CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177Digital Mental Health InterventionsDigital Media and PhilosophyInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Engagement in digital interventions.

Open access
Nahum-Shani, Inbal, Shaw, Steven D., Carpenter, Stephanie M., Murphy, Susan A., Yoon, Carolyn·2022·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0000983PMC PMC9481750
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The notion of "engagement," which plays an important role in various domains of psychology, is gaining increased currency as a concept that is critical to the success of digital interventions. However, engagement remains an ill-defined construct, with different fields generating their own domain-specific definitions. Moreover, given that digital interactions in real-world settings are characterized by multiple demands and choice alternatives competing for an individual's effort and attention, they involve fast and often impulsive decision-making. Prior research seeking to uncover the mechanisms underlying engagement has nonetheless focused mainly on psychological factors and social influences and neglected to account for the role of neural mechanisms that shape individual choices. This article aims to integrate theories and empirical evidence across multiple domains to define engagement and discuss opportunities and challenges to promote effective engagement in digital interventions. We also propose the affect-integration-motivation and attention-context-translation (AIM-ACT) framework, which is based on a neurophysiological account of engagement, to shed new light on how in-the-moment engagement unfolds in response to a digital stimulus. Building on this framework, we provide recommendations for designing strategies to promote engagement in digital interventions and highlight directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000983

Cites

112 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Engagement with digital mindfulness content is designed to facilitate completion of a concurrent nondigital target behavior that is metacognitive in nature.

    “engagement with the digital content is designed to facilitate completion of a concurrent nondigital target behavior that is metacognitive in nature (eg, an experiential mindfulness exercise) [11]”

    From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The “Engagement in Digital Interventions” section (page unavailable) says that engaging with guided-relaxation audio on an app can be designed to engage someone in a nondigital relaxation activity. It does not describe that activity as a mindfulness exercise or metacognitive in nature, so those specifics are not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Certain factors that contribute to engagement with digital content in mobile and web-based interventions more generally may also apply to interventions for which engagement with the digital content is designed to facilitate completion of a nondigital target behavior (eg, an experiential mindfulness exercise).

    “Our findings suggest that certain factors that contribute to engagement with digital content in mobile and web-based interventions more generally may also apply to interventions for which engagement with the digital content is designed to facilitate completion of a nondigital target behavior (eg, an experiential mindfulness exercise) [11].”

    From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Ashforth BE, & Mael F (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20– 39. https://about.jstor.org/terms
  2. Bowden JL-H, Tickle L, & Naumann K (2021). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1207– 1224.
  3. Costa Figueiredo M, Caldeira C, Eikey EV, Mazmanian M, & Chen Y (2018). Engaging with health data: The interplay between self-tracking activities and emotions in fertility struggles. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1– 20.
  4. Csikszentmihalyi M (2020). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life University Press.
  5. Do DKX, Rahman K, & Robinson LJ (2019). Determinants of negative customer engagement behaviours. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(2), 117– 135.
  6. Frank FD, Finnegan RP, & Taylor CR (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12– 25.
  7. Hicks J (2018). Exploring the relationship between awe and leisure: A conceptual argument. Journal of Leisure Research, 49(3–5), 258– 276.
  8. Hitlin S, & Elder GH Jr (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological theory, 25(2), 170– 191.
  9. Hu S, & Kuh GD (2002). Being (dis) engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555– 575.
  10. Kahn WA (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692– 724. https://about.jstor.org/terms
  11. Kahn WA (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321– 349.
  12. Kanungo RN (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341– 349.
  13. Levitin DJ (2014). The organized mind: Thinking straight in the age of information overload Penguin.
  14. Lievonen M, Luoma-aho V, & Bowden J (2018). Negative engagement. In Johnston K & Taylor M (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 531– 548).
  15. Mai R, Hoffmann S, & Balderjahn I (2021). When drivers become inhibitors of organic consumption: the need for a multistage view. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(6), 1151– 1174.
  16. Mirbagheri S, & Najmi M (2019). Consumers’ engagement with social media activation campaigns: Construct conceptualization and scale development. Psychology & Marketing, 36(4), 376– 394.
  17. Moody GD, Galletta DF, & Lowry PB (2014). When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 13(4), 266– 282.
  18. Morgan RM, & Hunt SD (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of marketing, 58, 20– 38.
  19. Pansari A, & Kumar V (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294– 311.
  20. Pejovic V, & Musolesi M (2014, September). InterruptMe: Designing intelligent prompting mechanisms for pervasive applications Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  21. Pham XL, Nguyen TH, Hwang WY, & Chen GD (2016). Effects of push notifications on learner engagement in a mobile learning app 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT),
  22. Pielot M (2014). Large-scale evaluation of call-availability prediction UbiComp ‘14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing,
  23. Quinn RW, & Dutton JE (2005). Coordination as Energy-in-Conversation. Academy of management review, 30(1), 36– 57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159094?seq=1&cid=pdf-
  24. Rich BL, Lepine JA, & Crawford ER (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617– 635. https://about.jstor.org/terms
  25. Richman A (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce. How can you create it? Workspan, 49(1), 36– 39.
  26. Rigby CS, Deci EL, Patrick BC, & Ryan RM (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and emotion, 16(3), 165– 185.
  27. Scherer KR (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In Scherer KR, Schorr A, & Johnstone T (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92– 120).
  28. Shaw K (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic Communication Management, 9(3), 26– 29.
  29. Sidner CL, Kidd CD, Lee C, & Lesh N (2004, January). Where to look: A study of human-robot engagement Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent user interfaces,
  30. Spreitzer GM, & Porath C (2014). Self-determination as nutriment for thriving: Building an integrative model of human growth at work. In The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (Vol. 90, pp. 245– 258).
  31. Thaler RH, & Sunstein CR (2021). Nudge: The final edition Penguin.
  32. Turel O, & Serenko A (2012). The benefits and dangers of enjoyment with social networking websites. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(5), 512– 528.
  33. Venkatraman V, Clithero JA, & Fitzsimons GJ (2012). New scanner data for brand marketers: How neuroscience can help better understand differences in brand preferences. Journal of consumer psychology, 22(1), 143– 153.
  34. Verhagen T, & Van Dolen W (2011). The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Information & Management, 48(8), 320– 327.
  35. Vugts A, Van Den Hoven M, De Vet E, & Verweij M (2020). How autonomy is understood in discussions on the ethics of nudging. Behavioural Public Policy, 4(1), 108– 123.
  36. Vuilleumier P (2002). Facial expression and selective attention. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 15(3), 291– 300.
  37. Weintraub J, Cassell D, & DePatie TP (2021). Nudging flow through ‘SMART’goal setting to decrease stress, increase engagement, and increase performance at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 230– 258.
  38. Williams KJ, Martinez LR, Fall A-M, Miciak J, & Vaughn S (2020). Student Engagement among High School English Learners with Reading Comprehension Difficulties. School Psychology Review, 1– 19.
  39. Yardley L, Bradbury K, Nadarzynski T, & Hunter C (2018). Digital Health Psychology. In Handbook of Health Psychology (pp. 519– 525). Routledge.
  40. Young HR, Glerum DR, Wang W, & Joseph DL (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta‐analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1330– 1346.
  41. Zeng X, & Mourali M (2021). Consumers as creative agents: How required effort influences willingness to engage. Psychology & Marketing, 38(8), 1220– 1237.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nahum-Shani, I., Shaw, S. D., Carpenter, S. M., Murphy, S. A., & Yoon, C.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2022-10
Volume
77
Issue
7
Pages
836-852
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0000983
PMC
PMC9481750
OpenAlex
W4220943942
Cited by
177
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 11
FWCI
29.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (U01 CA229437; P50 DA054039; R01 DA039901; P41 EB028242; UG3 DE028723)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
engagement, digital interventions, impulsive decision-making, attention allocation, motivation, digital health interventions
MeSH terms
Motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review