The use of behavioural change systems in providing interventions for people is common in this present era of information technology. Many people depend on these systems for many reasons like safe driving, healthy food consumption, energy conservation, etc. Some of these systems have been successful in making people change positively while a larger percentage have not been successful due to many issues that were not addressed during the development of such systems. One of them is psychological reactance, a motivational state that is aroused when a person’s freedom is threatened or eliminated. It has major focus restoring any freedom that has been threatened. This forms the motivation for this work and it starts with a brief study of the theory of psychological reactance with a new view of accessing it from perceived usability perspective. To study reactance in people, a survey was conducted. It focussed on accessing reactance through attitudes to forced compliance in a persuasive website in the context of meal-planning. Results from this study showed that participants with high freedom text had better attitude to the website in terms of anger and perceived usability than participants with low-freedom text. This work confirmed the social agency proposition that the presence of social cues in a multimedia message can stimulate the social interaction pattern in people’s learning. Once this social interaction pattern is initiated, there is a high possibility for pupils to act as if they are interacting with another individual. Therefore, to some degree, social convention of human-to-human interaction sets in as participants with high freedom message had a lower anger score than participants with high freedom plus social message.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Adams, A.T., Costa, J., Jung, M.F., Choudhury, T., 2015. Mindless computing: designing technologies to subtly influence behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 719-730.
Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, R.E., Merrill, M.M., 2005, Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30, 117-139.
Brehm, J.W., 1966, A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press. pp 135.
Brehm, S.S., Brehm, J.W., 2013, Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
Brooke, J., 1996, SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 4-7.
Deci, E., Ryan, R., 1985, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. Contemporary Sociology, 3, DOI. 10.2307/2070638 Plenum Press, New York.
Dehn, D.M., Van Mulken, S., 2000, The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International journal of human-computer studies 52, 1-22.
Dillard, J.P., Peck, E., 2000, Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research 27, 461-495.
Dillard, J.P., Shen, L., 2005, On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs 72, 144-168.
Edwards, S.M., Li, H., Lee, J.-H., 2002, Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising 31, 83-95.
Ehrenbrink, P., Hillmann, S., Weiss, B., Möller, S., 2016. Psychological reactance in HCI: a method towards improving acceptance of devices and services. In: Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 478-482.
Gasser, R., Brodbeck, D., Degen, M., Luthiger, J., Wyss, R., Reichlin, S., 2006, Persuasiveness of a mobile lifestyle coaching application using social facilitation. Persuasive technology, 27-38.
Hodgins, H.S., Knee, C.R., 2002, The integrating self and conscious experience. Handbook of self-determination research, 87-100.
Hossain, M.D., Moon, J., Yun, J.-w., Choe, Y.C., 2012, Impact of psychological traits on user performance in information systems delivering customer service: IS management perspective. Decision Support Systems 54, 270-281.
Jaimes, L.G., Llofriu, M., Raij, A., 2014. A stress-free life: just-in-time interventions for stress via real-time forecasting and intervention adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Body Area Networks, pp. 197-203.
Klein, C., 2016. The CASA Paradigm: Computers as Social Actors, and their Implications for Learning in the Twenty-First Century.
Kwon, S.J., Chung, N., 2010, The moderating effects of psychological reactance and product involvement on online shopping recommendation mechanisms based on a causal map. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9, 522-536.
Lane, N.D., Lin, M., Mohammod, M., Yang, X., Lu, H., Cardone, G., Ali, S., Doryab, A., Berke, E., Campbell, A.T., 2014, Bewell: Sensing sleep, physical activities and social interactions to promote wellbeing. Mobile Networks and Applications 19, 345-359.
Langer, E.J., 1992, Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and cognition 1, 289-305.
Louwerse, M.M., Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., Mitchell, H.H., 2005, Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 693-704.
Lusk, M.M., Atkinson, R.K., 2007, Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology 21, 747-764.
Mayer, R.E., Sobko, K., Mautone, P.D., 2003, Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 419.
Milgram, S., Gudehus, C. 1978. Obedience to authority (Ziff-Davis Publishing Company).
Murray, K.B., Häubl, G., 2011, Freedom of choice, ease of use, and the formation of interface preferences. MIS Quarterly, 955-976.
Nass, C., Moon, Y., 2000, Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues 56, 81-103.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R., 1994. Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 72-78.
Rains, S.A., 2013, The nature of psychological reactance revisited: a meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research 39, 47-73.
Reeves, B., Nass, C., 1996, The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University press.pp 305
Roubroeks, M., Ham, J., Midden, C., 2011, When artificial social agents try to persuade people: The role of social agency on the occurrence of psychological reactance. International Journal of Social Robotics 3, 155-165.
Roubroeks, M., Midden, C., Ham, J., 2009. Does it make a difference who tells you what to do?: exploring the effect of social agency on psychological reactance. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, p. 15.
Shen, L., 2015, Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health communication 30, 975-985.
Shneiderman, B., 1997. Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, pp. 33-39.
Sinclair, H.C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., Wright, B.L., 2015, Don’t tell me who I can’t love: A multimethod investigation of social network and reactance effects on romantic relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly 78, 77-99.
Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., Greenberg, J., 2015, Understanding Psychological Reactance. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.