Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS)

Abstract

The Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS) (Janicke-Bowles et al., 2023) is a comprehensive, 25-item psychometric instrument operationalizing and assessing “digital flourishing”—defined as individuals’ positive perceptions, optimal experiences, and psychosocial well-being within computer-mediated communication (CMC) contexts, including social media platforms, instant messaging services, and virtual community networks. Developed across three multi-stage empirical studies, the DFS was constructed to address a longstanding deficit in the cyberpsychological and communication literature, which historically overemphasized negative outcomes such as digital addiction, fear of missing out (FoMO), cyberbullying, and psychological distress. Grounded firmly in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the instrument conceptualizes healthy mediated interaction through five distinct, correlated dimensions: Connectedness, Civil Participation, Positive Social Comparison, Authentic Self-Disclosure, and Self-Control.

The scale development pipeline began with an extensive pool of 120 items synthesized from systematic literature reviews and qualitative focus groups conducted with young adults. Following expert panel content validation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an interim 47-item version yielded a five-factor structure accounting for 46.53% of the total variance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a nationally representative sample of adults across the United States refined the scale to 25 items (retaining five psychometrically balanced items per subscale). The final multidimensional measurement model demonstrated outstanding goodness-of-fit indices: Satorra-Bentler corrected χ²(265) = 357.69, p < .001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.028 (90% CI [0.032, 0.045]), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.972, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.047. Reliability evaluations documented robust internal consistency across all subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between α = 0.73 and α = 0.91. Construct and criterion-related validity assessments confirmed that DFS dimensions correlate significantly with basic psychological need fulfillment (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) as well as global subjective well-being metrics, specifically Diener’s Flourishing Scale (r = .412) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (r = .408). Administered via a standard 7-point Likert response format (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), the DFS serves as an invaluable diagnostic and research instrument for cyberpsychologists, digital health researchers, educators, and social media designers seeking to foster healthy human-technology interactions.

Keywords

Digital Flourishing, Computer-Mediated Communication, Self-Determination Theory, Authentic Self-Disclosure, Civil Participation, Connectedness, Positive Social Comparison, Digital Well-Being, Self-Control, Cyberpsychology, Subjective Well-Being, Scale Validation.

Authors

The Digital Flourishing Scale was conceptualized, psychometrically developed, and validated through an international collaboration of scholars specializing in media psychology, communication sciences, and digital mental health:

• Sophie H. Janicke-Bowles, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author)
  Affiliation: School of Communication, Chapman University, Orange, California, United States.
  Email: [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0003-4162-3717
  Correspondence Address: Chapman University, 1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA.
• Tess M. Buckley, M.A.
  Affiliation: School of Communication, Chapman University, Orange, California, United States.
  Email: [email protected]
• Rikishi Rey, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: Department of Communication, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States.
  Email: [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0002-8538-2890
• Tayah Wozniak, M.A.
  Affiliation: Department of Communication, Concordia University Irvine, Irvine, California, United States.
  Email: [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0002-5132-5660
• Adrian Meier, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: Institute for Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.
  Email: [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0002-8191-2962
• Anna Lomanowska, Ph.D.
  Affiliation: Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  Email: [email protected] | ORCID: 0000-0003-0847-6153

Purpose

For more than two decades, empirical investigations examining the psychological correlates of Internet usage, social networking sites, and digital communication devices have been predominantly guided by a deficit-centered paradigm. Research programs have extensively documented the risks of social media, such as problematic smartphone use, cyber-harassment, online social anxiety, envy, social alienation, and sleep disturbances. While identifying risks is essential, this pervasive negative bias produced a critical empirical blind spot: the systematic failure to conceptualize, define, and measure what constitutes healthy, adaptive, and thriving digital behavior.

The primary purpose of the Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS) is to operationalize and measure positive perceptions, adaptive psychological experiences, and optimal functioning within computer-mediated social interactions. Just as positive psychology transformed clinical psychology by demonstrating that mental health is more than the mere absence of psychopathology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), the DFS positions digital well-being as a proactive, eudaimonic state characterized by authentic self-presentation, social integration, constructive discourse, autonomous media regulation, and uplifting social appraisals.

Research Applications

In quantitative communication research and media psychology, the DFS provides an empirically rigorous measurement model capable of replacing crude, non-diagnostic metrics such as daily “screen time” or simple login frequency. Mounting evidence demonstrates that time spent online correlates weakly and inconsistently with psychological outcomes; it is the quality of interaction, cognitive appraisals, and behavioral agency that decisively moderate well-being. Researchers can utilize the DFS as:

• An independent or moderating variable to evaluate how individual differences in digital competencies mitigate the negative impacts of algorithmic exposure or information overload.
• A dependent outcome metric in experimental interventions, digital literacy curricula, or public health campaigns designed to improve online communication habits.
• A mediating construct elucidating the mechanisms through which specific technological affordances (e.g., asynchronous commenting, profile customization, interactive messaging) translate into offline psychological thriving and social capital.

Clinical and Applied Interventions

In mental health counseling, educational psychology, and adolescent wellness programming, the DFS functions as a multi-faceted assessment tool. Clinicians working with youth or adults experiencing digital fatigue can administer the DFS to pinpoint specific functional deficits. Rather than prescribing blanket “digital detoxes”—which are often unfeasible and counterproductive in modern hyper-connected societies—practitioners can design targeted behavioral interventions. For example, a client who demonstrates low scores on Self-Control but high scores on Connectedness requires strategies for autonomous boundary-setting rather than social withdrawal. Similarly, educational institutions can use the DFS to assess students’ digital citizenship, evaluating the effectiveness of programs aimed at fostering civil engagement and mitigating toxicity in digital forums.

Psychological Construct

Digital flourishing is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional, positive psychological construct that reflects individuals’ subjective evaluations of their computer-mediated communication as enriching, meaningful, and self-congruent. Rather than treating online spaces as inherently alienating or synthetic, digital flourishing posits that digital affordances can serve as potent catalysts for human thriving when navigated with agency and relational maturity. The construct is composed of five interrelated yet conceptually distinct dimensions:

1. Connectedness

The Connectedness dimension captures the subjective feeling of being relationally bonded, integrated, and embedded within meaningful digital communities. Grounded in theories of social support and relational capital, it assesses the extent to which an individual experiences their online communication networks as a legitimate source of belonging, collective purpose, and instrumental or emotional assistance. High scorers do not merely consume content passively; they experience deep relational resonance, feeling that their virtual communities provide tangible solace and guidance during life challenges.

2. Civil Participation

Civil Participation reflects the psychological capacity and behavioral commitment to engaging in constructive, polite, and respectful communication in digital arenas—particularly during high-stakes political, moral, or philosophical debates. Online platforms frequently incentivize polarization, moral outrage, and disinhibited hostility. This dimension assesses digital citizenship competencies: the ability to articulate convictions assertively yet respectfully, de-escalate aggressive exchanges, adapt discourse to diverse audiences, and maintain emotional regulation even when confronted by hostile interlocutors.

3. Positive Social Comparison

Historically, social comparison on social media has been linked to envy, depressive symptoms, and diminished body satisfaction via upward contrastive evaluations. However, social comparison theory acknowledges that comparing oneself to others can also yield positive, inspiring outcomes. The Positive Social Comparison subscale evaluates an individual’s tendency to utilize peer achievements and online self-presentations as sources of benign envy, motivation, personal goal-setting, and vicarious learning. Instead of concluding “I am inferior,” the digitally flourishing individual interprets others’ digital success through an assimilative lens: “Their accomplishments demonstrate what is possible and motivate me to grow.”

4. Authentic Self-Disclosure

The Authentic Self-Disclosure dimension measures the congruence between an individual’s offline identity and their online self-presentation. Hyperpersonal communication models and selective presentation affordances often tempt users to construct heavily idealized, curated digital personas, which can paradoxically induce feelings of inauthenticity and alienation. This subscale assesses the comfort and willingness to present one’s genuine, multifaceted self across mediated environments, expressing personal values, vulnerabilities, and beliefs without distortive facade-building.

5. Self-Control

The Self-Control dimension assesses an individual’s perceived autonomy, intentionality, and executive regulatory capacity over their digital communication habits. In attention-economy ecosystems engineered with intermittent rewards, infinite scrolls, and algorithmic notifications, users frequently experience involuntary habit loops and media-induced guilt. This dimension reflects an individual’s ability to govern when to initiate, pause, or terminate mediated interactions, ensuring that digital engagement is driven by deliberate volition rather than compulsive reactivity to automated notifications.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Digital Flourishing Scale is predominantly anchored in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), an empirically validated macro-theory of human motivation, personality development, and psychological flourishing. SDT posits that optimal psychological functioning, psychological growth, and vitality are contingent upon the satisfaction of three fundamental, universal psychological needs:

• Autonomy: The experiential need to self-govern, feeling that one’s actions emanate from one’s authentic self, endorsed with genuine volition and psychological freedom.
• Competence: The need to feel effective, capable of mastering complex challenges, experiencing behavioral mastery, and achieving desired outcomes within one’s environment.
• Relatedness: The need to experience warmth, reciprocal care, social belonging, and meaningful connection with significant others and wider social groups.

