Cardiovascular Reactions During Exposure to Persuasion Principles

  • Hanne Spelt
  • Joyce Westerink
  • Jaap Ham
  • Wijnand IJsselsteijn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10809)


To optimize effectiveness of persuasive technology, understanding also psychophysiological processes of persuasion is crucial. The current research explored cardiovascular reactions to persuasive messages using four persuasion principles proposed by Cialdini (authority, scarcity, consensus, and commitment) in a laboratory experiment. The study had a randomized within-subject design. Participants (N = 56) were presented with 4 × 14 persuasive messages while cardiovascular reactions were measured with electrocardiography. Findings showed significantly different cardiovascular arousal regarding inter-beat interval and standard deviations of normal-to-normal heart rate peaks during persuasive principles compared to baseline or startle reflex. Results show no relation between cardiovascular arousal and self-reported susceptibility to persuasion. However, during the presentation of authority-based persuasion messages, data of the first stimulus condition showed a negative correlation between self-reported susceptibility and inter-beat interval reactivity. This explorative study advances our knowledge of psychophysiological processes underlying persuasion and suggested that at least certain persuasive principles may relate to physiological changes.


Psychophysiology Persuasion profiling Cardiovascular arousal 



This work was supported by INHERIT, and has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 667364.


  1. 1.
    Zhu, W.: Promoting physical activity through internet: a persuasive technology view. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 12–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markopoulos, P., Kaptein, M.C., De Ruyter, B.E., Aarts, E.H.L.: Personalizing persuasive technologies: explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 77, 38–51 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Tassinary, L.G., Berntson, G.G.: The Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correa, K.A., Stone, B.T., Stikic, M., Johnson, R.R., Berka, C.: Characterizing donation behavior from psychophysiological indices of narrative experience. Front. Neurosci. 9, 1–15 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falk, E.B., Berkman, E.T., Mann, T., Harrison, B., Lieberman, M.D.: Predicting persuasion-induced behavior change from the brain. J. Neurosci. 30, 8421–8424 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vezich, S.I., Katzman, P.L., Ames, D.L., Falk, E.B., Lieberman, M.D.: Modulating the neural bases of persuasion: why/how, gain/loss, and users/non-users. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 12, 283–297 (2016). nsw113Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Koa, C.F., Rodriquez, R.: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1032–1043 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Collins, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Festinger, L.: Cognitive dissonance theory. In: Primary Prevention of HIV/AIDS: Psychological Approaches. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, California (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F.: The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J. Pers. Assess. 48, 306–307 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shoemaker, J.K., Goswami, R.: Forebrain neurocircuitry associated with human reflex cardiovascular control. Front. Physiol. 6, 1–14 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ajzen, I.: Constructing a TPB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaptein, M.C., De Ruyter, B.E.R., Markopoulos, P., Aarts, E.H.L.: Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., Theeuwes, J.: OpenSesame: an open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 314–324 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R Development Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (2016).
  16. 16.
    IBM Corp.: IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., Michels, L.C.: What did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 9, 202–220 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, G.: Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv. Heal. Sci. Educ. 15, 625–632 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dillard, J.P., Shen, L.: On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Commun. Monogr. 72, 144–168 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philips ResearchEindhovenNetherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations