On the body of the consumer: performance‐seeking with wearables and health and fitness apps

Abstract

Contributing to critical digital health research and the sociology of health consumption, this study investigates the phenomenon of self-tracking and interpretation of consumer data via wearable technology and mobile fitness software applications (apps). It critically analyses qualitative data collected from members of running communities in the UK who are heavy users of apps and wearables. The study seeks to understand the meaning and practise of long-term use of apps and wearables targeted at consumers interested in tracking fitness, and the collection of personal health information over time. The paper offers an interpretative perspective on runners as performance-seeking fitness consumers engaged in long-term self-management of health. These consumers are driven by a profound motivation to visualise and embody a long-term state of fitness. Participants were also hyper-aware of advertising and promotional methods used to engage consumers. The findings raise concerns about the validity of personal fitness data, and how its collection promises improved personal health while visually promoting sought-after fit bodies. Further research is required to understand the transformative impact of fitness-tracking and how individuals negotiate personal classifications of health.

Impact of visual typicality on the adoption of wearables

“…The research explores the impact of consumer-perceived visual typicality of a smartwatch on purchase intention through the psychological antecedents to wearable adoption (i.e., perceived effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence, playfulness). The study contributes to existing literature on technology adoption (Adapa et al, 2018;Venkatesh et al, 2003;Venkatesh et al, 2012), wearable consumption (Dwivedi et al, 2018;Hardey, 2019), design aesthetics (Iftikhar et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2016), and prototypes in consumption (Creusen, 2011;Veryzer & Hutchinson, 1998) by empirically exploring the topic of subjective design evaluation in the context of wearable adoption. Specifically, the current study takes the initial step of examining the effect of the visual typicality of wearable design on consumer choices.…”

“…Overall, the findings of this study will benefit both the wearables industry and the consumer by exploring the wearables market (e.g., Hardey, 2019;Iftikhar et al, 2020;Marakhimo & Joo, 2017), the research flows of technology adoption in relation to wearables (e.g., , aesthetics of wearable design (e.g., Dehghani & Kim, 2019;Lazard & King, 2020) and aesthetics in consumption, in general (e.g., Gilal, Zhang, & Gilal, 2018;Hagtvedt, 2020;Hagtvedt & Patrick, 2014;Kumar et al, 2015).…”

“…The term “wearables” was coined to encompass all wearable devices that involve technologies like electronics, software, data transmitters, sensors, and smart textiles (Hardey, 2019; Lunney, Cunningham, & Eastin, 2016; Peake, Kerr, & Sullivan, 2018; Wu, Wu, & Chan, 2016). With Google glasses, Fitbit fitness bands, and Apple watches as the most representative and mainstream wearable products, other examples include a jacket with biorhythm sensors and innovative fibers, a fitness band with individual health checking systems, or jogging shoes that incorporate navigation systems.…”

“…Hall, Siau, & Smith, 2018;Hardey, 2019;Iftikhar et al, 2020;Lazard & King, 2020;Maragiannis & Ashford, 2019).…”

Recommendations for determining the validity of consumer wearable heart rate devices: expert statement and checklist of the INTERLIVE Network

“…14 However, considerable differences in the validity of HR assessed by PPG-based devices are observed, 15 which are likely related to difficulties in mathematical peak detection and a higher sensitivity to motion artefacts. 16 This, in turn, may have severe consequences for long-term adherence to regular exercise, 17 but also for risk stratification if the device is used in a clinical setting. 18 Unfortunately, the validation quality of wearables remains often unknown to the consumer due to non-transparent standards for testing and reporting.…”