Redistribution of copyrighted material Essay

Buy ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!

Note: Our papers are 100% human-written. 

Check before you submit. Get Turnitin Score Report in 15 Minutes.

Don't risk the 'Red' score. Get the exact same Turnitin report your professor uses. Join 50,000+ students who submitted their essays with confidence this semester.

Get Turnitin Score Report Request Human Rewrite

U.S. Copyright Law
(title 17 of U.S. code)
governs the reproduction
and redistribution of
copyrighted material.
Downloading this
document for the
purpose of
redistribution is
prohibited.
The SAGE Handbook of
Persuasion
Second Edition
Developments in Theory and Practice
Edited by
James Price Dillard
Pennsylvania State University
Lijiang Shen
University of Georgia
dSAGE
Los Angeles [ London | New Delhi
Singapore [ Washington DC
(DSAGE
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi
Singapore [ Washington DC
FOR INFORMATION:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y1SP
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/11 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Acquisitions Editor: Matthew Byrnie
Editorial Assistant: Stephanie Paiermini
Production Editor: Laura Stewart
Copy Editor: Amy Freitag
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Jennifer Gritt
Indexer: Wendy Allex
Cover Designer: Candice Harman
Marketing Manager: Liz Thornton
Permissions Editor: Karen Ehrmann
Copyright 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of
The SAGE handbook of persuasion : developments in
theory and practice / edited by James Price Dillard,
Lijiang Shen. 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4129-8313-6 (cloth)
1. Persuasion (Psychology)Social aspects. 2. Persuasion (Rhetoric) I. Dillard, James Price.
II. Shen, Lijiang. III. Title: Handbook of persuasion.
HM1196.P47
2013 153.8’52dc23 2012017340
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
<|SFI Certified Sourcing
www.sfiprogram.org
SFI-00453
12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CHAPTER 23
How Does
Technology Persuade?
Theoretical Mechanisms for Persuasive Technologies
S. Shyam Sundar, Jeeyun Oh,
Hyunjin Kang, and Akshaya Sreenivasan
H
istorically, media and communication
technologies have been seen as amplifiers
of persuasive communications. From
microphones to smartphones, communication
technologies have served to boost the signal
strength of persuasive messages. Mass-media
technologies, such as the printing press, radio,
and television, have boosted reception strength
by expanding the reach and frequency of these
messages. In fact, rich areas of persuasion
research, such as propaganda, are premised on
harnessing the vast dissemination potential of
media and communication technologies.
Yet, theoretical attention to the role played by
technology in persuasion is surprisingly scarce.
The general tendency has been to view technology either as a channel for conveying persuasive
messages (Fogg, Lee, & Marshall, 2002) or as a
bundled environment with inherent and immutable constraints (Holbert, 2002). In assuming
that a given media technology is a constant, both
these approaches call for adapting message and
psychological variables to suit the exigencies of
the medium.
This is probably because classic definitions
of “persuasion” (Miller, 1980, see chapter 5) focus
on message and psychological variables by
emphasizing (1) the use of symbols and (2) the
social nature of the phenomenon. Highlighting
the importance of communication, Dillard
(2010) defines persuasion as one social actor
using symbols to change the opinion or behavior of another social actor. However, the label
of “social actor” need not be restricted to
humans, but can indeed be extended to technologies, as demonstrated by numerous studies
in the CASA (Computers as Social Actors) literature, which show that individuals tend to
apply social rules of human-human interaction
when interacting with technologies, even
though they agree that computers do not have
intentions (Reeves & Nass, 1996).
388
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 389
Likewise, the notion of “symbols” need not be
restricted to the message content of communication. With the arrival of digital media, there is a
growing realization that even nonlinguistic technological features can serve as symbols with
persuasive appeal (Sundar, 2008a). In fact, the
traditional separation of source and/or message
from the technology that delivers the message is
no longer conceptually defensible given that new
media technologies are erasing the boundaries
between source and receiver, as well as those
between message and medium. For example,
customization technologies make the receiver the
source of messages, and interactive interfaces
transform the nature of the message so significantly that the sheer existence of interactive features can serve as a persuasive message.
It must be noted, however, that technological
features such as customization and interactivity
are anything but fixed. They have become highly
variable, given the “app culture” of modern media
such as websites and tablets. The variable use and
deployment of applications on websites makes it
less useful for us to think and theorize about the
Web as a whole media form or as a uniform “symbol system” (Salomon, 1979). Even specific genres
of websites, such as social networking sites, cannot be treated as distinct, coherent media because
they have several applications that afford dynamic
changes in form and functionality. Therefore, no
two examples of online social-networking platforms are the same. Not only are new applications
developed all the time and continually change the
technology of a medium, they are also increasingly available across media (e.g., same app available for tablets as well as smartphones), thereby
diminishing the differences between media forms.
Given this lack of distinctiveness and the
absence of uniformity within any given medium,
the role of technology in persuasion cannot be
meaningfully assessed by comparing different
media (e.g., computers vs. robots), but by investigating the contribution made by specific features (e.g., morphology) or affordances (e.g.,
interactivity) of media technologies. Toward this
end, we adopt a “variable-centered,” rather than
“object-centered,” approach to the study of technology (Nass & Mason, 1990) and examine
structural features that underlie interface design,
characteristics that facilitate specific actions and
thereby affect both the nature and effects of
communication (Sundar, 2009).
Studies in the persuasive computing literature
do not specify which aspects of a computer (e.g.,
Fogg, 2002), game (Bang, Torstensson, & Katzeff,
2006), or a household appliance (McCalley,
Kaiser, Midden, Keser, & Teunissen, 2006) affect
credibility and other user attitudes. We still do
not know how and why persuasive technologies
work. In the sections that follow, we attempt to
provide some answers by viewing persuasive
technologies not as specific tools or objects,
but as variables related to technological affordances, such as interactivity and navigability,
that may influence persuasion via five theoretical
mechanisms.
How Technology Persuades
Theory and research suggest that technology can
persuade individuals by (1) triggering cognitive
heuristics about the nature of content, (2) enabling
the receiver to be the source, (3) creating greater
user engagement, (4) constructing alternative realities with enhanced vividness, self-representation,
self-presence, spatial presence, and transportation,
and (5) affording easier access to information.
Cognitive Heuristics
While cognitive heuristics triggered by message content are well-documented in the dualprocess literature, those stimulated by interface
affordances are only now beginning to be studied.
Even if users do not actively engage interactive
tools on an interface, the mere presence of interactivity can sometimes cue a series of cognitive
heuristics that dictate their evaluation of the
390 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
interface as well as its content (Sundar, 2008a).
For instance, a website with a plethora of interactive tools can give users an impression that this is
a participatory forum, open and democratic in
nature, with visitors afforded a voice. The MAIN
model (Sundar, 2008a) proposes that affordances
related to modality, agency, interactivity, and
navigability manifest themselves in the form of
interface cues that trigger mental shortcuts (i.e.,
cognitive heuristics) for judging the quality and
credibility of the content delivered via the interface. Sundar, Xu, and Dou (2012) identify 20 such
heuristics that could play a role in shaping consumers’ attitudes and behaviors in the context of
online advertising and marketing.
Interface affordances do not exist as structural or ontological characteristics alone, but
also possess cues that trigger perceptions in the
form of quick evaluations (i.e., heuristics)
about the perceived consequences of their use
(Sundar & Bellur, 2010). In other words, the
perception of a certain action possibility in the
interface can directly contribute to positive or
negative judgments of the credibility of content
conveyed by the interface even without using it.
For instance, the appearance of dialogue boxes
during the course of browsing a website can
enhance the feeling of constant interaction
with the system, and thereby invoke the interaction heuristic. Similarly, control heuristic can be
triggered by a device highlighting its ability to
afford user control over the nature and flow of
information (Sundar & Bellur, 2010). In fact,
Sundar and Bellur (2010) offer a detailed list of
heuristics for each type of interactivity: interaction and responsiveness heuristics for modality interactivity; activity, control, choice and
ownness heuristics for source interactivity; and
contingency, telepresence, and flow heuristics
for message interactivity.
These heuristics are suggestive of theoretical
mechanisms by which interactivity affordances
influence the perceived value of the information
and the medium, and thereby affect credibility,
but they do not always have to occur via heuristic
processing. In fact, the rules of thumb invoked by
affordances could serve as important analytical
tools for aiding systematic processing of underlying information. If the user is willfully applying
the heuristic to arrive at credibility judgments of
content, the processing is said to be conscious or
controlled, rather than automatic. Therefore,
interactivity can affect persuasion via both heuristic and systematic processes. The following
three heuristics are quite reflective of this theoretical approach to understanding the effects of
persuasive technologies.
Old Media Heuristic
Given the multimodal nature of modern media
interfaces, the use of modalities resembling those
used in older media can trigger mental shortcuts
that lead to credibility judgments of content.
Sundar (2000) found that providing audio downloads significantly lowered the perceived journalistic quality of news stories, especially when pictures
were included in the stories. In contrast, text-only
and text-plus-picture modalities elicited more
positive evaluations. Newspapers have been traditionally seen as more credible sources of information, associated with stringent gatekeeping
standards, whereas broadcast media outlets that
use audio and/or video modalities tend to be perceived as less credible sources.
Thus, a website resembling a newspaper can
serve to invoke a “newspaper schema,” leading to
positive credibility evaluations. This rule-ofthumb is labeled old media heuristic by the
MAIN model (Sundar, 2008a). As a result, the
same message could be seen as more persuasive
when presented via text rather than via audio
and pictures. Depending on how the invoked
heuristic is processed, this effect could follow
one of two possible mechanisms, as would be
predicted by dual-process models in social cognition: If it is processed heuristically, then the
mere old-media look of the site can directly
boost positive ratings. But, if it is processed systematically, the old-media look will prompt
users to engage in controlled processing of the
information, as opposed to the more automatic
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 391
and passive processing of news content typically
associated with electronic media. And, assuming
that the content is strong, this effortful route is
also likely to promote persuasiveness.
Machine Heuristic
When technology is the attributed source of
communication, it can be quite persuasive. Sundar
and Nass (2001) found that participants rated
identical news stories as being higher in quality
when they thought that the computer terminal,
rather than news editors, chose them. This maybe
due to the operation of the machine heuristicif
a machine chose the news story, then it must be
objective in its selection and free from ideological
bias (Sundar, 2008a). A good example is our tendency to trust the order of search results by an
automated engine, such as Google, and automatically assign higher importance to those results
that appear at the top without critically assessing
the intentionality behind the rank-ordering of the
output (Pan et al., 2007). Therefore, persuasion is
likely to be higher and less subject to counterargumentation when the message is delivered by an
interface that is machine-like in its appearance as
well as operation.
Bandwagon Heuristic
Aside from imbuing agency to the machine,
modern communication technologies provide
agency to receivers themselves, both collectively
and individually. Social media have made it possible for users, as a collective, to weigh in on virtually everything online, from voting on top
news stories to fact-checking on health information in a bulletin-board to reviewing products on
e-commerce sites. Even without actively opining,
users can send a collective message by simply
visiting certain online venues. Their actions are
compiled by any number of algorithms and
applications to produce metrics such as number
of hits, number of visitors, and so on. The number of Diggs on a social-bookmarking site and
the list of most viewed news stories are just two
examples of audience-as-source, which may ultimately influence what users choose to read or
believe online.
Psychologically, audience-as-source activates
the bandwagon heuristic, which has been shown
to positively influence intention to purchase
products from an e-commerce site (Sundar,
Oeldorf-Hirsch, & Xu, 2008). This heuristic is
triggered by any interface cue that signifies the
popularity of certain content (e.g., the number of
views of a YouTube video clip) or products (e.g.,
product review and star-ratings of a product
listed in Amazon.com) and is shown to be stronger than the authority heuristic triggered by
the presence of expert opinion (Sundar, Xu, &
Oeldorf-Hirsch, 2009). Users seem to believe that
if many other people think that something is
good, then they must too. Elements of consensus
(Chaiken, 1987) and/or endorsement (Metzger,
Flanagin, 8c Medders, 2010) constitute this bandwagon effect, with important implications for
persuasion using tools of social media.
Bandwagon, machine, and old-media heuristics are three examples of a wide range of mental
shortcuts identified by the MAIN Model (Sundar, 2008a) as being triggered by interface features rather than content attributes. Yet, these
heuristics can play an important role in determining the outcomes of persuasive communications (Sundar et al., 2012), both by their sheer
presence and by offering unique functionality
that was absent in older media.
User as Source
Self-agency is a powerful contributor of persuasive outcomes, as evidenced by the rise and
success of technologies that afford customization by individual users. By enabling users to
influence the nature and process of an interaction, these affordances make each individual
user feel like they are a relevant actor in the
interaction, and thereby aid persuasion. For
instance, in marketing studies, products designed
by the consumers generate significantly higher
392 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
acceptance (Franke, Schreier, & Kaiser, 2009),
and consumers in financial portals show higher
willingness to provide personal information
when they are provided with customizable web
interfaces (Coner, 2003).
The agency model of customization (Sundar,
2008b) posits that “self-as-source” is the fulcrum
of psychological benefits derived from customization. According to this model, technological
affordances imbue a higher sense of agency by
allowing the user to serve as a source of his or her
information, and thereby become the center of
his or her interaction universe. This translates to
positive cognitive, affective, and behavioral
responses toward both the interface and content
of customizable media. Theoretically, two classes
of mechanisms govern these persuasive effects.
One pertains to the sheer affordance of the user
acting as a source (e.g., the user’s ability to perform the tailoring on their own or digitally publish content that they create, as in social media).
The other pertains to the content that results
from the process of the user acting as a source.
Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2000) belongs in the former category, given its
emphasis on user autonomy. Easy-to-use tools of
customization and social media not only provide
autonomy, but also a sense of competence or selfefficacy (Bandura, 1997) to operate them. In
addition, they afford endorsement of content by
others, which can nurture psychological bonding
with both the process and components of communication, and thereby have a positive impact
on content perception. Studies in community
psychology (McMillan, 1996; McMillan & Chavis,
1986) have shown that feelings of membership,
sense of belonging, and trust enhance sense of
community, which can generate positive persuasive outcomes. For instance, Richardson et al.
(2010) found that adding virtual community
features to an online walking program helped
participants stay engaged in the program.
Another study showed that online spaces that
foster a sense of community positively affected
attitudes and behaviors toward the community
(Firpo, Kasemvilas, Ractham, & Zhang, 2009).
Kim and Sundar (2011) found that sense of community is indeed a significant mediator of the
relationship between the perceived number of
times a thread is shared in a discussion board and
users’ attitudes toward posting. Together, these
factors of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
serve to enhance the degree of self-determination
(Ryan & Deci, 2000) and thereby the intrinsic
motivation to engage with the interface and its
contents.
A related construct is that of perceived control
afforded by the self acting as the source (Sundar,
2008b). Power users of technology are especially
likely to feel a higher sense of control when using
customizable features, in part because they seek
personal control over their privacy (Sundar &
Marathe, 2010), and a greater sense of empowerment (Weissman, 1988). When they customize,
users are also known to feel a higher sense of
accomplishment (Norton, Mochon, & Ariely,
2011) and ownership (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks,
2003), both of which positively predict user attitudes toward the object of customization.
Recent research shows that a sense of identity
could be a stronger motivation than sense of
control for users to customize their web portals
(Marathe & Sundar, 2011). In addition to
improving the functionality of the interface to
suit one’s needs, customization lets us project
our identity onto the interfaces and devices that
we own. Sundar (2008b) asserts that individuals’ motivation to express their identity on
media interfaces stems from the general human
tendency of egocentricity. As a consequence,
they will be able to perceive some aspect of their
self in the interfaces. As Petty, Wheeler, and
Bizer (2000) suggest, the real psychological
appeal of a personalized message is that the
message is oriented to some aspect of one’s self
and implies a connection between one’s personality and message tone. In general, personalization of both messages and interface features
(such as cell-phone faceplates) serve to make
the user feel unique and distinct from others,
thereby promoting positive attitudes toward
the interface.
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 393
When it comes to evaluating the outcomes of
customization, perceived relevance of the resulting content is considered a key mediator of the
persuasive effect of interactive technologies
(Kalyanaraman & Sundar, 2006). Whether the
user performs the tailoring (customization) or
the system does it based on the user’s prior
behavior (personalization), the resulting content
is likely to closely match the user’s interests and
be perceived higher in utility (Sundar & Marathe,
2010), thereby leading to positive attitudes
toward the interface as well as the content. The
effectiveness of tailored health messages relies
quite heavily on this mechanism. Tailored health
messages have positive effects on health behaviors, including healthy dietary behaviors (e.g.,
Campbell et al., 1994; Oenema, Brug, Dijkstra, de
Weerdt, & de Vries, 2008), physical activities (e.g.,
Marcus et al., 2007; Oenema et al., 2008), cancer
screening (e.g., Jerant et al., 2007), and smoking
cessation (e.g., Oenema et al., 2008; Strecher et
al., 2008). These studies suggest that personal
relevance enhances cognitive preconditions
toward message processing and thereby increases
message impact by providing individualized
information on behavioral factors for achieving
well-being goals (Hawkins, Kreuter, Resnicow,
Fishbein, & Dijkstra, 2008).
Another variable that is closely associated
with relevance is involvement. When the self is
the source, both the process of customization
and the ensuing content are of great personal
interest to the user, thereby increasing his or her
involvement with the interface (Kalyanaraman &
Sundar, 2006; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Therefore, the
user is likely to engage more deeply with the
interface and its content, as predicted by ELM
and other dual-process models. This kind of processing is known to result in attitudes that are
strong, durable, and more predictive of behaviors
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). However, not all users
have the same appetite for involvement, especially with the interface. While power users show
more positive attitudes toward the content and
website when they are allowed to customize,
nonpower users show more positive attitudes
when the site personalizes the content for them
a complex phenomenon involving a trade-off
between convenience and concern for privacy
(Sundar & Marathe, 2010).
In sum, technological features that enable
users to serve as sources of information can
influence persuasion not only by increasing users’
agency, identity, and self-determination, but also
by ensuring that the content is more relevant and
involving.
User Engagement
The concept of user involvement discussed
earlier is particularly important for understanding the role of interactive media in persuasion.
By calling for heightened user activity, interactivity is assumed to breed greater involvement in
the interaction, leading some scholars to propose
that it stimulates central processing of mediated
information. For example, Sundar and Kim
(2005) showed that interactively rendered advertisements promoted purchase intentions by
increasing product knowledge and product
involvement.
Sundar, Kalyanaraman, and Brown (2003) created three versions of a political candidate’s website that were identical in content, but differed in
the extent to which they permitted contingent
interaction. High-interactivity had multiple layers of hyperlinks and medium-interactivity featured two layers, whereas the low-interactivity
version had one scrollable page without any
hyperlinks. Participants liked the candidate more
and agreed more with his policy positions when
the website had a medium level of interactivity
versus low or high levels of interactivity.
Surprisingly, participants’ prior level of interest in politics did not interact with interactivity
to influence their attitudes, implying that interactivity has the ability to make even apathetic
users get involved in the content offered by the
site. However, this advantage is negated when the
site is very high in interactivity. Thus, to the
extent interactivity calls for greater user activity
394 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
without imposing too much of a navigational
load, it can encourage both apathetic and interested users to process the content centrally,
rather than peripherally.
When interactivity is high though, there is
some evidence to suggest that frequency of Internet use (indicative perhaps of the ability of users)
makes a difference to the moderating role of
involvement. Liu and Shrum (2009) showed that
heavy Internet users (> 7.5 hours per week) were
more likely than light users to explore the full
potential of high interactivity. This difference
does not matter under conditions of low involvement, because interactivity is simply treated as a
peripheral cue on the interface, leading directly
to positive attitudes without actually engaging
the affordance.
Therefore, in theoretically inferring the effects
of interactivity on persuasion using dual-process
models, such as ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
and HSM (Chaiken, 1987), we have to keep in
mind that the construct of involvement has two
different lociprior user involvement with content and the degree of involvement generated by
interactivity features on the interface. Given that
interactivity is an affordance, that is, subject to
user’s interpretation and use, the former would
lead to the latter, but not always. The technology
of interactivity can serve to directly boost the latter through a number of mechanisms.
Sundar (2007) refers to the latter as user
engagement, which is said to be affected by three
different species of interactivitymodality
interactivity, source interactivity, and message
interactivityin theoretically distinct ways.
Modality interactivity refers to the different
tools available on the interface for accessing the
embedded information, tools such as hyperlinks,
mouse-overs, sliders, and drag and zoom features. Together, these functional features serve to
enhance the mapping ability of our sensory
channels, or perceptual bandwidth (Reeves &
Nass, 2000), resulting in a richer mental representation of the underlying content.
Modality-interactivity features are often seen
as “bells and whistles” and can lead directly to
positive attitudes toward the interface and its content, as shown in a recent study comparing interaction modalities, such as slide and 3-D carousel
with plain scrolling (Sundar, Xu, Bellur, Jia, Oh, &
Khoo, 2010). Another study (Sundar, Bellur, Oh,
Xu, & Jia, 2011) comparing different combinations of modality-interactivity tools on a website
found that users’ perceptual assessment of the
interface (perceived natural mapping, intuitiveness, and ease of use of the site) predicted their
degree of absorption in the site, which in turn
influenced user attitudes toward the website, as
well as the content in it. Therefore, the persuasive
effect of interactivity as a feature of the medium
rests on the degree to which it enhances perceptual representation of the information.
Source interactivity influences the level of user
engagement by affording greater agency to the
user. A recent field experiment (Sundar, Oh, Bellur, Jia, & Kim, 2011) showed that participants
who were able to change themes of a portal site
and engage in active blogging through it became
more absorbed in their activities on the site and
showed more positive attitudes toward it than
participants who were not able to cosmetically
customize the site or generate new content, but
only filter existing content. When users are the
prime agents of the interaction, their level of
engagement with the content is significantly
enhanced. The primary theoretical mechanism
is based on customization leading to higher
engagement, as discussed earlier in the context
of self-agency.
Message interactivity, the degree to which the
system engages users in reciprocal communication,
serves to emphasize the conceptualization of interactivity in the processual sense (Burgoon, Bonito,
Ramirez, Dunbar, Kam, & Fischer, 2002) with the
key underlying mechanism of “contingency” in
message exchange (Rafaeli, 1988). Studies have
shown that users tend to pay more attention (Sundar
& Constantin, 2004), process information more
centrally (Sundar et al., 2003), and feel more motivated to participate in online forums (Wise,
Hamman, & Thorson, 2006) when the system
allows them to have a threaded interaction.
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 395
In fact, higher degree of contingency has been
found to mediate the relationship between message interactivity and other psychological outcomes, including user engagement. In a recent
study with a movie recommendation site (Sundar,
Bellur, Oh, Jia, & Kim, 2012), higher message
interactivity in the form of footprints of user
actions, responsive suggestions in a search box,
and live-chatting with an online agent led to
greater perceived contingency and engagement
with the site, which ultimately created more positive attitudes toward it and higher intention to
recommend the site to others. At the level of messages, mediators such as connectedness, reciprocity, responsiveness, and specificity of responses
could explain some of the reasons why users
demonstrate such iterative and prolonged forms
of involvement and engagement with new media.
Whether conceptualized as a modality feature,
source feature, or message feature, the primary
role of interactivity in the interactivity effects
model (Sundar, 2007) is to create greater engagement with content via mechanisms related to
perceptual bandwidth, customization, and contingency respectively. These effects are moderated by user factors, such as their expertise in
using the interface and prior involvement in the
content of the interaction.
Realistic Alternative Realities
Media technologies can also aid persuasion
by creating alternative realities for users. Constructs such as vividness, self-representation, selfpresence, spatial presence, and transportation
are important for the effectiveness of persuasive
technologies in that they create more realistic
experiences for users, thereby affecting persuasion
outcomes.
Vividness
Richer modalities create higher levels of
vividness, which can change users’ perception of
a source and/or message. Vividness has been
defined as the representational richness of a
mediated environment shaped by its formal features (Steuer, 1992). The number of different
senses engaged in the interaction (breadth) and
the level of resolution within each of the perceptual channels (depth) together constitute the
vividness of a medium. Given that individuals
use all five senses in the real world, vivid representations using multiple modalities can increase
the level of telepresence, or the sense of being
present in the mediated environment (Lombard
& Ditton, 1997; Steuer, 1992), thereby enhancing
the perceived directness of the mediated experience. Jin (2010) found that when technology
offers haptic stimuli with force feedback, such as
terrain effects, acceleration and lateral forces in
an online advertising context, it successfully
induces desired perceptions of brand personality, such as “masculine” and “rugged.” As Fazio
and Zanna (1981) pointed out in their seminal
article on attitude formation, direct experience
leads to stronger, more persistent, and more
accessible attitudes than indirect experience.
Consistent with this, Coyle and Thorson
(2001) found that a more vivid website (with
audio and animation) is able to maintain positive
attitudes toward the website even after 2 weeks.
Klein (2003) found that a product website evoked
greater telepresence when it had full-motion
video and audio (compared to only text and still
pictures), leading to stronger acceptance of claims
made on the site. In the context of computermediated communication, Bente, Rggenberg,
Krmer, and Eschenburg (2008) found that realtime audio and video enhance emotional closeness and interpersonal trust of the interaction
partner.
Self-Representation
In addition to vivid audiovisual and haptic
modalities, an increasingly common modality
for experiencing games and other virtual environments is through an avatar. While text allows
you to read about an event, audio to hear it, and
video to see it, avatars let you experience the
396 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
event through a proxy. An avatar is a computergenerated visual representation of a user that can
be customized to fit any desired appearance
(Holzwarth, Janiszewski, & Neumann, 2006; Jin,
2009) and possess human-like characteristics,
such as speech. This can have profound implications for persuasion. By offering a representation
of our own selves, avatars have been known to
change both our online and offline behaviors.
In communication research, the persuasive
effect of avatars has been studied from the lens of
behavioral confirmation theory (Snyder, Tanke,
& Berscheid, 1977), which posits that mediated
human interaction is guided by one’s perception
of the other, with the latter’s behaviors being
affected by this perception to the point of reaffirming the former’s expectations of the latter. In
any given interaction among peoplecomprised
of a perceiver and a targetthe target tends to
behave in a manner that confirms the perceiver’s
expectation of the target.
By extension, in a virtual environment, the
image of an avatar can dictate the avatar user’s
behavior in the virtual world in accordance with
the user’s assumption about how the avatar is
perceived by other users. Yee and Bailenson
(2007) coined the term “Proteus Effect” to signify the tendency among individuals to model
their online behavior after their digital selfrepresentation. In their study, participants who
were assigned attractive avatars showed greater
intimacy with confederates compared to participants assigned unattractive avatars. Likewise, they tended to be more dominant when
their digital representation was a tall, rather
than short, avatar.
Perhaps the more important contribution of
using avatars is that they enhance our ability to
vicariously experience the mediated environment. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001)
has long documented the human tendency to
enact observed action performed by a model,
based on vicarious learning of the consequences
of the action. In traditional media, the model is
typically another human being. But, in virtual
environments, avatars can serve as models. Given
that they are self-representations, the vicarious
experience is likely to be even stronger. Fox and
Bailenson (2009) found that those who observed
their avatars gaining or losing weight in accordance with their physical exercise performed
significantly more exercise in the real world than
those without such vicarious reinforcement.
Self-Presence
While avatars allow users to experience
mediated environments through a proxy, virtual
reality (VR) goes a step further by affording selfpresence of the user in those environments. Selfpresence is defined as the user’s mental model of
their own body being present in the virtual world
(Biocca, 1997). VR is by far the richest modality in
terms of heightening the sense of self-presence in
mediated reality, so much so that simulated
behaviors in a VR setting have become efficient
therapy for curing a traumatic experience from
the same behavior in the real world.
A study on the treatment of driving phobias
in patients following an accident showed that
those who underwent a VR simulation recorded
a significant reduction in travel distress, travel
avoidance, and maladaptive driving strategies
compared to those who were administered a
game version of the treatment (Walshe, Lewis,
Kim, O’Sullivan, & Wiederhold, 2003). In a study
with arachnophobes, Garcia-Palacios, Hoffman,
Carlin, Furness, and Botella (2002) found that
83% of the patients in the VR treatment group
(holding a virtual spider with tactile feedback),
showed clinically significant improvement in
their disorder compared to 0% in the control
group without any treatment.
Spatial Presence
A related construct is spatial presence, which
can be enhanced by navigability affordances that
aid user motion within a virtual environment.
Wirth and colleagues (2007) proposed that gamers use available spatial cues in the mediated
universe to mentally construct a spatial situation
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 397
model (SSM), which serves to shift their primary
ego-reference frame (PERF) from the physical
world to the mediated one. Spatial presence can
be induced by the interior design of virtual environments, but a key element is user navigation
through the mediated space. Game designers are
careful to plot out various navigational pathways
in order to design several absorbing experiences
for the user.
The very act of navigating through a game
world can constitute a compelling narrativea
primary consideration for designers of serious
games for healththat is designed with the persuasive intent of exposing individuals to information in a certain sequence. Balakrishnan and
Sundar (2011) found that the traversibility
afforded by steering motion increased spatial
presence in a virtual space, whereas a guidance
tool negatively affected spatial presence. They
attributed this somewhat counterintuitive result
to the real-world resemblance of the steering
motion and perceived complexity of the guidance
tool employed on a tablet PC dashboard. The
study suggests that in order to promote spatial
presence among users in a mediated environment, navigability tools should be carefully
designed to signify easy access to individual goals.
Transportation
By encompassing and capturing the user’s full
attention, richer modalities simulate the object,
story, and context of persuasion as if they were
occurring in the physical world. Such immersion
(Murray, 1997) in the mediated world is likely to
aid the seamless integration of simulated behaviors into the behavioral script in users’ minds. In
other words, the resulting mental imagery of the
situations portrayed in the fictional world is so
vivid that they seem to directly apply to their
corresponding real-world situations. Also called
transportation (Green & Brock, 2000), this
heightened level of immersion experienced by
individuals in virtual narrative worlds can explain
the persuasive effects of rich modalities, such as
interactive virtual environments and video games.
Chapter 13 in this volume on narrative persuasion identifies four mechanisms: narrative
makes readers or viewers less likely to counterargue the persuasive message, more likely to elaborate on it, provide imagery to help process the
message, and lead them to vicariously experience
the characters’ fates. Empirical findings from
previous research suggest that richer modalities
can facilitate this process of narrative persuasion
by inducing greater degree of transportation to
the mediated world. An interactive virtual environment with a narrative has been shown to
reduce risky behaviors among men who have sex
with men compared to
alone (Read et al., 2006). Likewise, Wang and
Calder (2006) found that transporting individuals in a narrative setting helps create better product recall and leads to subsequent purchase.
In sum, modalities in newer media have aided
the persuasion process by rendering content more
vivid, transporting users to an alternate reality,
and affording them greater self-representation,
self-presence, and spatial presence.
Access to Information
Modern media technologies do not simply
provide information, but situate them in particular spatial configurations for users to access,
using a variety of online tools, such as toolbars
and offline tools such as joysticks. Information
of importance can sometimes appear in layered
form for users to explore. Interface features can
be deeply suggestive of the ways in which users
can move from one location to another in
mediated environments, in keeping with spatial
metaphors such as “site” and “cyberspace.”
Navigability affordances on the interface that
determine how users move in a mediated environment can therefore serve the critical role of
improving user access to persuasive messages.
They facilitate easier access to pertinent information, and in doing so, reduce search costs
and cognitive burden for users. A growing body
of literature in marketing also indicates that
398 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
navigational tools for sorting and comparing
product information have positive effects on
consumers’ attitudes toward shopping, as well as
toward specific products. A simple reduction of
search cost can positively affect users’ attitudes.
For example, Lynch and Ariely (2000) found
that search cost reductions accruing from navigational ease in comparison shopping decreased
price sensitivity among users, increased their
liking for the products that they selected, and
maintained their retention probability when
they were contacted two months later.
Navigability affordances can also provide useful cues to focus user attention toward relevant
information and minimize effort in locating it.
Information foraging theory (e.g., Pirolli, 2007;
Pirolli & Card, 1999) suggests that online users’
behavior patterns related to information consumption are influenced by the information
scent emitted by cues on the interface, which
provide hints about content in distal locations.
When the interface is navigable and accessible in
this way, it produces positive outcomes for persuasion. For instance, users of a comprehensive
health system with navigation support and decision analysis tools perceived better quality of life,
higher health care competence, and greater social
support compared to those with only simple
Internet access (Gustafson et al., 2008). Likewise,
adding a search option for personal stories
related to breast cancer significantly influenced
users’ attitudes toward coping with cancer (Overberg et al., 2010).
While navigation tools afford information at
the right place, pervasive and ubiquitous computing technologies make information available at
the right time. Systems that enable just-in-time
messaging (Intille, 2002) have been known to
change people’s behaviors. Examples include a
mobile phone application for helping people lose
weight by tracking their calorie intake, and a
mobile system for helping people quit smoking by
suggesting decreasing frequency of daily smoking.
In an environment of information overload,
search and navigational tools serve to provide
much-needed scaffolding to users, helping them
access relevant information with ease and reducing the burden of searching, thereby enhancing
user experience of the mediated environment
and contributing to persuasion outcomes.
Persuasive Potential of
Technologies
The discussion thus far covers a variety of theoretical mechanisms via which communication
technologies aid the process of persuasion. Even
though some of the work reviewed in previous
sections was not intended to inform persuasion
theory, they hold key insights for theory and
design of persuasive technologies.
First, it is quite clear that technology is an
alternative source of persuasive messages. The
source need not always be human. Even websites,
robots, avatars, and virtual agents can persuade
people. Such attributes of technological sources
as expertise (e.g., Hu 8c Sundar, 2010), specialization (e.g., Koh & Sundar, 2010a; 2010b), attractiveness (e.g. Yee, Bailenson, 8c Ducheneaut,
2009), similarity (e.g., Fox 8c Bailenson, 2009),
anthropomorphism (Zanbaka, Goolkasian, 8c
Hodges, 2006) and perceived realism (e.g. Guadagno, Blascovich, Bailenson, 8c McCall, 2007) can
affect how individuals evaluate their credibility.
Technology is also shown to affect perceptions
of content credibility and level of user engagement. As detailed in previous sections, affordances related to modality, agency, interactivity,
and navigability of communication technologies
not only affect how individuals perceive message
content, but also their level of engagement with
it (e.g., Sundar, Xu, Bellur, Oh, 8c Jia, 2011) and
subsequent evaluations (e.g. Sundar, 2000;
Sundar 8c Marathe, 2010).
Perhaps most important, our review reveals
that technological factors affect the process of
persuasion by changing user attitudes and behaviors. Attitudinal outcomes include brand or
product evaluation (e.g., Fransen, Fennis, 8c
Pruyn, 2010; Schlosser, 2003), willingness to
pay (e.g., Franke et al., 2009), attitudes toward
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 399
website (e.g., Liu & Shrum, 2009), attitudes
toward political candidates featured on websites
(Sundar et al 2003), and attitudes about messages advocated by virtual agents (Guadagno,
Blascovich, Bailenson, & McCall, 2007). Behavioral
outcomes include browsing activity (Kalyanaraman
& Sundar, 2006), reducing undesirable behaviors
(e.g., Noar, Pierce, & Black, 2010), increasing
desirable behaviors (e.g., Baranowski, Buday,
Thompson, & Baranowski, 2008), and pursuing a
healthy lifestyle (e.g., Campbell et al., 1994;
Marcus et al., 2007).
Conclusion
This chapter represents a move away from treating persuasive technologies as mere vessels for
holding and carrying persuasive messages. By
now, it should be clear even to the casual reader
that aspects of these technologies themselves
contribute to persuasion outcomes in significant
ways. This is not simply a matter of explaining
additional variance, however. Instead, it is a matter of assessing how different aspects of the technology can contribute to persuasion in different
ways. While this chapter has attempted to delineate the theoretical mechanisms by which technological factors influence the persuasion process,
much work remains to be done in developing
and testing specific theoretical questions.
For example, under the first mechanism
described in this chapter, it is important for us to
investigate both the nature of interface cues that
trigger cognitive heuristics and ways in which the
heuristics result in persuasion outcomes. Sometimes, the sheer presence of an affordance on an
interface can serve as a cue (e.g., a fancy modality
such as 3-D carousel leading to the “bells and
whistles” heuristic). At other times, cues appear in
the form of metrics (e.g., bandwagon indicators)
that are an outcome of affordances seeking user
input. It is unclear if both these types of cues
operate in a similar fashion in influencing persuasion, or whether they trigger heuristics in distinct
ways. Further, a methodological challenge is to
accurately track when a user invokes a given heuristic during their interaction with a technology
(Bellur & Sundar, 2010).
Considerable conceptual, theoretical, and
methodological work remains to be done with the
other mechanisms as well. Allowing the user to be
the source is one of the hallmarks of web 2.0, with
social media applications being deployed daily to
produce persuasive outcomes. Users seem to be
seduced by the ability to act as sources, given that
it increases their sense of agency, identity, and
self-determination. While this speaks to the stickiness of the persuasive technologies themselves
(i.e., it may guarantee repeat usage of the interface), the translation into outcomes of persuasion
(such as positive attitudes and behaviors) is yet to
be mapped out. Likewise, the relationship between
engagement with the tool and engagement with
the persuasive content needs further theoretical as
well as empirical exploration.
Considerable investments in persuasive communications have already been made in the
domain of games and other virtual environments, but most rely on simple exposure, and
tend to treat alternate realities as just additional
media for mass communications. While navigational tools have been deployed effectively by
sites and apps, empirically verified mechanisms
related to self-representation, self-presence, and
spatial presence are yet to be systematically translated into practice.
A particular challenge for both theoreticians
and practitioners is the integration of the effects
of persuasive technologies with those of persuasive messages. The future lies in proposing
interaction hypotheses that predict combined
effects of specific technological variables and
specific source, message and user variables
identified by traditional persuasion research.
Technological affordances related to modality,
agency, interactivity, and navigability could
amplify, neutralize, or negate long-held persuasion findings by serving as cues on the interface,
modifying the manifestation of persuasive content, and changing the nature of user engagement in the process of persuasion. Together,
400 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
persuasive messages and persuasive technologies
will serve to shape the meaning and outcomes
of persuasive communications.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) via Standard Grant
No. IIS-0916944 and by the Korea Science and
Engineering Foundation under the WCU (World
Class University) program at the Department of
Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University,
Seoul, South Korea (Grant No. R31-2008-000-
10062-0).
References
Balakrishnan, B., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). Where am I?
How can I get there? Impact of navigability and
narrative transportation on spatial presence.
Human Computer Interaction, 26, 161-204.
Bandura, A. ( 1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass
communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299.
Bang, M Torstensson, C & Katzeff, C. (2006). The
power house: A persuasive computer game designed to raise awareness of domestic energy consumption. In W. A. IJsselsteijn, Y. A. W. De Kort,
C. J. H. Midden, J. H. Eggen 8c E. A. W. H. Van den
Hoven (Eds.), Persuasive 2006 (pp. 123-132).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Baranowski, T., Buday, R., Thompson, D., 8c Baranowski,
J. (2008). Playing for real: Video games and stories
for health-related behavior change. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 74-82.
Bellur, S., 8c Sundar, S. S. (2010, June). How can we tell
when a heuristic has been used? Models for measurement of heuristics. Paper presented at the 60th
annual conference of the International Communication Association, Singapore.
Bente, G., Rggenberg, S., Krmer, N. C., 8c Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking:
Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust
in Net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34, 287-318.
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive
embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 1-29.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A. Jr., Dunbar, N.
E Kam, K 8c Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in
interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.
Campbell, M. K Devellis, B. M Strecher, V. J.,
Ammerman, A. S., Devellis, R. F., 8c Sandler, R. S.
(1994). Improving dietary behavior: The effectiveness of tailored messages in primary-care
settings. American Journal of Public Health, 84,
783-787.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion.
In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, 8c C. P. Herman
(Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium
(Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coner, A. (2003). Personalization and customization
in financial portals. Journal of American Academy
of Business, 2, 498-504.
Coyle, J. R., 8c Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in
web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30,
65-77.
Dillard, J. P. (2010). Persuasion. In C. R. Berger, M. E.
Roloff, 8c D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 203-218).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience
and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz
(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 14, pp. 161-202). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Firpo, D., Kasemvilas, S., Ractham, P., 8c Zhang, X.
(2009). Generating a sense of community in a
graduate educational setting through persuasive
technology. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive
2009). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technologies: Using computer power to change attitudes and behaviors. San
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Fogg, B. J., Lee, E 8c Marshall, J. (2002). Interactive
technology and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard and
M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 765-788).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 401
Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual self-modeling: The
effects of vicarious reinforcement and identification
on exercise behaviors. Media Psychology, 12,1-25.
Franke, N Schreier, M & Kaiser, U. (2009). The “I
designed it myself” effect in mass customization.
Management Science, 56, 125-140.
Fransen, M. L Fennis, B. M & Pruyn, A. H. (2010).
Matching Communication modalities: The
effects of modality congruence and processing
style on brand evaluation and brand choice.
Communication Research, 37, 576-598.
Garcia-Palaciosa, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A.,
Furness, T. A., Ill, & Botella, C. (2002). Virtual
reality in the treatment of spider phobia: A controlled study. Behavior Research and Therapy, 40,
983-993.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79, 701-721.
Guadagno, R., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J., & McCall, C.
(2007). Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects
of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10, 1-22 .
Gustafson, D. H., Hawkins, R., McTavish, F., Pingree,
S., Chen, W. C., Volrathongchai, K et al. (2008).
Internet-based interactive support for cancer
patients: Are integrated systems better? Journal of
Communication, 58, 238-257.
Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M.,
8c Dijkstra, A. (2008). Understanding tailoring in
communicating about health. Health Education
Research, 23, 454-466.
Holbert, R. L. (2002). The embodied meaning of media
forms. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and
practice (pp. 749-764). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., & Neumann, M. M.
(2006). The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing,
70, 19-36.
Hu, Y & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Effects of online health
sources on credibility and behavioral intentions.
Communication Research, 37(1), 105-132.
Intille, S. S. (2002). Designing a home of the future.
IEEE Pervasive Computing, 1, 80-86.
lerant, A., Kravitz, R. L., Rooney, M., Arnerson, S.,
Kreuter, M., 8c Franks, P. (2007). Effects of a tailored interactive multimedia computer program
on determinants of colorectal cancer screening: A
randomized controlled pilot study in physician
offices. Patient Education and Counseling, 66,
67-74.
Jin , S.-A. A. (2009). Modality effects in second life:
The mediating role of social presence and the
moderating role of product involvement. Cyber
Psychology and Behavior, 12, 717-721.
Jin, S.-A. A. (2010). Effects of 3D virtual haptics force
feedback on brand personality perception: The
mediating role of physical presence in advergames. Cyber Psychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13, 307-311.
Kalyanaraman, S., 8c Sundar, S. S. (2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in
web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication,
56, 110-132.
Kim, H. S., 8c Sundar, S. S. (2011). Using interface cues
in online health community boards to change
impressions and encourage user contribution.
Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’l 1),
599-608.
Klein, L. R. (2003). Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17, 41-55. doi: 10.1002/dir.l0046
Koh, Y. J., 8c Sundar, S. S. (2010a). Effects of specialization in computers, web sites and web agents on
e-commerce trust. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 68, 899-912.
Koh, Y. J., 8c Sundar, S. S. (2010b). Heuristic versus
systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36, 103-124.
Liu, Y., 8c Shrum, L. I. (2009). A dual-process model of
interactivity effects. Journal of Advertising, 38,
53-68.
Lombard, M 8c Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all:
The concept of presence. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 3. doi: 10.1111/j
.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lynch, J. G 8c Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search
costs affect competition on price, quality and
distribution. Marketing Science, 19, 83-103.
Marathe, S 8c Sundar, S. S. (2011). What drives customization? Control or identity? Proceedings of
the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI’l 1), 781-790.
402 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
Marcus, B. H., Lewis, B. A, Williams, D. M., Dunsiger,
S., Jakicic, J. M Whiteley, J. A., et al. (2007). A
comparison of Internet and print-based physical
activity interventions. Archives of internal medicine, 167, 944-949.
McCalley, T Kaiser, F Midden, C. J. H Keser, M &
Teunissen, M. (2006). Persuasive appliances: Goal
priming and behavioral response to productintegrated energy feedback. In W. A. IJsselsteijn,
Y. A. W. De Kort, C. J. H. Midden, J. H. Eggen, &
E. A. W. H Van den Hoven (Eds.), Persuasive 2006
(pp. 45-49). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
McMillan, D. W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal
of Community Psychology, 24, 315-325.
McMillan, D. W & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of
community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010).
Social and heuristic approaches to credibility
evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60,
413-439.
Miller, G. R. (1980). On being persuaded. In M. Roloff
8c G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions
in theory and research (pp. 11-28). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of
narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Nass, C., & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-based approach. In
J. Fulk 8c C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations and
communication technology (pp. 46-67). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Noar, S. M Pierce, L. B 8c Black, H. G. (2010). Can
computer-mediated interventions change theoretical mediators of safer sex? A meta-analysis.
Human Communication Research, 36, 261-297.
Norton, M. I., Mochon, D 8c Ariely, D. (2011). The
‘IKEA Effect’: When labor leads to love. Harvard
Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper
No. 11-091. Retrieved from SSRN, May 11, 2012:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1777100
Oenema, A., Brug, J., Dijkstra, A., de Weerdt, I., 8c de
Vries, H. (2008). Efficacy and use of an internetdelivered computer-tailored lifestyle intervention, targeting saturated fat intake, physical
activity and smoking cessation: A randomized
controlled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35,
125-135.
Overberg, R., Otten, W., de Man, A., Toussaint, P.,
Westenbrink, ]., 8c Zwetsloot-Schonk, B. (2010).
How breast cancer patients want to search for and
retrieve information from stories of other patients
on the Internet: An online randomized controlled
experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research,
12(1). doi:10.2196/jmir.l215
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay,
G., 8c Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust:
Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
12. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://jcmc
.indiana.edu/vol 12/issue3/pan.html
Petty, R. E., 8c Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication
and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to
attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E Wheeler, S. C., 8c Bizer, G. Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration
likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we
evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133-162).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., 8c Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state
of psychological ownership: Integrating and
extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84-107.
Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive
interaction with information. Cambridge, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging.
Psychological Review, 106, 643-675.
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to
communication. In R. Hawkins, J. Weimann, 8c
S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes
(pp. 124-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Read S. J., Miller, L. C Appleby, P. R., Nwosu, M. E
Reynaldo, S., Lauren, A., et al. (2006). Socially
optimized learning in a virtual environment:
Reducing risky sexual behavior among men who
have sex with men. Human Communication
Research, 3, 1-34.
Reeves, B., 8c Nass, C. (1996). The media equation.
Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Reeves, B., 8c Nass, C. (2000). Perceptual user interfaces: Perceptual bandwidth. Communications of
the ACM, 4, 65-70.
Richardson, C. R., Buis, L. R., Janney, A. W., Goodrich,
D. E Sen, A., Hess, M. L et al. (2010). An online
Chapter 23. How Does Technology Persuade? 403
community improves adherence in an internetmediated walking program, part 1: Results of a
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical
Internet Research, 24. doi: 10.2196/jmr.l338
Ryan, R. M & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as
related to cognition and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 131-148.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the
virtual world: The rule of goal and imagery in
influencing attitudes versus purchase intentions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 184-198.
Snyder, M Tanke, E. D & Berscheid, E. (1977).
Social perception and interpersonal behavior:
On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
656-666.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions
determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 73-93.
Strecher, V. J., McClure, J., Alexander, G., Chakraborty,
B Nair, V., Konkel, J., et al. (2008). The role of
engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: Randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10(5).
doi: 10.2196/jmir. 1002
Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing
and perception of online news: A study of picture,
audio, and video downloads. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 77, 480-499.
Sundar, S. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity
in human-website interaction. In A. N. Joinson,
K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, 8c U. D. Reips
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Sundar, S. S. (2008a). The MAIN model: A heuristic
approach to understanding technology effects on
credibility. In M. J. Metzger 8c A. J. Flanagin
(Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility
(pp. 72-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sundar, S. S. (2008b). Self as source: Agency and customization in interactive media. In E. Konijn, S.
Utz, M. Tanis, 8c S. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 58-74). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Sundar, S. S. (2009). Media effects 2.0: Social and psychological effects of communication technologies. In R. L. Nabi 8c M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of media processes and effects
(pp. 545-560). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sundar, S. S., 8i Bellur, S. (2010). Concept explication
in the internet age: The case of interactivity. In
E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for
political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 485-500).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sundar, S. S Bellur, S Oh, J., Jia, H 8c Kim, H. S.
(2012, May). The importance of message contingency: An experimental investigation of interactivity in an online search site. Paper presented at the
62nd annual conference of the International
Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Sundar, S. S Bellur, S. Oh, J., Xu, Q 8c Jia, H. (2011).
User experience of on-screen interaction techniques:
An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding,
zooming, hovering, dragging and flipping. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sundar, S. S., 8c Constantin, C. (2004). Does interacting
with media enhance news memory? Automatic vs.
controlled processing of interactive news features.
Paper presented at the 54th annual conference of
the International Communication Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Sundar, S. S., Kalyanaraman, S., 8c Brown, J. (2003).
Explicating website interactivity: Impressionformation effects in political campaign sites.
Communication Research, 30, 30-59.
Sundar, S. S., 8c Kim, J. (2005). Interactivity and persuasion: Influencing attitudes with information
and involvement. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5, 6-29. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from http://
www.jiad.org/article59
Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. (2010). Personalization
versus customization: The importance of agency,
privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research, 36, 298-322.
Sundar, S. S., 8c Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing
sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52-72.
Sundar, S. S Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., 8c Xu, Q. (2008). The
bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Proceedings of CHI’08 Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 26,
3453-3458.
404 PART III. Contexts, Settings, and Applications
Sundar, S. S Oh, J., Bellur, S., Jia, H & Kim, H. S.
(2012). Interactivity as self-expression: A field
experiment with customization and blogging.
Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12),
395-404.
Sundar, S. S Xu, Q., Bellur, S., Jia, H Oh, J., & Khoo,
G-S. (2010, June). Click, drag, flip, and mouseover: Effects of modality interactivity on user
engagement with web content. Paper presented at
the 60th annual conference of the International
Communication Association, Singapore.
Sundar, S. S Xu, Q Bellur, S Oh, J., & Jia, H. (2011).
Beyond pointing and clicking: How do newer
interaction modalities affect user engagement?
Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHIEA’ll), 1477-1482.
Sundar, S. S Xu, Q., 8c Dou, X. (2012). Role of technology in online persuasion: A MAIN Model
perspective. In S. Rodgers 8c E. Thorson (Eds.),
Advertising theory (pp. 355-372). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sundar, S. S Xu, Q., 8c Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2009).
Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence
users. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI’09), 27, 4231-4236.
Walshe, D. G Lewis, E. J., Kim, S. I., O’Sullivan, K 8c
Wiederhold, B. K. (2003). Exploring the use of
computer games and virtual reality in exposure
therapy for fear of driving following a motor
vehicle accident. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 6,
329-334.
Wang, J., 8c Calder, B. J. (2006), Media transportation
and advertising. Journal of Consumer Research,
33(2), 151-162.
Weissman, J. R. (1988). Have it your way: What happens
when users control the interface. In M. A. Siegel
(Eds.), Design and evaluation of computer/human
interfaces: Issues for librarians and information scientists (pp. 95-104). Urbana, IL: Graduate School
of Library and Information Science, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Bocking, S., Vorderer,
P., Klimmt, C Schramm, H et al. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence
experiences. Media Psychology, 9, 493-525.
Wise, K., Hamman, B 8c Thorson, K. (2006). Moderation, response rate, and message interactivity:
Features of online communities and their effects
on intent to participate. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12, 24-41.
Yee, N 8c Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus effect:
The effect of transformed self-representation on
behavior. Human Communication Research, 33,
271-290.
Yee, N Bailenson, J. N 8c Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The
Proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline
behavior. Communication Research, 36, 285-312.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement
construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
341-352.
Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., 8c Hodges, L. F. (2006).
Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender
and realism in speaker persuasiveness. Proceedings
of CHI 2006, 1153-1162.

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

The post Redistribution of copyrighted material Essay appeared first on UK Superior Essays.