Advertisement

Nudging vs. Budging – Users’ Acceptance of Nudging for More Physical Activity

  • Chantal LidyniaEmail author
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 973)

Abstract

Life-logging devices do not only record data such as daily steps, distances traveled, or energy used. Instead these systems also offer ready-made analyses of recorded data. Furthermore, they enable to give the user information and recommendations (nudges) that predefined goals are within reach. While other studies have proven technical accuracy and positive health-related effects of life-logging, the use of such devices is still not wide-spread. The present study aims at examining acceptance of life-logging in general and nudging in particular. To do so, a questionnaire study was conducted (N = 190). It was found that active users and non-users of life-logging technologies differ in their evaluation of benefits and barriers of these technologies and their acceptance of nudging to increase their daily or weekly physical activity. Experienced life-logging users were significantly more positive in their evaluations than non-users who rather rejected future life-logging technology use. Finally, nudging was more accepted by already experienced life-logging users than by non-users. The study’s insights provide a deeper understanding of diverse users’ requirements and needs regarding life-logging technologies and enable to derive guidelines for user-specific life-logging technology development.

Keywords

Technology acceptance Life-logging Privacy Nudging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants for their openness to share opinions on lifelogging. This work has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research projects MyneData (KIS1DSD045) and PAAL (6SV7955).

References

  1. 1.
    Thorp, A.A., Healy, G.N., Winkler, E., Clark, B.K., Gardiner, P.A., et al.: Prolonged sedentary time and physical activity in workplace and non-work contexts: a cross-sectional study of office, customer service and call centre employees. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 9, 128 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennie, J.A., Chau, J.Y., van der Ploeg, H.P., Stamatakis, E., Do, A., Bauman, A.: The prevalence and correlates of sitting in european adults—a comparison of 32 eurobarometer-participating countries. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 10, 107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirk, M.A., Rhodes, R.E.: Occupation correlates of adults’ participation in leisure-time physical activity. A systematic review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 40, 476–485 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zemp, R., Fliesser, M., Wippert, P.M., Taylor, W.R., Lorenzetti, S.: Occupational sitting behaviour and its relationship with back Pain-A pilot study. Appl. Ergon. 56, 84–91 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biswas, A., Oh, P.I., Faulkner, G.E., Bajaj, R.R., Silver, M.A., et al.: Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 162, 123–132 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hallal, P.C., Andersen, L.B., Bull, F.C., Guthold, R., Haskell, W., et al.: Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 380, 247–257 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grieco, A.: Sitting posture: an old problem and a new one. Ergonomics 29, 345–362 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, J.H., King, A.C.: Physical activity and weight management across the lifespan. Annu. Rev. Public Health. 28, 145–170 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wahid, A., Manek, N., Nichols, M., Kelly, P., Foster, C., et al.: Quantifying the association between physical activity and cardiovascular disease and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 5, e002495 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Cancer Research Fund: American Institute for Cancer Research: Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. AICR, Washington DC (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stroth, S., Hille, K., Spitzer, M., Reinhardt, R.: Aerobic endurance exercise benefits memory and affect in young adults. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 19, 223–243 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooney, G.M., Dwan, K., Greig, C.A., Lawlor, D.A., Rimer, J., Waugh, F.R., et al.: Exercise for depression. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 9 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thayer, R.E., Newman, J.R., McClain, T.M.: Self-regulation of mood: strategies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 910–925 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El-Amrawy, F., Nounou, M.I., McGrath, M., Scanaill, C., McGrath, M., et al.: Are currently available wearable devices for activity tracking and heart rate monitoring accurate, precise, and medically beneficial? Healthc. Inform. Res. 21, 315 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coughlin, S.S., Whitehead, M., Sheats, J.Q., Mastromonico, J., Smith, S.: A review of smartphone applications for promoting physical activity. J Commun. Med. 2 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bitkom: Zukunft der Consumer Technology—2018. Marktentwicklung, Trends, Mediennutzung, Technologien, Geschäftsmodelle. Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bice, M.R., Ball, J.W., McClaran, S.: Technology and physical activity motivation. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 14, 295–304 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gualtieri, L., Rosenbluth, S., Phillips, J.: Can a free wearable activity tracker change behavior? The impact of trackers on adults in a physician-led wellness group. JMIR Res Protoc. 5 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lupton, D.: The Quantified Self. Polity Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Sasaki, J.E., Hickey, A., Mavilia, M., Tedesco, J., John, D., Keadle, S.K.: Validation of the fitbit wireless activity tracker for prediction of energy expenditure. J. Phys. Act. Heal. 12, 149–154 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Kaewkannate, K., Kim, S.: A comparison of wearable fitness devices. BMC Public Health. 16, 433 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Connell, S., Ólaighin, G., Kelly, L., Murphy, E., Beirne, S., Burke, N., et al.: 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. PLoSOne 11, e0154956 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh, V., Walton, S.M., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17, 328–376 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS Q. 35, 989–1015 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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 Human Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game Design, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 608, pp. 42–53. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lidynia, C., Brauner, P., Burbach, L., Ziefle, M.: Step by step—users and non-users of life-logging technologies. In: Ahram, T.Z. (ed.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 123–134. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland (2019)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schomakers, E.-M., Lidynia, C., Ziefle, M.: Exploring the acceptance of mhealth applications—do acceptance patterns vary depending on context? In: Ahram, T.Z. (ed.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 53–64. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland (2019)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R.: Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven & London (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ryan, R.M., Frederick, C.M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., Sheldon, K.M.: Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 28, 335–354 (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Franke, T., Attig, C., Wessel, D.: A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1–12 (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lidynia, C., Schomakers, E.-M., Ziefle, M.: What are you waiting for?—perceived barriers to the adoption of fitness-applications and wearables. In: Ahram, T.Z. (ed.) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 41–52. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland (2019)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    World Health Organization: Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    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
  40. 40.
    van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Reduce, reuse, recycle: acceptance of co2-utilization for plastic products. Energy Policy 105, 53–66 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chantal Lidynia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations