A Longitudinal Study of Fitbit Usage Behavior Among College Students
Publication: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 25, Issue Number 3
Abstract
Fitbit wearable devices provide users with objective data on their physical activity and sleep habits. However, little is known about how users develop their usage patterns and the key mechanisms underlying the development of such patterns. In this article, we report results from a longitudinal analysis of Fitbit usage behavior among a sample of college students. Survey and Fitbit data were collected from 692 undergraduates at the University of Notre Dame across two waves. We use a structural equation modeling strategy to examine the relationships among three dimensions of Fitbit usage behavior corresponding to three elements of the habit loop model: trust in the accuracy of Fitbit physical activity and sleep data (cue), intensity of Fitbit device use (routine), and adjustment of physical activity and sleep behaviors based on Fitbit data (reward). More than 75 percent of participants trusted the accuracy of Fitbit data and nearly half of the participants reported they adjusted their physical activities based on the data reported by their devices. Participants who trusted the Fitbit physical activity data also tended to trust the sleep data, and those who intensively used Fitbit devices tended to adjust both their physical activities and then sleep habits. Psychological states and traits such as depression, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism help predict multiple dimensions of Fitbit usage behaviors. However, we find little evidence that trust, Fitbit usage, or perceived adjustment of activity or sleep were associated with actual changes in levels of sleep and activity. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding when and how this new monitoring technology results in changes in people's behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. Cadmus-Bertram LA, Marcus BH, Patterson RE, et al. Randomized trial of a Fitbit-based physical activity intervention for women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015; 49:414–418.
2. Wang JB, Cadmus-Bertram LA, Natarajan L, et al. Wearable sensor/device (Fitbit One) and SMS text-messaging prompts to increase physical activity in overweight and obese adults: a randomized controlled trial. Telemedicine and e-Health 2015; 21:782–792.
3. Abrantes AM, Blevins CE, Battle CL, et al. Developing a Fitbit-supported lifestyle physical activity intervention for depressed alcohol dependent women. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2017; 80:88–97.
4. Alter A. (2017) Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
5. Morsella E, Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, eds. (2008) Oxford Handbook of Human Action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6. Duhigg C. (2012) The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. New York, NY: Random House.
7. Ben-Yehuda L, Greenberg L, Weinstein A. Internet addiction by using the smartphone-relationships between internet addiction, frequency of smartphone use and the state of mind of male and female students. Journal of Reward Deficiency Syndrome & Addiction Science 2016; 2:22–27.
8. Ayar D, Bektas M, Bektas I, et al. (2017). The effect of adolescents' internet addiction on smartphone addiction. Journal of Addictions Nursing 2017; 28:210–214.
9. LaRose R, Lin CA, Eastin MS. Unregulated Internet usage: addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology 2003; 5:225–253.
10. Bianchi A, Phillips JG. Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology and Behavior 2005; 8:39–51.
11. Hardie E, Tee MY. Excessive Internet use: the role of personality, loneliness and social support networks in Internet addiction. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 2007; 5:34–47.
12. Kim J, LaRose R, Peng W. Loneliness as the cause and the effect of problematic Internet use: the relationship between Internet use and psychological well-being. CyberPsychology and Behavior 2009; 12:451–455.
13. Bian M, Leung L. Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review 2015; 33:61–79.
14. Demirci K, Akgönül M, Akpinar A. Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 2015; 4:85–92.
15. Wang C, Lizardo O, Hachen DS. Neither influence nor selection: examining co-evolution of political orientation and social networks in the NetSense and NetHealth studies. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0233458.
16. Wang C, Mattingly S, Payne J, et al. The impact of social networks on sleep among a cohort of college students. Social Science & Medicine: Population Health 2021; 16:100937.
17. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. (1991) The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
18. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement 1977; 1:385–401.
19. Deci EL, Ryan RM. (2004) Exercise self-regulation questionnaires. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/self-regulation-questionnaires/ (accessed Jun. 24, 2021).
20. Brown JM, Miller WR, Lawendowski LA. (1999) The self-regulation questionnaire. In: VandeCreek L, Jackson TL, eds. Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book. Vol. 17. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange, pp. 281–292.
21. Rosenberg M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. DiTommaso E, Spinner B. The development and initial validation of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences 1993; 14:127–134.
23. Bollen KA. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
24. Bocell F. (2015) The impact of unmodeled error covariance on measurement models in structural equation modeling. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/33773 (accessed Jun. 24, 2021).
25. Brown TA. (2015) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
26. Arbuckle JL. (1996) Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE, eds. Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 243–277.
27. Wothke W. (2000) Longitudinal and multigroup modeling with missing data. In: Little TD, Schnabel KU, Baumert J, eds. Modeling Longitudinal and Multilevel Data: Practical Issues, Applied Approaches, and Specific Examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 197–216.
28. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2010; 20:90–98.
29. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 1998; 3:424–453.
30. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, et al. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2008; 5:56.
31. Lauderdale DS, Knutson KL, Yan LL, et al. Sleep duration: how well do self-reports reflect objective measures? The CARDIA Sleep Study. Epidemiology 2008; 19:838–845.
32. Liu SH, Eaton CB, Driban JB, et al. Comparison of self-report and objective measures of physical activity in US adults with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology International 2016; 36:1355–1364.
33. O'Brien E, Hart C, Wing RR. Discrepancies between self-reported usual sleep duration and objective measures of total sleep time in treatment-seeking overweight and obese individuals. Behavioral Sleep Medicine 2016; 14:539–549.
34. Pevnick JM, Fuller G, Duncan R, et al. A large-scale initiative inviting patients to share personal fitness tracker data with their providers: initial results. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0165908.
35. Shaw RJ, Steinberg DM, Bonnet J, et al. Mobile health devices: will patients actually use them? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2016; 23:462–466.
36. Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA 2015; 313:459–460.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 25 • Issue Number 3 • March 2022
Pages: 181 - 188
PubMed: 35108106
Copyright
Copyright 2022, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published online: 16 March 2022
Published in print: March 2022
Published ahead of print: 2 February 2022
Topics
Authors
Authors' Contributions
C.W.: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, formal analysis, write and edit the article. O.L.: funding acquisition, project supervision, edit the article. D.S.H.: funding acquisition, project supervision, edit the article.
Author Disclosure Statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding Information
This study is supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant No.1 R01 L117757-01A1.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.