Can Personalization Persuade? Study of Notification Adaptation in Mobile Behavior Change Intervention Application
Open accessAbstract
The growing ubiquity of smartphones and the ease of creating and distributing applications render the mobile platform an attractive means for facilitating positive behavior change at scale. Within the smartphone as a behavior change support system, mobile notifications play a critical role as they enable timely and relevant information distribution. In this paper we describe our preliminary investigation of the persuasiveness of mobile notifications delivered within a real-world behavior change intervention mobile app, which enabled users to set goals and define tasks related to those goals. The application aimed to motivate the users with notifications belonging to one of two groups—tailored and non-tailored, seeing them as sparks in the Fogg Behavior Model and personalizing them according to the users’ Big Five personality traits. Results indicate that customized messages may work for some individuals while working poorly for others. When analyzing users as a single group, no significant differences were observed, but when proceeding with the analysis on the individual level we found seven users whose personality traits notifications interact with in interesting ways. Our results offer two general insights: (1) Using personality-tailored messaging in a dynamic mobile domain as opposed to a static domain leads to different outcomes, and it seems that there is no one-to-one mapping between domains; (2) A major reason for most of our hypotheses being false may be that messages that are deemed as persuasive on their own are not what persuades people to perform an action. Unlike the clear-cut findings observed in other domains, we discover a rather nuanced relationship between the personalization and persuasiveness that calls for further exploration at the individual participant level.
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A behavior model for persuasive design
Fogg, B. (2009) · Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology · doi:10.1145/1541948.1541999 · Cited by 2,328 · see citing works
Hektner, J., Schmidt, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007) · doi:10.4135/9781412984201 · Cited by 1,174 · see citing works
Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics
Kwak, S. G., & Kim, J. H. (2017) · Korean Journal of Anesthesiology · doi:10.4097/kjae.2017.70.2.144 · Cited by 1,062 · see citing works
A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention.
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000088 · Cited by 1,047 · see citing works
A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices
Ho, J., & Intille, S. S. (2005) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055100 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
The Effectiveness of Prompts to Promote Engagement With Digital Interventions: A Systematic Review
Alkhaldi, G., Hamilton, F. L., Lau, R., Webster, R., Michie, S., & Murray, E. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4790 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Digital Behaviour Change Interventions to Break and Form Habits
Pinder, C., Vermeulen, J., Cowan, B. R., & Beale, R. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3196830 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Bidargaddi, N., Almirall, D., Murphy, S., Nahum-Shani, I., Kovalcik, M., Pituch, T., Maaieh, H., & Strecher, V. (2018) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/10123 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Morrison, L. G., Hargood, C., Pejovic, V., Geraghty, A. W. A., Lloyd, S., Goodman, N., Michaelides, D. T., Weston, A., Musolesi, M., Weal, M. J., et al. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169162 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Jankovič, A., Kolenik, T., & Pejović, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Ljubljana (SI)
- Jožef Stefan Institute (SI)
- Corresponding author
- Kolenik, Tine
- Venue
- Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-04-19
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 116
- ISSN
- 2076-328X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9137841
- OpenAlex
- W4224274389
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS (P2-0209, P2-0098)
- Univerza v Ljubljani
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- mobile notifications, personalization, persuasion, behaviour change interventions, Fogg Behavior Model, Big Five personality traits, message tailoring, goal setting, mobile application, individual differences
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