Janicke-Bowles and colleagues (2023) mapped these fundamental psychological needs directly onto the sociotechnical realities of modern digital ecosystems. Rather than viewing mediated interfaces as naturally disruptive to psychological needs, the authors posited that individuals flourish digitally when mediated platforms operate as fertile conduits for need fulfillment:

The Autonomy need finds expression in the Self-Control and Authentic Self-Disclosure dimensions. When individuals master notification interference, resist compulsive scrolling, and express their genuine identities rather than pandering to algorithmic peer validation, their need for autonomy is fulfilled online. Conversely, when users fall prey to compulsive digital loops or project artificial personas, their perceived autonomy collapses.

The Competence need is manifested through Civil Participation and Positive Social Comparison. Successfully navigating volatile sociopolitical online arenas without causing hostility, mastering communication etiquette across diverse audiences, and reframing peer successes into instrumental goal-setting strategies represent complex communicative and cognitive competencies. These competencies reinforce an individual’s digital self-efficacy and sense of agency.

The Relatedness need is embodied by Connectedness. By bridging physical distances, digital communication tools offer unprecedented opportunities to cultivate intimate social ties, engage with specialized peer communities, and mobilize reciprocal emotional support, thereby nourishing the human need for relational belonging.

Additionally, the DFS synthesizes principles from Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) and the Hyperpersonal Model of Communication (Walther, 1996). Festinger originally conceptualized social comparison as a foundational drive to assess one’s abilities against others. The DFS captures the modern evolution of this theory: how upward comparisons in media environments can transcend contrastive envy and operate as inspirational catalysts. Simultaneously, it integrates Walther’s recognition that while asynchronous online interaction enables strategic self-editing, long-term psychological thriving requires grounding such curation in authentic personal truth.

Validity

The Digital Flourishing Scale underwent rigorous psychometric evaluation across three distinct empirical investigations, establishing comprehensive evidence for construct, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

To establish construct validity, Janicke-Bowles et al. (2023) conducted bivariate Pearson correlation analyses examining the relationships between the five DFS subscales and established measures of basic psychological need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Consistent with theoretical predictions:

• Autonomy exhibited statistically significant, positive correlations with Connectedness, Civil Participation, Authentic Self-Disclosure, and Self-Control. Users who reported higher volitional control and genuine online expression demonstrated superior global autonomy.
• Competence correlated positively and robustly with Civil Participation, Connectedness, Self-Control, and Authentic Self-Disclosure. Communicative mastery in virtual spaces directly reflected participants’ broader sense of life competence.
• Relatedness displayed the strongest positive convergence with the Connectedness subscale, corroborating that the DFS accurately indexes deep social bonding and community belonging.

Interestingly, Positive Social Comparison demonstrated weaker or non-significant associations with basic psychological need fulfillment in some models. The authors noted that upward comparison, even when inspirational and growth-oriented, inherently involves evaluating the self against external benchmarks, which can introduce cognitive ambiguity regarding pure autonomous need satisfaction.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion validity was established by examining the degree to which the DFS correlated with gold-standard instruments measuring global life thriving and subjective well-being:

• Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010): The total DFS score demonstrated a strong, statistically significant positive correlation with global psychological flourishing (r = .412, p < .001). Individuals who thrive in their digital environments systematically exhibit higher purpose, self-esteem, and personal relationships in their general lives.
• Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985): The DFS showed robust positive associations with cognitive life satisfaction (r = .408, p < .001). Subscale analyses revealed that Connectedness and Self-Control were the strongest individual predictors of overall life satisfaction.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified by contrasting the DFS against maladaptive digital usage constructs, including social media addiction scales, online vigilance metrics, and passive browsing indices. Factor loadings and inter-construct correlation analyses demonstrated that digital flourishing is psychometrically distinct from mere usage intensity; high daily screen time did not predict digital flourishing, confirming that the scale captures functional quality and cognitive appraisal rather than device exposure.

Reliability

The Digital Flourishing Scale demonstrates strong internal consistency reliability across both demographic cohorts and distinct sampling waves. Across the scale development studies, psychometric testing on diverse samples (including young adults and a nationally representative sample of adults across the United States) yielded internal consistency estimates that consistently exceeded standard methodological thresholds (α ≥ .70):

• Connectedness Subscale: Demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding α = 0.85 (observed range: α = 0.84 to α = 0.89). The high inter-item correlations confirm that items measuring community belonging, bond, and shared purpose form a cohesive unidimensional facet.
• Civil Participation Subscale: Displayed robust reliability, with alpha coefficients hovering between α = 0.81 and α = 0.87. Items evaluating audience adaptation, emotional restraint, and respectful discourse exhibit strong shared variance without conceptual redundancy.
• Positive Social Comparison Subscale: Achieved the highest internal consistency among all dimensions, yielding Cronbach’s alphas ranging from α = 0.88 to α = 0.91. Item-total correlations confirmed that the items effectively capture assimilative motivation and inspiration.
• Authentic Self-Disclosure Subscale: Maintained good internal reliability (α = 0.78 to α = 0.84). Even with item ASD4 functioning as an adjusted formulation to account for inverted authenticity, the dimension exhibited strong structural stability.
• Self-Control Subscale: Demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with coefficients ranging between α = 0.73 and α = 0.80. Considering that digital self-regulation spans diverse affordances (e.g., handling notification pings vs. managing browsing cessation), this coefficient indicates a solid psychometric core.

Composite reliability (Raykov’s ρ and McDonald’s ω) indices computed during confirmatory factor modeling corroborated the Cronbach’s alpha estimates, falling between 0.75 and 0.92 across all five latent variables. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded the recommended 0.50 benchmark for each subscale, confirming that variance captured by the construct exceeds variance attributable to measurement error.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Digital Flourishing Scale was systematically verified through sequential Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial scale development generated an item pool of 120 potential statements derived from qualitative focus groups and a literature synthesis. Following expert panel content review and preliminary cognitive pretesting, an interim instrument of 47 items was administered to an exploratory adult sample. Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation (promax/oblimin, allowing factors to correlate) was conducted:

• Scree plot examination, parallel analysis, and Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) unanimously converged on a five-factor latent structure.
• The five extracted factors accounted for 46.53% of the total cumulative variance.
• Items displaying cross-loadings > .30 on secondary factors, low primary factor loadings (< .50), or conceptual ambiguity were systematically eliminated, reducing the pool down toward candidate items for confirmatory testing.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA was subsequently executed on an independent, nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (spanning young adults, middle-aged, and older demographics) to reduce and balance the scale to exactly five items per dimension (25 items total). Due to mild multivariate non-normality common in self-report well-being data, robust maximum likelihood estimation with Satorra-Bentler corrections was implemented.

Inspection of standardized factor loadings (λ ≥ .60 for all retained items), modification indices, and standardized residual covariances guided the final model trimming. Modeling the 25 items as five correlated, first-order latent factors produced an exceptional model fit:

• Satorra-Bentler Corrected Chi-Square: χ² = 357.69, degrees of freedom (df) = 265, p < .001 (χ²/df ratio = 1.35, indicating superior fit).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.972 (Satorra-Bentler CFI = 0.979).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.028 (90% Confidence Interval: [0.032, 0.045]).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.047.

Competing structural models were formally tested against the five-factor correlated model. A unidimensional model (all 25 items loading on a single general digital flourishing factor) demonstrated unacceptable fit (χ² > 1800, CFI < .70, RMSEA > .12). A higher-order hierarchical model (five first-order factors loading onto a single second-order Digital Flourishing construct) demonstrated adequate fit, but the five separate, correlated first-order factors model provided a superior, more parsimonious empirical fit. Consequently, the authors established the multidimensional five-factor structure as the optimal psychometric architecture.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structured parameters of the Digital Flourishing Scale are detailed below:

• Official Tool Name: Digital Flourishing Scale (DFS).
• Alternative Acronym: DFS.
• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Rating Scale / Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire.
• Target Respondent Population: Adults aged 18 years and older (validated across young adulthood, middle age, and older adult cohorts).
• Total Item Count: 25 items.
• Subscales & Composition:
  • Connectedness: 5 items (CON1 to CON5)
  • Civil Participation: 5 items (CP1 to CP5)
  • Positive Social Comparison: 5 items (PSC1 to PSC5)
  • Authentic Self-Disclosure: 5 items (ASD1 to ASD5)
  • Self-Control: 5 items (SC1 to SC5)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or raw sum of the 5 items corresponding to each subscale (range: 1.0 to 7.0 for mean scores; 5 to 35 for sum scores).
  • Global Flourishing Score: Calculated by averaging all 25 items (or summing across all items, range: 25 to 175). Higher scores reflect greater flourishing, optimal functioning, and constructive experiences in computer-mediated communication.
  • Item Inversion: All retained items in the validated 25-item version are keyed positively toward flourishing; no manual reverse scoring is required for the final published items (ASD4 was phrased positively in its final validated formulation).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Digital Flourishing Scale was formally published in 2023 in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Happiness Studies (Janicke-Bowles et al., 2023).

• Permissions & Copyright: The instrument is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
• Academic & Research Use: The scale may be freely utilized, reproduced, adapted, and integrated into academic research, psychological evaluations, and educational settings without explicit written permission, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is credited to the original authors.
• Commercial Use: While CC BY permits open access, commercial implementations should verify institutional compliance and avoid asserting proprietary ownership over the original scale items.
• Fee: There is no fee ($0.00) required to administer or score the DFS for scientific, educational, or therapeutic research purposes.

References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
• Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-w., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
• 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
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806
• Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)