Persuasive Technology, Social Representations and Ergonomics of Interfaces: A New Theoretical Articulation

  • Mathilde BarbierEmail author
  • Ladislav Moták
  • Camille De Gasquet
  • Fabien Girandola
  • Nathalie Bonnardel
  • Grégory Lo Monaco
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)


This paper addresses the possibility to build on the success of digital development in order to design messages that will be seen by individuals as being the most relevant to the object being addressed. By studying the social representations status as well as ergonomic features of interfaces like the information elements’ location and the color of background, we tried to determine whether persuasive technology can be a particularly effective medium to achieve favorable attitudes and behaviors towards organ donation. We recorded participants’ ocular activity and administered them a self-reported measures questionnaire. Results show several significant effects, particularly on attitudes, intentions and behaviors. We demonstrate that to increase the persuasive impact of a message, it is better to mobilize central elements of the social representations of the object being treated and to place these elements in the middle of the screen. The blue background screen did not show the expected effects. However, regarding to the interaction between social representations’ status and background’s color, it seems that white is more appropriate than blue for technological persuasion. In the end, this research contributes to propose optimization tracks for public communication though technologies, for example in fields of health, commerce, education, environment, professional efficiency or social media marketing.


Persuasive technology Social representations Ergonomics of interfaces Behavior change Organ donation 


  1. 1.
    Abric, J.-C.: A structural approach to SRs. In: Deaux, K., Philogène, G. (eds.) Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions, pp. 42–47. Blackwell, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 84(5), 888–918 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bettinghaus, E.P., Cody, M.J.: Persuasive Communication, 5th edn. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonnardel, N., Piolat, A., Le Bigot, L.: The impact of colour on website appeal and users’ cognitive processes. Displays 32(2), 69–80 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonetto, E., Girandola, F., Lo Monaco, G.: Social representations and commitment: a literature review and an agenda for future research. Eur. Psychol. 23, 233–249 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonetto, E., Lo Monaco, G.: The fundamental needs underlying social representations. New Ideas Psychol. 51, 40–43 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassell, M.M., Jackson, C., Cheuvront, B.: Health communication on the internet: an effective channel for health behavior change. J. Health Commun. 3(1), 71–79 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaiken, S., Eagly, A.H.: Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: the role of communicator salience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(2), 241–256 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things. William Morrow, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cornish, L., Hill, A., Horswill, M.S., Beckera, S.I., Watson, M.O.: Eye-tracking reveals how observation chart design features affect the detection of patient deterioration: an experimental study. Appl. Ergon. 75, 230–242 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Craik, F.M.I., Lockhart, R.S.: Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 11(6), 671–684 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craik, F.M.I., Tulving, E.: Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 104(3), 268–294 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eyssartier, C., Joule, R.V., Guimelli, C.: Effets comportementaux et cognitifs de l’engagement dans un acte activant un élément central versus périphérique de la représentation du don d’organes. Psychol. Française 52(4), 499–518 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fallman, D.: Persuade into what? Why human-computer interaction needs a philosophy of technology. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 295–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flament, J.C.: Consensus, salience and necessity in social representations. Pap. Soc. Rep. 3, 97–105 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology. Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fogg, B.J.: Mass interpersonal persuasion: an early view of a new phenomenon. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 23–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Léger, L., Chevalier, A.: Location and orientation of panel on the screen as a structural visual element to highlight text displayed. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 23(3), 207–227 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lockner, D., Bonnardel, N.: Emotion and interface design. In: Ji, Y.G., Choi, S. (eds.) Advances in Affective and Pleasurable Design, pp. 82–98. AHFE, Danvers (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lo Monaco, G., Girandola, F., Guimelli, C.: Experiments inter-connecting the structure of social representations, cognitive dissonance, commitment and persuasion: past, present and future. Pap. Soc. Rep. 25(2), 5.1–5.25 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lo Monaco, G., Lheureux, F., Halimi-Falkowicz, S.: Le test d’indépendance au contexte (TIC): une nouvelle technique d’étude de la structure représentationnelle. Swiss J. Psychol. 67(2), 119–123 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marková, I.: Persuasion et propagande. Diogène 1(217), 39–57 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martínez-López, F.J., Luna, P., Martínez, F.J.: Online shopping, the standard learning hierarchy, and consumers’ internet expertise: an American-Spanish comparison. Internet Res. 15(3), 312–334 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moliner, P., Abric, J.C.: Central core theory. In: Sammut, G., Andreouli, A., Gaskell, G., Valsiner, J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Social Representations, pp. 83–95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moscovici, S.: Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public. Polity Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nogier, J.F., Bouillot, T., Leclerc, J.: Ergonomie des Interfaces: guide pratique pour la conception des applications web, logicielles, mobiles et tactiles. Dunod, Paris (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petty, R.E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z.L., Wegener, D.T.: The role of metacognition in social judgment. In: Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T. (eds.) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 254–284. Guilford Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 123–205 (1986)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T., Brock, T.: Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1981)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rateau, P., Moliner, P., Guimelli, C., Abric, J.C.: Social representation theory. In: Van Lange, P.A., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T. (eds.) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 477–497. Sage, London (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rucker, D.D., Petty, R.E.: Increasing the effectiveness of communications to consumers: recommendations based on elaboration likelihood and attitude certainty perspectives. J. Public Policy Mark. 25(1), 39–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skandrani-Marzouki, I., Lo Monaco, G., Marzouki, Y.: The effects of unconscious context on social representations: evidence from the subliminal emotional priming paradigm. North Am. J. Psychol. 17, 509–524 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Speier, C., Morris, G.M.: The Influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. MIS Q. 27(3), 397–423 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stock, O., Guerini, M., Zancanaro, M.: Interface design and persuasive intelligent user interfaces. In: Bagnara, S., Crampton Smith, G. (eds.) The Foundations of Interaction Design, pp. 193–207. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing, Hillsdale (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Takeuchi, Y., Katagiri, Y.: Social character design for animated agents. In: 8th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 1999), Pisa, Italy, pp. 53–58 (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vergès, P.: L’évocation de l’argent: une méthode pour la définition du noyau central d’une représentation. Bull. de Psychol. 45, 203–209 (1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Visser, P.S., Krosnick, J.A., Simmons, J.P.: Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude and certainty: a new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39(2), 118–141 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zbinden, A., Souchet, L., Girandola, F., Bourg, G.: Communication engageante et représentations sociales: une application en faveur de la protection de l’environnement et du recyclage. Prat. Psychol. 17(3), 285–299 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathilde Barbier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ladislav Moták
    • 2
  • Camille De Gasquet
    • 2
  • Fabien Girandola
    • 1
  • Nathalie Bonnardel
    • 2
  • Grégory Lo Monaco
    • 1
  1. 1.LPSAix-Marseille UniversityAix-en-ProvenceFrance
  2. 2.PsyCLEAix-Marseille UniversityAix-en-ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations