Programming Question

I would advise that you don’t write the whole assignment based on the introduction alone. Often there is always a critical section presented in the reading that’ll you might miss out. I would also recommend that you write mostly in third person( meaning no: I, me, or you) if you are not writing an introduction or a conclusion.

links:

– 

https://dl-acm-org.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/pdf/10.11…

– https://dl-acm-org.libproxy.csun.edu/doi/pdf/10.11… A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design
BJ Fogg
Persuasive Technology Lab
Stanford University
captology.stanford.edu
www.bjfogg.com
bjfogg@stanford.edu
Abstract
This paper presents a new model for understanding human
behavior. In this model (FBM), behavior is a product of three
factors: motivation, ability, and triggers, each of which has
subcomponents. The FBM asserts that for a person to perform a
target behavior, he or she must (1) be sufficiently motivated, (2)
have the ability to perform the behavior, and (3) be triggered to
perform the behavior. These three factors must occur at the same
moment, else the behavior will not happen. The FBM is useful in
analysis and design of persuasive technologies. The FBM also
helps teams work together efficiently because this model gives
people a shared way of thinking about behavior change.
General Terms
The FBM can give insight to behavior-change professionals in
many domains, from health to education to sales. This framework
has special relevance to those of us who study and design
persuasive technology. As I see it, persuasive technology is
fundamentally about learning to automate behavior change. To
effectively encode experiences that change behaviors, we need a
rich yet practical understanding of human psychology, specifically
insights into the factors that drive human behavior. Without this
understanding, designers of persuasive experiences are mostly
guessing at a solution (or imitating techniques that work without
understanding why those techniques work). The FBM provides
designers and researchers with a systematic way to think about the
factors underlying behavior change.
Persuasion, behavior change, simplicity, motivation, persuasive
technology, captology, triggers, persuasive design
Because the FBM is new, insights continue to emerge. This paper
is an early way to share these ideas and seek feedback. Certainly, a
static document like this paper is not well suited for conveying
emerging content and related work. I encourage readers to see
www.BehaviorModel.org for the most current explanation of the
FBM, as well as citations to and discussions of related theories
and models. That website also solicits feedback on the FBM.
The Need to Understand Behavior Change
Three Factors in the Behavior Model
Design, Measurement, Experimentation, Human Factors.
Keywords
The tools for creating persuasive products are getting easier to use,
with innovations in online video, social networks, and metrics,
among others. As a result, more individuals and organizations can
design experiences they hope will influence people’s behaviors via
technology channels. However, many attempts at persuasive
design fail because people don’t understand what factors lead to
behavior change.
This paper shares a new way to understand the drivers of human
behavior, a model referred to in this document as the Fogg
Behavior Model, or “FBM” for brevity. This psychological model
identifies and defines three factors that control whether a behavior
is performed. (Note: In this paper and in this model, “persuasion”
refers to attempts to influence people’s behaviors, not attitudes.)
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Persuasive’09, April 26-29, Claremont, California, USA.
Copyright © 2009 ACM ISBN 978-1-60558-376-1/09/04… $5.00
The FBM has three principal factors that I refer to as motivation,
ability, and triggers. In brief, the model asserts that for a target
behavior to happen, a person must have sufficient motivation,
sufficient ability, and an effective trigger. All three factors must be
present at the same instant for the behavior to occur. In the
sections that follow I explain more about how these factors work
together. I then define the subcomponents of each factor, followed
by description of how the FBM is useful in research and design.
Visualizing the Behavior Model
Figure 1 shows one way to visualize the FBM. The paragraphs
below describe the figure.
As the Figure 1 shows, the FBM has two axes. The vertical axis is
for motivation. A person who is low on motivation to perform the
target behavior would register low on the vertical axis. High on
the axis means high motivation. There are no units on this axis, as
the framework is conceptual, showing relationships of the
components rather than precise values for each.
The second axis is horizontal, as shown in Figure 1. This axis is
for ability. A person who has low ability to perform a target
behavior would be marked toward the left side of the axis. The
right side is for high ability.
These two axes define a plane. In the upper right hand corner is a
star that represents the target behavior. The placement of this star
is symbolic, meant to suggest that high motivation and high ability
are typically necessary for a target behavior to occur. To
emphasize this relationship between motivation, ability and target
behavior, Figure 1 also has an arrow that extends diagonally
across the plane, from the bottom left corner to the upper right.
This arrow, as the words on the figure say, indicates that as a
person has increased motivation and increased ability, the more
likely it is that he or she will perform the target behavior.
Also on Figure 1 is a factor I call “triggers.” The placement of this
word is close to the target behavior star to imply that the trigger
must be present for the target behavior to occur. While the axes
are fixed, one can imagine that the star, representing the target
behavior, as well as the related trigger, could be placed anywhere
inside the plane defined by the axes.
The visualization in Figure 1 is not the only way to represent the
core concepts in the FBM. However, this form seems the most
natural and practical.
Motivation & Ability Can Trade Off
The previous section might seem complicated because of the
detailed wording, but the FBM is conceptually easy to understand.
Below I’ll use an example to show the relationship between
motivation and ability.
Suppose a web site creator wants to persuade site visitors to sign
up for a newsletter by entering their email address. That behavior
– typing in an email address – is the target behavior. In the FBM
this target behavior is represented by a star. The target behavior is
simple for most people to do. So if we generalize about users on
this task, we can place the star toward the right side of the frame:
Users have high ability to do the behavior, because it’s easy to
type in an email address.
But when it comes to motivation, the story is varied. Many users
will have no motivation to type in their email address. For those
users the star would be located in the lower right part of the
framework. This placement means that ability is high and
motivation is low. Other users, however, might really want the
free newsletter from the web site, so their motivation level would
Figure 1: The Fogg Behavior Model has three factors: motivation, ability, and triggers.
be high. This would place the star high, in the upper right hand
corner of Figure 1.
The users who land in the lower right of the grid are unlikely to
type their email addresses onto the web form. In contrast, the users
in the upper right corner – those with both high motivation and
ability – are much better candidates for typing their addresses.
With the proper trigger, those with high ability and motivation are
likely to perform the target behavior. (More on triggers in the next
section.)
Now I will change the scenario to show a situation where users
have low ability. Suppose that the web site creator has decided to
include a math puzzle on the entry form for email addresses. In
order for users to submit an email address, they must also solve
the puzzle. In this scenario, some users may have difficulty
completing the task. So even if someone wants to submit his or
her email address, their ability is low: They can’t figure out the
math puzzle. In this case, the star representing the target behavior
would be in the upper left part of Figure 1: high motivation and
low ability.
In this scenario with the hard math puzzle, note that even if the
web site creator increases the motivation level, the behavior is still
not likely to occur. The FBM makes clear that motivation alone –
no matter how high – may not get people to perform a behavior if
they don’t have the ability.
In order for behavior to be occur, people must have some non-zero
level of both motivation and ability. The implication for designers
is clear: Increasing motivation is not always the solution. Often
increasing ability (making the behavior simpler) is the path for
increasing behavior performance.
The FBM implies that motivation and ability are trade-offs of a
sort. People with low motivation may perform a behavior if the
behavior is simple enough (meaning, high on ability). For
example, right now I have very low motivation to buy a new car.
But if someone offered me a new car for $1, I would buy it. My
ability to pay $1 is high, so I would buy the car despite my low
level of motivation.
The inverse scenario also applies. For this example, I’ll return to
the math puzzle from above. Suppose my friend Scott is on the
web page, hoping to submit his email address. But Scott is terrible
in math. So he’s low on ability to perform the behavior. However,
if the webmaster were to offer $10,000 for submitting an email
address, then Scott might find a new way to increase his ability.
Scott might phone his math-whiz neighbor to come over to help
him solve the puzzle. With his neighbor’s help, Scott gains the
ability to perform the behavior. My point here is this: If
motivation is high enough, people might do extraordinary things –
even difficult things – to perform the behavior. Consider this
additional example: If your computer crashes and you fear losing
your precious family photos (high motivation!), even if you have
low ability with computers, you will work hard with your limited
ability to recover the photos.
In most cases of persuasion, people are not on the extremes.
Generally, people have at least a modest level of motivation and
ability – and these levels can be manipulated. Effective persuasive
technologies will boost either motivation or ability (usually by
making something simpler, like 1-click purchasing) or both. But
that’s not all: The behavior must be triggered. This third factor is
often the missing piece.
Triggers & Timing
The third factor in the FBM is a trigger. Without an appropriate
trigger, behavior will not occur even if both motivation and ability
are high. An example from my own life might help show why
triggers matter.
One of my goals is to practice the ukulele each day. This little
instrument is great fun, but some days I don’t practice. Why not?
Let me explain. I like practicing the ukulele, and it’s easy to do. I
have sufficient motivation and ability. What’s missing is a welltimed trigger. I lack something that says, “Hey, right now is a
great time to play the ukulele!” Without this trigger in my life, I
don’t do this target behavior each day.
Many other target behaviors in my life don’t happen because I
don’t get a trigger at the right moment.
A trigger can take many forms – an alarm that sounds, a text
message, an announcement that a sale is ending, a growling
stomach, and so on. Whatever the form, successful triggers have
three characteristics: First, we notice the trigger. Second, we
associate the trigger with a target behavior. Third, the trigger
happens when we are both motivated and able to perform the
behavior.
This last issue – timing – is often the missing element in behavior
change. In fact, this element is so important the ancient Greeks
had a name for it: kairos – the opportune moment to persuade. As
I see it, the opportune moment for behavior performance is any
time motivation and ability put people above the behavior
activation threshold.
Although not illustrated on Figure 1, the FBM includes the
concept of a behavior activation threshold. When the combination
of motivation and ability places a person above the behavior
activation threshold, then a trigger will cause that person to
perform the target behavior. If a person is underneath this
threshold, then a trigger will not lead to the target behavior. The
activation threshold could be illustrated as a curved line sweeping
across Figure 1, from the upper left corner to the bottom right.
Computer systems often do a frustrating job of triggering
behavior. Spam, pop-ups ads, and other annoying artifacts are
actually triggers. But they rarely convert to behavior because we
have low motivation to do what they say. Instead, the constant
barrage of high-tech triggers – beeps, email alerts, bouncing icons
– can be a nuisance.
If we want to perform a behavior, a well-timed trigger is welcome.
But when our motivation is low for that behavior, a trigger is
distracting. Conversely, when we want to perform the behavior
being triggered but lack ability, we feel frustrated.
The FBM gives insight into the failure of poorly-timed triggers,
the annoyance of this distraction, and the frustration that results.
This framework helps explain why some behaviors happen on cue,
while other attempts to change our behavior lead only to negative
emotions.
In developing the FBM in some depth, I’ve learned that three
types of triggers exist. I will return to these types after explaining
more about the subcomponents in motivation and ability.
Insight from the Behavior Model
The FBM asserts that when people are persuaded to perform a
behavior, then three factors have come together at once:
motivation, ability, and trigger. As one studies successful
persuasive technology systems, the FBM gives insight into the
user experience.
Consider, for example, how Facebook motivates new users to
upload profile pictures. This feature of Facebook, like many other
features, has persuaded millions of people to take action. That
means millions of people have all had sufficient motivation and
ability, and then Facebook has triggered these people to perform
this behavior. This type of analysis could be the basis for a longer
paper, but my main point is this: As researchers and designers we
can learn much about the techniques of persuasive technology by
viewing successful examples through the FBM lens. We can parse
out how the experience is motivating people, giving them the
ability to take action, and triggering their behavior. As one
analyzes examples with the FBM, patterns emerge.
In a similar way, if a design team finds that website visitors are
not performing a behavior designers intend, they can use the FBM
to figure out what’s missing. For simplicity, I will again use the
example of signing up for a newsletter by entering an email
address. Suppose the designers of this website find that only a few
people are signing up, perhaps just one out of 200 visitors. With
the FBM they can then start examining what is not working: Are
users lacking motivation? Is the behavior too difficult? Is the web
site not triggering appropriately?
Sometimes intuition will serve to answer the questions above.
Other times, designers will need to do primary research with target
users. Once designers find the weakness, they can start testing
ways to improve this deficient factor.
In persuasive technology we often look at behavior as something
we cause to occur; behavior activation is usually the goal. But
there’s another side to behavior change: preventing a target
behavior from happening.
The FBM also gives insight into prevention. Specifically, one can
stop a behavior by taking away one of the three factors: Is there a
way to reduce motivation? To take away ability? Is there a way to
remove triggers? If an interventionist can do any of these things
successfully, then the behavior will not occur – at least not in the
same pattern. (Designing technology systems to prevent behaviors
is generally more difficult than making behaviors happen. Despite
this challenge, the FBM at least helps to parse out the relevant
issues.)
Taken together, the three factors in the FBM become focal areas
for persuasive technology. In general, persuasive design focuses
on increasing motivation, increasing ability (simplicity), and
triggering behavior. To facilitate design for each of these, the next
section goes into more depth about the elements of motivation,
ability (simplicity), and triggers. Figure 2 summarizes these
elements.
Elements of Motivation
The goal in designing for motivation is, conceptually, to move a
user to a higher position in the FBM landscape. In other words, the
users who have high ability but low motivation need to have
motivation increased so they cross the behavior activation
threshold.
Motivation is a term that’s used widely across various fields. To
make this term clear in the FBM, I’ve created a framework for
motivation that has three core motivators, each with two sides.
Motivator #1: Pleasure / Pain
The first core motivator in the FBM is a dimension that has two
sides: pleasure and pain. What differentiates this motivator from
those that follow is that the result of this motivator is immediate,
or nearly so. There’s little thinking or anticipating. People are
responding to what’s happening in the moment. I believe
pleasure/pain is a primitive response, and it functions adaptively in
hunger, sex, and other activities related to self-preservation and
propagation of our genes.
Pleasure and pain are powerful motivators. When designers are
seeking to boost levels of motivation, they can look at how
pleasure and pain can be embodied. This motivator type may not
be the ideal approach, especially pain, but a thorough review of
motivation means at least acknowledging these options.
Motivator #2: Hope / Fear
The second core motivator in the FBM is a dimension that has two
sides: hope and fear. This dimension is characterized by
anticipation of an outcome. Hope is the anticipation of something
good happening. Fear is the anticipation of something bad, often
the anticipation of loss. This dimension is at times more powerful
than pleasure/pain, as is evidenced in everyday behavior. For
example, in some situations, people will accept pain (a flu shot) in
order to overcome fear (anticipation of getting the flu). But
hope/fear is not always more motivating than pleasure/pain. The
FBM does not rank the power of the core motivators. Instead,
designer and researchers should consider each core motivator and
apply it to their work as appropriate.
Hope and fear have long been powerful motivators in persuasive
technology. For example, people are motivated by hope when then
joining a dating web site. They are motivated by fear when they
update settings in virus software. In my view, hope is probably the
most ethical and empowering motivator in the FBM.
Motivator #3: Social Acceptance / Rejection
The third core motivator in the FBM is a social dimension that has
two sides: social acceptance and social rejection. This dimension
controls much of our social behavior, from the clothes we wear to
the language we use. It’s clear that people are motivated to do
things that win them social acceptance. Perhaps even more
dramatically, people are motivated to avoid being socially
rejected. The power of social motivation is likely hardwired into
us and perhaps all other creatures that historically depended on
living in groups to survive. As fables and folktales show, being
banished from a community was a severe punishment for humans.
For other creatures, being ostracized from a pack may have meant
certain death. Regardless of the origin of the social motivator, the
power over us is undeniable.
Today, with social technologies a reality, the methods for
motivating people through social acceptance or social rejection
have blossomed. In fact, Facebook gains its power to motivate and
ultimately influence users mostly because of this motivator. From
posting profile pictures to writing on The Wall, people on
Facebook are driven significantly by their desire to be socially
accepted.
Figure 2: All three factors in the Fogg Behavior Model have subcomponents.
The three core motivators I explained previously seem to account
quite well for what motivates human behavior. Other models exist.
Many people in psychology, marketing, and related fields have
proposed different ways to view motivation (for references, see
www.BehaviorModel.org). But for the purposes of persuasive
design, I find my three-element approach to be the most useful.
Elements of Simplicity (Ability)
The next major factor in the FBM is ability. Optimizing this factor
can move users across the behavior activation threshold. But
what’s the best way to increase ability?
In real-world design, increasing ability is not about teaching
people to do new things or training them for improvement. People
are generally resistant to teaching and training because it requires
effort. This clashes with the natural wiring of human adults: We
are fundamentally lazy. As a result, products that require people to
learn new things routinely fail. Instead, to increase a user’s ability,
designers of persuasive experiences must make the behavior easier
to do. In other words, persuasive design relies heavily on the
power of simplicity. A common example is the 1-click shopping at
Amazon. Because it’s easy to buy things, people buy more.
Simplicity changes behaviors.
In my work to define simplicity, I developed a framework that
includes six elements and an understanding of how these elements
work together. As I see it, simplicity has six parts. These six parts
relate to each other like links in a chain: If any single link breaks,
then the chain fails. In this case, simplicity is lost.
Time
The first element of simplicity is time. If a target behavior requires
time and we don’t have time available, then the behavior is not
simple. For example, if I need to fill out an online form that has
100 fields in it, that behavior is not simple for me because I
usually have other demands on my time.
Money
The next element of simplicity is money. For people with limited
financial resources, a target behavior that costs money is not
simple. That link in the simplicity chain will break easily. For
wealthy people, this link in the chain rarely breaks. In fact, some
people will simplify their lives by using money to save time. It’s a
trade off. They hire gardeners and house cleaners.
Notice that what simplicity means for a typical 9-year-old is
different than simplicity for the 55-year-old, because they have
different resources in terms of time and money. In creating
persuasive technologies, designers should remember that what’s
simple for one person is not always simple for another.
Physical Effort
The third element of simplicity is physical effort. Behaviors that
require physical effort may not be simple. For example if I want to
visit Las Vegas and must walk all the way from Stanford, that
behavior would not be simple. But if I take a plane, that’s simpler
because I don’t need to exert much physical effort.
Brain Cycles
The next factor in simplicity is what I call “brain cycles.” If
performing a target behavior causes us to think hard, that might
not be simple. This is especially true if our minds are consumed
with other issues. In contrast, some people are very good at
thinking, so this link in their simplicity chain will rarely break.
But for the most part, we overestimate how much everyday people
want to think. Thinking deeply or thinking in new ways can be
difficult.
Social Deviance
The fifth element of simplicity is less obvious than the others. I
call it “social deviance.” What I mean by social deviance is going
against the norm, breaking the rules of society. If a target behavior
requires me to be socially deviant, then that behavior is no longer
simple. For example, wearing pajamas to a city council meeting
might require the least effort, but there’s a social price I’d pay,
which creates complications for that behavior.
Non-Routine
Finally, the sixth element of simplicity is what I call “nonroutine.” People tend to find behaviors simple if they are routine,
activities they do over and over again. When people face a
behavior that is not routine, then they may not find it simple. In
seeking simplicity, people will often stick to their routine, like
buying gas at the same station, even if it costs more money or time
than other options.
Key Points about Simplicity
Each person has a different simplicity profile. Some people have
more time, some people have more money, and some people can
invest brain cycles, while others cannot. These factors vary by the
individual, but they also vary by the context. For example, if I
have forgotten my wallet at home, behaviors that require money at
the marketplace may no longer be simple for me to perform.
In studying simplicity, I’ve found this to be important: Simplicity
is a function of a person’s scarcest resource. Even more accurate is
this statement: Simplicity is a function of a person’s scarcest
resource at the moment a behavior is triggered.
As researchers and designers of behavior change, we should seek
to find what resource is scarcest for our audience: Is it time? Is it
the ability to think? Is it money?
Whatever the scarcest resource happens to be, once we account for
the six factors of simplicity, we can reduce the barriers for
performing a target behavior. In general, persuasive design
succeeds faster when we focus on making the behavior simpler
instead of trying to pile on motivation. Why? People often resist
attempts at motivation, but we humans naturally love simplicity.
Three Types of Triggers
The third factor in the FBM is Triggers. The general concept of
triggers goes by many names: prompts, cues, calls to action, and
so on. The idea is similar: A trigger is something that tells people
to perform a behavior now.
Often overlooked (or taken for granted), triggers are a vital aspect
of designing persuasive products. In fact, for behaviors where
people are already above the activation threshold – meaning they
have sufficient motivation and ability – a trigger is all that’s
required. (I’ll come back to this point.)
Not all triggers function in the same way. Below I describe three
types of triggers: sparks, facilitators, and signals. A spark is a
trigger that motivates behavior. A facilitator makes behavior
easier. And a signal indicates or reminds. The following text
explains each trigger in more depth.
Spark as Trigger
When a person lacks motivation to perform a target behavior, a
trigger should be designed in tandem with a motivational element.
I call this type of trigger a “spark.” Examples of sparks can range
from text that highlights fear to videos that inspire hope. In
creating sparks for persuasive experiences, designers can review
the three core motivators I’ve explained above. Sparks can
leverage any of these motivational elements.
Sparks and other trigger types can come in various forms; the
channel or embodiment doesn’t matter as long as the trigger is
recognized, is associated with a target behavior, and is presented
to users at a moment when they can take action.
Facilitator as Trigger
The second trigger type is what I call a “facilitator.” This type of
trigger is appropriate for users that have high motivation but lack
ability. The goal of a facilitator is to trigger the behavior while
also making the behavior easier to do. Like sparks, a facilitator can
be embodied in text, video, graphics, and more.
An effective facilitator tells users that the target behavior is easy to
do, that it won’t require a resource he or she does not have at that
moment. For example software updates often use facilitators to
gain compliance by implying that one click can get the job done.
Recently, many social networking sites have grown quickly by
offering users an “address book uploader,” which requires just a
few clicks to connect with many friends.
Signal as Trigger
The third and final type of trigger is what I call a “signal.” This
trigger type works best when people have both the ability and the
motivation to perform the target behavior. The signal doesn’t seek
to motivate people or simplify the task. It just serves as a
reminder. Consider how a signal works in my previous example
about playing the ukulele each day. Because I have both
motivation and ability, all I need to practice daily is a well-timed
reminder. I don’t need a spark or a facilitator. Those types of
triggers would either be annoying or condescending.
An ordinary example of a signal is a traffic light that turns red or
green. The traffic light is not trying to motivate me.; it simply
indicates when a behavior is appropriate.
Triggers are more important than ever before
Since the advent of persuasive technology, the role of triggers has
grown in importance. Today, many of the most desirable target
behaviors are done when using computers — donate money, share
this with a friend, buy this new product. When we use interactive
technology, we can receive a trigger and perform the target
behavior immediately. With traditional media like TV or
newspapers, immediate response wasn’t usually possible. We
might encounter a trigger in a magazine ad or hear something on
the radio, but then we would have to change our context to
perform the behavior, such as driving to the store to make a
purchase. However, today we can take action immediately with
and through computers.
Triggers can cause us to act on impulse. For example, when
Facebook sends me an email notification that someone has tagged
me in a photo, I can immediately click on a link in that email to
view the image. This kind of trigger-behavior coupling has never
before been so strong.
As mobile phones become more context aware, the triggerbehavior coupling will go beyond the desktop into our active lives.
The mobile phone will be a channel for triggering many behaviors.
As recipients, we’ll be most tolerant of triggers when they are
signals or facilitators. Sparks may annoy us because they will seek
to motivate us to do something we didn’t intend to do.
Thinking Clearly about Behavior
The purpose of the FBM is to help us, as researchers and
designers, think more clearly about behavior. By using this
framework we can look at our own persuasive designs, either in
research or commercial settings, and see new potentials for
persuading users. We can also use the FBM to identify the
problems in persuasive systems that fail to achieve the intended
outcomes. In these situations, the FBM helps people think
systematically about the elements of motivation, elements of
simplicity, and the strategies used for triggering behavior.
Next, as we study examples of successful persuasive technology
products, the FBM can help us see beyond the surface to the
underlying psychology. Again, we can understand how
motivation, ability, and triggers are working together to produce
the target behavior.
In addition, as we create new persuasive technology systems, the
FBM can help us channel our creative energies more efficiently.
For example, if we realize that motivation is lacking, we can focus
on that aspect of our design, exploring different ways to convey
any one of the core motivators presented in this paper.
Another benefit of using the FBM is creating a shared frame of
reference for people on project teams, both in academics and
industry. When everyone on a team is thinking about behavior
change in a similar way, the project goes forward more efficiently.
Part of this efficiency comes from having a common vocabulary,
which helps teams discuss concepts more clearly.
I’ve seen how insights from this model are useful in industry
projects and academic research. But perhaps more intriguing to me
is how the concepts in FBM have changed how I view my life
outside of work. Whether shopping at the grocery store or talking
with a family member, we live in a world full of persuasion. We
are surrounded by attempts to change our behaviors. Using the
FBM as a lens on life, I can see our world of influence more
clearly. By having a structured way to think about behavior
change, each day I learn about more about persuasion – what
works and what doesn’t – simply by being observant.
References
For a growing resource of references, examples, and insights
related to the FBM, see www.BehaviorModel.org.
26
May 1999/Vol. 42, No. 5 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
Persuasive
Technologies
Now is your chance to decide what they will
persuade us to do—and how they’ll do it.
B. J. FOGG, GUEST EDITOR Persuasion has always
been part of the human experience. From ballads to bible
stories, parents to personal trainers, people have always
sought to influence others’ attitudes and behaviors.
Although many of us resist the idea of being persuaded,
most of us seek skilled persuaders for ourselves and our
significant others.
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM May 1999/Vol. 42, No. 5
PETER HOEY
Can computers persuade? Yes they can. And like the human persuaders
in our lives, persuasive computing technologies can bring about constructive changes in many domains, including health, safety, and education. In the process, computers can help us improve ourselves, our
communities, and our society. But persuasive computers can also be
used for destructive purposes; the dark side of changing attitudes and
behaviors leads toward manipulation and coercion.
In order to achieve the potential and avoid the pitfalls of persuasive computing, a small but growing group of ACM members has
been exploring the theory, design, and analysis of computers as persuasive technologies—an area we call “captology” (based on an
acronym derived from Computers As Persuasive Technologies; see
www.captology.org).
To be sure, not all technologies are persuasive; in fact, only a small
subset of today’s computing technologies fit this category (see Figure 1).
As we see it, a persuasive computing technology is a computing system,
device, or application intentionally designed to change a person’s attitudes or behavior in a predetermined way. This point about intentionality may be subtle but is not trivial. Intentionality distinguishes
between a technology’s side effect and its planned effect. Captology
focuses on the planned persuasive effects of computer technologies.
As you’ll see in this special section, examples of persuasive tech-
27
nologies include a computerized doll designed to
motivate responsible sexual behavior, a CD-ROM
that persuades kids to eat fruits and vegetables, and a
virtual social environment that increases safety by
motivating responsible drinking. One thing to note
from these and other examples is that persuasive com-
puters function in three basic ways—as tools, as
media, or as social actors—each affording different
pathways to persuasion (see the sidebar below).
Because the study of computers as persuasive technologies is such a new endeavor, many key questions
remain unanswered, including:
The Functional Triad of Computer Persuasion
Tool
increases
abilities pocket
calculator
Web
agent
digital
pet
telerobotics
arcade
game
Social
Actor
creates
relationships
virtual
environments
Medium
provides
experience
C
omputers play many roles, some unseen and unnoticed. But from a user’s perspective, computers
function in three basic ways. As a tool, a computer
application or system can provide humans with new
abilities, allowing people to do things more easily. As a
medium, a computer can convey either symbolic content
(such as text and icons) or sensory content (such as virtual worlds and simulations). As social actors, they can
invoke social responses from users [2], especially when
adopting animate characteristics (such as physical features, emotions, and voices), play animate roles (such
as coach, pet, or opponent), and follow social dynamics
(such as greetings, apologies, and turn taking).
Together, they are the functional triad. One simple
(and admittedly simplistic) way of viewing them
simultaneously is to map them into two dimensions
(see the Figure).
This triad is helpful for understanding persuasive technologies because it shows how computers use various
techniques to influence people’s attitudes and behaviors.
By viewing a computer technology as a tool, one might
ask, How can tools change attitudes or behaviors?
Although this question has various answers, three possible
ones are that computer tools persuade by increasing selfefficacy, by providing tailored information, and by leading
people through a process.
Consider a computer tool designed to motivate
people to prepare financially for retirement. It can
lead people through the steps needed to analyze their
financial situations, set financial goals, and take
action to meet these goals. The process can motivate
28
May 1999/Vol. 42, No. 5 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
users to create and follow a budget, save more for
retirement, or donate to charity.
Computers as media suggest different pathways to
persuasion, most notably by providing people simulations and virtual environments. Computers as sensory
media can influence people by providing vicarious,
first-hand experiences; by prompting insights into
cause-effect relationships; and by allowing for cognitive and behavioral rehearsal.
Consider “HIV Roulette,” a kiosk developed at San
Francisco’s Exploratorium, a hands-on science
museum. This exhibit is a computer simulation allowing people to make hypothetical choices about sexual
behavior and then see how their choices would affect
their chances of contracting HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS. In “HIV Roulette” and other persuasive
technologies, computer simulations don’t need to
force ideas on users. Instead, people can explore various options in the simulation and observe the results
for themselves—a powerful way to persuade.
Computers also function as persuasive social
actors, possibly persuading people to change their
attitudes and behaviors by providing social support,
modeling attitudes or behaviors, or leveraging social
rules and dynamics [1, 2]. For example, in the 5-ADay Adventures CD-ROM, such characters as “Bobby
Banana” and “Pamela Pineapple” praise users for
practicing behaviors that lead to good nutrition,
including checking virtual food labels or choosing various foods from a virtual salad bar. Children respond
well to praise from these onscreen social actors and
seek their continued positive feedback.
The functional triad is not intellectually deep nor
conceptually difficult. However, the overall framework is useful and widely applicable. When used in
analyzing persuasive technologies, it helps reveal how
an interactive technology persuades—by increasing a
person’s abilities, providing users with an experience,
or by leveraging the power of social relationships. In
its generative role, the functional triad helps people
who create interactive technologies recognize additional options for incorporating persuasive strategies
into their products, where appropriate.
• What are the best applications for these
technologies?
• What is their potential?
• What are their limits?
• What are the effects and side effects of using
them?
• What are the ethical implications?
During the past few years, captologists in universities and industry have increased our knowledge of key
issues in this area, but one thing is clear to those of us
close to the domain: Not only do we, as a scientific
community, need to understand more about the persuasive technologies that already exist, we need more
insight into what could exist, and perhaps more
important, what should exist. This special section is a
step toward answering these questions and inviting
others into the discussion.
Providing a backdrop for the subsequent articles,
King et al. describe and analyze the persuasive interactive technologies that already do exist, including applications, users, form factors, and strategies. It reviews the
current landscape of persuasive technologies, offering
glimpses of what’s coming just over the technological
horizon, as well as several promising commercial applications that have already found a market.
The article by Tseng et al. focuses on issues of credibility as they apply to computing systems, defining credibility and outlining its importance in computing
systems. Surprisingly, there is little public research on
computers and credibility. To raise awareness and inspire
additional work, this article suggests new frameworks
for understanding the dynamics of computer credibility.
What follows is perhaps the most controversial article in the section, addressing “seductive computing.”
Not only is seduction a controversial type of persuasion, but Khaslavsky et al. push the limits of scientific
tradition by drawing their personal insights from
industrial design and popular culture to detail the
potential for computing experiences that seduce.
The section concludes with an examination of the
ethics of persuasive technologies. Berdichevsky et al.
first lay the foundation for discussing ethics in this
domain, then boldly articulate their guiding principles for designing ethical persuasive technologies.
I don’t expect readers to agree with all the ideas put
forth here, but I hope these articles provoke and inspire
you to raise key questions and discuss how they relate to
these technologies. Whether or not we address these
questions, we will soon see more examples—good and
bad—of computers designed to change human attitudes
and behaviors. Increasingly, we will see computers in new
roles motivating health behaviors, promoting safety, promoting eco-friendly behavior, and selling products and
services. Still other persuasive technologies will emerge in
areas we can’t yet predict.
This forecast may sound like bad news—a world full
of inescapable computer technology constantly prodding and provoking us. While such a technological
Computers
Persuasion
video games
behavior
change
palmtops
motivation
CD-ROM
change in
worldview
PDAs
exercise
equipment
compliance
agents
attitude
change
Captology
Figure 1. Captology is the study of computers as
persuasive technologies.
environment could develop, in most of the important
cases, we’ll choose the technologies we want to persuade
us—just as we choose a personal trainer at the gym or
a tutor for our children. And even though certain types
of persuasive technologies will be imposed upon us, we
will learn to recognize and respond appropriately to
their persuasive appeal. In extreme cases we—as an
ACM community—will need to help create the public
policy that influences the design and uses of computers
as persuasive technologies.
But to effectively shape the future landscape of persuasive technologies, we first have to educate ourselves
and others about the related potential and pitfalls. By
understanding persuasive computing, designing
responsible computing technologies, and discussing
and acting on ethical issues in this domain, we create
for ourselves the opportunity to leverage the power of
persuasive computing to improve our lives, our communities, and our society. c
References
1. Nass, C., Fogg, B., and Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates?
Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45 (1996), 669–678.
2. Reeves, B., and Nass, C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996.
B. J. Fogg (bjfogg@stanford.edu) directs the Persuasive Technology
Lab at Stanford University’s Center for the Study of Language and
Information in Palo Alto, Calif.
© 1999 ACM 0002-0782/99/0500 $5.00
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM May 1999/Vol. 42, No. 5
29