| Literature DB >> 33291458 |
Zekun Zhou1, Duo Yin2, Quan Gao3.
Abstract
Watching videos/livestreams concerning pets is becoming an increasingly popular phenomenon among youth in China, thus the social dynamics and psychological impacts of this pet-centred online activities worth in-depth exploration. This study investigates the sensual experiences of the audiences who have watched pet videos/livestreams and examines how these online experiences influence their subjective well-being. We develop a conceptual model that bases on the relationships between telepresence, social presence, flow experience, and subjective well-being to comprehend this mechanism. The result of 439 samples indicates that both telepresence and social presence have significant positive effects on flow experience, and social presence also has a positive impact on subjective well-being. We also examine the role of loneliness and perceived stress in moderating the effects of online pet watching on subjective well-being, showing that loneliness has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between social presence and flow experience, while perceived pressure has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between telepresence and flow experience. This study not only demonstrates the positive effect of an online pet on subjective well-being and but also uses interview data to comprehend the social processes underlying this effect. We also discuss the theoretical and practical values of this study in improving public health in the digital age.Entities:
Keywords: flow experience; loneliness; perceived stress; pet videos/livestreams; social presence; subjective well-being; telepresence
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33291458 PMCID: PMC7730746 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17239093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Examples of pet video and pet live streaming.
Figure 2Model of the proposed hypotheses.
Interview information on the participants.
| Interview | Gender | Age | Occupation | Pet Watching Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | male | 30 | teacher | 2 years |
| 2 | female | 25 | nurse | 3 years |
| 3 | female | 26 | civil servant | 6 months |
| 4 | female | 20 | student | 1 year |
| 5 | male | 23 | worker | 1.5 year |
| 6 | male | 32 | manager | 2 year |
| 7 | female | 33 | accountant | 8 months |
| 8 | male | 27 | engineer | 1.5 year |
| 9 | female | 19 | student | 3 months |
| 10 | female | 21 | student | 5 months |
| 11 | male | 28 | student | 2 years |
| 12 | female | 35 | civil servant | 1 year |
Sample profile (N = 439).
| Variable |
| % | Variable |
| % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Monthly income yuan | ||||
| Male | 112 | 25.5 | ≤3000 | 224 | 57.8 |
| Female | 327 | 74.5 | 3001–5000 | 61 | 13.9 |
| Age | 5001–10000 | 84 | 19.2 | ||
| Under 20 | 20 | 4.6 | >10,000 | 40 | 9.1 |
| 21–30 | 366 | 83.4 | Had pets before | ||
| 31–40 | 38 | 8.7 | Yes | 286 | 65.1 |
| 41–50 | 11 | 2.5 | No | 153 | 34.9 |
| 51–60 | 4 | 0.9 | Keeping pets now | ||
| Education | Yes | 121 | 27.6 | ||
| High school or less | 29 | 6.6 | No | 318 | 72.4 |
| Associate’s degree | 64 | 14.6 | Watch time per day | ||
| Bachelor’s degree | 253 | 57.6 | 10 min or less | 242 | 55.1 |
| Master’s degree or above | 93 | 21.2 | 11–20 min | 112 | 25.5 |
| 20–30 min | 66 | 15.1 | |||
| 30–60 min | 16 | 3.6 | |||
| 60 min above | 3 | 0.7 |
Reliability and convergent validity of the questionnaire.
| Constructs and Scale Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.851 | 0.849 | 0.585 | |
| TF1 I forget about my immediate surroundings when I am watching the pet videos/livestreams | 0.734 | |||
| TP2 Browsing the pet videos/livestreams often makes me forget where I am. | 0.845 | |||
| TP3 After browsing the pet videos/livestreams, I feel like I come back to the “real world” after a journey. | 0.756 | |||
| TP4 Watching pet videos/livestreams creates a new world for me, and this world suddenly disappears when I stop using it. | 0.717 | |||
|
| 0.885 | 0.870 | 0.625 | |
| SP1 There is a sense of human contact during watching pet videos/livestreams. | 0.779 | |||
| SP2 There is a sense of human warmth during watching pet videos/livestreams. | 0.791 | |||
| SP3 When watching pet videos/livestreams, the interaction with the other audience is close | 0.813 | |||
| SP4 When watching pet videos/livestreams, the interaction with the other audience is emotional | 0.779 | |||
|
| 0.871 | 0.864 | 0.614 | |
| FE1 While watching pet videos/livestreams, my attention was focused on the activity | 0.818 | |||
| FE2 While watching pet videos/livestreams, I concentrated fully on the activity and forgot other things | 0.746 | |||
| FE3 While watching pet videos/livestreamss I feel time flies | 0.790 | |||
| FE4 While watching pet videos/livestreams I feel excited | 0.777 | |||
|
| 0.925 | 0.930 | 0.728 | |
| SW1 After watching pet videos/livestreams I felt that I lead a meaningful and fulfilling life | 0.861 | |||
| SW2 Overall, watching pet videos/livestreams was memorable having enriched my quality of life. | 0.854 | |||
| SW3 I felt good about my life shortly after watching pet videos/livestreams | 0.853 | |||
| SW4 Overall, I felt happy upon my return from watching pet videos/livestreams. | 0.835 | |||
| SW5 My satisfaction with life in general was increased shortly after watching pet videos/livestreams. | 0.862 | |||
|
| 0.886 | 0.898 | 0.751 | |
| LO1 In general, I feel like I lack companionship. | 0.659 | |||
| LO2 In general, I feel like I am often left out of social situations. | 0.996 | |||
| LO3 In general, I feel isolated from others. | 0.910 |
Goodness-of-fit indexes.
| Model-Fit Index. | Absolute Index | Comparative Index | Parsimony Index | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | GFI | RMR | AGFI | RMSEA | IFI | TLI | CFI | PGFI | PNFI | PCFI | |
| Threshold value | <5 | >0.90 | <0.05 | >0.90 | <0.08 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.50 | >0.50 | >0.50 |
| Structural model | 2.730 | 0.930 | 0.034 | 0.897 | 0.063 | 0.968 | 0.957 | 0.967 | 0.632 | 0.726 | 0.740 |
Note. CMIN/DF: chi-square/degree of freedom; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; RMR: root mean square residual; AGFI: adjusted goodness-of -fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; IFI: incremental fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; CFI: comparative fit index; PGFI: parsimony goodness-of-fit index; PNFI: parsimony normed fit index; PCFI: parsimony comparative fit index.
Figure 3Results of structural model testing. *** Significance at the 0.001 level; * significance at the 0.05 level.
Loneliness, social presence and flow experience structure.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| gender | 0.078 | 0.062 | 0.069 | 0.070 |
| age | 0.010 | −0.002 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| education | 0.104 * | 0.113 ** | 0.124 *** | 0.129 *** |
| watch time | 0.311 *** | 0.159 *** | 0.153 *** | 0.154 *** |
|
| ||||
| social presence | 0.647 *** | 0.623 *** | 0.641 *** | |
|
| ||||
| loneliness | 0.097 ** | 0.078 * | ||
|
| ||||
| social presence*loneliness | 0.077 * | |||
| R2 | 0.114 | 0.510 | 0.518 | 0.524 |
| ΔR2 | 0.114 | 0.396 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| F | 13.993 *** | 90.075 *** | 77.466 *** | 67.667 *** |
Dependent variable: flow experience * Significant at p < 0.05. ** Significant at p < 0.01. *** Significant at p < 0.001.
Perceived stress, telepresence and flow experience structure.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| gender | 0.078 | 0.066 | 0.073 | 0.066 |
| age | 0.010 | 0.036 | 0.030 | 0.028 |
| education | 0.104 * | 0.086 * | 0.085 * | 0.073 * |
| watch time | 0.311 *** | 0.189 *** | 0.187 *** | 0.187 *** |
|
| ||||
| telepresence | 0.606 *** | 0.549 *** | 0.554 *** | |
|
| ||||
| perceived stress | 0.160 *** | 0.174 *** | ||
|
| ||||
| telepresence*perceived stress | −0.076 * | |||
| R2 | 0.114 | 0.466 | 0.488 | 0.493 |
| ΔR2 | 0.114 | 0.351 | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| F | 13.993 *** | 75.478 *** | 68.655 *** | 59.950 *** |
Dependent variable: flow experience * Significant at p < 0.05; *** Significant at p < 0.001.
Figure 4Interaction effects of loneliness and social presence on flow experience.
Figure 5Interaction effects of perceived stress and telepresence on flow experience.
Summary of hypotheses testing results.
| Hypotheses | SRW | Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Telepresence | → | Subjective well-being | 0.03 | Rejected |
| H2 | Social presence | → | Subjective well-being | 0.20 * | Accepted |
| H3 | Telepresence | → | Flow experience | 0.32 *** | Accepted |
| H4 | Social presence | → | Flow experience | 0.60 *** | Accepted |
| H5 | Flow experience | → | Subjective well-being | 0.65 *** | Accepted |
| H6 | Loneliness moderates the relationship between social presence and flow experience | 0.077 * | Accepted | ||
| H7 | Perceived stress moderates the relationship between telepresence and flow experience | −0.076 * | Accepted | ||
Note. *** Significance at the 0.001 level; * significance at the 0.05 level.