Research
The research behind Scoreboard
What published studies found, who they studied, and where the evidence stops. None of them tested Scoreboard.
The short version
- In experiments, tracking progress helped people reach goals and setting a goal changed behavior by a small amount. Both worked better when others could see them.
- Comparing and competing raised exercise in trials. Those studies measured exercise, not phones.
- On phones, the evidence is early: in one small study that wasn't randomized, friends who limited their phones together cut daily use.
- Where it can go wrong: comparison can backfire, a ranking of everyone let a few players dominate, and effects faded once the games ended. None of these studies tested Scoreboard.
Phones take a big share of the day
US adults say they spend about 5 hours a day on their phones and check them about 205 times a day.1
In a review of 20 studies covering 125,198 kids aged 6 to 19, using a phone or tablet at bedtime went with less sleep and worse sleep.2
That's a link, not proof of cause.
Seeing your progress helps, more when others see it
Across 138 experiments with 19,951 people, tracking progress toward a goal helped people reach it, and it helped more when the progress was reported or made public.3
On Scoreboard, your score sits on a board your friends see. Friends see your score and how it splits by category; never which apps, never what you did in them, never anything on your screen.
Goals work better out loud
Across randomized trials with 16,523 people, setting a goal changed behavior by a small amount on average. It worked best when the goal was hard, set publicly, or shared by a group.4
Everyone on a board plays for the same goal: lowest score wins.
Friendly competition moves people
In a trial with 790 university students, those who could compare themselves with others went to 90% more exercise classes than those who couldn't. Comparison beat support.5
In a trial of 602 US adults with overweight or obesity, a 24 week step competition raised daily steps the most of three game designs: about 920 more a day than the control group.6
Across 16 trials with 2,407 people, game style programs raised physical activity by a small to medium amount.7
These studies measured exercise, not phones.
On phones, early results
In a three week study of 62 people at a Korean university, those who limited their phones together in groups of friends cut daily use from about 234 to 177 minutes. Those using a solo version saw no significant drop.8
The study was small and not randomized.8
In a randomized experiment with about 2,000 US adults on Android phones in 2020, letting people set limits on their future screen time substantially reduced their social media use.9
Scoreboard's Focus is a block you set for 5 to 120 minutes, with every app blocked except the ones your iPhone always allows.
Where it can go wrong
Comparison can backfire. In a field experiment on home energy, showing households the neighborhood average saved energy or backfired, depending on whether a home was already using a lot or a little. A note of approval stopped the backfire.10
In the Korean phone study's pilots, a ranking of every participant let a few top players dominate, which put off people lower down, and people cared little about ranking against strangers. The final app ranked people within each group of friends, and groups against each other.8
Effects also fade: activity fell once the step game ended, and gamification's effect was smaller at follow up.6,7
On Scoreboard, every board is your friends or a group you're in, and you can leave a group any time.
Sources
- Reviews.org. Cell phone usage stats 2025. Survey of 1,000 US adults, self-reported, published January 1, 2025. reviews.org/mobile/2025-cell-phone-addiction
- Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association between portable screen-based media device access or use and sleep outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 2016. doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341
- Harkin B, Webb TL, Chang BP, et al. Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 2016. doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
- Epton T, Currie S, Armitage CJ. Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2017. doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260
- Zhang J, Brackbill D, Yang S, Becker J, Herbert N, Centola D. Support or competition? How online social networks increase physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2016. doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.08.008
- Patel MS, Small DS, Harrison JD, et al. Effectiveness of behaviorally designed gamification interventions with social incentives for increasing physical activity among overweight and obese adults across the United States: the STEP UP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2019. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3505
- Mazeas A, Duclos M, Pereira B, Chalabaev A. Evaluating the effectiveness of gamification on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2022. doi.org/10.2196/26779
- Ko M, Yang S, Lee J, et al. NUGU: a group-based intervention app for improving self-regulation of limiting smartphone use. CSCW 2015. doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675244
- Allcott H, Gentzkow M, Song L. Digital addiction. American Economic Review, 2022. doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210867
- Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 2007. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x