Original article

The impact of digital technology use on

adolescent well-being
Tobias Dienlin, PhD; Niklas Johannes, PhD

This review provides an overview of the literature regarding digital technology use and adolescent well-being. Overall,
findings imply that the general effects are on the negative end of the spectrum but very small. Effects differ depending
on the type of use: whereas procrastination and passive use are related to more negative effects, social and active use are
related to more positive effects. Digital technology use has stronger effects on short-term markers of hedonic well-being
(eg, negative affect) than long-term measures of eudaimonic well-being (eg, life satisfaction). Although adolescents are
more vulnerable, effects are comparable for both adolescents and adults. It appears that both low and excessive use are
related to decreased well-being, whereas moderate use is related to increased well-being. The current research still has many
limitations: High-quality studies with large-scale samples, objective measures of digital technology use, and experience
sampling of well-being are missing.
© 2019, AICH ‑ Servier Group Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2020;22(2):135-142. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/tdienlin

Keywords: adolescent; digital technology; life satisfaction; media effect; mental health; smartphone; social media;
social networking site; review; well-being

With each new technology come concerns about its potential ical evidence is mixed, we then formulate six implications
impact on (young) people’s well-being.1 In recent years, in order to provide some general guidelines, and end with
both scholars and the public have voiced concerns about the a brief conclusion.
rise of digital technology, with a focus on smartphones and
social media.2 To ascertain whether or not these concerns are Digital technology use
justified, this review provides an overview of the literature
regarding digital technology use and adolescent well-being. Digital technology use is an umbrella term that encompasses
various devices, services, and types of use. Most adoles-

Copyright © 2020 AICH ‑ Servier Group. All rights reserved. www.dialogues-cns.org

Digital technology use and well-being are broad and cent digital technology use nowadays takes place on mobile
complex concepts. To understand how technology use devices.3,4 Offering the functions and affordances of several
might affect well-being, we first define and describe both other media, smartphones play a pivotal role in adolescent
concepts. Furthermore, adolescence is a distinct stage media use and are thus considered a “metamedium.”5 Smart-
of life. To obtain a better picture of the context in which phones and other digital devices can host a vast range of
potential effects unfold, we then examine the psychological different services. A representative survey of teens in the
development of adolescents. Afterward, we present current US showed that the most commonly used digital services
empirical findings about the relation between digital tech- are YouTube (85%), closely followed by the social media
nology use and adolescent well-being. Because the empir- Instagram (72%), and Snapchat (69%). Notably, there exist

Author affiliations: School of Communication, University of Hohenheim, Germany (Tobias Dienlin); Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of
Glasgow, UK (Niklas Johannes). Address for correspondence: Tobias Dienlin, School of Communication (540F), University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
(email: [email protected])

DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020 • 135

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

two different types of social media: social networking sites together, in addition to losing precision by subsuming all
such as Instagram or TikTok and instant messengers such types of technology use under one behavioral category, the
as WhatsApp or Signal. measurement of this category contributes to a lack of preci-
sion. To gain precision, it is necessary that we look at effects
All devices and services offer different functionalities and for different types of use, ideally objectively measured.
affordances, which result in different types of use.6 When on
social media, adolescents can chat with others, post, like, or Well-being
share. Such uses are generally considered active. In contrast,
adolescents can also engage in passive use, merely lurking Well-being is a subcategory of mental health. Mental health
and watching the content of others. The binary distinction is generally considered to consist of two parts: negative and
between active and passive use does not yet address whether positive mental health.15 Negative mental health includes
behavior is considered as procrastination or goal-directed.7,8 subclinical negative mental health, such as stress or nega-
For example, chatting with others can be considered procras- tive affect, and psychopathology, such as depression or
tination if it means delaying work on a more important task. schizophrenia.16 Positive mental health is a synonym for
Observing, but not interacting with others’ content can be well-being; it comprises hedonic well-being and eudaimonic
considered to be goal-directed if the goal is to stay up to date well-being.17 Whereas hedonic well-being is affective,
with the lives of friends. Finally, there is another important focusing on emotions, pleasure, or need satisfaction,
distinction between different types of use: whether use is eudaimonic well-being is cognitive, addressing meaning,
social or nonsocial.9 Social use captures all kinds of active self-esteem, or fulfillment.
interpersonal communication, such as chatting and texting,
but also liking photos or sharing posts. Nonsocial use includes Somewhat surprisingly, worldwide mental health problems
(specific types of) reading and playing, but also listening to have not increased in recent decades.18 Similarly, levels of
music or watching videos. general life satisfaction remained stable during the last 20
years.19,20 Worth noting, the increase in mental health prob-
When conceptualizing and measuring these different types lems that has been reported21 could merely reflect increased
of digital technology use, there are several challenges. awareness of psychosocial problems.22,23 In other words, an
Collapsing all digital behaviors into a single predictor of increase in diagnoses might not mean an increase in psycho-
well-being will inevitably decrease precision, both concep- pathology.
tually and empirically. Conceptually, subsuming all these
activities and types of use under one umbrella term fails Which part of mental health is the most likely to be affected
to acknowledge that they serve different functions and by digital technology use? Empirically, eudaimonic well-
show different effects.10 Understanding digital technology being, such as life satisfaction, is stable. Although some
use as a general behavior neglects the many forms such researchers maintain that 40% of happiness is volatile and
behavior can take. Therefore, when asking about the impact therefore malleable,24 more recent investigations argued
of digital technology use on adolescent well-being, we need that the influences of potentially stabilizing factors such as
to be aware that digital technology use is not a monolithic genes and life circumstances are substantially larger.25 These
concept. results are aligned with the so-called set-point hypothesis,
which posits that life satisfaction varies around a fixed
Empirically, a lack of validated measures of technology use level, showing much interpersonal but little intrapersonal
adds to this imprecision.11 Most work relies on self-reports variance.26 The hypothesis has repeatedly found support in
of technology use. Self-reports, however, have been shown empirical studies, which demonstrate the stability of life
to be imprecise and of low validity because they correlate satisfaction measures.27,28 Consequently, digital technology
poorly with objective measures of technology use.12 In the use is not likely to be a strong predictor of eudaimonic well-
case of smartphones, self-reported duration of use correlated being. In contrast, hedonic well-being such as positive and
moderately, at best, with objectively logged use.13 These negative affect is volatile and subject to substantial fluctu-
findings are mirrored when comparing self-reports of ations.17 Therefore, digital technology use might well be a
general internet use with objectively measured use.14 Taken driver of hedonic well-being: Watching entertaining content

136 • DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

can make us laugh and raise our spirits, while reading adolescents, putting them in the place of simply responding
hostile comments makes us angry and causes bad mood. In to technology stimuli. Recent theoretical developments
sum, life satisfaction is stable, and technology use is more challenge such a one-directional perspective and advise
likely to affect temporary measures of hedonic well-being to rather ask what adolescents do with digital technology,
instead of more robust eudaimonic well-being. If this is the including their type of use.37 Second, in order to understand
case, we should expect small to medium-sized effects on the effects of digital technology use on well-being, it might
short-term affect, but small to negligible effects on both not be necessary to focus on adolescents. It is likely that
long-term affect and life satisfaction. similar effects can be found for both adolescents and adults.
True, in light of the generally decreased life satisfaction and
Adolescents the generally increased suggestibility, results might be more
pronounced for adolescents; however, it seems implausible
Adolescence is defined as “the time between puberty and that they are fundamentally different. When assessing how
adult independence,”29 during which adolescents actively technology might affect adolescents compared with adults,
develop their personalities. Compared with adults, adoles- we can think of adolescents as “canaries in the coalmine.”38
cents are more open-minded, more social-oriented, less If digital technology is indeed harmful, it will affect people
agreeable, and less conscientious30; more impulsive and less from all ages, but adolescents are potentially more vulner-
capable of inhibiting behavior31; more risk-taking and sensa- able.
tion seeking29; and derive larger parts of their well-being
and life satisfaction from other peers.32 During adolescence, Effects
general levels of life satisfaction and self-esteem drop and
are often at their all-time lowest.33,34 At the same time, media What is the effect of digital technology use on well-being?
use increases and reaches a first peak in late adolescence.3 If we ask US adolescents directly, 31% are of the opinion
Analyzing the development of several well-being-related that the effects are mostly positive, 45% estimate the
variables across the last two decades, the answers of 46 817 effects to be neither positive nor negative, and 24% believe
European adolescents and young adults show that, whereas that effects are mostly negative.4 Teens who considered
overall internet use has risen strongly, both life satisfaction the effects to be positive stated that social media help (i)
and health problems remained stable.19 Hence, although connect with friend; (ii) obtain information; and (c) find
adolescence is a critical life stage with substantial intraper- like-minded people.4 Those who considered the effects to be
sonal fluctuations related to well-being, the current genera- negative explained that social media increase the risks of (i)
tion does not seem to do better or worse than those before. bullying; (ii) neglecting face-to-face contacts; (iii) obtaining
unrealistic impressions of other people’s lives.4
Does adolescent development make them particularly
susceptible to the influence of digital technology? Several Myriad studies lend empirical support to adolescents’ mixed
scholars argue that combining the naturally occurring trends feelings, reporting a wide range of positive,39 neutral,40 or
of low self-esteem, a spike in technology use, and higher negative41 relations between specific measures of digital
suggestibility into a causal narrative can take the form of a technology use and well-being. Aligned with these mixed
foregone conclusion.35 For one, although adolescents are in results of individual studies, several meta-analyses support
a phase of development, there might be more similarities the lack of a clear effect.42 In an analysis of 43 studies on
between adolescents and adults than differences.30 Concerns the effects of online technology use on adolescent mental
about the effects of a new technology on an allegedly well-being, Best et al43 found that “[t]he majority of studies
vulnerable group has historically often taken the form of reported either mixed or no effect(s) of online social technol-
paternalization.36 For example, and maybe in contrast to ogies on adolescent wellbeing.” Analyzing eleven studies on
popular opinion, adolescents already possess much media the relation between social media use and depressive symp-
literacy or privacy literacy.3 toms, McCrae et al44 report a small positive relationship.
Similarly, Lissak45 reports positive relations between exces-
This has two implications. First, asking what technology sive screen time and insufficient sleep, physiological stress,
does to adolescents ascribes an unduly passive role to mind wandering, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder

DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020 • 137

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

(ADHD)-related behavior, nonadaptive/negative thinking corrections for multiple testing. Combining a longitudinal
styles, decreased life satisfaction, and potential health risks design with experience sampling in a sample of 388 US
in adulthood. On the basis of 12 articles, Wu et al46 find adolescents, Jensen et al54 did not find a between-person
that “the use of [i]nternet technology leads to an increased association between baseline technology use and mental
sense of connectedness to friend[s] and school, while at the health. Interestingly, they only observed few and small with-
same time increasing levels of anxiety and loneliness among in-person effects. Heffer et al55 found no relation between
adolescents.” Relatedly, meta-anal- screen use and depressive symptoms
yses on the relation between social in 594 Canadian adolescents over 2
media use and adolescent academic No screen time is years. These results emphasize the
performance find no or negligible growing need for more robust and
effects.47
created equal; transparent methods and analysis.
different uses will lead In large adolescent samples from the
It is important to note that the to different effects UK and the US, a specification curve
overall quality of the literature these analysis, which provides an overview
meta-analyses rely upon has been of many different plausible analyses,
criticized. 48 This is problematic found small, negligible relations
because low quality of individual studies biases meta-anal- between screen use and well-being, both cross-section-
yses.49 To achieve higher quality, scholars have called for ally and longitudinally.56 Employing a similar analytical
more large-scale studies using longitudinal designs, objec- approach, Orben, Dienlin, and Przybylski57 found small
tive measures of digital technology use that differentiate negative between-person relations between social media use
types of use, experience sampling measures of well-being and life satisfaction in a large UK sample of adolescents
(ie, in-the-moment measures of well-being; also known as over 7 years. However, there was no robust within-person
ambulant assessment or in situ assessment), and a statistical effect. Similarly, negligible effect sizes between adolescent
separation of between-person variance and within-person screen use and well-being are found in cross-sectional data
variance.50 In addition, much research cannot be reproduced sets representative of the population in the UK and US.58 In
because the data and the analysis scripts are not shared.51 analyzing the potential effects of social media abstinence
In what follows, we look at studies that implemented some on well-being, two large-scale studies using adult samples
of these suggestions. found small positive effects of abstinence on well-being.59,60
Two studies with smaller and mostly student samples instead
Longitudinal studies generally find a complex pattern of found mixed61 or no effects of abstinence on well-being.62
effects. In an 8 year study of 500 adolescents in the US,
time spent on social media was positively related to anxiety The aforementioned studies often relied on composite
and depression on the between-person level.52 At the with- measures of screen use, possibly explaining the overall
in-person level, these relationships disappeared. The study small effects. In contrast, work distinguishing between
concludes that those who use social media more often might different types of use shows that active use likely has
also be those with lower mental health; however, there does different effects than passive use. Specifically, active use
not seem to be a causal link between the two. A study on may contribute to making meaningful social connections,
1157 Croatians in late adolescence supports these findings. whereas passive use does not.9 For example, meaningful
Over a period of 3 years, changes in social media use and life social interactions have been shown to increase social grat-
satisfaction were unrelated, speaking to the stability of life ification in adults,63,64 whereas passive media use or media
satisfaction.40 In a sample of 1749 Australian adolescents, use as procrastination has been negatively related to well-
Houghton et al53 distinguished between screen activities being.6,8 This distinction should also apply to adolescents.6
(eg, web browsing or gaming) and found overall low with- The first evidence for this proposition already exists. In a
in-person relations between total screen time and depres- large sample of Icelandic adolescents, passive social media
sive symptoms. Out of all activities, only web surfing was a use was positively related to anxiety and depressive symp-
significant within-person predictor of depressive symptoms. toms; the opposite was the case for active use.65
However, the authors argue that this effect might not survive

138 • DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

Furthermore, longitudinal work so far relies on self-reports 4. The dose makes the poison; it appears that both low
of media use. Self-reported media use has been shown to be and excessive use are related to decreased well-being,
inaccurate compared with objectively measured use.14 Unfor- whereas moderate use is related to increased well-being.
tunately, there is little work employing objective measures to 5. Adolescents are likely more vulnerable to effects of
test whether the results of longitudinal studies using self-re- digital technology use on well-being, but it is important
ports hold up when objective use is examined. The limited not to patronize adolescents—effects are comparable and
existing evidence suggests that effects remain small. In a adolescents not powerless.
convenience sample of adults, only phone use at night nega- 6. The current empirical research has several limitations:
tively predicted well-being.66 Another study that combined high-quality studies with large-scale samples, objec-
objective measures of social smartphone applications with tive measures of digital technology use, and experience
experience sampling in young adults found a weak negative sampling of well-being are still missing.
relation between objective use and well-being.67
Conclusion
Effects might also not be linear. Whereas both low and high
levels of internet use have been shown to be associated Despite almost 30 years of research on digital technology,
with slightly decreased life satisfaction, moderate use has there is still no coherent empirical evidence as to whether
been shown to be related to slightly increased life satis- digital technology hampers or fosters well-being. Most
faction.10,35,68 However, evidence for this position is mixed; likely, general effects are small at best and probably in the
other empirical studies did not find this pattern of effects.53,54 negative spectrum. As soon as we take other factors into
account, this conclusion does not hold up. Active use that
Taken together, do the positive or the negative effects aims to establish meaningful social connections can have
prevail? The literature implies that the relationship between positive effects. Passive use likely has negative effects.
technology use and adolescent well-being is more compli- Both might follow a nonlinear trend. However, research
cated than an overall negative linear effect. In line with showing causal effects of general digital technology use on
meta-analyses on adults, effects of digital technology use well-being is scarce. In light of these limitations, several
in general are mostly neutral to small. In their meta-review scholars argue that technology use has a mediating role69:
of 34 meta-analyses and systematic reviews, Meier and already existing problems increase maladapted technology
Reinecke42 summarize that “[f]indings suggest an overall use, which then decreases life satisfaction. Extreme digital
(very) small negative association between using SNS [social technology use is more likely to be a symptom of an under-
networking sites], the most researched CMC [computer lying sociopsychological problem than vice versa. In sum,
mediated communication] application, and mental health.” when assessing the effects of technology use on adolescent
In conclusion, the current literature is mostly ambivalent, well-being, one of the best answers is that it’s complicated.
although slightly emphasizing the negative effects of digital
tech use. This lack of evidence is not surprising, because there is no
consensus on central definitions, measures, and methods.42
Implications Specifically, digital technology use is an umbrella term that
encompasses many different behaviors. Furthermore, it is
Although there are several conflicting positions and research theoretically unclear as to why adolescents in particular
findings, some general implications emerge: should be susceptible to the effects of technology and what
forms of well-being are candidates for effects. At the same
1. The general effects of digital technology use on well- time, little research adopts longitudinal designs, differen-
being are likely in the negative spectrum, but very tiates different types of technology use, or measures tech-
small—potentially too small to matter. nology use objectively. Much work in the field has also
2. No screen time is created equal; different uses will lead been criticized for a lack of transparency and rigor.51 Last,
to different effects. research (including this review) is strongly biased toward
3. Digital technology use is more likely to affect short-term a Western perspective. In other cultures, adolescents use
positive or negative affect than long-term life satisfaction. markedly different services (such as WeChat or Renren,

DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020 • 139

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

etc). Although we assume most effects to be comparable, viduals. Individuals, instead, actively use technology, often
problems seem to differ somewhat. For example, online with much competence.3 The current evidence suggests that
gaming addiction is more prevalent in Asian than Western typical digital technology use will not harm a typical adoles-
cultures.70 cent. That is not to say there are no individual cases and
scenarios in which effects might be negative and large. Let’s
Adults have always criticized the younger generation, be wary, but not alarmist. n
and media (novels, rock music, comic books, or computer
games) have often been one of the culprits.1 Media panics Acknowledgments/Disclosures: Both authors declare no
are cyclical, and we should refrain from simply blaming the conflicts of interest. Both authors contributed equally to this
unknown and the novel.1 In view of the public debate, we manuscript. Tobias Dienlin receives funding from the Volk-
should rather emphasize that digital technology is not good swagen Foundation. We would like to thank Amy Orben for
or bad per se. Digital technology does not “happen” to indi- valuable feedback and comments.

References
1. Orben A. The Sisyphean cycle of technology between digital screen engagement and psychosocial come-more-or-less-happy/. Published July 5, 2018.
panics. Perspect Psychol Sci. Preprint doi:10.31234/ functioning in a confirmatory cohort study. J Am 20. Ortiz-Ospina E, Roser M. Happiness and life
osf.io/dqmju. Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019. doi:10.1016/j. satisfaction. Our World Data. https://ourworldin-
2. Carr N. The Shallows - How the Internet Is jaac.2019.06.017. In press. data.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction. Published
Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember. 11. Ellis DA. Are smartphones really that bad? 2013. Revised May 2017. Accessed December 5,
London, UK: Atlantic Books; 2011. Improving the psychological measurement of 2019.
3. Livingstone S. EU Kids Online: Findings, technology-related behaviors. Comput Hum Behav. 21. Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, et al. Global,
methods, recommendations. 2014. http://eprints. 2019;97:60-66. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.006. regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and
lse.ac.uk/60512/1/EU%20Kids%20onlinie%20 12. Ellis DA, Davidson BI, Shaw H, Geyer K. Do years lived with disability for 310 diseases and
III%20.pdf. smartphone usage scales predict behavior? Int J injuries, 1990‑2015: a systematic analysis for the
4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media & Hum-Comput Stud. 2019;130:86-92. doi:10.1016/j. Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet.
Technology 2018. Pew Res Cent Internet Sci Tech. ijhcs.2019.05.004. 2016;388(10053):1545-1602. doi:10.1016/S0140-
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/ 13. Boase J, Ling R. Measuring mobile phone use: 6736(16)31678-6.
teens-social-media-technology-2018/. Published self-report versus log data. J Comput-Mediat Com- 22. Dumesnil H, Verger P. Public awareness cam-
May 31, 2018. Accessed December 12, 2019. mun. 2013;18(4):508-519. paigns about depression and suicide: a review. Psy-
5. Humphreys L, Karnowski V, von Pape T. Smart- 14. Scharkow M. The accuracy of self-reported chiatr Serv. 2009;60(9):1203-1213. doi:10.1176/
phones as metamedia: a framework for identifying internet use—a validation study using client log ps.2009.60.9.1203.
the niches structuring smartphone use. Int J Com- data. Commun Methods Meas. 2016;10(1):13-27. 23. Pinker S. Enlightenment Now: The Case for
mun. 2018;12:2793-2809. doi:10.1080/19312458.2015.1118446. Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New
6. Verduyn P, Ybarra O, Résibois M, Jonides J, 15. Greenspoon PJ, Saklofske DH. Toward an York; London: Viking; Allen Lane; 2018.
Kross E. Do social network sites enhance or under- integration of subjective well-being and psycho- 24. Lyubomirsky S, Sheldon KM, Schkade D. Pursu-
mine subjective well-being?: A critical review. Soc pathology. Soc Indic Res. 2001;54(1):81-108. ing happiness: the architecture of sustainable change.
Issues Policy Rev. 2017;11(1):274-302. doi:10.1111/ doi:10.1023/A:1007219227883. Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9(2):111-131. doi:10.1037/
sipr.12033. 16. Krueger RF, McGue M, Iacono WG. The 1089-2680.9.2.111.
7. Meier A, Reinecke L, Meltzer CE. “Facebocras- higher-order structure of common DSM mental 25. Brown NJL, Rohrer JM. Easy as (happiness)
tination”? Predictors of using Facebook for pro- disorders: internalization, externalization, and pie? A critical evaluation of a popular model of
crastination and its effects on students’ well-being. their connections to personality. Personal Individ the determinants of well-being. J Happiness Stud.
Comput Hum Behav. 2016;64:65-76. doi:10.1016/j. Differ. 2001;30(7):1245-1259. doi:10.1016/S0191- Published online May 9, 2019. doi:10.1007/s10902-
chb.2016.06.011. 8869(00)00106-9. 019-00128-4.
8. Reinecke L, Meier A, Beutel ME, et al. The rela- 17. Diener E, Lucas RE, Oishi S. Advances and 26. Lucas RE. Adaptation and the set-point
tionship between trait procrastination, Internet use, open questions in the science of subjective well-be- model of subjective well-being: does happiness
and psychological functioning: results from a com- ing. Collabra Psychol. 2018;4(1):15. doi:10.1525/ change after major life events? Curr Dir Psy-
munity sample of German adolescents. Front Psy- collabra.115. chol Sci. 2007;16(2):75-79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
chol. 2018;9:913. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00913. 18. Ritchie H, Roser M. Mental Health. Our World 8721.2007.00479.x.
9. Clark JL, Algoe SB, Green MC. Social network Data. https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health. 27. Dienlin T, Masur PK, Trepte S. Reinforcement
sites and well-being: the role of social connec- Published April 2018. Accessed December 5, 2019. or displacement? The reciprocity of FtF, IM, and
tion. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2018;27(1):32-37. 19. Dienlin T. Have Europeans become more or less SNS communication and their effects on loneliness
doi:10.1177/0963721417730833. happy since the advent of smartphones and social and life satisfaction. J Comput-Mediat Commun.
10. Przybylski AK, Orben A, Weinstein N. How media? https://tobiasdienlin.com/2018/07/05/ 2017;22(2):71-87. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12183.
much is too much? Examining the relationship since-the-advent-of-smartphones-have-we-be- 28. Trepte S, Dienlin T, Reinecke L. Influence of

