A Decision-Making Perspective on Coaching Behavior Change: A Field Experiment on Promoting Exercise at Work

  • Chao Zhang
  • Armand P. Starczewski
  • Daniël Lakens
  • Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10809)

Abstract

We discuss a decision-making perspective on coaching behavior change and report a field experiment following the perspective in which we promoted physical exercises at work using an e-coaching app. More specifically, we investigated what are the important attributes that influence the attractiveness of exercise options, and whether showing an extreme option would nudge users to do more exercises (a.k.a. compromise effect). Seventy participants were coached by the app BeActive! for 10 days to consider taking breaks at work twice a day to do simple exercises. Through choice modeling, it was found that people cared more about whether the exercise options would reduce their productivity at work and whether doing the exercises were socially embarrassing, than the health benefits of the exercise options. The results did not reveal the compromise effect, but rather an effect in the opposite direction, supporting an alternative model that people make decisions hierarchically. Potentials and challenges of taking the decision-making perspective in behavior change research are discussed based on what we learned from the experiment.

Keywords

Choice architecture Compromise effect Physical activity E-coaching Option generation 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: 10 facts on physical activity, pp. 99–110 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogg, B.J.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology. ACM, Claremont (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E.: Persuasive technology for human well-being: setting the scene. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 1–5. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11755494_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamphorst, B., Kalis, A.: Why option generation matters for the design of autonomous e-coaching systems. AI & Soc. 30(1), 77–88 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clinkenbeard, D., Clinkenbeard, J., Faddoul, G., Kang, H., Mayes, S., Toygar, A., Chatterjee, S.: What’s your 2%? A pilot study for encouraging physical activity using persuasive video and social media. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 43–55. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oppenheimer, D.M., Kelso, E.: Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 277–294 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Train, K.E.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark. 54, 3–19 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, E.J., Shu, S.B., Dellaert, B.G., Fox, C., Goldstein, D.G., Wansink, B.: Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark. Lett. 23(2), 487–504 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhatia, S.: Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychol. Rev. 120(3), 522 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simonson, I.: Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consum. Res. 16(2), 158–174 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A.: Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1), 11–36 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thai, S., Page-Gould, E.: ExperienceSampler: an open-source scaffold for building smartphone apps for experience sampling. Psychol. Methods (2017). Advanced online publicationGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ham, J., van Schendel, J., Koldijk, S., Demerouti, E.: Finding Kairos: the influence of context-based timing on compliance with well-being triggers. In: Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., Jacucci, G., Blankertz, B., Freeman, J. (eds.) Symbiotic 2016. LNCS, vol. 9961, pp. 89–101. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57753-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Intille, S.S.: Ubiquitous computing technology for just-in-time motivation of behavior change. Medinfo 107, 1434–1437 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao Zhang
    • 1
  • Armand P. Starczewski
    • 1
  • Daniël Lakens
    • 1
  • Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn
    • 1
  1. 1.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations