The proliferation of the internet has dramatically altered daily life, with billions of users spending considerable time online for communication, information, leisure, and social interaction. The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified internet reliance due to lockdowns and social distancing. While research links internet usage to enhanced subjective well-being through strengthened social connections, access to information, and diverse activities, most studies focus on traditional (non-mobile) internet, overlooking the differences between mobile and non-mobile modalities. Mobile internet, accessed via smartphones and tablets, differs from traditional internet (personal computers and laptops) in technical capabilities and usage patterns. These differences might lead to varied gratifications and, consequently, different impacts on subjective well-being. This study aims to compare the effects of mobile and non-mobile internet on subjective well-being, examine how these effects change during societal disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic, and analyze the interaction between mobile and non-mobile internet use on well-being.

The study grounds its analysis in the Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT), which explains how individuals use media to fulfill their needs and achieve gratification. UGT posits that users engage with technology for various gratifications (entertainment, social interaction, information, etc.), and these gratifications are dynamic, changing with environmental factors. Existing research shows that both mobile and non-mobile internet provide content, process, and social gratifications, potentially enhancing well-being. However, studies often fail to distinguish between these types or consider the dynamic nature of gratification seeking, especially during crises. The study highlights previous research demonstrating the increased reliance on the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic for emotional support and psychological comfort, suggesting a shift towards gratifications driven by increased mental health concerns. It also notes that mobile internet offers unique psychological gratifications, providing a sense of control and private space vital during uncertain times.

The study uses longitudinal data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), a nationally representative sample of Chinese individuals. The dataset includes three waves (2016, 2018, and 2020), allowing analysis of pre- and post-pandemic periods. The final dataset comprises 46,803 observations from 15,601 individuals. Key variables include: subjective well-being (measured using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), with higher scores indicating better well-being), mobile internet usage (binary variable indicating use of mobile devices for internet access), and non-mobile internet usage (binary variable indicating use of traditional devices). Control variables include demographics (age, gender, education, marital status, employment, income) and province dummies. The study employs panel regression with a random effects model to estimate the effects of mobile and non-mobile internet usage on subjective well-being, incorporating interaction terms to examine the substitution effect and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The results indicate that both mobile and non-mobile internet use positively affect subjective well-being, but the effect size is larger for non-mobile internet (b = 0.010, p < 0.000) compared to mobile internet (b = 0.003, p = 0.048). In terms of CES-D scores, non-mobile internet reduced scores by 0.541 points on average, while mobile internet reduced them by 0.210 points. The interaction between COVID-19 and mobile internet use is positive and significant (b = -0.011, p = 0.000), implying that the positive impact of mobile internet on well-being increased during the pandemic. The effect of non-mobile internet use did not change significantly during the pandemic. The interaction term between mobile and non-mobile internet is marginally significant and negative (b = -0.010, p = 0.003), suggesting a substitution rather than complementary relationship. This substitution effect, however, diminished during the pandemic. In a subsample analysis, the substitution effect was present before COVID-19 but insignificant afterward, confirming this observation.

The findings address the research questions by demonstrating that while traditional internet generally has a stronger positive effect on well-being, mobile internet plays a more significant role during societal disruptions. The pandemic’s negative impact on subjective well-being was mitigated more by mobile internet usage than non-mobile usage. This suggests that mobile internet provides unique psychological comfort, acting as a ‘pacifier’ during isolation and uncertainty. The study’s results emphasize the importance of considering both mobile and non-mobile internet use when assessing technology’s influence on well-being, highlighting the dynamic interaction between these modalities and contextual factors.

This study makes several contributions: it provides a comparative analysis of mobile and non-mobile internet's effects on well-being, highlights the crucial role of mobile internet during crises, and demonstrates the dynamic nature of internet use and gratification seeking in response to societal disruptions. Future research could investigate the intensity of internet usage, differentiate between various mobile device types (smartphones vs. tablets), employ alternative well-being measures, and explore cross-cultural variations.

The study's limitations include the use of binary variables for internet usage, potentially overlooking usage intensity. It also doesn't distinguish between different mobile device types or well-being measures. Furthermore, the findings are based on a Chinese sample and might not be generalizable to other contexts.