Measuring commitment to self-tracking: development of the C2ST scale

Author(s):

• Elçin Hancı
• Joyca Lacroix
• Peter A. M. Ruijten
• Antal Haans
• Wijnand IJsselsteijn

Abstract:

Self-tracking technologies bring a new set of experiences into our lives. Through sensors and ubiquitous measurements of bodily performance, a new form of automation experience shapes our understanding of our body and our behavior. While for many individuals self-tracking has an important role in their daily lives, a theoretical understanding of the level and behavioral manifestations of commitment to self-tracking is still missing. This paper introduces the concept of commitment to self-tracking and presents the development and first validation of a new 12-item behavior-based scale for its measurement, the Commitment to Self-Tracking ( C2ST ) scale. Using online survey data from individuals wearing self-tracking technology ( N = 300), we explore the underlying factor structure of the scale and determine its reliability and validity. An analysis of the survey data indicates that commitment to self-tracking positively correlates with autonomous motivation for tracking and negatively correlates with controlled motivation. The C2ST scale brings insights on how self-tracking technology, as a novel automation experience, is affecting users’ everyday behaviors. Overall, by emphasizing the feasibility of defining commitment behaviorally, the paper concludes with implications for theory and practice and suggests directions for future research.

Documentation:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01453-9

References:

• 1.Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J Occup Psychol 63(1):1–18
• 2.Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Google Scholar 
• 3.Bode M, & Kristensen DB (2015) The digital doppelgänger within: a study on self-tracking and the quantified self movement. In Assembling Consumption: Researching Actors, Networks and Markets. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743608
• 4.Bravata DM, Smith-Spangler C, Sundaram V, Gienger AL, Lin N, Lewis R, Stave CD, Olkin I, Sirard JR (2007) Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 298(19):2296–2304. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.19.2296Article  Google Scholar 
• 5.Choe EK, Lee NB, Lee B, Pratt W, Kientz JA (2014) Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. Conf Human Factors Comput Syst Proc:1143, 1152. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557372
• 6.Choe EK, Lee B, Schraefel MC (2015) Characterizing visualization insights from quantified selfers’ personal data presentations. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 35(4):28–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.51Article  Google Scholar 
• 7.Deci EL, Ryan RM (2008) Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol 49:182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801Article  Google Scholar 
• 8.Didžiokaitė G, Saukko P, Greiffenhagen C (2018) The mundane experience of everyday calorie trackers: beyond the metaphor of Quantified Self. New Media Soc 20(4):1470–1487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817698478Article  Google Scholar 
• 9.Dinno A (2009) Exploring the sensitivity of Horn’s parallel analysis to the distributional form of random data. Multivariate Behavioral Research 44(3):362–388
• 10.Etkin J (2016) The hidden cost of personal quantification. J Consum Res 42(6):967–984. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv095Article  Google Scholar 
• 11.Fritz T, Huang EM, Murphy GC, & Zimmermann T (2014) Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’14, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557383
• 12.Gilmore JN (2015) Everywear: The quantified self and wearable fitness technologies. New Media Soc 1984:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815588768Article  Google Scholar 
• 13.Gimpel H, Nißen M, Görlitz RA (2013) Quantifying the quantified self: a study on the motivation of patients to track their own health. Icis 2013 i(3):128–133. https://doi.org/10.4156/jdcta.vol4.issue7.6Article  Google Scholar 
• 14.Glorfeld LW (1995) An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educ Psychol Meas 55(3):377–393
• 15.Gouveia R, Karapanos E, Hassenzahl M (2015) How do we engage with activity trackers? pp 1305–1316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804290Book  Google Scholar 
• 16.Heffernan KJ, Vetere F, & Chang S (2016) You put what, where? Hobbyist use of insertable devices. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, May, 1798–1809. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858392
• 17.Kersten-van Dijk ET, IJsselsteijn WA (2016) Design beyond the numbers: sharing, comparing, storytelling and the need for a quantified us. Interact Des Archit 29(1):121–135 Google Scholar 
• 18.Kersten-van Dijk ET, Westerink JHDM, Beute F, IJsselsteijn WA (2017) Personal informatics, self-insight, and behavior change: a critical review of current literature. Hum Comput Interact 32(5–6):268–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1276456Article  Google Scholar 
• 19.Kranz M, Möller A, Hammerla N, Diewald S, Plötz T, Olivier P, Roalter L (2013) The mobile fitness coach: towards individualized skill assessment using personalized mobile devices. Pervasive Mobile Comput 9(2):203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2012.06.002Article  Google Scholar 
• 20.Ledger D, McCaffrey D (2014) Inside Wearables: how the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Retrieved from https://endeavourpartners.net/white-papers/. Accessed February 2020
• 21.Lee VR (2014) What’s happening in the “quantified self” movement? Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences. ICLS 2(January):1032–1036 http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84937681741&partnerID=40&md5=8f339111ce28ed533db81b2e69038376 Google Scholar 
• 22.Lupton D (2014) Self-tracking modes: reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. SSRN Electronic Journal, October. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2483549
• 23.Lupton D (2018) ‘I just want it to be done, done, done!’ food tracking apps, affects, and agential capacities. Multimodal Technol Interact 2(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2020029
• 24.Lyall B, Robards B (2018) Tool, toy and tutor: subjective experiences of digital self-tracking. J Sociol 54(1):108–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317722854Article  Google Scholar 
• 25.Neff G, Nafus D (2016) Self-Tracking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
• 26.Pelletier LG, Rocchi MA, Vallerand RJ, Deci EL, Ryan RM (2013) Validation of the revised sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychol Sport Exerc 14(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.002Article  Google Scholar 
• 27.Perski O, Blandford A, Garnett C, Crane D, West R, Michie S (2019) A self-report measure of engagement with digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs): development and psychometric evaluation of the “DBCI Engagement Scale.”. Transl Behav Med. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz039
• 28.Pink S, Sumartojo S, Lupton D, Heyes La Bond C (2017) Mundane data: the routines, contingencies and accomplishments of digital living. Big Data Soc 4(1):205395171770092. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717700924Article  Google Scholar 
• 29.Piwek L, Ellis DA, Andrews S, Joinson A (2016) The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med 13(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953Article  Google Scholar 
• 30.Pourzanjani A, Quisel T, Foschini L (2016) Adherent use of digital health trackers is associated with weight loss. PLoS One 11:e0152504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152504Article  Google Scholar 
• 31.Robbins J (2010) GPS navigation … but what is it doing to us? IEEE Int Symp Technol Soc 2010:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2010.5514623Article  Google Scholar 
• 32.Rooksby J, Rost M, Morrison A, & Chalmers M (2014) Personal tracking as lived informatics. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, May, 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557039
• 33.Ruckenstein M (2014) Visualized and interacted life: personal analytics and engagements with data doubles. Societies 4(1):68–84. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4010068Article  Google Scholar 
• 34.Ruckenstein M, Pantzar M (2017) Beyond the quantified self: Thematic exploration of a dataistic paradigm. New Media & Society 19(3):401–418
• 35.Ryan R, Deci E (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68Article  Google Scholar 
• 36.Sheeran P, Webb TL (2016) The intention–behavior gap. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10(9):503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265Article  Google Scholar 
• 37.Shih PC, Han K, Poole ES, Rosson MB, & Carroll JM (2015) Use and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackers Erika Shehan Poole, The Pennsylvania State University Mary Beth Rosson, The Pennsylvania State University. IConference 2015: Create, Collaborate, Celebrate. (March 24-27, 2015), 1, 1–12.
• 38.Silverman J, Barasch A (2016) You are what you track: the effect of failing to log an experience on future use of tracking app. NA – Adv Consum Res 44:21–25 Google Scholar 
• 39.Simpson CC, Mazzeo SE (2017) Calorie counting and fitness tracking technology: associations with eating disorder symptomatology. Eat Behav 26(2017):89–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.02.002Article  Google Scholar 
• 40.Tang LM, & Kay J (2017) Harnessing long term physical activity data—how long-term trackers use data and how an adherence-based interface supports new insights. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3090091
• 41.Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM (2012) Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78Article  Google Scholar 
• 42.Till C (2014) Exercise as labour: quantified self and the transformation of exercise into labour. Societies 4(SEPTEMBER 2014):446–462. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4030446Article  Google Scholar 
• 43.Viseu A, & Suchman L (2010) Wearable augmentations. Technologized Images, Technologized Bodies: Anthropological Approaches to a New Politics of Vision, 161–184
• 44.Wiener Y, Gechman AS (1977) Commitment: a behavioral approach to job involvement. J Vocat Behav 10(1):47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(77)90041-0Article  Google Scholar 
• 45.Wolf G, (2008) WHY?. Quantified Self. https://quantifiedself.com/blog/but-why/. Accessed 10 Feb 2020
• 46.Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism. Profile Books