Using negative and positive social feedback from a robotic agent to save energy

ABSTRACT

In this paper we explore the persuasive effects of social feedback, as provided by an embodied agent, on behavioral change. In a lab setting, two experiments were conducted in which participants had the opportunity to conserve energy while carrying out washing tasks with a simulated washing machine. The experiments tested the effect of positive and negative social feedback and compared these effects to more widely used factual feedback. Results of both studies indicate that social feedback has stronger persuasive effects than factual feedback (Experiment 1) and factual-evaluative feedback (Experiment 2). In addition, an effect of feedback valence was found, demonstrating more conservation actions following negative feedback (social or factual) as compared to positive feedback. Interestingly, especially negative social feedback had the strongest persuasive effects. The predicted perceived agency effect could not be demonstrated. These findings have several implications for theory and design of persuasive robotic agents.

References

1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273--291.
2. Bandura, A. & McDonald, F. J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children's moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 274--281.
3. Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175--1184.
4. Baumeister, R. F., Bratlavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323--370.
5. Bracken, C. C., Jeffres, L. W., & Neuendorf, K. A. (2004). Criticism or praise: The impact of verbal versus text-only computer feedback on social presence, intrinsic motivation, and recall. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7, 349--357.
6. Fogg, B. J. & Nass, C. I. (1997). Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 46, 551--561.
7. McCalley, L. T., & Midden, C. J. H. (2002). Energy conservation through product-integrated feedback: The roles of goal-setting and social orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 589--603.
8. McCalley, L. T. (2006). From motivation and cognition theories to everyday applications and back again: The case of product-integrated information and feedback. Energy Policy, 34, 129--137.
9. Midden, C. J. H., Kaiser, F. G., & Mccalley, L. T. (2007). Technology's four roles in understanding individuals' conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 1, 155--174.
10. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
11. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296--320.
12. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311--322.
13. Wright, D. (1968) Social Reinforcement and Maze Learning in Children. Child Development, 39, 1,177--183.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

    • Psychology

  • Operations research

    • Industry and manufacturing

      • Command and control