Deconstructing persuasiveness of strategies in behaviour change systems using the ARCS model of motivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persuasive technologies (PTs) motivate behaviour change using various persuasive strategies. However, there is still a dearth of knowledge on how PTs motivate behaviour change and how to design systems to increase their persuasiveness. To provide empirical insight into the mechanism through which PTs persuade, we conducted a large-scale study with 543 participants to investigate the relation between Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction constructs from the ARCS model of motivation and 10 strategies that are commonly used in persuasive systems design. Our results show that the ARCS constructs collectively explain between 82% and 91% of the variance in persuasiveness across the ten strategies. Relevance, followed by Attention, has the strongest association with persuasiveness. The result generalises across gender groups. Therefore, to increase a system’s persuasiveness, designers should focus on designing to increase relevance and to capture user’s attention, while also promoting confidence and a feeling of satisfaction. We contribute to Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) and Persuasive Technology by offering design guidelines for PTs to increase their persuasiveness and hence efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it