Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1223–1235 | Cite as

A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems

  • Harri Oinas-KukkonenEmail author
Original Article


The emerging ambient persuasive technology looks very promising for many areas of personal and ubiquitous computing. Persuasive applications aim at changing human attitudes or behavior through the power of software designs. This theory-creating article suggests the concept of a behavior change support system (BCSS), whether web-based, mobile, ubiquitous, or more traditional information system to be treated as the core of research into persuasion, influence, nudge, and coercion. This article provides a foundation for studying BCSSs, in which the key constructs are the O/C matrix and the PSD model. It will (1) introduce the archetypes of behavior change via BCSSs, (2) describe the design process for building persuasive BCSSs, and (3) exemplify research into BCSSs through the domain of health interventions. Recognizing the themes put forward in this article will help leverage the full potential of computing for producing behavioral changes.


Behavior change support systems Socio-technical system Persuasive technology Behavioral outcomes Psychological outcomes Behavioral change 



I wish to thank Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation for financially supporting this research, as well as all of my doctoral students for their help in my research endeavors over this topic.


  1. 1.
    Kraft P, Drozd F, Olsen E (2009) ePsychology: designing theory-based health promotion interventions. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24, Article 24Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strecher V (2007) Internet methods for delivering behavioral and health-related interventions (eHealth). Annu Rev Clin Psychol 3:53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Midden C, Ham J (2009) Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on persuasive technology, ACM international conference proceeding series, vol 35, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harjumaa M, Segerståhl K, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2009) Understanding persuasive system functionality in practice: a field trial of polar FT60. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on persuasive technology, ACM international conference proceeding series, vol 350, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2, Article 28:485–500Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84:191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2009) The persuasiveness of web-based alcohol interventions: a qualitative evaluation. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, Software Services for e-Business and e-Society, vol 305, pp 316–327Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bensley RJ, Brusk JJ, Rivas J (2010) Key principles in internet-based weight management systems. Am J Health Behav 34(2):206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neve M, Morgan PJ, Collins CE (2011) Weight change in a commercial web-based weight loss program and its association with website use: cohort study. J Med Internet Res 13(4):e83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2011) Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 13(3):e46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Discipline of information systems: a natural strategic alliance for web science. In: Proceedings of the second international on web science conference (WebSci 10), Raleigh, NC, USA, 26–27 Apr 2010Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13(3):319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Festinger LA (1957) Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. Am Psychol 57(9):705–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Compeau DR, Higgins CA (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q 19(2):189–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenstock IM (1974) The health belief model and preventive health behavior, Health Education MonographsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bish A, Sutton S, Golombok S (2000) Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: a comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health 15(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1994) The transtheoretical approach: crossing traditional boundaries of therapy, Krieger Pub CoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prochaska JO, Velicer WF (1997) The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 12(1):38–48Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fishbein M (2000) The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care 12:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bandura A (2004) Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav 31(2):143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bensley RJ, Mercer N, Brusk JJ et al (2004) The eHealth behavior management model: a stage-based approach to behavior change and management. Prev Chronic Dis Pub Health Res Pract Pol 1(4):1–13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fogg BJ (2009) The behavior grid: 35 ways behavior can change. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on persuasive technology, ACM international conference proceeding series, vol 350, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerbinger O (1972) Designs for persuasive communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tørning K, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2009) Persuasive system design: state of art and future directions. In: proceedings of the fourth international conference on persuasive technology, ACM international conference proceeding series, vol 350, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xiao B, Benbasat I (2011) Product-related deception in e-commerce: a theoretical perspective. MIS Quart 35(1):169–195Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller GR (2002) On being persuaded: some basic distinctions. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M (eds) The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fogg BJ (1999) Persuasive technologies: introduction. Commun ACM 42(5):26–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Picard R (1997) Affective computing. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Atkinson B (2006) Captology: a critical review. Springer, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3962, pp 171–182Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bogost I (2007) Persuasive games: the expressive power of videogames. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2008) A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5033. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 164–176Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Forget A, Chiasson S, van Oorschot PC, Biddle R (2008) Persuasion for stronger passwords: motivation and pilot study. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5033. Springer, pp 140–150Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Obermair C, Reitberger W, Meschtscherjakov A, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2008) Perframes: persuasive picture frames for proper posture. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5033. Springer, pp 128–139Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chi P, Chen J, Chu H, Lo J (2008) Enabling calorie-aware cooking in a smart kitchen. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5033. Springer pp 116–127Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parmar V, Keyson D, de Bont C (2009) Persuasive technology to shape social beliefs: a case of persuasive health information systems for rural women in India. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24: Article 25Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Munson SA, Lauterbach D, Newman MW, Resnick P (2010) Happier together: integrating a wellness application into a social network site. Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive, vol 6137, pp 27–39Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stibe A, Oinas-Kukkonen H, Berzina I, Pahnila S (2011) Incremental persuasion through microblogging: a survey of Twitter users in Latvia. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on persuasive technology, Columbus, OH, USA, 2–5 June 2011Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2008) Towards deeper understanding of persuasion in software and information systems. In: The first international conference on advances in human-computer interaction (ACHI’2008), Sainte Luce, Martinique, 10–15 Feb 2008, ISBN 978-0-7695-3086-4, pp 200–205, Best Paper AwardGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Benbasat I (2010) HCI research: future challenges and directions. AIS Trans Hum Comput Interact 2(2):16–21Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jenkin TA, Webster J, McShanea L (2011) An agenda for ‘Green’ information technology and systems research. Inf Organ 21(1):17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Derrick DC, Jenkins JL, Nunamaker Jr JF (2011) Design principles for special purpose, embodied, conversational intelligence with environmental sensors (species) agents. AIS Trans Hum-Comp Interact 3(2):62–81. Available at:
  49. 49.
    Cugelman B, Thelwall M, Dawes P (2011) Online interventions for social marketing health behavior change campaigns: a meta-analysis of psychological architectures and adherence factors. J Med Internet Res 13(1):e17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Young MM (2010) Twitter me: using micro-blogging to motivate teenagers to exercise. global perspectives on design science research. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6105, pp 439–448Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li H, Chatterjee S (2010) Designing effective persuasive systems utilizing the power of entanglement: communication channel, strategy and affect. Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive, vol 6137Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yap M, Jorm A, Bazley R, Kelly C, Ryan S, Lubman D (2011) Web-based parenting program to prevent adolescent alcohol misuse: rationale and development. Australas Psychiatry 19(4):339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Räisänen T, Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Practical findings from applying the PSD model for evaluating software design specifications. Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive, vol 6137. Springer, pp 185–192Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Segerståhl K, Kotro T, Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) Pitfalls in persuasion: how do users experience persuasive techniques in a web service? Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive technology, vol 6137, pp 211–222Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, Van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2104
  56. 56.
    Fichman RG, Kohli R, Krishnan R (2011) Editorial overview—the role of information systems in healthcare: current research and future trends. Inf Syst Res 22(3):419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cassell MM, Jackson C, Cheuvront B (1998) Health communication on the internet: an effective channel for health behavior change. J Health Commun 3(1):71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kelley H; Chiasson M, Downey A, Pacaud D (2011) The clinical impact of ehealth on the self-management of diabetes: a double adoption perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 12(3), Article 4. Available at:
  59. 59.
    Ritterband LM, Gonder-Frederick LA, Cox DJ, Clifton AD, West RW, Borowitz SM (2003) Internet interventions: in review, in use, and into the future. Prof Psychol Res Pract 34(5):527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM (2004) The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res 6(4)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bock B, Graham A, Sciamanna C, Krishnamoorthy J, Whiteley J et al (2004) Smoking cessation treatment on the internet: content, quality, and usability. Nicotine Tob Res 6(2):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Doshi A, Patrick K, Sallis JF, Calfas K (2003) Evaluation of physical activity web sites for use of behavior change theories. Ann Behav Med 25(2):105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Portnoy DB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Johnson BT, Carey MP (2008) Computer-delivered interventions for health promotion and behavioral risk reduction: a meta-analysis of 75 randomized controlled trials, 1988–2007. Prev Med 47(1):3–16Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Duffett-Leger L, Paterson B, Albert W (2008) Optimizing health outcomes by integrating health behavior and communication theories in the development of e-health promotion interventions. eHealth Int 4(2):23–33Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Berkovsky S, Freyne J, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2012) Influencing individually: fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 2(2)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kaptein M, De Ruyter B, Markopoulos P, Aarts E (2012) Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 2(2)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Enwald HP, Niemelä RM, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Leppäluoto J, Jämsä T, Herzig KH, Oinas-Kukkonen H, Huotari ML (2012) Human information behaviour and physiological measurements as a basis to tailor health information. An explorative study in a physical activity intervention among prediabetic individuals in Northern Finland. Health Inf Lib J 29(2):131–140Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran VS (ed) Encyclopedia of human behavior, vol 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Davis J (2010) Generating directions for persuasive technology design with the inspiration card workshop. Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive technology, vol 6137, pp 262–273Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Persuasive features in six weight loss websites: a qualitative evaluation. Lecture notes in computer science, persuasive, vol 6137, pp 62–173Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wiafe I, Nakata K, Moran S, Gulliver S (2011) Considering user attitude and behaviour in persuasive systems design; The 3D-RAB model. In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2011).
  72. 72.
    Yetim F (2011) A set of critical heuristics for value sensitive designers and users of persuasive systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2011).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations