Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Categorizing users in behavior change support systems based on cognitive dissonance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most developers of behavior change support systems (BCSS) employ ad hoc procedures in their designs. This paper presents a novel discussion concerning how analyzing the relationship between attitude toward target behavior, current behavior, and attitude toward change or maintaining behavior can facilitate the design of BCSS. We describe the three-dimensional relationships between attitude and behavior (3D-RAB) model and demonstrate how it can be used to categorize users, based on variations in levels of cognitive dissonance. The proposed model seeks to provide a method for analyzing the user context on the persuasive systems design model, and it is evaluated using existing BCSS. We identified that although designers seem to address the various cognitive states, this is not done purposefully, or in a methodical fashion, which implies that many existing applications are targeting users not considered at the design phase. As a result of this work, it is suggested that designers apply the 3D-RAB model in order to design solutions for targeted users.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oinas-Kukkonen H (2013) A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 17:1223–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harjumaa M, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2007) Persuasion theories and IT design. In: Lecture notes in computer science

  3. Fogg BJ (1997) Captology: the study of computers as persuasive technologies. In: Human factors in computing systems: looking to the future, New York

  4. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2008) A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 164–176

  5. Cassell MM, Jackson C, Cheuvront B (1998) Health communication on the Internet: an effective channel for health behavior change? J Health Commun 3:71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller GR (1980) On being persuaded: some basic distinctions. In: Persuasion: new directions in theory and research, pp 11–28

  7. Atkinson B (2006) Captology: a critical review. In: Lecture notes in computer science

  8. Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do, Morgan Kaufmann

  9. Lacroix J, Saini P, Goris A (2009) Understanding user cognitions to guide the tailoring of persuasive technology-based physical activity interventions. pp 1–8

  10. Wiafe I, Nakata K (2012) Bibliographic analysis of persuasive systems: techniques, methods and domains of application. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on persuasive technology, Linkoping Sweden

  11. Torning K, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2009) Persuasive system design: state of the art and future directions. In: Persusive 2009

  12. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24:485[Article Id:28]

  13. Fogg B, Hreha J (2010) Behavior wizard: a method for matching target behaviors with solutions. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on persuasive technology, pp 117–131

  14. Fogg B (2009) Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology

  15. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Purpura S, Schwanda V, Williams K, Stubler W, Sengers P (2011) Fit4life: the design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weight. In: 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 423–432

  17. Fogg BJ (1998) Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: CHI, Los Angeles, pp 225–232

  18. Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: the next frontier for web science. Presented at the web science conference Raleigh, NC, USA

  19. Räisänen T, Lehto T, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Practical findings from applying the PSD model for evaluating software design specifications. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on persuasive technology, pp 185–192

  20. Griffin E, McClish G (1997) A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Aronson E (1969) The theory of cognitive dissonance: a current perspective. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 4:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Saidin AZ (2011) Persuasion knowledge toolkit: requirements gathering with designer. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS conference on human computer interaction. Newcastle

  23. Ajzen I (ed) (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior (Action control: From cognition to behavior). Berlin and New York, Springer

  24. Aronson E (1997) Back to the future: retrospective review of Leon Festinger’s: a theory of cognitive dissonance. Am J Psychol 110:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C (2007) Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prochaska J, DiClemente C (1986) Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Treating addictive behaviors: processes of change. pp 3–27

  27. Fogg B (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology. Claremont, California

  28. Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: a research model and agenda. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 4–14

  29. Hevner A, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105

    Google Scholar 

  30. Knipscheer K, Nieuwesteeg J, Oste J (2006) Persuasive story table: promoting exchange of life history stories among elderly in institutions. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 191–194

  31. McCreadie C, Raper J, Gunesh A, Wood J, Carey K, Petrie H et al (2006) Persuasive technology for leisure and health: development of a personal navigation tool. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 187–190

  32. Duncan J, Camp LJ, Hazelwood WR (2009) The portal monitor: a privacy-enhanced event-driven system for elder care. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology

  33. Gram-Hansen LB (2009) Geocaching in a persuasive perspective. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive

  34. Reitberger W, Ploderer B, Obermair C, Tscheligi M (2007) The percues framework and its application for sustainable mobility. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 92–95

  35. Khaled R, Fischer R, Noble J, Biddle R (2008) A qualitative study of culture and persuasion in a smoking cessation game. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. pp 224–236

  36. Vossen S, Ham J, Midden C (2009) Social influence of a persuasive agent: the role of agent embodiment and evaluative feedback. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive

  37. Midden C, Ham J (2009) Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology

  38. Midden C, Ham J (2012) The illusion of agency: the influence of the agency of an artificial agent on its persuasive power. In: Proceedings of the persuasive technology. Design for health and safety. Springer, pp 90–99

  39. Barr P, Khaled R, Noble J, Biddle R (2006) Well-being to “well done!”: the development cycle in role-playing games. In: Proceedings of the international conference on persuasive technology. pp 96–99

  40. Bickmore T, Mauer D, Crespo F, Brown T (2007) Persuasion, task interruption and health regimen adherence. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on persuasive technology

  41. Parmar V, Keyson D, Debont C (2008) Persuasive technology for shaping social beliefs of rural women in India: an approach based on the theory of planned behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on persuasive technology. pp 104–115

  42. Manaktola K, Jauhari V (2007) Exploring consumer attitude and behaviour towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. Int J Contemp Hosp Manage 19:364–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prochaska J, Redding C, Evers K (2002) The transtheoretical model and stages of change. Health Behav Health Educ Theory Res Pract 3:99–120

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Technology, GIMPA, Accra, Ghana

    Isaac Wiafe

  2. Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Keiichi Nakata & Stephen Gulliver

Authors
  1. Isaac Wiafe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keiichi Nakata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Gulliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isaac Wiafe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wiafe, I., Nakata, K. & Gulliver, S. Categorizing users in behavior change support systems based on cognitive dissonance. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18, 1677–1687 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0782-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0782-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation