Considering the increasing use of diet/fitness apps, this study aimed to investigate how four factors related to body image—evaluations of and orientations toward both appearance and fitness—impact college students' perception of the usefulness of such apps. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model, this study tested a path model examining the relationships among the four body-image-oriented factors, perceived usefulness (PU) of diet/fitness apps, and behavioral intention to use such apps. Results from a path analysis revealed that while college students' evaluation of appearance and fitness decreased the PU of diet/fitness apps, their orientation toward fitness increased the same outcome variable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RainieL. (2013) Cell phone ownership hits 91% of adults. Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/06/cell-phone-ownership-hits-91-of-adults/ (accessed Jul.7, 2014).
FoxS, DugganM. (2012) Mobile health 2012. Pew Research Center. www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/mobile-health-2012/ (accessed Jul.7, 2014).
4.
BretonER, FuemmelerBF, AbromsL. Weight loss—there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices?. Tranlsational Behavioral Medicine, 2011; 1:523–529.
5.
WestJH, HallPC, ArredondoV, et al.Health behavior theories in diet apps. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 2013; 17:10–24.
6.
DavisFD, BagozziRP, WarshawPR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 1989; 35:982–1003.
7.
EgeaJMO, GonzalezMVR. Explaining physicians' acceptance of EHCR systems: an extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:319–332.
8.
VenkateshV, DavisFD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 2000; 46:186–204.
9.
YarbroughAK, SmithTB. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Medical Care Research Review, 2007; 64:650–672.
10.
ChoJ, QuinlanMM, ParkD. Determinants of adoption of smartphone health apps among college students. American Journal of Health Behavior, 2014; 38:860–870.
11.
VenkateshV, MorrisMG, DavisGB, et al.User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 2003; 27:425–478.
12.
AnJY, HaymanLL, PanniersT, et al.Theory development in nursing and healthcare informatics: a model explaining and predicting information and communication technology acceptance by healthcare consumers. Advances in Nursing, 2007; 30:E37–E49.
13.
WuJH, WangSC, LinLM. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2007; 76:66–77.
14.
KeetonWP, CashTF, BrownTA. Body image or body images? Comparative, multidimensional assessment among college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1990; 54:213–230.
15.
FishbeinM, AjzenI. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
LaRoseR. The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 2010; 20:194–222.
17.
GefenD, KarahannaE, StraubDW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 2003; 27:51–90.
18.
LeeY, KozarKA, LarsenKR. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2003; 12:752–780.
19.
WuIL, ChenJL. An extension of trust and TAM with TPB in the initial adoption of online tax: an empirical study. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 2005; 62:–784–808.
20.
BrownTA, CashTF, MikulkaPJ. Attitudinal body-image assessment: factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1990; 55:135–144.
21.
CampbellDT, FiskeDW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959; 56:81–105.
22.
HuL, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999; 6:1–55.
