• Abouzahra, M., & Ghasemaghaei, M. (2021). Effective use of information technologies by seniors: The case of wearable device use. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(2) ,241–255. [Google Scholar]
• Ameen, N., Hosany, S., & Tarhini, A. (2021). Consumer interaction with cutting-edge technologies: Implications for future research. Computers in Human Behavior, 120(July), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106761 [Google Scholar]
• Attfield, S., Kazai, G., Lalmas, M., & Piwowarski, B. (2011) Towards a science of user engagement (position paper). In WSDM workshop on user modelling for web applications, pp 9–12. [Google Scholar]
• Baumgart, R., & Wiewiorra, L. (2016) The role of self-control in self-tracking. In Proceedings of the 37th international conference on information systems (ICIS 2016), Dublin, pp 1–16. [Google Scholar]
• Benbunan-Fich, R. (2019). An affordance lens for wearable information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1512945 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Bentley, F., Tollmar, K., Stephenson, P., Levy, L., Jones, B., Robertson, S., Price, E., Catrambone, R., & Wilson, J. (2013). Health mashups: presenting statistical patterns between wellbeing data and context in natural language to promote behavior change. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2503823 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-Ortega, B. I., & Jimenez-Martinez, J. (2016). Engagement platforms. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(5), 559–589. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-12-2014-0286 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Buchwald, A., Letner, A., Urbach, N., & Von Entress-Fürsteneck, M. (2018) Insights into personal ICT use: Understanding continuance and discontinuance of wearable self-tracking devices. In Proceedings of the 26th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2018), Portsmouth, UK. Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp 1–17. [Google Scholar]
• Burton-Jones, A., Mclean, E., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.31 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Chuah, S. H.-W., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016). Wearable technologies: The role of usefulness and visibility in smartwatch adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65(December), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.047 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Cosley, D., Sosik, V. S., Schultz, J., Peesapati, T., & S, L. (2012). Experiences with designing tools for everyday reminiscing. Human-Computer Interaction, 27(1–2), 175–198. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.656047 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Creswell J, W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
• Crowston, K. (2000). Process as theory in information systems research. In R. Baskerville J. Stage & J. DeGross, (Eds.), Organizational and social perspectives on information technology (pp. 149–164). Springer. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• De-Moya, J.-F., Pallud, J., & Scornavacca, E. (2019) Self-tracking technologies adoption and utilization: A literature analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2019),Cancun. Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp 1–10. [Google Scholar]
• Diclemente, C. C., Marinilli, A. S., Singh, M., & Bellino, L. (2001). The role of feedback in the process of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.25.3.8 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Doherty, A., Caprani, N., Conaire, C., Kalnikaite, V., Gurrin, C., Smeaton, A., & O’connor, N. E. (2011). Passively recognising human activities through lifelogging. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1948–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.05.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Endeavour Partners (2017) Inside wearables: How the Science of Human Behavior Change Offers the Secret to Long-Term Engagement. https://medium.com/@endeavourprtnrs/inside-wearable-how-the-science-of-human-behavior-change-offers-the-secret-to-long-term-engagement-a15b3c7d4cf3 [Google Scholar]
• Epstein, D., Ping, A., Fogarty, J., & Munson, S. (2015) A lived informatics model of personal informatics. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing, pp 731–742. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Feng, Y., & Agosto, D. E. (2019). Revisiting personal information management through information practices with activity tracking technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(12), 1352–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24253 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., Rammal, H. G., & Veiga, P. M. (2021). Wearable technology and consumer interaction: A systematic review and research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 118(May), 106710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106710 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Fitzgibbon, A., & Reiter, E. (2003). Memories for life: Managing information over a human lifetime. UK Computing Research Committee Grand Challenge Proposal, 22(May), 13–16. http://www.nesc.ac.uk/ esi/events/Grand Challenges/proposals/Memories.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Fritz, T., Huang, E. M., Murphy, G. C., & 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, pp 487–496. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Gimpel, H., Nissen, M., & Görlitz, R. (2013) Quantifying the quantified self: A study on the motivations of patients to track their own health. In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on information systems (ICIS 2013), Milan, pp 1–16. [Google Scholar]
• 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, pp 1305–1316. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Gummerus, J., & Pihlström, M. (2011). Context and mobile services’ value-in-use. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(6), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.07.002 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• H, L., Fan, W., & Chau, P. (2014). Determinants of users’ continuance of social networking sites: A self-regulation perspective. Information & Management, 51(5), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.010 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0332 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Hollebeek, L. D., & Macky, K. (2019). Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45(February), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.003 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• James, T. L., Wallace, L., & Deane, J. K. (2019). Using organistic integration theory to explore the association between users’ exercise motivations and fitness technology feature set use. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/14128 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Jarrahi, M. H., Gafinowitz, N., & Shin, G. (2018). Activity trackers, prior motivation, and perceived informational and motivational affordances. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22(2), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1099-9 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• JJ, L., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G., & Strub, H. B. (2006) Fish’n’Steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game. In International conference on ubiquitous computing, pp 261–278. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, [Google Scholar]
• Jung, Y., Kim, S., & Choi, B. (2016). Consumer valuation of the wearables: The case of smartwatches. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(October), 899–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.040 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Kalantari, M. (2017). Consumers’ adoption of wearable technologies: Literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 12(3), 274–307. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2017.089665 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Martens, J.-B. (2009) User experience over time: An initial framework. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 729–738. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Kersten-Van Dijk, E. T., Jhdm, W., Beute, F., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2017). Personal informatics, self-insight, and behavior change: A critical review of current literature. Human-Computer Interaction, 32(5–6), 268–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1276456 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Khovanskaya, V., Baumer, E., Cosley, D., Voida, S., & G, G. (2013) ‘Everybody knows what you’re doing’: A critical design approach to personal informatics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 3403–3412. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Kuan-Ju, C., & Cheung, H. L. (2019). Unlocking the power of ephemeral content: The roles of motivations, gratification, need for closure, and engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 97(August), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.007 [Google Scholar]
• Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Lehrer, C., Eseryel, U. Y., Rieder, A., & Jung, R. (2021). Behavior change through wearables: The interplay between self-leadership and IT-based leadership. Electronic Markets, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00474-3 [Google Scholar]
• Li, I., Dey, A. K., & Forlizzi, J. (2010) A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 557–566, ACM. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Li, I., Dey, A. K., & Forlizzi, J. (2011) Understanding my data, myself: Supporting self-reflection with ubicomp technologies. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, pp 405–414. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Li, I. (2012). Personal informatics & context: Using context to reveal factors that affect behavior. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 4(1), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.3233/AIS-2011-0130 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Llamas, R., Ubrani, J., & Shirer, M. (2019) Strong growth in the worldwide wearables market: IDC Reports [Online]. International Data Corporation (IDC). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190305005268/en/IDC-Reports-Strong-Growth-in-the-Worldwide-Wearables-Market-Led-by-Holiday-Shipments-of-Smartwatches-Wrist-Bands-and-Ear-Worn-Devices [Google Scholar]
• Lupton, D. (2016). The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society, 45(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2016.1143726 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Munson, S. A., & Consolvo, S. (2012) Exploring goal-setting, rewards, self-monitoring, and sharing to motivate physical activity. In 6th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (pervasivehealth) and workshops, pp 25–32, IEEE. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
• Niess, J., & Woźniak, P. W. (2018) Supporting meaningful personal fitness: The tracker goal evolution model. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–12. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• O’Brien, H., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• O’Brien, H., & CAIRNS, P. (2016). Why Engagement Matters (Vol. 10, 973–978). Springer International Publishing. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• O’Brien, H. L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M. (2018, April). A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 112, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Patel, M. S., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2015). Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA, 313(5), 459–460. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14781 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc. [Google Scholar]
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Pfeiffer, J., Von Entress-Fuersteneck, M., Urbach, N., & Buchwald, A. (2016) Quantify-me: Consumer acceptance of wearable self-tracking devices. In Proceedings of the 24th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2016), Istanbul, Turkey, pp 1–15. [Google Scholar]
• Pirzadeh, A., L, H., & Stolterman, E. (2013). Personal informatics and reflection: A critical examination of the nature of reflection. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2013), 1979–1988. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468715 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Prasopoulou, E. (2017). A half-moon on my skin: A memoir on life with an activity tracker. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0040-7 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Rapp, A., & Cena, F. (2016). Personal informatics for everyday life: How users without prior self-tracking experience engage with personal data. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 94(October), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.05.006 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Rescher, N. (1996). Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
• Rieder, A., Lehrer, C., & Jung, R. (2019) How behavior change support systems influence self-efficacy: A qualitative study using wearables. In Proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2019), Stockholm-Uppsala, Sweden, pp 1–17. [Google Scholar]
• Rieder, A., Lehrer, C., & Jung, R. (2020) Affordances and behavioral outcomes of wearable activity trackers. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2020), Marrakesh, Morocco, pp 1–17. [Google Scholar]
• Robert and Gewald H (2018) Activity tracking affordances: Identification and instrument development. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2018), Japan, pp 1–14. [Google Scholar]
• Rooksby, J., Rost, M., Morrison, A., & Chalmers, M. (2014) Personal tracking as lived informatics. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp 1163–1172. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Schroeder, J., Karkar, R., Murinova, N., Fogarty, J., & Munson, S. A. (2019). Examining opportunities for goal-directed self-tracking to support chronic condition management. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 3(4), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369809 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Sellen, A. J., & Whittaker, S. (2010). Beyond total capture: A constructive critique of Lifelogging. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Shaw, T., & Jarvenpaa, S. (1997). Process models in information systems. In Lee, A.S., Liebenau, J., DeGross,(Eds.),Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 70–100). Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_6 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Shiau, W.-L., & Luo, M. M. (2013). Continuance intention of blog users: The impact of perceived enjoyment, habit, user involvement and blogging time. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(6), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.671851 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Shin, D.-H., & Biocca, F. (2017). Health experience model of personal informatics: The case of a quantified self. Computers in Human Behavior, 69(April), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.019 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Sjöklint, M., Constantiou, I., & Trier, M. (2013) Numerical representations and user behaviour in social networking sites: Towards a multi-theoretical research framework. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2013), pp 1–12. [Google Scholar]
• Sjöklint, M., Constantiou, I., & Trier, M. (2015) The complexities of self-tracking – an inquiry into user reactions and goal attainment. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems(ECIS 2015), Münster, Germany. Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp 1–15. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Swan, M. (2012). Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2(3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm2030093 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• VIGLIA, G., Pera, R., & Bigné, E. (2018). The determinants of stakeholder engagement in digital platforms. Journal of Business Research, 89(August), 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.029 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• White, G., Liang, Z., & Clarke, S. (2019) A quantified-self framework for exploring and enhancing personal productivity. In International Conference on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI), pp 1–6, IEEE. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Zakariah, A., Hosany, S., & Cappellini, B. (2021). Subjectivities in motion: Dichotomies in consumer engagements with self-tracking technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 118(May), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106699 [Google Scholar]