Persuasive technology

Persuasive technology is broadly defined as technology that is designed to change attitudes or behaviors of the users through persuasion and social influence, but not through coercion (Fogg 2002). Such technologies are regularly used in sales, diplomacy, politics, religion, military training, public health, and management, and may potentially be used in any area of human-human or human-computer interaction. Most self-identified persuasive technology research focuses on interactive, computational technologies, including desktop computers, Internet services, video games, and mobile devices (Oinas-Kukkonen et al. 2008), but this incorporates and builds on the results, theories, and methods of experimental psychology, rhetoric (Bogost 2007), human-computer interaction, and design with intent.

Taxonomies

Persuasive technologies can be categorized by their functional roles. B.J. Fogg (1998) proposes the "Functional Triad" as a classification of three "basic ways that people view or respond to computing technologies": persuasive technologies can function as either tools, media, and social actors -- or as more than one at once.

As tools, technologies can increase people's ability to perform a target behavior by making it easier or restructuring it (Fogg 2002, ch. 3). For example, an installation wizard can influence task completion -- including completing tasks (such as installation of additional software) not planned by users.

As media, interactive technologies can use both interactivity and narrative to create persuasive experiences that support rehearsing a behavior, empathizing, or exploring causal relationships (Fogg 2002, ch. 4). For example, simulations and games instantiate rules and procedures that express a point of view and can shape behavior and persaude; these use procedural rhetoric (Bogost 2007).

Technologies can also function as social actors (Reeves & Nass 1996, Turkle 1984). This "opens the door for computers to apply [...] social influence" (Fogg 2002, p. 90). Interactive technologies can cue social responses through e.g. their use of language, assumption of established social roles, or physical presence. For example, computers can use embodied conversational agents as part of their interface. Or a helpful or disclosive computer can cause users to mindlessly reciprocate (Fogg 1997b, Moon 2000).

Persuasive technologies can also be categorized by whether they change attitude and behaviors through direct interaction or through a mediating role (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harjumaa 2008): do they persuade through e.g. human-computer interaction (HCI) or computer-mediated communication (CMC)? The examples already mentioned are the former, but there are many of the latter. Communication technologies can persuade or amplify the persuasion of others by transforming the social interaction (Licklider 1968, Bailenson et al. 2004), providing shared feedback on interaction (DiMicco 2004), or restructuring communication processes (Winograd 1986).

Reciprocal equality

One feature that distinguishes persuasion technology from familiar forms of persuasion is that the individual being persuaded often cannot respond in kind. This is a lack of reciprocal equality. For example, when a conversational agent persuades a user using social influence strategies, the user cannot also use similar strategies on the agent (Fogg 2002).

Use in health care

"Digital health coaching" is the utilization of computers as persuasive technology to augment the personal care delivered to patients, and is used in numerous medical settings (Elton 2007).

See also

Other subjects which have some overlap or features in common with persuasive technology include:

• Collaboration tools (including Wikis)
• Psychology
• Propaganda
• Rhetoric and oratory skills
• Personal coaching and grooming
• Advertising
• Artificial intelligence
• Brainwashing
• Coercion

References

• Bailenson, J. N., Beall, A. C., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Turk, M. (2004). Transformed Social Interaction: Decoupling Representation from Behavior and Form in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 13(4), 428-441.
• Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press.
• DiMicco, J. M., Pandolfo, A., & Bender, W. (2004). Influencing group participation with a shared display. In Proceedings of CSCW 2004 (pp. 614-623). Chicago, Illinois, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031713.
• Elton, Catherine . "`Laura' makes digital health coaching personal." The Boston Globe, May 21, 2007. [1]
• Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997a). Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(4), 551-561.
• Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997b) How users reciprocate to computers: an experiment that demonstrates behavior change. In Proceedings of CHI 1997, ACM Press, 331-332. .
• Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. Proceedings of CHI 1998, ACM Press, 225-232 .
• Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann
• Fogg, B. J., & Eckles, D. (Eds.). (2007). Mobile Persuasion: 20 Perspectives on the Future of Behavior Change. Stanford, California: Stanford Captology Media.
• Licklider, J. C. R., & Taylor, R. W. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Science and Technology, 76(2). [2]
• Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers. The Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 323-339.
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
• Oinas-Kukkonen Harri & Harjumaa Marja. 2008. A Systematic Framework for Designing and Evaluating Persuasive Systems. Proceedings of Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference, pp. 164-176.
• Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (Eds.). (2008). Proceedings of Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference. Oulu, Finland, June 4-6, 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
• Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: computers and the human spirit. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY, USA.
• Winograd, T. (1986). A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 203-220.

External links

• Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab
• Third International Conference on Persuasive Technology