Building Online Platforms for Peer Support Groups as a Persuasive Behavior Change Technique

  • Amen Alrobai
  • Huseyin Dogan
  • Keith Phalp
  • Raian Ali
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10809)


Online peer group approach is inherently a persuasive technique as it is centered on peer pressure and surveillance. They are persuasive social networks equipped with tools and facilities that enable behaviour change. This paper presents the case for domain-specific persuasive social networks and provides insights on problematic and addictive behaviour change. A 4-month study was conducted in an addiction rehab centre in the UK, followed by 2-month study in an online peer group system. The study adopted qualitative methods to understand the broad parameters of peer groups including the sessions’ environment, norms, interaction styles occurring between groups’ members and how such interactions are governed. The qualitative techniques used were (1) observations, (2) form and document analysis, and (3) semi-structured interviews. The findings concern governing such groups in addition to the roles to be enabled and tasks to be performed. The Honeycomb framework was revisited to comment on its building blocks with the purpose of highlighting points to consider when building domain-specific social networks for such domain, i.e. online peer groups to combat addictive behaviour.


Online peer groups Behaviour change Addictive behaviour 



This work was partly sponsored by the EROGamb project, funded jointly by GambleAware and Bournemouth University. We also thank StreetScene Addiction Recovery and the Gambling Therapy for their support.


  1. 1.
    Marwick, A.E.: The public domain: social surveillance in everyday life. Surveill. Soc. 9, 378–393 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (Interactive Technologies) (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leth Jespersen, J., Albrechtslund, A., Øhrstrøm, P., Hasle, P., Albretsen, J.: Surveillance, persuasion, and panopticon. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., Silvestre, B.S.: Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus. Horiz. 54, 241–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cetina, K.K.: Sociality with objects: social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory Cult. Soc. 14, 1–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pereira, R., Baranauskas, M.: Social software building blocks: revisiting the honeycomb framework. In: 2010 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society). IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baranauskas, M.: Socially aware computing. Presented at the Proceedings of VI International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alrobai, A., McAlaney, J., Phalp, K., Ali, R.: Online peer groups as a persuasive tool to combat digital addiction. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 288–300. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webb, T.L., Sniehotta, F.F., Michie, S.: Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours. Addiction 105, 1879–1892 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bandura, A.: Social Foundation of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F.: Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol. Bull. 92, 111–135 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prochaska, J.O.: Transtheoretical model of behavior change. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine, pp. 1997–2000. Springer, New York, New York, NY (2013). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strecher, V.J., Seijts, G.H., Kok, G.J., Latham, G.P., Glasgow, R., DeVellis, B., Meertens, R.M., Bulger, D.W.: Goal setting as a strategy for health behavior change. Health Educ. Behav. 22, 190–200 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janz, N.K., Becker, M.H.: The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ. Q. 11, 1–47 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davidson, L., Chinman, M., Kloos, B., Weingarten, R., Stayner, D., Tebes, J.K.: Peer support among individuals with severe mental illness: a review of the evidence. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 6, 165–187 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Deen, H., Hendricks, J.A.: Social Media: Usage and Impact (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alrobai, A., McAlaney, J., Phalp, K., Ali, R.: Exploring the risk factors of interactive e-health interventions for digital addiction. Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. 8, 1–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lupton, D.: Discourse analysis: a new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Aust. J. Public Health 16, 145–150 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alrobai, A.: Engineering Social Networking to Combat Digital Addiction: The Case of Online Peer Groups (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorski, T.: Passages Through Recovery. Hazelden Publishing, Center City (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gorski, T.: Recovery From Addiction: Gorski’s Operational Definition.
  23. 23.
    Marlatt, G.A., Gordon, J.R.: Determinants of relapse: implications for the maintenance of behavior change (1978)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gorski, T.: The GORSKI-CENAPS Clinical Model.
  25. 25.
    Gorski, T.T.: Relapse prevention planning: a new recovery tool. In: Alcohol Health and Research World-National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1986)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tuckman, B.W., Jensen, M.A.C.: Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organ. Manag. 2, 419–427 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bates, F.L.: Position, role, and status: a reformulation of concepts. Soc. Forces 34, 313–321 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Callero, P.L.: From role-playing to role-using: understanding role as resource. Soc. Psychol. Q. 57, 228–243 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hare, A.P.: Types of roles in small groups: a bit of history and a current perspective. Small Group Res. 25, 433–448 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joinson, A.N.: Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 177–192 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crawford, K., Gillespie, T.: What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media Soc. 18, 410–428 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amen Alrobai
    • 1
  • Huseyin Dogan
    • 1
  • Keith Phalp
    • 1
  • Raian Ali
    • 1
  1. 1.Bournemouth UniversityPooleUK

Personalised recommendations