Competition and accountability: Exploring the effects of leaderboards on physical activity
Authors:
(1) Muhammad Zia Haidari, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh and corresponding author;
(2) Idris Adjarid, Pamplin Business School;
(3) Aaron D. Striegel, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame.
Links table
One summary and introduction
2. Background and 2.1. Leaderboards
3. The effect of leaderboards on healthy physical activity and 3.1. a race
3.2. Social influence
3.3. Moderating effects of prior activity levels and leaderboard size
4. Data and model
4.1. Data
4.2. model
5. Estimation and robustness of main effects of leaderboards
5.2. Durability check to start the leaderboard
5.3. Fitbit Compliance
5.4. Fitbit drain, leaderboard decertification, and additional durability checks
6. Heterogeneous influence of leaderboards
6.1. Heterogeneity according to previous activity levels
6.2. Interaction between leaderboard size, rank and previous activity levels
6.3. Summary of heterogeneous effect analysis results
7. Conclusions, discussion, footnotes and references
3. The effect of leaderboards on healthy physical activity
It is not entirely clear whether leaderboards will increase or decrease healthy physical activity, as the effect is unlikely to be similar for all individuals. Leaderboards can have an impact on an individual’s physical activity primarily by changing that individual’s willingness to participate in physical activity. Specifically, we believe that changes in the desire to engage in physical activity occur primarily as a result of the introduction of competitive dynamics, increased individual accountability, and changing an individual’s reference point for his or her activity levels.
3.1. a race
Social comparison theory suggests that the primary mechanism by which individuals evaluate their abilities is through comparison with others (Festinger 1954). Competitiveness is a manifestation of the social comparison process and prompts individuals to increase their efforts either ex ante to raise their rank or afterwards to maintain their high rank (Garcia et al. 2013). Thus, the first and most direct way in which leaderboards influence physical activity is through the competitive dynamic generated by the focal user’s ranking vis-à-vis other users. The tag line on the Fitbit leaderboard (Figure 1) – A little healthy competition is great – indicates the motivational potential of this competitive mechanism. In addition, enjoyment from physical activity may be influenced by an individual’s adoption of a leaderboard by transforming the mundane activity of walking into the more exciting activity of competing against others. Therefore, individuals who may not derive any direct pleasure from walking may engage in this activity due to the vicarious pleasure gained from competing on the leaderboard.
However, previous work has found that the effects of competition on motivation and effort are largely heterogeneous and depend on several factors such as the participant’s desire to win, whether the competition provides the participant with the opportunity or reason to improve his or her performance, and whether the competition motivates the participant. to exert greater effort (Deci et al. 1981). Along these lines, a leaderboard may have little impact on performance if it does not provide enough competition or if the certified individual is not particularly motivated to compete. Furthermore, previous work has suggested the possibility of negative effects of competition on motivation and performance. For example, Steinhag et al. (2015) argue that when competition elicits arousal, it may promote positive behavior. However, if competition creates anxiety, it may reinforce negative behavior. Extrapolating this into our context, if the performance of others on the leaderboard raises concerns for the central user, this will lead to negative outcomes for them. Reflecting this theoretical tension, existing literature has found mixed results regarding competition with others who significantly outperform oneself. Rogers and Feller (2016, p. 1) showed that “exposure to exemplary performance of peers can undermine motivation and success by making people perceive that they cannot achieve the high levels of performance of their peers,” and described this phenomenon as frustration with standing out among peers. However, Otake and Yang (2019) found that an individual’s distance from a high achiever has positive motivational effects, while comparison with an average individual has negative effects. Thus, competition is likely the pivotal mechanism behind leaderboard effects, but whether it positively affects physical activity is a priori unconfirmed.
