skip to main content
10.1145/3447526.3472020acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

StepUp Forecast: Predicting Future to Promote Walking

Published:27 September 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

With the widespread use of fitness trackers, predicting the future of individuals’ health is becoming easier. However, little is known about how presenting a prediction of an individual's future impacts one's behavior. In this study, we targeted walking behavior and aimed to clarify the impact of presenting a prediction of the number of steps on one's behavior. We conducted a five-week experiment with 36 participants using the application “StepUp Forecast”, which presents prediction on the basis of past lifelogs. We found that self-efficacy and the number of steps increased significantly when the predictions were presented compared with when only records of steps were shown. This was because people were motivated to exceed the predicted value. Furthermore, when additional steps were presented along with the step prediction, neither self-efficacy nor the number of steps increased. Our findings suggest that the prediction should be an achievable value in which the user can exceed, and that a positive feedback loop could be possible by enhancing self-efficacy through the experience of achievement.

References

  1. Maximilian Altmeyer, Pascal Lessel, Tobias Sander, and Antonio Krüger. 2018. Extending a Gamified Mobile App with a Public Display to Encourage Walking. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Mindtrek '18). ACM, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275135Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Apple watch. 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021 from https://www.apple.com/watch/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological review. Vol. 84, No. 2, 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert Bandura and Nancy E. Adams. 1977. Analysis of Self-Efficacy Theory of Behavioral Change. Cognitive therapy and research, 1, 4, 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sunny Consolvo, David W. McDonald, Tammy Toscos, Mike Y. Chen, Jon Froehlich, Beverly Harrison, Predrag Klasnja, Anthony LaMarca, Louis LeGrand, Ryan Libby, Ian Smith, and James A. Landay. 2008. Activity Sensing in the Wild: A Field Trial of UbiFit Garden. In Proceedings of the 2008 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1797-1806. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357335Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pooja M. Desai, Elliot G. Mitchell, Maria L. Hwang, Matthew E. Levine, David J. Albers, and Lena Mamykina. 2019. Personal health oracle: Explorations of personalized predictions in diabetes self-management. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300600Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Firebase. 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2021 from https://firebase.google.com/?hl=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. fitbit. 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2021 from https://www.fitbit.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryan Gibson, Leah Yingling, Alisa Bednarchuk, Ashwini Janamatti, Ingrid Oakley-Girvan, and Nancy Allen. 2018. An Interactive Simulation to Change Outcome Expectancies and Intentions in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Within-Subjects Experiment. JMIR Diabetes 3, 1 (2018), e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/diabetes.8069Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Elaine Anne Hargreaves, Nanette Mutrie, and Jade Dallas Fleming. 2016. A Web-Based Intervention to Encourage Walking (StepWise): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR research protocols, 5, 1, e14. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.4288Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Victoria Hollis, Artie Konrad, Aaron Springer, Matthew Antoun, Christopher Antoun, Rob Martin, and Steve Whittaker. 2017. What Does All This Data Mean for My Future Mood? Actionable Analytics and Targeted Reflection for Emotional Well-Being. Human–Computer Interaction 32, 5-6 (2017), 208-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1277724Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47. 2. 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gary P. Latham, Edwin A Locke. 1991. Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50. 2, 212-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-KGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Gary P. Latham. 2003. Goal Setting: A Five-Step Approach to Behavior Change. Organizational Dynamics, 32. 3, 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(03)00028-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kwangyoung Lee, Hyewon Cho, Kobiljon Toshnazarov, Nematjon Narziev, So Young Rhim, Kyungsik Han, YoungTae Noh, and Hwajung Hong. 2020. Toward Future-Centric Personal Informatics: Expecting Stressful Events and Preparing Personalized Interventions in Stress Management. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376475Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. James J. Lin, Lena Mamykina, Silvia Lindtner, Gregory Delajoux, and Henry B. Strub. 2006. Fish'n’Steps: Encouraging Physical Activity with an Interactive Computer Game. In International conference on ubiquitous computing (UbiComp '06). Springer, 261-278. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/11853565_16Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Edward McAuley, Bryan Blissmer. 2000. Self-Efficacy Determinants and Consequences of Physical Activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 28. 2. 85-88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. John B. Miner. 2005. Organizational Behavior: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. one. Vol. 1. ME Sharpe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sean A. Munson, Sunny Consolvo. 2012. Exploring Goal-setting, Rewards, Self-monitoring, and Sharing to Motivate Physical Activity. In 2012 6th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare (pervasivehealth) and workshops. IEEE, 25-32. https://doi.org/ 10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2012.248691Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Elizabeth L. Murnane, Xin Jiang, Anna Kong, Michelle Park, Weili Shi, Connor Soohoo, Luke Vink, Iris Xia, Xin Yu, John Yang-Sammataro, Grace Young, Jenny Zhi, Paula Moya, and James A. Landay. 2020. Designing Ambient Narrative-Based Interfaces to Reflect and Motivate Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '20). ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376478Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. National Health Promotion Movement in the twenty first century. Ministry of Health, Labour Standards. Retrieved April 5, 2021 from http://www.kenkounippon21.gr.jp/kenkounippon21/about/kakuron/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. OpenWeatherMap. 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2021 from https://openweathermap.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Josée Poirier, Wendy L Bennett, Gerald J Jerome, Nina G Shah, Mariana Lazo, Hsin-Chieh Yeh, Jeanne M Clark, and Nathan K Cobb. 2016. Effectiveness of an Activity Tracker-and Internet-Based Adaptive Walking Program for Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of medical Internet research, 18, 2, e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5295Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Pokémon GO. 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2021 from https://www.pokemongo.com/en-us/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. James O. Prochaska, Wayne F. Velicer. 1997. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American journal of health promotion, 12, 1, 38-48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Saeyoung Rho, Injung Lee, Hankyung Kim, Jonghyuk Jung, Hyungi Kim, Bong Gwan Jun, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2017. FutureSelf: What Happens When We Forecast Self-Trackers? Future Health Statuses? In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17). ACM, 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064676Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, Richard P. Troiano, David R. Bassett Jr, Barry I. Graubard, Susan A. Carlson, Eric J. Shiroma, Janet E. Fulton, and Charles E. Matthews. 2020. Association of daily step count and step intensity with mortality among US adults. Jama, 323, 12, 1151-1160. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. scikit-learn. sklearn.ensemble.GradientBoostingRegressor. Retrieved from https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.GradientBoostingRegressor.html#.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Toshiki Takeuchi, Takuji Narumi, Kunihiro Nishimura, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2010. Receiptlog Applied to Forecast of Personal Consumption. In 2010 16th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. IEEE, 79-83. https://doi.org/10.1109/VSMM.2010.5665961Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Geoffrey H. Tison, Robert Avram, Peter Kuhar, Sean Abreau, Greg M. Marcus, Mark J. Pletcher, and Jeffrey E. Olgin. 2020. Worldwide Effect of COVID-19 on Physical Activity: A Descriptive Study. Annals of internal medicine, 173, 9, 767-770. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2665Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Tammy Toscos, Anne Faber, Shunying An, and Mona Praful Gandhi. 2006. Chick Clique: Persuasive Technology to Motivate Teenage Girls to Exercise. In CHI '06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '06). ACM, 1873–1878. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125805Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jane C Walsh, Teresa Corbett, Michael Hogan, Jim Duggan, and Abra McNamara. 2016. An mHealth intervention using a smartphone app to increase walking behavior in young adults: a pilot study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4, 3, e109. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. L. Williams, D. P. French. 2011. What are the most effective intervention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour—and are they the same?, Health Education Research, 26. 2. 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyr005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Mo Zhou, Yonatan Mintz, Yoshimi Fukuoka, Ken Goldberg, Elena Flowers, Philip Kaminsky, Alejandro Castillejo, and Anil Aswani. 2018. Personalizing mobile fitness apps using reinforcement learning. In CEUR workshop proceedings, 2068.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MobileHCI '21: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction
    September 2021
    637 pages
    ISBN:9781450383288
    DOI:10.1145/3447526

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 September 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader