The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]/[Link]

Reinforcement
Dual mechanisms of reward and
reinforcement reward and habit habit

in driving smartphone addiction

The role of smartphone features 1551

Chongyang Chen Received 14 November 2018

Revised 17 February 2019
Research Center for Smarter Supply Chain, Dongwu Business School, 14 April 2019
Soochow University, Suzhou, China Accepted 16 April 2019

Kem Z.K. Zhang

International School of Business and Finance,
Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China
Xiang Gong
School of Management, Xi’an Jiao Tong University, Xi’an, China, and
Matthew Lee
Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – In the limited existing research on smartphone addiction, reinforcement reward and automatic
habit have been identified as two distinct underlying mechanisms. The purpose of this paper is to better
understand the interaction between these two mechanisms, as well as role of smartphone features in
activating different formation mechanisms.
Design/methodology/approach – An online survey with 379 samples was conducted to empirically
validate the model. The data were analyzed by structural equation modeling approach.
Findings – The automatic habit strengthens the driving effects of reinforcement rewards (i.e. perceived
enjoyment and mood regulation) on smartphone addiction. Smartphone features activate distinct underlying
mechanisms. Value-added function facilitates the perception of reinforcement rewards, while convenience
promotes the habit formation.
Originality/value – This study is one of the first ones that assess the interplay between the two formation
mechanisms in the extant literature on smartphone addiction. This study also reveals the dangers of
smartphone features which have always been regarded as advantages. The findings contribute to the current
understandings of smartphone addiction.
Keywords Habit, Smartphone addiction, Dual-process theory, Reinforcement reward, Smartphone feature
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Along with the increasing popularity of smartphones, smartphone addiction has recently
emerged as a prevalent problem worldwide (Lin et al., 2017). Smartphone addiction
is one form of information technology (IT) addiction, which reflects users’ strong maladaptive
dependency on using an IT artifact (Vaghefi and Lapointe, 2013). In this circumstance, users
may ineluctably suffer from physiological and psychological disorders and encounter
conflicts with work and daily life (e.g. Samaha and Hawi, 2016). Given the serious
consequences of smartphone addiction, the information systems (IS) community should be
vigilant against the dangers of using smartphones and should attempt to reduce the addictive

The work described in this study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Internet Research
Vol. 29 No. 6, 2019
Foundation of China (Nos 71801166, 71671174, 71671119), the Philosophy and Social Science pp. 1551-1570
Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province (No. 2018SJA1298) and Hong Kong Special © Emerald Publishing Limited
1066-2243
Administrative Region, China (No. CityU 11508917). DOI 10.1108/INTR-11-2018-0489
INTR use back to healthy levels. Smartphone addiction is a relatively new issue in the IS field, and
29,6 the relevant scientific understandings are still evolving. Considerable IS research efforts
should be continually devoted to enhancing theoretical understandings on how desirable
smartphone usage changes to the worrisome level of addiction.
A review of addiction literature indicates that reinforcement reward (Cheung et al., 2013)
and automatic habit (Xu and Tan, 2012) have been treated as two significant formation
mechanisms that are distinctly different. Reinforcement mechanism describes that the
1552 reward process causes addictive levels of engagement (Brewer and Potenza, 2008). People
repeat and increase their activities to maintain rewards, which further induce addictive
behavior at the cost of others (e.g. Cheung et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2014). Reinforcement reward
emphasizes the stimulating and strengthening processes (Lee et al., 2014), while habit
addresses the automatic process without consciousness (Lankton et al., 2010; Limayem et al.,
2007). These two drivers complement each other. In most cases, IT users are under the
influences of both automatic and conscious mechanisms (Ray and Seo, 2013). Jointly
employing the factors that represent the two mechanisms is thus necessary for the
exploration of human behaviors of IT usage (Limayem et al., 2007; Ray and Seo, 2013; Wu
and Kuo, 2008). However, existing IS research on smartphone addiction mostly analyzes the
automatic and reinforcement drivers separately (e.g. Chen et al., 2017; Chiu, 2014), and
insignificant theoretical attention has been paid to the assessment of the combined effects of
these drivers. Smartphone addiction can be the result of a combination of automatic and
conscious factors. The respective roles of these two distinct mechanisms in their interplay
remain largely unclear. To fill this research gap, this study uses the lens of dual-process
theory to explain how smartphone addiction is induced by the joint influences of drivers in
dual mechanisms.
Furthermore, this study also considers two important smartphone features, i.e. value-
added function and convenience. Smartphone provides multiple functions ranging from
basic functions, such as making calls, to various value-added ones (e.g. game playing and
social networking) (Salehan and Negahban, 2013; Sun, 2009). Users can play games, surf the
internet, watch videos and make calls with a single smartphone device (Khang et al., 2013).
Prior research posits that value-added functions can be classified into four types, including
mobile communication services (e.g. e-mail), mobile content services (e.g. individual
character query), mobile entertainment services (e.g. mobile TV ) and mobile commercial
services (e.g. mobile auction) (Chi and Lai, 2015). These value-added functions are
particularly important in creating revenue (Lin and Lu, 2000; Chuang et al., 2014), increasing
overall user satisfaction (Tojib et al., 2015), attracting new users and retaining old ones (Kuo
and Yen, 2009). Partially because of these rich functions, the addictive usage of smartphones
has spread worldwide (King et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2008). Moreover, compared with other
ITs (e.g. desktop), smartphone has high levels of convenience. Namely, people can use
smartphones with few space or time constraints (Ting et al., 2011). Hence, this study
considers two unique and salient smartphone features, i.e. value-added function and
convenience. The adoption of the two smartphone features is also consistent with prior
research, which highlights added value and convenience in consumers’ motivations of
buying food (Richards et al., 1998) and E-commerce success (Mahadevan, 2000). The
features of value-added function and convenience have also been used to reflect service
quality of mobile telecommunications services (Kim et al., 2004). Considering these, this
study investigates whether and how these two types of features have relations with
addictive usage. Specifically, this paper assesses the differences of value-added function and
convenience in activating different formation mechanisms of smartphone addiction.
In sum, our research questions are as follows:
RQ1. What are the relationships between the two formation mechanisms of smartphone
addiction?
 RQ2. Whether and how value-added function and convenience activate the two Reinforcement
distinct mechanisms? reward and
The structure of the rest of this paper is as follows. Related literature review is first habit
provided. The research model is then developed, and the proposed hypotheses are
explained. An online survey is used afterward for the analysis of the research model, and the
analysis results are described. Our paper is concluded with discussions of findings,
implications for theory and practice, and limitations. 1553

2. Literature review
2.1 Smartphone addiction
Following prior definitions of IT addiction (Cheung et al., 2013; Vaghefi and Lapointe, 2013),
smartphone addiction refers to the maladaptive dependency and the obsessive–compulsive
disorder on using smartphones. When smartphone users develop addiction, they may show the
following symptoms: behavioral salience (i.e. domination of users’ life by smartphone usage),
withdrawal feelings (i.e. if users are forbidden to use smartphones, they will have negative
emotions), conflict (i.e. many other important assignments are interrupted due to the smartphone
usage) and reinstatement (i.e. inability to reduce usage) (Charlton and Danforth, 2007).
The understanding of smartphone addiction, as an emerging research issue, is still
evolving. For instance, Lin et al. (2017) developed and validated a self-diagnostic method,
smartphone addiction inventory, to identify smartphone addicts. Recent IS scholars
have attempted to investigate the underlying mechanism of forming smartphone addiction.
Soror et al. (2015) found that habit can lead to negative consequences through triggering
undesired behaviors in mobile phone usage. van Deursen et al. (2015) achieved similar
results that smartphone addiction can be caused by habitual smartphone use. Turel and
Serenko (2012) validated the dangers of enjoyment in leading to addiction to social
networking websites. Lee et al. (2014) used reinforcement theory to reveal the theoretical
mechanism of excessive playing of massively multiplayer online games. The reinforcement
process, in which pleasure/enjoyment is generated and negative emotions are relieved,
elucidates the development of undesirable behaviors. Khang et al. (2013) demonstrated that
people who use mobile phones for self-presence and fun are inclined to experience flow and
addiction. Their study implied that mobile phone users using smartphone functions to
satisfy different motives may differ in the formation of IT addiction. Although these studies
have provided preliminary insights, further research efforts should be paid to enrich the
current knowledge about why users become addicted to smartphones.

2.2 Dual-process theory

Considerable research in the fields of social cognition and psychology has noted that human
behaviors are guided by two different and complementary brain systems (Evans, 2008;
Hodgkinson and Clarke, 2007; Strack and Deutsch, 2004). One system captures the unconscious
and automatic process involving intuition. The other system centers on an effortful and
conscious process that occurs optionally with motivations (Arnautovska et al., 2017; Evans,
2008; Hagger, 2016; Hodgkinson and Clarke, 2007; Smith and DeCoster, 2000). Prior research has
demonstrated dual-process theories in various aspects that range from emotion (e.g. Teasdale,
1999), mental control (e.g. Wegner, 1994) and cognition (e.g. Evans and Stanovich, 2013; Smith
and DeCoster, 2000) to behavior (e.g. Ohtomo and Hirose, 2007). The usage of mobile devices can
be performed in automatic habit or highly conscious manners (Bayer et al., 2016).
The central tenet of these dual-process theories is that human behaviors are
determined by the interplay of two distinct brain systems (Barrett et al., 2004; Hodgkinson
and Clarke, 2007; Smith and DeCoster, 2000). For example, De Neys and Glumicic (2008)
claimed that, from the field of social cognition, human thinking is an interplay between
INTR demanding-analytic and intuitive-heuristic reasoning processes, and the two routes
29,6 are simultaneously activated. They indicated that an outcome is determined by the one
that can override the other. Hofmann et al. (2008) used the lens of dual-process theory to
investigate human regulatory behaviors involving sexual interest behaviors and tempting
food consumption. Controlled dispositions exert strong influences on behavioral
regulation in people with high working memory capacities, whereas automatic ones are
1554 effective for people with low working memory capacities. Smith and DeCoster (2000)
showed dual-memory systems (i.e. slow-learning and fast-learning memory systems) and
demonstrated that newly formed and novel memories from fast-learning systems can be
transferred to slow-learning systems for the formation of stable memories.
IS scholars have recently identified the value of dual-process theory. Turel and Qahri-Saremi
(2016) examined the interplay between an impulsive system of cognitive-emotional
preoccupation and an inhibitory system of cognitive-behavioral control to explain the
problematic use of social networking sites. Dual-process theory has been regarded as a
theoretical approach to explain problematic behaviors of IT usage (Turel and Bechara, 2017).
This study outlines a framework based on prior research on dual-process theory to investigate
the synergistic impacts of dual mechanisms on addictive behaviors in smartphone usage.

2.3 Reinforcement reward

Prior research has demonstrated the significance of reinforcement reward in the abuse of
substances, including drugs (Goodman, 2008; Vaghefi and Lapointe, 2014). Findings show that
factors of reinforcement reward such as dopamine release can result in self-control dysfunction
and addictive symptoms (Baler and Volkow, 2006). Similarly, IT addiction is intrinsically
rewarding (Turel and Serenko, 2012). As previous research indicated, reinforcement reward is
crucial in forming addictive behaviors to ITs (Wang et al., 2015). When a certain behavior is
continuously reinforced, it increases the likelihood of addiction. This mechanism provides a
perspective to explain why some ITs are highly addictive, whereas some are not (Turel and
Serenko, 2012). For instance, Facebook is a good example of an addiction-prone IT application
because addiction can be formed through the reinforcement reward process (e.g. because it is
intrinsically enjoyable). On the contrary, users may not be prone to become addicted to library-
searching websites (e.g. only to perform searching tasks when needed). Given this concern, it is
imperative to highlight the role of reinforcement reward in IT addiction.
Literature on substance addiction has indicated that reward experiences may include
mood enhancement (i.e. positive reinforcement) and reliefs from negative emotions
(i.e. negative reinforcement) (Solomon and Corbit, 1973). Positive–negative reinforcement
provides a neurocircuitry analysis of addiction (Koob and Volkow, 2016). Positive
reinforcement reflects the motives for desirable experience, and negative reinforcement
shows the motives for relieving undesirable feelings by conducting certain behaviors
(Cheung et al., 2013). Both positive and negative reinforcements are crucial for repeating a
particular behavior. Therefore, the positive–negative reinforcement view can provide a good
perspective for addiction behaviors. Prior research has also contended that addicts are often
inclined to maintain positive emotions and alleviate negative ones (Robinson and Berridge,
2003). Recent IS research has likewise shown preliminary evidence that these two
reinforcement rewards are key drivers contributing to IT addiction (e.g. Cheung et al., 2013;
Lee et al., 2014). Kruger and Djerf (2017) also indicated that both positive and negative
reinforcement predict psychological cell phone dependency. On the basis of these findings,
this study considers reinforcement reward with two components, namely, perceived
enjoyment (positive reinforcement) and mood regulation (negative reinforcement).
Perceived enjoyment refers to the positive and enjoyable experiences during IT usage
(Shiau and Luo, 2013). It centers on the intrinsic joy of using ITs (Turel and Serenko, 2011).
Such experiences especially matter and are considered essential for leisure activities in
hedonic situations (Holbrook et al., 1984). As a desirable IS factor, perceived enjoyment has Reinforcement
been widely used to promote positive outcomes in considerable prior literature (Yeung and reward and
Jordan, 2007). However, several studies have revealed its dangers, such as in substance habit
abuse (Boles and Miotto, 2003). Meanwhile, mood regulation stresses the relief of negative
feelings by using ITs (Caplan, 2010). It emphasizes the motive to use ITs to alleviate
undesirable affects (Caplan, 2010). Extant research on IT addiction treats mood regulation
as an important antecedent of excessive IT usage (Khang et al., 2013). Research on 1555
substance abuse has widely found that the negative reinforcement motive of reducing
negative mood feelings is related to alcohol problems (e.g. Stewart et al., 2006). Nonetheless,
understandings on the dangers of perceived enjoyment and mood regulation in IS field
remain limited. IS researchers should endeavor to advance the knowledge about how these
factors influence users to become IT addicts.

2.4 Automatic habit

Habit means automatic activities for achieving certain states or goals, which appears under
particular stimuli (Verplanken et al., 1997). IS habit has been defined as the degree to which
people are prone to use IS (perform behaviors) automatically (Limayem et al., 2007).
This automatic response may be repeated in specific reinforcing situations for such goals
(Wang et al., 2015). Contrary to the conscious mechanism, habit is a nondeliberate and
automatic reaction to a relevant stimulus (Limayem et al., 2007). The positive roles of habit
in IT adoption have recently aroused the interest of IS scholars. After reviewing previous
studies, the influence of habit can be largely explicated with two perspectives. The first line
of studies asserts the direct effect of habit on continuance behavior. For instance, Limayem
and Hirt (2003) revealed that habit can add explanatory power to the actual IS usage
behavior. Cui et al. (2017) confirmed that if bidders have agent bidding habits, they are likely
to use agent bidding further. The second line of studies highlights the moderating role of
habit. For instance, habit influences the predictive power of continuance intention on the
sequent continuance usage (Limayem et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the positive roles of habit
have been questioned by recent studies. Habit may be a necessary prerequisite for IT
addiction (Turel and Serenko, 2012). Research findings show that habit can be a direct
driver for technology addiction (e.g. Turel and Serenko, 2012). When users form the habit of
using ITs, they may have a high chance to fall into IT addiction (Yang et al., 2016).

3. Research model and hypotheses

Building on the abovementioned theoretical background, our theoretical model (as shown
in Figure 1) is developed such that the relationship between the two formation mechanisms
of smartphone addiction is interpreted. Perceived enjoyment and mood regulation,
respectively, reflect positive and negative reinforcement reward, whereas habit reflects the
automatic mechanism. Our research model also incorporates smartphone features, involving
value-added function and convenience.

3.1 Predicting effects of the two mechanisms

Researchers argue that reinforcement reward is connected to unexpected negative outcomes
(e.g. addiction). The mechanism of positive–negative reinforcement is deemed to provide the
most intuitive explanation of addictive behaviors (Lee et al., 2014; Robinson and Berridge,
2003). Cheung et al. (2013) empirically examined the processes of reinforcement rewards in
compulsive Facebook use. The motive to relieve withdrawal feelings results in compulsive
behaviors. Lee et al. (2014) found that perceived enjoyment (positive reinforcement) and the
relief of negative affect (negative reinforcement) exert strong influences on the formation of
excessive use of massively multiplayer online games. The dark side of reinforcement reward
INTR
29,6 Perceived Reinforcement
Smartphone
enjoyment Mechanism
feature
H4a
Positive H1a
Value-added reinforcement
function
Smartphone
1556 Negative addiction
H4b reinforcement
H1b

Mood
regulation

H2
H3a
Automatic
Mechanism
H3b

H5
Figure 1. Convenience Habit
Research model

can occur in situations in which users develop “excessive appetites.” The literature on
substance abuse has shown that heavy smoking is maintained due to the sake of enjoyment
(Boles and Miotto, 2003). Similarly, behaviors that can relieve negative emotions are prone
to result in IT excessive use (Khang et al., 2013). From these perspectives, we propose that:
H1a. A positive relation exists between perceived enjoyment and smartphone addiction.
H1b. A positive relation exists between mood regulation and smartphone addiction.
In this study, habit is expected to be a precondition for addictive behaviors. Familiar stimuli
in specific situations are likely to trigger users’ repetitive behavior (Wang et al., 2015), which
will turn into addictive behavior if the repetition becomes out of control (Marlatt et al., 1988;
Turel and Serenko, 2011). This condition can be explained from the neurobehavioral
perspective, which shows a process of “neural sensitization” (Robinson and Berridge, 2003).
When habitual IT usage rises, the brain becomes highly sensitive to the cues/stimuli of
usage. People thus overemphasize the thrill experience for achieving the “wanting” state.
This perspective implies that addiction is formed through a rising hypersensitivity to a
relevant stimulus for the attainment of an expected reward (Robinson and Berridge, 1993).
Therefore, the over-practiced habit of IT can result in addictive behavior. In accordance with
this view, LaRose et al. (2003) empirically showed that habit can lead to problematic internet
use. Xu and Tan (2012) also suggested that the habit of using Facebook is positively
connected with addiction:
H2. A positive relation exists between habit and smartphone addiction.

3.2 Interplay of the two mechanisms

We also propose that habit may moderate the link between smartphone addiction and its
antecedents. The theory of rational addiction indicates that addiction can be viewed as
continuous behaviors with expectation for outcomes and maximizing the utility (Becker and
Murphy, 1988). This theory postulates the key function of rationality in addictive users. IT
users generally repeat their usage to achieve the goal of maximizing rewarding utility,
which will increase the possibility that reinforcements can result in addiction (Wang et al., Reinforcement
2015). Habit shows the response repeated in reinforcing situations for certain goals reward and
(Verplanken et al., 1997; Wang et al., 2015); we thereby expect that if smartphone users have habit
a using habit, they are likely to repeat their usage for the maximum extent of reinforcement
rewards, which may come with addiction. We establish the following hypothesis:
H3a. Habit strengthens the effect of perceived enjoyment on smartphone addiction.
H3b. Habit strengthens the effect of mood regulation on smartphone addiction.
1557

3.3 Smartphone feature

Zhou and Lu (2011) found that value-added services (e.g. music, games and avatar shows) in
mobile instant message platforms can provide much enjoyment to users. Similarly, Koufaris
(2002) showed that the value-added search mechanisms of web-based stores can make
shopping experiences highly enjoyable and fulfilling. Kim et al. (2004) suggested that mobile
carriers should make efforts to develop value-added services to increase enjoyment.
Furthermore, previous research has found that using an advanced application of smartphone
as a part of the behavioral intervention program can reduce preoperative negative emotions,
such as anxiety (Lee et al., 2013). Therefore, we develop the following two hypotheses:
H4a. A positive relation exists between value-added function and perceived enjoyment.
H4b. A positive relation exists between value-added function and mood regulation.
The convenience feature has been identified as one of the most important factors that
influence mobile phone usage (Liu et al., 2011). Convenience means the perceived little time
and effort that are required to conduct a task (Collier and Kimes, 2013). It reflects the
ubiquitous characteristic of technologies (Yoon and Kim, 2007). Prior literature on consumer
behavior also contends that convenience reduces consumers’ cost in time, physical and mental
efforts when making purchase decisions (Copeland, 1923). Liu-Thompkins and Tam (2013)
indicated that convenience can facilitate consumers to develop purchase habit. IS research
also demonstrates that technological convenience contributes to the habit formation of using
Twitter (Liu et al., 2011). In the current context, the convenience feature can provide an
opportunity that people can use their smartphones frequently. Hence, we propose that:
H5. A positive relation exists between convenience and habit.

4. Research method
4.1 Data collection
An online survey was conducted for data collection in China. Prior research has indicated
that the prevalence of smartphones has led to a serious concern of smartphone addiction in
China (e.g. Chiu, 2014). As such, it is appropriate to validate the research model among
Chinese users. Considering that we conducted our study in China, we performed a
translation and back-translation method to ensure that the translated Chinese instrument
was consistent with the original English one. We first translated the original questionnaire
into Chinese and then the Chinese version to English again. All inconsistencies in the two
English versions were resolved. In order to improve the response rate and sample quality,
we recruited a market research company called Sojump to carry out the survey. Flyers with
the questionnaire’s URL and invitation messages were distributed to potential respondents.
We also offered supermarket coupons as incentives to increase the response rate. A total of
379 valid responses were gathered. Among these respondents, 54.9 percent were males, and
45.1 percent were females. Nearly 91.29 percent of them aged 18–30. The respondents’
demographic characteristics are described in Table I.
INTR Number Percentage
29,6
Gender
Male 208 54.88
Female 171 45.12
Age
1558 Below 18 7 1.85
18–30 346 91.29
31–40 20 5.28
Above 40 6 1.58
Usage duration per day
Below 60 min 34 8.97
61–119 min 61 16.10
120–179 min 73 19.26
Above 180 min 211 55.67
Education
Senior high school or below 15 3.96
Specialty 29 7.65
Bachelor’s degree 150 39.58
Postgraduate or above 185 48.81
Industry
Table I. Student 230 60.69
Demographic Civil service 21 5.54
characteristics Business 96 25.33
of the sample Others 32 8.44

4.2 Measurement instruments

We measured our constructs by adopting items from prior well-established instruments,
with minor wording modifications. A seven-point Likert scale, from “strongly disagree”
(tagged with 1) to “strongly agree” (tagged with 7), was employed. Table AI shows the final
measurements of constructs.

5. Data analysis
Our research model was assessed with structural equation modeling approach. In particular,
we used SmartPLS 2.0 to analyze the collected data by following a two-step procedure,
namely, the measurement and structural model (Hair et al., 2009).

5.1 Measurement model

Reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measures were assessed by
following the guidelines from prior research (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gefen and Straub,
2005). Reliability was used to assess in terms of composite reliability (CR). As depicted in
Table II, the values of CR ranged from 0.846 to 0.951, which were all higher than the
recommended cutoff of 0.7 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
Hence, the measures had adequate reliability. The indicators used for assessing convergent
validity are average variance extracted (AVE) values of 0.5 or above, all factor
loadings values of beyond 0.7 and significance at p o 0.01 level (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Table II shows that the convergent validity of this study was sufficient.
We also examined discriminant validity, which requires that each construct’s square root
of AVE should exceed the correlations between the given and any other constructs
(Gefen and Straub, 2005). Furthermore, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess
Items Loadings T-values CR AVE
Reinforcement
reward and
Smartphone addiction (SA) habit
SA1 0.735 21.033
SA2 0.847 44.842
SA3 0.902 82.499 0.916 0.687
SA4 0.836 36.036
SA5 0.816 35.126 1559
Perceived enjoyment (PE)
PE1 0.955 131.735
PE2 0.943 71.511 0.951 0.867
PE3 0.894 50.663
Mood regulation (MR)
MR1 0.868 47.806 0.940 0.798
MR2 0.871 57.132
MR3 0.912 74.729
MR4 0.920 89.814
Convenience (CV )
CV1 0.649 10.194 0.846 0.580
CV2 0.785 26.833
CV3 0.838 29.833
CV4 0.762 19.916
Habit (HB)
HB1 0.913 50.818
HB2 0.919 68.124 0.912 0.775
HB3 0.806 28.141
Value-added function (VF) Table II.
VF1 0.950 129.275 0.948 0.902 Descriptive statistics
VF2 0.949 106.724 of the constructs

whether the loadings of items on their corresponding constructs were higher than any other
constructs. Table III and Table AII illustrate that the discriminant validity was acceptable.
We further tested the variance inflation factor (VIF) to examine whether multicollinearity
might be a concern for our data. The VIFs were significantly lower than the threshold value,
ranging from 1.27 to 1.877. Hence, this study might not be affected by multicollinearity.
Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to detect possible common method bias (CMB)
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The result showed that no single factor was extracted. None of the
factors could explain a majority of the variances. Regarding CMB, we further employed
the PLS-based approach suggested by Liang et al. (2007). A common method factor was added
to the research model. All items of principal constructs were used as the method factor’s items.

SA PE MR CV HB VF

SA 0.829
PE 0.478 0.931
MR 0.555 0.631 0.893
CV 0.242 0.307 0.161 0.762
HB 0.177 0.387 0.208 0.480 0.880 Table III.
VF 0.450 0.605 0.464 0.360 0.450 0.950 Correlations between
Note: Diagonal values in italic are square roots of AVEs constructs
INTR We calculated the variances of items explained by principal constructs and the method factor.
29,6 Table AIII indicates that the average variances explained by principal constructs and the
method factor were 0.751 and 0.005, respectively. Most of the method factor loadings were also
insignificant. Hence, CMB might not be a serious concern in this study.

5.2 Structural model

1560 Aside from the key factors in our research model, we added individual characteristics,
including age, income and education as control variables on smartphone addiction. All of
these control variables showed insignificant effects. Figure 2 depicts the overall explanatory
power, path coefficients and p-values in the structural model. Overall, 35.8 percent of the
variances were explained in smartphone addiction. The results showed that value-added
function positively influenced perceived enjoyment (β ¼ 0.605, p o0.001) and mood
regulation (β ¼ 0.464, p o0.001). Convenience activated the formation of habit (β ¼ 0.48,
p o0.001). Therefore, H4a, H4b and H5 were supported. We found that perceived
enjoyment (β ¼ 0.205, p o0.001) and mood regulation (β ¼ 0.418, p o0.001) led to
smartphone addiction. However, the influence of habit (β ¼ 0.007) on smartphone addiction
was insignificant. Figure 2 shows that habit enhanced the influences of perceived enjoyment
(β ¼ 0.129, p o0.05) and mood regulation (β ¼ 0.128, p o0.01) on smartphone addiction.
The moderating influence of habit was supported. In sum, supports were provided for H1a,
H1b, H3a and H3b, but not for H2.

