Advertisement

Is ArguMessage Effective? A Critical Evaluation of the Persuasive Message Generation System

  • Rosemary J. ThomasEmail author
  • Judith MasthoffEmail author
  • Nir OrenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)

Abstract

This paper describes an investigation into the effectiveness of ArguMessage, a system that uses argumentation schemes and limited user input to semi-automatically generate persuasive messages encouraging behaviour change that follow specific argumentation patterns. We conducted user studies in the domains of healthy eating and email security to investigate its effectiveness. Our results show that ArguMessage in general supported users in generating messages based on the argumentation schemes. However, there were some issues in particular with copying the example messages, and some system improvements need to be made. Participants were generally satisfied with the messages produced, with the exception of those produced by two schemes (‘Argument from memory with goal’ and ‘Argument from values with goal’) which were removed after the first study.

Keywords

Persuasion Argumentation schemes Message generation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work on cyber-security in this paper was supported by EPSRC award EP/P011829/1.

References

  1. 1.
    Brug, J., Ruiter, R., Van Assema, P.: The (IR)relevance of framing nutrition education messages. Nutr. Health 17(1), 9–20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chipperfield, C., Furnell, S.: From security policy to practice: sending the right messages. Comput. Fraud. Secur. 2010(3), 13–19 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-3723(10)70025-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Churchill, S., Pavey, L.: Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption: the role of message framing and autonomy. Br. J. Health Psychol. 18(3), 610–622 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79(9), 72–79 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cornelis, E., Cauberghe, V., De Pelsmacker, P.: Being healthy or looking good? The effectiveness of health versus appearance-focused arguments in two-sided messages. J. Health Psychol. 19(9), 1132–1142 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313485310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dijkstra, A.: The psychology of tailoring-ingredients in computer-tailored persuasion. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2(2), 765–784 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00081.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Godinho, C.A., Alvarez, M.J., Lima, M.L.: Emphasizing the losses or the gains: comparing situational and individual moderators of framed messages to promote fruit and vegetable intake. Appetite 96, 416–425 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R.: Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 53(6), 1077–1115 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0429CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., Brennan, L.: Tailoring Health Messages: Customizing Communication With Computer Technology. Routledge, Abingdon (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Latimer, A.E., et al.: Promoting fruit and vegetable intake through messages tailored to individual differences in regulatory focus. Ann. Behav. Med. 35(3), 363–369 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9039-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazzotta, I., de Rosis, F., Carofiglio, V.: Portia: a user-adapted persuasion system in the healthy-eating domain. IEEE Intell. Syst. 22(6), 42–51 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2007.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mazzotta, I., de Rosis, F.: Artifices for persuading to improve eating habits. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Randolph, J.J.: Free-marginal multirater kappa (multirater k[free]): an alternative to fleiss fixed - marginal multirater kappa. In: Joensuu Learning and Instruction Symposium 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas, R.J., Collinson, M., Masthoff, J.: Caught by phishing emails? How can argumentation schemes be used to protect users? In: Proceedings of AISB Annual Convention 2018 Symposium on Digital Behaviour Intervention for Cyber Security (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Josekutty Thomas, R., Masthoff, J., Oren, N.: Adapting healthy eating messages to personality. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 119–132. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas, R.J., Masthoff, J., Oren, N.: Personalising healthy eating messages to age, gender and personality: using Cialdini’s principles and framing. In: IUI 2017 Companion. ACM (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3030024.3040986
  17. 17.
    Thomas, R.J., Oren, N., Masthoff, J.: ArguMessage: a system for automation of message generation using argumentation schemes. In: Proceedings of AISB Annual Convention 2018 18th Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pp. 27–31 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Assema, P., Martens, M., Ruiter, R.A.C., Brug, J.: Framing of nutrition education messages in persuading consumers of the advantages of a healthy diet. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 14(6), 435–442 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-277X.2001.00315.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson, B.J.: Designing media messages about health and nutrition: what strategies are most effective? J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 39(2, Suppl), S13–S19 (2007). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404606006518

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations