Personalization of Persuasive Technology in Higher Education

The success of persuasive systems in changing people's attitudes and behaviours has been established in various domains. Specifically, research has shown that personalized persuasive technology is more effective at achieving the desired goal than the one-size-fits-all approach. However, in the education domain, there are limited studies on the personalization of persuasive strategies to students. To advance persuasive technology research in this area, we investigated the susceptibility of undergraduate students (n = 243) to four persuasive strategies (Reward, Competition, Social Comparison and Social Learning) in order to provide a guideline for designing and personalizing persuasive systems in education. These four strategies were chosen because research on persuasion has established their effectiveness in changing behaviour and/or attitude. The results of our analysis reveal that students are more susceptible to Reward, followed by Competition and Social Comparison (both of which come in the second place) and Social Learning (the least persuasive). Moreover, there is no gender difference in the persuasiveness of the strategies. Therefore, in choosing persuasive strategies to motivate student's learning and success, among the strategies we investigated, Reward should be given priority, followed by Competition and Social Comparison, while Social Learning should be least favoured.

[1]  Christopher Cheong,et al.  Modelling the impact of study behaviours on academic performance to inform the design of a persuasive system , 2016, Inf. Manag..

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

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

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

[5]  Boris E. R. de Ruyter,et al.  Adaptive Persuasive Systems: A Study of Tailored Persuasive Text Messages to Reduce Snacking , 2012, TIIS.

[6]  Katheryn R. Christy,et al.  Leaderboards in a virtual classroom: A test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women's math performance , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Julita Vassileva,et al.  Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models , 2017, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[8]  Marc Busch,et al.  Personalized Persuasive Technology - Development and Validation of Scales for Measuring Persuadability , 2013, PERSUASIVE.

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

[10]  Thomas J. Dunn,et al.  From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. , 2014, British journal of psychology.

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

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