Willing and unwilling digital cyborg assemblages: University students talk about mental health apps.

Objective: Explore how students talk about mental health mobile applications (i.e., apps). Methods: Data collected in focus group interviews with 51 students (all self-identifying as having mental health problems) and analysed using inductive thematic content analysis. Results: Participants describe mental health apps as an anti-dote to the loss of control, vulnerability, helplessness, impotence, isolation, conspicuousness, and shame which characterise their experience of mental illness. They describe the on-campus clinic as inaccessible and associated with "serious" problems, while configuring psychologists and psychotherapy as out of reach, scarce, formal, structured and anxiety provoking. In contrast, they imagine mental health apps as informal, relaxed, inviting, and accessible. Participants expressed openness and optimism about using apps to improve their mental health. They idealise technology as a means to connect effortlessly, anonymously, and informally, as well as learn skills, assert agency, and act responsibly. They also articulate reluctance to trust technology, show cognisance of participating in a capitalist economy, demonstrate scepticism about the legitimacy of mental health apps, and call for regulation, thereby resisting the position of responsible neoliberal subjects. Conclusion: Participants express ambivalence towards mental health apps without surrendering to either technophobia or technophilia. They express faith in technologies' potential to support mental health while questioning the implicit assumption that people are competent to manage their own mental health. In talking about mental health apps students reproduce broader cultural discourses (including techno-optimism, techno-solutionism, somatopiamism, neo-liberalism, responsibilisationism, technoscepticism, and discourses about neuroplasticity and self-help) thus presenting themselves as both willing and unwilling digital cyborgs.