A panoramic view of personalization based on individual differences in persuasive and behavior change interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persuasive technologies are designed to change human behavior or attitude using various persuasive strategies. Recent years have witnessed increasing evidence of the need to personalize and adapt persuasive interventions to various users and contextual factors because a persuasive strategy that works for one individual may rather demotivate others. As a result, several research studies have been conducted to investigate how to effectively personalize persuasive technologies. As research in this direction is gaining increasing attention, it becomes essential to conduct a systematic review to provide an overview of the current trends, challenges, approaches used for developing personalized persuasive technologies, and opportunities for future research in the area. To fill this need, we investigate approaches to personalize persuasive interventions by understanding user-related factors considered when personalizing persuasive technologies. Particularly, we conducted a systematic review of 72 research published in the last ten years in personalized and adaptive persuasive systems. The reviewed papers were evaluated based on different aspects, including metadata (e.g., year of publication and venue), technology, personalization dimension, personalization approaches, target outcome, individual differences, theories and scales, and evaluation approaches. Our results show (1) increased attention toward personalizing persuasive interventions, (2) personality trait is the most popular dimension of individual differences considered by existing research when tailoring their persuasive and behavior change systems, (3) students are among the most commonly targeted audience, and (4) education, health, and physical activity are the most considered domains in the surveyed papers. Based on our results, the paper provides insights and prospective future research directions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".