Susceptibility to Fitness App's Persuasive Features: Differences Between Acting and Non-Acting Users

The incidence of physical inactivity, obesity and non-communicable diseases is on the rise globally due to the sedentary lifestyles occasioned by modernity and technology. As a means of tackling the inactivity problem, which is almost becoming a global epidemic, research has shown that persuasive technology holds bright prospects. However, in the physical activity domain, there is limited research on users' persuasion profiles and the differences between users who are currently exercising (acting users) and those who have the intentions to exercise in the future (non-acting users). To bridge this gap, we conducted a study among 190 participants resident in two individualist countries to determine the susceptibility profile of both user types and their differences. We based our study on storyboards, illustrating six commonly employed persuasive features in fitness apps. The results of our analysis showed that both user types are most likely to be susceptible to Goal-Setting/Self-Monitoring, followed by Reward and Competition, and least likely to be susceptible to Cooperation, Social Comparison and Social Learning. In particular, acting users are more likely to be susceptible to Social Learning than non-acting us-ers. Overall, our findings suggest that, irrespective of user type, personal features will be more likely effective than social features among users from individualist cultures. We discuss the implications of our findings in the context of fitness apps design.

[1]  Rostislav Khlebnikov,et al.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 2016 .

[2]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Exploring goal-setting, rewards, self-monitoring, and sharing to motivate physical activity , 2012, 2012 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops.

[3]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  The relationship between personality traits and susceptibility to social influence , 2019, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[4]  J. J. Higgins,et al.  The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures , 2011, CHI.

[5]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Exploring Perceived Persuasiveness of a Behavior Change Support System: A Structural Model , 2012, PERSUASIVE.

[7]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Personalizing persuasive technologies: Explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[8]  G. Hofstede Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context , 2011 .

[9]  Rita Orji,et al.  Persuasion and Culture: Individualism-Collectivism and Susceptibility to Influence Strategies , 2016, PPT@PERSUASIVE.

[10]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Tracking feels oppressive and ‘punishy’: Exploring the costs and benefits of self-monitoring for health and wellness , 2018, Digital health.

[11]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Perceived Persuasive Effect of Behavior Model Design in Fitness Apps , 2018, UMAP.

[12]  Kiemute Oyibo Designing Culture-based Persuasive Technology to Promote Physical Activity among University Students , 2016, UMAP.

[13]  Tugba Taskaya Temizel,et al.  The impact of individual differences on influence strategies , 2015 .

[14]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Drivers of Competitive Behavior in Persuasive Technology in Education , 2019, UMAP.

[15]  R. Cialdini Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion , 1993 .

[16]  Julie A. Kientz,et al.  Personality and Persuasive Technology: An Exploratory Study on Health-Promoting Mobile Applications , 2010, PERSUASIVE.

[17]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  The Influence of Culture in the Effect of Age and Gender on Social Influence in Persuasive Technology , 2017, UMAP.

[18]  D. J. van der Valk,et al.  How accurately can sitting and the intensity of walking and cycling be classified using an accelerometer on the waist for the purpose of the “Global recommendations on physical activity for health”? , 2015 .

[19]  Julita Vassileva,et al.  Gender, Age, and Responsiveness to Cialdini's Persuasion Strategies , 2015, PERSUASIVE.

[20]  Agnis Stibe,et al.  Towards a Framework for Socially Influencing Systems: Meta-Analysis of Four PLS-SEM Based Studies , 2015, PERSUASIVE.

[21]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  The Susceptibility of Africans to Persuasive Strategies: A Case Study of Nigeria , 2018, PPT@PERSUASIVE.

[22]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Can You Be Persuaded? Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Persuasion , 2009, INTERACT.

[23]  James A. Landay,et al.  Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity , 2006, CHI.

[24]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Developing Culturally Relevant Design Guidelines for Encouraging Physical Activity: a Social Cognitive Theory Perspective , 2018, Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research.

[25]  Perry R. Hinton SPSS Explained , 2004 .

[26]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerians vs. Canadians , 2018, UMAP.

[27]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Investigation of Social Predictors of Competitive Behavior in Persuasive Technology , 2017, PERSUASIVE.

[28]  MarkopoulosPanos,et al.  Personalizing persuasive technologies , 2015 .

[29]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Investigation of the Social Predictors of Competitive Behavior and the Moderating Effect of Culture , 2017, UMAP.

[30]  Michela Ferron,et al.  Transtheoretical model for designing technologies supporting an active lifestyle , 2013, CHItaly '13.

[31]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Socially-driven persuasive health intervention design: Competition, social comparison, and cooperation , 2019, Health Informatics J..

[32]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Investigation of the Persuasiveness of Social Influence in Persuasive Technology and the Effect of Age and Gender , 2017, PPT@PERSUASIVE.

[33]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[34]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Exploring Social Influence on Customer Engagement: A Pilot Study on the Effects of Social Learning, Social Comparison, and Normative Influence , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.