6. Discussion and implications

This study adopts the dual-process theory to investigate the relationship between the two
underlying mechanisms of smartphone addiction, and the differences of smartphone
features in activating the two formation mechanisms to advance the literature on
smartphone addiction. Our results reveal that users with perceptions of perceived
enjoyment and mood regulation in smartphones usage have a great chance to become
addicted to smartphones. Mood regulation (positive reinforcement) demonstrates the

Perceived Reinforcement
Smartphone enjoyment Mechanism
feature
0.205***
0.605***
R 2 = 36.6%
Value-added Positive reinforcement
function Smartphone
addiction
0.464*** Negative reinforcement 0.418***
0.129*
Mood R 2 = 35.8%
regulation
0.128**
R 2 = 21.6%
0.007
Automatic
Mechanism

0.48*** Habit
Convenience
R 2 = 23%

Figure 2.
Structural model
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
stronger driving effect on addiction than perceived enjoyment (positive reinforcement). Reinforcement
When people use smartphones to reduce their negative affect (i.e. negative reinforcement), reward and
they have high risks to become addicted. Therefore, this study offers empirical support to habit
the importance of negative reinforcement in the addictive use of ITs. The automatic habit
can significantly strengthen the link between reinforcement rewards (perceived enjoyment
and mood regulation) and smartphone addiction. At the same level of reinforcement reward,
smartphone users who have the habit of using smartphones are more likely to develop 1561
addictive behaviors. The positive moderating effect of habit implies that the automatic
mechanism of smartphone addiction can enhance the influence of conscious mechanism.
Contrary to our expectation, the direct impact of habit on smartphone addiction is
insignificant. One possible explanation is that, when reinforcement reward and habit
function together, the influence of reinforcement reward may be much stronger than that of
habit. Thus, the predictive value of the automatic habit may become insignificant.
The conscious mechanism of reinforcement reward, rather than automatic mechanism of
habit, dominates in smartphone addiction. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that
smartphone features activate different formation mechanisms. Value-added function leads
to the conscious mechanism, while convenience activates the automatic one.

6.1 Theoretical implications

First, this study informs and expands the emerging body of IS research on the dark side of
smartphone usage (Tarafdar et al., 2015). Specifically, several new insights are provided
for the improvement of the current understanding about how addictive behavior emerges.
Prior limited studies have demonstrated that reinforcement reward and automatic habit are
two important mechanisms underlying the addictive behaviors of IT usage. Reinforcement
reward (Cheung et al., 2013) and habit (Xu and Tan, 2012) have been treated as significant
predictors of addiction. However, how these two key drivers influence addictive behavior
when they function together remains largely unknown. Dual-process theory states that
drivers from dual mechanisms may interact in inducing IT addiction. Prior research has
overlooked the relationship between the two formation mechanisms; therefore, we make
initial attempts to shed light on this issue in the context of smartphones. We explicate that
the two mechanisms show different ways to trigger addictive behavior. Among the direct
determinants of smartphone addiction, reinforcement reward holds the dominant role and
even overrides the influence of habit. The prominent effect of reinforcement reward may
imply the reinforcement nature of IT addiction. In this case, the effect of habit appears to be
less important. Habit positively moderates the influence of reinforcement reward on IT
addiction. For people who have a habit of using smartphones, they have higher risks of
developing addictive behaviors if they enjoy the reinforcement reward. The automatic
mechanism can help strengthen the power of the reinforcement mechanism. Overall, we
believe that this study is one of the first ones that assess the interplay between the two
formation mechanisms in the extant literature on smartphone addiction. The findings of this
study contribute to the current understandings of smartphone addiction.
Second, we add to the extant literature by examining the moderating influence of
habit on the addictive usage of smartphones. Prior research on IT addiction has mostly
shown the direct influence of habit, while ignoring its moderating role, which has been
highlighted in the context of continued IT usage. For instance, Limayem et al. (2007)
indicated that habit reduces the power of intention on continued IS usage. Hsu et al. (2015)
reported that habit strengthens the effect of perceived values on repeat purchase
intention. The moderating role of habit in the context of IT addiction remains to be
further studied. This study demonstrates that the moderating impact of habit functions as
an important path to develop smartphone addiction. A strong habit implies a significant
influence of reinforcement reward on smartphone addiction. This finding enriches
INTR our understanding of IT addiction, which primarily focuses on the direct impact of habit.
29,6 We thus believe that this study can provide further insights into the role of habit in
forming IT addiction.
Third, this study contributes to the bodies of literature on dual-process theory. The
findings show that dual-process theory is an appropriate lens for assessing addictive IT
usage. This study identifies key factors in each process and describes their relations in the
1562 context of smartphone addiction. This study is an important extension of literature about
dual-process theory because it reveals the theory’s value in explaining addictive behaviors.
Our findings show the importance of smartphone features in influencing dual-process
factors. Value-added function and convenience show significant influences on conscious and
automatic mechanisms, respectively. These results contribute to the dual-process literature
by showing the importance of IT features that can activate different mechanisms.
Fourth, this study demonstrates the dangers of smartphone features which have always
been regarded as desirable advantages. Functions/services with added values are
demonstrated to be the potential dark side of unique smartphone functions. People who
highly enjoy these functions are more likely to fall into the conscious mechanisms of
smartphone addiction. The findings of this study imply that value-added IT functions may
be important elements in leading to addictive behaviors. In other words, some IT functions
can be more addictive than others. Accordingly, it is necessary for further research to
understand the addictive nature of certain IT functions (e.g. Turel et al., 2011). Previous
research has mostly emphasized the merits of value-added functions because they provide
better user experiences and fulfill more user needs than others. In this study, we caution that
using these functions may result in undesirable consequences (i.e. smartphone addiction).
This study reveals the dangers of these positive and popular functions. Besides,
convenience feature also promotes the automatic formation of smartphone addiction. This
feature has been highlighted for its benefits in reducing time and efforts costs in prior
research. Thus, additional research efforts should be spent to reveal the dual sides of IT
features in existing IS research.

