ABSTRACT

Although several theories could be applied to stimulate mobile health (mHealth) use and change people’s health behaviors, theory-driven mHealth designs are scarce. Instead, developers and researchers often implement behavior change techniques and mix multiple techniques without explicitly considering their underlying theoretical mechanisms. We call this practice into question and propose that combining behavior change techniques doesnot necessarily result in synergistic effects. Drawing on theories of protection motivation and social upward comparison, we engage in explanatory design theorizing to understand interactions of behavior change techniques and their implications for mHealth design. We design, theorize about, and evaluate four mHealth prototypes for stress alleviation. In a five-week field experiment with n = 138 participants and a subsequent qualitative substantiation, we show that there is a negative interaction effect of protection motivation and social upward comparison, rendering their combined application less effective. Our findings elicit mutual boundary conditions for theories of protection motivation and social upward comparison. If mechanisms of one theory are present, they restrict the effectiveness of mechanisms of the other theory. Thus, mHealth developers need to use caution when combining different behavior change techniques within one mHealth artifact.

摘要

尽管可以应用多种理论来刺激移动医疗 (mHealth) 的使用并改变人们的健康行为，但理论驱动的移动医疗设计却很少。相反，开发人员和研究人员经常在没有明确考虑其潜在理论机制的情况下实施行为改变技术并混合多种技术。我们质疑这种做法，并建议结合行为改变技术不一定会产生协同效应。借鉴保护动机和社会向上比较的理论，我们从事解释性设计理论化，以了解行为改变技术的相互作用及其对移动医疗设计的影响。我们设计、理论化和评估了四种用于缓解压力的 mHealth 原型。在 n = 138 名参与者的为期五周的实地实验和随后的定性证实中，我们表明保护动机和社会向上比较存在负交互作用，使它们的组合应用效果较差。我们的研究结果为保护动机和社会向上比较理论提出了相互边界条件。如果存在一种理论的机制，它们就会限制另一种理论机制的有效性。因此，在一个 mHealth 工件中组合不同的行为改变技术时，mHealth 开发人员需要谨慎行事。我们的研究结果为保护动机和社会向上比较理论提出了相互边界条件。如果存在一种理论的机制，它们就会限制另一种理论机制的有效性。因此，在一个 mHealth 工件中组合不同的行为改变技术时，mHealth 开发人员需要谨慎行事。我们的研究结果为保护动机和社会向上比较理论提出了相互边界条件。如果存在一种理论的机制，它们就会限制另一种理论机制的有效性。因此，在一个 mHealth 工件中组合不同的行为改变技术时，mHealth 开发人员需要谨慎行事。