=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1833/3_Kaczmarczyk
|storemode=property
|title=An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1833/3_Kaczmarczyk.pdf
|volume=Vol-1833
|authors=Marta Kaczmarczyk,Panos Markopoulos
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/persuasive/KaczmarczykM17
}}
==An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1833/3_Kaczmarczyk.pdf
An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a
Personalized Persuasive Profile
Marta Kaczmarczyk and Panos Markopoulos
Eindhoven University of Technology
{m.e.kaczmarczyk, p.markopoulos}@tue.nl
Abstract.
Several scholars have argued that it can be more effective to tailor the persuasive
approach to different individuals, by personalizing the way by which a system
attempts to influence user’s behavior. Here we discuss how gamification can be
used to construct a user profile that predicts the susceptibility of the user to dif-
ferent social influence approaches. We describe the design concept and the ex-
perimental evaluation of an avatar creator application which collects data on sus-
ceptibility of users to Cialdini’s principles of influence to enable personalization
of persuasion.
Keywords: Social influence, Gamification, Persuasion profiling, Tailored per-
suasion, Individual differences
1 Introduction
The effectiveness of self-monitoring and quantified-self applications designed to sup-
port healthy living and health interventions depend upon sustained engagement with
the application (e.g. [1]). Ensuring engagement is thus a key challenge for designers of
such systems and arguably one of the grand challenges for research in the field of per-
suasive technology. To achieve this aim researchers turn to theories such as social cog-
nitive theory [2] [3], behavioral change theory [4] or decision making theory [3] to draw
users into regular and long-term use. This approach has produced some encouraging
results, like in case of use of well-timed or pleasantly worded reminders [5] or employ-
ment of goal setting [6]. Theories and models of behavior change and persuasive com-
munication are known to be effective overall, meaning that in a given population they
produce a positive effect on average. However, it has been noted how for a particular
individual any one of these approaches may not work or may even produce the opposite
effect to what was intended by the designer [7]. Personalization and tailoring the moti-
vational approach to each individual user could be the way to address these individual
differences.
There are many frameworks on which a personality profiling can be based. Follow-
ing the work of Kaptein et al., [8] we exploit the framework proposed by Robert
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
In: R. Orji, M. Reisinger, M. Busch, A. Dijkstra, M. Kaptein, E. Mattheiss (eds.): Proceedings
of the Personalization in Persuasive Technology Workshop, Persuasive Technology 2017, Am-
sterdam, The Netherlands, 04-04-2017, published at http://ceur-ws.org
2 An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile
Cialdini [9] which identifies six influence strategies, a much shorter list than the frame-
works provided by Fogg [10], Kellermann and Cole [11], or Rhoads [12]. Cialdini’s six
principles of influence, which are very popular, specifically in the domain of electronic
retail, can be summarized as follows:
Authority - having more trust in things that are recommended by an expert or other
authority
Consensus - having more trust in things that are popular or endorsed by people that
we like
Consistency and commitment - tendency to stick with something which we already
have chosen or committed to do
Scarcity - being drawn by things that are hard to get or are hard to come by
Liking - tendency to comply with requests made by people we like
Reciprocity - the need to pay back what we received from others
Following the approach by Kaptein et al. [8] a persuasion profile models how likely
a user is to be persuaded by each of the six strategies above. A system aiming to support
behavior change can personalize its persuasive approach by tailoring persuasive mes-
sages to fit this profile. For example, if a user is more susceptible to persuasive attempts
using the consensus principle then the system might attempt to persuade this user by
mentioning that other users are also engaged in the desired behavior.
The simplest way to measure users’ susceptibility to influence principles is with the
use of a classic psychometric survey. Kaptein [7] developed the Susceptibility to Per-
suasive Strategies questionnaire (from now on STPS) that measures susceptibility to
each of Cialdini’s principles. The problem of this approach, which is inherent to ques-
tionnaire instruments, is the respondents’ lack of engagement with questions – surveys
can be perceived as boring and various phenomena such as satisficing or social desira-
bility bias may lead to erroneous responses.
In order to make explicit profiling more pleasant and thus avoid these phenomena
we examine how to make explicit user profiling a more engaging and playful experi-
ence. Specifically we examine whether the profiling can be presented to users in the
playful form of an avatar creation tool. By configuring an avatar of a coach/guide that
will be featured in the coaching application and an avatar of himself/herself, indirectly
provides self-report data on his/her susceptibility to Cialdini’s principles. We report
how the transformation from the STPS into an avatar creation tool was conducted
through a user-centered design process that seeks to enhance the engagement with a
coaching application addressing mild-cognitive impairment in the elderly. The ra-
tionale behind the avatar creation tool is twofold: a) increasing engagement with the
STPS questionnaire through gamification, b) increasing engagement with the coaching
application by introducing avatars. Research indicates that for certain groups of users,
particularly the elderly, the avatars of a coach and of the user promote regular use
through increased engagement with the application and by creating a bond with the
avatar characters [13–16].
An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile 3
2 Design of a persuasion profiling avatar builder
The concept of an avatar-building tool, as a way of constructing persuasion profiles,
has been conceived as part of a larger project aiming to create a coaching application
for elderly users with mild cognitive impairment. The aim of this application is to pro-
vide alternative strategies to memorize information. While the persuasion profile is in-
tended for the specific coaching application, it can be applied in different contexts
where persuasion profiling in terms of the susceptibility to Cialdini’s six influence strat-
egies can be useful.
The core idea behind the tool is that the user by making choices pertaining to the
avatar of a coach or of an avatar of himself/herself, or by answering related questions,
will provide data on his/her susceptibility to persuasion. The core concept of the avatar
of a coach is covered by a screen in which the user is asked to choose an avatar of the
guide that will appear in the remaining parts of the application. Choices of the avatars
reflect Cialdini’s authority principle (Fig.1 Screen 1). Then the user chooses the avatar
of herself/himself - choices for the avatar’s clothes correspond to the principles of sus-
ceptibility and scarcity principle (Fig. 1 Screen 2.). Reciprocity, consensus and com-
mitment (here represented by Fig.1 Screen 3 and 4) are represented by ancillary ques-
tions that follow the choice of avatars.
Screen 1. Authority principle Screen 2. Scarcity principle
Screen 3. Reciprocity principle Screen 4. Commitment principle
Fig. 1. Example screens from the avatar creator tool. Screen 1 and Screen 2 represent choice
tasks and Screen 3 and Screen 4 represent questions.
4 An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile
3 Methods
In order to validate the avatar as a persuasion-profiling tool, we conducted a survey
using crowdsourcing that aimed to establish how choices made during the construction
of the avatar correlate with corresponding responses to the STPS inventory. 150 partic-
ipants were recruited through Microworkers crowdsourcing platform. Crowdsourcing
was selected as a recruitment strategy due to the fact that correlation analysis requires
a high number of participants and crowdsourcing offers possibility of recruiting large
sample in a very short time frame. The participants were paid $0.55 for completing the
task, which took approximately 10 minutes.
A prototype avatar creator application was created using Axure. The prototype was
then uploaded onto a crowdsourcing platform called Microworkers to test whether re-
sponses obtained with the avatar creator correlate with the survey responses from the
classic STPS questionnaire. In the prototype only five of Cialdini’s principles were
gamified as the principle of liking proved to be too difficult to transpose effectively in
the avatar creator context.
The crowd workers participating in the study were first asked to complete the avatar
creator and then to fill in the STPS questionnaire. The data collected was used for cor-
relation analysis between the replies from the avatar creator questions for each principle
and average score calculated from the group of questions covering each principle in the
STPS questionnaire.
Inside the avatar creator tested subjects were asked to either complete choice tasks
or answer questions. Examples of the choice tasks and questions are shown in Fig. 1.
4 Results
For the whole dataset Cronbach’s α = 0.859 (coefficient omega = .852, 95% CI [.80,
.89]), which indicates high reliability of data. When analyzed per persuasive principle,
most had Cronbach’s α >0.7 (coefficient omega > 0.7). Only the principle of scarcity
was below this level with Cronbach’s α = 0.579 (coefficient omega = .596, 95% CI
[.47, .69]).
