CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Predictors of Acceptance and Rejection of Online Peer Support Groups as a Digital Wellbeing Tool
Authors
A Alrobai
A Alrobai
+14 more
A Winkler
B Rammstedt
GH Hofstede
JP Tangney
K Hampton
KL Hsiao
L Davidson
L Widyanto
M Griffiths
MP Matud
R Ali
S Brehm
TL Webb
V Braun
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
'Springer Science and Business Media LLC'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
© 2020, The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Digital media usage can be problematic; exhibiting symptoms of behavioural addiction such as mood modification, tolerance, conflict, salience, withdrawal symptoms and relapse. Google Digital Wellbeing and Apple Screen Time are examples of an emerging family of tools to help people have a healthier and more conscious relationship with technology. Peer support groups is a known technique for behaviour change and relapse prevention. It can be facilitated online, especially with advanced social networking techniques. Elements of peer support groups are being already embedded in digital wellbeing tools, e.g. peer comparisons, peer commitments, collective usage limit-setting and family time. However, there is a lack of research about the factors influencing people acceptance and rejection of online peer support groups to enhance digital wellbeing. Previous work has qualitatively explored the acceptance and rejection factors to join and participate in such groups. In this paper, we quantitatively study the relationship between culture, personality, self-control, gender, willingness to join the groups and perception of their usefulness, on such acceptance and rejection factors. The qualitative phase included two focus groups and 16 interviews while the quantitative phase consisted of a survey (215 participants). We found a greater number of significant models to predict rejection factors than acceptance factors, although in all cases the amount of variance explained by the models was relatively small. This demonstrates the need to design and, also, introduce such technique in a contextualised and personalised style to avoid rejection and reactance
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Bournemouth University Research Online
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk:...
Last time updated on 13/06/2020
ZU Scholars (Zayed University)
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:zuscholars.zu.ac.ae:works-...
Last time updated on 03/12/2021
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 10/08/2021