Digital minimalism: using less technology without giving it up

Introduction: From technology rejection to its intentional use

Digital minimalism is not about abandoning technology, but rather about reorganizing it to contribute to specific personal, social, and professional goals. The proliferation of devices and platforms has brought benefits in communication, access to information, and productivity, along with problems of overload, distraction, and a work-life balance (Chen, 2026; Uslu, 2025) . Recent literature, therefore, challenges the simplistic opposition between connection and disconnection. The relevant objective is to determine which uses provide value, which become automatic, and under what conditions one can regain the ability to choose.

This perspective shifts the focus from the raw amount of screen time to the relationship between purpose, control, and consequences. Evidence shows heterogeneous associations between digital use and well-being, conditioned by personal characteristics and specific situations (Vaid et al., 2024) . Minimalism thus acquires a practical meaning: reducing stimuli and habits that interfere with priorities, without eliminating necessary tools. Its evaluation requires distinguishing between abstinence, regulation, digital competence, and dependence—categories that guide the following conceptual foundations.

Conceptual foundations of minimalism and digital wellbeing

From reducing screen time to optimally reconfiguring digital life

Reducing screen time can be helpful, but it is not, in itself, a sufficient definition of digital well-being. Digital well-being designates a multidimensional condition in which people manage technological demands according to their needs, resources, and opportunities for engagement (Weber et al., 2025) . From this perspective, a temporary reduction is only valuable if it frees up attention, rest, or meaningful activity, and not if it hinders necessary communication, learning, or work.

Chen formulates minimalism as an optimal reconfiguration of everyday technologies, precisely to correct the interpretation that its purpose would be to abandon all devices (Chen, 2026) . The unit of analysis shifts from the isolated device to the organization of digital life: selected applications, connection times, response expectations, and criteria for retaining or eliminating functions. This framework allows for the inclusion of both individual decisions and organizational conditions, because work and educational connectivity does not always depend on personal will.

The concept of digital balance adds a normative dimension: use should align with explicit values, goals, and time limits. In a study with adults, intentional use was associated with greater attentional control and well-being, while passive use showed inverse associations even when controlling for total screen time (Wang et al., 2026) . Because this was a non-prerecorded study based on structural modeling, these results generate strong hypotheses but do not establish causality. Quantitative reduction should therefore be interpreted as a possible tool within a broader reorganization.

Intentional use, passive use, and the distinction between digital competence and dependence

Intentional use involves defining why, when, and for how long a technology is used; passive use is characterized by automatic responses to external stimuli and consumption without an explicit goal (Wang et al., 2026) . This distinction avoids equating a work video call with repetitive scrolling through content. It also clarifies why two people with the same amount of screen time can experience different consequences.

Digital competence and dependence constitute another necessary distinction. A network analysis in adults identified distinct communities of digital competence and digital dependence, with emotional regulation as the connecting node between the two (J. Chen, 2026) . Competence includes digital literacy, self-control, and adaptive coping strategies; dependence is related to problematic use, nomophobia, and avoidant coping. The demographic differences observed in that study suggest that difficulties should not be attributed solely to an individual lack of discipline.

Digital well-being is thus expressed through the relationship between needs satisfaction, social connection, affect, and digital stress. Validation of a digital balance scale in a Ukrainian population linked higher scores with life satisfaction and positive affect, and lower scores with anxiety, bedtime procrastination, smartphone addiction, and social media engagement (Tosti et al., 2026) . These associations support the usefulness of measuring the perceived harmony between online and offline experiences, although they do not prove that one dimension causes the other. Based on this, the empirical question then becomes how technology alters attention and well-being, and which users bear the brunt of its costs.

Technology, care and psychological well-being: what effects are observed and for whom

Distraction, technostress, exhaustion, and attentional control

The available evidence does not describe a uniform effect of technology, but rather a combination of benefits and costs depending on the usage pattern. Passive use is associated with lower attentional control and well-being, while intentional use shows positive associations with both outcomes (Wang et al., 2026) . Attentional control mediated the relationship between usage patterns and well-being in that analysis, suggesting that technology affects well-being in part through the ability to sustain goals in the face of competing stimuli. The lack of pre-recording and the observational design preclude a causal interpretation.

Distraction also appears to be linked to problematic smartphone use. In an Italian sample of four generational groups, scores for problematic use and distraction were positively correlated, with younger generations scoring higher mean values on both measures, except for online surveillance (Bellini et al., 2025) . Withdrawal, craving, and using the phone as an escape were associated with several domains of well-being, while multitasking showed positive associations with some occupational, physical, and economic outcomes (Bellini et al., 2025) . This latter relationship should not be interpreted as evidence that multitasking improves well-being, because it stems from correlations and may reflect job demands or user selection.

In work environments, the problem is not limited to phone habits. Among maritime professionals, technostress was linked to burnout, which in turn was associated with mental well-being; digital culture, knowledge management, and digital leadership showed negative associations with technostress (Li et al., 2025) . Organizations can therefore reduce or increase the technological workload through availability policies, training, and resources. Individual minimalism is limited when the institution demands continuous responsiveness or multiplies redundant channels.

Mindfulness offers a potential mechanism for interrupting automatic responses and improving self-regulation. An exploratory review of 94 manuscripts found frequent associations between mindfulness, reduced problematic technology use, and less stress related to information and communication technologies (Tennakoon et al., 2026) . Another review, focusing on interventions for problematic use, reported generally favorable results and noted emotional self-regulation as a recurring mechanism, although it included only ten reports from eight studies (Thomas et al., 2025) . The convergence is suggestive, but the predominance of cross-sectional designs and student samples limits inferences about sustained change.

Individual, generational, and contextual differences in digital sensitivity

The effects depend on who uses the technology, their psychological state, and the situation. An intensive one-month longitudinal study found a small average negative association between social media and subsequent well-being, but also wide variation between individuals (Vaid et al., 2024) . People with depression, loneliness, or lower life satisfaction showed greater negative sensitivity, and certain places and social relationships intensified this association. The same platform can therefore serve as a support for one user and as a means of avoidance or comparison for another.

Age is associated with some risk indicators, although it does not, on its own, determine well-being. In Chen’s analysis, younger participants showed lower emotional regulation and digital self-control, as well as higher digital stress and problematic internet use (J. Chen, 2026) . In the Italian sample, generational differences appeared in problematic use and distraction, but not in the well-being dimensions examined (Bellini et al., 2025) . The absence of differences in well-being prevents us from using age as a substitute for vulnerability.

Gender, literacy, and self-control also matter. In a representative sample from Sweden, digital self-control and subjective digital literacy positively predicted digital well-being, and self-control also predicted greater life satisfaction (Mayiwar et al., 2024) . In network analysis, women scored higher on nomophobia and emotion-focused coping, while men showed greater digital literacy (J. Chen, 2026) . These results warrant interventions sensitive to individual circumstances, without turning average differences into individual prescriptions.

Digital minimalism interventions: detox, notifications, apps, and mindfulness

Experimental evidence on media restriction and notification disabling

Restriction interventions show different effects depending on the object restricted and the outcome being assessed. In a pre-registered, eight-day trial with Generation Z participants, restricting digital media use resulted in greater life satisfaction, mindfulness, autonomy, competence, and self-esteem, as well as less loneliness and stress compared to controls; specifically restricting social media resulted in fewer benefits and some emotional costs (Walsh et al., 2024) . This comparison suggests that smartphones can integrate activities with different effects, so “social media” and “digital media” are not equivalent interventions.

The review on digital detox reaches a similar, albeit more cautious, conclusion: reducing time spent on social media or phones appears more beneficial than promoting total abstinence, but definitions and measures vary widely (Marciano et al., 2024) . The type of outcome, duration, age, gender, and context all influence the observed effects. The review also notes that the available evidence does not yet allow for firm implications for public policy. Abstinence may be a timely strategy, but it should not be presented as a universal treatment.

Notifications offer a particularly clear example of the discrepancy between popular recommendation and experimental results. In a pre-registered randomized trial with 205 participants, disabling notifications for one week did not change the frequency of checking, screen time, perceived control, excessive use, vigilance, productivity, or distraction (Dekker et al., 2024) . It did decrease the perceived strength of the checking habit, but increased the fear of missing out. This result challenges the notion that notifications are the primary driver of all mobile usage and shows that an intervention can improve one subjective experience while worsening another.

The comparison between the two trials suggests that the scope of the restriction matters. Limiting global access to digital media can modify experiences of autonomy and stress, whereas removing a specific stimulus may not alter a habit sustained by rewards, social expectations, or ingrained routines. Differences in duration, population, and target behavior preclude combining their effects as if they were measuring the same treatment. The assessment should record objective behavior and subjective experience separately.

Digital reduction applications, wellness training, and mindfulness-based interventions

Apps can introduce friction into automatic behaviors. In a pretest-posttest study, 29 young people used MinimalistPhone for fourteen days and were compared with 28 controls; the experimental group reduced habitual behavior and total screen time, but showed no significant changes in affective states (Schraggeová & Bisaha, 2025) . The app removed visual cues, required searching for apps in an alphabetical list, and recorded usage time, prioritizing control over convenience. The initial differences between groups were significant, so the result should be considered preliminary.

Training interventions combine education, contemplative practice, and digital tools. A randomized clinical trial conducted with 2,315 Mexican healthcare professionals evaluated a thirteen-week program consisting of nine two-hour remote sessions and the use of the Healthy Minds Program. Compared to a waiting list, the program reduced distress and increased well-being at thirteen weeks, with greater effects at the thirty-seven-week follow-up (Hirshberg et al., 2025) . The randomized design, sample size, and follow-up strengthen the causal interpretation, although the population was linked to the healthcare sector and the comparison was not an active intervention.

Reviews of prevention programs in young people describe a more heterogeneous field. Of the 33 interventions included, most combined several components and education; the number of controlled trials showed benefits in various forms of digital well-being, while two included meta-analyses found small positive effects on reducing screen time (Carras et al., 2024) . The quality of the reporting limited the assessment of mechanisms, harms, and transfer to other contexts. Consequently, education may be necessary, but its content, intensity, and setting determine the outcome.

Mindfulness-based interventions have a theoretical basis consistent with minimalism because they train impulse observation, emotional regulation, and deliberate choice. However, the specific review of these interventions called for randomized controlled trials with active controls, culturally and generationally diverse samples, and sufficient descriptions of instructors, fidelity, and content (Thomas et al., 2025) . Digital training can support individual changes, but the evidence does not justify attributing its effects to mindfulness alone when it includes educational sessions, group practice, and an app.

Critical synthesis: between effective moderation and the detoxification paradox

Why reducing usage doesn’t always improve well-being

Reducing technology use can yield benefits, but abstinence can also have costs. Restricting digital media improved several indicators in a short trial, while restricting social media produced fewer benefits and more negative emotion (Walsh et al., 2024) . Disabling notifications reduced the perceived habit of checking, but did not change objective behavior and increased the fear of missing out (Dekker et al., 2024) . These discrepancies show that the outcome depends on what is restricted, what function it served, and which indicator is used.

The paradox can arise when the intervention comes from the platform itself. In studies of detox features built into TikTok, less skeptical users perceived greater authenticity from the company and expressed a greater intention to use the app; a longitudinal study also documented increased usage over a week among these users (Galvan & Newman, 2025) . The break reminder can become a sign of commercial trust, rather than a way to reduce exposure. Solutions designed by companies should be evaluated by observed behavior, not by their appearance of responsibility.

Detoxification can also fail when it treats a symptom without addressing the underlying conditions that maintain the habit. Problematic use is related to emotional regulation, avoidant coping, psychological vulnerability, and availability expectations (J. Chen, 2026; Vaid et al., 2024) . Removing a notification does not necessarily resolve the loneliness, work-related stress, or need for connection that prompted the consultation. The most appropriate intervention will depend on whether the goal is to reduce distraction, alleviate anxiety, improve sleep, or reorganize obligations.

Quality, purpose, and context of use versus abstinence metrics

Screen time is a useful indicator of exposure, but it doesn’t capture purpose or experience. Intentional use was associated with attention and well-being after controlling for total time, while passive use showed the opposite pattern (Wang et al., 2026) . Sensitivity to social media also varied according to psychological disposition and the physical and social environment (Vaid et al., 2024) . Therefore, an abstinence metric may penalize a beneficial activity while leaving brief but compulsive behavior unaffected.

A more precise evaluative approach should combine objective records, daily reports, and measures of well-being, attentional control, autonomy, and stress. The notification trial demonstrates the usefulness of separating frequency of check-in, screen time, perceived habit, and fear of missing out (Dekker et al., 2024) . Validation of the Digital Balance Scale offers another way to measure the perceived relationship between online and offline life, although age differences did not reach scalar invariance (Tosti et al., 2026) . Measures must be sensitive to groups and contexts; it is important not to assume that a score has the same meaning for everyone.

The criterion for success should be a digital life that is compatible with personal priorities and collective obligations. At work, reducing messages outside of work hours may require regulatory changes, not just self-control. In schools, well-being also depends on access, usage practices, and opportunities for participation (Weber et al., 2025) . Effective moderation combines design, training, and institutional rules. This conclusion leads to the gaps that limit the equitable application of minimalism.

Gaps in the evidence and conditions for equitable digital minimalism

Methodological limitations, underrepresented populations, and short-term results

The literature presents an uneven empirical base. Reviews on mindfulness indicate a predominance of cross-sectional studies, student samples, incomplete reports, and few trials with active controls (Tennakoon et al., 2026; Thomas et al., 2025) . Available experimental studies are usually brief: eight days of restriction, one week without notifications, or fourteen days with an app (Dekker et al., 2024; Schraggeová & Bisaha, 2025; Walsh et al., 2024) . These designs report on immediate changes but do not establish maintenance, activity substitution, or cumulative effects.

Comparisons across ages, cultures, occupations, and access levels are also lacking. Reviews call for culturally and generationally diverse populations, improved harm reporting, and greater detail on implementation (Carras et al., 2024; Thomas et al., 2025) . Research on AI-based technologies appears underdeveloped in the mindfulness review (Tennakoon et al., 2026) . The field needs pre-registration, repeated measurements, and long-term follow-up, while continuing to analyze mechanisms.

Digital inequality, work and educational environments, and the need for digital balance measures

Minimalism cannot become a requirement to disconnect for those who depend on technology for work, study, or access to services. In schools, digital well-being is conditioned by inequalities in access, usage practices, and opportunities for participation (Weber et al., 2025) . In organizations, technostress depends on culture, leadership, digital knowledge and resources, not just individual habits (Li et al., 2025) . Policies must allow for sufficient connectivity and limit unnecessary demands.

Future research should evaluate measures of digital balance alongside objective indicators and psychological outcomes. It should also examine who can implement an intervention, who is excluded, and what costs abstinence entails. Equitable minimalism would combine digital literacy, emotional regulation, responsible design, and institutional norms of availability (Mayiwar et al., 2024; Weber et al., 2025) . In this way, reducing digital use would cease to be a private obligation and become a shared condition of digital health.

Conclusion: Towards a deliberate, healthy, and sustainable technological relationship

Digital minimalism offers a framework for using less technology when automated use displaces valuable goals, without confusing well-being with total disconnection. Evidence supports distinguishing between intentional and passive use, measuring quality and purpose, and adapting interventions to vulnerabilities and contexts (Vaid et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2026) . Restrictions can improve some outcomes, but notifications, apps, and detox features can also produce null or counterproductive effects (Dekker et al., 2024; Galvan & Newman, 2025) .

A sustainable technological relationship requires personal choices and institutional changes. Mindfulness, digital literacy, and self-regulation can support regulation, while schools and organizations must reduce demands for availability that exceed actual needs (Hirshberg et al., 2025; Weber et al., 2025) . The ultimate goal is not to reach a universal screen time limit, but to preserve agency, rest, meaningful connection, and the ability to steer technology toward a chosen life.

References

• Bellini, D., Mascia, M.L., Conti, R., & Penna, M.P. (2025). Smartphone overuse and distraction: which relationship with general well-being across different generations? BMC Public Health , 25 (1), 427. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-21269-z
• Carras, MC, Aljuboori, D., Shi, JC, Date, M., Karkoub, F., Ortiz, KG, Abreha, FM, & Thrul, J. (2024). Prevention and health promotion interventions for young people in the context of digital well-being: Rapid systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 26 , e59968. https://doi.org/10.2196/59968
• Chen, J. (2026). Digital Minimalism: Towards Optimal Reconfiguration Of Digital Technologies In Everyday Life. Journal of the Association for Information Systems . https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=treos_ecis2026
• Chen, S., Ebrahimi, O.V., & Cheng, C.C. (2025). New perspective on digital well-being by distinguishing digital competence from dependency: Network approach. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 27 , e70483. https://doi.org/10.2196/70483
• Dekker, CA, Baumgartner, SE, Sumter, SR, & Ohme, J. (2024). Beyond the buzz: Investigating the effects of a notification-disabling intervention on smartphone behavior and digital well-being. Media Psychology , 28 (1), 162–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2024.2334025
• Galvan, E.G., & Newman, C.L. (2025). The digital detox paradox: Potential backfire effects of digital detox interventions on consumer digital well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing , 44 (4), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156251322105
• Hirshberg, MJ, Davidson, RJ, Arrisueño, LBV, Puentes, JMO, Bardalez, XM, Gonzalez, BS, Goldberg, SB, Chernicoff, LI, HCP-Well Study Group, Marroquín-Escamilla, AR, Parra, M., de Oca Luna, RM, Vidales, EPR, López, VGP, Aguayo, SR, Vázquez, EFA, Sánchez, RR, García, AMG, Valdez, LGM, … Vasquez, CC (2025). Digital well-being training with health care professionals. JAMA Internal Medicine , 185 (10), 1248. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.3888
• Li, X., Seah, RYT, & Yuen, K.F. (2025). Mental wellbeing in digital workplaces: The role of digital resources, technostress, and burnout. Technology in Society , 81 , 102844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102844
• Marciano, L., Jindal, S., & Viswanath, K. (2024). Digital detox and well-being. PEDIATRICS , 154 (4). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-066142
• Mayiwar, L., Asutay, E., Tinghög, G., Västfjäll, D., & Barrafrem, K. (2024). Determinants of digital well-being. AI & Society , 40 (4), 3063–3073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02071-2
• Schraggeová, M., & Bisaha, D. (2025). The effect of digital detox through digital minimalism using the MinimalistPhone app on the behavior of young users and their emotional experience. Computers in Human Behavior Reports , 18 , 100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100699
• Tennakoon, KLUS, Kinnear, K., & Sony, H. (2026). Mindful Tech Use in the Digital Age: A Scoping Review. Journal of the Association for Information Systems . https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=asac2026
• Thomas, J., Al-Beyahi, F., Carras, MC, Aljuboori, D., Alomairah, SA, & Thrul, J. (2025). Mindfulness-based approaches to problematic technology use: A scoping review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports , 18 , 100653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100653
• Tosti, A.E., Shyroka, A., Chorna, A., Guazzini, A., & Duradoni, M. (2026). Understanding digital well-being: Validation of the digital life balance scale in the ukrainian population. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2633205
• Uslu, O. (2025). Understanding digital wellbeing: impacts, strategies, and the path to healthier technology practices. Discover Social Science and Health , 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-025-00259-5
• Vaid, SS, Kroencke, L., Roshanaei, M., Talaifar, S., Hancock, JT, Back, MD, Gosling, SD, Ram, N., & Harari, GM (2024). Variation in social media sensitivity across people and contexts. Scientific Reports , 14 (1), 6571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55064-y
• Walsh, L.C., Regan, A., Okabe‐Miyamoto, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2024). Does putting down your smartphone make you happier? the effects of restricting digital media on well-being. PLoS ONE , 19 (10), e0306910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306910
• Wang, H., Xu, L., & He, R. (2026). Intentional versus passive technology use patterns differentially predict attentional control and psychological well-being. Scientific Reports , 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40374-0
• Weber, P.M., Kammerl, R., & Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2025). What does digital well-being mean for school development? a theoretical review with perspectives on digital inequality. Education Sciences , 15 (8), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080948