skip to main content
10.1145/3371049.3371054acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Does my dog really need a gadget?: What can we learn from pet owners' amotivations for using pet wearables?

Published:10 January 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Pet wearables increasing popularity on the market places them also in the spotlight of ACI research. Recent studies have shown that they have the potential to impact the human-pet bond, improve caregiving and increase the motivation of owners' for physical exercising with their pets. Thus pet wearables provide pets with a 'digital voice' to speak up about their needs more clearly. Despite this benefit, the adoption rate of pet wearables nowhere near that of human wearables. This paper aims to better understand the barriers towards their adoption. To this end, we present the results of a study (N=200) with pet owners investigating their amotivations, e.g., reasons for not purchasing or using a pet wearable. Our findings indicate that users are first and foremost focused on cost and durability of the devices. We present a detailed qualitative analysis of the different reasons that pet owners hold, visualizing them as a map of trade-offs that pet owners consider. Finally, we reflect on our findings in the context of the ACI agenda.

References

  1. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Credence Research. 2017. Pet Wearables Market By Technology (GPS, RFID, Sensors), By Product (Smart Tags, Smart Collars, Smart Vests) - Growth, Future Prospects, And Competitive Analysis, 2017--2025. http://www.credenceresearch.com/report/pet-wearables-market. (2017). Online; accessed 21 February 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brittany I Davidson and David A Ellis. 2019. Social media addiction: technological déjà vu. BMJ 365 (2019). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4277Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Shaun Lawson, Ben Kirman, and Conor Linehan. 2016. Power, participation, and the dog internet. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Matthew Lee and Maria R Lee. 2015. Beyond the wearable hype. IT Professional 17, 5 (2015), 59--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Clara Mancini. 2011. Animal-computer interaction (ACI): a manifesto. interactions 18, 4 (2011), 69--73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonathan K Nelson and Patrick C Shih. 2017. CompanionViz: Mediated platform for gauging canine health and enhancing human--pet interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98 (2017), 169--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ingrid Richardson, Larissa Hjorth, Yolande Strengers, and William Balmford. 2017. Careful surveillance at play: human-animal relations and mobile media in the home. In Refiguring Techniques in Digital Visual Research. Springer, 105--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sanne Swagerman, Clara Mancini, and Frank Nack. 2018. Visualizing cat GPS data: a study of user requirements. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Animal Computer Interaction. ACM, 10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Heli Väätäjä, Päivi Majaranta, Poika Isokoski, Yulia Gizatdinova, Miiamaaria V Kujala, Sanni Somppi, Antti Vehkaoja, Outi Vainio, Oskar Juhlin, Mikko Ruohonen, and others. 2018. Happy dogs and happy owners: using dog activity monitoring technology in everyday life. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Animal Computer Interaction. ACM, 9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dirk van der Linden and others. 2018. Buddy's wearable is not your buddy: privacy implications of pet wearables. IEEE Security and Privacy 17, 3 (2018). doi 10.1109/MSEC.2018.2888783.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anna Zamansky and Dirk van der Linden. 2018. Activity Trackers for Raising Guide Dogs: Challenges and Opportunities. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 37, 4 (2018), 62--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Anna Zamansky, Dirk van der Linden, Irit Hadar, and Stephane Bleuer-Elsner. 2018. Log my dog -- Perceived impact of canine activity tracking. IEEE Computer 52, 9 (2018). doi 10.1109/MC.2018.2889637.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Does my dog really need a gadget?: What can we learn from pet owners' amotivations for using pet wearables?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ACI '19: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction
      November 2019
      172 pages
      ISBN:9781450376938
      DOI:10.1145/3371049

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 January 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader