BACKGROUND: The current debate raises the question of whether "smartphone addiction" really exists and whether the phenomenon can be considered as a distinct, clinically relevant disorder. This question is examined from three perspectives: 1) the terminology and definition of the problematic behaviour, 2) the evidence of clinical relevance, the theoretical embedding and empirical robustness of negative consequences and related psychological mechanisms, and 3) a critical reflection of current measurement tools.

ARGUMENT: The assumption that problematic smartphone use is a distinct behavioural addiction is not valid. Clear evidence for clinical relevance, the integration in theoretical framework models from addiction research, and a standardized definition and classification for deriving diagnostic criteria distinguishing the usage from other problematic behaviours and activities are needed. Therefore, we provide the following specific recommendations for future research: 1) investigating the clinical relevance of potential impairments solely due to smartphone use, which also includes a methodological paradigm shift; 2) focusing on a more comprehensive theoretical embedding for and against the addiction argumentation; 3) investigating underlying mechanisms by additionally considering smartphone-specific mechanisms (e.g., usage types, availability).

SUMMARY: Current evidence does not support problematic smartphone use as a distinct behavioural addiction. Future research should use more robust methods to clarify whether it can be conceptualised within the addiction framework or as an alternative mechanism or medium for a different type of disorder.