Where Science Meets Discourse: What a Flawed Commentary of Three Papers Can Teach Us About Research on Well-Being in the Digital Age

Research examining technology and psychological well-being has become increasingly important for health policy, international regulation, and behavioral science. A notable consequence of this increased attention has been an increasingly commentary-driven public discourse where influence and research contribution and careful analysis are not always proportionally aligned. While commentary can be useful, it can also introduce misunderstandings into the public, research, and policy ecosystems if it is not grounded in rigorous argumentation and empirical observation. Criticism lacking these qualities can nonetheless present valuable opportunities to address misunderstandings and improve science communication. In this paper we examine one such commentary on three of our papers. We address the four issues raised and clarify how each either misunderstands or misrepresents our work, and then translate these errors into broader lessons for those interested in understanding, conducting, and communicating behavioral research in the digital age.