Advertisement

Personalizing Triggers for Charity Actions

  • Judith Masthoff
  • Sitwat Langrial
  • Kees van Deemter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7822)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate whether there is scope for personalizing triggers in the domain of charitable action. The first of our two studies focuses on actions promoting human rights (via Amnesty International). While participants in a previous exploratory study had indicated that victim attributes (such as gender, religion, and ethnicity) would not matter at all, we found when observing participants’ actions that in fact these attributes mattered greatly. Participants tended to select victim attributes similar to their own, showing a clear potential for personalization. These findings were corroborated by a further study in the area of charitable giving (using the KIVA micro-financing website). The paper also discusses implications for digital behavior intervention.

Keywords

Charity Action Random Choice Case Category Female Entrepreneur Persuasive Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Byrne, D.: Attitudes and attraction. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 4, Academic Press, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byrne, D.: The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carenini, G., Moore, D.J.: An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In: IJCAI, pp. 1307–1314 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogg, B.J.: Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In: Persuasive Technology Conference, Claremont, California. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R.: Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 1077–1115 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson, T.: Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of models of consumer behaviour and behavioural change. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. Policy Studies Institute, London (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Japuntich, S., Zehner, M., Smith, S., Jorenby, D., Valdez, J., Fiore, M., Baker, T., Gustafson, D.: Smoking cessation via the internet: a randomized clinical trial of an internet intervention as adjuvant treatment in a smoking cessation intervention. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 8 (suppl. 1), S59–S67 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kroeze, W., Werkman, A., Brug, J.: A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviours. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 31, 205–223 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazzotta, I., de Rosis, F., Carofiglio, V.: PORTIA: a user-adapted persuasion system in the healthy eating domain. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22, 42–51 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michie, S., Johnston, M., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M.: From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology: An International Review 57, 660–680 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Midden, C., Ham, J.: Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Persuasive Technology Conference, Claremont, CA. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen, H., Masthoff, J.: Designing empathic computers: The effect of multimodal empathic feedback using animated agent. In: Persuasive Technology, Claremont, CA. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noar, S.M., Benac, C.N., Harris, M.S.: Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psych. Bulletin 133, 673–693 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noar, S.M., Harrington, N.G., Aldrich, R.S.: The role of message tailoring in the development of persuasive health communication messages. In: Beck, C. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 33, pp. 73–133. Routledge (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Keefe, D.J.: Persuasion: Theory and research. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiter, E., Robertson, R., Osman, L.: Lessons from a failure: Generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artificial Intelligence 144, 41–58 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revere, D., Dunbar, P.J.: Review of computer-generated outpatient health behaviour interventions: Clinical encounters “in absentia”. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 8, 62–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langrial, S., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Less Fizzy Drinks: A Multi-method Study of Persuasive Reminders. In: Bang, M., Ragnemalm, E.L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7284, pp. 256–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Forbes, P.J., Wells, S., Masthoff, J., Nguyen, H.: SUPERHUB: Integrating behaviour change theories into a sustainable urban-mobility platform. In: Using Technology to Facilitate Behaviour Change and Support Healthy, Sustainable Living Workshop at BHCI (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen, H., Masthoff, J.: Is it Me or Is it what I say? Source Image and Persuasion. In: de Kort, Y.A.W., IJsselsteijn, W.A., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 231–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Persuasive Ubiquitous Computing, 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen, H., Masthoff, J.: Mary: A personalised virtual health trainer. Adjunct Proceedings of UMAP 2010, pp. 58–60 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grasso, F., Ham, J., Masthoff, J.: User Models for Motivational Systems. In: Ardissono, L., Kuflik, T. (eds.) UMAP Workshops 2011. LNCS, vol. 7138, pp. 335–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Masthoff
    • 1
  • Sitwat Langrial
    • 2
  • Kees van Deemter
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations