ArticleJMIR human factors2023
Selection of and Response to Physical Activity-Based Social Comparisons in a Digital Environment: Series of Daily Assessment Studies.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Isolating the role of researcher observation on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Trial
- Social comparison target selections as health information preferences: exploring contextual influences among women in midlife with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Preferences and responses for physical activity partnerships among women in midlife with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease: a digital, mixed methods approach.Psychology & health · 2025Article
- Personalized and adaptive physical activity-based social comparison opportunities for women with health risks: Insights from a real-time test of the identification/contrast model.Journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Predictors of physical activity in daily life among women of reproductive age: a scoping review.mHealth · 2025Review
- Digital, Social Micro-Interventions to Promote Physical Activity Among Midlife Adults With Elevated Cardiovascular Risk: An Ambulatory Feasibility Study With Momentary Randomization.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024Observational
- Daily social comparisons among women in midlife with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease: A within-person test of the identification/contrast model.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInnovative approaches are needed to understand barriers to and facilitators of physical activity among insufficiently active adults. Although social comparison processes (ie, self-evaluations relative to others) are often used to motivate physical activity in digital environments, user preferences and responses to comparison information are poorly understood.
objectiveWe used an iterative approach to better understand users' selection of comparison targets, how they interacted with their selected targets, and how they responded to these targets.
methodsAcross 3 studies, different samples of insufficiently active college students used the Fitbit system (Fitbit LLC) to track their steps per day as well as a separate, adaptive web platform each day for 7 to 9 days (N=112). The adaptive platform was designed with different layouts for each study; each allowed participants to select their preferred comparison target from various sets of options, view the desired amount of information about their selected target, and rate their physical activity motivation before and after viewing information about their selected target. Targets were presented as achieving physical activity at various levels below and above their own, which were accessed via the Fitbit system each day. We examined the types of comparison target selections, time spent viewing and number of elements viewed for each type of target, and day-level associations between comparison selections and physical activity outcomes (motivation and behavior).
resultsStudy 1 (n=5) demonstrated that the new web platform could be used as intended and that participants' interactions with the platform (ie, the type of target selected, the time spent viewing the selected target's profile, and the number of profile elements viewed) varied across the days. Studies 2 (n=53) and 3 (n=54) replicated these findings; in both studies, age was positively associated with time spent viewing the selected target's profile and the number of profile elements viewed. Across all studies, upward targets (who had more steps per day than the participant) were selected more often than downward targets (who had fewer steps per day than the participant), although only a subset of either type of target selection was associated with benefits for physical activity motivation or behavior.
conclusionsCapturing physical activity-based social comparison preferences is feasible in an adaptive digital environment, and day-to-day differences in preferences for social comparison targets are associated with day-to-day changes in physical activity motivation and behavior. Findings show that participants only sometimes focus on the comparison opportunities that support their physical activity motivation or behavior, which helps explain previous, equivocal findings regarding the benefits of physical activity-based comparisons. Additional investigation of day-level determinants of comparison selections and responses is needed to fully understand how best to harness comparison processes in digital tools to promote physical activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.