Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Persuasive Technology

PERSUASIVE 2017: Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors pp 135–147Cite as

Computers and People Alike

Investigating the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm in Persuasive Technology

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10171))

Abstract

A study is presented that tests the relation between the (perceived) personality of an online interactive system and the personality of its user. We expected a system with a dominant interaction style to be more persuasive than a submissive one. Moreover, we expected people with dominant personalities to be persuaded more by a dominant system, while people with submissive personalities would be persuaded more by a submissive one. These expectations were tested in a study where participants were provided with automated persuasive messages that had either a dominant or a submissive style. Results support our hypotheses and show that the similarity-attraction paradigm can be extended to persuasive technologies. However, findings also show that the dominant system is perceived as less likable. Although it is hard to predict whether these effects occur in real-world settings, the current work could help creating technologies that adapt their persuasive messages to their users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Andrews, P., Manandhar, S.: Measure of belief change as an evaluation of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the Persuasive Technology and Digital Behaviour Intervention Symposium, pp. 4–9. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, London (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Influencing individually: fusing personalization and persuasion. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. (TIIS) 2(2), 4153–4157 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blazer, J.A.: Complementary needs and marital happiness. Marriage Fam. Living 25(1), 89–95 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Byrne, D.: Attitudes and attraction. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 4, pp. 35–89 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carli, L.L.: Gendered communication and social influence. In: Ryan, M.K., Branscombe, N.R. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology, pp. 199–215. SAGE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cialdini, R.B.: Influence: Science and Practice, vol. 4. Pearson Education, Boston (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cialdini, R.B., Trost, M.R.: Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Digman, J.M.: Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41(1), 417–440 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Duck, S.W., Craig, G.: Personality similarity and the development of friendship: a longitudinal study. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 17(3), 237–242 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eagly, A.H.: Sex differences in influenceability. Psychol. Bull. 85(1), 86–116 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eagly, A.H., Carli, L.L.: Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: a meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychol. Bull. 90(1), 1–20 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fishman, P.: Interaction: the work women do. In: Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fogg, B.J.: Charismatic computers: creating more likable and persuasive interactive technologies by leveraging principles from social psychology (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goldberg, L.R.: The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48(1), 26–34 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Halko, S., Kientz, J.A.: Personality and persuasive technology: an exploratory study on health-promoting mobile applications. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Hirsh, J.B., Kang, S.K., Bodenhausen, G.V.: Personalized persuasion tailoring persuasive appeals to recipients personality traits. Psychol. Sci. 23(6), 578–581 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. IJsselsteijn, W., Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Hoven, E.: Persuasive technology for human well-being: setting the scene. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., Kort, Y.A.W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 1–5. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11755494_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Izard, C.: Personality similarity and friendship. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 61(1), 47–51 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. John, O.P., Donahue, E.M., Kentle, R.L.: The Big Five Inventory - Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., Ruyter, B., Aarts, E.: Can you be persuaded? Individual differences in susceptibility to persuasion. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotzé, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R.O., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5726, pp. 115–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly, E.L.: Consistency of the adult personality. Am. Psychol. 10(11), 659–681 (1955)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kiesler, D.J.: The 1982 interpersonal circle: a taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychol. Rev. 90(3), 185–214 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Locke, K.D.: Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. J. Pers. Assess. 75(2), 249–267 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Milgram, S.: Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67(4), 371–378 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Murstein, B.I.: The complementary need hypothesis in newlyweds and middle-aged married couples. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 63(1), 194–197 (1961)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56(1), 81–103 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., Dryer, C.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 228–229. ACM (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 72–78. ACM (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Newcomb, T.M.: The prediction of interpersonal attraction. Am. Psychol. 11(11), 575–586 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 164–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Orji, R.O., Vassileva, J., Mandryk, R.L.: Modeling gender differences in healthy eating determinants for persuasive intervention design. In: Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7822, pp. 161–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37157-8_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, New York (1986)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Reitberger, W., Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi, M., de Ruyter, B., Ham, J.: Measuring (ambient) persuasive technologies. In: Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, pp. 489–490. Noldus (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Fazio, R.H.: The accessibility of source likability as a determinant of persuasion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18(1), 19–25 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sakai, R., Peteghem, S., Sande, L., Banach, P., Kaptein, M.: Personalized persuasion in ambient intelligence: the APStairs system. In: Keyson, D.V., et al. (eds.) AmI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7040, pp. 205–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25167-2_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Tajfel, H.: Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 33(1), 1–39 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. West, C., Fenstermaker, S., et al.: Power, inequality, and the accomplishment of gender: an ethnomethodological view. In: Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory, pp. 151–174 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wiggins, J.S., Broughton, R.: The interpersonal circle: a structural model for the integration of personality research. Perspect. Pers. 1, 1–47 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Peter A. M. Ruijten & Tiange Zhao

Authors
  1. Peter A. M. Ruijten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiange Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter A. M. Ruijten .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Peter W. de Vries

  2. University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Harri Oinas-Kukkonen

  3. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Liseth Siemons

  4. University de Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Nienke Beerlage-de Jong

  5. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ruijten, P.A.M., Zhao, T. (2017). Computers and People Alike. In: de Vries, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds) Persuasive Technology: Development and Implementation of Personalized Technologies to Change Attitudes and Behaviors. PERSUASIVE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10171. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55133-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55134-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation