User Diversity in the Motivation for Wearable Activity Tracking: A Predictor for Usage Intensity?

  • Christiane Attig
  • Alexa Karp
  • Thomas Franke
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


Wearable fitness devices (i.e., activity trackers) are increasingly popular for monitoring everyday activity. Research suggests that long-term adherence to activity trackers is relevant for their positive effects on health. Thus, it is essential to understand the factors that foster usage intensity and long-term adherence. Based on first research regarding users’ motives for using activity trackers and self-determination theory, we examined usage motives as predictors for the current and estimated future usage intensity. In addition, we investigated the relation of usage motives and user diversity facets (affinity for technology interaction, geekism, and need for cognition). Results of an online study with N = 58 regular users of activity trackers indicated a substantial variation of users’ intrinsic/extrinsic motivation for using an activity tracker. Further, positive relationships between intrinsic motivation, autonomous regulation and usage intensity were found. Regarding user diversity, affinity for technology interaction and geekism predicted the intrinsic motivation whereas need for cognition did not. Our results imply that, in order to obtain possible beneficial health effects of a more intensive activity tracker usage, users’ intrinsic motivation and autonomy have to be supported.


Activity tracking Quantified self Self-determination theory 


  1. 1.
    Attig C, Franke T (2018) I track, therefore I walk–Exploring the motivational costs of wearing activity trackers in actual users. Int J Hum Comput Stud Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attig C, Wessel D, Franke T (2017) Assessing personality differences in human-technology interaction: an overview of key self-report scales to predict successful interaction. In: Stephanidis C (ed) HCI international 2017: posters’ extended abstracts, part I, CCIS 713. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aykin NM, Aykin T (1991) Individual differences in human–computer interaction. Comput Ind Eng 20:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beißert H, Köhler M, Rempel M, Beierlein C (2015) Kurzskala need for cognition NFC-K. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und SkalenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chemolli E, Gagné M (2014) Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures derived from self-determination theory. Psychol Assess 26:575–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choe EK, Lee NB, Lee B, Pratt W, Kientz JA (2014) Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1143–1152Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coughlin SS, Stewart J (2016) Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity: a review of health intervention studies. J Environ Health Sci 2(6):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Day S (2016) Self-tracking over time: the FITBIT phenomenon. In: Verhaart M, Erturk E, Steele A, Morton S (eds) The 7th annual conference of computing and information technology research and education New Zealand (CITRENZ2016), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Publishing Co., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan LR, Hall CR, Wilson PM, Jenny O (2010) Exercise motivation: a crosssectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7(7):1–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edison SW, Geissler GL (2003) Measuring attitudes towards general technology: antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. J Target Measur Anal Market 12:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein DA, Caraway M, Johnston C, Ping A, Fogarty J, Munson SA (2016) 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. ACM, New York, pp 1109–1113Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franke T, Attig C, Wessel D (2018) A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freudenthaler HH, Spinath B, Neubauer AC (2008) Predicting school achievement in boys and girls. Eur J Pers 22:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gardner B, Lally P (2013) Does intrinsic motivation strengthen physical activity habit? Modeling relationships between self-determination, past behavior, and habit strength. J Behav Med 35:488–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gimpel H, Nißen M, Görlitz RA (2013) Quantifying the quantified self: a study on the motivation of patients to track their own health. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on information systems (ICIS), pp 1–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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. ACM, New York, pp 1305–1316Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagger M, Chatzisarantis N (2008) Self-determination theory and the psychology of exercise. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 1:79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H (2014) Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, pp 3025–3034Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly N (2016) The WEAR Scale: Development of a measure of the social acceptability of a wearable device. Graduate Theses and Dissertations 15230Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lazar A, Koehler C, Tanenbaum J, Nguyen DH (2015) Why we use and abandon smart devices. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM, New York, pp 635–646Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levesque CS, Williams GC, Elliot D, Pickering MA, Bodenhamer B, Finley PJ (2007) Validating the theoretical structure of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire (TSRQ) across three different health behaviors. Health Educ Res 22:691–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martens R, Gulikers J, Bastiaens T (2004) The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. J Comput Assist Learn 20:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nelson EC, Verhagen T, Noordzij ML (2016) Health empowerment through activity trackers: an empirical smart wristband study. Comput Hum Behav 62:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olson K, Camp C, Fuller D (1984) Curiosity and need for cognition. Psychol Rep 54:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Renfree I, Harrison D, Marshall P, Stawarz K, Cox A (2016) Don’t kick the habit: the role of dependency in habit formation apps. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 2932–2939Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rigby CS, Deci EL, Patrick BC, Ryan RM (1992) Beyond the intrinsic–extrinsic dichotomy: self-determination in motivation and learning. Motiv Emot 16:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rupp MA, Michaelis JR, McConnell DS, Smither JA (2018) The role of individual differences on perceptions of wearable fitness device trust, usability, and motivational impact. Appl Ergon 70:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryan RM, Connell JP (1989) Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan RM, Frederick CM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM (1997) Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int J Sport Psychol 28:335–354Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmettow M, Drees M (2014) What drives the geeks? Linking computer enthusiasm to achievement goals. In: Proceedings of HCI 2014, Southport, UK, pp 234–239Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Cognitive and Engineering PsychologyChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive ErgonomicsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations