A Multi-Regional Study Comparing Perceived Risks between Face-to-Face versus Digital Mental Health Services - Associations with Differences in Preferences and Behavioral Intentions and the Moderation of Self-Construal: A Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
Background: Recent studies have investigated preferences and perceptions towards face-to-face and digital psychological interventions. Understanding the potential differences in perceived risks between face-to-face and digital services as well as associations with preferences and intentions, can be worthwhile. Objectives: We investigated differences in perceived likelihood of being found out and perceived severity of face loss between face-to-face psychological interventions and digital psychological interventions. We also tested the associations between differences in perceived risks and differences in intentions or preferences towards different types of interventions, and investigated the potential moderation of self-construal, regulatory focus, and cultural background. Methods: We conducted a multi-regional study with 645 college students in Hong Kong China, India, United Kingdom, and Canada. We performed t-tests, correlation analyses, and moderated multiple regressions, while combining with alternative statistical methods to examine robustness and consistency of findings across methods. Results: We found that people generally perceive face-to-face interventions to have higher likelihood of being found out and severity of face loss compared to digital interventions, with medium to large effects. While no significant association was found for the difference in perceived likelihood of being found out with the difference in intervention preferences and help-seeking intentions, higher perceived severity of face loss for face-to-face intervention was associated with lower preferences and intentions for face-to-face intervention relative to digital interventions. Such associations are moderated by self-construal but in the opposite direction to our hypotheses, in which people with stronger independent self-construal had stronger negative associations between difference in perceived severity of face loss and difference in preferences or intentions. Conclusions: Our findings contribute by identifying differences in perceived risks between face-to-face and digital interventions as well as association with preferences and intentions. We speculate the surprising self-construal moderation findings may be due to higher reliance on personal feelings and higher prioritization for self-consistency among more independent people, and call for further studies testing such mechanisms. We encourage further much-needed investigations into various forms of perceived risks and potential associations with face-to-face or digital mental health intervention preferences, intentions, and decisions, while examining individual and cultural factors.
Keywords: Digital Psychological Interventions, Face-to-Face Psychological Interventions, Help-Seeking, Risk Perception, Face Loss, Self-Construal
Related
- Exercise-induced hypoalgesia following HIIT: associations with cardiac interoceptive accuracy and the moderation by physical fitness
- Researchers Behavioral Intentions to Engage in Knowledge Translation Activities and Their Association with Bibliometric Indicators: A Theory of Planned Behavior-Informed Questionnaire Study
- Factors Associated With Behavioral Intentions Toward Pain Assessment and Management Among Critical Care Nurses: A Theory‐Based Instrument Validation and Model Testing Study
- Determinants of cancer screening intentions among UAE residents: an exploratory model with application of the information-motivation-behavioral skills model
- Age-related differences in behavioral and brain predictors of parkinsonism in autistic adults
BibTeX
@misc{yeung2026multiregional,
title = {{A Multi-Regional Study Comparing Perceived Risks between Face-to-Face versus Digital Mental Health Services - Associations with Differences in Preferences and Behavioral Intentions and the Moderation of Self-Construal: A Cross-Sectional Study}},
author = {Siu Kit Yeung and Winnie W. S. Mak and Ben C. L. Yu},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/vjfg9_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/vjfg9_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - A Multi-Regional Study Comparing Perceived Risks between Face-to-Face versus Digital Mental Health Services - Associations with Differences in Preferences and Behavioral Intentions and the Moderation of Self-Construal: A Cross-Sectional Study
AU - Siu Kit Yeung
AU - Winnie W. S. Mak
AU - Ben C. L. Yu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/25
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/vjfg9_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/vjfg9_v1/
AB - Background: Recent studies have investigated preferences and perceptions towards face-to-face and digital psychological interventions. Understanding the potential differences in perceived risks between face-to-face and digital services as well as associations with preferences and intentions, can be worthwhile. Objectives: We investigated differences in perceived likelihood of being found out and perceived severity of face loss between face-to-face psychological interventions and digital psychological interventions. We also tested the associations between differences in perceived risks and differences in intentions or preferences towards different types of interventions, and investigated the potential moderation of self-construal, regulatory focus, and cultural background. Methods: We conducted a multi-regional study with 645 college students in Hong Kong China, India, United Kingdom, and Canada. We performed t-tests, correlation analyses, and moderated multiple regressions, while combining with alternative statistical methods to examine robustness and consistency of findings across methods. Results: We found that people generally perceive face-to-face interventions to have higher likelihood of being found out and severity of face loss compared to digital interventions, with medium to large effects. While no significant association was found for the difference in perceived likelihood of being found out with the difference in intervention preferences and help-seeking intentions, higher perceived severity of face loss for face-to-face intervention was associated with lower preferences and intentions for face-to-face intervention relative to digital interventions. Such associations are moderated by self-construal but in the opposite direction to our hypotheses, in which people with stronger independent self-construal had stronger negative associations between difference in perceived severity of face loss and difference in preferences or intentions. Conclusions: Our findings contribute by identifying differences in perceived risks between face-to-face and digital interventions as well as association with preferences and intentions. We speculate the surprising self-construal moderation findings may be due to higher reliance on personal feelings and higher prioritization for self-consistency among more independent people, and call for further studies testing such mechanisms. We encourage further much-needed investigations into various forms of perceived risks and potential associations with face-to-face or digital mental health intervention preferences, intentions, and decisions, while examining individual and cultural factors. Keywords: Digital Psychological Interventions, Face-to-Face Psychological Interventions, Help-Seeking, Risk Perception, Face Loss, Self-Construal
ER -