Persuasive Features that Drive the Adoption of a Fitness Application and the Moderating Effect of Age and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness apps equipped with various persuasive features have become popular worldwide due to the physical inactivity crisis. However, there is a limited understanding of the most important persuasive features that drive their adoption and the moderating effect of age and gender. To bridge this gap, we designed storyboards illustrating six of the commonly employed persuasive strategies in persuasive health applications: Goal-Setting/Self-Monitoring, Reward, Social Learning, Social Comparison, Competition and Cooperation. We conducted an empirical study in which we asked the participants to evaluate their receptiveness to the six persuasive features and their intention to use a fitness app that features them. The result of our Partial Least Square Path Modeling (PLSPM) shows that, overall, Goal-Setting/Self-Monitoring is the strongest predictor of the intention to use a fitness app, followed by Reward and Competition, both of which are in second place. However, Social Learning and Social Comparison turn out to be non-predictors of intention to use. Based on these findings, we recommend that a minimally viable (one-size-fits-all) fitness app, in a personal setting, should support a Goal-Setting/Self-Monitoring feature, coupled with a Reward feature, to increase its appeal to a wide audience. Moreover, in a social setting, it should support a Competition feature to increase its appeal to a wide audience. We discuss these findings and the gender and age differences in the relationships between users’ receptiveness to the six persuasive features and their intention to use a fitness app that support them.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".