International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 163–171 | Cite as

A Persuasive Robot to Stimulate Energy Conservation: The Influence of Positive and Negative Social Feedback and Task Similarity on Energy-Consumption Behavior

Article

Abstract

This research explored the persuasive effects on behavior of social feedback by a robotic agent. In two experiments, participants could save on energy while carrying out washing tasks on a simulated washing machine. In both experiments, we tested the persuasive effects of positive and negative social feedback and we compared these effects to factual feedback, which is more widely used. Results of both studies indicated that social feedback had stronger persuasive effects than factual feedback. Furthermore, results of both studies suggested an effect of feedback valence indicated by more economic behavior following negative feedback (social or factual) as compared to positive feedback. Overall, the strongest persuasive effects were exerted by negative social feedback. In addition, results of Experiment 2 indicated that task similarity increased the persuasive effects of negative feedback. The implications for persuasive robotic agent theory and design are discussed.

Keywords

Human–robot interaction Persuasion Persuasive robotics Social feedback Energy conservation behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our gratitude to Frans Jansen and Susanne Tak for running the experiments, and to Maaike Roubroeks, and the Persuasive Technology Lab Group at TUe for the fruitful discussions about this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, Rothengatter T (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J Environ Psychol 25:273–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura A, McDonald FJ (1963) Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. J Abnorm Psychology 67:274–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol 44:1175–1184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bank W (2010) Understanding the links between climate change and development. World development report 2010: development and climate change. The World Bank, Washington, pp 1–86 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumeister RF, Bratlavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol 5:323–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracken CC, Jeffres LW, Neuendorf KA (2004) Criticism or praise: the impact of verbal versus text-only computer feedback on social presence, intrinsic motivation, and recall. CyberPsychol Behav 7:349–357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandtstaedter J, Voss A, Rothermund K (2004) Perception of danger signals: the role of control. J Exp Psychol 51:24–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daamen DDL, Staats H, Wilke HAM, Engelen M (2001) Improving environmental behavior in companies. Environ Behav 33:229–248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer C (2008) Feedback on household electricity consumption: a tool for saving energy? Energy Effic 1:79–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fogg BJ, Nass CI (1997) Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 46:551–561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IJsselsteijn W, de Kort Y, Midden CJH, Eggen B, van den Hoven E (2006) Persuasive technology for human well-being: setting the scene. In: IJsselsteijn W, de Kort Y, Midden CJH, Eggen B, van den Hoven E (eds) Persuasive technology, vol 3962. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee E-J, Pae M-H, Kim D-H, Kim J-M, Kim J-Y (2008) Literature review of technologies and energy feedback measures impacting on the reduction of building energy consumption. In: Yoo S-D (ed) EKC2008 proceedings of the EU-Korea conference on science and technology, vol 124. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 223–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCalley LT (2006) From motivation and cognition theories to everyday applications and back again: the case of product-integrated information and feedback. Energy Policy 34:129–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCalley LT, Midden CJH (2002) Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: the roles of goal-setting and social orientation. J Econ Psychol 23:589–603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Midden CJH, Kaiser FG, Mccalley LT (2007) Technology’s four roles in understanding individuals’ conservation of natural resources. J Soc Issues 63(1):155–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge University Press/CSLI, Cambridge Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rozin P, Royzman E (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 5:296–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IROS 2009, pp 2563–2568 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wright D (1968) Social reinforcement and maze learning in children. Child Dev 39(1):177–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: research agenda and future directions. Lecture notes for computer science, persuasive, vol 6137. Springer, Berlin, pp 4–14 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tapus A, Mataric M (2008) User personality matching with a hands-off robot for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In: Khatib O, Kumar V, Rus D (eds) Experimental robotics, vol 39. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 165–175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaptein MC, Eckles D (2012) Heterogeneity in the effects of online persuasion. J Interact Mark 26:176–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson M, Helgeson VS (2002) Sex differences in response to evaluative feedback: a field study. Psychol Women Q 26:242–251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Midden C, Ham J (2012) Persuasive technology to promote environmental behavior. In: Steg L, van den Berg AE, de Groot JIM (eds) Environmental psychology: an introduction. Wiley–Blackwell, New York Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ham J, Midden C (2010) A persuasive robotic agent to save energy: the influence of social feedback, feedback valence and task similarity on energy conservation behavior. In: Conference proceedings of social robotics 2010, Singapore Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ham J, Bokhorst R, Cuijpers R, Van der Pol D, Cabibihan J-J (2011) Making robots persuasive: the influence of combining persuasive strategies (gazing and gestures) by a storytelling robot on its persuasive power. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social robotics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24–25 November 2011 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cialdini RB (2009) Influence: the psychology of persuasion. Harper Collins, New York Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human-Technology InteractionEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations