Fenicio, Alessandro
[Université Grenoble Alpes]
Calvary, Gaëlle
[Université Grenoble Alpes]
Laurillau, Yann
[Université Grenoble Alpes]
Vanderdonckt, Jean
[UCL]
The development of persuasive interactive systems is typically achieved in an opportunistic way for shipping one persuasive system at a time, thus negatively affecting internal modularity (persuasion concepts are typically mixed up throughout the development life cycle) and reusability (parts or the whole persuasive system is of little reuse for another domain of human activity). In order to address these challenges, this paper introduces, motivates, and defines MOST4P, a Mission-Operation-Strategy-Tactic 4-level model for structuring the development of a persuasive interactive system and ProSPer, a MOST4P-based framework for developing persuasive interactive systems, software-based and/or manual-based that explicitly satisfy modularity (MOST concepts satisfy the separation of concerns) and multiple-domain applicability (MOST concepts could be reused from one domain to another). The paper then reports on a pilot study involving twelve participants evaluating how MOST4P concepts have been used in a self monitoring bracelet and in a mobile ProSPerbased persuasive interactive system. This study suggests that overall subjective satisfaction and usefulness are the most appreciated criteria, followed by interaction and information qualities


- Piiastiina Tikka, Bereket Woldemicael, and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2016. Building an App for Behavior Change : Case RightOnTime. InProceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Behavior Change Support Systems (BCSS2016), Salzburg, Austria, April.
- Prochaska James O., Velicer Wayne F., The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change, 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
- Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa. 2009. Persuasive systems design : Key issues, process model, and system features.Communications of the Association for Information Systems24, 1 (2009), 28.
- Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa. 2008. A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. InPersuasive technology.Springer, 164--176.
- Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2010. Behavior change support systems : A research model and agenda. InPersuasive Technology.Springer, 4--14.
- Lewis James R., IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use, 10.1080/10447319509526110
- Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Yvonne de Kort, Cees Midden, Berry Eggen, and Elise van den Hoven. 2006.Persuasive Technology : First International Conference on Persuasive Technology for Human Well-Being, PERSUASIVE 2006, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, May 18--19, 2006, Proceedings.Vol. 3962. Springer.
- Brian J Fogg. 2009. A behavior model for persuasive design. InProceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology.ACM, 40.
- Brian J Fogg. 1998. Persuasive computers : perspectives and research directions. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 225--232.
- Alessandro Fenicio, Gaëlle Calvary, Yann Laurillau, and Jean Vanderdonckt. 2016. ProSPer : a MOST model extension applied to persuasive interactive system.Proceedings of British HCI 2016 Conference (HCI 2016)(2016).
- Alessandro Fenicio and Gaëlle Calvary. 2015. Persuasion Through an Ambient Device : Proof of Concept and Early Evaluation of CRegrette, a Smoking Cessation System. InAmbient Intelligence.Springer, 252--267.
- Anind K Dey. 2001. Understanding and using context.Personal and ubiquitous computing5, 1 (2001), 4--7.
- J Cadle, D Paul, and P Turner. 2014. Business analysis techniques : 99 essential tools for success, Revised edn.BCS The Chartered Institute for IT(2014).
Bibliographic reference |
Fenicio, Alessandro ; Calvary, Gaëlle ; Laurillau, Yann ; Vanderdonckt, Jean. ProSPer: modeling the change, driving the persuasion.International Conference on Association Francophone d'Interaction Homme-Machine (Fribourg, du 25/10/2016 au 28/10/2016). In: IHM '16 Actes de la 28ième conférence francophone sur l'Interaction Homme-Machine, 2016, p.59-69 |
Permanent URL |
http://hdl.handle.net/2078/179132 |