Health Wearables, Gamification, and Healthful Activity

TL;DR

This study examines how Fitbit leaderboards influence physical activity, revealing that they motivate sedentary users to walk more but can decrease activity among already active users, highlighting heterogeneous effects.

Contribution

It provides novel insights into the differential impacts of leaderboard gamification on users with varying activity levels using real-world Fitbit data.

Findings

Leaderboards increase steps by 3.5% overall.

Sedentary users gain 15% more steps, active users lose 5%.

Effects depend on leaderboard size and user ranking.

Abstract

Health wearables in combination with gamification enable interventions that have the potential to increase physical activity -- a key determinant of health. However, the extant literature does not provide conclusive evidence on the benefits of gamification, and there are persistent concerns that competition-based gamification approaches will only benefit those who are highly active at the expense of those who are sedentary. We investigate the effect of Fitbit leaderboards on the number of steps taken by the user. Using a unique data set of Fitbit wearable users, some of whom participate in a leaderboard, we find that leaderboards lead to a 370 (3.5%) step increase in the users' daily physical activity. However, we find that the benefits of leaderboards are highly heterogeneous. Surprisingly, we find that those who were highly active prior to adoption are hurt by leaderboards and walk 630 fewer steps daily after adoption (a 5% relative decrease). In contrast, those who were sedentary prior to adoption benefited substantially from leaderboards and walked an additional 1,300 steps daily after adoption (a 15% relative increase). We find that these effects emerge because sedentary individuals benefit even when leaderboards are small and when they do not rank first on them. In contrast, highly active individuals are harmed by smaller leaderboards and only see benefit when they rank highly on large leaderboards. We posit that this unexpected divergence in effects could be due to the underappreciated potential of noncompetition dynamics (e.g., changes in expectations for exercise) to benefit sedentary users, but harm more active ones.