A Review of the Use of Persuasive Technologies to Influence Sustainable Behaviour
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 are interactive systems that are designed to influence people to change their attitudes or behaviours. Persuasive technologies have been used successfully in several domains including health to make people exercise more, shopping to make people buy specific products, and social media to make people contribute better content. In the area of sustainability, its use is not well documented. To contribute to the use of persuasive technologies in sustainability, this paper carries out a literature review of published articles in the area in the past five years and summarizes the main findings based on three main themes: the design and development of the technology to make it adaptive to users, the evaluation of the technology, and the findings from the evaluation. Our results suggest that most persuasive technologies are developed as mobile applications, IoT devices or serious games and the most common behaviour change targeted by the persuasive technologies in this domain are energy conservation and sustainable food management. The most common persuasive strategies that are used are rewards, suggestions and self-monitoring. In terms of evaluation, a self-reported evaluation method was applied by most authors. While the range of evaluation of the developed persuasive technologies was between one hour and one year, the number of recruited participants ranged from two to over nine hundred. The findings from the evaluation were mostly mixed with several authors reporting positive results (behaviour change) for some participants. Based on these results, we suggest considerations for the development of future persuasive technologies for sustainability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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