. The study employs a between-subjects design with four conditions: Digital Diet, Social Diet, Water Diet (active control), and No Diet (measurement-only control). The study focuses on Gen Z individuals and uses a range of well-established measures to assess well-being and related constructs.

Results

1. The authors should provide more information on the randomization process, including how participants were allocated to different groups and any stratification factors used to ensure balance across groups.

2. The sample size should be justified based on a power analysis or other relevant calculations, to ensure that the study has sufficient power to detect meaningful differences between groups.

3. The authors should consider conducting a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of their findings to potential biases, such as attrition or nonresponse.

Other suggestions for improvement

1. The authors should address the potential for selection bias in their sample, given that the participants were recruited from a specific population (Gen Z individuals, mainly ages 18-25). They should discuss how this might limit the generalizability of their findings and consider conducting sensitivity analyses or subgroup analyses to account for potential biases.

2. The authors could consider including a mediation or moderation analysis to investigate the potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects. This would help to provide deeper insights into how and why restricting digital media and social media use might influence psychological outcomes.

3. In the discussion, the authors should consider the potential implications of their findings for policymakers, educators, and mental health professionals. For example, they could discuss how their results might inform strategies for promoting healthy digital media and social media use among young people and address the potential for digital interventions to improve psychological well-being.

4. In the sentence "For ease of interpretation, difference scores are presented in raw (not log-transformed) form.", the term "raw" should be replaced with "untransformed" for clarity and precision.

5. In the sentence "However, as recent revelations from The Wall Street Journal’s (2021) “Facebook Files” demonstrate, social media platforms are not always optimized for user well-being [61].", consider adding an explanation or brief summary of the "Facebook Files" for readers who may be unfamiliar with the issue.

6. In the sentence "Of course, even if those small effect sizes are made detectable, the debate about whether such effects matter will likely continue.", consider rephrasing to "Of course, even if those small effect sizes are detected, the debate about whether such effects are practically significant will likely continue."

7. In the sentence "Smartphone apps may merely represent tools that can be tailored for better or worse.", consider rephrasing as "Smartphone apps may simply represent tools that can be tailored for better or worse outcomes."

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-01416R1Does Putting Down Your Smartphone Make You Happier? The Effects of Restricting Digital Media on Well-BeingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Walsh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: This document addresses a relevant topic about the study of happiness and the value that the use of digital media, social media, has on it. To do this, a comparison is made with the restrictive use of these two concepts and the use applied in some water applications in contrast to not having any restrictions. This in order to observe the differences and appreciate what effects they have on the perception of a state of well-being.

The authors make a methodological development very appropriate to the type of study they propose and apply strategies that are made up of statistical methods appropriate for the type of study.

They present results in accordance with the initial approaches and an exploratory approach is manifested for the type of study that aims to find the effects of the study in its analysis and in the relationships found between the constructs that make up each of the variables.

In its results, once the statistical studies are presented, a methodological and statistical rigor is evident that is very appropriate for the type of scientific product that is proposed for this journal. I consider that the paper meets an adequate quality to be considered for publication.

I recommend the following adjustments in its approach and development:

1. Establish a table of authors at the end of each of the sections where the study variables are defined. In this case, at the end of digital media, social media, water restrictions, and where appropriate, support for the scenario where there is no type of restriction.

In this table, I recommend including the most relevant previous documents that support the theoretical model on which the proposed model is based.

2. Add a graphic diagram to illustrate the development of the methodological diagram developed during this document. To do this, add in each phase an explanation about the inputs from the previous phase and what elements or values are delivered in the next step, as a process diagram.

3. In your conclusions, delve into the effects that develop from the findings in your study, what elements are added to the literature, and what gaps are closed with the results of this research, likewise, in case they are projected new forms of questions, new methods or elements that propose improvements in the work proposals, include them in your explanation of future work and confirmation of obtained results.

4. Expand the explanation of the lines of research that open from this research, as well as the elements that are required for these results to be extrapolated or generalized in public policies or in new conditions that promote well-being

I consider that these are minor changes, in the theoretical, methodological, and technical aspects, it seems to me that the rigor is of a very well-founded level.

Analyzing the impacts of restrictions on digital media, social media, water usage, and a scenario with no restrictions can indeed contribute to our overall happiness. Restrictions on digital media and social media can curb information overload, enhancing mental well-being. Water usage restrictions foster sustainability which supports a healthier environment and future generations' happiness. However, a complete absence of restrictions may lead to detrimental consequences in both digital and environmental domains, affecting our overall contentment. Hence, a balanced approach that combines responsible usage with thoughtful regulation can promote happiness by safeguarding our well-being and the planet's health

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Eduardo Ahumada-Tello

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Does Putting Down Your Smartphone Make You Happier? The Effects of Restricting Digital Media on Well-Being

PONE-D-23-01416R2

Dear Dr. Walsh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The recommended changes to the document have been accepted and implemented. Tables of authors with relevant documents have been added as the other comments and recommendations made to authors:

Comments recommended in previous version:

1. Establish a table of authors at the end of each of the sections where the study variables are defined. In this case, at the end of digital media, social media, water restrictions, and where appropriate, support for the scenario where there is no type of restriction.

In this table, I recommend including the most relevant previous documents that support the theoretical model on which the proposed model is based.

2. Add a graphic diagram to illustrate the development of the methodological diagram developed during this document. To do this, add in each phase an explanation about the inputs from the previous phase and what elements or values are delivered in the next step, as a process diagram.

3. In your conclusions, delve into the effects that develop from the findings in your study, what elements are added to the literature, and what gaps are closed with the results of this research, likewise, in case they are projected new forms of questions, new methods or elements that propose improvements in the work proposals, include them in your explanation of future work and confirmation of obtained results.

4. Expand the explanation of the lines of research that open from this research, as well as the elements that are required for these results to be extrapolated or generalized in public policies or in new conditions that promote well-being

These modifications enhance the theoretical, methodological, and technical rigor, ensuring the paper meets publication standards.

I recommend that the authors confirmed the format and extension of the paper according to the journal regulations.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Eduardo Ahumada-Tello

**********