Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct

Abstract

Mobile media support our autonomy by connecting us to persons, contents and services independently of time and place constraints. At the same time, they challenge our autonomy: We face struggles, decisions and pressure in relation to whether, when and where we connect and disconnect. Digital wellbeing is a new concept that refers to the (lack) of balance that we may experience in relation to mobile connectivity. This article develops a theoretical model of digital wellbeing accounting for the dynamic and complex nature of our relationship to mobile connectivity, thereby overcoming conceptual and methodological limitations associated with existing approaches. This model considers digital wellbeing an experiential state of optimal balance between connectivity and disconnectivity that is contingent upon a constellation of person-, device- and context-specific factors. These constellations represent pathways to digital wellbeing that – when repeated –affect wellbeing outcomes. Digital wellbeing interventions are effective when they disrupt these pathways.

Full text

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 1
RUNNING HEAD: DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT
Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct
Mariek M. P. Vanden Abeele
Department of Culture Studies
Tilburg University
Please cite as:
Vanden Abeele, Mariek M. P. (2020). Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct, Communication
Theory. qtaa024, https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa024

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 2
Abstract
Mobile media support our autonomy by connecting us to persons, contents and services
independently of time and place constraints. At the same time, they challenge our autonomy: We
face new struggles, decisions and pressure in relation to whether, when and where we connect
and disconnect. Digital wellbeing is a new concept that refers to the (lack) of balance that we
may experience in relation to mobile connectivity. This article develops a theoretical model of
digital wellbeing that accounts for the dynamic and complex nature of our relationship to mobile
connectivity, thereby overcoming conceptual and methodological limitations associated with
existing approaches. This model considers digital wellbeing an experiential state of optimal
balance between connectivity and disconnectivity that is contingent upon a constellation of
person-, device- and context-specific factors. I argue that these constellations represent pathways
to digital wellbeing that – when repeated –affect wellbeing outcomes, and that the effectiveness
of digital wellbeing interventions depends on their disruptive impact on these pathways.
Key words: Digital wellbeing, mobile connectivity, mobile media, wellbeing, addiction,
problematic phone use, addictive design, digital wellbeing interventions, digital detox, screen
time

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 3
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, our work, social and leisure environments have become suffused with
mobile technologies operating on wireless network infrastructures, such as laptops, tablets and
smartphones (ITU, 2017). These mobile technologies afford ubiquitous connectivity: They
connect us to content, contacts and services without time or place constraints (Vanden Abeele,
De Wolf, & Ling, 2018). Operating on a mostly unseen and unknown infrastructure, ever-present
in the background, they form a ‘technological unconsciousness’ (Thrift, 2004). As a result, we
often take ubiquitous connectivity for granted, only noticing it when it is absent - for example
when our phone battery dies, or the wireless network goes down (Ling, 2012). But now that
technologies permit us to be ‘permanently online and permanently connected’ (POPC; cf.
Vorderer, Krömer, & Schneider, 2016) we face a new challenge: How do we obtain a healthy
balance between connectivity and disconnectivity? In other words: How do we attain digital
wellbeing?
Studies show that we hardly disconnect. Smartphones are tapped, swiped and clicked
over 2600 times per day (Dscout, 2016), and people spend close to three hours per day on their
little screens (Deng et al., 2019) - a figure that easily goes up to five hours and more for heavy
users (Deng et al., 2019; Sewall, Bear, Merranko, & Rosen, 2020). While people reap ample
benefits from mobile connectivity, they also struggle with it. Phone use is found, for example, to
interfere with social activities (McDaniel & Drouin, 2019), to distract from work and study
(Duke & Montag, 2017), to lead to procrastination (Schnauber-Stockmann, Meier, & Reinecke,
2018), to cause sleep and health problems (Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014), and to induce
negative emotions such as emotional exhaustion and anxiety (Büchi, Festic, & Latzer, 2019). It
should therefore not surprise that three in four young adults (Paul & Talbott, 2017), half of teens,

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 4
and one in three parents find that they spend too much time on their screens (Jiang, 2018). Many
also express a desire to reduce screen time, but such attempts often fail (Jiang, 2018). This
suggests that digital wellbeing is difficult to attain.
The ‘quest for digital wellbeing’ (cf. Mason, 2018) thus appears an urgent issue. Wired
Magazine even described it as the “rallying call of our time” (Ardes, 2018). A new industry of
digital wellbeing interventions is developing to respond to this call. These interventions include
digital detox programs, self-help literature, and various digital tools (e.g., the Forest and Moment
apps), all with a shared goal to assist users in ‘re-gaining control’ over their screen time. Tech
behemoths Google and Apple, for example, integrated dedicated digital wellbeing tools into their
operating systems for people to “set limits to” their digital media use (Apple.com), with the goal
to “keep life, and not the technology in it, front and center” (wellbeing.google). To date,
however, research on the effectiveness of digital wellbeing interventions is inconclusive. Digital
detox interventions, for example, appear both positive (e.g., Anrijs et al., 2018) and negative
(e.g., Wilcockson, Osborne, & Ellis, 2019), and while some work suggests that screen time apps
are successful in safeguarding digital wellbeing (e.g., Hiniker, Hong, Kohno, & Kientz, 2016),
other work shows no effect (e.g., Loid, Täht, & Rozgonjuk, 2020). These contradictory findings
suggest that what digital wellbeing is, and how it can be attained, remains ill-understood.
Digital wellbeing has the potential to become a key concept in research on digital media
use and wellbeing, with ample practical relevance. The concept can inform users, health
practitioners, designers and developers in the industry as well as policy makers about people’s
struggles with ubiquitous connectivity, and what can be done to help people foster healthier
mobile media habits, with or without the use of digital wellbeing interventions. To date,
however, we have only a limited theoretical vocabulary to describe what digital wellbeing is to

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 5
guide empirical inquiry. Conceptual boundaries are needed to avoid that digital wellbeing
becomes a bandwagon concept for related constructs such as smartphone addiction, or is used as
a proxy to refer to every negative relationship between screen time and wellbeing outcomes. In
this manuscript, I propose a working definition of digital wellbeing, present a conceptual model
for its study, and explore issues and challenges associated with the proposed approach in an
attempt to advance our understanding of the paradoxical relationship we have with ubiquitous
connectivity in our everyday life.
The Mobile Connectivity Paradox
Mobile technology substantially increases autonomy in everyday life (Castells, Fernandez-
Ardevol, Qiu, & Sey, 2009; Vanden Abeele et al., 2018): People can perform their social roles,
manage their social networks and access personalized information and services anywhere,
anytime. Moreover, they can easily and instantaneously respond to information by flexibly
adjusting the situation or their actions. When their train is delayed, for example, people can use
their laptop to catch up on work, use a mobile messaging app to inform their partner and stream
music to their phone to relax.
But there is a mobile connectivity paradox: while ubiquitous connectivity can support
autonomy, it can also challenge that very experience. Autonomy is challenged when mobile
technologies exert direct control over thoughts and behaviors by directing attention away from
people’s primary activities. Developed against the background of an attention economy, mobile
technology is designed to lure attention (Eyal, 2014; Williams, 2018). As a result, people may
unintentionally abandon their work, social and leisure activities to engage in unintended screen
time. While this screen time may be pleasurable in itself, one can experience it as excessive,
inappropriate and sometimes even problematic, for example, when it hampers responsiveness to

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 6
children (Vanden Abeele, Abels, & Hendrickson, 2020), reduces productivity (Duke & Montag,
2017), invokes negative feelings (Aalbers, McNally, Heeren, de Wit, & Fried, 2019), leads to
dangerous behaviors such as texting-while-driving (Bayer & Campbell, 2012), or is simply
experienced as meaningless or as a waste of time (Hiniker et al., 2016; Lukoff, Yu, Kientz, &
Hiniker, 2018).
Mobile technologies also challenge autonomy by controlling thoughts and behaviors in a
more indirect way. The SIM card functions as a ‘mobile address’ that makes individuals track-
and-traceable (Thrift, 2004). While this infrastructure of individual addressability gives the
freedom to instantly communicate, act and respond, it has also contributed to a global culture of
ubiquitous connectivity, fraught with expectations about immediate availability and
accountability (Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005; Ling, 2017; Vanden Abeele et al., 2018; Vorderer et
al., 2016). These expectations constrain the freedom to refrain from connectivity: People may
experience control in the form of real or perceived pressure to check, act and respond, and they
face new responsibilities for negotiating their availability and accountability (Vanden Abeele et
al., 2018).
The mobile Connectivity Paradox refers to this experience of being caught between
autonomy and a loss of control, which becomes visible in people’s ambivalence towards mobile
connectivity in their everyday lives. While a majority recognizes the importance of mobile
connectivity for self-governed living, many report that they are simultaneously concerned about
the time they spend on screens and the pressure they experience to connect. People struggle with
decisions on whether, when and where to connect and – perhaps more importantly – disconnect
(e.g., Aagaard, 2020; Lyngs et al., 2020). This paradoxical experience, that is oftentimes
mentioned to in both public (e.g., Ardes, 2018) and scholarly discussions (e.g., Hiniker et al.,

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 7
2016), lies at the core of the quest for digital wellbeing: How can we optimally embed mobile
connectivity in our life so that it supports individual autonomy without experiencing a loss of
control? To properly answer this question, we require a definition of digital wellbeing.
Towards a Definition of Digital Wellbeing
Digital wellbeing is often implicitly defined by juxtaposing it against undesirable phone
habits (i.e., drawing a parallel between phone use and unhealthy eating habits; see also Sutton,
2017) or against afflictions that represent digital ill-being, such as technology addictions (Lee,
Lee, & Park, 2019; Roffarello & De Russis, 2019). This is surprising, as the concept of general
wellbeing is generally not understood as the absence of an undesirable state, but rather as a state
of “optimal psychological experience and functioning” (Deci & Ryan, 2006, p. 1). Drawing
arguments from ongoing debates between scholars in the field of behavioral addictions research
and the definitional work on the conceptualization of general wellbeing, I argue that a more valid
conceptualization of digital wellbeing is attained if we differentiate digital wellbeing and
addiction and acknowledge that ubiquitous connectivity brings both value and discomfort to our
lives. To that end, four considerations are important.
Consideration 1: Avoiding medicalization
A simple way to conceptualize digital wellbeing is to consider it the opposite of digital
media addiction. A lack of ‘addiction symptoms’, then, should equate with digital wellbeing.
This conceptualization of digital wellbeing falls short, however. It assumes that problems with
digital media use are symptomatic of an underlying pathology or mental health disorder: a digital
media addiction (Andreassen, 2015; Griffiths, 2019). Such a dependence is diagnosed by
gauging the individual’s behavior against widely recognized symptoms, such as suffering from
withdrawal symptoms when technology is removed, requiring more usage to attain the same

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 8
effect (‘tolerance’) and being mentally preoccupied with the technology or its use (cf. Pontes,
Kuss, & Griffiths, 2015).
But this technology-addiction-as-a-disease approach (cf. Van der Linden, 2015) is under
debate: It medicalizes people’s problematic relationship with digital media as a clinical
condition, while some scholars even question whether smartphone addiction is a ‘real’ concept
(Harris, Regan, Schueler, & Fields, 2020). Of late, steadily more scholars argue against the
medicalization implied by the label of ‘media addiction’, because it easily misclassifies users
who occasionally experience some problems with digital media as individuals suffering from a
disorder (Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage, & Heeren, 2015; Kardefelt‐Winther et al.,
2017; Starcevic, Billieux, & Schimmenti, 2018). Such misclassification leads to an
overpathologization of everyday behaviors and experiences
1
(Billieux, Schimmenti et al., 2015).
Rather than medicalizing the condition of these false positives as a clinical disorder, it might
therefore be more valid to consider the experience of ‘sometimes, having some struggles' as one
of a lack of digital wellbeing (Cecchinato et al., 2019), rather than as a pathological condition
that is so severe that it needs clinical help (Van Rooij & Kardefelt-Winther, 2017).
Consideration 2: Acknowledging Hedonic and Eudemonic Experiences
Which criteria need to be met, then, to identify (a lack of) digital wellbeing? Although
there is debate among behavioral addictions researchers, the broad consensus is that technology
use becomes excessive and problematic when individuals (1) lose control over it, and (2)
1
For example, often inspired by anecdotal observation (Billieux et al., 2015), ordinary behaviors such as ‘dancing’,
or ‘selfie taking’ are transformed into a pathology by developing a diagnostic screening tool and using it in a large
population to confirm their incidence (e.g., Balakrishnan & Griffiths, 2018; Maraz, Urbán, Griffiths, &
Demetrovics, 2015). The screening tools, however, sometimes screen for harmless – if not positive aspects of the
behavior. This procedure become more than a fad when scholars plea for formal inclusion of these assessments in
psychiatric diagnostic manuals (e.g., Bragazzi & Del Puente, 2014). A recent systematic review of problematic
smartphone use scales by Harris et al. (2020) does an excellent job of identifying the many issues associated with
current measurement instruments.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 9
subsequently experience a significant functional impairment in their everyday lives (Kardefelt‐
Winther et al., 2017; Pies, 2009). While some scholars operationalize these criteria into
symptoms that are either present or absent (e.g., Griffiths, 2005), others advocate conceiving of
them as continua, ranging from an absence of loss of control and functional impairment to a
severe experience of these criteria (Van Rooij & Kardefelt-Winther, 2017).
While this brings nuance to the debate, it still assumes our relation to technology as a
unipolar phenomenon that, at best, is ‘not problematic’. Such an approach ignores that people
might also develop a positive relationship with digital technologies through hedonic and
eudemonic experiences, which are known to contribute to wellbeing (Henderson & Knight,
2012; Huta, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic experiences occur when we derive pleasure
from using digital media, such as when we enjoy entertaining content on our phones (Reinecke
& Hofmann, 2016). In fact, it is the hedonic responses that people experience when using digital
media that make it so difficult to resist using them (Van Koningsbruggen, Hartmann, Eden, &
Veling, 2017). When these pleasurable experiences are under control, however, these ‘controlled
pleasures’ may lead to positive experiences (e.g., Bauer, Loy, Masur, & Schneider, 2017).
Eudemonic experiences occur when digital media use adds meaning to life, for example because
it supports us to achieve personal goals (Lukoff et al., 2018). Such functional support may occur,
for example, when digital connectivity aids to master complex logistical arrangements, such as
the microcoordination of a group event (Ling & Lai, 2016).
Hedonic and eudemonic experiences form synergetic pathways to wellbeing (cf.
Henderson & Knight, 2012). It is conceivable that when people reap hedonic and eudemonic
benefits from digital connectivity, their digital wellbeing increases. A definition of digital

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 10
wellbeing thus needs to consider such benefits by focusing on experiences of controlled pleasure
and functional support in addition to experiences of loss of control and functional impairment.
Consideration 3: Acknowledging Temporal Variability and Person-Specificity
A third consideration is whether our relationship to digital connectivity remains stable
over time – and whether this relationship manifests itself similarly across individuals.
Technology addiction is generally assumed to be a temporally stable and structurally invariant
condition that can thus be diagnosed with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ screening instrument (e.g., Huang,
2010; Yu & Shek, 2013). Recent literature questions the validity of this assumption. Temporal
stability appears an unwarranted assumption, as research shows that excessive media use is
sometimes only a temporary – and potentially functional – coping response to a stressful life
event (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014; Kardefelt‐Winther, 2017; Li, Zhang, Li, Zhen, & Wang, 2010).
Structural invariance also appears an unwarranted assumption, as studies show that problematic
use can take on different forms, in relation to the pathways leading to it (Billieux, 2012).
Moreover, general screening instruments have difficulty differentiating passionate and
enthusiastic media users from pathological users (e.g., Charlton & Danforth, 2007).
The wellbeing literature can help out here. General definitions of wellbeing emphasize
that wellbeing is a subjective experience that can fluctuate over time (Diener, Suh, Lucas, &
Smith, 1999; Headey & Wearing, 1989), By not defining a priori criteria for what counts as
‘being well’ but by rather approaching wellbeing as an experiential state, these definitions
accommodate temporal variability in, and person-specific manifestations of, wellbeing. In a
similar vein, digital wellbeing can be understood as an experiential state. As with
conceptualizations of general wellbeing, this subjective experience of digital wellbeing is
assumed to comprise affective states and cognitive appraisals (cf. Diener, 1994; Shmotkin, 2005)

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 11
that are dynamic: They fluctuate over time as they interact with various internal and external-
contextual influences (cf. Cummins, Eckersley, Pallant, Van Vugt, & Misajon, 2003; Headey &
Wearing, 1989). In the case of digital wellbeing, however, these emotional and cognitive
appraisals reflect one’s evaluation of digital connectivity rather than the evaluation of one’s life.
Consideration 4: Acknowledging Ambivalence
Finally, a definition of digital wellbeing needs to consider the joint occurrence of positive
and negative experiences. All too often, restricting screen time is proposed as a simple solution
to attain digital wellbeing (e.g.,Twenge, 2017). Interventions such as digital detox programs and
screen time apps (e.g., Apple Screen Time) build on this assumption. But by attempting to
eliminate the negative outcomes of connectivity, we risk sacrificing its positive outcomes
(Hiniker et al., 2016, p. 4746). In other words, straightforward constraints on connectivity can
deprive users of positively valued aspects of technology use. This could explain why
interventions such as smartphone abstinence are often ineffective (e.g., Wilcockson et al., 2019).
This brings us to the Mobile Connectivity Paradox: The problems we experience with ubiquitous
connectivity are an inherent, and therefore inescapable downside of the benefits it provides us
with. Because we cannot have one without the other, digital wellbeing is a matter of ‘optimizing
the ambivalence’, of carefully adjusting our connectivity so that it provides us with controlled
pleasure and maximally supports us to achieve our goals, while causing a minimal degree of
functional impairment and loss of control.
This understanding of digital wellbeing echoes scholars’ conception of general wellbeing
as a ‘dynamic equilibrium’ between personality factors, life events and subjective experiences
(Headey & Wearing, 1989). Similarly, digital wellbeing is the outcome of a dynamic equilibrium
between the individual benefits and drawbacks that accrue from mobile connectivity.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 12
A Definition of Digital Welbeing
Taking into consideration the above, I propose a definition of digital wellbeing that does
not medicalize people’s relationship with technology, assumes that connectivity brings both
problems and benefits, acknowledges the subjective and dynamic nature of our experiences with
technology, and recognizes the ambivalence of our relationship to technology:
Digital wellbeing is a subjective individual experience of optimal balance between the
benefits and drawbacks obtained from mobile connectivity. This experiential state is comprised
of affective and cognitive appraisals of the integration of digital connectivity into ordinary life.
People achieve digital wellbeing when experiencing maximal controlled pleasure and functional
support, together with minimal loss of control and functional impairment.
Based on this definition, we can now work towards a model of digital wellbeing that
allows intra- and interpersonal variability in the balance of benefits and drawbacks. To that end,
we must avoid straightforward cause-and-effect thinking, and rather model digital wellbeing as a
dynamic system that is influenced by not only person-, but also by device- and context-specific
factors.
Towards a Dynamic System Model of Digital Wellbeing
Cause-and-effect thinking dominates current research, with several studies
straightforwardly linking screen time measures to wellbeing. Twenge, for example, identifies
screen time as a direct predictor of mental health problems such as depression (e.g., Twenge,
Joiner, Rogers, & Martin, 2018) and even suicidal ideation (e.g., Twenge et al., 2018). Several
scholars warn for the ‘conceptual and methodological mayhem’ (cf. Kaye, Orben, Ellis, Hunter,
& Houghton, 2020) associated with this approach. For example, re-analyzing Twenge et al.’s
(2018) data, Orben and Przybylski (2019) and Ophir, Lipshits-Braziler, and Rosenberg (2019),

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 13
found negligible associations between digital media use and wellbeing, that were highly
contingent on methodological choices, such as item selection procedures, resulting in misleading
interpretations. These observations have fueled a call for greater methodological and analytical
rigor in this field (e.g., Davidson & Ellis, 2019; Kaye et al., 2020).
While the debate on ‘digital harm’- and how to best estimate it - rages on (see, e.g.
Twenge, Haidt, Joiner, and Campbell’s (2020) commentary and Orben and Przybylski’s (2020)
response), recent evidence shows that screen time in itself appears not as straightforwardly
harmful as commonly assumed: If a relationship between screen time and wellbeing exists, it is
likely a nuanced, moderate and reciprocal association (Orben et al., 2019). To examine this
association, we have to build conceptual models and use empirical methodologies that
disentangle the “many nuanced factors, contexts, situational circumstances, temporal effects, and
interactions” (Whitlock & Masur, 2019, p. E2).
A conceptual model of digital wellbeing as a dynamic system can move the debate
forward by reducing the risk of making faulty or over-simplified cause-effect judgments. By
assuming that experiences of digital wellbeing are not only temporary and idiosyncratic, but also
contingent upon a complex constellation of potentially interrelated factors, digital wellbeing is
not reduced to a problem of psychologically predisposed individuals who use digital media
excessively, but rather recognizes that we live in a deeply mediatized world in which digital
devices such as the smartphone have a double-sided nature, “as object, or an instance of material
culture” (Miller, 2014, p. 214). As such, our experiences with these interactive, dialogical media
(cf. Gergen, 2002) are not only of our own making, but also shaped by devices in their material
form, and by normative expectations, behaviors and rituals that pertain to specific social and
situational contexts. To answer the question how individuals can attain digital wellbeing, we thus

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 14
need to understand how persons, devices and contexts interact, and be open to the idea that
screen time might not necessarily be the culprit
2
. To that end, we can approach associations
between person- device- and context-specific factors as a constellation of pathways in a system
that help or hamper specific individual in their quest for digital wellbeing (see Figure 1).
[insert Figure 1 about here]
Person-specific Factors: A Unique User
Research identified several stable personality traits, such as impulsivity (Billieux, Van
der Linden, & Rochat, 2008) or a fear-of-missing-out (Franchina, Vanden Abeele, Van Rooij, Lo
Coco, & De Marez, 2018; see Table 1 for more examples) that increase one’s susceptibility to
develop problems with digital media use. A dynamic system model of wellbeing, however,
should also include intra-individually variable factors, such as affective and cognitive states that
interact with experiences of digital wellbeing, both in direct and indirect ways (see Table 1).
Mood, for example, has been found to associate with momentary experiences of media
enjoyment (Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016). Another example is state boredom. At work, state
boredom is contingent on the momentary context (e.g., time of day, work activity), which may
drive people to seek distraction online (Mark, Iqbal, Czerwinski, & Johns, 2014), which can lead
to feelings of reduced productivity (Mark, Iqbal, Czerwinski, & Johns, 2015).
Recent studies identified some states directly related to digital wellbeing experiences, in
the form of affective and cognitive appraisals resulting from digital connectivity (see Table 1).
These may be associated with experiences of controlled pleasure, loss of control and of
functional support/impairment. For instance, Reinecke et al. (2018) mention a cognitive state
2
On the contrary, in a society where media use is integrated deeply into every social domain, the physical world
may even cast a shadow on pleasurable or meaningful experiences with technology.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 15
‘state online vigilance’, a state of mental preoccupation with, readiness to respond to and
constant monitoring of online content and communication.
For a dynamic system approach to digital wellbeing, it is important not to consider these
states in isolation, but to understand that devices and contexts can play a crucial role in
producing them. With respect to the device, for example, recent research found that the mere
visibility of one’s smartphone suffices to trigger online vigilance (Johannes, Veling,
Verwijmeren, & Buijzen, 2018). This warrants further investigation of device-specific factors.
Device-specific Factors: The Danger of the Device
Our experience of digital wellbeing cannot be dissociated from our digital media devices.
In constant competition over consumer attention, technology developers design devices with
operating systems, applications and interfaces that keep users ‘hooked’ (Williams, 2018; Eyal,
2014). Such ‘addictive design’ (cf. Yousafzai, Hussain, & Griffiths, 2014) capitalizes on the fact
that humans are evolutionary hardwired to constantly scan the environment for new information,
including of a social nature (Eyal, 2014). Smartphones in particular embed such a reward
infrastructure
3
, turning people into “lab rats constantly pressing levers to get tiny pellets of social
or intellectual nourishment” (Carr, 2010, p. 117). It is precisely because digital media are so hard
to resist to, that people seek ways to manage their ‘distractive potential’ (Hiniker et al., 2016)
and reduce the ‘toll of overconnection’ (Baym, Wagman, & Persaud, 2020).
Digital media such as smartphones operate on an underlying technological infrastructure
that is built on the premise of portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality (Schrock,
2015). Although the choice for a particular device, app or app settings is often personally
motivated, such choices may have a durable impact on experiences of digital wellbeing. For
3
Note that a recent study by Johannes, Dora, and Rusz (2019) supports the notion that social media apps are
perceived as high in reward, but refutes the idea that these rewards capture attention.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 16
instance, the choice for a ‘dumb phone’ might self-protect individuals against the (feared) impact
of overconnection (Morrison & Gomez, 2014; see Table 1 for more factors).
Not all our device interactions are the straightforward result of choices. System features
such as notification systems, for instance, depend on external parties that ‘notify’. Notifications
embody mobile technologies’ interactive and dialogical nature (cf. Gergen, 2002). They alert the
user of potentially rewarding, dynamically updated, information (Oulasvirta, Rattenbury, Ma, &
Raita, 2011), such as that others attempt to engage with them (Bayer, Campbell, & Ling, 2016).
This dynamic element may affect digital wellbeing experiences, for instance by activating a state
of vigilance in the user (Johannes et al., 2018).
Devices-specific factors may also influence digital wellbeing via their contribution to
distinct behavioral patterns, such as fragmentation and habituation (Bayer, Campbell, & Ling,
2016; Deng et al., 2019). These are associated with dynamic content applications and system
features such as haptic feedback features (Bayer et al., 2016; Oulasvirta et al., 2011). Similarly,
notifications (Bayer et al., 2016; Schnauber-Stockmann et al., 2018), post-play functions and
algorithmic curation (Horeck, Jenner, & Kendall, 2018) can become gateways to lengthier usage
sessions and binge behaviors - sometimes referred to as ‘going down the rabbit hole’ (Collier,
2016). Such events can affect digital wellbeing, for example by inducing feelings of guilt or
shame over one’s procrastination (cf. Du, van Koningsbruggen, & Kerkhof, 2018; Reinecke &
Hofmann, 2016).
We do not interact with their devices in a vacuum, however: The interactive and
dialogical nature of digital media implies that our use of them cannot be considered in separation
from our social context.
Context-specific Factors: A Culture of Connectivity

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 17
We live in a context of ubiquitous connectivity, now that persons - and increasingly also
objects – have become individually addressable. As a result, we must negotiate how to respond
to the demands and expectations stemming from this addressability (Vanden Abeele et al., 2018).
Some contexts come with time and/or place constraints on connectivity that can be anticipated,
and are therefore relatively stable: During flights or in movie theatres, connectivity is constrained
and sometimes even prohibited. In other contexts, such as a formal board meeting, rules may be
more implicit but nonetheless expected. When contexts set clear boundaries for connectivity,
they may impact our experienced digital wellbeing: Forced (dis-)connectivity may be enjoyed or
missed, and meaningful or meaningless.
In other contexts, bounds to connectivity may be less clear, requiring a more active
negotiation. There may be solitary contexts in which digital connectivity needs to be negotiated
because it competes with personal goals and obligations (Hofmann, Reinecke, & Meier, 2016),
for instance, when using digital media while studying. Facing such goal conflicts, people have to
weigh (often short-term) rewards from media use against more remote goals such as obtaining a
degree or acquiring a new skill.
Other situations that may require a negotiation over connectivity may stem from our
membership to social groups and institutional contexts. People perform various social roles in
such groups and institutions. Because mobile connectivity affords them to activate these social
roles irrespective of space and time, roles may blur. Thus, individuals have to negotiate their
connectivity in accordance to the momentary goals and obligations pertaining to each role
(Vanden Abeele et al., 2018). A parent must negotiate, for example, whether a work email is
urgent enough to give it priority over playing with their child.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 18
In the same vain, people may experience pressure from normative expectations
concerning availability and reciprocity in their groups and institutions (Hall & Baym, 2012;
Laursen, 2005; Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005; Quan-Haase & Collins, 2008; Taylor & Harper,
2003). These expectations are often tacit, but in institutional contexts these may be formalized as
rules and policies such as those concerning telework or email-after-work-hours (e.g., Piszczek,
2017). Digital wellbeing may depend on the demands that these expectations place on one’s (dis-
)connectivity. Especially when demands from one’s social groups and institutional contexts
conflict, digital wellbeing may suffer. Expectations, rules and polices surrounding connectivity
can reproduce underlying power hierarchies (e.g., Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005), so that, for
exanple, employees perceive normative pressure to respond to their employer’s emails after work
hours, resulting in the experience ‘availability stress’ (cf. Steele, Hall, & Christofferson, 2020) in
response to email notifications. They may keep responding to these emails nonetheless, out of
fear for a negative evaluation.
Finally, distinct from the above solitary, group and institutional contexts mentioned
above and in Table 1, we may also consider the impact of broader socio-cultural transformations
on digital wellbeing. Addictive design is indicative of an increasing commodification of our
attention by ‘invisible virtual employers’ who often - without our explicit consent or even
awareness - blur our roles as consumer and worker (Van Dijck, 2014; Vanden Abeele et al.,
2018; Williams, 2018). We may also look at processes of acceleration (Rosa, 2013; Wajcman,
2015) and individual responsibilization (Vanden Abeele et al., 2018) as broader contexts that
shape digital wellbeing experiences.
Digital Wellbeing Interventions: Disrupting the System?

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 19
According to Thrift (2004), repetitive patterns in our way of doing things often reveal
invisible ‘performative infrastructures’ that characterize the ‘track-and-trace’ model of
contemporary society (Thrift, 2004). Representing digital wellbeing as a dynamic system makes
such performative infrastructures visible in the form of pathways between person-, device- and
context-specific factors that interact to produce experiences of digital wellbeing. Digital
wellbeing interventions, then, can be understood as potential disruptors of the system via their
effects on these pathways. Recent work of Baym et al. (2020), for example shows how a period
of facebook abstinence led to greater mindful scrolling – which solved some (but not all) issues
with overconnection.
Recent scholarly work within the HCI community is of value here. Scholars have
classified various relevant features in these interventions (e.g., Roffarello & De Russis, 2019),
identified mechanisms explaining why features ‘work’ - or not (e.g., Lyngs et al., 2019), and
developed agendas for researching the design and development of digital wellbeing interventions
(e.g., Cecchinato et al., 2019; Hiniker et al., 2016). These efforts align with the adoption of a
dynamic systems approach when they acknowledge the complex and person-specific nature of
digital wellbeing, and its contingency on personal characteristics and preferences, contexts of use
and design choices embedded in technology (e.g., Hiniker et al., 2016; Lyngs et al., 2019; Lyngs
et al., 2020). Future research in this area will benefit from an additional focus on within-person
fluctuations, and the potential idiosyncracy of these mechanisms. This can also help to
differentiate the various levels at which interventions may be addressed, such as the level of the
technology (e.g., a digital tool that limits connectivity), the individual (e.g., in the shape of self-
imposed restrictions on connectivity), the group (e.g., household screen use rules) and the
institution (e.g., workplace policies). Research might identify that disruption occurs in multiple

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 20
pathways simultaneously, thereby potentially amplifying or dampening an intervention’s total
effect. Digital detoxes, for example, may reduce availability stress, but simultaneously activate
users’ fear of missing out, leading to a zero sum effect on a user’s appreciation of connectivity.
Researching Digital Wellbeing: Methodological Implications
A dynamic system approach to digital wellbeing can foster discussion on digital media
use effects. In such a dynamic system approach, antecedents and outcomes still matter. Dynamic
and stable factors may influence individual system components and repeated experiences of (a
lack of) digital wellbeing may have longer-term consequences for an individual’s wellbeing.
However, by assuming intra-individual variability rather than a one-size-fits-all pattern, and by
accounting for the ambivalence that individuals may experience in relation to ubiquitous
connectivity – grateful in one moment, and frustrated the next - it overcomes limitations of
extant research approaches.
A dynamic system approach to digital wellbeing has empirical implications. It requires
innovative data collection techniques and research methodologies that can expose repetitions in
our way of doing things, so that we can lift the veil on the technological unconsciousness (cf.
Thrift, 2004). This implies that methods relying on self-reports of media behavior are not an
optimal choice: They are notoriously inaccurate as the frequent, fragmented and habitual nature
of media behaviors makes it difficult to retrieve them from memory (Vanden Abeele, Beullens,
& Roe, 2013). Moreover, inaccuracies in self-reported media use also correlate with psycho-
social wellbeing (Sewall et al., 2020), casting doubt on the validity of self-reported associations
between screen time and wellbeing.
Device logging and mobile experience sampling are promising alternatives. These data
collection techniques can capture ‘in situ’ experiences, and can assess idiosyncratic

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 21
manifestations of digital wellbeing: Device logging can document patterns in digital media use
behaviors, identifying bursts of activity as well as repetitive behaviors occurring daily, weekly,
and over longer durations (Stragier, Hendrickson, Vanden Abeele & De Marez, 2019).
Additionally, relevant dynamic device- and context specific factors, such as the amount of
incoming notifications and the spatio-temporal context of device use, can be logged. Mobile
experience sampling, a systematic data collection technique based on the diary method
(Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 2014), can inform about individuals’ momentary experiences in a
low-threshold and non-time-consuming way (Karnowski, 2013). Data about their momentary
cognitive/affective states and situational contexts can be used to build models that explain how
processes take place within an individual (i.e. are idiosyncratic), how processes are linked over
different time scales, and to what extent processes differ across individuals (Keijsers & van
Roekel, 2018).
Both smartphone logging and mobile experience sampling are promising tools to unearth
temporal, non-linear, and reciprocal relationships (Whitlock & Masur, 2019). The implication for
media effects researchers is that they will have to embrace the computational turn in media
effects studies by, for instance, adopting machine learning techniques to extract ‘patterned
behavior’ from device logs, network modelling techniques to examine the dynamic nature of
digital wellbeing systems, and advanced time series modelling techniques to examine whether
repeated failures in experiencing digital wellbeing predict short-, but also longer-term wellbeing
outcomes such as burnout and depression.
Similarly, for interpretive-critical scholarship these data collection techniques imply that
researchers must embrace the developing digital ethnographic turn in culture studies, using novel
approaches such as ‘appnography’ or log/experience sampling data as cultural probes.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 22
Appnography approaches apps as intermediaries of culture: An analysis of such hybrid offline-
online digital spaces can reveal how users, app features and contexts work together in (re-
)producing ideologies and power structures (Cousineau, Oakes, & Johnson, 2019). To gain
greater insight of the ‘in situ’ experiences of individuals, device logs represent ‘snapshots’ that
can probe users to reflect on prior digital wellbeing experiences (Kaufmann, 2018). Additionally,
researchers can embrace qualitative alternatives to experience sampling, such as asking
individuals to document momentary experiences via mobile messaging, using words, pictures,
video, emoji, hashtags, etcetera (Kaufmann & Peil, 2019) to help reveal what digital wellbeing
means to individual users, and how digital wellbeing experiences intersect with broader aspects
of culture.
Conclusion
When building representations of reality, scholars need to consider how to conceptually
and empirically approach the phenomenon of interest. Current research on the relationship
between digital media use and wellbeing is in an impasse, because conceptual models appear
inadequate to capture the complexity of the relationships that individuals have with digital
media, and empirical approaches lead to inconsistent findings and are criticized for lacking
methodological rigor. I argue that we can overcome this impasse by building a new theory of
digital wellbeing that focuses on momentary experiences of balance between connectivity and
disconnectivity. These experiences arise out of interactions between persons, devices and
contexts that can be modelled and empirically investigated as pathways in a dynamic system of
wellbeing. A dynamic system approach to digital wellbeing can bring new insight into the
mechanisms that lead people to experience problems with digital media use. Moreover, it can

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 23
help understand under which circumstances digital wellbeing interventions such as digital detox
programs or screen time tools are more or less successful.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 24
References
Aagaard, J. (2020). Digital akrasia: a qualitative study of phubbing. AI & SOCIETY, 35, 237–
244. doi:10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0
Aalbers, G., McNally, R. J., Heeren, A., de Wit, S., & Fried, E. I. (2019). Social media and
depression symptoms: A network perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 148(8), 1454–1462. doi:10.1037/xge0000528.supp
Andreassen, C. S. (2015). Online Social Network Site Addiction: A Comprehensive Review.
Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 175-184. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0056-9
Anrijs, S., Bombeke, K., Durnez, W., Van Damme, K., Vanhaelewyn, B., Conradie, P., . . .
Ponnet, K. (2018). MobileDNA: Relating Physiological Stress Measurements to
Smartphone Usage to Assess the Effect of a Digital Detox. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Ardes, A. (2018). Google and the Rise of 'Digital Well-Being'. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-the-rise-of-digital-wellbeing/
Balakrishnan, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). An Exploratory Study of “Selfitis” and the
Development of the Selfitis Behavior Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 16(3), 722-736. doi:10.1007/s11469-017-9844-x
Baron, N. S., & af Segerstad, Y. H. (2010). Cross-cultural patterns in mobile-phone use: public
space and reachability in Sweden, the USA and Japan. New Media & Society, 12(1), 13-
34. doi:10.1177/1461444809355111
Bauer, A. A., Loy, L. S., Masur, P. K., & Schneider, F. M. (2017). Mindful instant messaging:
Mindfulness and autonomous motivation as predictors of well-being in smartphone

