Author(s):

  • Attig, Christiane
  • Franke, Thomas

Abstract:

Wearable activity trackers hold great potential for facilitating self-regulated health behavior, thereby improving physical fitness and preventing cardiovascular diseases. Unfortunately, many users discontinue tracking after only a few months, mitigating large-scale health effects. To identify usage barriers and psychological mechanisms resulting in tracker abandonment decisions, it is essential to characterize former users regarding their abandonment reasons as well as former tracker usage patterns. Within the present research, we reviewed past literature on wearable activity tracking attrition and developed an online questionnaire for assessing abandonment reasons. Results from 159 former users revealed insights into the relative importance of abandonment reasons, former users’ usage patterns, evaluation of personal quantification, and tracker acceptance. Correlational analyses showed that intensity of tracker usage and data interaction, current physical activity, and tracker acceptance were related to specific abandonment reasons. Moreover, abandonment due to perceived data inaccuracy/uselessness and loss of tracking motivation were linked to negative attitudes towards personal quantification. Furthermore, permanent abandonment decisions were particularly related to loss of tracking motivation. Based on the results, we derived six design guidelines for supporting continued tracker usage.

Document:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219303127?via%3Dihub

References:
  1. Alinia et al., 2017 P. Alinia, C. Cain, R. Fallahzadeh, A. Shahrokni, D. Cook, H. GhasemzadehHow accurate is your activity tracker? A comparative study of step counts in low-intensity physical activitiesJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5 (8) (2017), p. e106, 10.2196/mhealth.6321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong and Bull, 2006T. Armstrong, F. BullDevelopment of the world health organization global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ)Journal of Public Health, 14 (2006), pp. 66-70, 10.1007/s10389-006-0024-xCrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  3. Asimakopoulos et al., 2017S. Asimakopoulos, G. Asimakopoulos, F. SpillersMotivation and user engagement in fitness tracking: Heuristics for mobile healthcare wearablesInformatics, 4 (1) (2017), p. 5, 10.3390/informatics4010005CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  4. Attig and Franke, 2019C. Attig, T. FrankeI track, therefore I walk – exploring the motivational costs of wearing activity trackers in actual usersInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 127 (2019), pp. 211-224, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.04.007ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  5. Attig et al., 2019C. Attig, A. Karp, T. FrankeUser diversity in the motivation for wearable activity tracking: A predictor for usage intensity?S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th congress of the International Ergonomics association (IEA 2018). Advances in Intelligent Systems and computing, Vol. 822, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2019), pp. 431-440, 10.1007/978-3-319-96077-7_46CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin and Kwapisz, 2017C.G. Austin, A. KwapiszThe road to unintended consequences is paved with motivational appsJournal of Consumer Affairs, 51 (2017), pp. 463-477, 10.1111/joca.12135CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayobi et al., 2016A. Ayobi, A.L. Cox, P. MarshallReflections on 5 years of personal informatics: Rising concerns and emerging directionsProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 2774-2781, 10.1145/2851581.2892406CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee et al., 2018S. Banerjee, T. Hemphill, P. LongstreetWearable devices and healthcare: Data sharing and privacyThe Information Society, 34 (1) (2018), pp. 1-9, 10.1080/01972243.2017.1391912CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  9. Baretta et al., 2019D. Baretta, O. Perski, P. StecaExploring users’ experiences of the uptake and adoption of physical activity apps: Longitudinal qualitative studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7 (2) (2019), Article e11636, 10.2196/11636CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrandao, 2016A.R.D. BrandaoFactors influencing long-term adoption of wearable activity trackersMaster’s thesis (2016)https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/9240/Google Scholar
  10. Canhoto and Arp, 2016A.I. Canhoto, S. ArpExploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearablesJournal of Marketing Management, 33 (2016), pp. 32-60, 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1234505Google ScholarChan, 2017C. ChanOne step at a time: An examination of wearable fitness devices used for tracking activity and considering the motivational impact from their useMaster’s thesis (2017)https://scss.tcd.ie/publications/theses/diss/2017/TCD-SCSS-DISSERTATION-2017-060.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen et al., 2015X. Chen, A. Mizera, J. PangActivity tracking: A new attack on location privacy2015 IEEE conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS) (2015), 10.1109/CNS.2015.7346806Google Scholar
  12. Clawson et al., 2015J. Clawson, J.A. Pater, A.D. Miller, E.D. Mynatt, L. MamykinaNo longer wearing: Investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslistProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing – UbiComp ’15, ACM, New York, NY (2015), pp. 647-658, 10.1145/2750858.2807554CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, 1992J. CohenA power primerPsychological Bulletin, 112 (1992), pp. 155-159, 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  14. Coorevits and Coenen, 2016L. Coorevits, T. CoenenThe rise and fall of wearable fitness trackersPaper presented at the Academy of Management 2016, Anaheim, CA (2016)https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8055995Google Scholar
  15. Coughlin and Stewart, 2016S.S. Coughlin, J. StewartUse of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity: A review of health intervention studiesJournal of Environment and Health Science, 2 (6) (2016), 10.15436/2378-6841.16.1123Google Scholar
  16. Cripps, 2017B. CrippsPsychometric testing: Critical perspectivesJohn Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom (2017)Google Scholar
  17. Cugelman, 2013B. CugelmanGamification: What it is and why it matters to digital health behavior change developersJMIR Serious Games, 1 (1) (2013), p. e3, 10.2196/games.3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deci and Ryan, 2008E.L. Deci, R.M. RyanSelf-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and healthCanadian Psychology, 49 (2008), pp. 182-185, 10.1037/a0012801CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  19. Deterding et al., 2011S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. NackeFrom game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”Proceedings of the 15th international Academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media Environments, ACM, New York, NY (2011), pp. 9-15, 10.1145/2181037.2181040CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  20. Duus et al., 2018R. Duus, M. Cooray, N.C. PageExploring human-tech hybridity at the intersection of extended cognition and distributed agency: A focus on self-tracking devicesFrontiers in Psychology, 9 (2018), p. 1432, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01432Google Scholar
  21. Epstein et al., 2016aD.A. Epstein, M. Caraway, C. Johnston, A. Ping, J. Fogarty, S.A. MunsonBeyond abandonment to next steps: Understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool useProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on Human factors in computing Systems – CHI ’16, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 1109-1113, 10.1145/2858036.2858045CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  22. Epstein et al., 2016bD.A. Epstein, J.H. Kang, L.R. Pina, J. Fogarty, S.A. MunsonReconsidering the device in the drawer: Lapses as a design opportunity in personal informaticsProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing – UbiComp ’16, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 829-840, 10.1145/2971648.2971656CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  23. Etkin, 2016J. EtkinThe hidden cost of personal quantificationJournal of Consumer Research, 42 (2016), pp. 967-984, 10.1093/jcr/ucv095CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  24. Evenson et al., 2015K.R. Evenson, M.M. Goto, R.D. FurbergSystematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackersInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12 (2015), p. 159, 10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1Google Scholar
  25. Fadhil, 2019aA. FadhilBeyond technical motives: Perceived user behavior in abandoning wearable health & wellness trackers(preprint) (2019)https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07986Google Scholar
  26. Fadhil, 2019bA. FadhilDifferent stages of wearable health tracking adoption & abandonment: A survey study and analysis(preprint) (2019)https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.13226Google Scholar
  27. Fausset et al., 2013C.B. Fausset, T.L. Mitzner, C.E. Price, B.D. Jones, B.W. Fain, W.A. RogersOlder adults’ use of and attitudes toward activity monitoring technologiesProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society – Annual Meeting, 57 (2013), pp. 1683-1687, 10.1177/1541931213571374CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  28. Fereidooni et al., 2017H. Fereidooni, T. Frassetto, M. Miettinen, A. Sadeghi, M. ContiFitness trackers: Fit for health but unfit for security and privacy2017 IEEE/ACM international conference on connected health: Applications, systems and Engineering technologies (CHASE) (2017), 10.1109/CHASE.2017.54Google Scholar
  29. Franke et al., 2019T. Franke, C. Attig, D. WesselA personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) scaleInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35 (2019), pp. 456-467, 10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  30. Fritz et al., 2014T. Fritz, E.M. Huang, G.C. Murphy, T. ZimmermannPersuasive technology in the real world: A study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitnessProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2014), pp. 487-496, 10.1145/2556288.2557383CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  31. Furr, 2011R.M. FurrScale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychologySage Publications Ltd, London, United Kingdom (2011)Google Scholar
  32. García-Pérez, 2010M.A. García-PérezAccuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of science, PsycINFO, and Google scholar: A case study for the computation of h indices in psychologyJournal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (2010), pp. 2070-2085, 10.1002/asi.21372CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  33. Garg, 2019R. GargAn analysis of (non-)use practices and decisions of internet of things17th IFIP TC.13 international conference on human-Computer interaction – INTERACT 2019, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-29390-1_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Radhika_GargGoogle Scholar
  34. Garg and Kim, 2018R. Garg, J. KimAn exploratory study for understanding reasons of (not-)using internet of thingsCHI EA ’18 extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2018), 10.1145/3170427.3188466Google Scholar
  35. Gartner, 2016GartnerGartner survey shows wearable devices need to be more useful[Press release]https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/ (2016)Google Scholar
  36. Gehanno et al., 2013J. Gehanno, L. Rollin, S. DarmoniIs the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews?BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13 (7) (2013), pp. 1-5, 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  37. GfK, 2016GfKHealth and fitness tracking. Global GfK surveyhttps://www.gfk.com/fileadmin/user_upload/country_one_pager/NL/documents/Global-GfK-survey_Health-Fitness-Monitoring_2016.pdf (2016)Google Scholar
  38. Gouveia et al., 2015R. Gouveia, E. Karapanos, M. HassenzahlHow do we engage with activity trackers? A longitudinal study of habitoUbiComp ’15 Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international Joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing, ACM, New York, NY (2015), pp. 1305-1316, 10.1145/2750858.2804290CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  39. Gulotta et al., 2016R. Gulotta, J. Forlizzi, R. Yang, M.W. NewmanFostering engagement with personal informatics systemsProceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive Systems – DIS ’16, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 286-300, 10.1145/2901790.2901803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harrison et al., 2015D. Harrison, P. Marshall, N. Bianchi-Berthouze, J. BirdActivity tracking: Barriers, workarounds and customisationProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing – UbiComp ’15, ACM, New York, NY (2015), pp. 617-621, 10.1145/2750858.2805832CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  41. Hermsen et al., 2017S. Hermsen, J. Moons, P. Kerkhof, C. Wiekens, M. De GrootDeterminants for sustained use of an activity tracker: Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5 (10) (2017), p. e164, 10.2196/mhealth.7311CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  42. Hickey and Freedson, 2016A.M. Hickey, P.S. FreedsonUtility of consumer physical activity trackers as an intervention tool in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatmentProgress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 58 (2016), pp. 613-619, 10.1016/j.pcad.2016.02.006ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  43. Jarrahi et al., 2018M.H. Jarrahi, N. Gafinowitz, G. ShinActivity trackers, prior motivation, and perceived informational and motivational affordancesPersonal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22 (2018), pp. 433-448, 10.1007/s00779-017-1099-9CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  44. Jeong et al., 2017H. Jeong, H. Kim, R. Kim, U. Lee, Y. JeongSmartwatch wearing behavior analysis: A longitudinal studyProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1 (3) (2017), pp. 1-31, 10.1145/3131892CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  45. Kaiser, 1974H.F. KaiserAn index of factorial simplicityPsychometrica, 39 (1974), pp. 31-36, 10.1007/BF02291575CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  46. Kang et al., 2017J. Kang, J. Binda, P. Agarwal, B. Saconi, E.K. ChoeFostering user engagement: Improving sense of identity through cosmetic customization in wearable trackersProceedings of the 11th EAI international conference on Pervasive computing technologies for Healthcare, ACM, NEW York, NY (2017), pp. 11-20, 10.1145/3154862.3154878View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaplan and Duchon, 1988B. Kaplan, D. DuchonCombining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: A case studyMIS Quarterly, 12 (1988), pp. 571-589, 10.2307/249133CrossRefGoogle ScholarKarapanos et al., 2016E. Karapanos, R. Gouveia, M. Hassenzahl, J. ForlizziWellbeing in the making: Peoples’ experiences with wearable activity trackersPsychology of Well-Being, 6 (2016), p. 4, 10.1186/s13612-016-0042-6Google Scholar
  48. Knoblauch, 2014M. KnoblauchThe history of wearable tech, from the casino to the consumerhttps://mashable.com/ (2014), Accessed 22nd Nov 2018Google Scholar
  49. König et al., 2018L.M. König, G. Sproesser, H.T. Schupp, B. RennerDescribing the process of adopting nutrition and fitness apps: Behavior stage model approachJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6 (3) (2018), p. e55, 10.2196/mhealth.8261Google Scholar
  50. Kononova et al., 2019A. Kononova, L. Li, K. Kamp, M. Bowen, R. Rikard, S. Cotton, et al.The use of wearable activity trackers among older adults: Focus group study of tracker perceptions, motivators, and barriers in the maintenance stage of behavior changeJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7 (4) (2019), Article e9832, 10.2196/mhealth.9832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kupffer et al., 2018R. Kupffer, M. Wutzler, J.F. Krems, G. JahnA comparison of a smartphone app and a wrist-worn fitness tracker for self-monitoring of physical activity by older and younger usersB. Guidi, L. Ricci, C. Calafate, O. Gaggi, J. Marquez-Barja (Eds.), Smart objects and technologies for social good. GOODTECHS 2017. Lecture notes of the Institute for computer Sciences, social informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Vol. 233, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2018), pp. 331-341, 10.1007/978-3-319-76111-4_33CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  52. Lally et al., 2010P. Lally, C.H.M. van Jaarsveld, H.W.W. Potts, J. WardleHow are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real worldEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (2010), pp. 998-1009, 10.1002/ejsp.674CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  53. Lazar et al., 2015A. Lazar, C. Koehler, J. Tanenbaum, D.H. NguyenWhy we use and abandon smart devicesProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing – UbiComp ’15, ACM, New York, NY (2015), pp. 635-646, 10.1145/2750858.2804288CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee and Lee, 2017H. Lee, Y. LeeA look at wearable abandonmentIEEE 18th international conference on mobile data Management, IEEE (2017), pp. 392-393, 10.1109/MDM.2017.70CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  55. Li et al., 2010I. Li, A. Dey, J. ForlizziA stage-based model of personal informatics systemsProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2010), pp. 557-566, 10.1145/1753326.1753409CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  56. Li et al., 2011I. Li, A.K. Dey, J. ForlizziUnderstanding my data, myself: Supporting self-reflection with ubicomp technologiesProceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, ACM, New York, NY (2011), pp. 405-414, 10.1145/2030112.2030166CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  57. LimeSurvey GmbH, 2018LimeSurvey GmbHLimeSurvey: An open Source survey toolLimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany (2018)Google ScholarLomborg and Frandsen, 2016S. Lomborg, K. FrandsenSelf-tracking as communicationInformation, Communication & Society, 19 (2016), pp. 1015-1027, 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1067710View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  58. Lunney et al., 2016A. Lunney, N.R. Cunningham, M.S. EastinWearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomesComputers in Human Behavior, 65 (2016), pp. 114-120, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  59. Lydinia et al., 2018aC. Lydinia, P. Brauner, M. ZiefleA step in the right direction – understanding privacy concerns and perceived sensitivity of fitness trackersT. Ahram, C. Falcão (Eds.), Advances in Human factors in wearable technologies and Game design. Advances in Intelligent Systems and computing, Vol. 608, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2018), pp. 42-53, 10.1007/978-3-319-60639-2_5Google Scholar
  60. Lydinia et al., 2018bC. Lydinia, E. Schomakers, M. ZiefleWhat are you waiting for? – perceived barriers to the adoption of fitness-applications and wearablesT. Ahram (Ed.), Advances in Human factors in wearable technologies and Game design. Advances in Intelligent Systems and computing, Vol. 795, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2018), pp. 41-52, 10.1007/978-3-319-94619-1_5Google Scholar
  61. Maher et al., 2017C. Maher, J. Ryan, C. Ambrosi, S. EdneyUsers’ experiences of wearable activity trackers: A cross-sectional studyBMC Public Health, 17 (2017), p. 880, 10.1186/s12889-017-4888-1Google Scholar
  62. Maltseva and Lutz, 2018K. Maltseva, C. LutzA quantum of self: A study of self-quantification and self-disclosureComputers in Human Behavior, 81 (2018), pp. 102-114, 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.006ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  63. Mayring, 2014P. MayringQualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution (2014)https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173Google ScholarMeyer et al., 2015J. Meyer, J. Fortmann, M. Wasmann, W. HeutenMaking lifelogging usable: Design guidelines for activity trackersX. He, et al. (Eds.), MultiMedia modeling. MMM 2015. Lecture notes in computer Science, Vol. 8936, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2015), pp. 323-334, 10.1007/978-3-319-14442-9_39CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  64. Niess and Woźniak, 2018J. Niess, P.W. WoźniakSupporting meaningful personal fitness: The tracker goal evolution modelPaper 171Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2018), pp. 1-12, 10.1145/3173574.3173745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ostherr et al., 2017K. Ostherr, S. Borodina, R.C. Bracken, C. Lotterman, E. Sorer, B. WilliamsTrust and privacy in the context of user-generated health dataBig Data & Society (2017), 10.1177/2053951717704673Google Scholar
  66. Pateman et al., 2018M. Pateman, D. Harrison, P. Marshall, M.E. CecchinatoThe role of aesthetics and design: Wearables in situPaper No. LBW518Extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2018), 10.1145/3170427.3188556Google ScholarPour, 2019N.K. PourFactors influencing consumers’ adoption and use of wearable technologiesMaster’s thesisAalto University, Helsinki, Finland (2019)https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/37863Google ScholarPourzanjani et al., 2016A. Pourzanjani, T. Quisel, L. FoschiniAdherent use of digital health trackers is associated with weight lossPLoS One, 11 (4) (2016), Article e0152504, 10.1371/journal.pone.0152504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Purpura et al., 2011S. Purpura, V. Schwanda, K. Williams, W. Stubler, P. SengersFit4life: The design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weightProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2011), pp. 423-432, 10.1145/1978942.1979003CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  68. Rapp and Cena, 2016A. Rapp, F. CenaPersonal informatics for everyday life: How users without prior self- tracking experience engage with personal dataInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 94 (2016), pp. 1-17, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.05.006ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  69. Rapp and Tirabeni, 2018A. Rapp, L. TirabeniPersonal informatics for sport: Meaning, body, and social relations in amateur and elite athletesACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 25 (3) (2018), 10.1145/3196829Google Scholar
  70. Rapp and Tirassa, 2017A. Rapp, M. TirassaKnow thyself: A theory of the self for personal informaticsHuman-Computer Interaction, 32 (2017), pp. 335-380, 10.1080/07370024.2017.1285704CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  71. Renfree et al., 2016I. Renfree, D. Harrison, P. Marshall, K. Stawarz, A. CoxDon’t kick the habit: The role of dependency in habit formation appsProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 2932-2939, 10.1145/2851581.2892495CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  72. Rheingans et al., 2016F. Rheingans, B. Cikit, C.-P.H. ErnstThe potential influence of privacy risk on activity tracker usage: A studyC.-P.H. Ernst (Ed.), The drivers of wearable device usage. Progress in IS, Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2016), pp. 25-35, 10.1007/978-3-319-30376-5_3CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  73. Ridgers et al., 2018N.D. Ridgers, A. Timperio, H. Brown, K. Ball, S.,. Macfarlane, J. SalmonWearable activity tracker use among Australian adolescents: Usability and acceptability studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6 (4) (2018), p. e86, 10.2196/mhealth.9199Google Scholar
  74. Rieder et al., 2019A. Rieder, C. Lehrer, R. JungUnderstanding the habitual use of wearable activity trackers14th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (2019)https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/publications/256232Google Scholar
  75. Rockmann and Gewald, 2018R. Rockmann, H. GewaldIs IT what you make out of IT? On affordances, goals, and positive and negative consequences in activity trackingICIS 2017 Proceedings (2018)https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/HumanBehavior/Presentations/35Google Scholar
  76. Rupp et al., 2016M.A. Rupp, J.R. Michaelis, D.S. McConnell, J.A. SmitherThe impact of technological trust and self-determined motivation on intentions to use wearable fitness technologyProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society – Annual Meeting, 60 (2016), pp. 1434-1438, 10.1177/1541931213601329CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  77. Rupp et al., 2018M.A. Rupp, J.R. Michaelis, D.S. McConnell, J.A. SmitherThe role of individual differences on perceptions of wearable fitness device trust, usability, and motivational impactApplied Ergonomics, 70 (2018), pp. 77-87, 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.005ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  78. Schneider, 2016H. SchneiderSelf-knowledge through numbers and the operationalization of learningProceedings of the 2016 ACM international Joint conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous computing, ACM, New York, NY (2016), pp. 189-192, 10.1145/2968219.2971402CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle ScholarShih et al., 2015P.C. Shih, K. Han, E.S. Poole, M.B. Rosson, J.M. CarrollUse and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackersiConference 2015 Papers (2015)http://hdl.handle.net/2142/73649Google ScholarShin et al., 2019G. Shin, M.H. Jarrahi, F. Yu, A. Karami, N. Gafinowitz, A. Byun, et al.Wearable activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: A systematic literature reviewJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 93 (2019), p. 103153, 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103153ArticleDownload PDFGoogle Scholar
  79. Siscoe, 2019D. SiscoeFitness trackers: Understanding how user experience impacts motivationMaster’s thesis (2019)http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/123456789/201716Google Scholar
  80. Stiglbauer et al., 2019B. Stiglbauer, S. Weber, B. BatinicDoes your health really benefit from using a self-tracking device? Evidence from a longitudinal randomized control trialComputers in Human Behavior, 94 (2019), pp. 131-139, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.018ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  81. Sullivan and Lachman, 2017A.N. Sullivan, M.E. LachmanBehavior change with fitness technology in sedentary adults: A review of the evidence for increasing physical activityFrontiers in Public Health, 4 (2017), p. 289, 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00289CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  82. Technische UniversitätChemnitz, 2018Technische Universität ChemnitzStudie zu Fitness-Trackern geht in die nächste Runde[Press release] (2018)https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/tu/pressestelle/2018/09.26-13.00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  83. Toner, 2018J. TonerExploring the dark-side of fitness trackers: Normalization, objectification and the anaesthetisation of human experiencePerformance Enhancement & Health, 6 (2018), pp. 75-81, 10.1016/j.peh.2018.06.001ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  84. Tong and Laranjo, 2018H.L. Tong, L. LaranjoThe use of social features in mobile health interventions to promote physical activity: A systematic reviewnpj Digital Medicine, 1 (2018), p. 43, 10.1038/s41746-018-0051-3Google Scholar
  85. Trommler et al., 2018D. Trommler, C. Attig, T. FrankeTrust in activity tracker measurement and its link to user acceptanceMensch und Computer 2018 – Tagungsband, Gesellschaft für Informatik e, Bonn (2018), 10.18420/muc2018-mci-0361Google Scholar
  86. Van der Laan et al., 1997J.D. Van der Laan, A. Heino, D. De WaardA simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematicsTransportation Research Part C, 5 (1997), pp. 1-10, 10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar
  87. Xie et al., 2018J. Xie, D. Wen, L. Liang, Y. Jia, L. Gao, J. LeiEvaluating the validity of current mainstream wearable devices in fitness tracking under various physical activities: Comparative studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6 (4) (2018), p. e94, 10.2196/mhealth.9754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmer et al., 2018M. Zimmer, P. Kumar, J. Vitak, Y. Liao, K. Chamberlain Kritikos‘There’s nothing really they can do with this information’: Unpacking how users manage privacy boundaries for personal fitness informationInformation, Communication & Society (2018), 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1543442Google Scholar
The SELF Institute