Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Digital well-being concerns individuals’ subjective well-being in a social environment where digital media are omnipresent. A general framework is developed to integrate empirical research toward a cumulative science of the impacts of digital media use on well-being. It describes the nature of and connections between three pivotal constructs: digital practices, harms/benefits, and well-being. Individual’s digital practices arise within and shape socio-technical structural conditions, and lead to often concomitant harms and benefits. These pathways are theoretically plausible causal chains that lead from a specific manifestation of digital practice to an individual well-being-related outcome with some regularity. Future digital well-being studies should prioritize descriptive validity and formal theory development.

Keywords

Communication theory digital inequality digital well-being digitization framework media effects research design smartphone use social media use well-being

How can people live a good life both thanks to and despite the constant use of digital media? There will be no simple answers—findings will depend on which aspects of digital media use, of well-being, and of any number of intervening factors are selected. There is nothing inherently beneficial or harmful in digital media per se, but they can and do play a role for people’s well-being. The introduction of new technologies generally entails a discourse from euphoria, to moral panic, to normalization—affordance is initially mistaken for inevitability and existing socio-technical structures are ignored (Baym, 2010; Franklin, 1999; Morley and Silverstone, 1990). As digital media have become increasingly intertwined with everyday activities, so has their potential impact. This has led to overly generalized fears and claims, such as that smartphones are destroying the current generation of adolescents (Bell et al., 2015; Twenge, 2017a). Instead of digital detoxes (Syvertsen and Enli, 2019) or screen time apps (Beattie and Daubs, 2020), we need better theories and valid findings on how, why, and when digital media lead to harms and benefits. This article develops a general digital well-being framework providing a guide for specific, substantive theory development and empirical research. To this end, it connects three types of variables: (1) digital practices, (2) proximal outcomes in the form of harms and benefits, and (3) measures of well-being as distal outcomes.

Digital well-being: happiness when digital media are omnipresent

Many studies of digital media have analyzed socially relevant outcomes, such as political participation (Boulianne, 2018) or social capital (Williams, 2019). The digital well-being framework (Figure 1) explicitly extends this perspective by including subjective well-being, or happiness, as the target variable of personal, organizational, and government decision-making (Frijters, 2020; Helliwell, 2020). We care about digitization because ultimately technology is expected to foster a good life—a life lived in accordance with socially negotiated and personally held values (Quan-Haase, 2015; Vallor, 2010; Van Dijck, 2019). Yet, “technology, appearing now to ride roughshod over hopes for democracy and community, is viewed in much public discourse as a culprit behind a world gone rogue” (Swartz et al., 2019: 351). The (isolated) effects of digital practices among the myriad factors that impact well-being are presumably small (Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2020; Orben et al., 2019; Orben and Przybylski, 2019), making theoretical precision ex ante data collection all the more critical. Because communication is constitutive of social relations and thus human well-being (Fuchs, 2020; Spottswood and Wohn, 2020), enveloping this process into digital media does become central to the study of well-being in digitized societies.

Figure 1.

Digital well-being framework. An individual’s digital practice leads to often co-occurring manifest harms and benefits, which in turn affect subjective well-being. These steps may be moderated by additional variables, such as personality or situation. Individuals are embedded in social networks and society, whose structural trends and technologies constrain and afford individual action, while also being the complex emergent product of micro-level processes.

Subjective well-being is a self-evaluation or declaration people make about the quality of their lives (Diener et al., 2018a; Helliwell and Aknin, 2018; Keyes, 2014). It refers to happiness in terms of pleasure and satisfaction, which can include dimensions such as purpose, positive relationships, and functioning in social groups. Measures of subjective well-being generally include a cognitive appraisal, such as life satisfaction overall or in specific domains, and positive and negative affect (Miao et al., 2013). Explanations for variations in happiness commonly involve health, work, and relationships (Diener et al., 1999, 2018b; Headey et al., 1985; Watson, 1930). The proposed framework offers a frame to cumulate the specific effects of digital media use and a way of systematizing processes (and their corresponding substantive theories) at the intersection of digitization and well-being. Accordingly, digital well-being is understood here as a shorthand term for how digital media use is connected to well-being, rather than referring to moments of being satisfied with one’s digital media use.

Combined with the normative stance that technology should improve the quality of life (Amichai-Hamburger, 2009; Franklin, 1999; Griffy-Brown et al., 2018), the following delineation is proposed for digital well-being as a research field: Digital well-being concerns individuals’ affect (e.g. positive emotions), domain satisfaction (e.g. one’s relationships or job), and overall life satisfaction in a social environment characterized by the constant abundance of digital media use options (for related approaches, see Amichai-Hamburger and Furnham, 2007; Büchi et al., 2019; Floridi, 2014; Gui et al., 2017; Vanden Abeele, 2020). This abundance forces decisions on digital practices, even if it is to not use digital media in a given situation. Consequently, digital well-being interrogates the proximate relationships between the use of digital media and subjective well-being, and digital media’s modifications of “analog” influences on and outcomes of well-being. In less digitized societies, the framework is equally applicable, but presumably the relative contribution of digital media use to well-being is smaller in everyday life.

Different research traditions have dealt with the relationship between digital media use and well-being with different assumptions and definitions. Findings depend on how both concepts are defined and operationalized, and on a host of potential moderators and mediators for this primary relationship (Kushlev, 2018; Rosas, 2012). One study may find negative well-being-related effects because it operationalizes social media use as clicking on links and the like button on Facebook (Shakya and Christakis, 2017), whereas another finds positive effects because it measures social media’s integration into social routines (Bekalu et al., 2019). In a large national sample where US teens were directly asked about the overall effect of social media use, 45% presumed a neither positive nor negative effect; among those who assumed an effect, positive outweighed negative (Anderson and Jiang, 2018). Several findings, however, do indicate negative impacts of digital media uses on measures indicative of personal well-being (Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; Liu et al., 2019; Salo et al., 2017). Psychological digital well-being research generally focuses on adolescents with screen time as the independent variable and indicators of depression or anxiety as the dependent variable (for an overview, see Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; Odgers and Jensen, 2020), with the current state of research indicating clinically insignificant relationships and little evidence regarding cause and effect.

Studies have focused on negative aspects such as problematic Internet use (Caplan, 2002), Internet addiction (Beard, 2005), smartphone addiction (Panova and Carbonell, 2018), fear of missing out (Przybylski et al., 2013), or social comparison (Midgley et al., 2021). Whether temporarily disconnecting from digital media has positive well-being effects is unclear (Radtke et al., 2021), yet may hold some promise in self-determined digital media habits (Aagaard, 2021). Recently, more person-centered research has emerged. For example, Griffioen et al. (2021) video-recorded and then interviewed 114 emerging adults; they found that smartphones were omnipresent but uses, motivations, and feelings varied greatly, thus concluding that indiscriminate measures, such as screen time cannot induce uniform effects on well-being.

Turel et al. (2018) report that a short abstinence from social networking site use resulted in reduced perceived stress, especially in excessive users. The independent variable was one specific type of digital practice, and the dependent variable was one specific type of a proximal harmful outcome. In addition, the relationship was more pronounced for heavy users—intensity of use thus functioned as an additional specification. Wolfers et al. (2020) found that experiencing above-average stress led to less passive Facebook use 6 months later, and more Facebook use in a passive manner increased stress; yet, this pattern was found only for younger adults and only for reading as opposed to writing posts. These studies illustrate how rigorous research can find methodologically valid negative impacts of media use on well-being-related outcomes and should be distinguished from generalized claims, such as that we all suffer from digital overuse (Montag and Walla, 2016) or that smartphones ruin our lives (Twenge, 2017b).

In contrast, many sociologically motivated studies assume beneficial impacts of digital media use on longer term life chances; it certainly makes sense to propose that more access to and skilled use of various digital resources for information, communication, or entertainment have a positive impact on people’s lives. Digital inequality research suggests that digital media use is individually beneficial, but socially problematic because its proliferation tends to exacerbate social inequalities through a rich-get-richer mechanism (Hargittai, 2008; Helsper, 2021; Robinson et al., 2015; Van Dijk, 2020). Digital inequality research and policies rest on the assumption that access to and use of digital media produce benefits (Duff, 2011; Sanders and Scanlon, 2021) which justifies investing in infrastructure and skills. Recent studies in this tradition examined the subjective (Büchi et al., 2018) and tangible (Van Deursen and Helsper, 2018) benefits of Internet use, and other positive aspects, such as connectedness (Chan, 2015), social support (Utz and Breuer, 2017), or online information and advice (Van Ingen and Matzat, 2018).

Meta-analytical research found that “problematic” Internet use (Çikrıkci, 2016) and “social media addiction” (Duradoni et al., 2020) were negatively associated with well-being. For social media and adolescents, an analysis of US-based teens showed the simultaneous occurrence of positive (e.g. affirmation, amusement) and negative affect (e.g. isolation, envy) (Weinstein, 2018). Most recently, individually differential digital media use effects were examined with experience sampling and multi-level modeling: Beyens et al. (2020) found that for 17% of the sampled adolescents, passive Instagram use increased momentary happiness (while decreasing it for 9% and having no effect for 74%). The conclusion that not all engagement with digital media is equivalent is surprisingly recent in the psychological literature (Dienlin and Johannes, 2020; Valkenburg et al., 2021), and for well-being-related measures beyond momentary affect or for general populations, there are no studies to date separating intra- and inter-individual effects over time.

A sociological framework to connect digital media and well-being

Because empirical studies find both negative and positive effects, and meta-analyses indicate that there is no generalizable impact, a framework to accommodate harmful and beneficial pathways preserving a comprehensive perspective is required. Substantive theories need to describe isolated mechanisms that may be masked in generalized statistical associations, narrowly define concepts of digital practices and personal well-being, and enable very specific studies with several moderators and mediators. For example, digital communication practices could be shaped by the “altered” expressions of individuals’ traits as compared to offline social interactions. However, how social position and structure impact these experiences, and how the single results are indicative of more general trends should not be lost in the quest for micro-level precision. A specific kind of use for a specific sample of people under specific conditions can have positive or negative proximal and distal well-being outcomes, but ultimately a relevant question is how to govern digital technologies in society. Policymakers urged to take action and public offices pressed for guidance—are digital platforms responsible for the diffusion of hate speech? should smartphones be banned in schools?—will be tempted to generalize and simplify very specific findings. However, this should not discourage digital well-being research from continuing with very specific research and adopting a comprehensive perspective where findings will tend to be a perhaps unsatisfying “it depends.”

The constituent elements of the framework and their connections are described and illustrated in a graphical model encoding the explanatory principles (Figure 1). The framework calls for the development and application of theories that specify the components and the nature of their interrelations. These mechanisms are theoretically plausible causal chains that lead from a specific manifestation of digital practice to a relevant individual harm and benefit with some regularity, and ultimately to subjective well-being. Considering the role of social structural constraints and opportunities for individual digital practice is the first analytical step. How individuals then use digital media and how this may ultimately affect their well-being is the second step—this step is emphasized in the remainder of the article because it is empirically the most accessible. The third step, the logic of aggregation and transformation, focuses on how the digital practices of networked individuals translate to social outcomes that eventually again function as structural opportunities and constraints (see, e.g. Coleman, 1986; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998; Hedström and Ylikoski, 2010).The framework seeks to complement the predominance of psychological approaches in digital well-being research with a sociological lens. A psychologist’s interest may be in the effect of social media browsing on mood, whereas a sociologist might analyze differences in norms of appropriate smartphone use according to social class. The digital well-being framework can situate both types of inquiry and integrate their findings. If one study were to find that habitually scrolling through Instagram consistently led to negative affect, it would be necessary for any kind of general and socially relevant conclusion to (a) replicate the finding under a broad range of circumstances, balance the effect with any number of concomitant additional harms and benefits, and include other social media prevalent in a population’s digital media repertoire; and equally importantly to (b) study how such individual digital practice comes to be as a result of social reproduction and milieus, how class origins dictate communication preferences and norms, and how aggregated digital practices affect the life course and inter-generationally engender new socio-technical developments (Hargittai, 2008; Helsper, 2021; Weiß, 2020). Such a comprehensive research program may appear unachievable, but without the cumulation and integration it seeks, isolated effects will continue to feed moral panics or technological solutionism about digital media in society (Orben, 2020b). The big picture is characterized by the rise of digital networked communication (Cardoso, 2008; Neuman, 2016; Rainie and Wellman, 2012) with consequences for inequality, labor, education, and culture (Cooper, 2002; Couldry et al., 2018; Franklin, 1999; Jessie et al., 2017) within a “desynchronized high-speed society” (Rosa, 2003).

Anticipated or realized consequences of digitization at this level of analysis not only include increased efficiency, innovation, and transparency but also political manipulation, privacy breaches, and growing socioeconomic inequality. Digitization and its ensuing benefits and harms impact the well-being of society as measured, for example, by economic welfare, safety, democratic quality, life expectancy, or educational opportunities. The structural rules of the digitized society are shaped by public and private governance mechanisms, such as competition policy (Just, 2018), while the dominant digital mediators, such as social media platforms, also govern everyday individual practices (Brubaker, 2020; DeNardis and Hackl, 2015; Latzer and Festic, 2019). Digitization and interconnected technological innovations codetermine “the terms in which social, political, and economic relations are played out” (Wajcman, 2002: 360). With relative stability, such current macro conditions function as structural–situational constraints and opportunities for an individual. Even highly individualized attributes, such as preferences in digital media use, relate to the social structure, to the conditions in which people were socialized and live their everyday lives (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984; Guhin et al., 2021; Robinson, 2009; Wacquant, 2016). Where a pathologizing or narrow psychological view of digital practice would shift responsibility to individuals, the digital well-being framework accounts for system-level impacts on everyday individual practice without precluding creative agency.

Digital practice includes all behaviors related to digital media, such as uses and habits—this may be social interaction, information seeking, transactions, or entertainment—or avoidance and disconnection. As with well-being, digital practice can be operationalized at various levels and thus produce diverging outcomes. For example, posting a public photo of one’s graduation through the Facebook app includes information on the device (mobile), the type of application (social networking site), the specific application (Facebook), the specific feature (image sharing), the social interaction (one-to-many), and the message (public, self-presentation, content) (Meier and Reinecke, 2020). Each level may become meaningful and operate differently, which exposes the futility of searching for simple, overall digital media effects. The plainest form of digital practices can be considered an action in the sociological sense. Actions have direct consequences, here included as harms and benefits. However, these actions also have causes; they are motivated and initiated through desires, beliefs, and opportunities shaped by social interaction (Hedström, 2005). The framework recognizes that individuals’ practices and well-being can also depend on others; and between micro and macro, there is any number of aggregates of individuals that can become meaningful, such as an organization or group. In addition to social influence, the following trends appear particularly relevant in framing individuals’ practices (Campbell, 2019; Gui et al., 2017; Vanden Abeele et al., 2018; Webster, 2014; Yeung, 2017; Yeykelis et al., 2014): (1) an abundance of digital media use options, (2) the convergence of different activities in the same device, (3) the exploitation of human attention by platforms, and (4) the potential for anytime, anywhere use.

At the micro level of individuals, digital practices can yield beneficial and harmful outcomes; for example, increased feelings of belongingness, convenience, or relevant information; but also stress, disinformation, or embarrassment. Harms and benefits are the proximal outcomes of digital practices and can arise in parallel or sequentially. Importantly, beneficial and harmful consequences of digital practices are often likely to be positively related (Blank and Lutz, 2018; Van Dijk, 2020, chapter 7). For example, self-expression on social media may increase well-being, but at the same time the risk of embarrassment may increase as content can be taken out of context or reach unintended audiences. Links between a specific manifestation of digital practice and outcomes as diverse as making new friends (Van Deursen and Helsper, 2015) and reducing stress (Turel et al., 2018) ultimately matter because of their potential cumulative impacts on people’s general well-being. Measuring subjective well-being as a generalized, mediated outcome of digital practices provides a transparent normative evaluation of these practices and can substantiate policy measures.

The framework (Figure 1) is generalized and simplified in that it does not indicate the specific digital practice or measure of well-being, and it does not specify the concrete harms or benefits; these depend on the precise theories pertaining to the selected digital practices in each study. Established well-being instruments (Diener et al., 1985; Liddle and Carter, 2015; Tennant et al., 2007) can be selected and adapted to fit the temporality and level of the presumed effects of concrete harms and benefits of a specific digital practice. Crucially, the digital well-being framework keeps subjective well-being analytically separate from digital practices and harms and benefits. That is, digital practices, proximal harms and benefits, and distal subjective well-being remain separate measures whose causal links need to be theorized and tested. Consequently, digital well-being research should not resort to compressing the causal links between digital practices and well-being into a univariate self-assessment (“the way I use digital media makes me happy”) or replace the reference point of subjective well-being—life in general or specific domains—with digital practice (“I am happy with my digital media use”).

Sketching an application of the digital well-being framework

The digital well-being framework is intended to stimulate substantive theory development, enable critical interpretation of existing empirical studies, and instruct new study designs. Harms and benefits are an intermediary step, or mediator, between digital practices and subjective well-being. Depending on the theory, concrete operationalizations of these elements, and the level of analysis, conditionalities, or moderators, come into play. The basic question from the mediator perspective is: Does digital practice X lead to the harm or benefit M which affects well-being? The “final” labeling of M as a harm or a benefit is retrospective, depending on its empirical effect on well-being (see Figure 2). The question from the moderator perspective is: Under which condition C do the paths from X to M and M to Y hold?

Figure 2.

Basic causal model for the relationships between exemplary specifications of a digital practice and a benefit. To formalize this basic causal diagram, the functional forms need to be specified, and despite positive correlations in both steps, the specifics may lead to remarkable divergence in the model-implied data (Robinaugh et al., 2021). Here, an (unbounded) linear relationship for X→M seems implausible; more likely, an initial increase from zero to “some” sharing with close friends would strongly increase connectedness, up to a certain point, after which it may be perceived as alienating. Similarly, social connectedness may have a decreasing rather than constant positive marginal effect on subjective well-being (M→Y). Furthermore, these paths of primary interest may be conditional, that is, moderated by additional variables (C).

Researchers can map an interesting phenomenon onto the framework to determine a plausible pathway and invoke or develop substantive theory. First, a narrowly defined phenomenon, an element of a person’s digital practice, needs to be operationalized; for example, “the number of images shared in direct messages with recipients described as close friends within a certain period.” A plausible mechanism would be that such sharing leads to experiencing social connectedness, which in turn increases general well-being (Lomanowska and Guitton, 2016; Mauss et al., 2011; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007)—here, input from or development of specific theoretical mechanisms is required. Possible moderators include personality (primarily between-person; for example, the link is stronger for extraverted people) or situational differences (primarily within-person; e.g., when close friends are physically distant, connectedness is more dependent on photo sharing). If the phenomenon were defined less precisely, for example, by omitting the recipient characteristic, then this may very well function as a moderator (that the recipient is or is not a close friend).

Another aspect to consider, specifically when attempting to formalize parts of the general framework as a model, is the presumed functional form of the relationships (see Figure 2). Making explicit assumptions of this kind is needed for a risky, and thus informative, test of the model (Meehl, 1978). Conventional statistical testing could lead to the result that the model is “correct” because a zero or negative correlation for the two paths is unlikely. However, a risky test of the model would need to use well founded specifications to simulate data and compare it to empirical data, only suggesting retention of the model if the two align, as this implies that the empirical data were generated by the specified relationships (Jansen et al., 2021; Robinaugh et al., 2021). Specifications of parts of the digital well-being framework need to consider causality and cyclical relationships. For example, it is possible that overall, individuals experiencing low social connectedness (between-person) or individuals at moments in their everyday life when social connectedness is low (within-person) seek to increase their sharing with close friends. This reverses the above assumed causal process and empirically, it implies a negative correlation between sharing and connectedness. This shows that even for a seemingly simple bivariate relationship, the explanatory mechanisms require much precision often lacking (Thomas et al., 2021) (see example in Figure 3; replication code: https://osf.io/zk2x8/?view_only=ba4b8be2f4134622a0dbc95012ca2f63).

Figure 3.

Between-person and within-person associations. The scatter plot shows simulated data for three people with 10 measurements each on two variables (photo sharing with friends and social connectedness). Solid lines represent individual linear fit; the dashed line represents the global linear fit, that is, across people. Overall, sharing more photos with friends is associated with greater social connectedness. However, for persons A and B, the association is negative—the relationship within all individuals could be negative while the between-person correlation is still positive Pearl (2014).

Future directions

Fears about new information and communication technologies’ disastrous effects on society appear to be based on the observations of co-occurring trends—for example, rising levels of depression and increasing smartphone ownership—combined with technological determinism (Livingstone, 2018; Odgers, 2018; Ophir et al., 2020). To counter this and advance cumulative digital well-being research, two strategies will be critical: building valid descriptive knowledge combining established with new modes of data collection and formalizing theoretical mechanisms for risky tests, preferably in a longitudinal perspective. Studies that focus on identifying, describing, and validly measuring (new) empirical phenomena are an essential initial step toward cumulative theory developments in digital media effects. For example, this could mean capturing ordinary people’s perceptions of social media platforms based on diary interviews (Lupinacci, 2021) or describing differences in smartphone usage using device logs rather than self-reports (Geyer et al., 2021; Parry et al., 2021). Such descriptively valid knowledge is necessary before attempting to explain and understand the causes and consequences of these observable patterns (Smaldino, 2019). Complex but weak models should not crowd out “simple” descriptions of digital practices (Gerring, 2012; Munger et al., 2021).

A main critique of the extant literature on digital media use and well-being is the lack of causal evidence. The solution to the causality problem is not not asking causal questions or hedging in non-causal language like “X is associated with Y.” Researchers need to explicate the assumed mechanisms that generated the observed data—directed acyclic graphs can be employed to clearly state such a data-generating model (Elwert and Winship, 2014; Grosz et al., 2020). Ideally, formal models based on these precise assumptions are used to simulate data which is then contrasted with longitudinal empirical data (Jansen et al., 2021). Applications of advanced techniques, such as random-intercept cross-lagged panel models, require a minimum of three panel waves (Hamaker et al., 2015), and the testing of even simple bivariate hypotheses becomes relatively intricate (Thomas et al., 2021). However, trading comprehensive but shaky models for parsimonious and robust explanations again seems worthwhile. The time interval between measurements will depend on the expected variation in the measures of digital practices, outcomes, and well-being. For example, online job searching may produce a relevant benefit, that is, finding a fulfilling job, and thus increase life satisfaction, but starting a new job is a comparably rare event. Similarly, connecting an hourly prompted mobile survey on negative and positive affect with harms deriving from self-disclosure on social media would not be able to detect the real effects of such digital practices and their more masked long-term consequences. A theoretical match regarding the temporal perspective on the framework’s three core types of variables, digital practices, harms/benefits, and well-being is thus key.

Conclusion

The general digital well-being framework separates digital practices from their proximal outcomes, recognizing these outcomes as often co-occurring concrete harms and benefits. There is nothing inherent in digital media that is harmful or beneficial, yet the digitization of society and everyday life can undoubtedly impact well-being. This impact has been difficult to assess empirically due to a lack of reliable and valid measurement, formal models, and strong theory. The digital well-being framework guides the selection and specification of plausible paths between specific manifestation of individuals’ digital practices and well-being-related outcomes. Its scope and generality invite researchers to select moderators and mediators—that is, specify the conditionalities and intermediate steps—most relevant to the digital practice, harm or benefit, and well-being measure under scrutiny. The framework provides a set of general principles that call for the formalization of the specific manifestations and relations to generate valid findings on digital media effects. Justified calls for methodological reform (Orben, 2020a; Parry et al., 2021) need to be accompanied by theory integration. This would go a long way in avoiding exaggerated claims, spurious findings, tautologies, non-disprovable vagueness, and post hoc explanations as theory surrogates (Gigerenzer, 2010). A useful theory of digital well-being will not be static, but rather subjected to a cycle of identification, development, formalization, and evaluation (Borsboom et al., 2021; Little and Pepinsky, 2016; Van Rooij and Baggio, 2021).

In conclusion, digital media should not be treated as pharmaka, that is, as poison, cure, and scapegoat. Rather, digital media increasingly envelope and shape human communication which is essential for well-being—their impact is neither predetermined nor non-existent. Aiming for abstraction without oversimplification, the digital well-being framework describes three crucial interdependencies: (1) Individuals’ digital practices depend on the opportunities and constraints, situational and long-term, afforded by their social surroundings and technological developments. (2) Different manifestations of individuals’ digital practices lead to often concomitant concrete harms and benefits. (3) The balance between and cumulation of concrete harms and benefits affect overall well-being. Continued conceptual work is required to integrate single empirical studies of necessarily narrow validity and thereby attain generalized knowledge.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Tobias Dienlin, Marco Gui, Ellen Helsper, Katharina Sommer, and Mariek Vanden Abeele as well as the Media Change and Innovation Division (Michael Latzer, Noemi Festic, Kiran Kappeler, Michael Reiss, and Tanja Rüedy) for their support, feedback, and suggestions.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Research Talent Development Grant from the University of Zurich Alumni organization. Parts of this research were conducted as Fellow of the Digital Society Initiative, University of Zurich, and as Visiting Fellow at the Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science.

ORCID iD

Moritz Büchi

Author biography

Moritz Büchi, PhD, is a Senior Research and Teaching Associate in the Media Change and Innovation Division, Department of Communication and Media Research, University of Zurich.

References

Aagaard

(2021) Beyond the rhetoric of tech addiction: why we should be discussing tech habits instead (and how). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 20: 559–572.

Amichai-Hamburger

(2009) Technology and well-being: designing the future. In: Amichai-Hamburger

(ed.) Technology and Psychological Well-Being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 260–278.

Amichai-Hamburger

Furnham

(2007) The positive net. Computers in Human Behavior 23(2): 1033–1045.

Anderson

Jiang

(2018) Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/ (accessed 28 June 2019).

Baym

(2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Beard

(2005) Internet addiction: a review of current assessment techniques and potential assessment questions. CyberPsychology & Behavior 8(1): 7–14.

