Engineering the Mind: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Digital Well-Being

Year : 2026 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 02 | Page : 58 68
By

Hame Dhar Dwivedi,

  1. Student, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bihar, India

Abstract

Digital technologies now mediate most domains of human activity, yet the engineering disciplines that build these systems have historically treated user well-being as a secondary usability concern rather than a design objective. This paper presents a multidisciplinary review and conceptual synthesis of digital well-being, integrating human-computer interaction, cognitive and motivational psychology, software engineering, and technology law. The objective is to consolidate fragmented, single-disciplined accounts of digital well-being into one coherent framework and to identify the structural gap that has allowed persuasive and manipulative design to persist despite growing scientific and regulatory attention. A narrative-synthesis approach was used, critically appraising peer-reviewed literature drawn from human-computer interaction, psychology, neuroscience, business ethics, and law journals published mainly between 1994 and 2025. The review shows that digital well-being is best explained by three converging strands of evidence: motivational psychology, particularly self-determination theory and its Motivation, Engagement and Thriving in User Experience (METUX) extension, which explains why autonomy-supportive design sustains healthier engagement than restrictive or guilt-based interventions; reinforcement-learning and neurobiological accounts of variable-reward interfaces, which explain compulsive use; and an emerging legal literature that reframes manipulative interface design as a breach of a service provider’s duty of loyalty rather than a mere consumer-protection violation. The synthesis further shows that engineering curricula and regulatory instruments remain poorly coordinated with this evidence base. The paper concludes that sustainable digital well-being requires safety-by-design engineering practice, psychologically grounded interface evaluation, and coordinated legal and educational reform, and it proposes actionable recommendations for software engineers, educators, and policymakers.

Keywords: digital well-being; human-computer interaction; self-determination theory; attention economy; dark patterns; technology regulation

[This article belongs to Journal of Mobile Computing, Communications & Mobile Networks ]

How to cite this article: Hame Dhar Dwivedi. Engineering the Mind: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Digital Well-Being. Journal of Mobile Computing, Communications & Mobile Networks. 2026; 13(02):58-68.
How to cite this URL: Hame Dhar Dwivedi. Engineering the Mind: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Digital Well-Being. Journal of Mobile Computing, Communications & Mobile Networks. 2026; 13(02):58-68. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jomccmn/article=2026/view=259928

References

  1. Shin Y. Toward human-centered artificial intelligence for users’ digital well-being: systematic review, synthesis, and future directions. JMIR Hum Factors. 2025;12(1).
  2. Twenge JM, Campbell WK. Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: evidence from a population-based study. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:271-83.
  3. Roffarello AM, De Russis L. Achieving digital wellbeing through digital self-control tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2023;30(4):1-66.
  4. Lindström B, Bellander M, Schultner DT, Chang A, Tobler PN, Amodio DM. A computational reward learning account of social media engagement. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1311.
  5. Schultz W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1998;80(1):1-27.
  6. Peters D, Calvo RA, Ryan RM. Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Front Psychol. 2018;9:300159.
  7. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68-78.
  8. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Instr. 1994;4(4):295-312.
  9. Mathur A, Acar G, Friedman MJ, Lucherini E, Mayer J, Chetty M, et al. Dark patterns at scale: findings from a crawl of 11K shopping websites. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. 2019;3(CSCW):1-32.
  10. Gunawan J, Hartzog W, Richards N, Choffnes D, Wilson C. Dark patterns as disloyal design. Ind LJ. 2024;100:1389.
  11. Gunawan J, Hartzog W, Richards N, Choffnes D, Wilson C. Dark patterns as disloyal design. Ind LJ. 2024;100:1389.
  12. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
  13. Jeno LM, Diseth Å, Grytnes JA. Testing the METUX model in higher education: interface and task need-satisfaction predict engagement, learning, and well-being. Front Psychol. 2021;12:631564.
  14. Skinner BF. The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Cambridge (MA): B.F. Skinner Foundation; 2019.
  15. Fogg BJ. A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology; 2009 Apr 26. p. 1-7.
  16. Fogg BJ. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity. 2002;2002(December):2.
  17. Nelson V. Computing curriculum computer engineering (CCCE): a model for computer engineering curricula in the next decade. In: 2004 Annual Conference; 2004 Jun 20. p. 9-332.
  18. Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U. The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2008 Apr 6. p. 107-10.
  19. Renaud K, Sengul C, Coopamootoo K, Clift B, Taylor J, Springett M, et al. We’re not that gullible! Revealing dark pattern mental models of 11-12-year-old Scottish children. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2024;31(3):1-41.
  20. Zac A, Huang YC, Von Moltke A, Decker C, Ezrachi A. Dark patterns and consumer vulnerability. Behav Public Policy. 2025:1-50.
  21. Elvy SA. Age-appropriate design code mandates. U Pa J Int Law. 2023;45:953.
  22. Craven T. Kids, no phones at the dinner table: analyzing the People’s Republic of China’s proposed “minor mode” regulation and an international right to the Internet. Chi J Int Law. 2024;25:219.
  23. Lerouge L, Trujillo Pons F. Contribution to the study on the ‘right to disconnect’ from work: are France and Spain examples for other countries and EU law? Eur Labour Law J. 2022;13(3):450-65.
  24. Pérez-Escoda A, Fernández-Villavicencio NG. Digital competence in use: from DigComp 1 to DigComp 2. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality; 2016 Nov 2. p. 619-24.
Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 13
Issue 02
Received 29/08/2026
Accepted 09/09/2026
Published 13/09/2026
Publication Time 15 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics

Support