Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Method
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Human-Computer Interaction

A persuasive agent architecture for behavior change intervention

Profile image of Adegoke OjeniyiAdegoke Ojeniyi

2022, International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology

https://doi.org/10.11591/IJICT.V11I2.PP128-139
visibility

…

description

12 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

A persuasive agent makes use of persuasion attributions to ensure that its predefined objective(s) is achieved within its immediate environment. This is made possible based on the five unique features namely sociable, persuasive, autonomy, reactive, and proactive natures. However, there are limited successes recorded within the behavioural intervention and psychological reactance is responsible for these failures. Psychological reactance is the stage where rejection, negative response and frustration are felt by the users of the persuasive system. Thus, this study proposes a persuasive agent (PAT) architecture that limits the experience of psychological reactance to achieve an improved behavioural intervention. PAT architecture adopted the combination of the reactance model for behavior change and the persuasive design principle. The architecture is evaluated by conducting an experimental study using a user-centred approach. The evaluation reflected that there is a reduction in the number of users who experienced psychological reactance from 70 per cent to 3 per cent. The result is a better improvement compared with previous outcomes. The contribution made in this study would provide a design model and a steplike approach to software designers on how to limit the effect of psychological reactance on persuasive system applications and interventions.

Figures (12)
Figure 1. JAM agent system architecture [19] The first closely related study is by Huber [19] and he presented a unique agent system architecture referenced as JAM. This is a hybrid architecture which is based on pragmatic BDI-based agent architecture. It implemented Ingrand et al. [21] theory of procedural reasoning system (PRS), Lee et al. [22] structured circuit semantics (SCS), and Levin et al. [23] act plan interlingua concept. These three theories and concepts formed its internal working which is subdivided into five major parts such as the plan library, the world model, the intention structure, the interpreter, and the observer as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. JAM agent system architecture [19] The first closely related study is by Huber [19] and he presented a unique agent system architecture referenced as JAM. This is a hybrid architecture which is based on pragmatic BDI-based agent architecture. It implemented Ingrand et al. [21] theory of procedural reasoning system (PRS), Lee et al. [22] structured circuit semantics (SCS), and Levin et al. [23] act plan interlingua concept. These three theories and concepts formed its internal working which is subdivided into five major parts such as the plan library, the world model, the intention structure, the interpreter, and the observer as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Procedure reasoning system [7] In another study, the BDI architecture of Rao and Georgeff [24] was implemented by Liu ef al. [7] to obtain a persuasive agent system. The persuasive agent system design is based on a mental notion of six sub-parts namely the multimodal interface, belief, plan library, reasoner, goals (desire), and intention (makeup of argumentation and decision models). This design is later improved by Ingrand ef al. [21] and proposed as the PRS. Many studies such as [25]-[29] have implemented PRS and its applications which are based on cognitive BDI. Out of the many studies, one stand-out is by Liu et al. [7] where BDI and PRS were implemented as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Procedure reasoning system [7] In another study, the BDI architecture of Rao and Georgeff [24] was implemented by Liu ef al. [7] to obtain a persuasive agent system. The persuasive agent system design is based on a mental notion of six sub-parts namely the multimodal interface, belief, plan library, reasoner, goals (desire), and intention (makeup of argumentation and decision models). This design is later improved by Ingrand ef al. [21] and proposed as the PRS. Many studies such as [25]-[29] have implemented PRS and its applications which are based on cognitive BDI. Out of the many studies, one stand-out is by Liu et al. [7] where BDI and PRS were implemented as shown in Figure 2.
impact the users within that environmental domain. The interaction with the domain environment (user) takes place at the application interface. This interaction with both the virtual agent and the storyboard display employed persuasive strategies to achieve the predefined aim and objective.
impact the users within that environmental domain. The interaction with the domain environment (user) takes place at the application interface. This interaction with both the virtual agent and the storyboard display employed persuasive strategies to achieve the predefined aim and objective.
The implementation of agent-based applications started with the application requirement gathering which was done based on the proposed architecture and persuasive design elements [41]. Furthermore, the agent-based application Dr Clean implemented a virtual agent as indicated in PAT. The virtual agent is designed as an image of a female expert giving professional instruction which is based on the principle of expertise, similarity, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. A female character agent was used because of the soft affection, impression and attractiveness that the female image possesses especially on children [42], [43]. Figure 6 shows the interface of Dr Clean.
The implementation of agent-based applications started with the application requirement gathering which was done based on the proposed architecture and persuasive design elements [41]. Furthermore, the agent-based application Dr Clean implemented a virtual agent as indicated in PAT. The virtual agent is designed as an image of a female expert giving professional instruction which is based on the principle of expertise, similarity, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. A female character agent was used because of the soft affection, impression and attractiveness that the female image possesses especially on children [42], [43]. Figure 6 shows the interface of Dr Clean.
Figure 6. The interface of Dr Clean As discussed under the architecture design, the Dr Clean belief component housed information about the respondents (users). This information is passed to the behavior analysis component which is responsible for reasoning and interpretation of Dr Clean action plans. All the action plans of Dr Clean are stored in the plan library which is coordinated by the behavior analysis component. The outcome of the behavior analysis component is related to the goal component which forms Dr Clean's goal and it is the
Figure 6. The interface of Dr Clean As discussed under the architecture design, the Dr Clean belief component housed information about the respondents (users). This information is passed to the behavior analysis component which is responsible for reasoning and interpretation of Dr Clean action plans. All the action plans of Dr Clean are stored in the plan library which is coordinated by the behavior analysis component. The outcome of the behavior analysis component is related to the goal component which forms Dr Clean's goal and it is the
Figure 7. Evaluation activities The study evaluation followed a user-centred design approach (UCD). This approach was used because it allows exploration of the needs, wishes, wants, expectations, and limitations of users of an application [44]. The user is the centre of this approach where the application design is mainly validated based on users’ perspectives only [45]. The study made use of Malaysian children within the age range of 7 to 12 years as study respondents. This group of children has been identified to have poor oral hygiene due to their inability to achieve proper and clean teeth brushing [46]—[49]. Teeth brushing behavior of brushing twice a day both morning (after bed) and night (before bed) were the target behaviour. The study made use of 30 respondents from primary school standards | to 3 using purposive sampling. The purposive sampling technique was used because only voluntary respondents that are unable to perform the target behavior properly were selected for the study. This was based on a suggestion by Fogg [50] that behavior change intervention is specifically met for an audience that lacks the target behaviour. Only new behaviours can be tailored without the expectation of psychological reactance. Specifically, the study evaluation followed a systematic approach which started from approval seeking date fixing, arrangement for the study room, respondents’ selection, pre-interaction, interaction and post-interaction as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Evaluation activities The study evaluation followed a user-centred design approach (UCD). This approach was used because it allows exploration of the needs, wishes, wants, expectations, and limitations of users of an application [44]. The user is the centre of this approach where the application design is mainly validated based on users’ perspectives only [45]. The study made use of Malaysian children within the age range of 7 to 12 years as study respondents. This group of children has been identified to have poor oral hygiene due to their inability to achieve proper and clean teeth brushing [46]—[49]. Teeth brushing behavior of brushing twice a day both morning (after bed) and night (before bed) were the target behaviour. The study made use of 30 respondents from primary school standards | to 3 using purposive sampling. The purposive sampling technique was used because only voluntary respondents that are unable to perform the target behavior properly were selected for the study. This was based on a suggestion by Fogg [50] that behavior change intervention is specifically met for an audience that lacks the target behaviour. Only new behaviours can be tailored without the expectation of psychological reactance. Specifically, the study evaluation followed a systematic approach which started from approval seeking date fixing, arrangement for the study room, respondents’ selection, pre-interaction, interaction and post-interaction as shown in Figure 7.
The Table 1 revealed the family background of the respondents which indicates their parents education levels. It can be inferred that the majority of the parents of the study’s respondents are secondary school leavers (as their highest qualification) with 86.7% for the fathers and 76.7% for the mothers. Th« further analysis reflects that all the respondents in the study admitted to observing their teeth brushing witl toothbrushes and paste. This indicates that all the respondents are knowledgeable about the target behaviour However, it is discovered that they are not knowledgeable about the duration that it should take them tc perform the target behaviour. This is reflected in the table that 60% of the respondents admitted to just tw« minutes of brushing whereas the remaining 40% claimed to brush for five minutes. The number of time: brushing a day was also investigated with a higher percentage of the 46.7% of the study respondents claimin; to brush twice daily, followed by 30.0% of the study’s respondents claiming to brush thrice in a day. The las group of 10% of the study’s respondents affirms brushing just once a day. A total of 30 questionnaires were administered to male and female children in standard 1-3. The children ranged between ages 7-9 and Table 1 depicted that 36.7% is the highest percentage of the respondents who are 7 years of age whereas 33.3% and 30.0% respectively are for respondents aged between 8 and 9 years. Based on the result, standard 1 is 36.7%, standard 2 is 33.3%, and standard 3 is 30.0% where the whole respondent is found to be 60% male population and the rest respondents are females as shown in Table 1.
The Table 1 revealed the family background of the respondents which indicates their parents education levels. It can be inferred that the majority of the parents of the study’s respondents are secondary school leavers (as their highest qualification) with 86.7% for the fathers and 76.7% for the mothers. Th« further analysis reflects that all the respondents in the study admitted to observing their teeth brushing witl toothbrushes and paste. This indicates that all the respondents are knowledgeable about the target behaviour However, it is discovered that they are not knowledgeable about the duration that it should take them tc perform the target behaviour. This is reflected in the table that 60% of the respondents admitted to just tw« minutes of brushing whereas the remaining 40% claimed to brush for five minutes. The number of time: brushing a day was also investigated with a higher percentage of the 46.7% of the study respondents claimin; to brush twice daily, followed by 30.0% of the study’s respondents claiming to brush thrice in a day. The las group of 10% of the study’s respondents affirms brushing just once a day. A total of 30 questionnaires were administered to male and female children in standard 1-3. The children ranged between ages 7-9 and Table 1 depicted that 36.7% is the highest percentage of the respondents who are 7 years of age whereas 33.3% and 30.0% respectively are for respondents aged between 8 and 9 years. Based on the result, standard 1 is 36.7%, standard 2 is 33.3%, and standard 3 is 30.0% where the whole respondent is found to be 60% male population and the rest respondents are females as shown in Table 1.
Table 3. Post interaction (2 and 4 weeks after the first interaction) Four weeks after the first interaction, the children were asked to interact with Dr Clean again and the report is presented in Table 3. 100% of the children remember and agreed that Dr Clean improved their brushing experience, however, only 96.7 wanted to share it with their friends. Thus they did not experience psychological reactance to the application or react negatively to the persuasive instruction of the application. Also, from observation, as shown in Table 4, the children were seen to be full of smiles and some were eager to call their friends to join them to interact with the app.
Table 3. Post interaction (2 and 4 weeks after the first interaction) Four weeks after the first interaction, the children were asked to interact with Dr Clean again and the report is presented in Table 3. 100% of the children remember and agreed that Dr Clean improved their brushing experience, however, only 96.7 wanted to share it with their friends. Thus they did not experience psychological reactance to the application or react negatively to the persuasive instruction of the application. Also, from observation, as shown in Table 4, the children were seen to be full of smiles and some were eager to call their friends to join them to interact with the app.
Table 4. Respondents’ eye contact under interactions
Table 4. Respondents’ eye contact under interactions
The study’s respondents locked their gaze on the system app which depicts a high level of attention and concentration. They were observed to be excited during their interaction with the system app and many of them were unwilling to disengage from the app after the session. This attitude is known as frowning
The study’s respondents locked their gaze on the system app which depicts a high level of attention and concentration. They were observed to be excited during their interaction with the system app and many of them were unwilling to disengage from the app after the session. This attitude is known as frowning

Related papers

Persuasive system design: state of the art and future directions
Kristian Tørning, Harri Oinas-Kukkonen

Persuasive Technology, 2009

This paper provides an overview of the current state of the art in persuasive systems design. All peer-reviewed full papers published at the first three International Conferences on Persuasive Technology were analyzed employing a literature review framework. Results from this analysis are discussed and directions for future research are suggested. Most research papers so far have been experimental. Five out

View PDFchevron_right
A VIRTUAL AGENT AS PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY
Kaoru Sumi

As a first step towards development of intelligent system using a virtual agent that proactively interacts with a user and changes user's intension according to the user's circumstances, we examine how to react with the user under several emotional situations. We set up scenarios that evoked emotional feelings in a user and controlled the agent's reaction in order to evaluate the user's impression of the agent. In this experiment, we made 96 patterns of content, which were a combination of emotional scenarios, facial expressions, and words used by the agent. The test subjects accessed the content and answered a questionnaire on the Web. After discussing the experimental results, we derive a rule for the agent's reaction favorable to the user on the basis of facial expressions and words.

View PDFchevron_right
A Unified Framework For Analysing, Designing And Evaluating Persuasive Technologies
Isaac Wiafe

Methods for designing persuasive systems continue to be a challenge and although some frameworks have been proposed to remedy this, they are all characterised with limitations that impedes their effective usage. In light of this, we propose the Unified Framework for Analysing, Developing and Evaluating persuasive technologies (U-FADE), which integrates key concepts in the Persuasive Systems Development model, the 3-Dimensional Relationship between Attitude and Behaviour model, Persuasive Pathway Model and Persuasive Technology Onion to address this limitation by providing a stepwise approach to facilitate persuasive technology design. The proposed integrated framework is conceptual and thus there is the need for further studies to investigate and demonstrate how it can be put to use.

View PDFchevron_right
2011: Considering User Attitude and Behaviour in Persuasive Systems Design
Stuart Moran

2011

Wiafe, I., Nakata, K., Moran, S., & Gulliver, S. (2011). Considering User Attitude and Behaviour in Persuasive Systems Design. In The 19th European Conference on Information Systems – ICT and Sustainable Service Development. Helsinki.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Analysing, Designing and Evaluating Persuasive Technologies
Isaac Wiafe

The use of interactive technology for changing, shaping or reinforcing attitude or behaviour which is commonly known as persuasive technology is currently attracting attention in information systems research. Persuasive technology combines the positive attributes of interpersonal interaction and mass communication to achieve optimal persuasion. It aims to accommodate individual difference during persuasion: a situation which is not commonly characterised with mass media persuasion. Amidst the benefits it brings to behavioural and attitudinal change interventions, current research have demonstrated that there is a lack of methods for its design. Consequently, most of the existing persuasive technology applications do not follow systematic processes during the design phases. As an attempt to remedy this situation, the Persuasive Systems Design (PSD) model has been introduced. However, although the PSD model provides a guide on what should be considered during analysis, design and evaluation, it fails to provide adequate information on how it should be done. Thus designers know what to do but not how to do it. To address this limitation, this study presents the 3-Dimensional Relationship between Attitude and Behaviour (3D-RAB) model and the Unified Framework for Analysing, Designing and Evaluating persuasive technology (U-FADE). The 3D-RAB argues that by analysing and identifying the various levels of cognitive dissonance of users before and during behaviour interventions, designers can craft persuasive messages to enhance persuasion. The U-FADE on the other hand expands the PSD model to include the 3D-RAB model and provide steps that can be followed to develop persuasive technology applications. The model and the framework were validated and it was observed that the U-FADE and the 3D-RAB are both effective for persuasive technology design.

View PDFchevron_right
Persuasive design, technology and
Pradeep Kopalakrishanan

IRISH , 2021

Humans are predominantly driven by intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. These motivations could be a blend of varying subtleties ranging from living a healthy life, financial stability, having social connections and so forth. As humans we have different attitudes and beliefs that gradually develop our characters. Intriguingly, not all of us act in accordance with our beliefs (Langrial, 2012). For instance, we all are aware that smoking is injurious to our health, but people follow smoking. Humans have a natural tendency to behave in contradiction to their beliefs. In other words, there is a gap between what an individual believes and what she/he essentially does. This varying behaviour gives rise to a distinctive state of cognitive unease (Festinger, 1962). The system based persuasive technology and the persuasive design are highly influenced these logic.

View PDFchevron_right
Persuasive Technology: Introduction to the Special Section
Samir Chatterjee

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2009

Whether we want it or not, information systems and technologies always have an effect on our behavior. Moreover, there are situations in which the goal of an information system is to influence end-users' behaviors. This special section of Communications of the AIS is devoted to persuasive technology, i.e., interactive computing systems designed to change people's attitudes or behaviors. The guest editorial introduces the topic to CAIS readers and provides both conceptual tools for obtaining a deeper understanding about persuasive technology and practical applications to demonstrate its potential for research and development in the future.

View PDFchevron_right
Adaptive Persuasive Systems
Emile Aarts

ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2012

This article describes the use of personalized short text messages (SMS) to reduce snacking. First, we describe the development and validation (N = 215) of a questionnaire to measure individual susceptibility to different social influence strategies. To evaluate the external validity of this Susceptibility to Persuasion Scale (STPS) we set up a two week text-messaging intervention that used text messages implementing social influence strategies as prompts to reduce snacking behavior. In this experiment (N = 73) we show that messages that are personalized (tailored) to the individual based on their scores on the STPS, lead to a higher decrease in snacking consumption than randomized messages or messages that are not tailored (contra-tailored) to the individual. We discuss the importance of this finding for the design of persuasive systems and detail how designers can use tailoring at the level of social influence strategies to increase the effects of their persuasive technologies.

View PDFchevron_right
On The Design of User Experience Based Persuasive Systems
Ahmad Abdel-Hafez

Computer and Information Science, 2011

The objective of persuasive technology researches is to develop persuasive systems that are able to change or reshape human behavior. Persuasive technology has quickly found a wide range of applications in many fields of research and development like marketing, health, safety and environment. The key element in designing successful persuasive systems is the improvement of the persuasion process. An important factor that should be included in the persuasion process is the user experience. This paper reviews the current trends of persuasive technology and shows some example of the available persuasive systems. The contribution of this paper is proposing a new and promising research direction for building persuasive systems that take the user feedback as a key element in the persuasion process. Some of the systems that follow this approach have been proposed and illustrated.

View PDFchevron_right
Modeling and Simulating Persuasion Strategies: Domain Specific Language for Persuasive Systems’ Design Productivity
Saad Abdessettar

Journal of Modern Education Review

The exponential growth of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has changed our way of performing tasks in diverse domains such as economy, health, and higher education. Still the effectiveness of the ICT is not maximal due to lack in efficient Human Machine Interaction (HMI) design. Hence, several studies have emerged in the persuasive technologies science to address the limitation of the HMI design. Nevertheless, there are still lack of tools and models that enable better productivity management. Indeed, all persuasive system design models highlight the need for tests before implementing persuasive strategies. These tests are challenging as they are often time and resource consuming. Our research work addresses the question: At which extent Domain-Specific Languages can enhance productivity in Persuasive Design processes. These Languages can provide the expressiveness power needed either for designing and testing persuasion strategies. In this paper, we discuss our analysis of existing tools and models and we explore the possibilities and limitations of a Domain-Specific Language to be applied and/or adapted to persuasive technologies.

View PDFchevron_right

References (59)

  1. B. J. Fogg, "Persuasive technology," Ubiquity, vol. 2002, no. December, p. 2, Dec. 2002, doi: 10.1145/764008.763957.
  2. M.-H. Wang, C.-S. Lee, L.-W. Wu, M.-C. Cheng, and O. Teytaud, "Ontology-based Intelligent Agent for Game of Go," in 2010 International Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Nov. 2010, pp. 485-490, doi: 10.1109/TAAI.2010.82.
  3. B. Chen, H. H. Cheng, and J. Palen, "Integrating mobile agent technology with multi-agent systems for distributed traffic detection and management systems," Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-10, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2008.04.003.
  4. Ö. Kafalı et al., "COMMODITY12: A smart e-health environment for diabetes management," Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 479-502, 2013, doi: 10.3233/AIS-130220.
  5. A. Gladun, J. Rogushina, F. Garcı´a-Sanchez, R. Martínez-Béjar, and J. T. Fernández-Breis, "An application of intelligent techniques and semantic web technologies in e-learning environments," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1922-1931, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.019.
  6. P. Kazienko and M. Adamski, "AdROSA-Adaptive personalization of web advertising," Information Sciences, vol. 177, no. 11, pp. 2269-2295, Jun. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.002.
  7. S. Liu, S. Helfenstein, and A. Wahlstedt, "Social psychology of persuasion applied to human-agent interaction," Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123-143, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.17011/ht/urn.200810245833.
  8. N. Murtagh, B. Gatersleben, and D. Uzzell, "20∶60∶20 -Differences in energy behaviour and conservation between and within households with electricity monitors," PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 3, p. e92019, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092019.
  9. R. Folger, D. B. Ganegoda, D. B. Rice, R. Taylor, and D. X. Wo, "Bounded autonomy and behavioral ethics: Deonance and reactance as competing motives," Human Relations, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 905-924, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.1177/0018726713482013.
  10. S. A. Rains, "The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review," Human Communication Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 47-73, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x.
  11. S. M. Edwards, H. Li, and J.-H. Lee, "Forced exposure and psychological reactance: antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads," Journal of Advertising, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 83-95, Oct. 2002, doi: 10.1080/00913367.2002.10673678.
  12. M. D. Beer, L. Alboul, E. Norling, and P. Wallis, "Using agents in virtual environments to assist controllers to manage multiple assets," in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 7764 LNAI, 2013, pp. 55-69.
  13. H. Jiang, J. M. Vidal, and M. N. Huhns, "EBDI: An architecture for emotional agents," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2007, pp. 38-40, doi: 10.1145/1329125.1329139.
  14. G. Biswas et al., "Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software," Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 3-4, pp. 363-392, Mar. 2005, doi: 10.1080/08839510590910200.
  15. L. Braubach, A. Pokahr, and W. Lamersdorf, "Jadex: A BDI-agent system combining middleware and reasoning," in Software Agent- Based Applications, Platforms and Development Kits, Basel: Birkhäuser Basel, 2005, pp. 143-168.
  16. N. Howden, R. Rönnquist, A. Hodgson, and A. Lucas, "JACK intelligent agents-summary of an agent infrastructure," Management, vol. 142, p. 6, 2001.
  17. A. Guerra-Hernández, A. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, and H. Soldano, "Learning in BDI multi-agent systems," in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 3259, 2004, pp. 218-233.
  18. A. S. Rao, "AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language," 1996, pp. 42-55.
  19. M. J. Huber, "JAM: A BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture," Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 236-243, 1999.
  20. S. F. Lim, Ailiya, C. Miao, and Z. Shen, "The design of persuasive teachable agent," in Proceedings -2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2013, Jul. 2013, pp. 382-384, doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2013.117.
  21. F. F. Ingrand, M. P. Georgeff, and A. S. Rao, "An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control," IEEE Expert, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 34-44, Dec. 1992, doi: 10.1109/64.180407.
  22. P. G. K. J. Lee, Marcus J. Huber, and Edmund H. Durfee, "UM-PRS: An implementation of the procedural reasoning system for multi-robot applications," Michigan, 1994.
  23.  ISSN: 2252-8776
  24. Int J Inf & Commun Technol, Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2022: 128-139
  25. L. Levin, D. Gates, A. Lavie, and A. Waibel, "An interlingua based on domain actions for machine translation of task-oriented dialogues," 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP 1998, vol. 98, pp. 1155-1158, 1998.
  26. A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, "BDI agents: From theory to practice," ICMAS, vol. 95, pp. 312-319, 1995.
  27. F. M. T. Brazier, C. M. Jonker, and J. Treur, "Principles of component-based design of intelligent agents," Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1-27, Apr. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0169-023X(01)00058-1.
  28. M. Georgeff, B. Pell, M. Pollack, M. Tambe, and M. Wooldridge, "The belief-desire-intention model of agency," in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 1555, 1999, pp. 1-10.
  29. M. N. Huhns and M. P. Singh, "Cognitive agents," IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 87-89, 1998, doi: 10.1109/4236.735992.
  30. F. F. Ingrand, R. Chatila, R. Alami, and F. Robert, "PRS: a high level supervision and control language for autonomous mobile robots," in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 43-49, doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.1996.503571.
  31. P. Maes, "Agents that reduce work and information overload," in Readings in Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier, 1995, pp. 811- 821.
  32. S. Chaiken, "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 752-766, Nov. 1980, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
  33. R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, "The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 69-81, Jan. 1984, doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.46.1.69.
  34. R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, "The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion," in Communication and Persuasion, New York, NY, NY: Springer New York, 1986, pp. 1-24.
  35. M. Roubroeks, J. Ham, and C. Midden, "When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance," International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 155-165, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0088-1.
  36. M. A. J. Roubroeks, J. R. C. Ham, and C. J. H. Midden, "The Dominant Robot: Threatening Robots Cause Psychological Reactance, Especially When They Have Incongruent Goals," 2010, pp. 174-184.
  37. M. Roubroeks, C. Midden, and J. Ham, "Does it make a difference who tells you what to do?," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology -Persuasive '09, 2009, p. 1, doi: 10.1145/1541948.1541970.
  38. M. Z. O. Stock, and M. Guerini, "Interface design and persuasive intelligent user interfaces," The foundations of interaction design, pp. 193-210, 2006.
  39. B. J. Fogg, "Prominence-interpretation theory," in CHI '03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems -CHI '03, 2003, p. 722, doi: 10.1145/765891.765951.
  40. P. A. M. J. B. Stiff, Persuasive communication, (2nd ed.). 2002.
  41. S. Parise, S. Kiesler, L. Sproull, and K. Waters, "Cooperating with life-like interface agents," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 123-142, Mar. 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00035-1.
  42. O. Adegoke, A. Ab Aziz, and Y. Yusof, "Designing a BDI agent reactant model of behavioural change intervention," Jurnal Teknologi, vol. 78, no. 2-2, pp. 83-93, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.11113/jt.v78.6932.
  43. H. Oinas-Kukkonen and M. Harjumaa, "Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features," Communications of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 485-500, 2009, doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.02428.
  44. G. Gonçalves et al., "Once face: the effect of eye size, observer and stimulus gender on impression formation," Current Psychology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 112-120, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12144-014-9244-3.
  45. G. Fouts and K. Burggraf, "Television situation comedies: Female body images and verbal reinforcements," Sex Roles, vol. 40, no. 5- 6, pp. 473-481, 1999, doi: 10.1023/A:1018875711082.
  46. R. Wever, J. van Kuijk, and C. Boks, "User-centred design for sustainable behaviour," International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-20, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1080/19397030802166205.
  47. T. Kontogiannis and D. Embrey, "A user-centred design approach for introducing computer-based process information systems," Applied Ergonomics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 109-119, Apr. 1997, doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00041-5.
  48. S. Sharma, R. Yeluri, A. A. Jain, and A. K. Munshi, "Effect of toothbrush grip on plaque removal during manual toothbrushing in children," Journal of Oral Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 183-190, 2012, doi: 10.2334/josnusd.54.183.
  49. N. Saddki, A. Yusoff, and Y. L. Hwang, "Factors associated with dental visit and barriers to utilisation of oral health care services in a sample of antenatal mothers in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia," BMC Public Health, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 75, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-75.
  50. X. L. Gao, C. Y. S. Hsu, Y. C. Xu, T. Loh, D. Koh, and H. B. Hwarng, "Behavioral pathways explaining oral health disparity in children," Journal of Dental Research, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 985-990, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1177/0022034510372896.
  51. B. L. Edelstein, "Disparities in oral health and access to care: Findings of national surveys," Ambulatory Pediatrics, vol. 2, no. 2 SUPPL., pp. 141-147, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.1367/1539-4409(2002)002<0141:DIOHAA>2.0.CO;2.
  52. B. Fogg, "A behavior model for persuasive design," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive '09, 2009, p. 1, doi: 10.1145/1541948.1541999.
  53. E. C. Hansen, Successful qualitative health research: A practical introduction. Open University Press.
  54. M. Q. Patton, Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc, 1990.
  55. N. Feltovich, "Reinforcement-based vs. Belief-based learning models in experimental asymmetric-information games," Econometrica, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 605-641, May 2000, doi: 10.1111/1468-0262.00125.
  56. S. N. A. Salam, W. A. J. W. Yahaya, and A. M. Ali, "Embedded social learning in a persuasive technology: Building up child confidence to dental treatment," The International Journal of Science in Society, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 173-184, 2010, doi: 10.18848/1836- 6236/CGP/v01i04/51495.
  57. N. H. A. A. M. Puvenesvary, R. A. Rahim, R. S. Naidu, M. Badzis, N. F. M. Nayan, "Qualitative Research: Data Collection & Data Analysis," UUM press, 2008.
  58. S.-M. Hong, "Hong's psychological reactance scale: A further factor analytic validation," Psychological Reports, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 512-514, Apr. 1992, doi: 10.2466/pr0.1992.70.2.512.
  59. E. de Lera and M. Garreta-Domingo, "Ten Emotion Heuristics: Guidelines for assessing the user's affective dimension easily and cost-effectively," in People and Computers XXI HCI.But Not as We Know It -Proceedings of HCI 2007: The 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference, Sep. 2007, vol. 2, doi: 10.14236/ewic/HCI2007.43.

Related papers

A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design
Gustavo Foldvari

This paper presents a new model for understanding human behavior. In this model (FBM), behavior is a product of three factors: motivation, ability, and triggers, each of which has subcomponents. The FBM asserts that for a person to perform a target behavior, he or she must (1) be sufficiently motivated, (2) have the ability to perform the behavior, and (3) be triggered to perform the behavior. These three factors must occur at the same moment, else the behavior will not happen. The FBM is useful in analysis and design of persuasive technologies. The FBM also helps teams work together efficiently because this model gives people a shared way of thinking about behavior change.

View PDFchevron_right
Persuasive system design
Kristian Tørning

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive '09, 2009

This paper provides an overview of the current state of the art in persuasive systems design. All peer-reviewed full papers published at the first three International Conferences on Persuasive Technology were analyzed employing a literature review framework. Results from this analysis are discussed and directions for future research are suggested. Most research papers so far have been experimental. Five out of six of these papers (84.4%) have addressed behavioral change rather than an attitude change. Tailoring, tunneling, reduction and social comparison have been the most studied methods for persuasion. Quite, surprisingly ethical considerations have remained largely unaddressed in these papers. In general, many of the research papers seem to describe the investigated persuasive systems in a relatively vague manner leaving room for some improvement.

View PDFchevron_right
Considering user attitude and behaviour in persuasive systems design
Keiichi Nakata

European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland, 2011

As in any technology systems, analysis and design issues are among the fundamental challenges in persuasive technology. Currently, the Persuasive Systems Development (PSD) framework is considered to be the most comprehensive framework for designing and evaluation of persuasive systems. However, the framework is limited in terms of providing detailed information which can lead to selection of appropriate techniques depending on the variable nature of users or use over time.

View PDFchevron_right
(2011) Considering user attitude and behavior in persuasive systems design: The 3D-RAB model
Stephen Gulliver

As in any technology systems, analysis and design issues are among the fundamental challenges in persuasive technology. Currently, the Persuasive Systems Development (PSD) framework is considered to be the most comprehensive framework for designing and evaluation of persuasive systems. However, the framework is limited in terms of providing detailed information which can lead to selection of appropriate techniques depending on the variable nature of users or use over time. In light of this, we propose a model which is intended for analysing and implementing behavioural change in persuasive technology called the 3D-RAB model. The 3D-RAB model represents the three dimensional relationships between attitude towards behaviour, attitude towards change or maintaining a change, and current behaviour, and distinguishes variable levels in a user’s cognitive state. As such it provides a framework which could be used to select appropriate techniques for persuasive technology. The paper also explains how the understanding of external environment within which a persuasive technology will operate could help in the design and evaluation of persuasive technologies.

View PDFchevron_right
CONSIDERING USER ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR IN PERSUASIVE SYSTEMS DESIGN: THE 3D-RAB MODEL
Isaac Wiafe

As in any technology systems, analysis and design issues are among the fundamental challenges in persuasive technology. Currently, the Persuasive Systems Development (PSD) framework is considered to be the most comprehensive framework for designing and evaluation of persuasive systems. However, the framework is limited in terms of providing detailed information which can lead to selection of appropriate techniques depending on the variable nature of users or use over time. In light of this, we propose a model which is intended for analysing and implementing behavioural change in persuasive technology called the 3D-RAB model. The 3D-RAB model represents the three dimensional relationships between attitude towards behaviour, attitude towards change or maintaining a change, and current behaviour, and distinguishes variable levels in a user’s cognitive state. As such it provides a framework which could be used to select appropriate techniques for persuasive technology.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Psychology
  • Persuasive Technology
  • Psychological Intervention
  • Agent based modeling
  • Agent Architectures
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved