‘I Just Want It to Be Done, Done, Done!’ Food Tracking Apps, Affects, and Agential Capacities

by | May 23, 2018 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Lupton, Deborah

Abstract:

Food-tracking apps constitute a major category of the thousands of food-related apps now available. They are promoted as helping users monitor and measure their food consumption to improve their health or to lose weight. In this article, I present six vignettes drawn from interviews with Australian women about their use and non-use of food-tracking apps. The vignettes provide detailed insights into the experiences of these women and their broader sociocultural and biographical contexts. The analysis is based on feminist materialism theoretical perspectives, seeking to identify the relational connections, affective forces, and agential capacities generated in and through the human-app assemblage. The vignettes reveal that affective forces related to the desire to control and manage the body and conform to norms and ideals about good health and body weight inspire people to try food-tracking apps. However, the agential capacities promised by app developers may not be generated even when people have committed hope and effort in using the app. Frustration, disappointment, the fear of becoming too controlled, and annoyance or guilt evoked by the demands of the app can be barriers to continued and successful use. Sociocultural and biographical contexts and relational connections are also central to the capacities of human-app assemblages. Women’s ambivalences about using apps as part of efforts to control their body weight are sited within their struggles to conform to accepted ideals of physical appearance but also their awareness that these struggles may be too limiting of their agency. This analysis, therefore, draws attention to what a body can and cannot do as it comes together with food tracking apps.

Document:

https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/2/2/29/htm

References:
  1. Bennett, J. A vitalist stopover on the way to a new materialism. In New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics; Coole, D., Frost, S., Eds.; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2010; pp. 47–69. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, J. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and Ethics; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barad, K. Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax 2014, 20, 168–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barad, K. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 2003, 28, 801–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Braidotti, R. A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory Cult. Soc. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Haraway, D. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, J. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lupton, D.; Smith, G.J.D. ‘A much better person’: The agential capacities of self-tracking practices. In Metric Culture: Ontologies of Self-Tracking Practices; Ajana, B., Ed.; Emerald Publishing: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lupton, D. Vitalities and visceralities: Alternative body/food politics in new digital media. In Alternative Food Politics: From the Margins to the Mainstream; Phillipov, M., Kirkwood, K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lupton, D. Wearable devices: Sociotechnical imaginaries and agential capacities. In Embodied Technology: Wearables, Implantables, Embeddables, Ingestibles; Pedersen, I., Iliadis, A., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lupton, D. Apps as artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies 2014, 4, 606–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Davis, J.L.; Chouinard, J.B. Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 36, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Akrich, M. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change; Bijker, W., Law, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 205–224. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lupton, D. The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerrard, J.; Rudolph, S.; Sriprakash, A. The politics of post-qualitative inquiry: History and power. Qual. Inq. 2017, 23, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alldred, P.; Fox, N.J. Young bodies, power and resistance: A new materialist perspective. J. Youth Stud. 2017, 20, 1161–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bennett, J. The force of things: Steps toward an ecology of matter. Political Theory 2004, 32, 347–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stephens, N.; Ruivenkamp, M. Promise and ontological ambiguity in the in vitro meat imagescape: From laboratory myotubes to the cultured burger. Sci. Cult. 2016, 25, 327–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Johnston, R. Australians Only Use Most Apps for Two Weeks, Tops. 2016. Available online: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/australians-only-use-most-apps-for-two-weeks-tops/ (accessed on 13 March 2018).
  20. Fox, S.; Duggan, M. Tracking for Health; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. Krebs, P.; Duncan, D. Health app use among us mobile phone users: A national survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015, 3, e101. [Google Scholar]
  22. Accenture Consulting. Accenture 2016 Consumer Survey on Patient Engagement; Accenture Consulting, 2016. Available online: https://www.accenture.com/t20160629T045303__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-6/Accenture-Patients-Want-A-Heavy-Dose-of-Digital-Research.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2018).
  23. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Patient Adoption of mHealth: Use, Evidence and Remaining Barriers to Mainstream Acceptance; IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics: Parsipanny, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nielsen, C. Hacking Health: How Consumers Use Smartphones and Wearable Tech to Track Their Health. 2014. Available online: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2014/hacking-health-how-consumers-use-smartphones-and-wearable-tech-to-track-their-health.html (accessed on 2 March 2018).
  25. Chen, J.; Cade, J.E.; Allman-Farinelli, M. The Most Popular Smartphone Apps for Weight Loss: A Quality Assessment. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2015, 3. Available online: http://mhealth.jmir.org/2015/4/e104/ (accessed on 2 March 2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Breton, E.R.; Fuemmeler, B.F.; Abroms, L.C. Weight loss—There is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices? Transl. Behav. Med. 2011, 1, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nikolaou, C.K.; Lean, M. Mobile applications for obesity and weight management: Current market characteristics. Int. J. Obes. 2017, 41, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Flaherty, S.-J.; McCarthy, M.; Collins, A.; McAuliffe, F. Can existing mobile apps support healthier food purchasing behaviour? Content analysis of nutrition content, behaviour change theory and user quality integration. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Davis, S.F.; Ellsworth, M.A.; Payne, H.E.; Hall, S.M.; West, J.H.; Nordhagen, A.L. Health Behavior Theory in Popular Calorie Counting Apps: A Content Analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2016, 4. Available online: http://mhealth.jmir.org/2016/1/e19/ (accessed on 30 March 2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Simpson, C.C.; Mazzeo, S.E. Calorie counting and fitness tracking technology: Associations with eating disorder symptomatology. Eat. Behav. 2017, 26, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Levinson, C.A.; Fewell, L.; Brosof, L.C. My Fitness Pal calorie tracker usage in the eating disorders. Eat. Behav. 2017, 27, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Carter, C.M.; Burley, J.V.; Nykjaer, C.; Cade, E.J. Adherence to a Smartphone Application for Weight Loss Compared to Website and Paper Diary: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e32. Available online: http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e32/ (accessed on 3 March 2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hood, M.; Wilson, R.; Corsica, J.; Bradley, L.; Chirinos, D.; Vivo, A. What do we know about mobile applications for diabetes self-management? A review of reviews. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 39, 981–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Andreas, S.; Simon, F.; Elisabeth, A. Development of a mobile multi-device nutrition logger. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI International Workshop on Multisensory Approaches to Human-Food Interaction, Glasgow, UK, 13–17 November 2017; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Khatri, A.; Shastri, D.; Tsiamyrtzis, P.; Uyanik, I.; Akleman, E.; Pavlidis, I. Effects of simple personalized goals on the usage of a physical activity app. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 2249–2256. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ye, X.; Chen, G.; Gao, Y.; Wang, H.; Cao, Y. Assisting food journaling with automatic eating detection. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3255–3262. [Google Scholar]
  37. Epstein, D.A.; Cordeiro, F.; Fogarty, J.; Hsieh, H.; Munson, S.A. Crumbs: Lightweight daily food challenges to promote engagement and mindfulness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 5632–5644. [Google Scholar]
  38. Jill, F.; Brindal, E.; Gilly, H.; Shlomo, B.; Mac, C. Mobile applications to support dietary change: Highlighting the importance of evaluation context. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1781–1786. [Google Scholar]
  39. Harrison, S.; Sengers, P.; Tatar, D. Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interact. Comput. 2011, 23, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Purpura, S.; Schwanda, V.; Williams, K.; Stubler, W.; Sengers, P. Fit4life: The design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weight. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–11 May 2011; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 423–432. [Google Scholar]
  41. Eikey, E.V.; Reddy, M.C. It’s definitely been a journey: A qualitative study on how women with eating disorders use weight loss apps. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 642–654. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lupton, D. Quantifying the body: Monitoring and measuring health in the age of mhealth technologies. Crit. Public Health 2013, 23, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lupton, D. Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Cult. Health Sex. 2015, 17, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gard, M.; Enright, E. Computer says no: An analysis of three digital food education resources. Asia-Pac. J. Health Sport Phys. Educ. 2016, 7, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fotopoulou, A.; O’Riordan, K. Training to self-care: Fitness tracking, biopedagogy and the healthy consumer. Health Sociol. Rev. 2017, 26, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Niva, M. Online weight-loss services and a calculative practice of slimming. Health 2017, 21, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Didžiokaitė, G.; Saukko, P.; Greiffenhagen, C. The mundane experience of everyday calorie trackers: Beyond the metaphor of quantified self. New Media Soc. 2017, 20, 1470–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fox, N.J.; Alldred, P. Mixed methods, materialism and the micropolitics of the research-assemblage. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2018, 21, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fox, N.J.; Alldred, P. New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2015, 18, 399–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hultman, K.; Lenz Taguchi, H. Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2010, 23, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fullagar, S. Post-qualitative inquiry and the new materialist turn: Implications for sport, health and physical culture research. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2017, 9, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fox, N.J. Personal health technologies, micropolitics and resistance: A new materialist analysis. Health 2017, 21, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Grosz, E. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism; Allen & Unwin: Sydney, Australia, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lupton, D. Fat, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]