The scarcity principle also proved to be problematic when analyzed through explor-
atory factor analysis: When all principles were included, the factors were far from the
grouping of principles. When the scarcity principle was removed the grouping matched
closer to the grouping by principles. We tested data for correlations between choices
made with the avatar creator and the corresponding subscale scores obtained through
the STPS. Prior to the analysis data from the STPS questionnaire was tested for nor-
mality. Only scarcity was normally distributed, all the other principles significantly de-
viated from normality. Therefore, the Spearman correlation test was performed on the
authority, reciprocity, commitment and consensus principles and Pearson correlation
test on the scarcity principle.
An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile 5
Table. 1. Results of correlation analysis between the replies from the avatar creator questions
for each principle and average score calculated from the group of questions covering each prin-
ciple in the STPS questionnaire.
Principle No. of Correlation Question in the Correlation Significance
questions Test avatar creator r p
Authority 2 Spearman Authority1 0.185 0.026
Authority2 0.236 0.004
Scarcity 2 Pearson Scarcity1 0.080 0.336
Scarcity2 0.058 0.487
Reciprocity 2 Spearman Reciprocity1 0.102 0.220
Reciprocity2 -0.015 0.859
Commitment 3 Spearman Commitment1 0.145 0.081
Commitment2 0.167 0.044
Commitment3 0.172 0.038
Consensus 2 Spearman Consensus1 -0.038 0.651
Consensus2 0.260 0.001
5 Discussion
The results of this experiment confirmed only partly the design rationale of the avatar
creator. The core concept behind the avatar creator tool was that the user will chose the
avatar of a coach that will guide the user in the further parts of the application. The
choice task (Authority1) and the question covering this core concept (Authority2) cor-
relate with the STPS scores.
Choices regarding the avatar of the user (attempting to cover scarcity principle) did
not correlate with the STPS data for the scarcity principle as had been expected by the
designers. There are two possible reasons for this. Scarcity data from the STPS ques-
tionnaire is not reliable as shown by low Cronbach’s α and results of exploratory factor
analysis, and also noted in the original study by Kaptein [7]. Another explanation for
the lack of correlation for the scarcity principle is that the gamified questions do not
pertain to the same construct of scarcity as in the questions of the STPS survey. In the
current design users choose clothes/accessories for their avatar and scarcity hints are
related to some items; however there is a possibility that choices are made on the ap-
pearance or other reason and not because of the scarcity hint given. Ongoing iterative
design of the avatar builder is aimed at removing this possibility.
As for the other principles, reciprocity also cannot be measured by the current ver-
sion of the tasks in the avatar creator. The reason why reciprocity did not correlate could
be due to the nature of the questions. The questions were based on the praise/gift idea
followed by a request for a favor. There are many possible explanations for why par-
ticipants did not perceive it as similar to the questions in the STPS questionnaire. The
major explanation is that the value of favor was higher than the value of praise/gift to
the participant. New ideas covering this principle should be tested in the next iteration.
6 An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile
The commitment and consensus had one uncorrelated question each. However, the
questions that correlate are sufficient to be used for the purpose of creating a profile of
susceptibility to influence principles.
6 Conclusions
Despite the fact that some of the questions in the avatar creator do not correlate with
the average score for each subscale of the STPS questionnaire, there is encouraging
evidence regarding the concept of using an avatar creator tool as a gamified substitute
of this questionnaire. The majority of the gamified principles (authority, commitment
and consensus) significantly correlate with the STPS questionnaire. For the commit-
ment and consensus variable, one question did not correlate with the average score from
the STPS questionnaire but it is still possible to conclude whether the user is susceptible
to these principles or not. Additionally the key questions covering the core concept of
choosing an avatar of a coach in the applications is also correlated. To improve the
general concept, another iteration of the design shall test new avatar elements for gaug-
ing susceptibility to different influence strategies. Further we are aiming to improve the
scarcity subscale of the STPS so that the questionnaire also can provide data with higher
reliability.
The avatar creator solution is in line with current trends of concealing classic ques-
tionnaires and alternatively presenting them in a more visually engaging form. The
problem with standard surveys is a high likelihood of the respondents’ lack of engage-
ment with questions, a phenomena that may lead to erroneous responses. Gamification,
can be a plausible solution to this problem. With our concept, an attempt to make the
classic survey more appealing was pushed even further, aiming to embed self-report in
game mechanics, and more specifically the construction of avatars that will be featured
during game play. This approach seemed particularly appropriate for the context of a
tablet application for coaching elderly with mild cognitive impairment, which is the
design context in which this investigation has taken place. This target group is less
technically savvy and can benefit from the guidance with the use of the application.
The idea behind the avatar creator is not limited to this project and to the context of
a memory training application or a game. The concept can be easily extended to other
applications or games that require some data collection about the user.
Acknowledgments
We thank EIT Health for funding part of this work.
References
1. Hirsh, J.B., Kang, S.K., Bodenhausen, G.V.: Personalized Persuasion: Tailoring Persuasive
Appeals to Recipients’ Personality Traits. Psychol. Sci. 23, 578–581 (2012).
An Avatar Creator as a Tool for Constructing a Personalized Persuasive Profile 7
2. Irvine, A.B.: The effectiveness of an interactive multimedia program to influence eating
habits. Health Educ. Res. 19, 290–305 (2004).
3. Delichatsios, H.K., Friedman, R.H., Glanz, K., Tennstedt, S., Smigelski, C., Pinto, B.M.,
Kelley, H., Gillman, M.W.: Randomized trial of a “talking computer” to improve adults’
eating habits. Am. J. Health Promot. AJHP. 15, 215–224 (2001).
4. Webb, T.L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., Michie, S.: Using the Internet to Promote Health Be-
havior Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Theoretical Basis,
Use of Behavior Change Techniques, and Mode of Delivery on Efficacy. J. Med. Internet
Res. 12, e4 (2010).
5. Bickmore, T., Mauer, D., Crespo, F., Brown, T.: Persuasion, Task Interruption and Health
Regimen Adherence. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., and Fogg,
B.J. (eds.) Persuasive Technology. pp. 1–11. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel-
berg (2007).
6. Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W., Landay, J.A.: Goal-setting considerations for
persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. Presented at the (2009).
7. Kaptein, M. (Maurits): Personalized persuasion in ambient intelligence. (2012).
8. Kaptein, M., Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B., Aarts, E.: Personalizing persuasive technol-
ogies: Explicit and implicit personalization using persuasion profiles. Int. J. Hum.-Comput.
Stud. 77, 38–51 (2015).
9. Robert Cialdini: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. (1984).
10. Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiq-
uity. 2002, 2 (2002).
11. Kellermann, K., Cole, T.: Classifying Compliance Gaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder
and Strategic Confusion. Commun. Theory. 4, 3–60 (1994).
12. Rhoads, K.: How Many Influence, Persuasion, Compliance Tactics & Strategies Are
There? (2007).
13. Bickmore, T.W., Caruso, L., Clough-Gorr, K., Heeren, T.: “It”s just like you talk to a
friend’ relational agents for older adults. Interact. Comput. 17, 711–735 (2005).
14. Lim, S., Reeves, B.: Being in the Game: Effects of Avatar Choice and Point of View on
Psychophysiological Responses During Play. Media Psychol. 12, 348–370 (2009).
15. Morandell, M.M., Hochgatterer, A., Fagel, S., Wassertheurer, S.: Avatars in Assistive
Homes for the Elderly. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) HCI and Usability for Education and Work.
pp. 391–402. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008).
16. Ortiz, A., del Puy Carretero, M., Oyarzun, D., Yanguas, J.J., Buiza, C., Gonzalez, M.F.,
Etxeberria, I.: Elderly Users in Ambient Intelligence: Does an Avatar Improve the Interac-
tion? In: Stephanidis, C. and Pieper, M. (eds.) Universal Access in Ambient Intelligence
Environments. pp. 99–114. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007).