View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Cees Midden Human Technology Interaction
Eindhoven University of TechnologyNetherlands
c.j.h.midden@tue.nl
Using Persuasive Technology to promotesustainable behavior
Changing behavior by changing behavioral environment:
Persuasive technology intervenes in user-systeminteractions
Technological environments shapehuman behavior
Most energy consumption decisions aremade in user -system interactions.
•
•
What is Persuasive Technology?
Any interactive intelligent system designed to changepeople's attitudes and/or behaviors (Fogg, 2003).
- intentional
- non-coercive > user in the loop
- interactive > responsive to user choices
- adaptive > to needs, type of use, context
- easy > low cognitive effort
Persuasive tools, experiences and social actors
Supportive tools
Ambient Persuasive Technology
T Nakajima etal,
Ambient Persuasive Technology
T. Nakajima etal,
Design : Har Hollands
Color intensity color meaning and colorpresence of ambient light feedback
Action motivating experiences:experiencing virtual flooding risks
Ps walked through virtual polderobserved dike failures observed dike breachwater with localized soundflooding of own house (3 mt)(Zaalberg & Midden, 2012)
Agents capable of socialinteraction
Researched since late 70’s
Weekly or monthly messages abouthousehold consumption
Ambivalent results: issues with action-feedback links and feedback-goal links(3-10%)
Late 90’s: Interactive feedback (McCalley & Midden, 2002, 2003)
••
•
•
Feedback on energy use
User and action specific
Immediate and interactive
Effect: 18% energy saving
•••
Interactive feedback(McCalley & Midden, 2002)
Persuasive social agents:Can feedback systems change
behavior by exerting socialinfluence?
smb://tmprint.campus.tue.nl/1<hier1printernaam>
Hypothesis: Social feedback from artificial persuasive
agent promotes behavioral change.
Interactive feedback
Interactive social feedback
•
•
Social feedback savesenergy
Energy consumptionEnergy consumption
Energy consumption
0.000.100.200.300.400.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.40
Factual feedbackSocial feedbackFactual feedback Social feedback
47% lower energy consumption!
2. Factual vs Evaluative vs socialfeedback
evaluative feedback refers to factualstandard> enhances information valueand ease of processing
social feedback refers to socialstandard > enhances ‘socialness’
•
•
Socialfeedback
Evaluativefeedback
Result: Social source makes thedifference with factual feedback
Feedback typeFeedback type
Feedback type
0.000.200.400.600.801.000.00
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.80
0.80
1.00
1.00
Energy consumption (kWh)
Energy consumption (kWh)
Social feedbackEvaluative feedbackFactual feedbackSocial feedback Evaluative feedback Factual feedback
Smart systems as Persuasive socialagents
What happens in human-agentinteractions to create the illusion of socialinteraction?
Social realism may enhance social responsesto artificial agents (through social verification;a.o. Blascovitch, 2002). Results mixed
Social agency needed for meaningfulinteraction (Guadagno etal., 2007; Kraemer, 2008). Resultsmixed
CASA: Simple social cues may evoke socialattributions to source: e.g. language (Reeves & Nass,1996 a.o.). Similarity effect, gratitude effect, in/outgroup effect
•
•
•
•
3. Single vs multiple social cues
Is a single feature triggering an automaticprocess or will multiple social features make an
agent more social realistic?
Joint effect of two social cues:embodiment and speech
Color Speech
Computer
iCat
"verybad""verybad"
Embodiment
non-social/social
non-soc
social
social cues on energy use: both work, one suffices: suggestsautomatic triggering of script
suggests that one cues triggers a social script; social realism doesno add
Speechcolored lightSpeech
Speech
colored light
colored light
0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00100.000.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
40.00
40.00
60.00
60.00
80.00
80.00
100.00
100.00
Energy Use
Energy Use
interaction:F(1,76)'='11.802,'p<'0.01
Social agent vs watchingeyes?
What makes the robot’s social cuespersuasive?
Social realism or a basic socialcue?Automatic association eyes-human presence?Feeling of being watched. (Bateson etal, 2006)
•
Sze Ho Wan, Midden & Ham,2010
Control
social agent
eyes only‘you’r being watched!’
Level of Energy consumption
control‘eyes’ social cuesocial realistic agentcontrol
control
‘eyes’ social cue
‘eyes’ social cue
social realistic agent
social realistic agent
0204060800
0
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
80
Do people control for limitations ofnon-human agents?
1. test effect of different levels of agency on behaviorthrough social feedback
2. test whether agency effect is mediated byawareness of agency
3. test effect of feedback by social realistic agent vsnon-social agent
Agent
Avatar+ human (high agency)
Random: No agency
Factual evaluative feedback (nosocial realism)
Agency judgments!
0!
1!
2!
3!
4!
5!
6!
7!
Avatar!Agent!
Random!
Age
ncy
ju
dgm
en
ts!
Energy consumption!
0!
0,01!
0,02!
0,03!
0,04!
0,05!
0,06!
0,07!
0,08!
0,09!
Avatar!Agent!
Random!Factual!
En
erg
y
con
sum
pti
on!
Recommended