Theory and Frameworks

 

The Costs and Opportunities of Technology in Context (COTeC) Framework

COTeC is a framework for understanding how smartphones, social media, and other pervasive technologies affect well-being. It locates their effects in where and when people use their devices, as much as in what they do on them, and in what those devices quietly crowd out. What follows is a short preview. The full account is in the paper cited at the end.

The puzzle

Smartphones, social media, and now AI offer real benefits, yet decades of research have struggled to show that they make us happier. The framework calls this tension the Utility-Happiness Paradox. Its explanation is that these technologies fail to make us happier, despite their many useful features, partly because of their opportunity costs: the ways they displace, substitute for, and interfere with the activities that matter most for well-being.

Core assumptions

The framework starts from three premises. First, social technologies afford easy access to information, entertainment, and connection not otherwise available in our immediate environment. These affordances are the "opportunities," and they can help or harm well-being directly. Second, the effects of any given use depend on the situational context in which it occurs. Third, well-being depends in large part on how people spend their time, on the daily activities through which psychological needs are met. Together, these premises imply that the costs of technology are felt mainly through the activities it reshapes.

Three mechanisms

COTeC defines three ways that technology use carries an opportunity cost:

  1. Displacement (time reallocation). Time is finite, so time spent on a device is time not spent on something else. Phones can lower well-being by displacing sleep, exercise, or face-to-face interaction, and can raise it by displacing boredom or rumination.

  2. Substitution (qualitative replacement). Technology often offers an easier alternative to a more effortful activity. Substitution does not necessarily cost time. Using GPS instead of asking a stranger for directions can save time while forgoing a moment of connection. Because effortful, challenging activities are themselves a source of well-being, the easier option can leave us worse off.

  3. Interference (attention reallocation). Even brief, frequent phone use can fragment attention and tax cognitive resources during a concurrent activity. A single notification can pull focus from a conversation, a task, or a meal. Interference can lower well-being when it disrupts a rewarding activity and raise it when it breaks up a stressful one.

Context decides the direction

None of these mechanisms is harmful on its own. Displacement, substitution, and interference can each help or harm well-being depending on what is being displaced, substituted, or interfered with. The same notification that derails focused work might rescue someone from rumination. This is why the framework treats context as central. The direction of the effect is set by the situation in which the device is used.

From DIC to COTeC

COTeC grew out of the earlier Displacement-Interference-Complementarity (DIC) framework of smartphones (Kushlev & Leitao, 2020). DIC proposed that devices shape well-being by displacing activities, interfering with them, and complementing them through access to otherwise unavailable information and experiences. COTeC sharpens that account in two ways. It treats complementarity not as a separate effect but as the framework's starting assumption, the affordances that make technology useful in the first place. And it adds a distinct third process, substitution, separating the functional replacement of one activity by another from the simple reallocation of time. What remains are three clearly defined opportunity costs that follow from a single, widely accepted premise.

Beyond smartphones

The framework is general by design. It applies beyond smartphones and social media to newer technologies as well. AI companions, for instance, are always available, which may make them especially likely to displace sleep or exercise, substitute for human relationships, or interfere with ongoing interactions, even as they offer real companionship.

The bottom line. The practical message is not to count minutes but to account for trade-offs: what our technologies displace, what they substitute, and when they interfere. Happiness isn't an app. It's what we make room for.

Kushlev, K. (2026). An Opportunity Cost Framework of Digital Well-Being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20(5), e70144. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70144

Download the paper

An Opportunity Cost Framework of Digital Well-Being.

Abstract

Research on social digital technologies like smartphones and social media has grown exponentially, yet consensus on their effects on well-being remains elusive. I introduce the Costs and Opportunities of Technology in Context (COTeC) framework, focused on defining and integrating the processes by which social technologies impact well-being indirectly via their opportunity costs. COTeC specifies at least three such mechanisms: displacement (i.e., time reallocation: time spent on devices leaves less time for other activities), substitution (i.e., qualitative replacement: technology offers alternatives to more challenging, but often more rewarding, activities), and interference (i.e., real-time attention reallocation: social technologies tax cognitive resources, reallocate attention, and disrupt ingrained social processes and expectations). Though evidence suggests that these mechanisms primarily undermine digital well-being, the COTeC framework posits that their effects depend on contextual affordances: on what is being displaced, substituted, or interfered with. I consider the practical implications of the framework for policy, practice (e.g., digital detox interventions), and emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). In short, COTeC aims to organize existing evidence of opportunity-cost processes (e.g., phubbing vs. technoference), build on existing content-focused and person-focused approaches, and accelerate discoveries with practical implications.

The Displacement-Interference-Complementarity (DIC) FraMework.

The Displacement Interference Complementarity (DIC) framework provides an integrated theoretical perspective for understanding how smartphones and other pervasive digital technologies affect well-being. The novelty of this theoretical framework is in emphasizing where and when people use their devices in addition to what they do on them. It proposes three key ways that smartphones can impact well-being:

  1. Displacement Hypothesis: Smartphones can influence well-being by displacing or replacing other important activities, like sleep, exercise, and face-to-face social interactions. Smartphones can decrease well-being by displacing important positive activities but can increase well-being by displacing negative activities.

  2. Interference Hypothesis: Smartphones can interfere with concurrent activities by fragmenting attention and cognitive resources. Even brief, frequent phone use during other tasks like conversations or work can disrupt those activities. Smartphones can decrease well-being by interfering with positive concurrent activities but can increase well-being by interfering with negative concurrent activities.

  3. Complementarity Hypothesis: Smartphones impact well-being by affording access to information, communication, and experiences that would otherwise be unavailable. Smartphones can increase or decrease well-being depending on what people are doing.

Download the paper

The effects of smartphones on well-being: theoretical integration and research agenda

Abstract

As smartphones become ever more integrated in people’s lives, a burgeoning new area of research has emerged on their well-being effects. We propose that disparate strands of research and apparently contradictory findings can be integrated under three basic hypotheses, positing that smartphones influence well-being by (1) replacing other activities (displacement hypothesis), (2) interfering with concurrent activities (interference hypothesis), and (3) affording access to information and activities that would otherwise be unavailable (complementarity hypothesis). Using this framework, we highlight methodological issues and go beyond net effects to examine how and when phones boost versus hurt well-being. We examine both psychological and contextual mediators and moderators of the effects, thus outlining an agenda for future research.

416rASksXtS._SL500_.jpg

Abstract. Smartphones provide people with a variety of benefits, but they may also impose subtle social costs. We propose that being constantly connected undercuts the emotional benefits of face-to-face social interactions in two ways. First, smartphone use may diminish the emotional benefits of ongoing social interactions by preventing us from giving our full attention to friends and family in our immediate social environment. Second, smartphones may lead people to miss out on the emotional benefits of casual social interactions by supplanting such interactions altogether. Across field experiments and experience-sampling studies, we find that smartphones consistently interfere with the emotional benefits people could otherwise reap from their broader social environment. We also find that the costs of smartphone use are fairly subtle, contrary to proclamations in the popular press that smartphones are ruining our social lives. By highlighting how smartphones affect the benefits we derive from our broader social environment, this work provides a foundation for building theory and research on the consequences of mobile technology for human well-being