Advertisement

Social Influence Scale for Technology Design and Transformation

  • Agnis StibeEmail author
  • Brian Cugelman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11748)

Abstract

Contrary to popular belief, social influence encompasses a much more complex area of behavioral science than the explanation offered by those who call all forms of social influence a social norm, peer pressure, or simply social proof. To help scholars and practitioners develop a deeper understanding of social influence, this study presents a measurement instrument for evaluating susceptibility to seven social influence principles, namely social learning, social comparison, social norms, social facilitation, social cooperation, social competition, and social recognition. Each principle is represented by a construct containing six theory-driven items, both positively and negatively framed. Further, the study introduces a social influence research model that describes how the seven social influence constructs are correlated and impact each other. This study extends previous scientific work on social influence by providing research tools that can be used to further study the role of social influence in designing tailored technologies for transformation.

Keywords

Social influence Transformation Persuasive technology Design Behavior change Human-computer interaction Socially Influencing Systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Alluhaidan, A., Chatterjee, S., Drew, D., Stibe, A.: Sustaining health behaviors through empowerment: a deductive theoretical model of behavior change based on information and communication technology (ICT). In: Ham, J., Karapanos, E., Morita, P., Burns, C. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10809, pp. 28–41. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amado, G., Ambrose, A.: The Transitional Approach to Change. Karnac Books, London (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A.: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Lin, C., Lindtner, S., Toombs, A.: HCI’s making agendas. Found. Trends® Hum.–Comput. Interact. 11(3), 126–200 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes Hofmeister, T., Stibe, A.: Living mobility transitions towards bicycling. Designing practices through co-creation and socially influencing systems. Des. J. 20(Sup. 1), S3305–S3316 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burke, W.W., Litwin, G.H.: A causal model of organizational performance and change. J. Manag. 18(3), 523–545 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Card, S.K.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cecchinato, M.E., et al.: Designing for digital wellbeing: a research & practice agenda. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. W17. ACM (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandler, J.J., Paolacci, G.: Lie for a dime: when most prescreening responses are honest but most study participants are impostors. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8(5), 500–508 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R.: A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24(20), 1–243 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crano, W.D., Prislin, R.: Attitudes and persuasion. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 57, 345–374 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cugelman, B., Thelwall, M., Dawes, P.: Online interventions for social marketing health behavior change campaigns: a meta-analysis of psychological architectures and adherence factors. J. Med. Internet Res. 13(1), e17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damon, W.: The lifelong transformation of moral goals through social influence. In: Interactive Minds, pp. 198–220 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dillman, D.A.: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deutsch, M., Gerard, H.B.: A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51(3), 629 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolata, M., Comes, T., Schenk, B., Schwabe, G.: Persuasive practices: learning from home security advisory services. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 176–188. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7(2), 117–140 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamari, J., Hassan, L., Dias, A.: Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching users’ goals with motivational technology. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 28(1), 35–74 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harjumaa, M.: On the development of persuasive systems: a framework for designing and evaluating behaviour change support systems and its applicability for e-Health, vol. 68. VTT Science (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haslam, S.A., McGarty, C., Turner, J.C.: Salient group memberships and persuasion: the role of social identity in the validation of beliefs (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., Kelley, H.H.: Communication and persuasion. In: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change (1953)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., De Ruyter, B., Aarts, E.: Personalizing persuasive technologies: explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 77, 38–51 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kock, N.: WarpPLS User Manual: Version 6.0. Script Warp Systems, Laredo (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.: Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: Snow, R.E., Farr, M.J. (eds.) Aptitude, Learning and Instruction: III. Conative and Affective Process Analyses, pp. 223–253. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maton, K.I.: Making a difference: the social ecology of social transformation. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 28(1), 25–57 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maurer, B., Gärtner, M., Wuchse, M., Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi, M.: Utilizing a digital game as a mediatory artifact for social persuasion to prevent speeding. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 199–210. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    May, M.A., Doob, L.W.: Cooperation and competition. Soc. Sci. Res. Council Bull. 125, 1–15 (1937)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Michie, S., et al.: The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 46(1), 81–95 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Millonig, A., et al.: Gamification and social dynamics behind corporate cycling campaigns. Transp. Res. Proc. 19, 33–39 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mylonopoulou, V., Väyrynen, K., Stibe, A., Isomursu, M.: Rationale behind socially influencing design choices for health behavior change. In: Ham, J., Karapanos, E., Morita, P., Burns, C. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10809, pp. 147–159. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myneni, S., Iyengar, S.: Socially influencing technologies for health promotion: translating social media analytics into consumer-facing health solutions. In: 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3084–3093. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Keefe, D.J.: Persuasion: Theory and Research. Sage, Newbury (1990)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Orji, R.: Why are persuasive strategies effective? Exploring the strengths and weaknesses of socially-oriented persuasive strategies. In: de Vries, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 253–266. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Osborne, J.W., Costello, A.B., Kellow, J.T.: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In: Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, pp. 86–99 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oyibo, K., Vassileva, J.: Investigation of social predictors of competitive behavior in persuasive technology. In: de Vries, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 279–291. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pedersen, T., Johansen, C., Jøsang, A.: Behavioural computer science: an agenda for combining modelling of human and system behaviours. Hum.-Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. 8(1), 7 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rashotte, L.: Social influence. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, vol. 9, pp. 562–563 (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rottiers, S.: The Sociology of Social Recognition: Competition in Social Recognition Games (No. 1004) (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schoenau-Fog, H.: Teaching serious issues through player engagement in an interactive experiential learning scenario. Eludamos. J. Comput. Game Cult. 6(1), 53–70 (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stibe, A., Röderer, K., Reisinger, M., Nyström, T.: Empowering sustainable change: emergence of Transforming Wellbeing Theory (TWT). In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (2019)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stibe, A.: Socially influencing systems: persuading people to engage with publicly displayed twitter-based systems. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stibe, A.: Towards a framework for socially influencing systems: meta-analysis of four PLS-SEM based studies. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 171–182. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stibe, A.: Advancing typology of computer-supported influence: moderation effects in socially influencing systems. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 251–262. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stibe, A., Larson, K.: Persuasive cities for sustainable wellbeing: quantified communities. In: Younas, M., Awan, I., Kryvinska, N., Strauss, C., Thanh, D. (eds.) MobiWIS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9847, pp. 271–282. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44215-0_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stibe, A., Cugelman, B.: Persuasive backfiring: when behavior change interventions trigger unintended negative outcomes. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 65–77. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vito, G.F., Higgins, G.E., Denney, A.S.: Transactional and transformational leadership: an examination of the leadership challenge model. Policing Int. J. Police Strat. Manag. 37(4), 809–822 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Waddell, D., Creed, A., Cummings, T.G., Worley, C.G.: Organisational Change: Development and Transformation. Cengage AU, South Melbourne (2016)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wais-Zechmann, B., Gattol, V., Neureiter, K., Orji, R., Tscheligi, M.: Persuasive technology to support chronic health conditions: investigating the optimal persuasive strategies for persons with COPD. In: Ham, J., Karapanos, E., Morita, P., Burns, C. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10809, pp. 255–266. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wood, J.V.: What is social comparison and how should we study it? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22(5), 520–537 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wood, W.: Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 51(1), 539–570 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wunsch, M., et al.: What makes you bike? Exploring persuasive strategies to encourage low-energy mobility. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 53–64. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zajonc, R.B.: Social facilitation. Science 149, 269–274 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESLSCA Business School ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.Statistical Cybermetrics Research GroupUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  3. 3.AlterSparkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations