Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS)

Abstract

The Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS), developed by Janicke-Bowles et al. in 2023, is a 25-item psychological instrument designed to quantify the concept of digital flourishing. Digital flourishing is specifically defined as an individual’s positive perceptions regarding their mediated social interactions, encompassing activities via platforms such as social media and instant messaging.

The scale’s development, spanning three distinct studies, aimed to fill a critical void in traditional well-being measures that historically focused primarily on the negative consequences of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Its theoretical foundation is rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The development process started with an extensive pool of 120 items generated from literature reviews and focus groups with young adults. Following rigorous expert review and administration to a U.S. population sample, subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses established a robust 5-factor structure, with each subscale comprising five items. The foundational studies confirm the instrument’s strong internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity.

Keywords

Authentic Self-Disclosure, Civil Participation, Computer Mediated Communication, Computer Mediated Social Interaction, Connectedness, Digital Flourishing, Positive Online Experiences and Behaviors, Positive Perceptions, Positive Social Comparison, Self-Control.

Authors

Janicke-Bowles, Sophie H., Buckley, Tess M., Rey, Rikishi, Wozniak, Tayah, Meier, Adrian, Lomanowska, Anna.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS) is to provide a reliable and valid metric for assessing individuals’ positive perceptions of their engagement in computer-mediated social interactions. This focus contrasts with scales that predominantly measure digital strain or negative outcomes, thereby allowing researchers to study the beneficial aspects of online communication on psychological well-being.

Construct

The DFS measures digital flourishing, conceptualized as positive psychological experiences derived from digital social interactions. Based on the factor analysis, the construct is multidimensional, comprised of five distinct but correlated factors, each measured by five items:

• Connectedness: Reflects feelings of community, belonging, purpose, and social support derived from online networks.

• Civil Participation: Measures the ability to engage in civil, reasonable, and appropriate discussions, particularly concerning sensitive topics like politics, within online environments.

• Positive Social Comparison: Assesses the tendency to use online observation of others as a source of inspiration and motivation for personal goal achievement and self-improvement.

• Authentic Self-Disclosure: Quantifies the comfort and extent to which individuals present their true, authentic selves across digital platforms, mirroring their offline identity.

• Self-Control: Measures the perceived ability to regulate and manage time spent on online interactions, including control over when to start, stop, or disconnect from digital communication.

Validity

The validation studies established both the construct and criterion validity of the DFS, confirming its theoretical coherence and its utility in relation to broader well-being outcomes.

Construct Validity: A Pearson correlation analysis examined the relationship between the five DFS subscales and the basic psychological needs outlined in Self-Determination Theory (SDT): competence, relatedness, and autonomy. All DFS subscales, with the exception of the Positive Social Comparison subscale, demonstrated significant correlations with all three basic SDT needs, providing strong evidence for the theoretical grounding of the scale.

Criterion Validity: The DFS showed significant and strong correlations with established measures of general well-being, indicating its association with existing mental health constructs. Specifically, the DFS correlated strongly with global measures of flourishing (Diener et al., 2010) (r = .412, p < .001) and measures of satisfaction with life (Diener et al., 1985) (r = .408, p < .001).

Reliability

Internal Consistency: The Digital Flourishing Scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency across all its subscales. The calculated alpha coefficients ranged from a highly acceptable minimum of α = 0.73 to a maximum of α = 0.91, confirming that the items within each factor reliably measure the same underlying construct.

Factor Analysis

The development of the DFS involved a two-stage factor analytic process to arrive at the final, concise 25-item structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): The initial EFA was conducted on a refined set of 47 items derived from the original pool. This analysis successfully identified a five-factor model, which collectively accounted for 46.53% of the total variance in the dataset.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis was employed to optimize the scale structure, aiming for five items per subscale. After careful review of factor loadings, item covariances, and cross-loadings, items were removed until the final 25-item, five-factor model was achieved. This final model demonstrated an excellent fit to the data, evidenced by the following fit indices: Satorra-Bentler corrected χ² = 357.69, df = 265, p < .001; RMSEA-SB = 0.028 (90% CI [0.032 – 0.045]), CFI = 0.972, SB = 0.979, SRMR = 0.047. Comparisons confirmed that the multidimensional model provided a superior fit compared to a higher-order factor structure.

Instrument

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Participants respond to all items on a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs); Thirties (30-39 yrs); Middle Age (40-64 yrs); Aged (65 yrs & older); Very Old (85 yrs & older).

Population Details:

• Location: United States

• Respondents: Adults Representative of the U.S. Population

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Construct Validity, Criterion Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Keywords

Authentic Self-Disclosure, Civil Participation, Computer Mediated Communication, Computer Mediated Social Interaction, Connectedness, Digital Flourishing, Positive Online Experiences and Behaviors, Positive Perceptions, Positive Social Comparison, Self-Control.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Janicke-Bowles, Sophie H.: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-3717

• Rey, Rikishi: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8538-2890

• Wozniak, Tayah: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5132-5660

• Meier, Adrian: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8191-2962

• Lomanowska, Anna: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0847-6153

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Sophie H. Janicke-Bowles: [email protected]

• Tess M. Buckley: [email protected]

• Rikishi Rey: [email protected]

• Tayah Wozniak: [email protected]

• Adrian Meier: [email protected]

• Anna Lomanowska: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Chapman University, 1 University dr., Orange, California, United States, 92866 (Corresponding Author: Sophie H. Janicke-Bowles)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching.
Commercial Use: No
Fee: No
Web Site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Test Year: 2023

References

Janicke-Bowles, S. H., Buckley, T. M., Rey, R., Wozniak, T., Meier, A., & Lomanowska, A. (2023). Digital flourishing: Conceptualizing and assessing positive perceptions of mediated social interactions. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 24(3), 1013–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00619-5

[quads id=5]

Items of the Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS)

Connectedness

1. CON1 I feel part of a community when I interact with others online

2. CON2 I feel a bond to my online community/network

3. CON3 I find great purpose and meaning in my online interactions

4. CON4 When I browse through my online communication platforms, I feel a sense of connection to others

5. CON5 I could turn to my online community if I needed specific advice on how to handle a problem

Civil Participation

1. CP1 When I interact with others about politics online, I know how to have a civil discussion

2. CP2 During my interactions online, I know how to take a stand for something important to me in a civil manner

3. CP3 In online discussions, I know how to get my point across without offending people

4. CP4 When I interact with others online I tend to respond reasonably even when they make me angry

5. CP5 When I communicate online, I am careful to adapt my comments and behaviors to be appropriate for my audience

Positive Social Comparison

1. PSC1 Comparing myself to others online motivates me to accomplish my goals

2. PSC2 I compare my life to those online who I can learn from

3. PSC3 Seeing how others present themselves online motivates me to make changes in my own life

4. PSC4 I compare my life to those online who are going to push me to be better

5. PSC5 Seeing other’s achievements online inspires me to do better

Authentic Self-Disclosure

1. ASD1 I allow my social network to see who I really am

2. ASD2 I feel comfortable presenting who I truly am online, in the same way I do offline

3. ASD3 What I post online reflects who I really am

4. ASD4 slightly altered: I show my true self online (reversed SD4RC)

5. ASD5 slightly altered: When interacting online, I feel comfortable presenting the person I am

Self-control

1. SC1 For the most part, I feel in control of how much time I spend interacting with others online

2. SC2 I feel in control over when to start and when to stop spending time on online communication

3. SC3 I communicate online when I want to, not when notifications tell me to

4. SC4 I am able to disconnect from my online interactions when I need a break

5. SC5 When I browse through content online I feel in control of how I spend my time

Note. Response options include a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).