6.2 Practical implications

We provide several important implications for practice. This study indicates the
significance of smartphone addiction and identifies its antecedents. Our findings suggest
that reinforcement reward and habit are two key determinants. Thus, discerning
smartphone users with strong using habits or great experiences of rewards is necessary to
the reduction or monitoring of the chances of developing addictive usage. For instance,
usage restrictions can be enforced for the inhibition of habitual and excessive behaviors.
Another suggestion is that parents or clinical professionals may organize other enjoyable
activities to attract users’ attention away from their addictive usage behavior. For
individuals who use smartphones to escape from negative emotions, professionals
should educate them to find other more useful ways to adjust moods, such as talking with
friends or doing sports. Users who use value-added functions intensively should be
provided with appropriate reminders to regulate their using behaviors. On the one hand,
they may have better using experiences. On the other hand, they are more prone to the risk
of addiction. A suggestion is that certain applications may be installed to monitor their
using behaviors. If they use a function frequently or for a long time, then a warning can pop
up to remind them possible excessive usage. Users can also put their devices far from them
or lock in the drawer when they work or study. Smartphone manufacturers or application
developers should also be reminded about the benefits and risks of various value-added
functions of smartphones. They may consider social responsibility and take steps to
mitigate the addiction concern. For instance, they may develop parental control or
monitoring mechanism in smartphones to help people control their using behaviors.
6.3 Limitations and directions for further research Reinforcement
Evaluating the contributions in light of limitations is imperative. We thereby emphasize the reward and
following limitations and opportunities for future work. First, the respondents of our survey habit
are mainly young smartphone users in China. Thus, the demographic characteristics of the
collected sample may limit our findings’ external validity. Future research can collect a
larger sample with more diverse backgrounds to extend the generalizability. Second, false
cause–effect inference may be present given the method of cross-sectional survey that we 1563
used. Further research is suggested to consider a longitudinal study to assess the causality
among factors. Finally, our current model explains relatively limited variances in
smartphone addiction. Our study may overlook some other key factors. For this new
research area, additional predictors may be explored and investigated to enhance our
current understandings. Overall, we expect that this study can serve as a starting point for
advancing the limited knowledge on smartphone addiction.

References
Arnautovska, U., Fleig, L., O’Callaghan, F. and Hamilton, K. (2017), “A longitudinal investigation of
older adults’ physical activity: testing an integrated dual-process model”, Psychology & Health,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 166-185.
Baler, R.D. and Volkow, N.D. (2006), “Drug addiction: the neurobiology of disrupted self-control”,
Trends in Molecular Medicine, Vol. 12 No. 12, pp. 559-566.
Barrett, L.F., Tugade, M.M. and Engle, R.W. (2004), “Individual differences in working memory
capacity and dual-process theories of the mind”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 130 No. 4,
pp. 553-573.
Bayer, J.B., Dal Cin, S., Campbell, S.W. and Panek, E. (2016), “Consciousness and self-regulation in
mobile communication”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-97.
Becker, G.S. and Murphy, K.M. (1988), “A theory of rational addiction”, The Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 675-700.
Boles, S.M. and Miotto, K. (2003), “Substance abuse and violence: a review of the literature”, Aggression
and Violent Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 155-174.
Brewer, J.A. and Potenza, M.N. (2008), “The neurobiology and genetics of impulse control disorders:
relationships to drug addictions”, Biochemical Pharmacology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 63-75.
Caplan, S.E. (2010), “Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: a two-step
approach”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1089-1097.
Charlton, J.P. and Danforth, I.D.W. (2007), “Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the
context of online game playing”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1531-1548.
Chen, C., Zhang, K.Z.K., Gong, X., Zhao, S.J., Lee, M.K.O. and Liang, L. (2017), “Understanding
compulsive smartphone use: an empirical test of a flow-based model”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 438-454.
Cheung, C.M., Lee, Z.W. and Lee, M.K. (2013), “Understanding compulsive use of Facebook through
the reinforcement processes”, Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information
Systems, Utrecht.
Chi, H. and Lai, Y. (2015), “The influence of 4G mobile value added services on usage intention: the
mediating effect of perceived value of smartphone and phablet”, International Journal of
Marketing Studies, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 50-60.
Chiu, S.-I. (2014), “The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese
university student: a mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 49-57.
Chuang, H.C., Lu, G., Peng, D.X. and Heim, G.R. (2014), “Impact of value-added service features in
e-retailing processes: an econometric analysis of web site functions”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45
No. 6, pp. 1159-1186.
INTR Collier, J.E. and Kimes, S.E. (2013), “Only if it is convenient understanding how convenience influences
29,6 self-service technology evaluation”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Copeland, M.T. (1923), “Relation of consumers’ buying habits to marketing methods”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 282-289.
Cui, X., Zhang, N. and Lowry, P.B. (2017), “The agent bidding habit and use model (ABHUM) and its
validation in the Taobao online auction context”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 3,
1564 pp. 281-291.
De Neys, W. and Glumicic, T. (2008), “Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking”,
Cognition, Vol. 106 No. 3, pp. 1248-1299.
Evans, J.S.B.T. (2008), “Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 255-278.
Evans, J.S.B.T. and Stanovich, K. (2013), “Dual-process theories of higher cognition”, Perspectives on
Psychological Science, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 223-241.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (2005), “A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: tutorial and
annotated example”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 91-109.
Goodman, A. (2008), “Neurobiology of addiction: an integrative review”, Biochemical Pharmacology,
Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 266-322.
Hagger, M.S. (2016), “Non-conscious processes and dual-process theories in health psychology”,
Health Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 375-380.
Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E. and Black, W. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, 4th ed., Vol. 6,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ and Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hodgkinson, G.P. and Clarke, I. (2007), “Conceptual note: exploring the cognitive significance of
organizational strategizing: a dual-process framework and research agenda”, Human Relations,
Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 243-255.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R.W. and Schmitt, M. (2008), “Working memory
capacity and self-regulatory behavior: toward an individual differences perspective on behavior
determination by automatic versus controlled processes”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 962-977.
Holbrook, M.B., Chestnut, R.W., Oliva, T.A. and Greenleaf, E.A. (1984), “Play as a consumption
experience: the roles of emotions, performance, and personality in the enjoyment of games”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 728-739.
Hsu, M.-H., Chang, C.-M. and Chuang, L.-W. (2015), “Understanding the determinants of online repeat
purchase intention and moderating role of habit: the case of online group-buying in Taiwan”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Khang, H., Kim, J.K. and Kim, Y. (2013), “Self-traits and motivations as antecedents of digital media
flow and addiction: the internet, mobile phones, and video games”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2416-2424.
Kim, M.K., Park, M.C. and Jeong, D.H. (2004), “The effects of customer satisfaction and switching
barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services”, Telecommunications
Policy, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
King, A.L.S., Valença, A.M., Silva, A.C.O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M.R. and Nardi, A.E. (2013),
“Nomophobia: dependency on virtual environments or social phobia?”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 140-144.
Koob, G.F. and Volkow, N.D. (2016), “Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis”, The Lancet
Psychiatry, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 760-773.
Koufaris, M. (2002), “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer Reinforcement
behavior”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 205-223. reward and
Kruger, D.J. and Djerf, J.M. (2017), “Bad vibrations? Cell phone dependency predicts phantom habit
communication experiences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 360-364.
Kuo, Y.-F. and Yen, S.-N. (2009), “Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use
3G mobile value-added services”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 103-110.
Lankton, N.K., Wilson, E.V. and Mao, E. (2010), “Antecedents and determinants of information 1565
technology habit”, Information & Management, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 300-307.
LaRose, R., Lin, C.A. and Eastin, M.S. (2003), “Unregulated internet usage: addiction, habit, or deficient
self-regulation?”, Media Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 225-253.
Lee, J.-H., Jung, H.-K., Lee, G., Kim, H.-Y., Park, S.-G. and Woo, S.-C. (2013), “Effect of behavioral
intervention using smartphone application for preoperative anxiety in pediatric patients”,
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 508-518.
Lee, Z.W., Cheung, C.M. and Chan, T.K. (2014), “Explaining the development of the excessive use of
massively multiplayer online games: a positive-negative reinforcement perspective”, Proceedings
of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, pp. 668-677.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 59-87.
Limayem, M. and Hirt, S.G. (2003), “Force of habit and information systems usage: theory and initial
validation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-97.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, C.M.K. (2007), “How habit limits the predictive power of intention:
the case of information systems continuance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 705-737.
Lin, J.C. and Lu, H. (2000), “Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Lin, Y.-H., Pan, Y.-C., Lin, S.-H. and Chen, S.-H. (2017), “Development of short-form and screening cutoff
point of the smartphone addiction inventory (SPAI-SF)”, International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-6.
Liu, I.L., Cheung, C.M. and Lee, M.K. (2011), “Habit formation in Twitter”, presented at the Bled
eConference, Bled, pp. 335-347.
Liu-Thompkins, Y. and Tam, L. (2013), “Not all repeat customers are the same: designing effective
cross-selling promotion on the basis of attitudinal loyalty and habit”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 21-36.
Mahadevan, B. (2000), “Business models for internet-based e-commerce: an anatomy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-69.
Marlatt, G.A., Baer, J.S., Donovan, D.M. and Kivlahan, D.R. (1988), “Addictive behaviors: etiology and
treatment”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 223-252.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ohtomo, S. and Hirose, Y. (2007), “The dual-process of reactive and intentional decision-making
involved in eco-friendly behavior”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 117-125.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ray, S. and Seo, D. (2013), “The interplay of conscious and automatic mechanisms in the context of
routine use: an integrative and comparative study of contrasting mechanisms”, Information &
Management, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 523-539.
Richards, T.J., Gao, X.M. and Patterson, P.M. (1998), “The demand for value-added and convenience: a
household production approach”, Agribusiness, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 363-378.
INTR Robinson, T.E. and Berridge, K.C. (1993), “The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization
29,6 theory of addiction”, Brain Research Reviews, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 247-291.
Robinson, T.E. and Berridge, K.C. (2003), “Addiction”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 25-53.
Salehan, M. and Negahban, A. (2013), “Social networking on smartphones: when mobile phones become
addictive”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 2632-2639.
Samaha, M. and Hawi, N.S. (2016), “Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic
1566 performance, and satisfaction with life”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 321-325.
Shiau, W.-L. and Luo, M.M. (2013), “Continuance intention of blog users: the impact of perceived
enjoyment, habit, user involvement and blogging time”, Behaviour & Information Technology,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 570-583.
Smith, E.R. and DeCoster, J. (2000), “Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology:
conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems”, Personality and Social
Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 108-131.
Solomon, R.L. and Corbit, J.D. (1973), “An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. cigarette
addiction”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 158-171.
Soror, A.A., Hammer, B.I., Steelman, Z.R., Davis, F.D. and Limayem, M.M. (2015), “Good habits
gone bad: explaining negative consequences associated with the use of mobile phones from a
dual-systems perspective”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 403-427.
Stewart, S.H., Morris, E., Mellings, T. and Komar, J. (2006), “Relations of social anxiety variables to
drinking motives, drinking quantity and frequency, and alcohol-related problems in
undergraduates”, Journal of Mental Health, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 671-682.
Strack, F. and Deutsch, R. (2004), “Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 220-247.
Sun, J. (2009), “Internet phone with electronic commerce value-added service function”, available at:
[Link]
EPODOC&locale=&CC=CN&NR=101557439A&KC=A&ND=5 (accessed May 23, 2018).
Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A. and Turel, O. (2015), “Special issue on ‘dark side of information technology use’:
an introduction and a framework for research”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 161-170.
Teasdale, J.D. (1999), “Multi-level theories of cognition–emotion relations”, in Dalgleish, T. and Power, M.J.
(Eds), Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 665-681.
Ting, D.H., Lim, S.F., Patanmacia, T.S., Low, C.G. and Ker, G.C. (2011), “Dependency on smartphone and
the impact on purchase behaviour”, Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible
Marketers, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Tojib, D., Tsarenko, Y. and Sembada, A.Y. (2015), “The facilitating role of smartphones in increasing
use of value-added mobile services”, New Media & Society, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1220-1240.
Turel, O. and Bechara, A. (2017), “Effects of motor impulsivity and sleep quality on swearing,
interpersonally deviant and disadvantageous behaviors on online social networking sites”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 91-97.
Turel, O. and Qahri-Saremi, H. (2016), “Problematic use of social networking sites: antecedents and
consequence from a dual-system theory perspective”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1087-1116.
Turel, O. and Serenko, A. (2011), “Developing a (Bad) habit: antecedents and adverse consequences of
social networking website use habit”, Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Detroit, MI.
Turel, O. and Serenko, A. (2012), “The benefits and dangers of enjoyment with social networking
websites”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 512-528.
Turel, O., Serenko, A. and Giles, P. (2011), “Integrating technology addiction and use: an empirical
investigation of online auction users”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1043-1062.
Vaghefi, I. and Lapointe, L. (2013), “Can IT hurt productivity? An investigation of IT addiction”, Reinforcement
Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Milan. reward and
Vaghefi, I. and Lapointe, L. (2014), “When too much usage is too much: exploring the process of IT habit
addiction”, Proceeding of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE,
Waikoloa, HI, pp. 4494-4503.
van Deursen, A.J., Bolle, C.L., Hegner, S.M. and Kommers, P.A. (2015), “Modeling habitual and addictive
smartphone behavior: the role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, 1567
self-regulation, age, and gender”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 411-420.
Verplanken, B., Aarts, H. and Van Knippenberg, A. (1997), “Habit, information acquisition, and the
process of making travel mode choices”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 539-560.
Walsh, S.P., White, K.M., Hyde, M.K. and Watson, B. (2008), “Dialling and driving: factors influencing
intentions to use a mobile phone while driving”, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 1893-1900.
Wang, C., Lee, M.K. and Hua, Z. (2015), “A theory of social media dependence: evidence from microblog
users”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 40-49.
Wegner, D.M. (1994), “Ironic processes of mental control”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101 No. 1,
pp. 34-52.
Wu, M.-C. and Kuo, F.-Y. (2008), “An empirical investigation of habitual usage and past usage on
technology acceptance evaluations and continuance intention”, ACM SIGMIS Database, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 48-73.
Xu, H. and Tan, B.C. (2012), “Why do I keep checking Facebook: effects of message characteristics on
the formation of social network services addiction”, Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, FL.
Yang, S., Wang, B. and Lu, Y. (2016), “Exploring the dual outcomes of mobile social networking service
enjoyment: the roles of social self-efficacy and habit”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64
No. 11, pp. 486-496.
Yeung, P. and Jordan, E. (2007), “The continued usage of business e-learning courses in Hong Kong
corporations”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 175-188.
Yoon, C. and Kim, S. (2007), “Convenience and TAM in a ubiquitous computing environment: the case
of wireless LAN”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 102-112.
Zhou, T. and Lu, Y. (2011), “Examining mobile instant messaging user loyalty from the perspectives of
network externalities and flow experience”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 883-889.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

INTR Appendix 1
29,6

Factor and reference Measurement items

Smartphone addiction Reflecting on your experience with using smartphones, please indicate how much
1568 (Turel and Serenko, 2012) you agree with the following statements (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
SA1: my life has sometimes suffered because of using my smartphone
SA2: using my smartphone sometimes interfered with other activities (e.g. study)
SA3: when I am not using my smartphone, I often feel agitated
SA4: I have made unsuccessful attempts to reduce the time using my smartphone.
SA5: I find it difficult to control my smartphone use
Perceived enjoyment Below is a list of statements dealing with your feelings in using smartphones.
(Turel et al., 2011) Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
PE1: using my smartphone is enjoyable
PE2: using my smartphone is fun
PE3: using my smartphone is interesting
Mood regulation (Caplan, Reflecting on your experience of using smartphone, please indicate how much you
2010; Stewart et al., 2006) agree with the following statements (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
MR1: I have used my smartphone to make myself feel better when I was down
MR2: I have used my smartphone to make myself feel better when I’ve felt upset
MR3: I have used my smartphone to forget worries
MR4: I have used my smartphone to forget about problems
Habit (Limayem et al., Reflecting on your experience of using smartphone, please indicate how much you
2007) agree with the following statements (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
HB1: using my smartphone has become automatic to me
HB2: using my smartphone is natural to me
HB3: when I want to interact with friends and relatives, using my smartphone is
an obvious choice for me
Value-added function Below is a list of statements dealing with your feelings in using smartphones.
(Kim et al., 2004) Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
VF1: there are a variety of value-added functions provided by smartphones, like
social networking, browsing the internet, etc.
VF2: the value-added functions are up-to-date
Convenience (Yoon and Reflecting on your experience of using smartphone, please indicate how much you
Kim, 2007) agree with the following statements (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)
CV1: I can use smartphone whenever I want
Table AI. CV2: I can use smartphone wherever I am
Construct CV3: using smartphone is effortless for me
measurement CV4: I find it convenient to use smartphone
Appendix 2 Reinforcement
reward and
habit
SA PE MR CV HB VF

SA1 0.735 0.324 0.345 0.200 0.204 0.354

SA2 0.847 0.478 0.552 0.243 0.260 0.467 1569
SA3 0.902 0.409 0.481 0.190 0.113 0.364
SA4 0.836 0.381 0.432 0.190 0.088 0.354
SA5 0.816 0.364 0.453 0.177 0.055 0.310
PE1 0.439 0.955 0.619 0.287 0.353 0.553
PE2 0.443 0.943 0.629 0.271 0.325 0.561
PE3 0.452 0.894 0.516 0.299 0.401 0.573
MR1 0.442 0.509 0.868 0.164 0.173 0.416
MR2 0.484 0.561 0.871 0.158 0.145 0.442
MR3 0.531 0.576 0.912 0.123 0.196 0.384
MR4 0.520 0.605 0.920 0.131 0.229 0.418
CV1 0.178 0.196 0.111 0.649 0.308 0.183
CV2 0.122 0.195 0.028 0.785 0.443 0.180
CV3 0.220 0.283 0.192 0.838 0.363 0.366
CV4 0.240 0.271 0.187 0.762 0.321 0.392
HB1 0.117 0.326 0.119 0.413 0.913 0.361
HB2 0.152 0.377 0.194 0.424 0.919 0.396
HB3 0.192 0.316 0.232 0.426 0.806 0.425 Table AII.
VF1 0.441 0.564 0.459 0.329 0.421 0.950 Confirmatory
VF2 0.414 0.585 0.422 0.355 0.434 0.949 factor analysis
INTR Appendix 3
29,6

Construct Item Substantive factor loading (R1) R12 Method factor loading (R2) R22

Smartphone addiction SA1 0.766*** 0.587 −0.025 0.0006

1570 SA2 0.652*** 0.425 0.232*** 0.0538
SA3 0.955*** 0.912 −0.065 0.0042
SA4 0.896*** 0.803 −0.071 0.005
SA5 0.873*** 0.762 −0.074 0.0055
Perceived enjoyment PE1 0.983*** 0.966 −0.031 0.001
PE2 0.957*** 0.916 −0.013 0.0002
PE3 0.849*** 0.721 0.047 0.0022
Mood regulation MR1 0.912*** 0.832 −0.055 0.003
MR2 0.849*** 0.721 0.024 0.0006
MR3 0.917*** 0.841 −0.005 0.0000
MR4 0.894*** 0.799 0.033 0.0011
Habit HB1 0.970*** 0.941 −0.082** 0.0067
HB2 0.934*** 0.872 −0.004 0.000
HB3 0.725*** 0.526 0.100 0.010
Value-added function VF1 0.950*** 0.903 −0.011 0.0001
VF2 0.950*** 0.903 0.011 0.0001
Convenience CV1 0.614*** 0.377 0.004 0.0000
CV2 0.770*** 0.593 −0.088 0.0077
CV3 0.866*** 0.750 0.022 0.0005
CV4 0.787*** 0.619 0.054 0.0029
Table AIII.
Common method Average 0.860 0.751 0.0001 0.005
bias analysis Notes: **p o0.01; ***p o 0.001

Corresponding author
Kem Z.K. Zhang can be contacted at: zhangzikun@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]