Persuasive Technology Design – A Rhetorical Approach

  • Kristian Tørning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5033)


This article offers a rhetorical design perspective on persuasive technology design, introducing Bitzer’s method of the rhetorical situation. As a case study, knowledge workers in an industrial engineering corporation are examined using Bitzer’s method. Introducing a new system, knowledge workers are to be given the task of innovating and maintaining business processes, thus contributing with content in an online environment. Qualitative data was gathered and Bitzer’s theory was applied as a design principle to show that persuasive technology designers may benefit from adopting rhetorical communication theory as a guiding principle when designing systems. Bitzer’s theory offers alternative ways to thinking about persuasive technology design.


Rhetoric persuasive design persuasive technology design persuasion knowledge workers knowledge management community 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bitzer, L.F.: The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1, 14 (1968)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive technology - using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Computers: Perspectives and Research Directions. In: CHI 1998 Los Angeles USA, April 18-23, 1998, p. 225 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IJsselsteijn, W., Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., et al.: First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-being. In: IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olmsted, W.: Rhetoric an historical introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Great Britain (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aristotle: Rhetoric (350 B.C.E)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A., Trapp, R.: Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric, 2nd edn. Waveland Press Inc., Prospect Heights, Illinois (1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen, A.-K. K., Hasle, P.F.V.: Classical Rhetoric and a Limit to Persuasion. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 307–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Microsoft Corporation,
  10. 10.
    Drucker, P.F.: The essential drucker - the best of sixty years of peter drucker’s essential writings on management. First Collins, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brodie, M., Lai, J., Lenchner, J., et al.: Support Services:Persuading Employees and Customers to do what is in the Community’s Best Interest, pp. 121–124 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jian, G., Jeffres, L.W.: Understanding Employees’ Willingness to Contribute to Shared Electronic Databases - A Three-Dimensional Framework. Communication Research 33, 242–261 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perlow, A.L.: The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time.  44(44) 57–81 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bansler, P.J., Havn, C.E.: Knowledge Sharing in Heterogeneou Groups: An Empirical Study of IT-Support for Sharing Better Practices. In: The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grudin, J.: Groupware and Social Dynamics - Eight Challenges for Developers. Communications of the ACM 37 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., et al.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27 (September 2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.,
  19. 19.
    Millen, D., Yang, M., Whittaker, S., et al.: Social Bookmarking and Exploratory Search, pp. 21–39Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Nov, O.: What Motivates Wikipedians. Communications of the ACM 50, 60–64 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristian Tørning
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Lab DenmarkUniversity of AarhusKøbenhavn NVDenmark

Personalised recommendations