Authors:
(1) Muhammad Zia Hydari, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh and Corresponding author;
(2) Idris Adjerid, Pamplin College of Business;
(3) AAaron D. Striegel, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame. Authors: Authors: (1) Muhammad Zia Hydari, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh and Corresponding author; (2) Idris Adjerid, Pamplin College of Business; (3) AAaron D. Striegel, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2. Background and 2.1. Leaderboards 2. Background and 2.1. Leaderboards 3. Effect of Leaderboards on Healthful Physical Activity and 3.1. Competition 3. Effect of Leaderboards on Healthful Physical Activity and 3.1. Competition 3.2. Social Influence 3.2. Social Influence 3.3. Moderating Effects of Prior Activity Levels and Leaderboard Size 3.3. Moderating Effects of Prior Activity Levels and Leaderboard Size 4. Data and Model 4.1. Data 4.1. Data 4.2. Model 4.2. Model 5. Estimation and Robustness of the Main Effects of Leaderboards 5. Estimation and Robustness of the Main Effects of Leaderboards 5.2. Robustness Check for Leaderboard Initiation 5.2. Robustness Check for Leaderboard Initiation 5.3. Fitbit Compliance 5.3. Fitbit Compliance 5.4. Fitbit Attrition, Leaderboard De-Adoption, and Additional Robustness Checks 5.4. Fitbit Attrition, Leaderboard De-Adoption, and Additional Robustness Checks 6. Heterogeneous Effect of Leaderboards 6. Heterogeneous Effect of Leaderboards 6.1. Heterogeneity by Prior Activity Levels 6.1. Heterogeneity by Prior Activity Levels 6.2. Interaction of Leaderboard Size, Rank, and Prior Activity Levels 6.2. Interaction of Leaderboard Size, Rank, and Prior Activity Levels 6.3. Summary of Findings from Heterogeneous Effect Analysis 6.3. Summary of Findings from Heterogeneous Effect Analysis 7. Conclusions and Discussion, Endnotes, and References 7. Conclusions and Discussion, Endnotes, and References 3.3. Moderating Effects of Prior Activity Levels and Leaderboard Size The contradictory effects of competition and social influence not only make the direction of the average effect uncertain, they also point to the presence of heterogeneity in the effects. To untangle this heterogeneity, we consider factors that can impact the propensity for observing the positive vs. negative dynamics of leaderboards on physical activity. 3.3.1. Leaderboard Size. First, we consider whether leaderboard size, that is, the number of other active participants on the leaderboard, is an important potential moderator of leaderboard impacts. Garcia et al. (2013) suggest that an important situational factor impacting comparison concerns and competitiveness is the number of competitors. On the one hand, increasing the number of active participants is likely to increase the likelihood of the positive dynamics that leaderboards introduce. Clearly, the mechanisms of competition, mutual accountability, and changes in perceived ability are nonexistent if there are no other active users on a leaderboard. More so, competitive motives may be stronger on larger leaderboards because ranking highly on larger leaderboards can be more motivational than dominating smaller leaderboards. That said, the effect of increasing leaderboard size is likely more nuanced. For instance, it is likely that some benefits of additional leaderboard participants are diminishing at the margin. Too many participants can make the leaderboard less effective because participants get lost in the crowd, weakening the positive impacts of competition or mutual accountability (Garcia and Tor 2009, Garcia et al. 2013). The diminishing marginal benefit of an additional leaderboard member implies nonlinearity in the benefit of more leaderboard members and may even lead to harmful effects of leaderboards if they become too large. 3.3.1. Leaderboard Size. 3.3.2. Prior Activity Levels. Second, we consider the physical activity level of an individual prior to leaderboard adoption. 3.3.2. Prior Activity Levels. 3.3.2.1. Competition. If we consider only the role of competition (vis-a`-vis prior activity levels), the expectation in the literature that highly active individuals should benefit disproportionately from leaderboards is most plausible (Patel et al. 2015, Wu et al. 2015, Shameli et al. 2017). Individuals with high activity levels prior to leaderboard adoption gain high utility from healthful activity and thus are likely to perform well on leaderboards. This positive performance on leaderboards can be motivational for them and encourage increases in future physical activity. The impact of competitive dynamics on relatively more sedentary individuals may be more nebulous. On the one hand, these individuals may benefit most from extrinsic motivators such as competition and ranking themselves against others. On the other hand, the value of leaderboards for such individuals may be limited by their lower intrinsic aptitude and motivation for physical activity. This leaves them prone to de-motivational impacts of lackluster performance on leaderboards. 3.3.2.1. Competition. 3.3.2.1. Competition. 3.3.2.2. Accountability and Reference Points. If we also consider theorized mechanisms related to social influence, the expectation ex ante is more uncertain. Because individuals on the low end of the physical activity distribution are more likely to have other leaderboard participants who are more active than they are, there is increased potential for the leaderboard to act as a tool that keeps them accountable; individuals who are more active than the focal user may be more credible in their attempts to hold the focal user accountable. More so, individuals at the lower end of the physical activity distribution are more likely to encounter other users who facilitate upward comparisons and positively impact their reference point for exercise and their perceived ability to engage in physical activity. In addition, individuals with low activity levels prior to leaderboard adoption may benefit most from leaderboards because they have more room for improvement and a higher need for external motivation. The dynamics around social influence are somewhat reversed for those who are highly active prior to leaderboard adoption. Following the same rationale, individuals who are already highly active may be less likely to join leaderboards where other users can hold them accountable (i.e., few others on their leaderboard can match their physical activity levels). In addition, these individuals are at elevated risk of leaderboards facilitating downward comparisons that negatively impact their exercise reference points. These comparisons can induce sluggishness if they highlight the focal user’s disproportionate level of activity compared with others. Finally, highly active individuals may suffer from ceiling effects, that is, any extrinsic intervention is not likely to increase their willingness or ability to increase physical activity. 3.3.2.2. Accountability and Reference Points. 3.3.2.2. Accountability and Reference Points. 3.3.3. Leaderboard Mechanisms, Prior Activity Levels, and Leaderboard Size. The theorized effects of prior activity levels and leaderboard size can also intersect in ways that have implications for the diverse mechanisms through which leaderboards can impact behavior. First, our theorized mechanisms point to highly active individuals being most likely to be harmed by smaller leaderboards. Garcia et al. (2013) suggest that competitiveness emerges when there is a potential for comparisons, up or down, that credibly threaten the individual’s rank. With smaller leaderboards (e.g., one other individual), these high achievers are less likely to interact with another individual who can credibly compete with them or hold them accountable (thus nullifying two key mechanisms for leaderboard value). At the same time, they are more likely to be presented with a salient individual who facilitates downward comparisons that negatively impact their exercise reference point, induce sluggishness, and diminish their physical activity levels. As leaderboard size increases, there is increased potential value for the highly active because the likelihood increases of at least one individual joining who can provide a credible threat to their rank, mutual accountability, and positive impacts on their reference point for exercise. Furthermore, it is plausible that individuals who are highly active are buoyed to perform even better when part of a relatively large leaderboard. This phenomenon would be akin to the idea in some sports of a “big match player,” someone who performs above their average on big occasions and in front of big crowds. 3.3.3. Leaderboard Mechanisms, Prior Activity Levels, and Leaderboard Size. In contrast, our theorized mechanisms have different implications for leaderboard size when individuals were sedentary prior to adoption. Unlike highly active individuals, these individuals can still benefit from adopting small leaderboards because they are still likely to encounter other users who are either at a comparable or a higher level of physical activity. Thus, even small leaderboards may often provide these individuals with an additional degree of accountability and the potential for positive impacts on their exercise reference points. Whether these individuals benefit from competition with small leaderboards is less certain, as they may still be dominated on small leaderboards, leading to de-motivational effects of competition. Increasing the size of the leaderboards for lower activity users may still provide some of the benefits described previously but it is likely that these benefits diminish faster for this group. Unlike for highly active individuals, benefits of mutual accountability may be reduced for these individuals as leaderboard size increases (via the “getting lost in the crowd” phenomenon described previously). More so, these users, who are at the lower end of the distribution of physical activity, may be more likely to get stuck toward the bottom of larger leaderboards and this may be more salient with more users participating. Overall, we conjecture that sedentary individuals can significantly benefit even when leaderboards are small. However, increases in leaderboard size may have diminishing marginal benefit for them. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

The Power of Prior Activity and Group Size in Digital Health Leaderboards

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

A Case Study on Gamifying Software Engineering Workplaces

3 Serious Flaws to Microsoft’s ‘Ink to Code’ Approach

5 Best Mobile App Design Tools in 2022

6 Questions Startups Should Ask About Design and Development When Building an App

An Introduction to Design Systems

A Case Study on Gamifying Software Engineering Workplaces

3 Serious Flaws to Microsoft’s ‘Ink to Code’ Approach

5 Best Mobile App Design Tools in 2022

6 Questions Startups Should Ask About Design and Development When Building an App

An Introduction to Design Systems

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps