Goal Setting and Anchoring Effects on Meditation Using a Digital Platform: A Large‑Scale Digital Field Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Meditation has grown in popularity in recent years, but many people who try meditation often fail to establish a habit. Goal setting has been demonstrated to be an effective technique in behavior change in other health related contexts, but is understudied in the meditation context. OBJECTIVE This study had two objectives: (1) to assess the effect of goal setting on the number of days people meditated, and (2) to evaluate whether anchoring bias in the goal-setting question (via response-option order) influences goal selection and subsequent meditation behavior. METHODS This large-scale quasi-experimental field study included 18,559 Spotify mobile users aged ≥18 residing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States who had listened to ≥5 minutes of meditation content from a specified teacher. The in-app experiment consisted of two goal-setting test conditions and an active control. In the test conditions, participants selected the number of days they intended to listen to content from the meditation teacher in the next 7 days. The conditions differed only in the order of goal response options (higher goals listed first vs last). The active control rated how much they liked the teacher, but did not set a goal. Because responding was optional, selection bias is possible and the design is quasi-experimental. RESULTS The act of setting any goal had a modest positive effect on the number of days people meditated in both Treatment Condition 1 (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]) and Treatment Condition 2 (β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.002, 0.15]). People who committed to higher goals were also more likely to meditate more than people who committed to lower goals. Additionally, the distribution of goals between the treatment conditions varied (????22=84.24; P<.001) and the differences in these distributions subsequently yielded differences in the number of days each group meditated, on average (t(2,744.1) = -2.34; P = 0.02; Cohen d =-0.09). Ultimately, placing the highest goal as the first answer choice yielded higher average active days amongst those who chose a goal, but many more people opted out of answering the question itself. CONCLUSIONS Goal setting appears to be an effective tool to encourage people to engage with meditation more frequently on digital platforms and consequently may encourage meditation habit formation. However, anchoring effects play a significant role in people’s willingness to set meditation goals, the goals they set for themselves, and even incremental meditation engagement. The insights from this study are valuable for both theorists who study habit formation, goal setting, and anchoring, as well as meditation app designers and those who are seeking ways to increase engagement with their offerings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».