Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do
Open accessAbstract
Mother Nature knows best--How engineered organizations of the future will resemble natural-born systems.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Fogg argued that computers can be tools, media, and persuasive social actors.
“Fogg (82) further argued that computers can be (1) tools that change users' attitudes and behaviors by making desired results easier to achieve; (2) media which can provide stimulated experiences to change users' behavior and attitudes; and (3) persuasive social actors which can trigger social responses in humans.”
From Digital Therapeutic Alliance With Fully Automated Mental Health Smartphone Apps: A Narrative Review (2022) · cites this paper as [82]
The Abstract describes computers as persuasive social actors, calling that role the third corner of a functional triad, and says their social cues elicit human responses. The passages found do not describe the other two roles—tools that make desired results easier to achieve or media that provide simulated experiences—so the full three-part attribution is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFogg stressed the importance of mobility and connectivity and believed that persuasiveness can be increased by interacting with the right people or things at the right time.
“In addition to the roles of computers, Fogg (82) further stressed the importance of mobility and connectivity, and believed that persuasiveness can be increased by interacting with the right people/things at the right time.”
From Digital Therapeutic Alliance With Fully Automated Mental Health Smartphone Apps: A Narrative Review (2022) · cites this paper as [82]
The passage ending on p. 99 says technology can be more persuasive when users identify with a product designed for its target audience, which loosely supports the point about reaching the right people. The passages found do not support the attributed emphasis on mobility and connectivity or the claim that interacting with people or things at the right time increases persuasiveness (searched: mobility, connectivity, right time). (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 1,554
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [1]1. B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
- [2]2. P. Zimbardo and M. Leippe, The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991).
- [3]3. B. J. Fogg, Charismatic Computers: Creating More Likable and Persuasive Interactive Tech- nologies by Leveraging Principles from Social Psychology, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University (1997).
- [4]4. For academic work on computers as persuasive social actors, see the following: a. B. J. Fogg, Charismatic Computers: Creating More Likable and Persuasive Interactive Technologies by Leveraging Principles from Social Psychology, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University (1997).
- [18]18. H. Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1982).
- [20]20. Persuasion scholar Robert Cialdini writes, "As trivial as . . . similarities may seem, they appear to work. . . . even small similarities can be effective in producing a positive response to another." Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science & Practice (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000). See also H. Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1981).
- [21]21. See also H. Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge, England: Cam- bridge University Press, 1982).
- [25]25. C. I. Nass, B. J. Fogg, and Y. Moon, Can computers be teammates? Affiliation and social identity effects in human-computer interaction, International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 45(6): 669-678 (1996).
- [26]26. B. J. Fogg, Charismatic Computers: Creating More Likable and Persuasive Interactive Tech- nologies by Leveraging Principles from Social Psychology, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University (1997).
- [31]31. For more about the advisability (pro and con) of incorporating social elements into com- puter systems, see the following: a. B. Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Com- puter Interaction (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998).
- [33]33. For more about the advisability of incorporating social elements into computer systems, see the following: a. B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
- [34]34. B. Shneiderman and P. Maes, Direct manipulations vs. interface agents, Interactions, 4(6): 42-61 (1997).
- [36]36. For more on the effects of praise, see the following: a. E. Berscheid and E. H. Walster, Interpersonal Attraction, 2nd ed. (Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1978).
- [39]39. For more on investigations into praise from computers, see the following: a. B. J. Fogg, Charismatic Computers: Creating More Likable and Persuasive Interactive Technologies by Leveraging Principles from Social Psychology, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University (1997).
- [40]40. B. J. Fogg and C. I. Nass, Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46: 551-561 (1997).
- [45]45. For more on investigations into computers and reciprocity, see B. J. Fogg, Charismatic Computers: Creating More Likable and Persuasive Interactive Technologies by Leveraging Principles from Social Psychology, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University 1997.
- Authors
- Fogg, B. J.
- Corresponding author
- Fogg, B. J.
- Venue
- Ubiquity
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 2002
- Issue
- December
- Pages
- 2
- ISSN
- 1530-2180 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4231399809
- Cited by
- 1,554
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 127 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 121 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 92 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 135 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 36
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ubiquity (publishedVersion)
- International Linear Collider (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Systems and Dynamics
- Keywords
- persuasive technology, natural systems, organizational design, human-computer interaction
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
