IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i4p2642-2667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gain-Loss Incentives and Physical Activity: The Role of Choice and Wearable Health Tools

Author

Listed:
  • Idris Adjerid

    (Business Information Technology, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

  • George Loewenstein

    (Social and Decision Sciences, Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Rachael Purta

    (Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana 46556)

  • Aaron Striegel

    (Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana 46556)

Abstract

Economic incentives are a promising approach for improving health behavior but have been limited by their short-lived benefits. In this manuscript, we examine whether coupling economic incentives with motivational tools provided by health wearables can address this limitation and drive longer-term changes in health behavior. We focus on “gain-loss” incentive schemes that offer both an economic reward for goal attainment and a penalty for failure to meet a goal. In an experiment conducted on individuals wearing Fitbit wearables, we find that gain-loss incentives can drive increases in physical activity but are limited by the element of choice. Specifically, we find modest and short-lived increases in physical activity for those provided the choice of gain-loss incentives. The subpar benefits for this group seem to emerge because those who benefit most from these schemes do not opt into them when they are voluntary. In contrast, we find significant and persistent increases in physical activity for those assigned (oftentimes against their preference) to the same gain-loss incentives. These individuals recorded ∼2,000 additional steps daily during the incentive period, and benefits persisted for six months after incentives ended. Critically, the persistent gains to this group were driven by individuals who also utilized the wearable’s goal-setting tool. Our results suggest that a novel approach toward motivating sustained changes in health behavior couples aggressive incentive schemes that jolt individuals out of their comfort zone in the short term with motivational tools built into health wearables that help individuals sustain healthy behavior after economic incentives end.

Suggested Citation

  • Idris Adjerid & George Loewenstein & Rachael Purta & Aaron Striegel, 2022. "Gain-Loss Incentives and Physical Activity: The Role of Choice and Wearable Health Tools," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2642-2667, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:4:p:2642-2667
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.4004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4004
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    2. Gary Charness & Ramon Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos, 2012. "The Hidden Advantage of Delegation: Pareto Improvements in a Gift Exchange Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2358-2379, August.
    3. Heather Royer & Mark Stehr & Justin Sydnor, 2015. "Incentives, Commitments, and Habit Formation in Exercise: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Workers at a Fortune-500 Company," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 51-84, July.
    4. Ayelet Fishbach & Ravi Dhar, 2005. "Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 370-377, December.
    5. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    6. Björn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz, 2014. "The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2005-2039, November.
    7. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    8. Xavier Giné & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 213-235, October.
    9. Benjamin Handel & Jonathan Kolstad, 2017. "Wearable Technologies and Health Behaviors: New Data and New Methods to Understand Population Health," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 481-485, May.
    10. Supreet Kaur & Michael Kremer & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2015. "Self-Control at Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1227-1277.
    11. Tianshu Sun & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2019. "Mobile Messaging for Offline Group Formation in Prosocial Activities: A Large Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2717-2736, June.
    12. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    13. Yan Chen & Joseph Konstan, 2015. "Online field experiments: a selective survey of methods," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 29-42, July.
    14. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Incentives to Exercise," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 909-931, May.
    15. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Shereen J. Chaudhry & David Klinowski, 2016. "Enhancing Autonomy to Motivate Effort: An Experiment on the Delegation of Contract Choice," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Organizational Economics, volume 19, pages 141-157, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    17. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Ian Larkin & Stephen Leider, 2012. "Incentive Schemes, Sorting, and Behavioral Biases of Employees: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 184-214, May.
    19. Philip S. Babcock & John L. Hartman, 2010. "Networks and Workouts: Treatment Size and Status Specific Peer Effects in a Randomized Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 16581, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    21. Matthew J. Hashim & Karthik N. Kannan & Sandra Maximiano, 2017. "Information Feedback, Targeting, and Coordination: An Experimental Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 289-308, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Idris Adjerid & Rachael Purta & Aaron Striegel & George Loewenstein, 2018. "Aggressive Economic Incentives and Physical Activity: The Role of Choice and Technology Decision Aids," Papers 1810.06698, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2018.
    2. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    3. Erev, Ido & Hiller, Maximilian & Klößner, Stefan & Lifshitz, Gal & Mertins, Vanessa & Roth, Yefim, 2022. "Promoting healthy behavior through repeated deposit contracts: An intervention study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Andrej Woerner & Giorgia Romagnoli & Birgit M. Probst & Nina Bartmann & Jonathan N. Cloughesy & Jan Willem Lindemans, 2021. "Should Individuals Choose Their Own Incentives? Evidence from a Mindfulness Meditation Intervention," CESifo Working Paper Series 9494, CESifo.
    5. Patrizia Lattarulo & Marco Mariani & Laura Razzolini, 2017. "Nudging museums attendance: a field experiment with high school teens," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 41(3), pages 259-277, August.
    6. Ryota Nakamura & Marc Suhrcke & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 513-533, December.
    7. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    8. Mahmoodi, Jasmin & Prasanna, Ashreeta & Hille, Stefanie & Patel, Martin K. & Brosch, Tobias, 2018. "Combining “carrot and stick” to incentivize sustainability in households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-40.
    9. Daniel Mochon & Janet Schwartz & Josiase Maroba & Deepak Patel & Dan Ariely, 2017. "Gain Without Pain: The Extended Effects of a Behavioral Health Intervention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 58-72, January.
    10. Shilpa Aggarwal & Rebecca Dizon-Ross & Ariel D. Zucker, 2020. "Incentivizing Behavioral Change: The Role of Time Preferences," NBER Working Papers 27079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Stephan Tontrup & Christopher Jon Sprigman, 2022. "Self‐nudging contracts and the positive effects of autonomy—Analyzing the prospect of behavioral self‐management," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 594-676, September.
    12. Dizon-Ross, Rebecca & Aggarwal, Shilpa & Zucker, Ariel, 2020. "Incentivizing Behavioral Change: The Role of Time Preferences," CEPR Discussion Papers 14751, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Allais, Olivier & Bazoche, Pascale & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2017. "Getting more people on the stairs: The impact of point-of-decision prompts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 18-27.
    14. Victor Iajya & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2012. "The Effects of Information, Social and Economic Incentives on Voluntary Undirected Blood Donations: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Argentina," NBER Working Papers 18630, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. List, John A. & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2015. "The behavioralist as nutritionist: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve child food choice and consumption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 135-146.
    16. Anett John, 2020. "When Commitment Fails: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 503-529, February.
    17. Manuela Angelucci & Silvia Prina & Heather Royer & Anya Samek, 2015. "When Incentives Backfire: Spillover Effects in Food Choice," NBER Working Papers 21481, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Cawley, John & Price, Joshua A., 2013. "A case study of a workplace wellness program that offers financial incentives for weight loss," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 794-803.
    19. Simone Schaner, 2018. "The Persistent Power of Behavioral Change: Long-Run Impacts of Temporary Savings Subsidies for the Poor," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 67-100, July.
    20. Liang Bai & Benjamin Handel & Edward Miguel & Gautam Rao, 2021. "Self-Control and Demand for Preventive Health: Evidence from Hypertension in India," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(5), pages 835-856, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:4:p:2642-2667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.