Conscious, controlled, and computational cognitive process

process that evaluates the visualized data. For instance, the individual might associate a personal result in the tool interface with a previous result and react accordingly. More specifically, the individual reviews the step-activity-data at midday and sees that less than 1/3 of the daily goal has been recorded. Based on System 1, the individual might react that this is the customary result and then proceed as usual, whereas based on System 2, the individual might insist on considering the pros and cons of this result, and conclude that an extra walk should be included in the lunch routine. Regardless of the outcome of such a scenario, this research project adopts this approach as a departure point for the upcoming discussion using empirical data.

The application of the dual system in an experiential computing context is valuable to consider because the personal data might be regarded as a simplification but also as a cognitive overload, according to the challenges that were identified in the previous chapter. Therefore, there is an indication the dual system can enhance understanding of how different cognitive processes may be at play when evaluating personal data. This is the departure point for the rest of the chapter, which discusses the possibilities and challenges of the dual system when positioned in front of personal data.

The next section proceeds to discuss the controlled and deliberate System 2 in relation to self-tracking activities, followed by the intuitive and effortless System 1.

The self-tracking system’s design often assumes that the system helps the user to participate consciously and reason rationally around the collected personal data.

Several frameworks (e.g., Karapanos, 2013; Pirzadeh, He, & Stolterman, 2013;

Verbert, Duval, Klerkx, Govaerts, & Santos, 2013) present a set of stages that the user goes through, which suggest that the user is consciously and deliberately making decisions. The overall procedure is to collect data, process the data through the self-tracking system, which then organizes and exposes it to the user who is suppose to gain awareness and starts reflecting on the data, potentially followed by an effect or action. Indeed, the frameworks are designed with the aim of making the user reflect as well as making behavioral changes (e.g., Fritz, Huang, Murphy, & Zimmermann, 2014; Li, 2012; Lin, Mamykina, Lindtner, Delajoux, & Strub, 2006). The exposure to personal data is believed to assists the user in becoming more aware of a behavior that is not desirable. By becoming aware, the user, it is argued, will attempt to change it. The self-tracking devices are furthermore marketed to consumers to raise such awareness by endorsing commitment to such a device as a way to change a lifestyle (Fritz et al., 2014).

These may thus be referred to as commitment devices.

A commitment device is meant to serve as a device that helps the user overcome irrational behavior and act more deliberately and consciously (Ariely &

Wertenbroch, 2002). It is a preventative measure that restrains users so that they

“commit to making a should choice in the present rather than a want choice in the future” (Milkman, Rogers, & Bazerman, 2008, p.333). This suggests that the user is likely to want to surrender to urges in the present instead of investing for the future, but the device should aid and remind the user to do what is rationally the more suitable choice. A common example would be that the user might want to eat a whole bar of chocolate, but a commitment device reminds the user of what should be done, which is to stick to a healthy diet. The optimal choice is to do what should be done and not what is simply wanted. As an illustration of this

“want versus should” contrast that the user experiences, Wertenbroch (1998) conducted a study in a supermarket regarding the purchase of foods seen as treats versus healthier foods. The study showed that “vice foods” in supermarkets more often have discounts and small packages than “virtue foods” because people are ready to pay more for smaller packages to avoid having large quantities at home, which will continue to tempt impulsive “want” self. The smaller packages can be

considered to be a type of commitment device, as it circumvents the “want” self – and therefore, shoppers are willing to pay more for such a commitment device.

This example informs the departure point that the individual experiences an inherent “want” versus “should” tension as part of the self, but the device helps the user make the more rational choice (Milkman et al., 2008). The commitment device in a self-tracking context is “helpful tool to expose personal data” and therefore is “a prompting tool for pursuing self-awareness” (Sjöklint, Constantiou,

& Trier, 2015, p.7).

In this research context, the self-tracking device can be understood as a type of commitment device that helps the user to perform more should-actions than want-actions with the help of technology. This is because the commitment device helps the individual’s “deliberative should selves overcome the impulsive desires of their want selves” so that “people may be able to increase their own happiness by seeking out and using commitment devices” (Milkman et al., 2008, p.334). If the user chooses to adopt a self-tracking tool, e.g., Jawbone Up, the initiation process starts with a preliminary goal (Bentley et al., 2013; E. K. Choe et al., 2014;

Consolvo, Klasnja, McDonald, & Landay, 2009). The goal can be self-selected or suggested by the device. The Jawbone UP device is then worn as a wristband around the clock while it accumulates experiential data such as steps and sleep activity. Upon acquiring the device, the user may set a goal of walking 8000 steps per day. The user can review the progress of the step count throughout the day. If the step count has not been met, the user is reminded that he or she should take a walk around the block, instead of spending another hour in front of the TV.

Therefore, the self-tracking device can act as a commitment device that encourages should behavior over want behavior.

As exhibited in the previous chapter, existing perspectives on self-tracking systems and the commitment device assume that the individual is able and willing to engage the controlled and effortful System 2 (I. Li, Dey, et al., 2012; Milkman et al., 2008) when exposed to personal data. The self-tracking system is assumed to be designed to stimulate the user to be more deliberate in cognitive processes and thus gain self-reflection through the data and act appropriately according to it (O’Donoghue & Rabin, 2003). Similarly, the commitment device is assumed to urge commitment to the activity onto the user so that he or she is less impulsive and more deliberate (Milkman et al., 2008). The perspective of System 2 allows a

further exploration of the dynamics between the user’s application of impulsive or deliberate behavior in a self-tracking context.

On the other hand, the main challenge identified in the previous chapter assumes that the user is not adequately engaged and activated in a self-tracking context, and that this must be improved. There is thus a conflict between the type s of influence a self-tracking system has on the user. By adopting the dual system, it is possible to discuss System 2 as the dominant perspective in the literature, but also proceed to discuss System 1 as a plausible perspective in the user’s reasoning process.

Thus, the dual system offers a possibility to explore the complexity of the user’s cognitive processes by offering two perspectives through two systems of reasoning. In other words, if System 2 is active, then the user is engaging with the data through conscious and computational activity. The self-tracking device as a commitment device also suggests that System 2 becomes engaged after exposure to data, which means the user would apply effortful thinking to explore the abundance of data for self-reflection, work with the insufficient data to gather results for self-reflection, and attempt to understand this data during engagement.

However, it is also known that mental effort is limited and the engagement in effortful processes can be disruptive to the user (Kahneman, 2003a). In this research context, this limitation of the user might result in avoidance of data analysis for reasons currently undetermined. Thus, the nature of the challenges should be discussed in relation to System 1 as well, because it might be that System 1 is more often activated than System 2 after data exposure, despite the fact that it is perceived as a commitment device.

The next section proceeds to look closer at the more immediate and impulsive System 1 and how it influences the user’s ability to engage in self-reflection and behavioral change after being exposed to personal data.