Consciously Connected: The Role of Mindfulness for Mobile Phone Connectedness and Stress

ABSTRACT Many mobile phone usage behaviors and cognitions have become habitual, and many people have developed a strong connectedness to their mobile phones and the internet. Yet, habitualized mobile phone connectedness might evoke stress and counter long-term goals. Mindfulness has shown promise in counteracting destructive (mobile phone) habits. Over the course of three preregistered studies, we investigated the interrelations between mindfulness, four dimensions of mobile phone connectedness, and stress. Our results indicate that more mindful individuals check their mobile phones less automatically, perform less multitasking, have a lower mobile phone attachment, and experience less online vigilance. Self-control is an important mediator in these relationships. Further, mindful individuals experience less stress; however, mobile phone behaviors and cognitions do not mediate this relationship. Moreover, mindfulness-based stress reduction training or mediation apps seem to be powerful tools for cultivating mindfulness, as they promoted an increase in mindfulness and a decrease in the investigated dimensions of mobile phone connectedness and stress. Results are discussed regarding implications for research and practice.

external cues, such as notifications, or internal (mental) cues, such as wondering how many people have liked one's latest social media post, or states of boredom, loneliness, or strain (Bayer et al., 2016).In addition to usage behaviors, the permanent mental connection to online content and digital communication can become habitualized and manifest as internalized connectedness (i.e., online vigilance) (Reinecke et al., 2018).
Usually, habitual behaviors are -at least initially -performed to serve certain goals (Verplanken & Aarts, 1999).Following the above described mental cue of thinking of one's latest post on Instagram, taking the phone, opening Instagram, and surveying others' reactions might serve the goal of feeling connected to friends or receiving self-confirmation or social support (e.g., Vincent, 2011).In fact, feelings of connectedness to others are often received via the mobile phone and this is why so many people find them so pleasant, inviting and need-fulfilling, and integrate them deeply into their everyday lives.However, an automatic, habitualized connection to the mobile phone sometimes interferes with other activities such as being in face-to-face contact with another person, with (long-term) goals such as academic achievement, or with sleep (Hofmann & Reinecke, 2017). 1 Next to, or due to, interfering with other activities and long-term goals, prior research has shown that a habitualized behavioral and mental connectedness to the mobile phone might evoke stress (Freytag et al., 2021;Reinecke et al., 2017).Therefore, it seems useful to critically examine and update the reward value or the costbenefit ratio of automatically checking the phone or mentally clinging to the Internet from time to time.This is where mindfulness comes in, as it has shown promise in supporting individuals to (re)gain more control and selfdetermination over phone connectedness on an emotional, cognitive and behavioral level (Russo et al., 2019).Mindfulness should not only promote agentic, self-determined mobile phone use because it facilitates deliberate selfcontrol (Elkins-Brown et al., 2017), but it should also help when deliberate self-control fails, as is often the case with mobile phone use (Halfmann, 2021), through more automatic, "hypo-egoic" self-control (Leary et al., 2006).In this way, mindfulness might help to develop a self-determined approach to the mobile phone and all that it symbolizes, which is so firmly embedded in our everyday lives and mental systems.
In the following, we will first define four central manifestations and consequences of a habitualized mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone -automatic mobile phone checking, mobile phone multitasking, mobile phone attachment, and online vigilance.We will then elaborate on how mindfulness is theoretically connected to mobile phone connectedness, and how cultivating mindfulness should help to de-automatize mobile phone connectedness.Subsequently, we will introduce the potentially mediating role of self-control and explain the assumed link between mobile phone connectedness and stress as well as mindfulness and stress.We will then present three studies (two of them preregistered and one replication) that test our hypotheses with different aims: The first study investigates the structure and interrelations between mindfulness and the four considered manifestations of mental and behavioral connectedness.It also examines the role of selfcontrol as a mediator between mindfulness and mobile phone connectedness (Vago & Silbersweig, 2012) as well as diminished stress as a result of reduced mobile phone connectedness (Freytag et al., 2021) in a larger and populationrepresentative sample.A second study tests the effect of a classical eight-week mindfulness training -mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)- (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) on mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone, self-control, and stress by a quasi-experimental intervention study.Finally, the third study aims to replicate these effects for a three-week use of a mindfulness app (7Mind).This way, the present manuscript contributes to theory building in a twofold way: First, it provides a theoretical explanation of mobile phone connectedness as an outcome of habituation and thus as instrumentally learned.Second, it further integrates the concept of mindfulness into the field of media and communication, thus enriching the discipline with this fruitful concept.This is particularly valuable as mindfulness does not rely on willpower, which often fails in behavior change (Brewer, 2019), and because research has shown that the related concept of self-control, often used in the context of problematic or addictive mobile phone behavior (Li et al., 2021), should be complemented (Bernecker et al., 2018).Moreover, there is a great deal of knowledge about effective mindfulness training tools.Thus, on a more practical level, the findings of the studies presented here may be helpful to media literacy practitioners and individuals in developing strategies to (re) gain control of their own or others' mobile phone connectedness.

Mental and Behavioral Connectedness to the Mobile Phone
We define mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone as a) a strong connection and attachment to the mobile phone device itself and b) a high inner connectedness to the social network provided and symbolized by the mobile phone on an emotional, cognitive, and behavioral level.This connectedness often manifests itself in an instrumentally learned, habituated attention to and usage of the mobile phone that is automatic, cue-based, and minimally conscious (Bayer et al., 2016;Orbell & Verplanken, 2010;Reinecke et al., 2018;Schnauber-Stockmann & Naab, 2019).Based on the habituated attention, certain connection behaviors and connection attitudes emerge, which we refer to as manifestations of mobile phone connectedness.In the here presented studies, we focus on the following four manifestations: mobile phone multitasking, automatic mobile phone checking, online vigilance, and mobile phone attachment.Mobile phone multitasking means that at least two tasks are performed at one time (respectively, in a very fast task-switching mode), whereby one of these tasks is mobile-phone-related (David, 2018).It manifests itself in using the phone while driving or walking, interacting with others, eating, or simultaneously using other media.Multitasking often happens automatically, without conscious thinking, which reflects its habitual nature (Mark et al., 2014).Automatic mobile phone checking can be defined as a cuebased, and minimally conscious behavior of reaching for the phone when an external or internal cue arises, for instance a signal tone, or when work is getting hard or boring.Online vigilance can be defined as the habituated cognitive orientation that underlies a constant mobile phone connectedness (Klimmt et al., 2018;Reinecke et al., 2018).It consists of three subdimensions: (a) salience, meaning constant thinking about online communication and online content, (b) reactibility, which describes the readiness to instantly react to connection cues, and (c) monitoring, which is defined as the motivational tendency to constantly observe online content and activities.Lastly, mobile phone attachment describes an enduring habitualized strong connection to the mobile phone characterized by seeking its proximity as well as by anxiety to be separated from it (Konok et al., 2016).

Mindfulness and Mobile Phone Connectedness
The concept of mindfulness originated in Buddhism and was transferred to Western psychology in the 1970s, primarily initiated by neuroscientist Jon Kabat-Zinn.Mindfulness can be defined as consisting of two elements: a certain quality of consciousness that can be described as attention to internal and external experiences in the present moment (Brown et al., 2007), and a specific quality of this attention defined as curious, non-referential, nonidentified, accepting, and nonjudgmental (Baer, 2018;Brown et al., 2007;Kabat-Zinn, 1990;Kudesia & Nyima, 2015) Individuals differ in their degree of mindfulness, a) due to their disposition for it and b) due to their cultivation of it by means of contemplative practices (Burzler & Tran, 2022).Although there is disagreement as to whether all facets of mindfulness can be trained equally through contemplative practice (Rau & Williams, 2016), taken together, dispositional and cultivated mindfulness sum up to trait mindfulness -a capacity that can also be referred to as mindfulness skills (Burzler & Tran, 2022).These skills can be assessed using validated measures such as the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ, Baer et al., 2006) and account for variability in (mental) behavior, and thus also in levels of mobile phone connectedness.In addition, mindfulness can be distinguished as either state or trait mindfulness, with state mindfulnessfollowing Burzler and Tran (2022)-representing a volatile process building both on the disposition of mindfulness and on the cultivation of it.
Numerous studies have demonstrated positive associations of mindfulness with (mental) health and well-being (Tomlinson et al., 2018), which can be explained by different processes facilitated by mindfulness such as deautomatization, (self-)compassion, flexibility of attention, or a better selfregulation in general (Brown et al., 2007;Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020;Vago & Silbersweig, 2012).As mobile phone connectedness is strongly habitual, it is particularly important for our reasoning how mindfulness is connected to habits of behavior and thoughts.Thus, the ability of mindfulness to de-automatize thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Kang et al., 2013) seems especially relevant in this context.The growing number of studies and theoretical discussions regarding the effect of mindfulness on habits (Brewer, 2017;Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020) seem to be well transferable to mobile phone connectedness.Therefore, we assume that there are three main reasons mindfulness should be associated with a less habitualized mobile phone connectedness: First, mindful individuals should react less automatically to mobile phone cues.Second, mindful individuals should experience fewer mobile phone cues.And third, mindful individuals, should develop fewer associations between potential cues and mobile phone use in the first place.For all three, key explanatory characteristics of mindfulness are the capacity of self-regulating attention, cognition, emotion, and behavior (Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020).

Reacting Less Automatically to Mobile Phone Cues
As described above, mobile phone use often happens automatically following a cue.Bayer et al. (2016) differentiate between technical cues such as signal tones; spatial cues that refer to situations, places, or people; and mental cues that emerge from emotions and thoughts.Imagine a person who takes her cell phone every morning right after waking up to check if she has new messages and to get an overview of the news, weather, etc.Over time, this behavior becomes a habit.There may be mornings when the behavior described is appropriate and needs-fulfilling.However, there may be other mornings when other needs or goals dominate or at least suggest an evaluation of which need or goal should be given the most attention at that moment.
At this point, mindfulness comes into play: it focuses attention on the present moment with openness and curiosity and opens up a window of awareness that can be used for conscious decision-making instead of just following a habit (Brewer, 2017;Kang et al., 2013;Vago, 2014).Thus, upon waking up, a person in a mindful state might find that she still needs some rest from the world and the news, that she needs all her capacities to prepare herself for a demanding day at work, or conversely that she needs to know how the weather will develop during the day as she plans a day outdoors.Being mindful would mean that this person can recognize present needs and emotional states, but also long-term goals and intentions, allowing her to respond to them appropriately.Thus, mindfulness seems to have the potential to make individuals more flexible regarding their reactions to internal and external events, by opening up a window of opportunity that allows for a conscious, autonomous, and agentic (non)-use of mobile media (Karsay & Vandenbosch, 2021) and a good "balance between connectivity and disconnectivity" (Vanden Abeele, 2020, p. 1).An agentic, self-determined connectedness would also involve consciously questioning, at least once in a while, mental and behavioral phonerelated habits to see if they are functional (perhaps such as automatically picking up the phone when it rings to see who is calling) or dysfunctional (such as automatically picking up the phone and checking social media when work becomes boring or exhausting).This way, mindful awareness will help to update the reward values associated with mobile phone behavior, which is important to potentially unwind destructive instrumentally learned habit loops (Brewer, 2019).On the other hand, mindfulness can reinforce habit loops if the reward of the (dis)connection behavior and thus the habit is perceived as useful (e.g., using the phone before an exam to get social support or in order to cope with stress while parenting, cf.Wolfers, 2021).

Experiencing Fewer Mobile Phone Cues
Mobile phone cognitions or behaviors are often triggered by self-related ruminations -be it thinking of friends who have not answered a message yet or of one's last post on Instagram.Supporting this, Hollis and Was (2016) have found that while watching online video lectures, almost 30% of the participating students' task-unrelated thoughts were about social media.Being mindful and therefore in the present moment, rather as letting the mind wander, seems to be a powerful strategy against constantly encountering internal mobile phone-related cues (Mrazek et al., 2012;Rahl et al., 2017) and translating them into phone checking, phone multitasking, or online vigilance and thus fuel mobile phone attachment.Bruineberg and Fabry (2022) even refer to habitual smartphone use as "extended mindwandering".Leary and colleagues (Leary et al., 2006) describe the typical, non-mindful state as the "egoic mind-set" in which people tend to mentally circle around themselves and "chronically judge events that occur with respect to their personal concerns" (p.54).Mindfulness can facilitate a different state that they refer to as "hypoegoic state", which resembles the state of being "decentered" (Bernstein et al., 2015) and describes a more distant perspective regarding oneself.In this state, self-critical and self-referential ruminations as well as judgments are reduced, which should consequently diminish the experience of internal, self-related cues that, again, lead to using the phone.

Developing Fewer Mobile Phone Habits
Next to experiencing fewer cues, it seems plausible that mindfulness prevents from developing new associations between mental states and using (or thinking about) the mobile phone.Typical internal cues include unpleasant negative states such as feeling lonely (Stevic & Matthes, 2021), depleted (Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016), or bored (Matic et al., 2015).Mindfulness fosters a more selfdistant, decentered meta-perspective (Bernstein et al., 2015) and "open monitoring" (Vago, 2014) of internal and external phenomena as they are and therefore leads to a greater tolerance for unpleasant states and a greater willingness to be exposed to them.So when a person in a mindful state experiences loneliness or tension, they are better able to accept the experience as it is, rather than trying to change it by, for example, using the phone.This way, associations between an emotional state (cue) and using the phone (response) should be less likely to develop in the first place, which is why we expect mindful individuals to develop and to have developed fewer phone habits than less mindful individuals.

Mindfulness and Mobile Phone Connectedness: State of Research
Empirical results support the presumed connections between mindfulness and a de-automatized mobile phone connectedness.A study by Elhai et al. (2018) demonstrates a negative correlation between mindfulness and problematic smartphone use.Likewise, Apaolaza et al. (2013) found that mindfulness was associated with a lowered compulsive mobile SNS usage, mediated by self-esteem and social anxiety.Other findings similarly support the negative association between mindfulness and problematic mobile phone (Volkmer & Lermer, 2019), problematic internet use (Gámez-Guadix & Calvete, 2016;Owen et al., 2018), and problematic social media use (Kircaburun et al., 2019).Hallauer et al.'s results (Hallauer et al., 2022) show that diminished mindfulness mediates the correlation between depression and anxiety and problematic smartphone use.Long-term data by Calvete et al. (2020) brings clarity regarding the causal pathways and the influence of different dimensions of mindfulness, however, in the context of general Internet use and not mobile phone use.Their findings reveal that some components of mindfulness -namely acting with awareness, nonreacting, and nonjudging -are directly protecting from deficient self-regulation of Internet use.Findings of a long-term study of Du et al. (2021) demonstrate that mindfulness and social media self-control failure are mutually dependent: while social media self-control failure at t1 significantly decreased mindfulness at t2, mindfulness at t2 significantly decreased social media selfcontrol failure at t3. Owen et al. (2018) particularly focused on the connection of mindfulness to online vigilance and found a negative association.Bayer et al. (2016) results similarly demonstrate a negative association between mindfulness and texting automaticity.
Considering cultivated mindfulness, Throuvala et al. ( 2020) conducted a randomized experiment in which half of the students used a meditation and mood-tracking app for ten days.Results show that in the experimental group, online vigilance, multitasking, problematic social media use, and behavioral automaticity regarding social media use were significantly reduced.Particularly regarding mobile phone multitasking, there is further evidence that mindfulness is negatively related to texting while walking and while driving (Feldman et al., 2011;Panek et al., 2015).Moreover, meditation training was shown to have lowering effects on task switching (Levy et al., 2011).
In light of the above-described theoretical explanations of how mindfulness can be associated with mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone and the presented state of research, we postulate: H1: Mindfulness is negatively associated with mobile phone connectedness, manifesting in mobile phone multitasking (H1a), automatic mobile phone checking (H1b), mobile phone attachment (H1c), and online vigilance (H1d).

Self-Control as a Mediator
Self-control can be defined as the capacity to consciously regulate one's thoughts, emotions, or behavioral tendencies in line with one's goals, rules, and values (Baumeister et al., 2013).There is evidence that self-control facilitates a less automatized use and thinking of the mobile phone (Han et al., 2017;Panek et al., 2015) and that it is reinforced by mindfulness (e.g., Bowlin & Baer, 2012).Even more than that and already written above, Schuman-Olivier et al. ( 2020) describe "the ability to adaptively regulate one's attention, emotions, cognition, and behavior to respond effectively to internal as well as environmental demands" (p.372) as the key beneficial characteristic of mindfulness.So, the question arises whether and how do self-control and mindfulness differ at all?We propose that the mechanism between mindfulness and mobile phone connectedness we have elaborated on above could help to disentangle both: While self-control comes into play when mobile phone cues appear and goal conflicts arise between using the phone and pursuing long-term goals, mindful awareness makes options for action visible and, thus, opens up a window for enacting self-control (Du et al., 2021;Elkins-Brown et al., 2017).In addition, mindfulness should prevent from experiencing (at least some) mobile phone triggers in the first place by reducing rumination and by accepting negative states in a more decentered way (Brown et al., 2007).For these cases, it can be the mindful awareness and acceptance itself that achieves the diminishing effect on mobile phone connectedness, and no selfcontrol might be needed.In summary, we propose that the effect of mindfulness on mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone is not fully, but partly, mediated by self-control and thus postulate: H2: The negative association of mindfulness and mobile phone connectedness, i.e. mobile phone multitasking (2a), automatic mobile phone checking (2b), mobile phone attachment (2c), and online vigilance (2d), is partially mediated by self-control.

Mindfulness, Mobile Phone Connectedness, and Stress
There are theoretical arguments as well as empirical evidence that all four described forms of mobile phone connectedness are associated with the experience of stress (for an overview, see Vahedi & Saiphoo, 2018).According to the transactional model of stress, stress develops as "an unfavorable person-environment relationship" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19), in which situational demands exceed available coping resources.Transferred to mobile phone connectedness, demands that stem from using or thinking of the mobile phone and its content, and that exceed users' coping capacity, can elicit stress (Hefner & Vorderer, 2017).
Mobile phone multitasking consumes a high amount of attention capacity (David, 2018).As central executive resources are limited (Lang, 2000), mobile phone multitasking can easily exceed users' capacities and, thus, function as a potential stressor.In fact, there is evidence that media multitasking and perceived stress are associated (e.g., Freytag et al., 2021;Liu et al., 2015;Reinecke et al., 2017).Automatic phone checking can lead directly (by spending resources on the automatic act of taking the phone) or indirectly (by leading to phone use activities that demand resources) to stress.Mobile phone attachment can mean a "good" attachment in the sense that the mobile phone can provide security during times of threat and allows for exploration from this safe base (Parent & Shapka, 2020).The other side of the coin is that a high attachment to the phone can evoke separation anxiety from it, called nomophobia (King et al., 2013), and thus stress (Konok et al., 2016).Lastly, online vigilance also has the potential to evoke stress.On the one hand, being online vigilant can evoke stress indirectly by increasing stress-inducing usage patterns and communication overload (Freytag et al., 2021;LaRose et al., 2014;Reinecke et al., 2017).And on the other hand, online vigilance can be intrinsically stressful because maintaining a high level of mental attachment to the phone and permanent accessibility via the mobile phone goes along with an expenditure of cognitive capacities.For example, Thomée et al. (2011) found in their longitudinal study on mobile phone use, stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression that among young adults, permanent accessibility via the mobile phone had the strongest effect on stress.We therefore propose: H3: Mobile phone connectedness, i.e. mobile phone multitasking (3a), automatic mobile phone checking (3b), mobile phone attachment (3c), and online vigilance (3d), are positively associated with stress.
In contrast, mindfulness has been associated with stress reduction.All attributes of mindfulness described above have the potential to conserve cognitive and emotional resources: being in the present moment with acceptance prevents ruminating and getting emotionally "stuck" in a selfcentered way, which costs cognitive and emotional resources (Brown et al., 2007).Empirical findings support this claim by demonstrating negative associations of mindfulness skills and stress (Bao et al., 2015;Khoury et al., 2015).Therefore, and in addition to the mediated effect of mindfulness on stress as proposed by the prior hypotheses, we also propose a direct pathway between mindfulness and stress in our theoretical and empirical model: H4: Mindfulness is negatively associated with stress.

Study 1
Our first study tests our hypotheses within a broader, conceptual structure model.

Sample and procedure
A stratified sample of German mobile phone users was recruited via a commercial online access panel operated by the market research company Bilendi.A total of 1,053 panelists completed the survey.During data cleaning, 168 respondents were removed due to failed attention checks, straightlining (lack of response variance in matrix questions), or implausible completion speed (cf., Leiner, 2019), resulting in a final sample of 885 smartphone users (50.9% female) between the ages of 18 and 95 (M age = 43.2years, SD age = 14.6 years).The sample was stratified regarding age, gender, and education of German smartphone users, where 39.7% indicated a low, 25% a medium, and 35.3% high educational attainment (high school diploma or higher).The study was pre-registered through the Open Science Framework (OSF, https://osf.io/2gt83). 2

Measures
Mindfulness was measured with 15 items based on the short version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-D) (Baer et al., 2006;Michalak et al., 2016).Participants responded to the items (e.g., "I can put my feelings into words very well,"; see supplementary materials on the OSF 3 for all items of this and other scales) on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 "never or very rarely" to 5 "very often or always" (α = .77after exclusion of the observing dimension due to low internal consistency, M = 3.37, SD = 0.57).Self-control was assessed via eight items based on the measure developed by Tangney et al. ( 2004) (e.g., "I am good at resisting temptation").Participants responded to the items on a scale from 1 "does not apply at all" to 5 "fully applies" (α = 77, M = 3.03, SD = 0.73).To measure mobile phone multitasking, respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-scale from 1 "never" to 5 "very often" how often they had used their mobile phone in the last two weeks while for instance being in traffic or having a conversation at the same time (five items following Reinecke et al., 2017, α = .79,M = 2.3, SD = 0.8).Automatic mobile phone checking was measured with four items on a 5-point Likert-scale anchored at 1 "does not apply at all" and 5 "fully applies" (e.g., "I often reach for my smartphone quite automatically") (Gardner, 2015;Verplanken & Orbell, 2003, α = .89,M = 2.66, SD = 1.12).To assess the respondents' mobile phone attachment, we used five items based on Konok et al. (2016) (e.g., "At day I always put my smartphone within my reach.")with a 5-point Likertscale anchored at 1 "does not apply at all" and 5 "fully applies" (α = .82,M = 3, SD = 1.1).Online vigilance was measured using the Online Vigilance Scale (OVS) by Reinecke et al. (2018), consisting of 12 items across three dimensions (salience, monitoring, reactibility).Participants responded to the items (e.g., "My thoughts often drift to online content") on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging anchored at 1 "does not apply at all" and 7 "fully applies" (α = .93,M = 3.1, SD = 1.24).Stress was assessed via the Perceived Stress Scale by Cohen et al. (1983).Participants responded to the eleven items on a scale from 1 "never" to 5 "very often" (e.g., "In the last month, how often have you felt you were unable to control the important things in your life?", α = .87,M = 2.71, SD = 0.72).

Results
The analyses for this study were conducted in R (version 4.1.1;R Core Team, 2021) using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).As a simultaneous test of all hypotheses, we calculated a structural equation model (SEM) using the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator.All constructs were considered as reflectively measured variables.Zero-order correlations of all variables were significant, ranged between r = .146and .679,and are displayed in Table 1.An overview of the final measurement models' fit indices can be found in Table SA8 in the supplementary materials on the OSF (https://osf.io/9htwm/).Mardia's test, Henze-Zirkler's test, and the E-statistic indicated that our data were not multivariate normal (all p < .001).To deal with the non-normal distribution, we employed 10,000 bootstrap samples with replacement.
The initial fit of the total SEM with no error covariances was χ2(1624) = 4379.341,p < .001,χ2/df = 2.697, CFI = 0.887, RMSEA = 0.044, 90% CI [0.042, 0.045], SRMR = 0.057.Modification indices suggested allowing for error covariances between two items measuring mobile phone attachment (both about leaving the mobile phone at home) and four reversed formulated stress items.Further, based on CFAs, we excluded the not reversed coded items of the selfcontrol scale as well as the observing dimension of mindfulness (three items), to improve our measurement models.This is in line with the findings of Baer (2018), indicating that the mindfulness dimension observing is only relevant for experienced meditators meaning that a four-factor structure without observing is more adequate for a community sample.The modified SEM showed good fit to the data: χ2(261) = 3032.702,p < .001,χ2/df = 1.891,CFI = 0.928, RMSEA = 0.038, 90% CI [0.036, 0.039], SRMR = 0.049.The final model is displayed in Figure 1, an overview of the path coefficients can be found in Table SA9 in the supplementary materials (https://osf.io/9htwm/).
We assumed that mindfulness would be negatively associated with mobile phone multitasking (H1a), automatic mobile phone checking (H1b), mobile phone attachment (H1c), and online vigilance (H1d).Results confirmed that the respondents' level of mindfulness skills is indeed negatively associated with automatic mobile phone checking (β = -.288,p < .01)and mobile phone attachment (β = -.179,p < .05).By contrast, no significant association between mindfulness and mobile phone multitasking (β = -.133,p = .100)or online vigilance (β = -.098,p = .230)was found.However, we observed indirect relations of mindfulness with all four dimensions of mobile phone connectedness via the mediator self-control (H2a-d).Multitasking (β = -.234,p < .001),automatic checking (β = -.176,p < .001),mobile phone attachment (β = -.190,p < .01),and online vigilance (β = -.169,p < .01)were negatively associated with higher levels of self-control which in turn was positively associated with mindfulness.Overall, the model explained between 10.8 and 20.6% of the variance in the measured mobile phone usage dimensions.We further assumed that mobile phone multitasking, automatic mobile phone checking, mobile phone attachment, and online vigilance are positively associated with perceived stress (H3a-d).Controlling for the direct association between mindfulness and stress (β = -.772,p < .001),no significant relations between the dimensions of mobile phone connectedness and stress remains.In addition, we found no significant indirect relations between mindfulness and stress via phone multitasking, automatic checking, mobile phone attachment, or online vigilance.In total, the model explained 60.8% of the variance in stress that mainly results in its association with mindfulness (H4).

Discussion
Our first study indicates that mindfulness is significantly related to all investigated dimensions of mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone.Self-control plays a central mediating role (Han et al., 2017;Panek et al., 2015): mindful individuals exhibit stronger self- control, which in turn is associated with less automatic phone checking and significantly lower levels of multitasking, mobile phone attachment, and online vigilance.This finding supports the idea that mindfulness decreases automatic reactions to mobile phone cues: When encountering these cues, mindfulness creates a state of consciousness and awareness of present needs and long-term goals.This awareness opens up a window of opportunity for conscious decision-making and thus for implementing self-control (Brewer, 2017;Vago, 2014).Next to these indirect effects, mobile phone attachment and automatic checking, but not multitasking and online vigilance, were directly negatively associated with mindfulness.This could be interpreted as an indication that being in the present moment with acceptance, in a decentered way, does not invoke so many cues that trigger automatic checking and contribute to mobile phone attachment.Regarding the nonsignificant associations, there could simply be no negative association between mindfulness and multitasking and online vigilance.However, an alternative explanation could be that mindful individuals are more alert and more likely to notice their multitasking behavior and online vigilance, leading to an overestimation of these behaviors.
The whole model explained a high amount of stress.However, the explaining factors are not the components of mobile phone connectedness but almost exclusively mindfulness.The association of mindfulness with stress is unsurprising: many studies could show a positive effect of mindfulness skills on the capacity of handling strain and difficult situations (e.g., Brown et al., 2012) as well as a situation-independent negative association of mindfulness and stress (e.g., Bao et al., 2015).Perhaps, mindfulness explains such a large part of the variance in stress that there is hardly anything left to be explained by other, less overarching constructs.Another explanation of the findings would be that the investigated dimensions of connectedness indeed do not provoke stress, or at least not for all individuals or situations (Xu et al., 2022).For instance, mobile phone multitasking might only lead to stress for individuals with low trait polychronicity (König & Waller, 2010).Or, again, it could be that the level of mindfulness biased the assessment of the dimensions of mobile phone connectedness, so that the same amount of, for instance, multitasking would have led those low in mindfulness to a lower self-rating of multitasking compared to a person high in mindfulness, simply because less mindful people are less likely to notice that they are multitasking or ruminating on online content.This could also explain why mobile phone connectedness does not promote stress in the same way in more mindful individuals because their factual level of connectedness is actually lower as for less mindful individuals, despite they reported the same levels of connectedness in the questionnaire.Even though this is plausible against the theoretical background, it is still speculative and should be explored in future studies.Further, we assume that other dimensions of connectedness that are more clearly dysfunctional, such as problematic smartphone use (PSU), would probably have explained more variance in stress and would thus have been better suited to investigate the assumed mediating effect of mobile phone connectedness between mindfulness and stress.

Study 2
In two further studies, we investigated to what extent the cultivation of mindfulness, that is the explicit training of mindfulness skills through contemplative practice, can decrease mobile phone connectedness and stress.Study 2 represents a quasi-experimental intervention study with participants of MBSR training, a widely used, standardized mindfulness training developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn (2003).Over the course of eight weeks, participants are guided to attain a higher level of mindfulness through meditation, yoga, and body scans.Numerous studies have confirmed the positive effects of this program on health and self-regulation (Grossman et al., 2004).Its effects on mobile phone use have, however, not been examined yet.

Sample and procedure
Thirty-five participants, recruited via different MBSR teachers in Germany, took part in eight-week MBSR training (77% women, M age = 44.6 years, SD age = 11.2 years), while n = 33 separately recruited persons were part of a control group (73% women, M age = 34.8years; SD age = 15.9 years, convenience sample).All participants filled out a standardized online survey pre and post the MBSR training (experimental group), respectively, pre and post an eight-week period (control group).Due to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic shortly before the post measurement of seven participants of the control group and hugely changed life circumstances, we excluded these seven participants from the control group, resulting in a remaining control group sample of n = 26.
There were no significant baseline group differences with regard to the daily mobile phone usage duration, the number of daily incoming work-related and private e-mails, the number of daily messages on social media, (previous) experience with yoga and meditation, gender, level of education, living with kids or older people, bearing responsibility for other people in the close environment, the need for availability via mobile phone at work, and the intention to use the Internet and mobile phone more consciously.However, age differed significantly between groups (F[1, 60] = 8, p < .01;η 2 = 0.12) and was thus included as a covariate in further analyses of Study 2.
During the MBSR training, participants met weekly and were encouraged to perform various exercises such as meditation, body scan, and yoga daily.Neither the experimental group nor the control group received an incentive for participating in the survey.This study was also pre-registered through the OSF (https://osf.io/84kjm).
Respondents in the experimental group younger than 40 years old (median of the sample) showed more intensive multitasking behavior and a stronger mobile phone attachment at t0 than respondents older than 40 years, resulting in a higher decrease at t1 for the younger participants.

Discussion
The results of Study 2 show that strengthening mindfulness through MBSR training indeed has the potential to decrease mobile phone connectedness and stress.This is noteworthy because mobile phone or general media use is not even addressed explicitly within the training.It shows once again that the cultivation of mindfulness seems to exert its salutogenic effects on various psychological and physiological domains (Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012).Interestingly, self-control was not affected by the MBSR training, which means that the decrease in mobile phone connectedness cannot be traced back to an increase in self-control.This supports the notion that mindfulness has (at least partly) beneficial effects on the de-automatization of mobile phone connectedness without the aid of self-control, for example, by decreasing the number of experienced mobile phone cues.

Study 3
Study 3 replicated Study 2, replacing the in-person MBSR training with mindfulness training via the app 7Mind. 5

Sample and procedure
Forty-six German participants used the premium version of the mindfulness app 7Mind for three weeks, while 46 more were part of the control group and did not use the app.For both groups, participants were required to have not meditated in the three months before the first survey.All participants filled out a standardized online survey pre and post the app usage (experimental group), respectively, pre and post three weeks (control group).During the three weeks, participants of the experimental group were encouraged to use the app, meaning typically seven to ten-minute-long meditations daily.On average, the participants meditated 13 times during the three weeks with 7Mind and spent 129 minutes on the app (SD = 71 minutes).At the same time, the control group was asked not to meditate and not to use any meditation app.Both the experimental and the control group received a voucher for a free one-month trial of 7Mind's premium version.
The control group received the incentive only after the second survey.Three individuals in the experimental group were excluded due to not answering both surveys or not using the app, resulting in a final sample of n = 43 participants in the experimental group (79% women, M age = 33.7 years, SD age = 16.51 years), and n = 46 participants in the control group (65% women, M age = 29.9years, SD age = 10.9 years).There were no significant group differences between the groups concerning all potential confounding variables (see Study 2).

Results
ANCOVAs were run to determine the interaction effects between time (t0 vs. t1) and group (experimental group vs. control group).As depicted in Table 3, using the 7Mind app for three weeks increased the participants' level of mindfulness significantly compared to the control group (F [1.87] = 10.780,p ≤ .001,η 2 = .10),while automatic mobile phone checking (F [1.87] = 7.820, p < .01,η 2 = .08),mobile phone attachment (F [1.87] = 4.260, p < .05,η 2 = .06),online vigilance (F [1.87] = 5.530, p ≤ .001,η 2 = .06),and stress (F [1.87] = 10.770,p ≤ .001,η 2 = .11)decreased significantly.Only in the case of multitasking, no significant interaction effect could be observed: both in the control and experimental group, multitasking decreased over the three weeks.In contrast to Study 2 and supporting our hypotheses, self-control was increased by means of the app training but not in the control group (F [1.87] = 13.311,p ≤ .001,η 2 = .13).All dimensions despite online vigilance measured on a scale from 1 to 5; online vigilance measured on a scale from 1 to 7; Pillai's trace, partial η 2 ; a significant impact of the point of measurement for both groups.

Discussion
Our results show that not only "traditional" MBSR training, but also mindfulness training via an app can decrease mental and behavioral connectedness to the mobile phone and stress -except for multitasking.A possible explanation for the non-significant effect with regard to multitasking could be a methodological priming effect: the questions on mobile phone use at t0 may have triggered the intention in the control group to change their mobile phone use and multitasking probably emerged as the behavioral habit that they were able to change the easiest.
Overall, the results are consistent with our second study.However, the effect sizes are smaller.This could carefully be interpreted-as only comparing two studies-as a) more time in terms of weeks, b) more weekly invested time in mindfulness practice, or c) an on-site setting is needed to achieve greater effects.Another explanation would be that while training mindfulness via the smartphone de-automates mobile phone behavior by strengthening mindfulness, using the smartphone for the training at another point in everyday life, results in further possible usage cues.Yet, which of these components makes the difference cannot be derived from our results.It can be stated though that it seems principally possible to support a better regulation of mobile phone use through an application on the mobile phone itself.This is an important practical finding, as it opens up more efficient opportunities with lower barriers compared to more comprehensive forms of mindfulness training such as MBSR.

General Discussion
What emerged in all three studies was the positive impact of mindfulness on mobile phone connectedness: mindfulness is associated with less multitasking, automatic phone checking, mobile phone attachment, and online vigilance.These results support the theoretical assumptions elaborated on above about the association of mindfulness with mobile phone-related behaviors, thoughts, and emotions (Brown et al., 2007;Johannes et al., 2018;Schuman-Olivier et al., 2020;Vago, 2014).
Self-control takes on an interesting role: it turns out to be an important mediator in the structural model (Study 1).Those high in mindfulness were high in self-control, which, in turn, was associated with less mobile phone connectedness.Yet, self-control was not increased by the MBSR training (Study 2), meaning that the effect of mindfulness on mobile phone connectedness has not been unfolded indirectly by an increase in self-control.Perhaps, this indicates a difference between dispositional and cultivated mindfulness: while dispositional mindfulness might unfold its impact in conjunction with deliberate self-control -in the sense of being able to refrain from enacting a desire in favor of striving for long-term goals (Baumeister et al., 2013) -the intensive cultivation of mindfulness might rather foster a more automatic, "hypo-egoic" form of self-regulation (Leary et al., 2006), therefore increasing the tolerance of unpleasant states that reduce mobile phone and internet cues in the first place (Elkins-Brown et al., 2017).Our results thus suggest that high levels of cultivated mindfulness may differ in quality from high levels of dispositional mindfulness, which marks a potentially relevant difference between Study 1 and Study 2 and 3, representing an interesting finding for the research field of mindfulness (Lutz et al., 2015).For now, however, we can conclude that both mindfulness and self-control, and the two in conjunction, seem to be valuable capacities to keep mobile phone connectedness within healthy limits.
Looking at the association between mobile phone connectedness and stress, our findings do not support the hypothesis that high multitasking, automatic phone checking, mobile phone attachment, and online vigilance facilitate stress.Although the correlation matrix shows the expected associations, these associations disappear in the structural equation model, when the direct effect of mindfulness on stress is included.Thus, we have to discuss the normative evaluation of the here focused dimensions of mobile phone connectedness.We probably need to consider to a greater extent that mobile phone connectedness might also reduce stress by providing social connectedness and support, which are particularly important during stressful times (Walker et al., 2015;Wei & Lo, 2006;Wolfers, 2021) and, thus, may evoke differential or in some cases even opposing effects -at least when controlling for general mindfulness.In fact, Study 3 shows exactly that, namely that mobile phone use -in terms of a digital mindfulness training-can also have positive effects.This is not surprising, since we know from many possible media effects that specific conditions of user and situation determine if and how an effect unfolds (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013).
Also, the here investigated dimensions of connectedness might simply be "too" functional or at least not dysfunctional enough to increase stress.Ross and Bayer (2021) support this interpretation with their recent findings: They sought to explain different types of smartphone self-extensions, namely functional self-extensions for personal goals versus self-extensions that are integral to personal identity.Their results show that while functional self-extensions are predicted by habitual phone usage, identity-related self-extensions are mainly explained by problematic usage and thus demonstrate that habitual mobile phone connectedness might rather be functional than problematic.
Further debatable is the general salutogenic power of de-automatization as we have to acknowledge that unconscious processes are efficient and, therefore, vital (Graybiel, 2008).Thus, it is not necessarily desirable to deautomatize all kinds of (mental) behaviors.Rather, the goal and purpose of mindfulness should be to "check in" on habits from time to time, keeping those that are functional and (trying to) stop those that seem dysfunctional.And maybe some mobile phone habits are less dysfunctional than they seem (see above).In this (best) way, mindfulness might help to harness the efficiency-enhancing capacity of some habits and automatisms (such as seeking support via the mobile phone in stressful times), while questioning and, if necessary, stopping others (such as checking messages in the middle of the night).In addition, mindful observation of one's own habits might also help to identify triggering cues that prompt dysfunctional behaviors and to shape one's own context in ways that make dysfunctional trigger responses less likely.This ambivalence of automaticity can possibly also be encountered by targeting a good balance between conscious and unconscious connectedness that allows for the greatest possible flexibility to switch between systems (Vanden Abeele, 2020), which, again, can also be facilitated by mindfulness (Vago, 2014).
The main findings of the studies presented here argue for an effort to spread mindfulness.Studies 2 and 3 have shown that both a mindfulness app and MBSR training had positive effects on mindfulness and decreased a potentially dysfunctional mobile phone connectedness.However, the intensive on-site training within a group setting seemed to be more effective.This speaks in favor of mindfulness training in groups that could also be natural groups, such as school classes (Felver et al., 2016).However, we should be aware that the promotion of mindfulness techniques carries the risk of digital well-being becoming a purely private matter, and structural and systemic factors receiving too little attention (Docherty, 2021).

Methodological Considerations
The combination of the three study designs results in some methodological limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results.First, all three studies rely on subjective, self-report data.Self-report data may suffer from inaccurate recall, biased heuristics, or lack of motivation, leading to inaccurate and biased estimates of media exposure (De Vreese & Neijens, 2016).This may be particularly pronounced with regards to habitualized mobile phone usage behaviors and cognitions, as these are typically performed unconsciously and consist of several short usage episodes (Schneider et al., 2018).As described above in the discussion of the results of Study 1, a particularly relevant risk in this study would be that the level of mindfulness may have influenced selfreport of mobile phone-related behaviors, emotions, and cognitions, potentially biasing the results.Future studies would thus benefit greatly from a combination of self-report and behavioral tracking (e.g., via apps or experience sampling).
In addition, the measurement of mindfulness with the scale used in all three studies must be critically reflected upon; it is debatable whether the operationalization by Baer et al. (2008) potentially goes beyond the core of mindfulness, for example, with the dimension "describing" that might rather represent a mindfulness practice (Kudesia & Nyima, 2015).Other limitations relate to the internal validity of our data.Assignment to control and experimental groups was not random in both Study 2 and Study 3 but based on self-selection.We attempted to offset this with comprehensive randomization checks, especially regarding the participants' intention to change their mobile phone behavior.Nevertheless, in further research, RCTs would be the preferred mode of experimental implementation.In addition, the mindfulness training may have led to other effects as well.Related to this, we cannot rule out priming or social desirability effects in Study 2 and Study 3: as a result of the insights gained about mindfulness, individuals in the experimental groups may have been much more aware of what mobile phone behavior is desirable (both socially and for themselves).

Research Outlook, Theoretical Contribution, and Practical Implications
Future research should not only try to replicate our findings in other media contexts beyond mobile phone usage, but should also look more deeply into the relationship between mindfulness and mobile phone connectedness.In this context, it seems particularly relevant to investigate the possible role of cultivating mindfulness through different training methods.A study design implementing experience sampling and/or tracking methods with multiple measurement points and, thus, better differentiation of dispositional traits and situationally occurring behaviors and cognitions seems to be a promising approach.Moreover, in our experimental studies, only motivated people who voluntarily wanted to train their mindfulness participated.Can we expect the same effects of mindfulness training in less motivated people?In addition, our findings on the role of mobile phone connectedness for stress should be investigated in greater depth.One objective here would be to explore the boundaries of functional to dysfunctional connectedness.
Despite the unanswered questions, our studies contribute to theory building and have valuable implications for individuals and media literacy practitioners.First, the present research enriches the field of media psychology and research on mobile connectedness, automatization, selfregulation, and media use habits by integrating the concept of mindfulness.By delineating in depth, at a psychological level, the links between mindfulness and the processes of habitualization, automatization, and selfcontrol, and by examining them in the course of three studies, we were able to demonstrate the added value that the concept of mindfulness brings to the scholarly study of these processes.Looking at the three studies presented in this paper, what stands out is the apparently complementary relationship between mindfulness and self-control.Thus, this article also contributes to a more nuanced view of self-control and invites future research in this area.This seems promising in light of previous findings on the failure of self-control in many media use contexts (Halfmann, 2021).Our results thus support the idea that strengthening mindfulness is a valuable strategy if people want to (re)gain control over their mobile phone connection and, in addition, to reduce stress.This seems to be of particular interest for individuals looking for strategies to establish a self-determined connection with their mobile phone, as well as for media literacy practitioners and teachers who might use these findings in their work.

Notes
1. Conversely, a digitized connection can also be interrupted by a "real-life cue," such as a child talking to a mother in the middle of writing an instant message.2. In contrast to this preregistration and the preregistration of Study 2, we refrained from integrating "satisfaction with life" as a dependent variable in order to reduce the complexity of analyses.3. https://osf.io/9htwm/4. Means and Cronbach's Alpha values represent results from the t0-measures for both groups.5. Due to the fact that Study 3 was a straight replication of Study 2, except for the form of the intervention, it was not additionally preregistered.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Result of study 1: structural equation model (SEM).Observed SEM based on data from N = 885 participants.Fit indices are good: χ2(261) = 3032.702,p < .001;χ2/df = 1.891;CFI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.038 (90% C.I.: .036,.039);SRMR = 0.049.Scores in the figure represent standardized path coefficients and p-values are based on 95% CIs from 10,000 bootstrap samples with replacement.The observation dimension of mindfulness as well as two reversed formulated items measuring self-control were excluded based on CFAs, due to standardized factor loadings < .40 and high modification indices.Based on CFAs and semantic similarities, we included error term covariances between two smartphone attachment items, and the four positively formulated stress items, yet only within each construct *p < .05,**p < .01,***p < .001

Table 2 .
Study 2: Interaction effects between experimental condition and time regarding dependent variables.

Table 3 .
Study 3: Interaction effects between experimental condition and time regarding dependent variables.