Gender, Age, and Responsiveness to Cialdini’s Persuasion Strategies

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9072)

Abstract

Research has shown that there are differences in how males and females respond to persuasive attempts. This paper examines the persuasiveness of the six persuasive strategies - Reciprocity, Scarcity, Authority, Commitment and Consistency, Consensus andLiking developed by Cialdini with respect to age and gender. The results of the large-scale study (N = 1108) show that males and females differ significantly in their responsiveness to the strategies. Overall, females are more responsive to most of the strategies than males and some strategies are more suitable for persuading one gender than the other. The results of our study also reveal some differences between younger adults and adults with respect to the persuasiveness of the strategies. Finally, the results show that irrespective of gender and age, there are significant differences between the strategies regarding their perceived persuasiveness overall, shedding light on the comparative effectiveness of the strategies.

Keywords

Persuasive technology Behavior change Gender Age Persuasive strategies Persuasiveness Individual differences Susceptibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 28 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cialdini, R.: Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79, 72–79 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaptein, et al.: Adaptive Persuasive Systems. Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 1–25 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orji, R.: Design for Behaviour Change: A Model-driven Approach for Tailoring Persuasive Technologies (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orji, et al.: Modeling the Efficacy of Persuasive Strategies for Different Gamer Types in Serious Games for Health. User Model. User Adapt. Interact. Spec. Issue Pers. Behav. Chang. 42, 453–498 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaptein, M., Lacroix, J., Saini, P.: Individual differences in persuadability in the health promotion domain. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 94–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orji, R.O., Vassileva, J., Mandryk, R.L.: Modeling Gender Differences in Healthy Eating Determinants for Persuasive Intervention Design. In: Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7822, pp. 161–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orji, R., Mandryk, R.L.: Developing culturally relevant design guidelines for encouraging healthy eating behavior. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 72, 207–223 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson, et al.: Examining gender differences in the health behaviors of Canadian university students. J. R. Soc. Promot. Health 127, 38–44 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cialdini, R.B.: The Science of Persuasion. Sci. Am. Mind. 284, 76–84 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark, W.R., Tennessee, M.: Using the Six Principles of Influence to Increase Student Involvement in Professional Organizations: A Relationship Marketing Approach. J. Adv. Mark. Educ. 12, 43–52 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B., Aarts, E.: Can you be persuaded? individual differences in susceptibility to persuasion. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotzé, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R.O., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5726, pp. 115–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halko, S., Kientz, J.A.: Personality and Persuasive Technology: An Exploratory Study on Health-Promoting Mobile Applications. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cialdini, et al.: Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications 69, 318–328 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mason, W., Suri, S.: Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods. 44, 1–23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buhrmester, M.D., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D.: Amazon’s Mechanical Turk A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hinton, et al.: SPSS Explained. Routledge (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chin, W.W.: The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling, http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/276aba15e34b8d636650ed79f1581f50b/naegle
  20. 20.
    Rhoads, K.V., Cialdini, R.B.: The business of influence: Principles that lead to success in commercial settings. In: The Persuasion Handbook: Dev. in Theory and Pract., pp. 513–542 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pure, et al: Understanding and Evaluating Source Expertise in an Evolving Media Environment. In: Takševa, T. (ed.) Social Software and the Evolution of User Expertise: Future Trends in Knowledge Creation and Dissemination, pp. 37–51. IGI Global (2013) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Billy, J.O., Udry, J.R.: Patterns of adolescent friendship and effects on sexual behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q., 27-41 (1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dohmen, et al.: Representative Trust and Reciprocity: Prevalence and Determinants. Econ. Inq. 46, 84–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rau, H.A.: Trust and Trustworthiness: A Survey of Gender Differences. Psychol. Gend. Differ., 205–224 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chaudhuri, A., Gangadharan, L.: Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    West, S.G.: Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: A reactance theory perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 6, 656 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orji, et al.: Providing for Impression Management in Persuasive Designs. Persuas. Technol., 1–4 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lackenbauer, S.D.: Do I Feel Dissonance Over You? Sex Differences in the Experience of Dissonance for Romantic Partners (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dare, B., Guadagno, R., Nicole Muscanell, M.A.: Commitment: The Key to Women Staying in Abusive Relationships. J. Interpers. Relations, Intergr. Relations Identity 6, 58–64 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin, J.J., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G., Strub, H.B.: Fish’n’Steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, pp. 261–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Orji
    • 1
  • Regan L. Mandryk
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations