Advertisement

The Power of Negative Feedback from an Artificial Agent to Promote Energy Saving Behavior

  • Cees Midden
  • Jaap Ham
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8520)

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the role of negative feedback as provided by artificial agents. We examine the hypothesis that negative feedback offers substantial potential to enhance persuasive interventions aimed to change behavior. This hypothesis is tested based on a review of several studies using the same experimental paradigm that includes a virtual washing machine, in which users have to make choices how to program the washing machine. The studies show how the provision of positive and negative feedback influences these choices under various experimental conditions. Results show that negative feedback can be more effective than positive feedback, also independent of the presence of positive feedback. Negative feedback is in particular effective when the feedback is social instead of factual. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the effect of negative feedback is enhanced under conditions of task similarity, which stimulate using the feedback for performance improvement. Finally, we show that negative feedback is superior to positive feedback under multiple goals conditions.

Keywords

Persuasive technology artificial social agents social evaluation sustainability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., Rothengatter, T.A.: review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 273–291 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCalley, L.T., Midden, C.J.H.: Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: The roles of goal-setting and social orientation. J. Econ. Psychol. 23, 589–603 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Midden, C., Ham, J.: Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Conference Proceedings of Persuasive 2009, Claremont, USA. pp. article no.12. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Midden, C.J.H., Ham, J.R.C.: Persuasive Technology to promote pro-environmental behaviour, in. In: Steg, L., van den Berg, A.E., de Groot, J.I.M. (eds.) Environmental Psychology an Introduction, West-Sussex / UK (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracken, C.C., Jeffres, L.W., Neuendorf, K.A.: Criticism or praise: The impact of verbal versus text-only computer feedback on social presence, intrinsic motivation, and recall. CyberPsychology and Behavior 7, 349–357 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roubroeks, M., Ham, J., Midden, C.: When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 155–165 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rozin, P., Royzman, E.: Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personal SocPsychol Rev. 5, 296–320 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G.: Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24, 311–322 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naveed, N., Gottron, T., Kunegis, J., Che Alhadi, A.: Bad news travels fast, A content-based analysis of interestingness on twitter. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web-Sci. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumeister, R.F., Bratlavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., Vohs, K.D.: Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5, 323–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skinner, B.: Utopia through the control of human behavior. In: Rich, J.M. (ed.) Readings in the Philosophy of Education. Wadsworth, Belmont (1972)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rogers, R.W., Prentice-Dunn, S.: Protection motivation theory, Gochman, D.S. (ed.). In: Handbook of Health Behavior Research 1: Personal and Social Determinants, ch. 6. Plenum Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ham, J., Midden, C.: A persuasive robotic agent to save energy: The influence of social feedback, feedback valence and task similarity on energy conservation behavior. In: Conference Proceedings of Social Robotics, Singapore (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Midden, C.J.H., Kaiser, F.G., L McCalley, L.T.: Technology’s Four Roles in Understanding Individuals’ Conservation of Natural Resources. Journal of Social Issues 63(1), 155–174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Becker, L.J., Seligman, C.: Reducing air conditioning waste by signaling it is cool outside. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4, 412–415 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Houwelingen, J.H., van Raaij, W.F.: The effect of goal-setting and daily electronic feedback on in-home energy use. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 98–105 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seligman, C., Darley, J.M.: Feedback as a means of decreasing residential energy consumption. Journal of Applied Psychology 62, 363–368 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cees Midden
    • 1
  • Jaap Ham
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human-Technology InteractionEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations