Advertisement

Step by Step – Users and Non-Users of Life-Logging Technologies

  • Chantal LidyniaEmail author
  • Philipp Brauner
  • Laura Burbach
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 795)

Abstract

A pronounced deficit of physical activity is one of the challenges in today’s societies. Lacking the minimum of activity recommended for a healthy lifestyle can be avoided by so-called life-logging technologies. However, usage is still low. To understand what factors contribute to an acceptance and use of these technologies, we conducted a quantitative online study with users and non-users. In total, 412 people have participated, 225 of them active users of life-logging technologies and 187 non-users. It was found that individual user characteristics shape its acceptance. For instance, the goals for possible behavior change, which the use of life-logging devices can support, differ significantly between users and non-users. Furthermore, the study reveals that factors such as age, motives for physical activity, and privacy concerns are key determinants for projected acceptance of life-logging technologies.

Keywords

Persuasive technology Privacy User modelling Quantified-self Consumer Health Information Technology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Parts of this work have been funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under project No. KIS1DSD045 “myneData” and V5JPI004 “PAAL.”

References

  1. 1.
    Krug, S., Jordan, S., Mensink, G.B.M., Müters, S., Finger, J., Lampert, T.: Physical activity. Results of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt 56, 765–771 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadgraft, N.T., Lynch, B.M., Clark, B.K., Healy, G.N., Owen, N., Dunstan, D.W.: Excessive sitting at work and at home: correlates of occupational sitting and TV viewing time in working adults. BMC Public Health 15, 899 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Warburton, D.E.R., Nicol, C.W., Bredin, S.S.D.: Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ 174, 801–809 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, I.-M., Shiroma, E.J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S.N., Katzmarzyk, P.T., Alkandari, J.R., Bo Andersen, L., Bauman, A., Brownson, R.C., Bull, F.C., Craig, C.L., Ekelund, U., Goenka, S., Guthold, R., Hallal, P.C., Haskell, W.L., Heath, G.W., Inoue, S., Kahlmeier, S., Kohl III, H.W., Lambert, V., Leetongin, G., Loos, R., Marcus, B., Martin, B., Owen, N., Parra, D.C., Pratt, M., Ogilvie, D., Reis, R.S., Sallis, J.F., Lucia Sarmiento, O., Wells, J.C.: Impact of physical inactivity on the world’s major non- communicable diseases. Lancet 380, 219–229 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rühle, J.: The Mobile Health Market in Germany, Berlin (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasche, P., Wille, M., Bröhl, C., Theis, S., Schäfer, K., Knobe, M., Mertens, A.: Prevalence of health app use among older adults in Germany: national survey. JMIR mHealth uHealth 6, e26 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lupton, D., Smith, G.J.D.: “A much better person”: the agential capacities of self-tracking practices. In: Ajana, B. (ed.) Metric Culture: Ontologies of Self-Tracking Practices. Emerald Publishing, London (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lupton, D.: Understanding the human machine. Technol. Soc. Mag. IEEE 32, 25–30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bravata, D.M., Smith-Spangler, C., Sundaram, V., Gienger, A.L., Lin, N., Lewis, R., Stave, C.D., Olkin, I., Sirard, J.R.: Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. JAMA 298, 2296–2304 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brauner, P., van Heek, J., Ziefle, M.: Age, gender, and technology attitude as factors for acceptance of smart interactive textiles in home environments. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2017), pp. 13–24. SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Porto, Portugal (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com 15, 39–50 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: The surveillance society: which factors form public acceptance of surveillance technologies? In: Helfert, M., Klein, C., Donnellan, B., Gusikhin, O. (eds.) Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and Intelligent Transport Systems, pp. 170–191. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bansal, G., Zahedi, F.M., Gefen, D.: The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online. Decis. Support Syst. 49, 138–150 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motti, V.G., Caine, K.: Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In: Brenner, M., et al. (eds.) International Financial Cryptography Association FC 2015 Workshops, pp. 231–244 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wieneke, A., Lehrer, C., Zeder, R., Jung, R.: Privacy-related decision-making in the context of wearable use. In: PACIS 2016 Proceedings Paper 67 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clawson, J., Pater, J.A., Miller, A.D., Mynatt, E.D., Mamykina, L.: No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist. In: UbiComp 2015, pp. 647–658 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazar, A., Koehler, C., Tanenbaum, J., Nguyen, D.H.: Why we use and abandon smart devices. In: UbiComp 2015 - Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 635–646 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Epstein, D.A., Caraway, M., Johnston, C., Ping, A., Fogarty, J., Munson, S.A.: Beyond abandonment to next steps: understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool use. In: CHI 2016, pp. 1109–1113 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lidynia, C., Brauner, P., Ziefle, M.: A step in the right direction – understanding privacy concerns and perceived sensitivity of fitness trackers. In: Ahram, T., Falcão, C. (eds.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing - Advances in Human Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game Design. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillinov, S., Etiwy, M., Wang, R., Blackburn, G., Phelan, D., Gillinov, A.M., Houghtaling, P., Javadikasgari, H., Desai, M.Y.: Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 49, 1697–1703 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Battenberg, A.K., Donohoe, S., Robertson, N., Schmalzried, T.P.: The accuracy of personal activity monitoring devices. Semin. Arthroplasty. 28, 71–75 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Storm, F.A., Heller, B.W., Mazzà, C.: Step detection and activity recognition accuracy of seven physical activity monitors. PLoS ONE 10, e0118723 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sasaki, J.E., Hickey, A., Mavilia, M., Tedesco, J., John, D., Kozey Keadle, S., Freedson, P.S.: Validation of the fitbit wireless activity tracker(r) for prediction of energy expenditure. J. Phys. Act. Health 12, 149–154 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Connell, S., Ólaighin, G., Kelly, L., Murphy, E., Beirne, S., Burke, N., Kilgannon, O., Quinlan, L.R.: These shoes are made for walking: sensitivity performance evaluation of commercial activity monitors under the expected conditions and circumstances required to achieve the international daily step goal of 10,000 steps. PLoS ONE 11, e0154956 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chow, J.J., Thom, J.M., Wewege, M.A., Ward, R.E., Parmenter, B.J.: Accuracy of step count measured by physical activity monitors: the effect of gait speed and anatomical placement site. Gait Posture 57, 199–203 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryan, R.M., Frederick, C.: On energy, personality and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529–565 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan, R.M., Fredrick, C.M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., Sheldon, K.M.: Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 28, 335–354 (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik (Locus of control when interacting with technology). Rep. Psychol. 24, 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ernsting, C., Dombrowski, S.U., Oedekoven, M., O´sullivan, J.L., Kanzler, M., Kuhlmey, A., Gellert, P.: Using smartphones and health apps to change and manage health behaviors: a population-based survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 19, e101 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chantal Lidynia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philipp Brauner
    • 1
  • Laura Burbach
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options