skip to main content
10.1145/3099023.3099113acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesumapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Investigation of the Social Predictors of Competitive Behavior and the Moderating Effect of Culture

Published:09 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research has shown that Competition is a powerful intrinsic motivator of behavior change. However, little is known about the predictors of its persuasiveness and the moderating effect of culture. In this paper, we investigate the predictors of "the persuasiveness of Competition" (i.e. Competition) using three social influence con-structs: Reward, Social Comparison and Social Learning. Using a sample of 287 participants, comprising 213 individualists and 74 collectivists, we explored the interrelationships among the four social influence constructs and how the two cultures differ and/or are similar. Our global model, which accounts for 46% of the variation in Competition, reveals that Reward has the strongest influence on Competition, followed by Social Comparison. However, the model shows that Social Learning has no significant influence on Competition. Finally, our multigroup analysis reveals that, for our population sample, culture does not moderate the interrelationships among the four constructs. Our findings suggest that designers of gamified applications can employ Reward, Social Comparison and Competition as co-persuasive strategies to motivate behavior change for both cultures, as the susceptibilities of users to Reward and Social Comparison are predictors of their susceptibility to Competition.

References

  1. Burke, B. 2012. Gamification 2020: What Is the Future of Gamification? Gartner. November 2012 (2012), 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Burke, B. 2014. Gamify: How Gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. (2014), 192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Busch, M. et al. 2013. Personalized persuasive technology - Development and validation of scales for measuring persuadability. International Conference on Persuasive Technology (2013), 33--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cheng, R. 2003. Persuasion strategies for computers as persuasive technologies. Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan. 10, 2010 (2003), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R. and Trost, M. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. 151--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). 2nd, (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Durlak, J.A. 2009. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 34, 9 (2009), 917--928.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Fogg, B.J. 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hair, J.F. et al. 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Inc, Washington DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hofstede, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures?: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2, 1 (2011), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kelman, H.C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2, 1 (1958), 51--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Lee, I. et al. 2008. Cultural dimensions for user experience: cross-country and cross-product analysis of users' cultural characteristics. ... and Computers: Culture ... (2008), 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Martin, C. van W. and Gaby Odekerken and Oppen, S. 2009. Using PLS Path Modeling For Assessing Hierarchical Construct Model: Guidelines and Empirical. MIS Quarterly. 33, 1 (2009), 177--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mead, M. 2002. Cooperation and competition among primitive people. Transaction Publishers. 123, (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Orji, R. 2017. Why Are Persuasive Strategies Effective? Exploring the Strengths and Weaknesses of Socially-Oriented Persuasive Strategies. International Conference on Persuasive Technology (2017), 253--266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Orji, R. and Mandryk, R.L. 2014. Developing culturally relevant design guidelines for encouraging healthy eating behavior. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 72, 2 (2014), 207--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Oyibo, K. et al. 2017. Investigation of the Persuasiveness of Social Influence in Persuasive Technology and the Effect of Age and Gender. International Workshop on Persuasive Technology (Amsterdam, 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Oyibo, K. and Vassileva, J. 2017. Investigation of social predictors of competitive behavior in persuasive technology. International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Amsterdam, 2017), 279--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanchez, G. 2013. PLS Path Modeling with R. R News. (2013), 235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Stibe, A. 2015. Towards a Framework for Socially Influencing Systems: Meta-analysis of Four PLS-SEM Based Studies. International Conference on Persuasive Technology (2015), 172--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Wang, H. and Sun, C.-T. 2011. Game Reward Systems?: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings. DiGRA. (2011), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Wong, K.K. 2013. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin. 24, 1 (2013), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Investigation of the Social Predictors of Competitive Behavior and the Moderating Effect of Culture

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        UMAP '17: Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
        July 2017
        456 pages
        ISBN:9781450350679
        DOI:10.1145/3099023

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 9 July 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate162of633submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader