Notification-hidden students showed longer average phone-use duration and no performance difference versus notification-revealed students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? The NH group showed longer APUD than the NR group, but the difference was not significant (d = −0.290, p = .095). → Liao 2026
q3 i? Learning performance did not differ significantly between the NR and NH groups (d = −0.185, p = .399). → Liao 2026 (2)
Evidence¶
Liao 2026¶
Liao, H.-H., Liu, T.-C., & Lin, Y.-C. (2026). External and internal smartphone distractions: Effects on phone use and learning performance in college classrooms. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09794-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Welch-corrected t-test on average phone-use duration in the same two-group classroom experiment; the "difference was not significant" despite the NH group's longer mean duration (40.574 vs 25.764 s in Table 1).
"Although participants in the NH group showed a longer APUD than those in the NR group, the difference was not significant (alternative hypothesis: NR < NH; t = − 1.327, df = 56.552, p = .095, Cohen's d = − 0.290, H2 rejected)"
Liao 2026 (2)¶
Liao, H.-H., Liu, T.-C., & Lin, Y.-C. (2026). External and internal smartphone distractions: Effects on phone use and learning performance in college classrooms. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09794-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Welch-corrected t-test on the 16-item quiz in the same experiment found "a significant difference" was absent between groups; equivalence was not tested. Means were 8.071 (NR) and 8.667 (NH).
"the two groups did not have a significant difference in learning performance (Alternative hypothesis: NR ≠ NH; t = − 0.847, df = 81.601, p = .399, Cohen's d = − 0.185, H3 supported)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Habitual phone use heightens smartphone vigilance but does not directly increase checking frequency; it lengthens use duration only when notifications are hidden — related
- Smartphone settings moderate how vigilance translates into phone use: vigilance raises checking frequency more when notifications are revealed, and use duration more when notifications are hidden — related
- Phone-use frequency and duration increase phone-use mental effort, which negatively affects learning performance, mediating the behavior–performance link — related
- Students with visible notifications check their phones more frequently in class than students with hidden notifications — related
- Phone-use behavior under hidden notifications is highly heterogeneous: about half of NH students abstained entirely, and most NR checks were brief glances — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-performance-difference-notification-settings |
title |
Notification-hidden students showed longer average phone-use duration and no performance difference versus notification-revealed students |
description |
Notification-hidden students showed longer average phone-use duration and no performance difference versus notification-revealed students |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — liao-2026, liao-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.