EXPRESS: “Run Forrest Run!”: Measuring the Impact of App-Enabled Performance and Social Feedback on Athletic and Usage Outcomes

IF 4.8 3区 管理学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING
Yash Babar, Jason Chan, Ben Choi
{"title":"EXPRESS: “Run Forrest Run!”: Measuring the Impact of App-Enabled Performance and Social Feedback on Athletic and Usage Outcomes","authors":"Yash Babar, Jason Chan, Ben Choi","doi":"10.1177/10591478241254857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exercise-tracking apps are digital tools for delivering personalized behavioral interventions. Despite the growing usage of exercise applications, the efficacy of in-exercise app features in driving usage and athletic outcomes remains poorly understood. To remain competitive, sports organizations now need to leverage tracking tools to efficiently allocate resources and streamline training regimens and interventions for their core assets (i.e., athletes). In response to these operational needs, we examine two specific forms of such in-exercise interventions, namely performance feedback and social feedback. We conducted an 18-month-long field study with 1,037 uniformed group servicemen to assess the effect of these feedback types on running and usage outcomes. Results from the field study provided evidence that these two app features improved the servicemen’s running times and frequency of application usage, on average. Contrary to the common belief that more features are better, the joint usage of two feedback features does not produce additive effects. Tests at more granular levels suggest that users who received both feedback types in exercise episodes exhibit overconfidence behavior by participating in fewer subsequent exercises. The receipt of both feedback may be redundant and can cause user annoyance. Heterogeneity tests revealed that while performance feedback benefited most runners, social features were effective only for already stronger runners. Also, only positive social feedback had a significant impact on running performance. The results further indicate that performance feedback generated a slow but sustained increase in usage frequency, while social feedback spurred quick initial growth in usage but dwindled in effectiveness over time. Implications for theory and practice, as well as directions for further research, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":20623,"journal":{"name":"Production and Operations Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Production and Operations Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478241254857","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Exercise-tracking apps are digital tools for delivering personalized behavioral interventions. Despite the growing usage of exercise applications, the efficacy of in-exercise app features in driving usage and athletic outcomes remains poorly understood. To remain competitive, sports organizations now need to leverage tracking tools to efficiently allocate resources and streamline training regimens and interventions for their core assets (i.e., athletes). In response to these operational needs, we examine two specific forms of such in-exercise interventions, namely performance feedback and social feedback. We conducted an 18-month-long field study with 1,037 uniformed group servicemen to assess the effect of these feedback types on running and usage outcomes. Results from the field study provided evidence that these two app features improved the servicemen’s running times and frequency of application usage, on average. Contrary to the common belief that more features are better, the joint usage of two feedback features does not produce additive effects. Tests at more granular levels suggest that users who received both feedback types in exercise episodes exhibit overconfidence behavior by participating in fewer subsequent exercises. The receipt of both feedback may be redundant and can cause user annoyance. Heterogeneity tests revealed that while performance feedback benefited most runners, social features were effective only for already stronger runners. Also, only positive social feedback had a significant impact on running performance. The results further indicate that performance feedback generated a slow but sustained increase in usage frequency, while social feedback spurred quick initial growth in usage but dwindled in effectiveness over time. Implications for theory and practice, as well as directions for further research, are discussed.
快递:"福雷斯特快跑!":衡量应用程序性能和社交反馈对运动和使用结果的影响
运动跟踪应用程序是提供个性化行为干预的数字工具。尽管运动应用程序的使用率越来越高,但人们对运动应用程序功能在提高使用率和运动效果方面的功效仍然知之甚少。为了保持竞争力,体育组织现在需要利用跟踪工具来有效分配资源,并简化针对其核心资产(即运动员)的训练方案和干预措施。为了满足这些业务需求,我们研究了两种特定形式的运动中干预措施,即成绩反馈和社交反馈。我们对 1,037 名军警人员进行了为期 18 个月的实地研究,以评估这些反馈类型对跑步和使用结果的影响。实地研究结果表明,这两种应用功能平均提高了军人的跑步时间和应用使用频率。与 "功能越多越好 "的普遍看法相反,联合使用两种反馈功能并不会产生叠加效应。更细化的测试表明,在演习中同时获得两种反馈类型的用户会表现出过度自信的行为,参加后续演习的次数会减少。同时收到两种反馈可能是多余的,会让用户感到厌烦。异质性测试表明,虽然成绩反馈对大多数跑步者有益,但社交功能只对实力较强的跑步者有效。此外,只有积极的社交反馈对跑步成绩有显著影响。结果进一步表明,性能反馈能缓慢但持续地提高使用频率,而社交反馈则能在初期快速提高使用率,但随着时间的推移,其效果会逐渐减弱。本文讨论了理论和实践的意义,以及进一步研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Production and Operations Management
Production and Operations Management 管理科学-工程:制造
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
16.00%
发文量
278
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: The mission of Production and Operations Management is to serve as the flagship research journal in operations management in manufacturing and services. The journal publishes scientific research into the problems, interest, and concerns of managers who manage product and process design, operations, and supply chains. It covers all topics in product and process design, operations, and supply chain management and welcomes papers using any research paradigm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信