Wellbeing in the Making: Peoples’ Experiences with Wearable Activity Trackers

by | Jun 14, 2016 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Evangelos Karapanos
  • Rúben Gouveia
  • Marc Hassenzah
  • lJodi Forlizzi

Abstract:

Background

Wearable activity trackers have become a viable business opportunity. Nevertheless, research has raised concerns over their potentially detrimental effects on wellbeing. For example, a recent study found that while counting steps with a pedometer increased steps taken throughout the day, at the same time it decreased the enjoyment people derived from walking. This poses a serious threat to the incorporation of healthy routines into everyday life. Most studies aim at proving the effectiveness of activity trackers. In contrast, a wellbeing-oriented perspective calls for a deeper understanding of how trackers create and mediate meaningful experiences in everyday life.

Methods

We present a study of real life experiences with three wearable activity trackers: Fitbit, Jawbone Up and Nike + Fuelband. Using need fulfillment as a theoretical lens, we study recent, memorable experiences submitted by 133 users of activity trackers.

Results

We reveal a two-dimensional structure of users’ experience driven by the needs of physical thriving or relatedness. Our qualitative findings further show a nuanced picture of the adoption of activity trackers and their impact on wellbeing. For instance, while reflection about own exercising practices lost its relevance over time, users continued to wear the tracker to document and collect their runs. More than just supporting behavioral change, we find trackers to provide multiple psychological benefits. For instance, they enhance feelings of autonomy as people gain more control about their exercising regime. Others experience relatedness, when family members purchase a tracker for relatives and join them in their efforts towards a better, healthier self.

Conclusions

The study highlights that activity trackers can be more than “tools” to change behavior. Through incorporation in daily life, they offer new social experiences, new ways of boosting our self-esteem and getting closer to our ideal selves.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-016-0042-6

References:
  1. Adams A, Lunt P, Cairns P. A qualititative approach to HCI research. In: Cairns P, Cox A, editors. Research methods for human-computer interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 138–57.
  2. Berryman JW. Exercise is medicine: a historical perspective. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010;9(4):195–201.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  3. Calvo RA, Peters D. Positive computing: technology for wellbeing and human potential. MIT Press; 2014.
  4. Consolvo S, McDonald DW, Landay JA. 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. New York: ACM; 2009. p. 405–14.
  5. Conroy DE, Yang CH, Maher JP. Behavior change techniques in top-ranked mobile apps for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(6):649–52.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  6. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):627–68.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  7. Desmet P, Hassenzahl M. Towards happiness: possibility-driven design. In: Human-computer interaction: the agency perspective. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012. p. 3–27.
  8. Diefenbach S, Kolb N, Hassenzahl M. The ‘hedonic’ in human-computer interaction: history, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems. New York: ACM; 2014. p. 305–14).
  9. Diefenbach S, Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Hartung L, Lenz E, Laschke M. Designing for well-being : a case study of keeping small secrets. J Posit Psychol. 2016;. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1163405. Google Scholar 
  10. Diener E. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):34–43.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  11. Epstein DA, Caraway M, Johnston C, Ping A, Fogarty J, Munson SA. 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 (CHI ’16). New York: ACM; 2016. p. 1109–13.
  12. Etkin J. The hidden cost of personal quantification. J Consum Res. 2016;42(6):967–84.Article  Google Scholar 
  13. Fritz T, Huang EM, Murphy GC, Zimmermann T. Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM; 2014. p. 487–96.
  14. Fogg BJ. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann. 2003.
  15. Forlizzi J, Battarbee K. Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. New York: ACM; 2004. p. 261–68.
  16. Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol. 1999;54(7):493–503.Article  Google Scholar 
  17. Gouveia R, Karapanos E, Hassenzahl M. 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. New York: ACM; 2015. p. 1305–16.
  18. Gouveia R, Pereira F, Karapanos E, Munson S, Hassenzahl M. Exploring the design space of glanceable feedback for physical activity trackers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM; 2016 (to appear).
  19. Guevarra DA, Howell RT. To have in order to do: exploring the effects of consuming experiential products on well-being. J Consum Psychol. 2015;25(1):28–41.Article  Google Scholar 
  20. Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz A. Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience. Interact Comput. 2010;22(5):353–62.Article  Google Scholar 
  21. Hassenzahl M, Wiklund-Engblom A, Bengs A, Hägglund S, Diefenbach S. Experience-oriented and product-oriented evaluation: psychological need fulfillment, positive affect, and product perception. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2015;31(8):530–44.Article  Google Scholar 
  22. Hassenzahl M, Laschke M. Pleasurable troublemakers. In: Walz SP, Deterding S, editors. The gameful world: approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015. p. 167–95. Google Scholar 
  23. Hassenzahl M, Eckoldt K, Diefenbach S, Laschke M, Lenz E, Kim J. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. Int J Des. 2013;7(3):21–31. Google Scholar 
  24. Howell RT, Hill G. The mediators of experiential purchases : determining the impact of psychological needs satisfaction and social comparison. J Posit Psychol. 2009;4(6):511–22. doi:10.1080/17439760903270993.Article  Google Scholar 
  25. Howell RT, Chenot D, Hill G, Howell CJ. Momentary happiness: the role of psychological need satisfaction. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:1–15. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9166-1.Article  Google Scholar 
  26. Karapanos E, Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Martens JB. User experience over time: an initial framework. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM; 2009. p. 729–38.
  27. Karapanos E (2015) Sustaining user engagement with behavior-change tools. Interactions. 2015;22(4):48–52.
  28. Laschke M, Diefenbach S, Schneider T, Hassenzahl M. Keymoment: initiating behavior change through friendly friction. In: Proceedings of the Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, NordiCHI’14.
  29. Ledger D, McCaffrey D. How the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. 2014. http://www.endeavourpartners.net/white-papers/. Retrieved 7 June 2016.
  30. Lucero A, Karapanos E, Arrasvuori J, Korhonen H. Playful or gameful?: creating delightful user experiences. Interactions. 2014;21(3):34–9.Article  Google Scholar 
  31. Maitland J, Sherwood S, Barkhuus L, Anderson I, Hall M, Brown B, Chalmers M, Muller M. Increasing the awareness of daily activity levels with pervasive computing. In: Pervasive health conference and workshops. IEEE; 2006. p. 1–9.
  32. McCarthy J, Wright P. Technology as experience. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2004. Google Scholar 
  33. NPD. Digital fitness and wearable technology, NPD group’s consumer technology report. 2013.
  34. Partala T, Kallinen A. Understanding the most satisfying and unsatisfying user experiences: emotions, psychological needs, and context. Interact Comput. 2012;24(1):25–34.Article  Google Scholar 
  35. Partala T, Kujala S. Exploring the role of ten universal values in using products and services. Interact Comput. 2015;. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwv007. Google Scholar 
  36. Rooksby J, Rost M, Morrison A, Chalmers MC. Personal tracking as lived informatics. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM; 2014. p. 1163–72.
  37. RWJF Health Policy Snapshot. What are the biggest drivers of cost in U.S. health care? 2011.
  38. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ, Kim Y, Kasser T. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80(2):325.Article PubMed  Google Scholar 
  39. Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M. The dynamic of social practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2012 (Kindle Edition).Book  Google Scholar 
  40. Tuch AN, Trusell R, Hornbæk K. Analyzing users’ narratives to understand experience with interactive products. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM; 2013. p. 2079–88.
  41. Verbeek PP. What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press; 2005. Google Scholar 
  42. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063.Article PubMed  Google Scholar