Effects of body image on college students' attitudes toward diet/fitness apps on smartphones

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 41-45

  Cho, Jaehee ^a   Lee, H Erin ^b   Kim, Sun Jin ^a   Park, Dongjin ^c  

^a Chung Ang University   (South Korea)

^b Hankuk University of Foreign Studies   (South Korea)

^c Hallym University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BEHAVIOR; BODY IMAGE; DIET; FEMALE; FITNESS; HUMAN; MALE; MOBILE APPLICATION; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; BODY IMAGE; DIET; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MOBILE APPLICATIONS; PHYSICAL FITNESS; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84921046804     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0383     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Rainie L. (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).
2. Smith A. (2013) Smartphone ownership-2013 update. Pew Research Center. www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smartphone-ownership-2013/(accessed Jul. 7, 2014).
3. Fox S, Duggan M. (2012) Mobile health 2012. Pew Research Center. www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/mobile-health-2012/(accessed Jul. 7, 2014).
4. Breton ER, Fuemmeler BF, Abroms L. Weight loss-there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices? Tranlsational Behavioral Medicine 2011; 1:523-529.
5. West JH, Hall PC, Arredondo V, et al. Health behavior theories in diet apps. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 2013; 17:10-24.
6. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989; 35:982-1003.
7. Egea JMO, Gonzalez MVR. Explaining physicians' acceptance of EHCR systems: an extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:319-332.
8. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000; 46:186-204.
9. Yarbrough AK, Smith TB. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Medical Care Research Review 2007; 64:650-672.
10. Cho J, Quinlan MM, Park D. Determinants of adoption of smartphone health apps among college students. American Journal of Health Behavior 2014; 38:860-870.
11. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27:425-478.
12. An JY, Hayman LL, Panniers T, 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. Wu JH, Wang SC, Lin LM. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2007; 76:66-77.
14. Keeton WP, Cash TF, Brown TA. Body image or body images? Comparative, multidimensional assessment among college students. Journal of Personality Assessment 1990; 54:213-230.
15. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16. LaRose R. The problem of media habits. Communication Theory 2010; 20:194-222.
17. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27:51-90.
18. Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KR. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2003; 12:752-780.
19. Wu IL, Chen JL. 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. Brown TA, Cash TF, Mikulka PJ. Attitudinal body-image assessment: factor analysis of the Body-Self Relations Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment 1990; 55: 135-144.
21. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 1959; 56:81-105.
22. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999; 6:1-55.