Responsiveness to Persuasive Strategies at the Workplace: A Case Study

  • Humu-Haida Selassie
  • Kiemute Oyibo
  • Julita Vassileva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 289)


Persuasive technology capitalizes on the use of technology and the art of persuasion to change the behaviors and attitudes of people without the use of coercion. They have been used at workplaces to achieve positive outcomes like increase in employee motivation, engagement and productivity. While a number of researchers have investigated the effectiveness of Cialdini’s principles of persuasion, little or no research has been conducted in the context of work environments. In many workplaces, it is important that employees provide detailed records of their activities for easy tracking of an organization’s day-to-day activities and future historical reference. However, research has shown that some employees find it difficult to comply. In an attempt to address this problem, we carried out a pilot study among 20 healthcare Applied Behavior Analysis(ABA) frontline employees, working with autistic patients. The study is aimed at investigating how effective Cialdini’s principles of persuasion are in motivating employees to record details about the sessions they have with patients. A Two-Way Mixed ANOVA analysis showed that ABA frontline employees are most susceptible to Commitment and Reciprocity, followed by Authority, and least susceptible to Consensus and Scarcity. These results suggest that designers of gamified persuasive systems tailored to healthcare ABA frontline staff should focus on implementing Commitment, Reciprocity and Authority as persuasive strategies aimed at motivating them in engaging in sufficient and quality data entry.


Persuasive technology Workplace Persuasive strategy Cialdini’s persuasive principles 


  1. 1.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oprescu, F., Jones, C., Katsikitis, M.: I Play at Work-ten principles for transforming work processes through gamification. Front. Psychol. 5, 1–5 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., Coulon, L.: Generational differences in personality and motivation Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? J. Manag. Psychol. 23, 878–890 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallup Inc: U.S. Employee Engagement Reaches New High in March, Gallup.
  5. 5.
    Kumar, J.: Gamification at work: designing engaging business software. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. LNCS, vol. 8013, pp. 528–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, pp. 9–15, (2011). ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gamification Success Stories, Bunchball.
  8. 8.
    BunchBall: T-Mobile Success Story, Bunchball.
  9. 9.
    Kaptein, M., De Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P., Aarts, E.: Adaptive persuasive systems: a study of tailored persuasive text messages to reduce snacking. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 1–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orji, R.: Design for behaviour change: a model-driven approach for tailoring persuasive technologies (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orji, R.: Persuasion and Culture: Individualism-Collectivism and Susceptibility To Influence Strategies. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1582, pp. 30–39 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Howlin, P.: Autism and Asperger Syndrome: Preparing for Adulthood (2004).
  14. 14.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: Science and Practice. Pearson Education, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogg, B.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive 2009, p. 1. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 485–500 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Harnessing the science of persuasion. (cover story). Harv. Bus. Rev. 79, 72–79 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foster, D., Linehan, C., Lawson, S.: Motivating physical activity at work: using persuasive social media extensions for simple mobile devices. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 690, pp. 11–14 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lehrer, D., Vasudev, J.: Evaluating a social media application for sustainability in the workplace. In: CHI 2011 Extended Abstract Human Factors Computing Systems, pp. 2161–2166 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makanawala, P., Godara, J., Goldwasser, E., Le, H.: Applying gamification in customer service application to improve agents’s efficiency and satisfaction. In: Design, User Experience and Usability: Health, Learning, Playing, Cultural, and Cross-Cultural User Experience, NA, pp. 548–557 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orji, R., Mandryk, R.L., Vassileva, J.: Gender, age, and responsiveness to Cialdini’s persuasion strategies. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 147–159. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eberhardt, B.J., Shani, A.B.: The effects of full-time versus part-time employment status on attitudes toward specific organizational characteristics and overall job satisfaction. Acad. Manag. J. 27, 893–900 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Irefin, P., Mechanic, M.: Effect of employee commitment on organizational performance in coca cola nigeria limited maiduguri. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. (IOSR-JHSS), 3(3), 33–41 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barr, A., Serneels, P.: Reciprocity in the workplace. Exp. Econ. 12, 99–112 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coase, R.H.: The nature of the firm. Economica 4, 386–405 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryan, R., Deci, E.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klimmt, C., Rizzo, A., Vorderer, P., Koch, J., Fischer, T.: Experimental evidence for suspense as determinant of video game enjoyment. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 12, 29–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langer, R., Hancock, M., Scott, S.D.: Suspenseful design: engaging emotionally with complex applications through compelling narratives. In: Conference Proceedings - 2014 IEEE Games, Media, Entertainment Conference, IEEE GEM 2014 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Humu-Haida Selassie
    • 1
  • Kiemute Oyibo
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations