Personalizing Persuasive Technologies: Do Gender and Age Affect Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies?

Personalizing Persuasive Technologies (PTs) increase their effectiveness at motivating desired behavioral change. However, most existing efforts towards personalizing PTs and developing personalization models were focused on people from the western countries. In this work, we focused on African audience to investigate how individual's responsiveness to three persuasive strategies (Reward, Social Learning, and Social Comparison) varies by Gender and Age group via a large-scale study of 712 participants. The results of a RM-ANOVA show significant differences in responsiveness to the strategies across the gender and age groups. Females are more responsive to the Reward and Social Learning strategies while males are more responsive to the social comparison strategy. People who are under 25 years are more likely to be persuaded by the Reward and social Learning than participants above 35 years who are more responsive to the Social Comparison strategy. The results will inform PT designers on the appropriate strategy to employ to personalize PTs to individual users based on their Age and Gender.

[1]  Kiemute Oyibo,et al.  Investigation of the Influence of Personality Traits on Cialdini's Persuasive Strategies , 2017, PPT@PERSUASIVE.

[2]  R. Orji,et al.  Impact of Gender and Nationality on Acceptance of a Digital Library: An Empirical Validation of Nationality Based UTAUT Using SEM , 2010 .

[3]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications , 1991 .

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

[5]  Kathy Kellermann,et al.  Classifying Compliance Gaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder and Strategic Confusion , 1994 .

[6]  Juho Hamari,et al.  Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? - A Review of Empirical Studies , 2014, PERSUASIVE.

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

[8]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[9]  Rita Orji,et al.  Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types , 2018, CHI.

[10]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .

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

[12]  L. Steinberg,et al.  Adolescents Prefer More Immediate Rewards When in the Presence of their Peers , 2011 .

[13]  P. Kleingeld,et al.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2013 .

[14]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Developing culturally relevant design guidelines for encouraging healthy eating behavior , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Elke E. Mattheiss,et al.  More than Sex: The Role of Femininity and Masculinity in the Design of Personalized Persuasive Games , 2016, PERSUASIVE.

[16]  Chrysanne Di Marco,et al.  Towards Personality-driven Persuasive Health Games and Gamified Systems , 2017, CHI.

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

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

[19]  R. Sellars.  Rhetoric , 1996, The Classical Review.

[20]  Sandra Burri Gram-Hansen,et al.  Persuasive Technology for Learning and Teaching – The EuroPLOT Project , 2013 .