Cited by 155Innovative Human-Technology InteractionInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Physiolytics at the workplace: Affordances and constraints of wearables use from an employee's perspective

Open access
Mettler, Tobias, Wulf, Jochen·2019·Information Systems Journal

Abstract

Wearables paired with data analytics and machine learning algorithms that measure physiological (and other) parameters are slowly finding their way into our workplace. Several studies have reported positive effects from using such “physiolytics” devices and purported the notion that it may lead to significant workplace safety improvements or to increased awareness among employees concerning unhealthy work practices and other job‐related health and well‐being issues. At the same time, physiolytics may cause an overdependency on technology and create new constraints on privacy, individuality, and personal freedom. While it is easy to understand why organizations are implementing physiolytics, it remains unclear what employees think about using wearables at their workplace. Using an affordance theory lens, we, therefore, explore the mental models of employees who are faced with the introduction of physiolytics as part of corporate wellness or security programs. We identify five distinct user types each of which characterizes a specific viewpoint on physiolytics at the workplace: the freedom loving, the individualist, the cynical, the tech independent, and the balancer. Our findings allow for better understanding the wider implications and possible user responses to the introduction of wearable technologies in occupational settings and address the need for opening up the “user black box” in IS use research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/isj.12205

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Q-methodology offers a rigorous and systematic way for capturing human subjectivity.

    “we have chosen to apply a mixed-method approach called Q-methodology, as it offers a rigorous and systematic way for capturing human subjectivity (Mettler and Wulf 2018;Stephenson 1935Stephenson , 1986)).”
  • When exploring affordances which technological artifacts provide, Q-methodology proved a useful tool to systematically analyze the subjective perception of these artifacts.

    “In particular, when exploring affordances which technological artifacts provide, it proved a useful tool to systematically analyze the subjective perception of these artifacts (cf.Mettler et al. 2017;Mettler and Wulf 2018).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mettler, T., & Wulf, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
  • University of St.Gallen (CH)
Corresponding author
Mettler, Tobias
Venue
Information Systems Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07-06
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
245-273
ISSN
  • 1350-1917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2575
OpenAlex
W2815059471
Cited by
155
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Systems Journal (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (172740)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
wearable devices, workplace health surveillance, employee perceptions, affordance theory, mental models, user types, corporate wellness programs, occupational safety, privacy concerns, individuality, occupational health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review