• Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein
  • Gafinowitz, Nicci
  • Shin, Grace


A large number of activity-tracking devices have recently dominated the fitness world. These devices typically track different forms of activities and are argued to encourage more active lifestyles. The devices encourage and incentivize change in behavior through mechanisms including personal goals, gratifying representations, and social features. However, both current research and anecdotal evidence about the real impacts of these devices point to mixed outcomes. Many users enjoy positive experiences, while others are reported to have abandoned these devices without generating lasting value for themselves. Through a qualitative study of 29 users of Fitbit activity-tracking devices, we explore how different types of pre-existing motivation shaped people’s perception and adoption of the device. Building from the affordance perspective, our findings suggest that users’ pre-existing motivations, derived from unique life priorities, personal situations, and personalities, may interact with different aspects of the tool, and result in disparate outcomes. Two primary conclusions of this research are (1) the motivational features of activity-tracking devices may only complement already existing motivations of the users but do not create incentive for more physical activities on their own. (2) The value of informational affordances of activity trackers diminishes over time for most users (except the quantified selfers), and without motivational affordances, informational affordances do not sustain long-term use of the device.


  1. 1.Adam Noah J, Spierer DK, Gu J, Bronner S (2013) Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry. J Med Eng Technol 37(7):456–462. Article  Google Scholar 
  2. 2.Bajarin T (2015) Here’s why fitness trackers are here to stay. . Retrieved 15 July, 2016 from
  3. 3.Bar-Ilan J, Shalom N, Shoham S, Baruchson-Arbib S, Getz I (2006) The role of information in a lifetime process: a model of weight maintenance by women over long time periods. Inf Res An Int Electron J 11(4):n4 Google Scholar 
  4. 4.Brawley L, Vallerand R (1984) Enhancing intrinsic motivation for fitness activities: its systematic increase in fitness environment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo
  5. 5.Cheon E, Jarrahi MH, Su NM (2016) “Technology isn’t always the best”: the intersection of health tracking technologies and information practices of digital natives. In The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics 2016 Chicago
  6. 6.Choe EK (2014) Designing self-monitoring technology to promote data capture and reflection. PhD Dissertation. The Information School, University of Washington
  7. 7.Choe EK, Lee NB, Lee B, Pratt W, Kientz JA (2014) Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp 1143–1152.
  8. 8.Clawson J, Pater JA, Miller AD, Mynatt ED, & Mamykina L (2015) No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  9. 9.Consolvo S, Everitt K, Smith I, & Landay JA (2006) Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems
  10. 10.Consolvo S, Klasnja P, McDonald DW, Avrahami D, Froehlich J, LeGrand L, …, Landay JA (2008) Flowers or a robot army? Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing
  11. 11.Consolvo S, McDonald DW, & Landay JA (2009) Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
  12. 12.Cotgreave A (2015) Why I ditched my Fitbit and what this means for analytics. Jul 27, 2015 Retrieved 29 May, 2016 from
  13. 13.Dannecker KL, Sazonova NA, Melanson EL, Sazonov ES, Browning RC (2013) A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45(11):2105–2112. Article  Google Scholar 
  14. 14.Deci EL (1971) Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol 18(1):105–115. Article  Google Scholar 
  15. 15.Diaz KM, Krupka DJ, Chang MJ, Peacock J, Ma Y, Goldsmith J, …, Davidson KW (2015) Fitbit®: an accurate and reliable device for wireless physical activity tracking. Int J Cardiol 185(140):138.
  16. 16.Epstein DA, Caraway M, Johnston C, Ping A, Fogarty J, & Munson SA (2016) Beyond abandonment to next steps: understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  17. 17.Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD (2015) Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12(1):159. Article  Google Scholar 
  18. 18.Fausset CB, Mitzner TL, Price CE, Jones BD, Fain BW, & Rogers WA (2013) Older adults’ use of and attitudes toward activity monitoring technologies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
  19. 19.Ferguson T, Rowlands AV, Olds T, Maher C (2015) The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12(1):42. Article  Google Scholar 
  20. 20.Fritz T, Huang EM, Murphy GC, & Zimmermann T (2014) Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  21. 21.Fulk GD, Combs SA, Danks KA, Nirider CD, Raja B, Reisman DS (2014) Accuracy of 2 activity monitors in detecting steps in people with stroke and traumatic brain injury. Phys Ther 94(2):222–229. Article  Google Scholar 
  22. 22.Gibson J (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransfor J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 67–82 Google Scholar 
  23. 23.Gimpel H, Nißen M, & Görlitz R (2013) Quantifying the quantified self: a study on the motivations of patients to track their own health. In 34th International Conference on Information Systems
  24. 24.Glaser B (1978) Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press, Mill Valley Google Scholar 
  25. 25.Goode L (2015) Tons of people are buying Fitbits, but are they actually using them?. The Verge. Retrieved 15 May, 2016 from
  26. 26.Gouveia R, Barros S, & Karapanos E (2014) Understanding users’ disengagement with wearable activity trackers. In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshops on Advances in Computer Entertainment Conference
  27. 27.Gouveia R, Karapanos E, & Hassenzahl M (2015) How do we engage with activity trackers?: a longitudinal study of Habito. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  28. 28.Harrison D, Marshall P, Berthouze N, & Bird J (2014) Tracking physical activity: problems related to running longitudinal studies with commercial devices. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication
  29. 29.Harrison D, Marshall P, Bianchi-Berthouze N, & Bird J (2015) Activity tracking: barriers, workarounds and customisation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  30. 30.Hartson R (2003) Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav Inform Technol 22(5):315–338. Article  Google Scholar 
  31. 31.Hermsen S, Frost J, Renes RJ, Kerkhof P (2016) Using feedback through digital technology to disrupt and change habitual behavior: a critical review of current literature. Comput Hum Behav 57:61–74. Article  Google Scholar 
  32. 32.Hutchby I (2001) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2):441–456. Article  Google Scholar 
  33. 33.IDC (2015). Fitness trackers in the lead as wearables market grows 3.1% in the third quarter, according to IDC. Retrieved 15 may, 2017 from
  34. 34.Jarrahi MH (2015) Digital and physical materiality of information technologies: the case of fitbit activity tracking devices. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on
  35. 35.Karageorghis C, Terry P (2011) Inside sport psychology. Human Kinetics, Champaign Google Scholar 
  36. 36.Kim J (2014) Analysis of health consumers’ behavior using self-tracker for activity, sleep, and diet. Telemed e-Health 20(6):552–558. Article  Google Scholar 
  37. 37.Kooiman TJ, Dontje ML, Sprenger SR, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, de Groot M (2015) Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 7(1):24. Article  Google Scholar 
  38. 38.Lazar A, Koehler C, Tanenbaum J, & Nguyen DH (2015) Why we use and abandon smart devices. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  39. 39.Ledger D, & McCaffrey D (2014) Inside wearables how the science of human behavior change. Endeavour Partners. Retrieved 15 May, 2017 from
  40. 40.Leonardi PM (2010) Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6),
  41. 41.Leonardi PM (2012) Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: what do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In: Kallinikos J, Leonardi PM, Nardi BA (eds) Materiality and organizing: social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–48. Google Scholar 
  42. 42.Li I, Dey A, & Forlizzi J (2010) A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  43. 43.Li I, Froehlich J, Larsen JE, Grevet C, & Ramirez E (2013) Personal informatics in the wild: hacking habits for health & happiness. CHI’13 Extended Abstracts 3179–3182
  44. 44.Lyons EJ, Lewis ZH, Mayrsohn BG, Rowland JL (2014) Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: a systematic content analysis. J Med Internet Res 16(8):e192. Article  Google Scholar 
  45. 45.Markus ML, Silver MS (2008) A foundation for the study of IT effects: a new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(10/11):609 Google Scholar 
  46. 46.Mcfedries P (2013) Tracking the quantified self. IEEE Spectr 50(8):24Article  Google Scholar 
  47. 47.Meyer J, Fortmann J, Wasmann M, & Heuten W (2015) Making lifelogging usable: design guidelines for activity trackers. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling
  48. 48.Montgomery-Downs HE, Insana SP, Bond JA (2012) Movement toward a novel activity monitoring device. Sleep Breath 16(3):913–917. Article  Google Scholar 
  49. 49.Motti VG, & Caine K (2014) Human factors considerations in the design of wearable devices. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
  50. 50.Munson S (2012) Mindfulness, reflection, and persuasion in personal informatics. Ext. Abstract CHI’12
  51. 51.Munson SA, & Consolvo S (2012) Exploring goal-setting, rewards, self-monitoring, and sharing to motivate physical activity. In International conference on Pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (PervasiveHealth)
  52. 52.Mutsuddi AU, & Connelly K (2012) Text messages for encouraging physical activity Are they effective after the novelty effect wears off? In International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth)
  53. 53.Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Barre LK, Bartels SJ (2015) Feasibility of popular m-health technologies for activity tracking among individuals with serious mental illness. Telemed e-Health 21(3):213–216. Article  Google Scholar 
  54. 54.Nelson EC, Verhagen T, Noordzij ML (2016) Health empowerment through activity trackers: an empirical smart wristband study. Comput Hum Behav 62:364–374. Article  Google Scholar 
  55. 55.Nelson SB, Jarrahi MH, Thomson L (2017) Mobility of knowledge work and affordances of digital technologies. Int J Inf Manag 37(2):54–62. Article  Google Scholar 
  56. 56.Orji R, & Moffatt K (2016) Persuasive technology for health and wellness: state-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Informatics J, First Published Online
  57. 57.Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC (1994) Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans Inf Syst 12(2):174–207. Article  Google Scholar 
  58. 58.Paton C, Margaret M, Fernandez-Luque L, & Lau AY (2012) Self-tracking, social media and personal health records for patient empowered self-care. Nursing and Health Professions Faculty Research and Publications. Retrieved 16 June, 2017 from
  59. 59.Pina LR, Ramirez E, & Griswold WG (2012) Fitbit+: a behavior-based intervention system to reduce sedentary behavior. In International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth)
  60. 60.Ploderer B, Reitberger W, Oinas-Kukkonen H, van Gemert-Pijnen J (2014) Social interaction and reflection for behaviour change. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar 
  61. 61.Randriambelonoro M, Chen Y, Geissbuhler A, & Pu P (2015) Exploring physical activity monitoring devices for diabetic and obese patients. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers
  62. 62.Rapp A, Cena F (2016) Personal informatics for everyday life: how users without prior self-tracking experience engage with personal data. Int J Hum Comput Stud 94:1–17. Article  Google Scholar 
  63. 63.Rooksby J, Rost M, Morrison A, & Chalmers MC (2014) Personal tracking as lived informatics. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems
  64. 64.Shih PC, Han K, Poole ES, Rosson MB, & Carroll JM (2015) Use and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackers. In the Proceedings of iConference 2015, Newport Beach, CA
  65. 65.Statista (2016) Statista dossier on Fitbit. Retrieved 15 Feb, 2017 from
  66. 66.Swan M (2009) Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int J Environ Res Public Health 6(2):492–525. Article  Google Scholar 
  67. 67.Waltz E (2012) How I quantified myself. IEEE Spectr 49(9):42–47. Article  Google Scholar 
  68. 68.Wankel LM (1993) The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits from physical activity. Int J Sport Psychol
  69. 69.Wendel S (2013) Designing for behavior change: applying psychology and behavioral economics. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol Google Scholar 
  70. 70.Wu Q, Sum K, & Nathan-Roberts D (2016) How fitness trackers facilitate health behavior change. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
  71. 71.Yang R, Shin E, Newman MW, & Ackerman MS (2015) When fitness trackers don’t’fit’: end-user difficulties in the assessment of personal tracking device accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
  72. 72.Zhao Z, Etemad SA, & Arya A (2016) Gamification of exercise and fitness using wearable activity trackers. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Computer Science in Sports (ISCSS)

The SELF Institute