Understanding the Mechanics of Persuasive System Design: A Mixed-Method Theory-driven Analysis of Freeletics
Abstract
While we know that persuasive system design matters, we barely understand when persuasive strategies work and why they only work in some cases. We propose an approach to systematically understand and design for motivation, by studying the fundamental building blocks of motivation, according to the theory of planned behavior (TPB): attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control. We quantitatively analyzed (N=643) the attitudes, beliefs, and values of mobile fitness coach users with TPB. Capacity (i.e., perceived ability to exercise) had the biggest effect on users' motivation. Using individual differences theory, we identified three distinct user groups, namely followers, hedonists, and achievers. With insights from semi-structured interviews (N=5) we derive design implications finding that transformation videos that feature other users' success stories as well as suggesting an appropriate workout can have positive effects on perceived capacity. Practitioners and researchers can use our theory-based mixed-method research design to better understand user behavior in persuasive applications.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Users may value different outcomes from those intended by designers.
“A further consideration is that users may value different outcomes from those intended by designers; 24 for example, a DBCI may not achieve behavior change but may provide valued information, reassurance or opportunities for interaction.”
From Understanding and Promoting Effective Engagement With Digital Behavior Change Interventions (2016) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Schneider, H., Moser, K., Butz, A., & Alt, F.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-05-07
- Pages
- 309-320
- OpenAlex
- W2395110573
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 3.86
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- persuasive system design, theory of planned behavior, motivation, perceived control, subjective norms, attitudes, individual differences, customer segmentation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review