Tailoring persuasive technology: A systematic review of literature of self-schema theory and transformative learning theory in persuasive technology context

Abstract

Groundwork for understanding persuasion in human behaviour change through the human-computer environment has been laid by the socio-psychological paradigm and theories, and an acknowledged key element in behaviour change is the role of attitude in the intention-behaviour gap. The said gap is explored in the present paper by means of a systematic literature review of how theories of self-schema and transformative learning have been used thus far in researching behaviour change support systems. Tailoring content and persuasive strategies to some end-user traits is an acknowledged avenue in the persuasive technology field, but what identifiable traits beyond needs, interests, personality, or context can be identified and used in the pursuit of systems that are increasingly more relevant to their users? Various databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles, and the research contributions were analysed against the Persuasive Systems Design Model and Outcome/Change Design Matrix. The results show that neither theory has been used extensively for researching behaviour change support systems; yet, a closer look at the records offers feasible approaches for addressing the intention-behaviour gap. Both SST and TLT emerge as worth investigating as regards identifying and influencing attitude and self-perception level factors in persuasion.

Bibliographic citation

Tikka, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2019). Tailoring persuasive technology: A systematic review of literature of self-schema theory and transformative learning theory in persuasive technology context. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(3), article 6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-3-6

Keywords

Persuasive technology; Behaviour change; self-schema theory; transformative learning theory; literature review

Full Text:

HTML

References

Show references Hide references

* denotes a reference among the reviewed studies

Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-35). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Banting, L. K., Dimmock, J. A., & Lay, B. S. (2009). The role of implicit and explicit components of exerciser self-schema in the prediction of exercise behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.007

Barclay-Goddard, R., King, J., Dubouloz, C.-J., & Schwartz, C. E. (2012). Building on transformative learning and response shift theory to investigate health-related quality of life changes over time in individuals with chronic health conditions and disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93, 214-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.09.010

Brannon, L. A., & McCabe, A. E. (2002). Schema-derived persuasion and perception of AIDS risk. Health Marketing Quarterly, 20(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v20n02_03

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Sidera, J. A. (1982). The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 324-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(82)90057-9

Chatterjee S., & Price A. (2009). Healthy living with persuasive technologies: Framework, issues, and challenges. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16, 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2859

Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981) Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002041

Consolvo S., McDonald D. W., & Landay J. A. (2009). Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In CHI '09 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 405-414). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518766

Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative learning: New perspectives for teachers of adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

*Dijkstra, A. (2008). The psychology of tailoring-ingredients in computer-tailored persuasion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 765-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00081.x

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93

Flora, S. R. (2004). The power of reinforcement. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Persuasive ’09 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Article No. 40). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999

Kaptein, M., & Eckles, D. (2012). Heterogeneity in the effects of online persuasion. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 176-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2012.02.002

Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B., & Aarts, E. (2015). Personalizing persuasive technologies: Explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 77, 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.004

Kendzierski, D. (1988). Self-schemata and exercise. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0901_4

Kendzierski, D., & Sheffield, A. (2000). Self-schema and attributions for an exercise lapse. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2201_1

Kendzierski, D., Sheffield, A., & Morganstein, M. S. (2002). The role of self-schema in attributions for own versus other’s exercise lapse. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_1

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Joint Technical Report). Department of Computer Science, Keele University (TER/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (04001T.1). Retrieved from http://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/kitchenham.pdf

Kuonanoja, L., Langrial, S., Lappalainen, R., Lappalainen, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2015). Treating depression through a behavior change support system without face-to-face therapy. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 192-210. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol7/iss3/6. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00072

Langrial, S., Stibe, A., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). Practical examples of mobile and social apps using the Outcome / Change Design Matrix. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, PERSUASIVE 2013, Sydney, Australia, April 3-5, 2013. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-973/bcss1.pdf

Lehto, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2011). Persuasive features in web-based alcohol and smoking interventions: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e46. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1559

Lehto, T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2015). Explaining and predicting perceived effectiveness and use continuance intention of a behavior change support system for weight loss. Behavior & Information Technology, 34, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.866162

Locke E. A., & Latham G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368103200101

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformative theory of adult learning. In M. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld: Critical perspectives on adult learning (pp. 39-70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369604600303

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401

Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace and higher education (pp. 18-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010a). Behavior change support systems: A research model and agenda. In Proceedings of Persuasive Technology: 5th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 2010 (pp. 4-14). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_3

Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010b). Prerequisites for successful measuring of ambient persuasive technology. In Proceedings of Measuring Behaviour 2010: 7th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research (Eindhoven, The Netherlands, August 24-27, 2010) (pp. 491-494). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology BV.

Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17, 1223-1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5

Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24, article 28, 485-500. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02428

Pease, M. E., Brannon, L. A, & Pilling, V. K. (2006). Increasing selective exposure to health messages by targeting person versus behavior schemas. Health Communication, 19, 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1903_5

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

*Pilling, V. K., & Brannon, L. A. (2007). Assessing college students’ attitudes toward responsible drinking messages to identify promising binge drinking intervention strategies. Health Communication, 22, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701708121

Ploderer, B., Reitberger, W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. (2014). Social interaction and reflection for behavior change. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 1667-1676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0779-y

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390-395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

Samenow, C. P., Worley, L. L. M., Neufeld, R., Fishel, T., & Swiggart, W. H. (2013). Transformative learning in a professional development course aimed at addressing disruptive physician behavior: A composite case study. Academic Medicine, 88, 117-123. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827b4cc9

Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2000). Self-schemas and the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 533-550. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200007/08)30:4<533::AID-EJSP6>3.0.CO;2-F

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, xiii-xxiii. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319

Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787-797. https://doi.org/10.1086/426613

*Wilkerson, J. M., Danilenko, G. P., Smolenski, D. J., Myer, B. B., & Simon Rosser, B. R. (2011). The role of critical self-reflection of assumptions in an online HIV intervention for men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 23, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2011.23.1.13

*York, V. K., Brannon, L. A, & Miller, M. M. (2012a). Increasing the effectiveness of messages promoting responsible undergraduate drinking: Tailoring to personality and matching to context. Health Communication, 27, 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.585450

*York, V. K., Brannon, L. A., & Miller, M. M. (2012b). Marketing responsible drinking behavior: Comparing the effectiveness of responsible drinking messages tailored to three possible “personality” conceptualizations. Health Marketing Quarterly, 29, 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2012.652578

https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-3-6