Influence of Personality and Differences in Stress Processing Among Finnish Students on Interest to Use a Mobile Stress Management App: Survey Study
Open accessAbstract
Background: Excessive stress has a negative impact on many aspects of life for both individuals and societies, from studying and working to health and well-being. Each individual has their unique level of stress-proneness, and positive or negative outcomes of stress may be affected by it. Technology-aided interventions have potential efficacy in the self-management of stress. However, current Web-based or mobile stress management solutions may not reach the individuals that would need them the most, that is, stress-sensitive people. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine how personality is associated with stress among Finnish university students and their interest to use apps that help in managing stress. Methods: We used 2 structured online questionnaires (combined, n=1001) that were advertised in the University of Helsinki’s mailing lists. The first questionnaire (n=635) was used to investigate intercorrelations between the Big Five personality variables (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and other stress-related background variables. The second questionnaire (n=366) was used to study intercorrelations between the above-mentioned study variables and interest in using stress management apps. Results: The quantitative findings of the first questionnaire showed that higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were associated with lower self-reported stress. Neuroticism, in turn, was found to be strongly associated with rumination, anxiety, and depression. The findings of the second questionnaire indicated that individuals characterized by the Big Five personality traits of neuroticism and agreeableness were particularly interested to use stress management apps (r=.27, P<.001 and r=.11, P=.032, respectively). Moreover, the binary logistic regression analysis revealed that when a person’s neuroticism is one SD above average (ie, it is higher than among 84% of people), the person has roughly 2 times higher odds of being interested in using a stress management app. Respectively, when a person’s agreeableness is one SD above average, the person has almost 1.4 times higher odds of being interested in using a stress management app. Conclusions: Our results indicated that personality traits may have an influence on the adoption interest of stress management apps. Individuals with high neuroticism are, according to our results, adaptive in the sense that they are interested in using stress management apps that may benefit them. On the contrary, low agreeableness may lead to lower interest to use the mobile stress management apps. The practical implication is that future mobile stress interventions should meaningfully be adjusted to improve user engagement and support health even among less-motivated users, for instance, to successfully engage individuals with low agreeableness.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
People who scored high on neuroticism and agreeableness of the Big 5 personality traits were more interested in using smartphone apps to reduce stress.
“People who scored high on neuroticism and agreeableness of the Big 5 personality traits were more interested in using smartphone apps to reduce stress [77].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [77]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 50
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [37]Halko S Kientz J Personality and persuasive technology: an exploratory study on health-promoting mobile applications 2010 International Conference on Persuasive Technology June 7-10, 2010 Copenhagen, Denmark 150 61
- Authors
- Ervasti, M., Kallio, J., Määttänen, I., Mäntyjärvi, J., & Jokela, M.
- Affiliations
- VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (FI)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Kallio, Johanna
- Venue
- JMIR Mental Health
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2019-05-13
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e10039
- ISSN
- 2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6707572
- OpenAlex
- W2946296501
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Tekes
- Business Finland
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Keywords
- mobile health apps, personality traits, Big Five personality traits, neuroticism, agreeableness, university students, rumination, anxiety, depression, Finnish students, digital mental health interventions
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