Susceptibility to Fitness App's Persuasive Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of physical inactivity, obesity and non-communicable diseases is on the rise globally due to the sedentary lifestyles occasioned by modernity and technology. As a means of tackling the inactivity problem, which is almost becoming a global epidemic, research has shown that persuasive technology holds bright prospects. However, in the physical activity domain, there is limited research on users' persuasion profiles and the differences between users who are currently exercising (acting users) and those who have the intentions to exercise in the future (non-acting users). To bridge this gap, we conducted a study among 190 participants resident in two individualist countries to determine the susceptibility profile of both user types and their differences. We based our study on storyboards, illustrating six commonly employed persuasive features in fitness apps. The results of our analysis showed that both user types are most likely to be susceptible to Goal-Setting/Self-Monitoring, followed by Reward and Competition, and least likely to be susceptible to Cooperation, Social Comparison and Social Learning. In particular, acting users are more likely to be susceptible to Social Learning than non-acting us-ers. Overall, our findings suggest that, irrespective of user type, personal features will be more likely effective than social features among users from individualist cultures. We discuss the implications of our findings in the context of fitness apps design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".