140 • DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

social support received in online and offline contexts Media use, sports participation, and well-being in during adolescence. J Youth Adolesc. 2018;47(11):
on satisfaction with social support and satisfaction adolescence: cross-sectional findings from the UK 2453-2467. doi:10.1007/s10964-018-0901-y.
with life: a longitudinal study. Media Psychol. Household Longitudinal Study. Am J Public Health. 54. Jensen M, George MJ, Russell MR, Odgers
2015;18(1):74-105. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013. 2015;105(1):173-179. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013. CL. Young adolescents’ digital technology use
838904. 301783. and adolescents’ mental health symptoms: little
29. Blakemore S-J. Adolescence and mental health. 42. Meier A, Reinecke L. (2020, April 6). Comput- evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages. Clin
Lancet. 2019;393(10185):2030-2031. doi:10.1016/ er-mediated communication, social media, and men- Psychol Sci. 2019:7(6):1416-1433. doi:10.1177/
S0140-6736(19)31013-X. tal health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. 2167702619859336.
30. Caspi A, Roberts BW, Shiner RL. Personality doi:10.31234/osf.io/573ph. 55. Heffer T, Good M, Daly O, MacDonell E, Wil-
development: stability and change. Annu Rev Psy- 43. Best P, Manktelow R, Taylor B. Online com- loughby T. The longitudinal association between
chol. 2005;56(1):453-484. doi:10.1146/annurev. munication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: social-media use and depressive symptoms
psych.55.090902.141913. a systematic narrative review. Child Youth Serv among adolescents and young adults: an empirical
31. Hammond CJ, Potenza MN, Mayes LC. Devel- Rev. 2014;41:27-36. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014. reply to Twenge et al. (2018). Clin Psychol Sci.
opment of impulse control, inhibition, and self- 03.001. 2019:7(3):462-470. doi:10.1177/2167702618812727.
regulatory behaviors in normative populations 44. McCrae N, Gettings S, Purssell E. Social media 56. Orben A, Przybylski AK. Screens, teens, and
across the lifespan. In: The Oxford Handbook of and depressive symptoms in childhood and ado- psychological well-being: evidence from three time-
Impulse Control Disorders. Oxford, UK: Oxford lescence: a systematic review. Adolesc Res Rev. use-diary studies. Psychol Sci. 2019;30(5):682-696.
University Press; 2012:232-244. 2017;2:315-330. doi:10.1007/s40894-017-0053-4. doi:10.1177/0956797619830329.
32. Balluerka N, Gorostiaga A, Alonso-Arbiol I, 45. Lissak G. Adverse physiological and psy- 57. Orben A, Dienlin T, Przybylski AK. Social
Aritzeta A. Peer attachment and class emotional chological effects of screen time on children and media’s enduring effect on adolescent life satis-
intelligence as predictors of adolescents’ psy- adolescents: literature review and case study. faction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(21):
chological well-being: a multilevel approach. Environ Res. 2018;164:149-157. doi:10.1016/j. 10226-10228. doi:10.1073/pnas.1902058116.
J Adolesc. 2016;53:1-9. doi:10.1016/j.adoles- envres.2018.01.015. 58. Orben A, Przybylski AK. The association
cence.2016.08.009. 46. Wu YJ, Outley C, Matarrita-Cascante D, Mur- between adolescent well-being and digital tech-
33. Orth U, Maes J, Schmitt M. Self-esteem devel- phrey TP. A systematic review of recent research nology use. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3(2):173-182.
opment across the life span: a longitudinal study on adolescent social connectedness and mental doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1.
with a large sample from Germany. Dev Psychol. health with internet technology use. Adolesc Res 59. Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow
2015;51(2):248-259. doi:10.1037/a0038481. Rev. 2016;1(2):153-162. doi:10.1007/s40894-015- M; National Bureau of Economic Research. The
34. Gomez V, Grob A, Orth U. The adaptive power 0013-9. welfare effects of social media. Published January
of the present: perceptions of past, present, and 47. Marker C, Gnambs T, Appel M. Active on 2019. Revised November 2019.
future life satisfaction across the life span. J Res Facebook and failing at school? Meta-analytic find- 60. Tromholt M. The Facebook experiment:
Personal. 2013;47(5):626-633. doi:10.1016/j. ings on the relationship between online social net- quitting Facebook leads to higher levels of
jrp.2013.06.001. working activities and academic achievement. Educ well-being. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw.
35. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N. A large-scale test of Psychol Rev. 2018;30(3):651-677. doi:10.1007/ 2016;19(11):661-666. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.
the goldilocks hypothesis: quantifying the relations s10648-017-9430-6. 0259.
between digital-screen use and the mental well- 48. Orben A, Etchells P, Przybylski AK. Three 61. Vanman EJ, Baker R, Tobin SJ. The burden
being of adolescents. Psychol Sci. 2017;28(2):204- problems with the debate around screen time. of online friends: the effects of giving up Face-
215. doi:10.1177/095679761 6678438. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/ book on stress and well-being. J Soc Psychol.
36. Cohen S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The head-quarters/2018/aug/09/three-problems-with- 2018;158(4):496-508. doi:10.1080/00224545.201
Creation of the Mods and Rockers. 3rd ed. London, the-debate-around-screen-time. Accessed May 2020. 8.1453467.
UK; New York, NY: Routledge; 2002. 49. Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redun- 62. Hall JA, Xing C, Ross EM, Johnson RM. Exper-
37. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. The differential sus- dant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews imentally manipulating social media abstinence:
ceptibility to media effects model. J Commun. and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514. results of a four-week diary study. Media Psychol.
2013;63(2):221-243. doi:10.1111/jcom.12024. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210. 2019:1-17. Published online November 5, 2019.
38. Livingstone S. Privacy, data protection and the 50. Whitlock J, Masur PK. Disentangling the asso- doi:10.1080/15213269.2019.1688171.
evolving capacity of the child: what the evidence ciation of screen time with developmental outcomes 63. Bayer JB, Ellison N, Schoenebeck S, Brady
tells us. Media@LSE. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/ and well-being: problems, challenges, and oppor- E, Falk EB. Facebook in context(s): mea-
medialse/2018/11/08/privacy-data-protection- tunities. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(11):1021-1022. suring emotional responses across time and
and-the-evolving-capacity-of-the-child-what-the- doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3191. space. New Media Soc. 2018;20(3):1047-1067.
evidence-tells-us/. Published November 8, 2018. 51. Orben A, Dienlin T, Przybylski AK. Reply to doi:10.1177/1461444816681522.
Accessed December 5, 2019. Foster and Jackson: open scientific practices are the 64. Domahidi E. The associations between online
39. Valkenburg PM, Koutamanis M, Vossen HGM. way forward for social media effects research. Proc media use and users’ perceived social resources:
The concurrent and longitudinal relationships Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(31):15334-15335. a meta-analysis. J Comput-Mediat Commun.
between adolescents’ use of social network sites doi:10.1073/pnas.1909553116. 2018;23(4):181-200. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmy007.
and their social self-esteem. Comput Hum Behav. 52. Coyne SM, Rogers AA, Zurcher JD, Stockdale 65. Thorisdottir IE, Sigurvinsdottir R, Asgeirsdot-
2017;76:35-41. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.008. L, Booth M. Does time spent using social media tir BB, Allegrante JP, Sigfusdottir ID. Active and
40. Keresteš G, Štulhofer A. Adolescents’ online impact mental health?: An eight year longitudinal passive social media use and symptoms of anxiety
social network use and life satisfaction: a latent study. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;104:106160. and depressed mood among Icelandic adolescents.
growth curve modeling approach. Comput Hum doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106160. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw. 2019;22(8):
Behav. 2020;104:106187. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019. 53. Houghton S, Lawrence D, Hunter SC, et al. 535-542. doi:10.1089/cyber.2019.0079.
106187. Reciprocal relationships between trajectories 66. Katevas K, Arapakis I, Pielot M. Typical phone
41. Booker CL, Skew AJ, Kelly YJ, Sacker A. of depressive symptoms and screen media use use habits: intense use does not predict negative

DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020 • 141

Original article
Digital technology use and adolescent well-being - Dienlin, Johannes

well-being. In: Proceedings of the 20th International PsyArXiv; 2019 October 15. doi:10.31234/osf.io/ Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with t3wc2. for children online: the role of digital skills
Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI’18. Bar- 68. Bruggeman H, Van Hiel A, Van Hal G, Van in emerging strategies of parental mediation.
celona, Spain: ACM Press; 2018:1-13. doi:10.1145/ Dongen S. Does the use of digital media affect J Commun. 2017;67(1):82-105. doi:10.1111/
3229434.3229441. psychological well-being? An empirical test jcom.12277.
67. Johannes N, Meier A, Reinecke L, et al. The among children aged 9 to 12. Comput Hum Behav. 70. Fam JY. Prevalence of internet gaming disor-
Relationship between Online Vigilance and Affec- 2019;101:104-113. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.015. der in adolescents: a meta-analysis across three
tive Well-Being in Everyday Life: Combining 69. Livingstone S, Ólafsson K, Helsper EJ, decades. Scand J Psychol. 2018;59(5):524-531.
Smartphone Logging with Experience Sampling. Lupiáñez-Villanueva F, Veltri GA, Folkvord F. doi:10.1111/sjop.12459.

142 • DIALOGUES IN CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE • Vol 22 • No. 2 • 2020