MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403487794 · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2413452

Insights from the evaluation of a persuasive intervention for absent-minded smartphone use

2024· article· en· W4403487794 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour and Information Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychologyBehaviour changeIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionSmartphone applicationApplied psychologyPersuasive technologyBehavior changeInternet privacySocial psychologyComputer sciencePersuasionMultimediaPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problematic smartphone use (PSU) is a growing concern that hurts users' daily lives and activities. Previous studies have emphasised the importance of developing mindfulness and self-efficacy concerning smartphone use rather than solely focussing on reducing usage. However, there has been little research developing and evaluating digital interventions specifically targeting absent-minded smartphone use. There is also little knowledge on how best mindfulness practice using digital technologies can be integrated with persuasive designs which have been widely studied and implemented for behaviour change. In this paper, we developed a live wallpaper application for Android lock and home screens as a mindfulness-based intervention for absent-minded smartphone use. The application was evaluated over two weeks with 121 participants. This was followed by a semi-structured interview with 15 participants. The results of our analysis show that the intervention reduced absent-minded smartphone use overall. While participants found the various features (especially the customisation features) of the intervention to be persuasive, we found no correlation between perceived persuasiveness and behaviour change. This work provides valuable insights for advancing human-computer interaction (HCI) research on PSU. Additionally, the results raise important questions for future research, such as the relationship between perceived persuasiveness and behaviour change. Finally, we contribute to the discussion on the applications of mindfulness in persuasive technology, challenges and future research areas.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it