"Group of Praise" on people’s psychological
distress and loneliness
Xuyang Liu
12340065
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Entertainment Communication Science
Supervisor: Chei Billedo
2020_SEM1
Abstract
This study aims to provide empirical evidence for the impacts of "Group of Praise" use on people's psychological distress and loneliness. This study presents the results of a
cross-sectional survey of 516 individuals aged over 18 years old. The results showed that merely using "Group of Praise" actually did not reduce people’s psychological distress and loneliness. Also, the SPSS process model 4 results also showed that "Group of Praise" usage did not mediate the effects of "Group of Praise" usage on people’s psychological distress and loneliness: using "Group of Praise" cannot help people obtain perceived social support. However, there was evidence that showed that perceived social support could negatively predict psychological distress and loneliness. Besides, individuals who paid for "Group of Praise" service even perceived higher level of psychological distress than those who simply use free "Group of Praise".
Moreover, an individual's praise payment behaviour did not take effect on loneliness reduction. These findings contributed the theoretical explanation about the effect of "Group of Praise" usage on people's psychological health. There are also some practical implications for those who want to improve psychological health by using "Group of Praise".
An exploratory study on the impacts of using online "Group of Praise" on people’s psychological distress and loneliness
Introduction
Online groups benefit individuals who cannot or do not have desires to attend
face-to-face activities such as those people who have physical disabilities (White & Dorman, 2001). Users share information and communicate with others within online groups.
Meanwhile, these groups allow health educators to reach the target population (Eysenbach, Hansen, Neal, Frost & Massagli, 2008). However, most of the online support groups aim at supporting people who suffer psychological or physical disorder, or particular problems such as learning and eating disorder (Kalichman, Benotsch, Weinhardt, Austin, Luke & Cherry, 2003; Hwang, Ottenbacher, Green, Cannon-Diehl, Richardson, Bernstam & Thomas, 2010). Few online support groups focus on supporting ordinary people. Besides, despite having advantages, there are also possible disadvantages to being a part of an online support group. Group members may suffer because of the actions of other members such as rude language, harsh criticisms, and even threats (Barak, Boniel-Nissim & Suler, 2008).
In March 2019, in China, an online application called "Group of Praise" came about. In the online group, Group of Praise users collectively praise or provide encouragement to people who request for it. Few studies gave a clear definition for "Group of Praise".
Chongzhi (2019) described it as a new form of engagement through praising in Wechat group. However, "Group of Praise" is not limited inside of the Wechat platform. Other social
networking platforms such as QQ, and "Group of Praise" apps also provide individuals with approaches to join "Group of Praise". Implement to that definition, Yiting (2019) indicated "Group of Praise" as "A way to receive praise from other group members in social groups,
regardless of the form of user's content". As a new form of online social networking groups, "Group of Praise" shows different significant characteristics with social groups. In this study, "Group of Praise" is defined as online social networking groups organized by Internet
individuals, with at least two group members who interact with one another within online groups through sharing, reading or commenting group messages. The aim of "Group of Praise" is to support its group members through praising without criticism.
Although several studies discussed the reasons for the popularity of "Group of Praise", there is no quantitative study has ever explored the influence of using "Group of Praise" on people's mental health. Moreover, empirical evidence showed that praise has a positive impact on people's behaviour and mental health (Tshabalala & Patel, 2010). As a means of behavioural reinforcement, praise is expressed unsolicited and usually comes free (Brophy, 1981). This situation has changed as people actively seek praise in “Group of Praise”. Besides, along with the development of "Group of Praise" in the society, plenty of shop owners in different shopping platforms such as Alibaba expanded business concerning praising groups. These platforms enable people to pay for private praising services based on their needs actively. However, no researcher has studied how proactive monetary praise behaviour influences people’s psychological health.
This present study was the first quantitative study to explore the relationship between "Group of Praise" usage and people’s psychological well-being. Particularly, this study mainly focused on the impacts of using "Group of Praise" on people’s psychological distress and sense of loneliness. Notably, this study also explored the implications of people's praise payment behaviour on their mental health. The findings of this research would provide a
reference to future studies about "Group of Praise" in the communication science field. Besides, the results of this study could give suggestions for individuals who intend to use "Group of Praise" as an intervention method to buffer psychological problems.
RQ1: Will using "Group of Praise" help to reduce people’s psychological distress and
loneliness compared to those who never use "Group of Praise"?
RQ2: Will people's praise payment behaviour help to reduce their psychological
distress and loneliness compared to those who use free "Group of Praise"?
Theoretical Background “Group of Praise” as an application
"Group of Praise" can be traced back to the establishment of the Douban "Mutual praise group" in 2014. However, even though "Mutual praise group" enable community members to seek for praise through posting specific topics in the forum, the interaction between group members may assume a long time, and it takes a long time for verification if users request to join the group (Zizhen & Ruowei, 2019). The situation changed after university students established "Group of Praise" in Wechat. Wechat is one of the largest social network sites in China. The "2018 WeChat Annual Data Report" showed that the monthly active users in WeChat were over one billion. Forty-five billion messages were sent every day. The vast user base in Wechat is the foundation of the rapid development of "Group of Praise". Besides, WeChat allows users to set up online groups freely. Users can share group information or invite other users to join groups, which facilitate the spread of "Group of Praise". Until now, it is easy to find "Group of Praise" in most social networking platforms in China.
Characteristics of “Group of Praise”. "Group of Praise" shows similar features with
traditional online support groups (such as anonymity, invisibility, solipsistic introjection, and neutralizing of status) (Barak, Boniel-Nissim & Suler, 2008). Group members interact with each other online in an invisibility atmosphere. Most of the "Group of Praise" members are strangers. They only know what the other people reveal about themselves. The anonymity and invisibility atmosphere in "Group of Praise" reduce the effects of social authority and encourages people to disclose themselves, meanwhile, to treat others as equals.Besides,
through reading other member’s messages, group members form emotional bonds with others (Lawlor & Kirakowski, 2014). Each "Group of Praise" group has its regulations. However, there is one common regulation that characterizes "Group of Praise" groups: the group members have the responsibility to praise others without criticism. Group members who violate rules may be moved out from the group or be prohibited from sending messages by admins. Also, unlike other online social support groups that were mainly established by professionals, everyone can be the "praise professionals". Group members can praise others from any entry point even though they do not have any professional knowledge about that issue. For example, one group member sent a message like, "I am in the library. However, it is so difficult for me to focus on reading, what should I do, please praise me!" in the praising group of Amsterdam. Group members answered this message in the following ways. "You do not watch the football game of Ajax but choose to go to the library. You are great!". "The time is late, but you still study in the library, you are great"!
Classifications of “Group of Praise”. Based on whether group members pay for the
“Group of Praise” and Paid “Group of Praise”.
Free “Group of Praise”. Free "Group of Praise" refers to the praising groups that
allow users to free entrance and be praised freely. These praising groups are mainly
organized and administered by ordinary people who do not seek financial returns. Currently, a "Group of Praise" app, namely "Rainbow fart" (see Appendix), also provides a platform for users to praise others and obtain praise freely.
Paid “Group of Praise”. In paid “Group of Praise”, users have to purchase the
“Group of Praise” service if they want to obtain praise from others. Once users pay for the praising service, business owners will establish a group for the specific customer, and workers will start to praise that customer until the purchase time is used up. Consumers will be kicked out of the group after the end of the service. In some platforms, business owners even have specific training for their workers on how to praise people.
“Group of Praise” can also be divided into two types based on whether group members share similar characteristics.
Same attribute “Group of Praise”. Many "Group of Praise" group members have the
same characteristics. For example, all the group members are students from the same university. At that moment, "Group of Praise" could be typed as bonding groups since its group members shared social and ideological homogeneity overlaps, especially among people who shard similar backgrounds and beliefs (Norris, 2002). These praising groups can be categorized into the same attribute “Group of Praise” praising groups.
No attribute “Group of Praise”. No attribute “Group of Praise” refers to praising
for "Group of Praise" on social media platforms, and they usually can join it without
restriction. The openness of “Group of Praise” attract people from different social class, age, and regions. They make up No attribute “Group of Praise” praising groups.
Theory foundation: Lazarus’ transactional model
To date, researchers mainly studied why people engaged in "Group of Praise". Results showed that one of the most important reasons for this behaviour was that people intended to release stress through using "Group of Praise" (Ziyan, 2019). Lazarus' transactional model may explain this praise seeking behaviour. The transactional model stated that individuals would address stress from four stages. In the primary and second appraisal process, individuals evaluate whether they meet trouble. If individuals evaluate the encounters as a stake, they will determine whether there are available coping strategies to achieve the desired outcome and the consequence of coping activity. Lazarus and Folkman (1987) argued that individuals would alter the troubled person-environment if they can control the situation or if they are able to manage the problems. Once individuals find that the issues are out of control, they may escape from particular events, or seek support from others. The second coping strategy is called emotion-focused coping, which directed at managing emotional distress. Finally, individuals will reappraisal the relationship between person and environment, which provides a reference for further actions.
A national Chinese mental health investigation conducted in 2017 showed that several stressors such as heavy workload, long working hours, discordant interpersonal relationship, high living expenses, etc., caused increasing stress among Chinese people (Xiaolan, Kan, Xuefeng & Zhiyan, 2019). There is an abundance of evidence showed that stress co-occurs
with several adverse psychological outcomes (Chaplain, 2008; Watson, Gardiner, Hogston, Gibson, Stimpson, Wrate & Deary, 2009; Cadaret & Bennett, 2019). The study showed that 18.3% of Chinese people in rural areas had poor mental health, and 2.6% of them suffered severe mental health. While the proportion of people who have weak and stiff mental health was 13.8% and 2%, respectively, in an urban area (Xiaolan, Kan, Xuefeng & Zhiyan, 2019). People with severe psychological problems are forced to seek effective coping strategies to improve their mental health. However, Chinese cultural traditions sometimes reinforce people's prejudices and misunderstandings about mental illness. People with mental health problems sometimes feel ashamed about themselves and worried about the views of others around them (Xiaolan, Kan, Xuefeng & Zhiyan, 2019).
Furthermore, 74% of the respondents reported that the psychological counseling service in China was inconvenient, which hinders people from facing problems and
help-seeking behaviour. Thus, it is difficult for individuals to reduce the negative effects of stress on their psychological health by themselves. Plenty of people have to escape from reality and endure the negative impacts of stressors.
This situation might change because of the emergence of "Group of Praise". Even though the study showed that using in "Group of Praise" do not help individuals solve practical problems, this behaviour can satisfy user's psychological and emotional
requirements, which help users to release stress through being praised in "Group of Praise" without others knowing (Yilin, 2019). Using "Group of Praise" can be seen as a stress coping strategy by being supported by other group members and managing an individual's emotional distress.
“Group of Praise” use and people’s psychological distress
Psychological distress is defined as a nonspecific syndrome. It emerges when an individual cannot cope with stressors (e.g., job loss), which trigger unpleasant feelings (Mason, 1975). The research covered that anxiety, depression, irritability, self-depreciation, and social disengagement constructed psychological (Lustman, Sowa & O’Hara, 1984; Massé, Poulin, Dassa, Lambert, Bélair & Battaglini, 1998). Physical manifestations such as sleep disorders or loss of energy are also included as symptoms of distress. Currently, several methods, such as face-to-face interventions, have been used to buffer people's psychological distress. However, compared to traditional interventions, the web-based interventions own several advantages, including easily accessible, eliminating travel time, being less costly and anonymous, which has attracted uncountable individuals to join online support groups (Stallman, Ohan & Chiera, 2019). Studies have found the powerful influence of online support groups on people's psychological distress. For instance, the longitudinal study showed a significantly higher reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 and 12 months follow-up among patients in an online support group (Kathleen M Griffiths, Andrew J Mackinnon, Dimity A Crisp, Helen Christensen, Kylie Bennett & Louise Farrer, 2012). Besides, the positive peer support environment for women diagnosed with breast cancer promote personal growth and decrease cancer-related distress (Morris, Chambers, Campbell, Dwyer & Dunn, 2012). Since people become less concerned about how others perceive them and feel a few inhibitions in disclosing themselves, it is easier for them to self-disclose in online support groups (Lee, Noh & Koo, 2013). The anonymity atmosphere in online support groups can construct audience perceptions and facilitate underlying benefits of online
self-disclosure on people's psychological well-being. Online support group users help to release individual’s negative emotions. After interacting with other group members,
individuals can re-organize their thoughts about events to achieve resolution, and infer their attributes by observing their own behaviours. (Frison & Eggermont, 2016). "Group of Praise" can be seen as one new type of online intervention. Using "Group of Praise" allows users to actively self-disclose and start a psychological coping mechanism to against their
psychological distress through being praised. It is reasonable to assume that using "Group of Praise" has a positive impact on people's psychological distress reduction.
H1a: People who use "Groups of praise" will have lower psychological distress than
those who do not use "Groups of praise".
“Group of Praise” use and people’s loneliness
Also, previous studies highlighted the impact of online interventions on people's loneliness. Loneliness has been regarded as a risk factor for an individual's physical and mental health (Beutel, Klein, Brähler, Reiner, Jünger, Michal, … Tibubos, 2017). Loneliness refers to the unpleasant subjective experience when individuals detect the deficiencies of their social relationships with others. These deficiencies emerge if they think they do not have enough friends or their relationship with others is not intimacy (Russell, Cutrona, Rose & Yurko, 1984). Studies showed that higher scores on stress were significantly associated with higher levels of loneliness (Yarcheski, Mahon & Yarcheski, 2011; Kuyper & Fokkema, 2010). The potential reason is that the stress event may disrupt or threaten one's relationships, which causes the emergency of loneliness (Jones, Cavert, Snider & Bruce, 1985). Moreover, since stress stems from several sources such as significant events (e.g., disease or job loss),
chronic strains (e.g., disabling), and daily hassles (e.g., traffic jams) (Thoits, 1995). Stresses may associate with socialization and social forces outside the individual, which contribute to loneliness (Bahr, Peplau & Perlman, 1984). Some interventions strategies (e.g., social skills improvement, social support enhancement) has applied to the attribute of loneliness reduction (Masi, Chen, Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2011). It has been acknowledged that online
communication helps alleviate time and space barriers, making it easier for people to connect (Deandrea, 2015). "Group of Praise" enables users to contact with others online, improve social skills, recover self-value, and develop social cognition through seeking praise from other group members (Lingyun, 2019). Similar to the effects of joining online support groups, the connectedness that people obtain from "Group of Praise" can also provide individuals with a sense of community, as well as opportunities to meet with new people, participate in social activities, and build new friendships (Obst & Stafurik, 2010). Thus, it is possible that using “Group of Praise” will lessen the deficiencies of an individual's social relationships with others, which, in turn, decrease the sense of loneliness.
H1b: People who use "Groups of praise" will have lower loneliness than those who
do not use "Groups of praise".
The mediation effects of perceived social support
Social support has been defined as social interactions or relationships that provide practical help to individuals or embed them in social systems that are thought to provide love, care, or attachment to social groups or dyad (Hobfoll, 1988). The concept extends its scope to the online environment to explain the positive results of online social networks. Previous studies demonstrated that social media use might be associated with an increase in social
capital, such as increasing friends. Also, people who use social media tend to have more reactions from their friends on their profile. These reactions might associate with an
individual's perception of social support (Aubrey & Rill, 2013; Lee et la., 2013; Nabi, Prestin & So 2013). Meanwhile, online users are more likely to benefit from online social
networking, which provides individuals with an opportunity to exchange social support perception (Nambisan, 2011). In line with the positive relationship between online social networking use and social support, people may also obtain much more social support from “Group of Praise” through receiving understanding in these online communities than from the offline social network such as family members, friends, and coworkers (Nambisan, 2011).
Since social support can be measured through the actual received helping behaviours and the support perception (Eagle, Hybels & Proeschold-Bell, 2019). Some researchers argued that perceptions of available support might have more effects than received support on people’s psychological health and be the most pervasive form of social support (Szkody & McKinney, n.d.; Jackson, 1992). Moreover, “Group of Praise” use actually cannot provide practical support to their users (Chongzhi, 2019). This study emphasized the role of perceived social support and proposed that using “Group of Praise” would lead to positive social
outcomes, including higher perceived social support than non-users.
Besides, previous studies highlighted the protective role of perceived social support on an individual's psychological outcomes, which refers to main effects (Skok, Harvey & Reddihough, 2006). Notably, social support exerts beneficial effects on people's
psychological well-being regardless of their stress levels (Hashimoto, Kurita, Haratani, Fujii & Ishibashi, 1999). Given that social support may relate to a vast social network, which
intervenes individuals with a sense of predictability and recognition of self-worth and prevent one from being impacted by negative experience (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Several studies probed the relationship between perceived social support and people’s psychological distress. For example, a population-based survey provided compelling evidence that perceived social support was associated with reduced psychological distress in Hispanic Elders after
controlling for demographics (Brown, Mason, Lombard, Martinez, Plater-Zyberk, Spokane, … Szapocznik, 2009). Studies also showed that the social support, particularly perceived social support may be an intervention to reduce loneliness and modify the adverse effects of loneliness (Dong, Beck & Simon, 2009; Yildirim & Kocabiyik, 2010).
Some empirical research also provided empirical evidence for the mediation role of social support. For example, study showed that individuals could obtain social support through interacting and changing information with others in online support groups, which in turn, associated with decrease of depression and anxiety, with depression and anxiety are treated as constructs of psychological distress (Lieberman, Golant, Giese‐Davis,
Winzlenberg, Benjamin, Humphreys, … Spiegel, 2003). Besides, support groups could supplement an individual's depleted natural networks with enhanced support satisfaction, diminished support needs, and increased positive affect. The support intervention predicted a trend toward decreased social isolation and emotional loneliness (Stewart, Craig, Macpherson & Alexander, 2001). In line with the rationale reviewed above, the expected mediating role of social support can also be expected in the relationship between "Group of Praise" use and an individual's psychological well-being. Hypotheses regarding the mediating role of perceived social support were proposed.
H2a: Using "Group of Praise" positively predicts people’s perceived social support. H2b: People’s perceived social support negatively predicts their psychological
distress.
H3a: Using "Group of Praise" positively predicts people’s perceived social support. H3b: People’s perceived social support negatively predicts their loneliness.
Additionally, people who paid for the service may be more likely to have severe psychological problems and high demand for a reduction in their psychological distress and loneliness. People’s mental well-being may be changed through praise payment behaviour since the customer intention of paid "Group of Praise" is to lessen psychological distress and loneliness.
H4a: The effect of "Group of Praise" on distress is different for those who use free
compared to those who use paid group of praise.
H4b: The effect of a group of praise on loneliness is different for those who use free
compared to those who use paid group of praise.
Methodology
This study conducted a cross-sectional self-report survey to test research questions. The convenience sampling method was used to reach participants because of limited time and fund. People aged younger than 18 years old were excluded based on the age they filled out in the questionnaire. Online questionnaires were sent in praising groups through social media platforms (e.g., Wechat groups, QQ groups, etc.). The online survey started with an informed consent letter. All the respondents would be informed that their participation is voluntary, and they could drop out of the study at any point of time during the study. All the data would be
kept confidential and anonymous and be deleted after this study. After participants finished the survey, they were thanked by the researcher. The whole data collection was lasted for around two weeks.
Sample
A total of 516 participants completed the questionnaires. Of those 516 participants who completed the survey, 482 participants were Chinese, 23 participants were from
Myanmar, one participant was Dutch, one from the USA, one was Korean, one was English, seven participants did not indicate their nationality. 306 participants were females, while 170 of them were males. 40 participants preferred not to say their gender. The median age of participants was 23 years old in the age range from 18 years old to 65 years old. 89.9% of the participants were emerging adults aged between 18 years old and 30 years old. 271
participants reached bachelor education level. 113 participants were master’s degrees or above, while 25.6% of the respondents had lower education levels at high school or technical secondary school (68), diploma (54), and middle school and below (10).
Questionnaire development
Since "Group of praise" is limited in China. Given this situation, a Chinese
questionnaire was used. The pilot tests, as well as an independent back- translation, indicated the translations were accurate.
Measures
“Group of praise” use. "Group of Praise" use was regarded as the categorical
independent variable, and was measured into two leading indicators: non-use (people who did not use "Group of Praise") and "Group of Praise" usage (people who used "Group of Praise",
no matter they ever paid or not). In this study, 278 participants did not ever use "Group of Praise", 238 participants were "Group of Praise" users.
Type of “Group of praise” usage. Formulated by "Group of Praise" use, the "Group
of Praise" usage could be measured into two sub-indicators: paid-use (people whoever paid for the "Group of Praise” service) and free-use (people those who used free “Group of Praise”). Among those who used “Group of Praise”, 145 participants have ever paid for the "Group of Praise" service, while 93 of them used free "Group of Praise".
Psychological distress. Psychological distress as a continuous dependent variable
was measured by the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) because of its wide adoption by academia and medical professions (Andrews & Slade, 2001). The example of items was "During the last 30 days, about how often did you feel tired out for no good reason?", "During the last 30 days, about how often did you feel nervous?" and "During the last 30 days, about how often did you feel hopeless?". The answer was a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (None of the time) to 5 (All of the time). The score of each item was added up and served as the final indicator (M = 26.06, SD = 8.16). The higher the score, the greater the distress. The principal axis factoring analysis revealed that the items load on one factor (eigenvalue = 6.12, explained variances = 61.18%, Cronbach’s alpha = .93).
Loneliness. As the dependent variable of this study, the researcher used a short 3-item
scale for measuring participants’ subjective feelings of loneliness (Hughes, Waite, Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2004). It was a continuous variable and was measured on a three answer scale: 1 (Hardly ever); 2 (Some of the time); 3 (Often). The items were "How often do you feel that you lack companionship"; "How often do you feel left out"; "How often do you feel isolated
from others". The score of each item was summed, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness (M = 5.39, SD = 1.54). The principal axis factoring analysis revealed that the items load on one factor (eigenvalue = 1.79, explained variances = 59.73%, Cronbach’s alpha = .66).
Perceived social support. Perceived social support as a mediator was measured
through a 12-item scale developing by Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley (1988), which estimated three subscales of perceived social support from significant other, family and friends dimension. The items included "There is a special person who is around when I am in need"; "My friends really try to help me"; " I can talk about my problems with my family" and so forth. The answer scale was a 7-Likert scale from 1 (Very Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Very Strongly Agree). The principal axis factoring analysis revealed that the load of the items on two factors, with the eigenvalue of the first factor, was 6.36, which explained 53.03% of perceived social support. The second eigenvalue value of the second factor was 1.49, which explained 12.42% variances of perceived social support. All the items in the second factor indicated the family dimension of perceived social support. The two factors together explained 65.46% variance of perceived social support. Consistent with the way previous authors used the scale, the average score of 12 items served as an indicator of the level of perceived social support (M = 5.15, SD = .99). Cronbach’s alpha = .92.
Results
PROCESS macro model 4 (Hayes, 2012) was used to probe the effects of using "Groups of praise" on people’s psychological distress and the mediation effects of individual’s perceived social support between "Group of Praise" use and people’s
psychological distress. The regression model predicting people’s psychological distress was statistically significant, F (2, 513) = 9.16, p = .000. The model thus very likely helped to predict people’s psychological distress in the population. The model predicts about 3% of the variance in people’s psychological distress (R² = .03). People who used "Group of Praise", no matter they used free "Groups of praise" or paid "Groups of praise", were on average did not have lower psychological distress than non-users, all else equal. This mean difference was 1.32, which was marginally significant, se = .71, t = 1.86, p = .064, 95% CI [–.08, 2.72]. Perceived social support was a negative predictor of people’s psychological distress, b = -1.42. With the other predictors controlled, a one-unit increase in perceived social support with a 1.42-point decrease in people’s psychological distress. This effect was statistically significant, se = .36, t = -3.97, p = .000, 95% CI [-2,12, -.72]. However, using "Groups of praise" did not significantly predict perceived social support, b = .13. All else equal, this mean difference was .13, which was not significant, se = .09, t = 1.47, p = .142, 95% CI [–.04, .30]. There was no significant indirect effect of "Groups of praise" use on people’s psychological distress via perceived social support (indirect effect = -.18, boot SE = .15, BCBCI = [-.53, .05]). Since the BCBCI value included 0, the mediation effects of perceived social support on the relationship between "Groups of praise" use and psychological distress did not support. Using "Groups of praise" did not help to reduce people’s psychological distress, and people who used "Groups of praise" did not perceive higher social support than non-users, even though perceived social support did negatively predict people’s
psychological distress.
"Groups of praise" would have lower loneliness than those who do not use "Groups of praise", and whether the effects of using "Group of Praise" on people’s loneliness via individual’s perceived social support. The regression model was statistically significant, F (2, 513) = 19.47, p = <.001. The model predicts about 7% of the variance in people’s loneliness (R² = .07). People who used "Group of Praise" were on average did not have lower loneliness than non-users, all else equal. This effect was .14. This mean difference was not significant,
se = .13, t = 1.10, p = .273, 95% CI [–.11, .40]. Perceived social support was a negative
predictor of people’s loneliness, b = -.41. A one-unit increase in perceived social support with a 0.41-point decrease in people’s loneliness. This effect was statistically significant, se = .07,
t = -6.20, p < .001, 95% CI [-.54, -.28]. There was no significant indirect effect of perceived
social support (indirect effect = -.05, boot SE = .04, BCBCI = [-.14, .01]). Since the BCBCI value included 0, perceived social support did not mediate the relationship between "Groups of praise" use and loneliness. Hence, using "Groups of praise" did not reduce people’s loneliness compared to non-users, even though perceived social support could help to decrease people’s loneliness.
Independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether the effect of "Group of Praise" on distress was different for those who used free compared to those who used paid group of praise. Levene’s test for equality of variances in the comparison between free use and paid-use group was significant, F = 12.08, p = .001. Results revealed that people who paid for "Group of praise" service (M = 27.55, SD = 9.28) had significantly higher level of psychological distress than those who use free "Group of praise" (M = 25.31, SD = 7.04), t (229.28) = 2.11, p = .036, 95% CI [.15, 4.33], d = 0.28.
To test whether the effect of different types of group of praise on loneliness was different for those who used free compared to those who used paid group of praise, independent samples t-test was used again in this study. Levene’s test for equality of
variances in the independent samples t-test in the comparison between free use and paid-use group was insignificant, F = .71, p = .399. People who paid for "Group of praise" service (M = 5.56, SD = 1.61) did not have significant difference in loneliness than those who use free "Group of praise" (M = 5.25, SD = 1.49), t (236) = 1.50, p = .136, 95% CI [-.10, .72], d = 0.19. People who paid for the "Group of Praise" service had a similar level of loneliness with those who used free "Group of Praise".
Table 1
Effects of "Group of Praise" payment behaviour on people's psychological distress and loneliness
Discussion
This study explored the effects of using "Group of praise" on people's psychological distress and loneliness. We took into consideration perceived social support as a mediator and also tested the impacts of "Group of praise" types on people’s psychological health.
Interestingly, there was no difference in people's psychological distress between
M SD df t p Cohen’s d
Psychological distress
Paid "Group of praise" 27.55 9.28 229.28 2.11 .036 0.28 Free "Group of praise" 25.31 7.04
Loneliness Paid "Group of praise" 5.56 1.61 236 1.50 .136 0.19 Free "Group of praise" 5.25 1.49
people who did not use "Group of praise" and those who used "Group of praise". This finding consisted of a previous study stating that social media use did not help psychological relief distress and even led to more severe distress (Chen & Lee, 2013). The last study showed that even though people can obtain positive input from "Group of praise", all the praising
depended on the feedback of other group members who can not give professional advice related to the memes and psychological problems of praising seekers (Chongzhi, 2019). Thus, using "Group of praise" alone may not alleviate people's psychological distress. Besides, some argued that the constantly monitor and co-produce information with peers might put additional strain on social networking platform users' cognitive, emotional, and social
resources (Shensa, Sidani, Lin, Bowman & Primack, 2016). The additional strains from using "Group of praise" might disrupt the positive feedback from peers in "Group of praise". Future research can consider this factor.
Also, contrary to the expectation, the analysis showed that there was no difference in loneliness between people who did not use "Group of praise" and "Group of praise" users. This finding is consistent with the results of the experiment stating that using a psychological intervention group did not change people’s sense of loneliness (Routasalo, Tilvis, Kautiainen & Pitkala, 2009). It might because this study did not take the frequency of using "Group of praise" into consideration. Lou, Yan, Nickerson, and Mcmorris (2012) proposed that
intensively Facebook use could regrade as a communication tool, which increased Facebook users' social networks of relatives and friends offline and reduced their loneliness. It seems that more use of the Internet has an essential place among methods used in coping with the loneliness of adult individuals (Şar, Göktürk, Tura & Kazaz, 2012). Future research can
investigate whether the frequency of using "Group of praise" can impact an individual's loneliness.
Another finding was that using "Group of praise" did not predict perceived social support, although consisting with previous studies, perceived social support negatively predicted individual’s psychological and loneliness (Sánchez-Moreno, de La Fuente Roldán, Gallardo-Peralta & Barrón López de Roda, 2015; Hombrados-Mendieta, García-Martín & Gómez-Jacinto, 2013). These results together indicated that the perceived social support did not mediate the relationship between "Group of praise" use and people's psychological distress, neither loneliness. This finding was contrary to a previous study stating that
perceived social support had a mediation effect on the relationship between perceived stress and people's well being among mothers of school-aged children with cerebral palsy (Skok, Harvey & Reddihough, 2006). However, the mediation effect of the previous study was small to moderate, which means that the adverse effects of stress still significantly impact an
individual's well being, or other factors might also contribute to the variance of people's psychological well-being. It could be that this present study did not distinguish the different levels of participation among "Group of praise" users. Previous study showed that compared to posters, online support groups users who only read the messages (lurkers) scored lower in receiving social support and receiving less useful information during the empowering processes. Also, they felt lower satisfaction with their relationship with group members (Mo & Coulson, 2010). Future research can further study whether the levels of participation impact the mediation effects of perceived social support.
mediates the stress-psychological well-being relationship (Weiss, Robinson, Fung, Tint, Chalmers & Lunsky, 2013). Individuals might perceive some sources as more supportive, while some types of support might be regarded as social strains and exacerbate stress (Lakey, Tardiff & Drew, 1994). Thus, it is crucial to test the quality of social support and explore which kinds of support is beneficial to an individual's psychological health in the future.
Besides, people whoever paid for "Group of praise" service might have a higher level of psychological distress than those who use free "Group of praise". The previous study showed that the adverse effects of stress promote people to consume alcohol as a means of escape from reality (Hill & Angel, 2005). Similarly, people who felt heavy pressure might suffer severe psychological problems, and more likely to use and pay for the "Group of praise" praising service to escape from reality and relief mental distress. However, the emotional support people received from "Group of praise" does not help users to solve practical problems (Ziyan, 2019). Since the stressors still exist and continue to affect people negatively. The short-term positive influence of paid "Group of praise" on individuals may have vanished after users back to reality. The gap between positive feedback in "Group of praise" and cruel reality may negatively impact paid users who might have higher
expectations on "Group of praise" than free users. This negative of the expectation gap might lead to a high level of psychological distress among paid users.
Surprisingly, the effect of group of praise on loneliness was not significantly different for those who use free compared to those who use paid group of praise. According to the statement of "Group of praise" business owner, "Group of praise" praise service has been
regarded as presents by their customers, and many customers try to encourage their friends by sending the "Group of praise" service to their friends. It is possible that people who paid "Group of praise" users did not experience "Group of praise" service. Thus, the role of "Group of praise" service may not play out to reduce customer's loneliness, which caused the insignificant difference in people's loneliness between people who paid for "Group of praise" service and those who did no use or free "Group of praise" users. Future research can further refine the classification criteria of paid "Group of praise" users and explore the effects of praise payment behaviour on people's loneliness.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the researcher used a convenience sampling method to collect data. Thus, the results of this study cannot represent the whole population. Also, this study simply conducted a one-wave survey to explore the impacts of using "Group of praise" on people’s psychological well-being. As a result, the researcher cannot draw a causal relationship between "Group of praise" use and an individual’s mental well-being. Longitudinal and experiment study are highly recommended in future research to better understand the impacts of "Group of praise" use. Besides, self-reported data in this study may contain bias, since people are intended to report better psychological health than real situations according to the concept of social desirability bias. Thus, the results of this study may not be affected by the bias data. Finally, this study did not explore the effects of individual differences on the relationship between "Group of praise" use and an individual’s psychological distress and loneliness. The Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM) indicated that the dispositional (e.g., gender, personality), developmental and social susceptibility, such as family and peers factors, might impact the effects of media use
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Thus, the effects of using "Group of praise" on an individual's psychological distress and loneliness differs for each individual since various propositions influence individuals. Future research should consider how to explore the impact of individual difference on the relationship between "Group of praise" use and individual’s psychological distress and loneliness.
Conclusion
To sum up, this study adds to online support group research with an exploration of the influence of "Group of praise" use. Given that using "Group of praise" might not mitigate people's psychological distress, especially for paid "Group of praise" users. Moreover, people's loneliness cannot be alleviated through using "Group of praise", regardless of whether they paid or not. Also, using "Group of praise" cannot help individuals to obtain perceived social support, even though perceived social support can help individuals to reduce psychological distress and loneliness.
The findings of this study give a reference for those who intend to lighten their psychological suffering by using "Group of praise" since "Group of praise" usage may not positively impact on their mental health. However, this study simply investigated the influence of "Group of praise" use behaviour on people's psychological well-being. The situation, in reality, is much more complicated than this study. More studies are required to thoroughly investigate the impacts of "Group of praise" use.
Author note
The author would like to thank Dr Chei for her extensive review and English language assistance on this paper. We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the graduate school of communication departments for the excellent suggestions about this study.
Reference
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 494–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00310.x
Aubrey, J., & Rill, L. (2013). Investigating Relations Between Facebook Use and Social Capital Among College Undergraduates. Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2013.801869
Bahr, H., Peplau, L., & Perlman, D. (1984). Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. Contemporary Sociology, 13(2), 203–204.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2068915
Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers In Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.004
Beutel, M., Klein, E., Brähler, E., Reiner, I., Jünger, C., Michal, M., … Tibubos, A. (2017). Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1262-x
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051001005
Brown, S., Mason, C., Lombard, J., Martinez, F., Plater-Zyberk, E., Spokane, A., … Szapocznik, J. (2009). The Relationship of Built Environment to Perceived Social
Support and Psychological Distress in Hispanic Elders: The Role of “Eyes on the Street.” Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 64B(2), 234–246.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbn011
Cadaret, M., & Bennett, S. (2019). College Students’ Reported Financial Stress and Its Relationship to Psychological Distress. Journal of College Counseling, 22(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12139
Chaplain, R. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701491858
Chen, W., & Lee, K. (2013). Sharing, Liking, Commenting, and Distressed? The Pathway Between Facebook Interaction and Psychological Distress. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 728–734.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0272
Chongzhi, L. (2019). Self-development of Network Psychological Mutual Aid among College Students: Based on the Analysis of the popular Phenomenon of "Kua-Kua Group". Youth Research, 3, 36-42.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. (1985). Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Deandrea, D. (2015). Testing the Proclaimed Affordances of Online Support Groups in a Nationally Representative Sample of Adults Seeking Mental Health Assistance.
Journal of Health Communication, 20(2), 147–156.
Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys and girls' computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis? Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(5), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.004
Ditommaso, E., & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual
Differences, 14(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90182-3
Dong, X., Beck, T., & Simon, M. (2009). Loneliness and Mistreatment of Older Chinese Women: Does Social Support Matter? Journal of Women & Aging, 21(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952840903285252
Eagle, D., Hybels, C., & Proeschold-Bell, R. (2019). Perceived social support, received social support, and depression among clergy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 36(7), 2055–2073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518776134
Eysenbach, G., Hansen, D., Neal, L., Frost, J., & Massagli, M. (2008). Social Uses of Personal Health Information Within PatientsLikeMe, an Online Patient Community: What Can Happen When Patients Have Access to One Another’s Data. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 10(3), e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1053
Forsyth, D. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed., International ed). Belmont, Calif., etc: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). Exploring the Relationships Between Different Types of Facebook Use, Perceived Online Social Support, and Adolescents’ Depressed Mood.
Social Science Computer Review, 34(2), 153–171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314567449
Gaines, L., Duvall, J., Webster, J., & Smith, R. (2005). Feeling good after praise for a successful performance: The importance of social comparison information. Self and
Identity, 4(4), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860500280223
Gross, E., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S. (2002). Internet Use and Well‐Being in Adolescence.
Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00249
Hashimoto, K., Kurita, H., Haratani, T., Fujii, K., & Ishibashi, T. (1999). Direct and
buffering effects of social support on depressive symptoms of the elderly with home help. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 53(1), 95–100.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1819.1999.00478.x
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf
Hill, T., & Angel, R. (2005). Neighborhood disorder, psychological distress, and heavy drinking. Social Science & Medicine, 61(5), 965–975.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.027
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Hombrados-Mendieta, I., García-Martín, M., & Gómez-Jacinto, L. (2013). The Relationship Between Social Support, Loneliness, and Subjective Well-Being in a Spanish Sample from a Multidimensional Perspective. Social Indicators Research, 114(3), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0187-5
Hughes, M., Waite, L., Hawkley, L., & Cacioppo, J. (2004). A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Research
on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574
Hwang, K., Ottenbacher, A., Green, A., Cannon-Diehl, M., Richardson, O., Bernstam, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Social support in an Internet weight loss community.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.10.003
Jackson, P. (1992). Specifying the Buffering Hypothesis: Support, Strain, and
Depression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 363-378. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2786953
Jones, W. H., Cavert, C. W., Snider, R. L., & Bruce, T. (1985). Relational stress: An analysis of situations and events associated with loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach, 221–242.
Kalichman, S. C., Benotsch, E. G., Weinhardt, L., Austin, J., Luke, W., & Cherry, C. (2003). Health-related Internet use, coping, social support, and health indicators in people living with HIV/AIDS: Preliminary results from a community survey. Health
Psychology, 22(1), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.111
Kathleen M Griffiths, Andrew J Mackinnon, Dimity A Crisp, Helen Christensen, Kylie Bennett, & Louise Farrer. (2012). The effectiveness of an online support group for members of the community with depression: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE,
Kuyper, L., & Fokkema, T. (2010). Loneliness among older lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: the role of minority stress. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1171–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9513-7
Lakey, B., Tardiff, T.A., & Drew, J.B. (1994). Negative social interactions: Assessment and relations to social support, cognition, and psychological distress. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 13(1), 42-62.
Lawlor, A., & Kirakowski, J. (2014). Online support groups for mental health: A space for challenging self-stigma or a means of social avoidance? Computers in Human
Behavior, 32, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.015
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169.
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010304
Lee, K., Noh, M., & Koo, D. (2013). Lonely People Are No Longer Lonely on Social Networking Sites: The Mediating Role of Self-Disclosure and Social Support.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 413–418.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0553
Lieberman, M., Golant, M., Giese‐Davis, J., Winzlenberg, A., Benjamin, H., Humphreys, K., … Spiegel, D. (2003). Electronic support groups for breast carcinoma. Cancer, 97(4), 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11145
Lingyun, Z. (2019). Analysis of Audience in WeChat "Group of praise" from the Perspective of Communication Psychology. Youth Journalist, 14, 24-25.
Lintvedt, O., Griffiths, K., Sørensen, K., Østvik, A., Wang, C., Eisemann, M., & Waterloo, K. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of unguided internet‐based
self‐help intervention for the prevention of depression: a randomized controlled trial.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20(1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.770
Lou, L., Yan, Z., Nickerson, A., & Mcmorris, R. (2012). An Examination of the Reciprocal Relationship of Loneliness and Facebook Use among First-Year College Students.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.e
Lustman, P., Sowa, C., & O’Hara, D. (1984). Factors influencing college student health: Development of the Psychological Distress Inventory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.1.28
Masi, C., Chen, H., Hawkley, L., & Cacioppo, J. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 219–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377394
Mason, J. (1975). A Historical View of the Stress Field. Journal of Human Stress, 1(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1975.9940399
Massé, R., Poulin, C., Dassa, C., Lambert, J., Bélair, S., & Battaglini, A. (1998). The Structure of Mental Health: Higher-Order Confirmatory Factor Analyses of
Psychological Distress and Well-Being Measures. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), 475–504. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006992032387
Mental Health Blue Book Editorial Board, (2019). Report on national mental health
Mo, P., & Coulson, N. (2010). Empowering processes in online support groups among people living with HIV/AIDS: A comparative analysis of “lurkers” and “posters.” Computers
in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.028
Morris, B., Chambers, S., Campbell, M., Dwyer, M., & Dunn, J. (2012). Motorcycles and breast cancer: The influence of peer support and challenge on distress and
posttraumatic growth. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(8), 1849–1858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1287-5
Nabi, R., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook Friends with (Health) Benefits? Exploring Social Network Site Use and Perceptions of Social Support, Stress, and Well-Being.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
Nambisan, P. (2011). Information seeking and social support in online health communities: impact on patients’ perceived empathy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association, 18(3), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000058
Norris, P. (2002). The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities. The Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X0200700301
Obst, P., & Stafurik, J. (2010). Online we are all able bodied: Online psychological sense of community and social support found through membership of disability‐specific websites promotes well‐being for people living with a physical disability. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(6), 525–531.
Park, N., Kee, K., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being Immersed in Social Networking Environment: Facebook Groups, Uses and Gratifications, and Social Outcomes.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0003
Quittner, A. L., Glueckauf, R. L., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Chronic parenting stress: Moderating versus mediating effects of social support. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59(6), 1266–1278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1266
Routasalo, P., Tilvis, R., Kautiainen, H., & Pitkala, K. (2009). Effects of psychosocial group rehabilitation on social functioning, loneliness and well‐being of lonely, older people: randomized controlled trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04837.x
Russell, D., Cutrona, C., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(6), 1313–1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313
Sánchez-Moreno, E., de La Fuente Roldán, I., Gallardo-Peralta, L., & Barrón López de Roda, A. (2015). Burnout, Informal Social Support and Psychological Distress among Social Workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45(8), 2368–2386.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu084
Şar, A., Göktürk, G., Tura, G., & Kazaz, N. (2012). Is the Internet Use an Effective Method to Cope With Elderly Loneliness and Decrease Loneliness Symptom? Procedia
-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 1053–1059.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.597
Perceived Emotional Support Among US Young Adults. Journal of Community
Health, 41(3), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-0128-8
Skok, A., Harvey, D., & Reddihough, D. (2006). Perceived stress, perceived social support, and wellbeing among mothers of school-aged children with cerebral palsy. Journal of
Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31(1), 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250600561929
Stallman, H., Ohan, J., & Chiera, B. (2019). Reducing distress in university students: A randomised control trial of two online interventions. Australian Psychologist, 54(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12375
Stewart, M., Craig, D., Macpherson, K., & Alexander, S. (2001). Promoting Positive Affect and Diminishing Loneliness of Widowed Seniors Through a Support Intervention. Public Health Nursing, 18(1), 54–63.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446.2001.00054.x
Szkody, E., & McKinney, C. (n.d.). Stress-Buffering Effects of Social Support on Depressive Problems: Perceived vs. Received Support and Moderation by Parental Depression.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2209–2219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01437-1
Thoits, P. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: where are we? What next?
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Spec No, 53–79.
Tshabalala, B., & Patel, C. (2010). The role of praise and worship activities in spiritual well-being: perceptions of a Pentecostal Youth Ministry group. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 15(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13644361003603074
Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2013). The Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model.
Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024
Vogel, D., & Wei, M. (2005). Adult Attachment and Help-Seeking Intent: The Mediating Roles of Psychological Distress and Perceived Social Support. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.347
Watson, R., Gardiner, E., Hogston, R., Gibson, H., Stimpson, A., Wrate, R., & Deary, I. (2009). A longitudinal study of stress and psychological distress in nurses and nursing students. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(2), 270–278.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02555.x
Weiss, J., Robinson, S., Fung, S., Tint, A., Chalmers, P., & Lunsky, Y. (2013). Family hardiness, social support, and self-efficacy in mothers of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(11), 1310–1317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.07.016
White, M., & Dorman, S. (2001). Receiving social support online: implications for health education. Health Education Research, 16(6), 693–707.
https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.6.693
Yarcheski, A., Mahon, N. E., & Yarcheski, T. J. (2011). Stress, Hope, and Loneliness in Young Adolescents. Psychological Reports, 108(3), 919–922.
https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.09.PR0.108.3.919-922
Yildirim, Y., & Kocabiyik, S. (2010). The relationship between social support and loneliness in Turkish patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(5‐6), 832–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03066.x
Yilin, G. (2019). An Analysis of the Popularity of "Group of praise" in the Perspective of Network Circle Group. Journal of News Research, 4, 82-83.
Yiting, L. (2019). The promotion and reflection of the online media behind the popularity of Group of praise. Today’s Massmedia, 8, 60-62.
Zimet, G., Dahlem, N., Zimet, S., & Farley, G. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2
Ziyan, R. (2019). Interpretation of the game quality of the "Group of praise". Today’s
Massmedia, 7, 49-53.
Zizhen, W., & Ruowei, J. (2019). A Study of the "Group of praise" Phenomenon from the Perspective of Communication. Journalism Probe, 2, 28-54.
Appendix Introduction of Rainbow fart
Rainbow fart was established in 2019 where people can praise or be praised in that platform. In the introduction page of Rainbow fart in Apple store, the app developer
introduced that rainbow fart means that even the fart can be positively praised. The Rainbow fart activities are operated depending on the specific circulating currency in this software: Rainbow Coins. Users can obtain rainbow coins by commenting others’ messages or through daily sign-in.
Figure 1. The searching page of Rainbow fart app in Apple store.
The home page of the app are the user’s messages of seeking praise (see figure 2). If users press one of the messages, the page will switch to the details of seeking praise message and read, comment messages through pressing the button at the bottom. In figure 3, one users published a praise seeking message stating that he or she just lost a sports lottery ticket, and even if I win a 10 million prize, it has nothing to do with me. Someone answered this message and said: “If you won the prize, you were a person who used to own ten million RMB. If you did not win the prize, well , you attributed to Chinese sports. Congratulations! ”
Users will obtain 1 rainbow coin if they comment others messages.
Besides, if users click the button in the upper right corner, they will switch to the page where they can post praising seeking messages and add pictures for their messages (see figure 4). However, it takes users 5 rainbow coins to post one message.
If the user clicks the button in the upper left corner, they will enter the "Group of praise" page. In this page, users can praise others directly through click the praise seeking message, and all the reply messages can be seen in dialogue form (see figure 5).
Figure 2. The homepage of Rainbow fart
Figure 4. Praise seeking message post page.
Figure 5. "Group of praise" page.
In addition, Rainbow fart has a ranking of all users according to the number of rainbow coins they owned, which motivate users to actively use the software and praise others (see figure 6).
Figure 6. The rankings of Rainbow fart users.
Users can change their user profile (such as user name, profile picture) in personal settings. And other business can cooperate with Rainbow fart. For example, several game companies has posted advertisement in this app, and users can obtain 2 rainbow coins by watching the advertising videos.
