What is Digital Wellbeing? A Leverage Points Framework to Guide Research and Action

Paper Title

What is Digital Wellbeing? A Leverage Points Framework to Guide Research and Action

Publication Info

• Topic area: Conceptualizing and operationalizing digital wellbeing in HCI research and practice.
• Keywords: Digital wellbeing, HCI, taxonomy, leverage points, self-regulation, systemic change, mediators, interventions, design frameworks, policy.

Background and Problem

• Problem / challenge: Digital wellbeing remains inconsistently defined and operationalized in HCI, often reduced to narrow metrics (e.g., screen time) or vague aspirations, neglecting psychological, social, and systemic dimensions.
• Significance: Addressing digital wellbeing comprehensively is critical as technology increasingly shapes human behavior, cognition, and social dynamics, with emerging challenges like generative AI underscoring the need for conceptual clarity.
• Motivation and related work: Prior work has explored digital self-control tools, persuasive design critiques, and educational interventions, but lacks a unified framework to integrate individual, collective, and systemic approaches. This paper builds on gaps in HCI research to propose a structured and actionable model.

Solution

• Proposed approach: The authors introduce a layered taxonomy and the Leverage Points for Digital Wellbeing framework, which situates interventions along self-oriented, collective, and systemic orientations of change.
• Novelty:
  1. Development of a layered taxonomy encompassing technology scope and users, mediators, and strategies.
  2. Introduction of the Leverage Points framework to classify interventions by their orientation and potential impact.
  3. Bridging fragmented HCI research traditions and providing actionable insights for design, research, and policy.
• Procedure and key techniques:
  • Conducted a scoping review of 62 CHI publications (2015–2025) on digital wellbeing.
  • Analyzed 68 student projects from a university course (2021–2024) to refine the taxonomy and framework.
  • Synthesized findings into a conceptual model and leverage points framework through iterative discussion.

Results

• Concrete findings:
  • Digital wellbeing is conceptualized across three layers: technology scope and users, mediators (behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and environmental), and interventions/strategies (harm mitigation and wellbeing cultivation).
  • Most interventions focus on self-regulation (77% of contributions), with fewer addressing collective or systemic changes.
  • Emerging concerns like generative AI highlight the need for broader frameworks.
• Advantage over baselines:
  • Provides a structured taxonomy to compare disparate approaches.
  • Introduces leverage points to evaluate and design interventions with varying magnitudes of impact.
  • Highlights underexplored systemic interventions and collective strategies.
• Experiments / evaluation:
  • Literature review focused on CHI publications explicitly addressing digital wellbeing.
  • Student projects analyzed for practical interpretations and generative insights, involving over 500 students and 5,000 participants in needfinding activities.
• Limitations and future work:
  • Limited to CHI publications and a single university course, potentially excluding other perspectives.
  • Framework does not prescribe how to transition interventions across leverage orientations.
  • Future work should validate the framework in professional design contexts and interdisciplinary settings.

Summary

This paper addresses the fragmented understanding of digital wellbeing in HCI by proposing a layered taxonomy and the Leverage Points for Digital Wellbeing framework. The taxonomy organizes digital wellbeing into technology scope and users, mediators, and strategies, while the framework situates interventions along self-oriented, collective, and systemic orientations of change. Grounded in a decade of CHI research and student projects, the model bridges fragmented research traditions and highlights underexplored systemic interventions. While limitations exist, the framework offers a practical tool for researchers, designers, and policymakers to position, compare, and expand digital wellbeing initiatives.