It is not universal
The result applies to the source’s defined population and period, not every age group, country, or person.
Home / Statistics / Gratitude Research Statistics
Data library · reviewed July 26, 2026
Gratitude Research Statistics
Gratitude interventions have been studied in randomized trials and meta-analyses. Effects are generally small on average and differ by outcome, intervention, and study design.
Chart
What this statistic measures
This summary describes a meta-analysis of gratitude interventions across 28 countries. It does not mean a journal will produce the same result for every person or replace clinical care.
Numbers about phone use and wellbeing are easy to overinterpret. A measure of use does not by itself describe whether that use was intentional, required, enjoyable, or harmful. A research association does not prove one factor caused another. This page keeps those distinctions visible so readers can use the result as context rather than a diagnosis or prediction.
What this statistic does not show
It is not a diagnosis
Statistics about use frequency or wellbeing do not diagnose addiction, ADHD, anxiety, depression, or another condition.
It is not a causal claim
Unless a source used a design that supports causal inference, associations should be read as associations.
It is not a product claim
This data does not establish that a particular app or intervention will change an outcome for an individual.
How this relates to intentional phone use
Dia Key uses a small, self-directed routine: a selected-app boundary and a short gratitude entry. It does not claim to treat a condition or guarantee an outcome. If you use a phone boundary, start with one context, preserve essential access, and review whether the setting makes the next action more intentional. See the screen-time guide and app-blocking hub for practical options.