Digital Flourishing: Conceptualizing and Assessing Positive Perceptions of Mediated Social Interactions

Abstract

Recent research started to apply concepts of well-being to the context of computer mediated communication (e.g., social media, instant messaging). While much research investigates negative perceptions of mediated social interactions (e.g., “problematic” or “addictive” social media use), a multi-dimensional measure that taps into users? positive perceptions is sorely lacking. The present research therefore develops the first comprehensive measure of digital flourishing, defined as positive perceptions of mediated social interactions. Building on a qualitative pre-study that aided the construction of the Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS), Study 1 (N = 474) employed exploratory factor analysis to reveal five subdimensions of digital flourishing. The preregistered Study 2 (N = 438) confirmed these five dimensions, yielding five reliable items per subscale and initial construct validity with three psychological needs from self-determination theory (SDT; competence, autonomy, relatedness) which were used as an underlying well-being framework for the development of the DFS. The preregistered Study 3 generated further construct validity by directly relating DFS to well-being. The scale is relevant for researchers and practitioners alike to better understand how users perceive their mediated interactions to impact mental health and well-being.

Measurement of flourishing: a scoping review

“…Hone et al ( 2014 ) also recommended that life satisfaction, which was used as an indicator in the Mental Health Continuum—Short Form (Keyes et al, 2008 ), be adopted for use in other flourishing measures. We find that life satisfaction has indeed been adopted for use in two of the more recent scales we reviewed (Rautenbach and Rothmann, 2017 ; VanderWeele, 2017 ), and has been found to correlate strongly with a third recent scale (Janicke-Bowles et al, 2023 ).…”

“…As pointed out by one study (Huppert and So, 2009 ), compared to unidimensional outcomes like life satisfaction, which often involve single-item measures, “flourishing is a broader measure with greater texture across different elements.” The studies all mentioned that flourishing involved both psychological and social aspects of functioning (VanderWeele, 2017 ). These commonalities held across all scales, even those that were only designed to measure flourishing in a specific context, such as the Flourishing-at-Work Scale (Rautenbach and Rothmann, 2017 ) and the Digital Flourishing Scale (Janicke-Bowles et al, 2023 ).…”

“…While most scales agreed that flourishing consists of both hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing, the specific ways in which hedonia and eudaimonia are operationalized do differ somewhat between scales. Out of the six scales that measured both types of wellbeing, five specifically selected indicators to measure hedonia or eudaimonia separately, with only the Digital Flourishing Scale (Janicke-Bowles et al, 2023 ) attempting to account for the presence of both hedonia and eudaimonia using the same set of indicators. Hedonia was generally measured as a single indicator representing happiness/positive affect (Keyes et al, 2008 ; Huppert and So, 2013 ; Butler and Kern, 2016 ; VanderWeele, 2017 ) or as a pair of indicators representing happiness and unhappiness, respectively (Rautenbach and Rothmann, 2017 ).…”

“…To measure social wellbeing, all scales included at least one item related to positive social relationships (e.g., Huppert and So, 2013 ; Butler and Kern, 2016 ; VanderWeele, 2017 ) or connectedness (Janicke-Bowles et al, 2023 ). In Keyes et al ( 2008 ), social wellbeing is further decomposed into a list of specific indicators that are more thorough than those used by most other scales but still largely compatible with them, including social integration, contribution, acceptance actualization, and coherence.…”

“…VanderWeele's 10-item Flourish Index and 12-item Secure Flourish Index also include items adapted from a variety of previously validated scales and surveys, including the University of Chicago's General Social Survey (University of Chicago, 2017 ; VanderWeele, 2017 ). The authors of the Digital Flourishing Scale established the scale's initial 120 items on the basis of self-determination theory after perusing a long list of existing scales, and then shortened the scale to its final 23-item form after a series of confirmatory studies (Janicke-Bowles et al, 2023 ). Ongoing studies in globally represented populations aim to further enrich the assessment of flourishing possibly as a universally shared human outcome, providing opportunities for broader and unified application of flourishing measurement (Grossmeier, 2017 ; Weziak-Bialowolska et al, 2021b ).…”