• Hong Jin
  • Ying Peng
  • Jian Chen
  • Seong Taek Park


Quantified-self practice has penetrated into people’s daily life. Academic circles have begun to study it, but at present, scholars have not raised quantified-self practice to the level of consciousness. In order to explore the structural connotation of quantified-self consciousness and then provide management reference for enterprises offering quantified-self services, this study conducted in-depth interviews with self-trackers with the method of grounded theory. The conceptual model of quantified-self consciousness is formed through step-by-step coding, and the theoretical saturation is tested by reserving original sentences and crawling relevant online comments. The model shows that quantified-self consciousness can be divided into three dimensions: individual thinking, social projection, and data sensitivity.


  1. Ajana, B. Digital health and the biopolitics of the quantified self. Digit. Health 2017, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Feng, S.; Mäntymäki, M.; Dhir, A.; Salmela, H. How self-tracking and the quantified self promote health and well-being: Systematic Review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e25171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sujeong, L. Smartwatch Market Grows 27% YoY in Q2 2021. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 26 August 2021).
  4. Sujeong, L. Global Smartwatch Shipments Jump 35% YoY in Q1 2021. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 26 May 2021).
  5. Tu, Z. Big Data-The Coming Data Revolution and How to Change It; Guangxi Normal University Press: Guilin, China, 2003. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Quantified Self Institute. What Is Quantified Self? 2016. Available online: (accessed on 20 April 2021).
  7. Reagle, J. For Some, Self-Tracking Means More Than Self-Help. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 15 April 2021).
  8. Melanie, S. Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. J. Pers. Med. 2012, 2, 93–118. [Google Scholar]
  9. Appelboom, G.; LoPresti, M.; Reginster, J.; Sander, C.; Dumont, E.P.L. The quantified patient: A patient participatory culture. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2014, 30, 2585–2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sharon, T.; Zandbergen, D. From data fetishism to quantifying selves: Self-tracking practices and the other values of data. New Media Soc. 2016, 19, 1695–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Y.; Lv, X.; Tang, Z. The impact of mortality salience on quantified self behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 180, 110972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lei, L.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, Q. Analysis on quantified self-behavior of customers in food consumption under the perspective of social networks. Complexity 2021, 2021, 6001654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Stiglbauer, B.; Weber, S.; Batinic, B. Does your health really benefit from using a self-tracking device? Evidence from a longitudinal randomized control trial. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 94, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gabriels, K.; Coeckelbergh, M. “Technologies of the self and other”: How self-tracking technologies also shape the other. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 2019, 17, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dijk, K.V.; Ijsselsteijn, W.A. Design beyond the numbers: Sharing, comparing, storytelling and the need for a quantified us. Interact. Des. Archit. 2016, 29, 121–135. [Google Scholar]
  16. Till, C. Creating “automatic subjects”: Corporate wellness and self-tracking. J. Soc. Study Health Illn. Med. 2019, 23, 418–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Erdeniz, S.P.; Menychtas, A.; Maglogiannis, I.; Felfernig, A.; Tran, T. Recommender systems for IoT enabled quantified-self applications. Evol. Syst. 2020, 11, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shin, D.H.; Biocca, F. Health experience model of personal informatics: The case of a quantified self. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wolf, G. Know Thyself: Tracking Every Facet of Life, from Sleep to Mood to Pain, 24/7/365. 2009. Available online: (accessed on 22 June 2021).
  20. Alexander, S.; Christian, K.; Michael, F. Quantified vehicles. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 125–130. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lupton, D. Self-tracking modes: Reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. SSRN Electron. J. 2014, 391, 547–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lupton, D. The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Econ. Soc. 2016, 45, 101–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Melanie, S. 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 2009, 6, 492–525. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ben, E. Quantified play: Self-tracking in videogames. Games Cult. 2019, 15, 707–729. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, S.; Li, Q.; Sun, J.; Liu, Z. Quantitative learning: The future of digital learning. Educ. Res. 2016, 37, 119–126. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, D.; Zhang, Y. The effect of quantifying self and its influence mechanism on consumer participation behavior. Manag. Sci. 2018, 31, 112–124. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, N.; Hout, G.; Feijs, L.; Chen, W.; Hu, J. Facilitating physical activity through on-site quantified-self data sharing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Daniel, D. The Intentional Stance; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dietzgen, J. The Nature of Human Brain Work: An Introduction to Dialectics; Verlag Dialog-Edition: Hamburg, Germany, 2019. (In Germany) [Google Scholar]
  30. Christof, K. What is consciousness? Nature 2018, 557, S8–S12. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chis-Ciure, R.; Ellia, F. Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness as an integrated information theorist. Found. Sci. 2021, 26, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wundt, W.M. Principles of Physiological Psychology; Engelmann: Leipzig, Germany, 1874. (In Germany) [Google Scholar]
  33. Jia, H.; Zhou, S.; Allaway, A.W. Understanding the evolution of consumer psychology research: A bibliometric and network analysis. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rombach, M.; Dean, D.L.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Bitsch, V. The ethically conscious flower consumer: Understanding fair trade cut flower purchase behavior in Germany. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Graham-Rowea, E.; Gardnerb, B.; Abrahamc, C.; Skippond, S.; Dittmara, H.; Hutchinse, R.; Stannarde, J. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-inhybrid electric cars: A qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transp. Res. Part A 2012, 46, 140–153. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ju, N.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, S.H. Factors affecting consumer consciousness and the purchase of eco-friendly vehicles: A textual analysis in Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kautish, P.; Sharma, R. Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural intentions in the online fashion retail sector. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2018, 46, 894–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine Publishing Co.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chen, X. Qualitative Reseach Methods and Social Science Research; Educational Science Press: Beijing, China, 2000. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  40. Corbin, J.; Morse, J.M. The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qual. Inq. 2003, 9, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adeoye-Olatunde, O.A.; Olenik, N.L. Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 4, 1358–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rakhmawati, W. Understanding Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist grounded theory approachest. Belitung Nurs. J. 2019, 5, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deterding, N.M.; Waters, M.C. Flexible coding of in-depth interviews. Sociol. Methods Res. 2018, 50, 708–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Qureshi, H.A.; Unlu, Z. Beyond the paradigm conflicts: A four-step coding instrument for grounded theory. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2020, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Y.; Ye, F.; Zhang, G. Determinants of green regeneration of industrial brownfield under ecological security constraints: Model and empirical analysis based on grounded theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, X.; Zhou, J.; Xue, Y.; Qian, S. Analysis of property management ecological behavior in China based on the grounded theory: The influencing factors and the behavior model. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Song, H.; Zhu, C.; Fong, L.H.N. Exploring residents’ perceptions and attitudes towards sustainable tourism development in traditional villages: The lens of stakeholder theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Karagul, B.I.; Seker, M.; Aykut, C. Investigating students’ digital literacy levels during online education due to COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhao, Y.; Gómez, M.C.S.; Llorente, A.M.P.; Zhao, L. Digital competence in higher education: Students’ perception and personal factors. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
The SELF Institute