Beattie

Daubs

(2020) Framing “digital well-being” as a social good. First Monday 25. Available at: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10430

Bekalu

McCloud

Viswanath

(2019) Association of social media use with social well-being, positive mental health, and self-rated health: disentangling routine use from emotional connection to use. Health Education & Behavior 46(2S): 69S–80S.

Bell

Bishop

DVM

Przybylski

(2015) The debate over digital technology and young people. BMJ 351: h3064.

10.

Beyens

Pouwels

van Driel

, et al. (2020) The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent. Scientific Reports 10(1): 10763.

11.

Blank

Lutz

(2018) Benefits and harms from internet use: a differentiated analysis of Great Britain. New Media & Society 20(2): 618–640.

12.

Borsboom

Maas

van der Dalege

, et al. (2021) Theory construction methodology: a practical framework for building theories in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16(4): 756–766.

13.

Boulianne

(2018) Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research 47: 947–966.

14.

Bourdieu

(1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Brubaker

(2020) Digital hyperconnectivity and the self. Theory and Society 49: 771–801.

17.

Büchi

Festic

Latzer

(2018) How social well-being is affected by digital inequalities. International Journal of Communication 12: 3686–3706.

18.

Büchi

Festic

Latzer

(2019) Digital overuse and subjective well-being in a digitized society. Social Media + Society 5(4): 1–12.

19.

Campbell

(2019) From frontier to field: old and new theoretical directions in mobile communication studies. Communication Theory 29(1): 46–65.

20.

Caplan

(2002) Problematic internet use and psychosocial well-being: development of a theory-based cognitive–behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior 18(5): 553–575.

21.

Cardoso

(2008) From mass to networked communication: communicational models and the informational society. International Journal of Communication 2: 587–630.

22.

Chan

(2015) Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the life span. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20(1): 3–18.

23.

Çikrıkci

(2016) The effect of internet use on well-being: meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 65: 560–566.

24.

Coleman

(1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology 91(6): 1309–1335.

25.

Cooper

(2002) Inequality in the digital society: why the digital divide deserves all the attention it gets. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 20: 73–134.

26.

Couldry

Rodriguez

Bolin

, et al. (2018) Media, communication and the struggle for social progress. Global Media and Communication 14(2): 173–191.

27.

DeNardis

Hackl

(2015) Internet governance by social media platforms. Telecommunications Policy 39(9): 761–770.

28.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen

, et al. (1985) The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49(1): 71–75.

29.

Diener

Oishi

Tay

(2018a) Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour 2(4): 253–260.

30.

Diener

Oishi

Tay

(eds) (2018b) Handbook of Well-Being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.

31.

Diener

Suh

Lucas

, et al. (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 276–302.

32.

Dienlin

Johannes

(2020) The impact of digital technology use on adolescent well-being. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 22(2): 135–142.

33.

Duff

(2011) The Rawls-Tawney theorem and the digital divide in postindustrial society. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(3): 604–612.

34.

Duradoni

Innocenti

Guazzini

(2020) Well-being and social media: a systematic review of Bergen Addiction Scales. Future Internet 12(2): 24.

35.

Elwert

Winship

(2014) Endogenous selection bias: the problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology 40(1): 31–53.

36.

Emirbayer

Mische

(1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023.

37.

Floridi

(2014) The 4th Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38.

Franklin

(1999) The Real World of Technology. Toronto, ON, Canada: Anansi.

39.

Frijters

(2020) Measuring subjective wellbeing. In: Zimmermann

(ed.) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–29.

40.

Fuchs

(2020) Communication and Capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press.

41.

Gerring

(2012) Mere description. British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 721–746.

42.

Geyer

Ellis

Shaw

, et al. (2021) Open-source smartphone app and tools for measuring, quantifying, and visualizing technology use. Behavior Research Methods. Epub ahead of print 3 June. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-021-01585-7.

43.

Gigerenzer

(2010) Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology 20(6): 733–743.

44.

Griffioen

Scholten

Lichtwarck-Aschoff

, et al. (2021) Everyone does it–differently: a window into emerging adults’ smartphone use. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8(1): 1–11.

45.

Griffy-Brown

Earp

Rosas

(2018) Technology and the good society. Technology in Society 52: 1–3.

46.

Grosz

Rohrer

Thoemmes

(2020) The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/8hr7n/ (accessed 25 August 2021).

47.

Guhin

Calarco

Miller-Idriss

(2021) Whatever happened to socialization? Annual Review of Sociology 47: 109–129.

48.

Gui

Fasoli

Carradore

(2017) ‘Digital well-being’: developing a new theoretical tool for media literacy research. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education 9(1): 155–173.

49.

Hamaker

Kuiper

Grasman

RPPP

(2015) A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods 20(1): 102–116.

50.

Hargittai

(2008) The digital reproduction of inequality. In: Grusky

(ed.) Social Stratification. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 936–944.

51.

Headey

Holmstrom

Wearing

(1985) Models of well-being and ill-being. Social Indicators Research 17(3): 211–234.

52.

Hedström

(2005) Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Hedström

Ylikoski

(2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36(1): 49–67.

54.

Helliwell

(2020) Three questions about happiness. Behavioural Public Policy 4(2): 177–187.

55.

Helliwell

Aknin

(2018) Expanding the social science of happiness. Nature Human Behaviour 2(4): 248–252.

56.

Helsper

(2021) The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

57.

Jansen

Rafferty

Griffiths

(2021) A rational model of the Dunning–Kruger effect supports insensitivity to evidence in low performers. Nature Human Behaviour 5: 756–763.

58.

Jessie

Karen

Cottom

(2017) Digital Sociologies. Bristol: Policy Press.

59.

Just

(2018) Governing online platforms: competition policy in times of platformization. Telecommunications Policy 42(5): 386–394.

60.

Kardefelt-Winther

Rees

Livingstone

(2020) Contextualising the link between adolescents’ use of digital technology and their mental health: a multi-country study of time spent online and life satisfaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 61(8): 875–889.

61.

Keyes

CLM

(2014) Happiness, flourishing, and life satisfaction. In: Cockerham

Dingwall

Quah

(eds) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 747–751.

62.

Kushlev

(2018) Media technology and well-being: a complementarity-interference model. In: Diener

Oishi

Tay

(eds) Handbook of Well-Being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers, pp. 970–982.

63.

Latzer

Festic

(2019) A guideline for understanding and measuring algorithmic governance in everyday life. Internet Policy Review 8(2). Available at: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/guideline-understanding-and-measuring-algorithmic-governance-everyday-life

64.

Liddle

Carter

GFA

(2015) Emotional and psychological well-being in children: the development and validation of the Stirling Children’s Well-being Scale. Educational Psychology in Practice 31(2): 174–185.

65.

Little

Pepinsky

(2016) Simple and formal models in comparative politics. Chinese Political Science Review 1(3): 425–447.

66.

Liu

Baumeister

Yang

, et al. (2019) Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 24(5): 259–273.

67.

Livingstone

(2018) iGen: why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy: and completely unprepared for adulthood. Journal of Children and Media 12(1): 118–123.

68.

Lomanowska

Guitton

(2016) Online intimacy and well-being in the digital age. Internet Interventions 4: 138–144.

69.

Lupinacci

(2021) ‘Absentmindedly scrolling through nothing’: liveness and compulsory continuous connectedness in social media. Media, Culture & Society 43: 273–290.

70.

Mauss

Shallcross

Troy

, et al. (2011) Don’t hide your happiness! Positive emotion dissociation, social connectedness, and psychological functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(4): 738–748.

71.

Meehl

(1978) Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46(4): 806–834.

72.

Meier

Reinecke

(2020) Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: a conceptual and empirical meta-review. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 21 October. DOI: 10.1177/0093650220958224.

73.

Miao

Koo

Oishi

(2013) Subjective well-being. In: Boniwell

David

Conley Avers

(eds) Oxford Handbook of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0013.

74.

Midgley

Thai

Lockwood

, et al. (2021) When every day is a high school reunion: social media comparisons and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 121: 285–307.

75.

Montag

Walla

(2016) Carpe diem instead of losing your social mind: beyond digital addiction and why we all suffer from digital overuse. Cogent Psychology 3(1): 1157281.

76.

Morley

Silverstone

(1990) Domestic communication: technologies and meanings. Media, Culture & Society 12(1): 31–55.

77.

Munger

Guess

Hargittai

(2021) Quantitative description of digital media: a modest proposal to disrupt academic publishing. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media 1: 1–13.

78.

Neuman

(2016) The Digital Difference: Media Technology and the Theory of Communication Effects. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

79.

Odgers

(2018) Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all. Nature 554(7693): 432–434.

80.

Odgers

Jensen

(2020) Annual research review: adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 61(3): 336–348.

81.

Ophir

Lipshits-Braziler

Rosenberg

(2020) New-media screen time is not (necessarily) linked to depression: comments on Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, and Martin (2018). Clinical Psychological Science 8(2): 374–378.

82.

Orben

(2020a) Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 55: 407–414.

83.

Orben

(2020b) The sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science 15(5): 1143–1157.

84.

Orben

Przybylski

(2019) The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour 3: 173–182.

85.

Orben

Dienlin

Przybylski

(2019) Social media’s enduring effect on adolescent life satisfaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 10226–10228.

86.

Panova

Carbonell

(2018) Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? Journal of Behavioral Addictions 7(2): 252–259.

87.

Parry

Davidson

Sewall

CJR

, et al. (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour. Epub ahead of print 17 May. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5.

88.

Pearl

(2014) Comment: understanding Simpson’s paradox. The American Statistician 68(1): 8–13.

89.

Przybylski

Murayama

DeHaan

, et al. (2013) Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior 29(4): 1841–1848.

90.

Quan-Haase

(2015) Technology & Society: Social Networks, Power, and Inequality. 2nd ed. Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press.

91.

Radtke

Apel

Schenkel

, et al. (2021) Digital detox: an effective solution in the smartphone era? A systematic literature review. Mobile Media & Communication. Epub ahead of print 15 July. DOI: 10.1177/20501579211028647.

92.

Rainie

Wellman

(2012) Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

93.

Robinaugh

Haslbeck

JMB

Ryan

, et al. (2021) Invisible hands and fine calipers: a call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16(4): 725–743.

94.

Robinson

(2009) A taste for the necessary: a Bourdieuian approach to digital inequality. Information, Communication & Society 12(4): 488–507.

95.

Robinson

Cotten

Ono

, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society 18(5): 569–582.

96.

Rosa

(2003) Social acceleration: ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high–speed society. Constellations 10(1): 3–33.

97.

Rosas

(2012) Types of internet use, well-being, and the good life: ethical views from prudential psychology. In: Brey

Briggle

Spence

(eds) The Good Life in a Technological Age. New York: Routledge, pp. 215–224.

98.

Salo

Pirkkalainen

Koskelainen

(2017) Technostress and social networking services: uncovering strains and their underlying stressors. In: Stigberg

Karlsen

Holone

, et al. (eds) Nordic Contributions in IS Research (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing). Cham: Springer, pp. 41–53.

99.

Sanders

Scanlon

(2021) The digital divide is a human rights issue: advancing social inclusion through social work advocacy. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 6: 130–143.

100.

Shakya

Christakis

(2017) Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: a longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology 185(3): 203–211.

101.

Smaldino

(2019) Better methods can’t make up for mediocre theory. Nature 575(7781): 9–9.

102.

Spottswood

Wohn

(2020) Online social capital: recent trends in research. Current Opinion in Psychology 36: 147–152.

103.

Swartz

Wasko

Marvin

, et al. (2019) Philosophy of technology: who is in the saddle? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96(2): 351–366.

104.

Syvertsen

Enli

(2019) Digital detox: media resistance and the promise of authenticity. Convergence 26(5–6): 1269–1283.

105.

Tennant

Hiller

Fishwick

, et al. (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 5(1): 63.

106.

Thomas

Shehata

Otto

, et al. (2021) How to capture reciprocal communication dynamics: comparing longitudinal statistical approaches in order to analyze within- and between-person effects. Journal of Communication 71(2): 187–219.

107.

Turel

Cavagnaro

Meshi

(2018) Short abstinence from online social networking sites reduces perceived stress, especially in excessive users. Psychiatry Research 270: 947–953.

108.

Twenge

(2017a) Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic, 15 September. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/ (accessed 22 January 2019).

109.

Twenge

(2017b) IGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—And Completely Unprepared for Adulthood—And What That Means for the Rest of Us. New York: Atria Books.

110.

Utz

Breuer

(2017) The relationship between use of social network sites, online social support, and well-being: results from a six-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Media Psychology 29(3): 115–125.

111.

Valkenburg

Peter

(2007) Internet communication and its relation to well-being: identifying some underlying mechanisms. Media Psychology 9(1): 43–58.

112.

Valkenburg

Beyens

Pouwels

, et al. (2021) Social media use and adolescents’ self-esteem: heading for a person-specific media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication 71(1): 56–78.

113.

Vallor

(2010) Social networking technology and the virtues. Ethics and Information Technology 12(2): 157–170.

114.

Van Deursen

Helsper

(2015) The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online? In: Robinson

Cotten

Schulz

, et al. (eds) Studies in Media and Communications. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 29–52.

115.

Van Deursen

Helsper

(2018) Collateral benefits of internet use: explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the internet. New Media & Society 20(7): 2333–2351.

116.

Van Dijck

(2019) Governing digital societies: private platforms, public values. Computer Law & Security Review 36: 105377.

117.

Van Dijk

(2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.

118.

Van Ingen

Matzat

(2018) Inequality in mobilizing online help after a negative life event: the role of education, digital skills, and capital-enhancing internet use. Information, Communication & Society 21(4): 481–498.

119.

Van Rooij

Baggio

(2021) Theory before the test: how to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16: 682–697.

120.

Vanden Abeele

(2020) Digital wellbeing as a dynamic construct. Communication Theory. Epub ahead of print 17 October. DOI: 10.1093/ct/qtaa024.

121.

Vanden Abeele

Wolf

Ling

(2018) Mobile media and social space: how anytime, anyplace connectivity structures everyday life. Media and Communication 6(2): 5–14.

122.

Wacquant

(2016) A concise genealogy and anatomy of habitus. The Sociological Review 64(1): 64–72.

123.

Wajcman

(2002) Addressing technological change: the challenge to social theory. Current Sociology 50(3): 347–363.

124.

Watson

(1930) Happiness among adult students of education. Journal of Educational Psychology 21(2): 79.

125.

Webster

(2014) The Marketplace of Attention: How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

126.

Weiß

(2020) The praxeology of media use. In: Krämer

Frey

(eds) How We Use the Media: Strategies, Modes and Styles (Transforming Communications: Studies in Cross-Media Research). Cham: Springer, pp. 19–41.

127.

Weinstein

(2018) The social media see-saw: positive and negative influences on adolescents’ affective well-being. New Media & Society 20(10): 3597–3623.

128.

Williams

(2019) The use of online social networking sites to nurture and cultivate bonding social capital: a systematic review of the literature from 1997 to 2018. New Media & Society 21(11–12): 2710–2729.

129.

Wolfers

Festl

Utz

(2020) Do smartphones and social network sites become more important when experiencing stress? Results from longitudinal data. Computers in Human Behavior 109: 106339.

130.

Yeung

(2017) ‘Hypernudge’: big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 118–136.

131.

Yeykelis

Cummings

Reeves

(2014) Multitasking on a single device: arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of Communication 64(1): 167–192.

Digital well-being theory and research

Abstract

Keywords

Digital well-being: happiness when digital media are omnipresent

A sociological framework to connect digital media and well-being

Sketching an application of the digital well-being framework

Future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References