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 25
communication. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
29(3), 159-165. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000225
Bayer, J. B., & Campbell, S. W. (2012). Texting while driving on automatic: Considering the
frequency-independent side of habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2083-2090.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.012
Bayer, J. B., Campbell, S. W., & Ling, R. (2016). Connection Cues: Activating the Norms and
Habits of Social Connectedness. Communication Theory, 26(2), 128-149.
doi:10.1111/comt.12090
Baym, N. K., Wagman, K. B., & Persaud, C. J. (2020). Mindfully Scrolling: Rethinking
Facebook After Time Deactivated. Social Media + Society, 6(2).
doi:10.1177/2056305120919105
Billieux, J. (2012). Problematic use of the mobile phone: a literature review and a pathways
model. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8(4), 299-307. doi:10.2174/157340012803520522
Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., & Heeren, A. (2015). Are we
overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research.
Journal of behavioral addictions, 4(3), 119-123. doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.009
Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and
problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal
of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(9), 1195-1210.
doi:10.1002/acp.1429
Bragazzi, N. L., & Del Puente, G. (2014). A proposal for including nomophobia in the new
DSM-V. Psychology research and behavior management, 7, 155-160.
doi:10.2147/PRBM.S41386

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 26
Büchi, M., Festic, N., & Latzer, M. (2019). Digital Overuse and Subjective Well-Being in a
Digitized Society. Social Media+ Society, 5(4). doi:10.1177/2056305119886031
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J. L., & Sey, A. (2009). Mobile communication and
society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cecchinato, M. E., Rooksby, J., Hiniker, A., Munson, S., Lukoff, K., Ciolfi, L., . . . Harrison, D.
(2019). Designing for Digital Wellbeing: A Research & Practice Agenda. Paper
presented at the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems.
Charlton, J. P., & Danforth, I. D. (2007). Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the
context of online game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1531-1548.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.002
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress,
and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1237-1248.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x
Collier, R. (2016). Mental health in the smartphone era. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association
journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 188(16), 1141-1142.
doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-5336
Cousineau, L. S., Oakes, H., & Johnson, C. W. (2019). Appnography: Modifying Ethnography
for App-Based Culture. In D. Parry, C. Johnson, & F. S. (Eds.), Digital Dilemmas (pp.
95-117): Palgrave Macmillan.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 27
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (2014). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling
method. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 35-54): Springer.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a
national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social
indicators research, 64(2), 159-190. doi:10.1023/A:1024704320683
Davidson, B. I., & Ellis, D. A. (2019). Avoiding Irrelevance: The manifestation and impacts of
technophobia in psychological science. Preprint. PsyArXiv.
Deng, T., Kanthawala, S., Meng, J., Peng, W., Kononova, A., Hao, Q., . . . David, P. (2019).
Measuring smartphone usage and task switching with log tracking and self-reports.
Mobile Media & Communication, 7(1), 3-23. doi:10.1177/2050157918761491
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social indicators
research, 31(2), 103-157. doi:10.1007/BF01207052
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.
Dscout. (2016). Mobile touches: Dscout’s inaugural study on humans and their tech. Retrieved
from https://blog.dscout.com/mobile-touches
Du, J., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Kerkhof, P. (2018). A brief measure of social media self-
control failure. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 68-75.
Duke, É., & Montag, C. (2017). Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported
productivity. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6, 90-95. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
Eijnden, R. V. D., Doornwaard, S., & Bogt, T. T. (2017). OP-117: Are smartphone dependence
symptoms related to FoMO, craving and withdrawal symptoms during smartphone
abstinence? Findings from a natural experiment. Journal of behavioral addictions, 6, 56.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 28
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for
touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 509-516. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079
Elhai, J. D., Rozgonjuk, D., Liu, T., & Yang, H. (2020). Fear of missing out predicts repeated
measurements of greater negative affect using experience sampling
methodology. Journal of affective disorders, 262, 298-303. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.026
Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products: Penguin.
Fitz, N., Kushlev, K., Jagannathan, R., Lewis, T., Paliwal, D., & Ariely, D. (2019). Batching
smartphone notifications can improve well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 101,
84-94. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.016
Flayelle, M., Maurage, P., Vögele, C., Karila, L., & Billieux, J. (2019). Time for a plot twist:
Beyond confirmatory approaches to binge-watching research. Psychology of Popular
Media Culture, 8(3), 308. doi:10.1037/ppm0000187
Franchina, V., Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Van Rooij, A., Lo Coco, G., & De Marez, L. (2018).
Fear of Missing Out as a Predictor of Problematic Social Media Use and Phubbing
Behavior Among Flemish Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15.
doi:10.3390/ijerph15102319
Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. A. Aakhus (Eds.),
Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227-
241). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial
framework. Journal of Substance use, 10(4), 191-197. doi:10.1080/14659890500114359

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 29
Griffiths, M. D. (2019). The evolution of the components model of addiction and the need for a
confirmatory approach in conceptualizing behavioral addictions. Düşünen Adam: The
Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 32, 179-184.
doi:10.14744/DAJPNS.2019.00027
Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2012). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance
expectations,(over) dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media &
Society, 14(2), 316-331. doi:10.1177/1461444811415047
Harris, B., Regan, T., Schueler, J., & Fields, S. A. (2020). Problematic Mobile Phone and
Smartphone Use Scales: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 672.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00672
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Is the smartphone a smart choice? The effect of smartphone
separation on executive functions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 329-336.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.002
Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a
dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(4), 731-
739. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.731
Henderson, L. W., & Knight, T. (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to
more comprehensively understand wellbeing and pathways to wellbeing. International
journal of wellbeing, 2(3), 196-221. doi:10.5502/ijw.v2i3.3
Hiniker, A., Hong, S., Kohno, T., & Kientz, J. A. (2016). MyTime: Designing and Evaluating an
Intervention for Smartphone Non-Use. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2016
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 30
Hofmann, W., Reinecke, L., & Meier, A. (2016). Self-Control as a Moderator of the Effects of
Media Use on Well-Being. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and
research on positive media effects (pp. 211-222). New York: Routledge.
Horeck, T., Jenner, M., & Kendall, T. (2018). On binge-watching: Nine critical propositions.
Critical Studies in Television, 13(4), 499-504. doi:10.1177/1749602018796754
Huang, C. (2010). Internet addiction: Stability and change. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 25(3), 345-361. doi: 10.1007/s10212-010-0022-9
Huta, V. (2016). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In L. Reinecke &
M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives
on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 14-33). New York: Routledge.
ITU. (2017). ICT Facts and Figures 2017. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf:
Jiang, J. (2018). How Teens and Parents Navigate Screen Time and Device Distractions.
Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/14/2018/08/21153052/PI_2018.08.22_teens-
screentime_FINAL.pdf:
Johannes, N., Dora, J., & Rusz, D. (2019). Social smartphone apps do not capture attention
despite their perceived high reward value. Collabra: Psychology & Marketing, 5(1), 1-
14. doi:10.1525/collabra.207
Johannes, N., Veling, H., Verwijmeren, T., & Buijzen, M. (2018). Hard to resist? The effect of
smartphone visibility and notifications on response inhibition. Journal of Media

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 31
Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 31(3), 214-225. doi:10.1027/1864-
1105/a000248
Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). The moderating role of psychosocial well-being on the
relationship between escapism and excessive online gaming. Computers in Human
Behavior, 38, 68-74. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.020
Kardefelt‐Winther, D. (2017). Conceptualizing Internet use disorders: A ddiction or coping
process? Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 71(7), 459-466. doi:10.1111/pcn.12413
Kardefelt‐Winther, D., Heeren, A., Schimmenti, A., van Rooij, A., Maurage, P., Carras, M., . . .
Billieux, J. (2017). How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without
pathologizing common behaviours? Addiction, 112(10), 1709-1715.
doi:10.1111/add.13763
Karnowski, V. (2013). Befragung in situ: Die Mobile Experience Sampling Method (MESM). In
W. Möhring & D. Schlütz (Eds.), Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der
Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 235-247). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Kaufmann, K. (2018). The smartphone as a snapshot of its use: Mobile media elicitation in
qualitative interviews. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(2), 233-246.
doi:10.1177/2050157917743782
Kaufmann, K., & Peil, C. (2019). The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): Using
WhatsApp to enhance self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mobile Media &
Communication, 8(2), 229-246. doi:10.1177/2050157919852392
Kaye, L. K., Orben, A., Ellis, D. A., Hunter, S. C., & Houghton, S. (2020). The Conceptual and
Methodological Mayhem of “Screen-time”. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17, 3661. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103661

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 32
Keijsers, L., & van Roekel, E. (2018). Longitudinal methods in adolescent psychology: where
could we go from here? And should we? In Reframing Adolescent Research (pp. 70-91):
Routledge.
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already depleted?
Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.01.001
Laursen, D. (2005). Please reply! The replying norm in adolescent SMS communication. In R.
Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor (Eds.), The inside text (pp. 53-73). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lee, U., Lee, H., & Park, J. (2019). Positive Computing for Digital Wellbeing.
http://mentalhealth.media.mit.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/15/2019/04/CMH2019_paper_41.pdf
Li, D., Zhang, W., Li, X., Zhen, S., & Wang, Y. (2010). Stressful life events and problematic
Internet use by adolescent females and males: A mediated moderation model. Computers
in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1199-1207. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.031
Licoppe, C., & Smoreda, Z. (2005). Are social networks technologically embedded? Social
Networks, 27(4), 317-335. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.001
Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society:
MIT Press.
Ling, R. (2017). A brief history of individual addressability: The role of mobile communication
in being permanently connected. In P. Vorderer, D. Hefner, L. Reinecke, & C. Klimmt
(Eds.), Permanently online, permanently connected (pp. 24-31). London: Routledge.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 33
Ling, R., & Lai, C. H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of
smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication, 66(5), 834-856.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12251
Loid, K., Täht, K., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2020). Do pop-up notifications regarding smartphone use
decrease screen time, phone checking behavior, and self-reported problematic
smartphone use? evidence from a two-month experimental study. Computers in Human
Behavior, 102, 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.007
Lukoff, K., Yu, C., Kientz, J., & Hiniker, A. (2018). What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful
or Meaningless? Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and
Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(1), 1-26.
Lyngs, U., Lukoff, K., Slovak, P., Binns, R., Slack, A., Inzlicht, M., . . . Shadbolt, N. (2019).
Self-Control in Cyberspace: Applying Dual Systems Theory to a Review of Digital Self-
Control Tools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Lyngs, U., Lukoff, K., Slovak, P., Seymour, W., Webb, H., Jirotka, M., . . . Shadbolt, N. (2020).
'I Just Want to Hack Myself to Not Get Distracted': Evaluating Design Interventions for
Self-Control on Facebook. arXiv Preprint.
Maraz, A., Urbán, R., Griffiths, M. D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). An empirical investigation of
dance addiction. PLoS One, 10(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125988
Mark, G., Iqbal, S., Czerwinski, M., & Johns, P. (2015). Focused, aroused, but so distractible:
Temporal perspectives on multitasking and communications. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &
Social Computing.

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 34
Mark, G., Iqbal, S. T., Czerwinski, M., & Johns, P. (2014). Bored mondays and focused
afternoons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace. Paper presented
at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Mason, B. (2018). Digital wellbeing in the twenty-first century. Retrieved from
https://digitalsocial.eu/images/upload/42-D3.4%20Trend%20-
%20Digital%20Wellbeing_p002-018_split.pdf
McDaniel, B. T., & Drouin, M. (2019). Daily Technology Interruptions and Emotional and
Relational Well-Being. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.027
Miller, J. (2014). The fourth screen: Mediatization and the smartphone. Mobile Media &
Communication, 2(2), 209-226. doi:10.1177/2050157914521412
Morrison, S. L., & Gomez, R. (2014). Pushback: Expressions of resistance to the “evertime” of
constant online connectivity. First Monday, 19(8). doi:10.5210/fm.v19i8.4902
Ophir, Y., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., & Rosenberg, H. (2019). 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. doi:10.1177/2167702619849412
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and
digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173-182. doi:10.1038/s41562-
018-0506-1
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2020). Reply to: Underestimating digital media harm. Nature
Human Behaviour, 4(4), 349-351. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0840-y
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2011). Habits make smartphone use more
pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105-114. doi:10.1007/s00779-
011-0412-2

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 35
Paul, L., & Talbott, E. (2017). Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2016: UK Cut. Retrieved from
London, UK: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/technology-media-and-
telecommunications/articles/digital-wellbeing.html
Pies, R. (2009). Should DSM-V designate “Internet addiction” a mental disorder? Psychiatry
(Edgmont), 6(2), 31-37.
Piszczek, M. M. (2017). Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational
expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38(4), 592-611. doi:10.1002/job.2153
Pontes, H. M., Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Clinical psychology of Internet addiction:
a review of its conceptualization, prevalence, neuronal processes, and implications for
treatment. Neuroscience & Neuroeconomics, 4, 11-23. doi:10.2147/NAN.S60982
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of
mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237-246. doi:10.1177/0265407512453827
Quan-Haase, A., & Collins, J. L. (2008). I'm there, but I might not want to talk to you.
Information, communication & society, 11(4), 526-543.
doi:10.1080/13691180801999043
Reinecke, L., & Hofmann, W. (2016). Slacking off or winding down? An experience sampling
study on the drivers and consequences of media use for recovery versus procrastination.
Human Communication Research, 42(3), 441-461. doi:10.1111/hcre.12082
Reinecke, L., Klimmt, C., Meier, A., Reich, S., Hefner, D., Knop-Huelss, K., . . . Vorderer, P.
(2018). Permanently online and permanently connected: Development and validation of

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 36
the Online Vigilance Scale. PLoS One, 13(10), e0205384.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205384
Ribak, R., & Rosenthal, M. (2015). Smartphone resistance as media ambivalence. First Monday,
20(11). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i11.6307
Roffarello, A. M., & De Russis, L. (2019). The Race Towards Digital Wellbeing: Issues and
Opportunities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity: Columbia University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Schnauber-Stockmann, A., Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2018). Procrastination out of habit? The
role of impulsive versus reflective media selection in procrastinatory media use. Media
Psychology, 21(4), 640-668. doi:10.1080/15213269.2018.1476156
Schrock, A. R. (2015). Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability,
locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1229–1246.
doi:1932–8036/20150005
Sewall, C. J., Bear, T. M., Merranko, J., & Rosen, D. (2020). How psychosocial well-being and
usage amount predict inaccuracies in retrospective estimates of digital technology use.
Mobile Media & Communication, 2050157920902830. doi:10.1177/2050157920902830
Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in the face of adversity: Reformulating the dynamic and
modular bases of subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), 291-325.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.4.291

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 37
Specker Sullivan, L., & Reiner, P. (2019). Digital Wellness and Persuasive Technologies.
Philosophy & Technology. doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00376-5
Starcevic, V., Billieux, J., & Schimmenti, A. (2018). Selfitis, selfie addiction, twitteritis:
irresistible appeal of medical terminology for problematic behaviours in the digital age.
The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 52(5), 408.
doi:10.1177/0004867418763532
Steele, R. G., Hall, J. A., & Christofferson, J. L. (2020). Conceptualizing digital stress in
adolescents and young adults: Toward the development of an empirically based model.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(1), 15-26. doi:10.1007/s10567-019-
00300-5
Stragier, J., Hendrickson, A., Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., & De Marez, L. (2019). Unlock, Chat,
Lock. A Markov Chain Analysis to Unveil How Smartphone Use Unfolds in Everyday
Life. Paper presented at the ICA.
Sutton, T. (2017). Disconnect to reconnect: The food/technology metaphor in digital detoxing.
First Monday, 22(6). doi:10.5210/fm.v22i6.7561
Taylor, A. S., & Harper, R. (2003). The gift of the gab?: A design oriented sociology of young
people's use of mobiles. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(3), 267-
296.
Thrift, N. (2004). Remembering the technological unconscious by foregrounding knowledges of
position. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(1), 175-190.
doi:10.1068/d321t

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 38
Twenge, J. M. (2017). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-
generation/534198/
Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Joiner, T. E., & Campbell, K. W. (2020). Underestimating digital media
harm. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 346-348. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0839-4
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive
symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010
and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-17.
doi:10.1177/2167702617723376
Van der Linden, M. (2015). Commentary on: Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable
blueprint for behavioral addiction research. Addictions as a psychosocial and cultural
construction. Journal of behavioral addictions, 4(3), 145-147.
doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.025
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific
paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & society, 12(2), 197-208.
doi:10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
Van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Hartmann, T., Eden, A., & Veling, H. (2017). Spontaneous hedonic
reactions to social media cues. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
20(5), 334-340. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0530
Van Rooij, A. J., & Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2017). Lost in the chaos: Flawed literature should not
generate new disorders: Commentary on: Chaos and confusion in DSM-5 diagnosis of
Internet Gaming Disorder: Issues, concerns, and recommendations for clarity in the field

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 39
(Kuss et al.). Journal of behavioral addictions, 6(2), 128-132.
doi:10.1556/2006.6.2017.015
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Abels, M., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2020). Are parents less responsive
to young children when they are on their phones? A systematic naturalistic observation
study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. doi:10.1089/cyber.2019.0472
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., Beullens, K., & Roe, K. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use:
Gender, age and real usage level in relation to the accuracy and validity of self-reported
mobile phone use. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(2), 213-236.
doi:10.1177/2050157913477095
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., De Wolf, R., & Ling, R. (2018). Mobile media and social space: How
anytime, anyplace connectivity structures everyday life. Media and Communication, 6(2),
5-14. doi:10.17645/mac.v6i2.1399
Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online–Permanently
connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart
devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694-703. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.085
Wajcman, J. (2008). Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. Br J
Sociol, 59(1), 59-77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2007.00182.x
Wajcman, J. (2015). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism: University of
Chicago Press.
Whitlock, J., & Masur, P. K. (2019). Disentangling the Association of Screen Time With
Developmental Outcomes and Well-being: Problems, Challenges, and Opportunities.
JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), 1021–1022. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3191

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 40
Wilcockson, T. D. W., Osborne, A. M., & Ellis, D. A. (2019). Digital detox: The effect of
smartphone abstinence on mood, anxiety, and craving. Addictive Behaviors, 99, 106013.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.06.002
Williams, J. (2018). Stand out of our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy:
Cambridge University Press.
Yousafzai, S., Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. (2014). Social responsibility in online videogaming:
What should the videogame industry do? Addiction Research & Theory, 22(3), 181-185.
doi:10.3109/16066359.2013.812203
Yu, L., & Shek, D. T. L. (2013). Internet addiction in Hong Kong adolescents: a three-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 26(3), S10-S17.
doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2013.03.010

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 41
Table 1
Examples of stable and dynamic person-, device- and context-specific factors associated
experiences of digital wellbeing
Person-specific factors
Affective and cognitive appraisals of digital connectivity
online vigilance
Reinecke et al., 2018
cognitive overload
Steele, Hall, & Christofferson, 2020
digital stress
Steele, Hall, & Christofferson, 2020
social approval anxiety
Steele, Hall, & Christofferson, 2020
digital stress
Steele, Hall, & Christofferson, 2020
media enjoyment
Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016
screen time guilt/shame
Du, van Koningsbruggen, & Kerkhof, 2018; Reinecke
& Hofmann, 2016
Stable traits
impulsivity
Billieux, Van der Linden, & Rochat, 2008
trait anxiety
Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2016
self-control
Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016
trait fear-of-missing-out
Franchina et al., 2018
Momentary affective and cognitive states
mood
Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016
stress
Aalbers, McNally, Heeren, de Wit, & Fried, 2019
exhaustion
Reinecke & Hofmann, 2016
state boredom
Mark, Iqbal, Czerwinski, & Johns, 2014
mindfulness
Baym, Wagman, & Persaud, 2020; Bauer, Loy, Masur,
& Schneider, 2017
state fear-of-missing-out
Elhai, Rozgonjuk, Liu, & Yang, 2020
Device-specific factors
Stable characteristics
longer-term abstinence
Baym, Wagman, & Persaud, 2020
smartphone resistance
Ribak & Rosenthal, 2015
operating systems and embedded
digital wellbeing functionalities
Lyngs et al., 2019; Specker Sullivan & Reiner, 2019
app installed, including digital
wellbeing apps
Hiniker et al., 2016; Lyngs et al., 2019; Specker
Sullivan & Reiner, 2019
app settings/features
Lyngs et al., 2020; Fitz et al., 2019
Momentary characteristics
short-term abstinence
Eijnden, Doornwaard, & Bogt, 2017
device mere presence
Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012; Johannes, Veling,
Verwijmeren, & Buijzen, 2018
notifications
Johannes, Veling, Verwijmeren, & Buijzen, 2018
algorithmic curation
Horeck et al., 2018
post-play function
Horeck et al., 2018
Device-induced behaviors
media repertoires
Stragier, Hendrickson, Vanden Abeele & De Marez,
2019
habitual checking routines
Bayer, Campbell & Ling, 2016
binge behaviors
Flayelle, Maurage, Vögele, Karila, & Billieux, 2019
Context-specific factors
Stable characteristics

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 42
times and places with clear boundaries
Baron & af Segerstad, 2010
Momentary characteristics
competing goals & obligations,
potentially from competing social roles
Hofmann, Reinecke, & Meier, 2016; Chesley, 2005
real and perceived pressure to (dis-
)connect
Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005; Quan-Haase & Collins,
2008
availability and reciprocity norms
Hall & Baym, 2012; Laursen, 2005; Taylor & Harper,
2003
formal and informal rules,
expectations, policies, punishments
and rewards
Piszczek, 2017
Socio-cultural transformations of society
commodification of attention
Specker Sullivan & Reiner, 2019; Williams, 2018
Acceleration
Rosa, 2013; Wajcman, 2008, 2015
(control) responsibilization
Vanden Abeele, de Wolf & Ling, 2018

DIGITAL WELLBEING AS A DYNAMIC CONSTRUCT 43
Figure 1:
A dynamic system of digital wellbeing