Abstract
Definitions regarding Persuasive Technology are often introduced with the accompanying remark: without using coercion and deception. For this position paper, we investigated, evaluated, and discussed the term Persuasive Technology and its connotations. We invesstigated whether Persuasive Technology is perceived with negative connotations such as coercive and deceptive, and, how in comparison, similar labels (such as Behavior Change Support System and Digital Behavior Change Intervention) were perceived. We conducted an online survey where participants (N = 488) rated their attitude towards these systems in the context of a system description, indicated to what extent they agreed with 10 descriptors (such as, manipulative, motivating, or supportive) in the context of a system description, and whether this system in general, is at risk of being perceived as coercive, manipulative, deceptive, or propagandistic. We found that when considering risks of systems in general, labeling them as PT results in them being perceived significantly more forceful than all other labels, and switching the labeling of a system to Digital Behavior Change Intervention results in them being perceived significantly more captivating compared to a neutral system label. The findings suggest that when choosing labels to use for technology or systems it is essential to consider the impact labels can have on how the system or technology is perceived, regardless of the actual function of the system. These findings are relevant for the field of Persuasive Technology and the Persuasive Technology conference specifically. This paper is meant to spark further discussion in the field and at the conference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The tendency of the piece was roughly that hidden influencing techniques are applied in gaming and social media context to lure children away of real-life activities, see: https://medium.com/@richardnfreed/the-tech-industrys-psychological-war-on-kids-c452870464ce, last accessed 25-11-2018.
- 2.
For the response of Fogg see: https://medium.com/@bjfogg/the-facts-bj-fogg-persuasive-technology-37d00a738bd1, last accessed 25-11-2018.
- 3.
- 4.
References
Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: Perceived effectiveness, credibility and continuance intention in e-commerce: a study of Amazon. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 293–306. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_23
Atkinson, B.M.C.: Captology: a critical review. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494_25
Cattell, R.B.: The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1(2), 245–276 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Cialdini, R.: Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade. Simon and Schuster, New York City (2016)
van Delden, R., Moreno, A., Poppe, R., Reidsma, D., Heylen, D.: A thing of beauty: steering behavior in an interactive playground. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2462–2472. ACM (2017). http://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025816
Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)
Herrmanny, K., Ziegler, J., Dogangün, A.: Supporting users in setting effective goals in activity tracking. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 15–26. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_2
Kaiser, H.F.: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1), 31–36 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kampik, T., Nieves, J.C., Lindgren, H.: Coercion and deception in persuasive technologies. In: 20th International Trust Workshop, pp. 38–49 (2018)
Laerd Statistics: Principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS statistics (2015). https://statistics.laerd.com/
Laerd Statistics: Two-way ANOVA using SPSS statistics (2015). https://statistics.laerd.com/
Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 17(6), 1223–1235 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5
Smids, J.: The voluntariness of persuasive technology. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 123–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31037-9_11
Spahn, A.: And lead us (not) into persuasion...? Persuasive technology and the ethics of communication. Sci. Eng. Ethics 18(4), 633–650 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9278-y
Spears, N., Singh, S.N.: Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 26(2), 53–66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Using social influence for motivating customers to generate and share feedback. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 224–235. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_19
Verbeek, P.P.: Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: the blurring boundaries between human and technology. Nanoethics 3(3), 231 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0077-8
de Vries, R.A.J., Zaga, C., Bayer, F., Drossaert, C.H.C., Truong, K.P., Evers, V.: Experts get me started, peers keep me going: comparing crowd-versus expert-designed motivational text messages for exercise behavior change. In: 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pp. 155–162. ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3154862.3154875
Yardley, L., Choudhury, T., Patrick, K., Michie, S.: Current issues and future directions for research into digital behavior change interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 51(5), 814–815 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.019
Acknowledgements
We thank Randy Klaassen & Dennis Reidsma for their contributions, and students River & Thomas for their exploratory literature review, and the PT research community for inspiring this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
van Delden, R., de Vries, R.A.J., Heylen, D.K.J. (2019). Questioning Our Attitudes and Feelings Towards Persuasive Technology. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Win, K., Karapanos, E., Karppinen, P., Kyza, E. (eds) Persuasive Technology: Development of Persuasive and Behavior Change Support Systems. PERSUASIVE 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11433. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17287-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17286-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17287-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)