| Literature DB >> 35621455 |
Robert Jeyakumar Nathan1, Vijay Victor2,3, Tan Pei Kian1.
Abstract
Gym-goers often socially compare themselves with their trainers as they strive to look as attractive as their fitness trainers. The aim of this study was to better understand this phenomenon in the fitness industry. Relying on social comparison theory and social identity theory, self-identification with a physically attractive fitness trainer was posited to have a strong mediating effect on the relationship between appearance motive, weight management motive and gym-goers' intention to exercise. The moderation effects of gym-goers' age and gender in the direct relationships between appearance motive, weight management motive and exercise intention were also examined. The primary outcome of this study revealed that gym-goers who were influenced by appearance and weight management motives are more likely to identify with physically attractive fitness trainers. Additionally, gender significantly moderates the relationships between appearance motive, weight management motive and exercise intention. Appearance and weight management motives are the primary factors that influence the exercise intention of female gym-goers as compared to their male counterparts. This study sheds new insights into understanding the influence of the physical attractiveness of fitness trainers and its impact on gym-goers' exercise intentions via self and social identification process.Entities:
Keywords: fitness industry; self-identification process; sports marketing; sports psychology; wellbeing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35621455 PMCID: PMC9137648 DOI: 10.3390/bs12050158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) ISSN: 2076-328X
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
Scale items and their sources.
| Variable | Scale Items (Keywords) | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| AM (AM1, AM2, AM3, AM, AM5) | To improve appearance and obtain good, attractive, younger and toned look | Adapted from [ |
| WM (WM1, WM2, WM3, WM4, WM5) | To look slim, lose weight, control weight, burn excessive calories and maintain weight | Adapted from [ |
| IPA (IPA1, IPA2, IPA3, IPA4, IPA5, IPA6) | Role model, great exemplar, trainer represents important values and goals, strive to look similar to trainer, have an ideal physique comparable to trainer’s body and feel similar to trainer | Adapted from [ |
| EI (EI 1, EI2, EI3, EI4, EI5) | Inquire, obtain trainer’s contact number (self-developed), receive a trial session (self-developed), consider signing up, would sign up | Adapted from [ |
Abbreviations: AM, appearance motive; WM, weight management motive; IPA, gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer; EI, gym-goers’ exercise intention.
Calculation procedure for selection of gyms.
| District | Actual Number | Number Selected |
|---|---|---|
| Melaka Tengah | 30 gyms | 30/39 × 10 = 7 gyms |
| Alor Gajah | 6 gyms | 6/39 × 10 = 2 gyms |
| Jasin | 3 gyms | 3/39 × 10 = 1 gym |
| Total | 39 gyms | 10 gyms |
Respondents’ demographic information.
| Demographics | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age Group | 18–40 years old | 152 | 79.2% |
| 41–64 years old | 40 | 20.8% | |
| Gender | Female | 97 | 50.5% |
| Male | 95 | 49.5% |
Factor loadings.
| Variable/Construct | Indicator | Factor Loading |
|---|---|---|
| Gym-goers’ exercise intention | EI1 | 0.800 |
| EI2 | 0.835 | |
| EI3 | 0.846 | |
| EI4 | 0.912 | |
| EI5 | 0.847 | |
| Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer | IPA1 | 0.796 |
| IPA2 | 0.713 | |
| IPA3 | 0.809 | |
| IPA4 | 0.882 | |
| IPA5 | 0.814 | |
| IPA6 | 0.845 | |
| Appearance motive | AM1 | 0.789 |
| AM2 | 0.694 | |
| AM3 | 0.748 | |
| AM4 | 0.862 | |
| AM5 | 0.525 | |
| Weight management motive | WM1 | 0.783 |
| WM2 | 0.658 | |
| WM3 | 0.779 | |
| WM4 | 0.697 | |
| WM5 | 0.708 |
Construct reliability and validity.
| Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM | 0.840 | 0.886 | 0.610 |
| WM | 0.923 | 0.942 | 0.764 |
| IPA | 0.858 | 0.895 | 0.589 |
| EI | 0.903 | 0.929 | 0.723 |
Fornell–Larcker criterion.
| ID | Construct | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AM | 0.732 | |||
| 2 | EI | 0.299 | 0.849 | ||
| 3 | IPA | 0.441 | 0.687 | 0.811 | |
| 4 | WM | 0.470 | 0.281 | 0.373 | 0.730 |
Heterotrait–Monorait ratio (HTMT).
| ID | Construct | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AM | ||||
| 2 | EI | 0.355 | |||
| 3 | IPA | 0.520 | 0.758 | 0.163 | |
| 4 | WM | 0.600 | 0.322 | 0.245 | 0.443 |
Note: The values in parentheses denote the lower and upper boundaries for the 95% confidence interval.
Result of hypotheses testing.
| Hypothesis | Relationship (Hypothesis Statement) | Path Coeff | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer mediates the relationship between appearance motive and exercise intention | Supported | ||
| H1a | Appearance motive → Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer | 0.342 | <0.001 ** | Supported |
| H1b | Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer → Exercise intention | 0.450 | <0.001 ** | Supported |
| H2 | Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive fitness trainer mediates the relationship between weight management motive and exercise intention | Supported | ||
| H2a | Weight management motive → Identification with physically attractive fitness trainer | 0.212 | 0.002 ** | Supported |
| H3 | Appearance motive → Exercise intention | 0.020 | 0.402 | Not supported |
| H3a | Moderating effect 2 (appearance motive, gender) → Exercise intention | 0.139 | 0.027 * | Supported |
| H3b | Moderating effect 1 (appearance motive, age) → Exercise intention | −0.009 | 0.449 | Not supported |
| H4 | Weight management motive → Exercise intention | −0.066 | 0.151 | Not supported |
| H4a | Moderating effect 4 (weight management motive, gender) → Exercise intention | −0.120 | 0.036 * | Supported |
| H4b | Moderating effect 3 (weight management motive, age) → Exercise intention | −0.064 | 0.199 | Not supported |
Note: ** Significant at 1%; * significant at 5%.
Total indirect effects.
| Relationship | Path Coefficient | T Statistics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM → EI | 0.154 | 3.478 | <0.001 * |
| WM → EI | 0.095 | 2.385 | 0.009 * |
Note: * Significant at 1%.
Specific indirect effects.
| Relationship | Path Coefficient | T Statistics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM → IPA → EI | 0.154 | 3.478 | <0.001 * |
| WM → IPA → EI | 0.095 | 2.385 | 0.009 * |
Note: * Significant at 1%.
Multigroup analysis for gender.
| Relationship | Path Coefficients—Diff (|Females–Males|) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AM → EI | 0.350 | 2.150 | 0.016 * |
| AM → IPA | 0.023 | 0.172 | 0.432 |
| WM → EI | 0.250 | 1.958 | 0.026 * |
| WM → IPA | 0.093 | 0.639 | 0.262 |
Note: * significant at 5%.
Multigroup analysis for age groups.
| Relationship | Path Coefficients—Diff (18–40 v. 41–64) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AM → EI | 0.123 | 0.592 | 0.277 |
| AM →IPA | 0.118 | 0.725 | 0.235 |
| WM → EI | 0.310 | 1.817 | 0.035 ** |
| WM → IPA | 0.267 | 1.561 | 0.060 * |
Note: ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%.
Path coefficients comparison between gender groups.
| Relationship | Path Coefficient Original (Females) | Path Coefficient Original (Males) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM → EI | 0.244 | −0.106 | 0.016 * | 0.178 |
| AM → IPA | 0.310 | 0.333 | 0.002 ** | <0.001 ** |
| WM → EI | 0.052 | −0.198 | 0.017 * | 0.275 |
| WM → IPA | 0.291 | 0.198 | 0.004 ** | 0.019 * |
Note: ** Significant at 1%; * significant at 5%.
Predictive relevance.
| Endogenous Construct | Q² |
|---|---|
| Gym-goers’ exercise intention | 0.363 |
| Gym-goers’ identification with physically attractive trainer | 0.139 |
Goodness of Fit (GoF) Index.
| Construct | AVE | R2 |
|---|---|---|
| Gym-goer’s identification with physically attractive trainer | 0.658 | 0.230 |
| Gym-goer’s exercise intention | 0.720 | 0.555 |
| Averaged AVE/R2 | 0.8445 | 0.3925 |
| GoF = 0.8445 × 0.3925 | 0.3315 | |