Friend or Foe? Can Anthropomorphizing Self-Tracking Devices Backfire on Marketers and Consumers?

by | Dec 24, 2022 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Lane Peterson Fronczek
  • Martin Mende
  • Maura L. Scott
  • Gergana Y. Nenkov
  • Anders Gustafsson

Abstract:

Self-quantification, with the promise of motivating consumers to engage in health behaviors through measuring their performance, is a popular trend amongst consumers. Despite the economic impact of self-tracking technologies, consumers’ experiences with self-tracking devices and corresponding consequences for firms remain understudied. Six studies examine how the popular marketing tactic of anthropomorphization influences (a) consumers’ favorability towards wearable tracking devices, (b) their health motivation, and (c) their health behavior (number of steps taken) over time. The authors uncover a novel dynamic effect of anthropomorphism, such that with use, the initially positive evaluations of anthropomorphized (vs. non-anthropomorphized) devices decrease, and (contrary to prior literature), anthropomorphized devices are not favored. Importantly, health motivation and health behaviors are also reduced over time with the use of an anthropomorphized (vs. non-anthropomorphized) wearable device. This decrease occurs because anthropomorphized devices reduce the wearers’ perceived autonomy, which in turn, reduces their health motivation and health behavior. However, customizing the anthropomorphized device (by setting a customized goal or by monitoring a greater number of health-related indicators) can mitigate its negative effects. These findings provide novel insights to marketing scholars and managers, by suggesting that anthropomorphism can be a successful short-term selling strategy, but over time, it can have unintended consequences for both firms and consumers.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00915-1

References:

  • Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (2009). The nutrition elite: Do only the highest levels of caloric knowledge, obesity knowledge, and motivation matter in processing nutrition ad claims and disclosures? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 41–55.
  • Apple (2022). Close your rings. Apple. https://www.apple.com/watch/close-your-rings/. Accessed May 5th, 2022.
  • Attig, C., & Franke, T. (2020). Abandonment of personal quantification: A review and empirical study investigating reasons for wearable activity tracking attrition. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 223–237.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 19–32.
  • Baker, D. A. (2020). Four ironies of self-quantification: Wearable technologies and the quantified self. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1477–1498.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Bender, M. M., & Derby, B. M. (1992). Prevalence of reading nutrition and ingredient information on food labels among adult americans: 1982–1988. Journal of Nutrition Education, 24(6), 292–297.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Bidargaddi, N., Almirall, D., Murphy, S., Nahum-Shani, I., Kovalcik, M., Pituch, T., et al. (2018). To prompt or not to prompt? A microrandomized trial of time-varying push notifications to increase proximal engagement with a mobile health app. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(11), e10123.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Bol, N., Høie, N. M., Nguyen, M. H., & Smit, E. S. (2019). Customization in mobile health apps: Explaining effects on physical activity intentions by the need for autonomy. Digital Health, 5, 2055207619888074.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Canhoto, A. I., & Arp, S. (2017). Exploring the factors that support adoption and sustained use of health and fitness wearables. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 32–60c.
  • Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Chandy, R. K., Venkataramani Johar, G., Moorman, C., & Roberts, J. H. (2021). Call for papers: Journal of marketing special issue: Better marketing for a better. World, 85(3), 1–9. Google Scholar 
  • Charitsis, V., Yngfalk, A. F., & Skålén, P. (2019). ‘Made to run’: Biopolitical marketing and the making of the self-quantified runner. Marketing Theory, 19(3), 347–366.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Chartrand, T. L., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of anthropomorphized objects on behavior. Social Cognition, 26(2), 198–209.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Chintagunta, P., & Labroo, A. A. (2020). It’s about time: A call for more longitudinal consumer research insights. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 5(3), 240–247.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Clawson, J., Pater, J. A., Miller, A. D., Mynatt, E. D., & 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 – UbiComp ’15 (pp. 647–658). Presented at the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference, Osaka, Japan: ACM Press.
  • Cole, C. A., & Gaeth, G. J. (1990). Cognitive and age-related differences in the ability to use nutritional information in a complex environment. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 175–184.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Costa Figueiredo, M., Caldeira, C., Eikey, E. V., Mazmanian, M., & Chen, Y. (2018). Engaging with health data: The interplay between self-tracking activities and emotions in fertility struggles. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–20.
  • Cullen, H., Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., & Rees, G. (2014). Individual differences in anthropomorphic attributions and human brain structure. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(9), 1276–1280.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–436). Sage Publications Ltd.Chapter  Google Scholar 
  • Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 121–130.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2), 165–174.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Dontje, M. L., de Groot, M., Lengton, R. R., van der Schans, C. P., & Krijnen, W. P. (2015). Measuring steps with the fitbit activity tracker: An inter-device reliability study. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 39(5), 286–290.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Dooley, E. E., Golaszewski, N. M., & Bartholomew, J. B. (2017). Estimating accuracy at exercise intensities: A comparative study of self-monitoring heart rate and physical activity wearable devices. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(3), e7043.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship between perceived job autonomy and work performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 367–387.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2007). On seeing human: A three factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 864–886.
  • Epley, N. (2018). A mind like mine: The exceptionally ordinary underpinnings of anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(4), 591–598.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Etkin, J. (2016). The hidden cost of personal quantification. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 967–984.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Evenson, K. R., Goto, M. M., & Furberg, R. D. (2015). Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 1–22.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Farr, C. (2020). Amazon unveils Halo to battle Apple Watch and Fitbit — tracks activity, body fat, emotions. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/27/amazon-hal-wearable-tracks-activity-body-fat-emotions.html. Accessed 19 November 2020.
  • Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 370–377.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Fitbit (2022). www.Fitbit.com. Accessed 6 May 2022.
  • Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Outsourcing self-regulation. Psychological Science, 22(3), 369–375.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Fletcher, S. W., Morgan, T. M., O’Malley, M. S., Earp, J. A. L., & Degnan, D. (1989). Is breast self-examination predicted by knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or sociodemographic characteristics? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 5(4), 207–215.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Fotopoulou, A., & O’Riordan, K. (2017). Training to self-care: Fitness tracking, biopedagogy and the healthy consumer. Health Sociology Review, 26(1), 54–68.Article  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 (pp. 487–496). ACM Press.
  • Gagne, M. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(4), 372–390.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Gimpel, H., Nißen, M., & Görlitz, R. A. (2013). Quantifying the quantified self: A study on the motivation of patients to track their own health. Healthcare Information Systems, 1–16.
  • Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching users’ goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35–74.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hamilton, R., & Price, L. L. (2019). Consumer journeys: Developing consumer-based strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47, 187–191.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hamilton, R., Ferraro, R., Haws, K. L., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2021). Traveling with companions: The social customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 68–92.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Harkins, S. G., Latane, B., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(5), 457–465.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Harris, T., Kerry, S. M., Victor, C. R., Ekelund, U., Woodcock, A., Iliffe, S., et al. (2015). A primary care nurse-delivered walking intervention in older adults: PACE (Pedometer Accelerometer Consultation Evaluation)-lift cluster randomised controlled trial. PLOS Medicine, 12(2), e1001783.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hassan, L., Dias, A., & Hamari, J. (2019). How motivational feedback increases user’s benefits and continued use: A study on gamification, quantified-self and social networking. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 151–162.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
  • Hildebrand, C., & Bergner, A. (2021). Conversational robo advisors as surrogates of trust: Onboarding experience, firm perception, and consumer financial decision making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 659–676.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2018). Consumer and object experience in the internet of things: An assemblage theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1178–1204.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2019). Object-oriented anthropomorphism as a mechanism for understanding AI. Advances in Consumer Research, 47, eds. Rajesh Bagchi, Lauren Block, and Leonard Lee, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 352–358.
  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 18.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Hur, J. D., Koo, M., & Hofmann, W. (2015). When temptations come alive: How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 340–358. Google Scholar 
  • IDC.com (2021) Consumer enthusiasm for wearable devices drives the market to 28.4% Growth in 2020, according to IDC. IDC: The Premier Global Market Intelligence Company. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS47534521. Accessed August 16th, 2021.
  • Jakicic, J. M., Davis, K. K., Rogers, R. J., King, W. C., Marcus, M. D., Helsel, D., et al. (2016). Effect of wearable technology combined with a lifestyle intervention on long-term weight loss: The IDEA randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 316(11), 1161–1171.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Jayanti, R. K., & Burns, A. C. (1998). The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 6–15.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Joosse, M., Lohse, M., Perez, J. G., & Evers, V. (2013). What you do is who you are: The role of task context in perceived social robot personality. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 2134–2139). IEEE.
  • Kang, J., Binda, J., Agarwal, P., Saconi, B., & Choe, E. K. (2017). Fostering user engagement: Improving sense of identity through cosmetic customization in wearable trackers. In Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (pp. 11–20). Presented at the PervasiveHealth ’17: 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, Barcelona Spain: ACM.
  • Kim, H. Y., & Lee, Y. (2020). The effect of online customization on consumers’ happiness and purchase intention and the mediating roles of autonomy, competence, and pride of authorship. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(5), 403–413.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Kim, S., Chen, R. P., & Zhang, K. (2016). Anthropomorphized helpers undermine autonomy and enjoyment in computer games. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 282–302.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Kiwanuka, E. (2020). The health impact of obesity. In Obesity (pp. 73–83). Elsevier.
  • Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Ledger, D., & McCaffrey, D. (2014). Inside wearables: How the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Endeavour Partners, 200(93), 1. Google Scholar 
  • Lee, V. R., & Drake, J. (2013). Digital physical activity data collection and use by endurance runners and distance cyclists. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(1–2), 39–63.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Lemaignan, S., Fink, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). The dynamics of anthropomorphism in robotics. In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 226–227). Presented at the 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
  • Lupton, D. (2016a). The diverse domains of quantified selves: Self-tracking modes and dataveillance. Economy and Society, 45(1), 101–122.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Lupton, D. (2016b). The quantified self. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar 
  • Maltseva, K., & Lutz, C. (2018). A quantum of self: A study of self-quantification and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 102–114.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Markets and Markets (2021). Wearable technology report (SE 2763). Markets and markets research private Ltd. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/wearable-electronics-market-983.html
  • Mathios, A. D. (1996). Socioeconomic factors, nutrition, and food choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1), 45–54.Article  Google Scholar 
  • McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U. (2017). Single-paper meta-analysis: Benefits for study summary, theory testing, and replicability. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1048–1063. Google Scholar 
  • Moorman, C., & Matulich, E. (1993). A model of consumers’ preventive health behaviors: The role of health motivation and health ability. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 208–228.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Nass, C., Isbister, K., & Lee, E.-J. (2000). Truth is beauty: Researching embodied conversational agents. Embodied Conversational Agents, 374–402.
  • Nayga, R. M., Jr. (1997). Impact of sociodemographic factors on perceived importance of nutrition in food shopping. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 1–9.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. Public Health Reports, 115(1), 12–24.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2019). Relationship journeys in the internet of things: A new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 216–237.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Paluch, S., & Tuzovic, S. (2019). Persuaded self-tracking with wearable technology: Carrot or stick? Journal of Services Marketing, 33(4), 436–448.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Pantzar, M., & Ruckenstein, M. (2015). The heart of everyday analytics: Emotional, material and practical extensions in self-tracking market. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18(1), 92–109.Article  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.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Pettinico, G., & Milne, G. R. (2017). Living by the numbers: Understanding the “quantification effect.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(4), 281–291.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14, 154–166.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 372–395.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1586.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Sanders, J., Loveday, A., Pearson, N., Edwardson, C., Yates, T., Biddle, S., & Esliger, D. (2016). Devices for self-monitoring sedentary time or physical activity: A scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e90.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Sharpe Wessling, K., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). Mturk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211–230.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Shin, G., Jarrahi, M. H., Fei, Y., Karami, A., Gafinowitz, N., Byun, A., & Lu, X. (2019). Wearable activity trackers, accuracy, adoption, acceptance and health impact: A systematic literature review. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 93, 103153.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. (2004). Effecting durable change: A team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 341–367.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Statista. (2022). Wearables shipments worldwide market share 2014-2022, by vendor. https://www.statista.com/statistics/435944/quarterly-wearables-shipments-worldwide-market-share-byvendor/wearables-shipments-worldwide-market-share-by-vendor/
  • Sundar, S. S. (2008). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 72–88). Routledge.
  • Swan, M. (2009). Emerging patient-driven health care models: An examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(2), 492–525.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Valle, C. G., Nezami, B. T., & Tate, D. F. (2020). Designing in-app messages to nudge behavior change: Lessons learned from a weight management app for young adults. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 95–101.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Van den Bulck, J. (2015). Sleep apps and the quantified self: Blessing or curse? Journal of Sleep Research, 24(2), 121–123.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Vnoutchkov, M. S. (2021). Investigating the effect of customization on engagement with wearable activity trackers. University of Twente Student Theses. http://essay.utwente.nl/85995/ Accessed August 20th, 2021.
  • Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human?: The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Wen Wan, E., Peng Chen, R., & Jin, L. (2017). Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 1008–1030. Google Scholar 
  • Wiklund, P. (2016). The role of physical activity and exercise in obesity and weight management: Time for critical appraisal. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5(2), 151–154.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Winterich, K. P., Nenkov, G. Y., & Gonzales, G. E. (2019). Knowing what it makes: How product transformation salience increases recycling. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 21–37.Article  Google Scholar 
  • Wittkowski, K., Klein, J. F., Falk, T., Schepers, J. J., Aspara, J., & Bergner, K. N. (2020). What gets measured gets done: Can self-tracking technologies enhance advice compliance? Journal of Service Research, 1094670520904424.
  • Wolf, G. (2009). Know Thyself: Tracking Every Facet of Life, from Sleep to Mood to Pain, 24/7/365. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2009/06/lbnp-knowthyself/. Accessed 25 June 2018.
  • Yam, K. C., Bigman, Y. E., Tang, P. M., Ilies, R., De Cremer, D., Soh, H., & Gray, K. (2021). Robots at work: People prefer—and forgive—service robots with perceived feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1557.
  • Zhou, X., Kim, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Money helps when money feels: Money anthropomorphism increases charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 953–972.