Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 1677–1687 | Cite as

Categorizing users in behavior change support systems based on cognitive dissonance

  • Isaac WiafeEmail author
  • Keiichi Nakata
  • Stephen Gulliver
Original Article

Abstract

Most developers of behavior change support systems (BCSS) employ ad hoc procedures in their designs. This paper presents a novel discussion concerning how analyzing the relationship between attitude toward target behavior, current behavior, and attitude toward change or maintaining behavior can facilitate the design of BCSS. We describe the three-dimensional relationships between attitude and behavior (3D-RAB) model and demonstrate how it can be used to categorize users, based on variations in levels of cognitive dissonance. The proposed model seeks to provide a method for analyzing the user context on the persuasive systems design model, and it is evaluated using existing BCSS. We identified that although designers seem to address the various cognitive states, this is not done purposefully, or in a methodical fashion, which implies that many existing applications are targeting users not considered at the design phase. As a result of this work, it is suggested that designers apply the 3D-RAB model in order to design solutions for targeted users.

Keywords

Behavior change support systems Persuasive technology Persuasive systems design Cognitive dissonance Behavior change 

References

  1. 1.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H (2013) A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 17:1223–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harjumaa M, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2007) Persuasion theories and IT design. In: Lecture notes in computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fogg BJ (1997) Captology: the study of computers as persuasive technologies. In: Human factors in computing systems: looking to the future, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2008) A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 164–176Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassell MM, Jackson C, Cheuvront B (1998) Health communication on the Internet: an effective channel for health behavior change? J Health Commun 3:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller GR (1980) On being persuaded: some basic distinctions. In: Persuasion: new directions in theory and research, pp 11–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Atkinson B (2006) Captology: a critical review. In: Lecture notes in computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lacroix J, Saini P, Goris A (2009) Understanding user cognitions to guide the tailoring of persuasive technology-based physical activity interventions. pp 1–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiafe I, Nakata K (2012) Bibliographic analysis of persuasive systems: techniques, methods and domains of application. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on persuasive technology, Linkoping SwedenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torning K, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2009) Persuasive system design: state of the art and future directions. In: Persusive 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24:485[Article Id:28]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fogg B, Hreha J (2010) Behavior wizard: a method for matching target behaviors with solutions. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on persuasive technology, pp 117–131Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fogg B (2009) Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technologyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Purpura S, Schwanda V, Williams K, Stubler W, Sengers P (2011) Fit4life: the design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weight. In: 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 423–432Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fogg BJ (1998) Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: CHI, Los Angeles, pp 225–232Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: the next frontier for web science. Presented at the web science conference Raleigh, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Räisänen T, Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Practical findings from applying the PSD model for evaluating software design specifications. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on persuasive technology, pp 185–192Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Griffin E, McClish G (1997) A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aronson E (1969) The theory of cognitive dissonance: a current perspective. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 4:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saidin AZ (2011) Persuasion knowledge toolkit: requirements gathering with designer. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS conference on human computer interaction. NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ajzen I (ed) (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior (Action control: From cognition to behavior). Berlin and New York, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aronson E (1997) Back to the future: retrospective review of Leon Festinger’s: a theory of cognitive dissonance. Am J Psychol 110:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C (2007) Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prochaska J, DiClemente C (1986) Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Treating addictive behaviors: processes of change. pp 3–27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fogg B (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology. Claremont, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: a research model and agenda. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 4–14Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hevner A, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knipscheer K, Nieuwesteeg J, Oste J (2006) Persuasive story table: promoting exchange of life history stories among elderly in institutions. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 191–194Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCreadie C, Raper J, Gunesh A, Wood J, Carey K, Petrie H et al (2006) Persuasive technology for leisure and health: development of a personal navigation tool. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 187–190Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duncan J, Camp LJ, Hazelwood WR (2009) The portal monitor: a privacy-enhanced event-driven system for elder care. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technologyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gram-Hansen LB (2009) Geocaching in a persuasive perspective. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasiveGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reitberger W, Ploderer B, Obermair C, Tscheligi M (2007) The percues framework and its application for sustainable mobility. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 92–95Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Khaled R, Fischer R, Noble J, Biddle R (2008) A qualitative study of culture and persuasion in a smoking cessation game. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 224–236Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vossen S, Ham J, Midden C (2009) Social influence of a persuasive agent: the role of agent embodiment and evaluative feedback. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasiveGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Midden C, Ham J (2009) Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technologyGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Midden C, Ham J (2012) The illusion of agency: the influence of the agency of an artificial agent on its persuasive power. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. Design for health and safety. Springer, pp 90–99Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barr P, Khaled R, Noble J, Biddle R (2006) Well-being to “well done!”: the development cycle in role-playing games. In: Proceedings of the international conference on persuasive technology. pp 96–99Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bickmore T, Mauer D, Crespo F, Brown T (2007) Persuasion, task interruption and health regimen adherence. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on persuasive technologyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parmar V, Keyson D, Debont C (2008) Persuasive technology for shaping social beliefs of rural women in India: an approach based on the theory of planned behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on persuasive technology. pp 104–115Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Manaktola K, Jauhari V (2007) Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. Int J Contemp Hosp Manage 19:364–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prochaska J, Redding C, Evers K (2002) The transtheoretical model and stages of change. Health Behav Health Educ Theory Res Pract 3:99–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of TechnologyGIMPAAccraGhana
  2. 2.Henley Business SchoolUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations