The Effect of Culture and Social-Cognitive Characteristics on App Preference and Willingness to Use a Fitness App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitness apps are persuasive tools developed to motivate physical activity. Despite their popularity, there is little work on how social-cognitive characteristics such as culture, household size, physical activity level, perceived self-efficacy and social support influence users’ willingness to use them and preference (personal vs. social). Knowing these relationships can help developers tailor fitness apps to different socio-cultural groups. Hence, we conducted two studies to address the research gap. In the first study (n = 194) aimed at recruiting participants for the second study, we asked participants about their app preference (personal vs. social), physical activity level and key demographic variables. In the second study (n = 49), we asked participants about their social-cognitive beliefs about exercise and their willingness to use a fitness app (presented as a screenshot). The results of the first study showed that, in the collectivist group (Nigerians), people in large households were more likely to be active and use the social version of a fitness app than those in small households. However, in the individualist group (Canadians/Americans), neither the preference for the social or personal version of a fitness app nor the physical activity level depended on the household size. Moreover, in the second study, in the individualist model, perceived self-efficacy and perceived self-regulation have a significant total effect on willingness to use a fitness app. However, in the collectivist model, perceived social support and outcome expectation have a significant total effect on the target construct. Finally, we found that females in individualist cultures had higher overall social-cognitive beliefs about exercise than males in individualist cultures and females in collectivist cultures. The implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".