Technology‐based versus in‐person deposit contract treatments for promoting physical activity

Stedman-Falls et al. (2020) compared two ways to run a deposit contract. One group met a coach in person each week. The other used a phone app to pledge money and log steps. Both groups lost money if they missed their daily step goal. The researchers flipped the two treatments every week to see which worked better.

Adults carried a step counter. The study did not say how many people joined.

Both the app and the face-to-face contract raised daily steps about the same amount. People told the researchers they liked the app more because it saved time and travel.

McCullen et al. (2025) extends this work. They added reinforcement thinning to deposit contracts. Steps shot up while the plan was on, but counts fell back once the contract ended. Their finding warns us that the boost Stedman-Falls saw might fade without extra maintenance tricks.

Erath et al. (2022) looks like a contradiction at first. They used remote tech, too, but only two of six adults walked more. The difference is the contract type. Stedman-Falls made people risk their own money. Erath simply paid bonus dollars for steps. Losing your own cash appears to be the stronger motivator.

Wysocki et al. (1979) is the grandparent study. College students handed over valued items to earn aerobic points. The idea of collateral for exercise is the same; Stedman-Falls just swapped items for dollars and added a smartphone.

You can move your deposit contract to an app without losing power. Clients keep the same step gains and like the format more. Pair the tech contract with thinning or booster checks, as McCullen showed, to help gains stick after the program ends.