The Persuasive Potential Questionnaire (PPQ): Challenges, Drawbacks, and Lessons Learned

  • Alexander MeschtscherjakovEmail author
  • Magdalena Gärtner
  • Alexander Mirnig
  • Christina Rödel
  • Manfred Tscheligi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9638)


Measuring the potential persuasive effect of non-fully functional prototypes is important in a user-centered design process. A tool for measuring this persuasive potential should be deployable regardless of the persuasive goal, be suited for a generic context, and be targeted at different user groups. In this paper, we make a first step towards such an all-encompassing, quick and easy-to-use tool to measure the potential of persuasive systems: the Persuasive Potential Questionnaire (PPQ). We outline the development stages of the PPQ. A literature analysis led to five dimensions characterizing the persuasive potential of a system. We then formulated 50 items for the PPQ in an iterative generation process and conducted an online survey with 94 participants. Based on a statistical analysis, we propose a first version of the PPQ with 3 dimensions and 15 items. We conclude with a reflection on the identified benefits and drawbacks regarding the current iteration of the PPQ.


Methods Persuasion Questionnaire 



The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged (Christian Doppler Laboratory for “Contextual Interfaces”).


  1. 1.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, C., et al.: The persuasive power of oral health promotion messages: a theory of planned behavior approach to dental checkups among young adults. Health Commun. 28(3), 304–313 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleich, S.N., et al.: Reduction in purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages among low-income black adolescents after exposure to caloric information. Am. J. Public Health 102(2), 329–335 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busch, M., Schrammel, J., Tscheligi, M.: Personalized persuasive technology – development and validation of scales for measuring persuadability. In: Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7822, pp. 33–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hendriks, B., et al.: Style congruency and persuasion: a cross-cultural study into the influence of differences in style dimensions on the persuasiveness of business newsletters in Great Britain and the Netherlands. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 55(2), 122–141 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaptein, M., et al.: Means based adaptive persuasive systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 335–344. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaptein, M., et al.: Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(2), 10 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaptein, M.: Personalized persuasion in ambient intelligence. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 4(3), 279–280 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehto, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Drozd, F.: Factors affecting perceived persuasiveness of a behavior change support system. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meschtscherjakov, A., et al.: Workshop on persuasive technologies in challenging contexts. In: PT 2014: The 9th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 28 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, pp. 1–24. Springer, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramachandran, D., et al.: Mobile-izing health workers in rural India. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rohrbach, B.: Creative by rules—method 635, a new technique for solving problems. Absatzwirtschaft 12, 73–75 (1969)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thieme, A., et al.: We’ve bin watching you: designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G.B., and Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, pp. 425–478 (2003) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Meschtscherjakov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Magdalena Gärtner
    • 1
  • Alexander Mirnig
    • 1
  • Christina Rödel
    • 1
  • Manfred Tscheligi
    • 1
  1. 1.Christian-Doppler-Laboratory “Contextual Interfaces”, Center for HCI, Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations