From panopticon to heautopticon: A new form of surveillance introduced by quantified‐self practices

Moya, Jean‐François De; Pallud, Jessie

doi:10.1111/isj.12284

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 114 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The data the sensors collect is paired with data analytics and machine learning applications, which create aggregations that are then displayed either directly via wearable interfaces or via accompanying software programs on smartphones or computers (Benbunan-Fich, 2019). Given wearables' pervasiveness and their proximity to the human body, they are an ideal means by which to deliver persuasive content that can help users improve their health, such as by increasing physical activity or eating a healthful diet (De Moya & Pallud, 2020). Wearable devices that are designed only to track other health-related parameters, such as fertility, blood pressure, or blood glucose, do not fall into the category that we investigate in this study.…”

Section: Wearablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Users Comply with Wearables: The Role of Contextual Self-Efficacy in Behavioral Change

Rieder

Eseryel

Lehrer

et al. 2020

International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearables provide great opportunities for improving personal health, but research challenges their capacity to evoke behavioral change effectively. Realizing the full potential of wearables requires a better understanding of users' behavior change processes. Based on self-efficacy theory, we investigate how wearables influence users' perceptions of their self-efficacy and subsequent health behavior. Using narrative interviews with twenty-five long-term wearable users, we show that wearables can have both positive and negative effects on users' perceptions of their self-efficacy and that these perceptions are subject to internal and external contexts, which can positively or negatively affect users' compliance. We also find that the internal context may have a compounding or neutralizing effect on self-efficacy, despite an adverse external context. Our study shows the contextual and transient nature of selfefficacy, thus contributing to self-efficacy theory and research on wearables and offering practical design implications.

show abstract

Section: Wearablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Users Comply with Wearables: The Role of Contextual Self-Efficacy in Behavioral Change

Rieder

Eseryel

Lehrer

et al. 2020

International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that a restriction in self‐determination factors, such as agency, does not imply that the outcomes are necessarily negative, but instead can be multi‐faceted and contradictory. For instance, De Moya and Pallud (2020) investigate quantified‐self technologies that are worn on the body with the primary goal of improvements to health. Using this technology, individuals voluntarily enter a state of surveillance that particularly intervenes with their autonomy and competence needs.…”

Section: Papers In This Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

An intertwined perspective on technology and digitised individuals: Linkages, needs and outcomes

Turel

Matt

Trenz

et al. 2020

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information technology (IT) has changed dramatically over the last several decades. Although, in its early days IT has been mostly used as a tool for conducting business or running complex governmental and organisational operations, it has shifted to also become a productivity and hedonic tool for individual users (Matt, Trenz, Cheung, & Turel, 2019). Readers can reflect on how many technologies surround them now, as they read this article. These can include a range of mixed-use technologies that cater to both hedonic and utilitarian objectives. Examples include, but are not limited to, the device through which this article is read (desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone), a smart TV, smart kitchen appliances, smart watches, wearable fitness trackers, and connected or autonomous cars that drive the readers whilst they listen to a text-to-voice generated version of this article. These changes in the technological landscape have presumably been supported by technological advancements that have made technology more connected and affordable than before, smaller, yet broader in its capabilities, beyond merely being job-or leisure-oriented (Turel et al., 2019). Since many of these technologies are used exclusively in leisure or non-work settings, or in both work and non-work (including leisure) settings, they have created what we call digitised individuals, defined as users who use at least one digital technology in their non-work life domains. 1 Note that digitised individuals have existed since the dawn of personal computers, but we see major growth in the last decade with the vast penetration of smartphones, social media and personal lifestyle and health technologies. We view the collective of digitised individuals as contributing to the phenomenon of the digitisation of individuals, defined as the proliferation of digital technologies in the lives of individual users (Matt, Trenz, et al., 2019). Although the bare minimum to qualify as digitised individuals according to this definition is using one technology for non-work including leisure purposes, nowadays, many people use multiple technologies to different extents, being integrated into their lives in many different ways. This creates a large variability in the extent of their digitisation. The combination of the significant diffusion of digital technologies used by individuals with the variability in their (partly joint) usage leads to the necessity to develop an intertwined perspective that considers technology and the individual at the same time, that is, a socio-technical perspective. Several studies have argued for a need to understand digitised individuals, the drivers of the digitisation of individuals and the consequences of this digitisation, because technologies aimed at the digitisation of individuals have unique features that distinguish them from commonly examined business technologies, or that are insufficiently highlighted and understood in studies of non-work technologies (Matt, Trenz, et al., 2019; Turel et al., 2019). These characteristics inclu...

show abstract

“…The opportunities for place-based N-of-1 studies are complemented by a broadening public use of wearable and self-tracking technologies, including a growing "quantified self " movement of individuals who use self-measurement to improve or optimize aspects of their lives, like health, happiness, or productivity (Fox and Duggan, 2013;Lupton, 2016;De Moya and Pallud, 2020). These avid self-trackers might be willing to volunteer long-term "baseline" data and may also be tracking across multiple devices or applications.…”

Section: Quantified Self-in-placementioning

confidence: 99%

“…De Moya and Pallud describe possible benefits to selftracking as "self-surveillance, " observing how empowerment can come through visibility and accountability in data-sharing communities, and the ability to integrate data across multiple platforms and types (De Moya and Pallud, 2020). Still, the "consented self-surveillance" they describe relies on transparency of data integration and sharing, providing users opportunities to (dis)allow personal data from different sources to be integrated across platforms (De Moya and Pallud, 2020).…”

Section: Participant Privacymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quantified Self-in-Place: Opportunities and Challenges for Place-Based N-of-1 Datasets

Chrisinger

2020

Front. Comput. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From panopticon to heautopticon: A new form of surveillance introduced by quantified‐self practices

Abstract: In this research, we investigate whether quantified-self (QS) technologies, based on wearable technologies, enable individuals' empowerment or lead to their disempowerment. To understand better the potential paradoxical effects of QS

Cited by 39 publications

References 114 publications

Why Users Comply with Wearables: The Role of Contextual Self-Efficacy in Behavioral Change

Why Users Comply with Wearables: The Role of Contextual Self-Efficacy in Behavioral Change

An intertwined perspective on technology and digitised individuals: Linkages, needs and outcomes

The Quantified Self-in-Place: Opportunities and Challenges for Place-Based N-of-1 Datasets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About