+

An Introduction to CaptologyCurrent Issues in Web TechnologyMichael Heron

+Introduction

This week we start on our third and last topic. Captology, which is a term that you may never have heard before.

It brings together some of the threads of previous topics, but is an area of academic study all of its own.

It can be thought of more simply as ‘persuasive technology’. Technology which is used to change the attitudes and behaviours

of people.

Term derives from an Acronym: Computers As Persuasive Technology

It’s a fast growing field, with considerable professional and academic attention being paid.

+Nudge

First of all, let’s talk about a different topic. The concept of the ‘nudge’

We’re full of cognitive biases, as has come up several times during the module. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

Let’s let one of the originator’s of the term describe it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoA8N6nJMRs

Nudging can be a controversial technique. Claims of social engineering or big brother thought control.

The fact is you are almost always going to ‘nudge’ when you offer someone a choice.

+Nudge

One of the canonical example of a nudge is that of the ‘opt-in’. When asking people if they want to do something, do you make

it opt-in or opt-out? The choice you make will greatly influence compliance rates.

As we discussed last week, cognitive effort must be expended to work through thoughts and tasks. And deciding to opt-in to something is a cognitive demanding

task that is aversive.

Making it out-out inverts the cost. It’s more costly to opt out than it is to opt in. Tickles the ‘status quo’ effect.

+Nudge

In Captology, we talk about ‘compliance rates’. The number of people who end up complying with what we

have decided are ‘approved’ goals. Opting in to some kind of decision for an example.

Captology is not an exact science. As with games and social networking, the devil is in the details.

Correctly providing the right kinds of choices in the right kinds of ways however will greatly increase compliance rates. So much so it’s actually a little frightening at times.

That is the work of a ‘choice architect’

+Anchoring

Some choices that are presented to people are little more than a card trick. Pick a card, any card, you’ll always pick the one that

magician wanted you to pick.

Anchoring is the cognitive bias that results in us placing too much emphasis on the first piece of information we are given.

+Anchoring

Anchoring allows a choice architect to set your standards of comparison. It’s how we can quickly assess which of the presented

options we wish to accept.

However, it can be used to distort our sense of value. ‘I wasn’t planning to pay $20! I’ll just give them $10’ Before you saw the options, you probably weren’t even

planning to give them $10.

Anchoring is tremendously difficult to avoid. And has a big impact on compliance.

+Anchoring

Strack and Mussweiler (1997) conducted the following simple experiment: ‘Did Mahatma Gandhi die before or after age 9?’ ‘Did Mahatma Gandhi die before or after age 140?’

Participants answered and then guessed the actual age he died. Average age of 50 for the first question Average age of 67 for the second

Anchoring is very difficult to avoid. A prime candidate for nudging.

+Framing

Framing is a cousin of anchoring, and comes into effect when choices are confused with ‘irrelevant’ options.

Dan Ariely discussed this in relation to a pricing system he noticed for subscriptions The Economist: Online Access - $59.00 Print Access - $125.00 Print and Online Access = $125.00

Whaaa?

Let’s see what happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOhb4LwAaJk

+Framing

Framing also comes into play when providing a range of options. Do I get the cheap toaster at £20? Do I get the more expensive toaster at £50?

I’m not some fancy toast maker with all kinds of fancy toast to make, so I’ll just get the cheap one.

What if there’s a middle option? An expensive toaster at £200

It shouldn’t make much a difference. But it does – more people will go for the £50 toaster than

they would if given only two choices.

+Framing and Anchoring

The important thing in both these techniques is that nothing has objectively changed. Your need for the toaster is no different. The pros and cons of the different kinds of toasters remained the

same.

Rationally speaking, adding an irrelevant option should not make a difference.

Rationally speaking, we shouldn’t base our willingness to comply on the first option we’re given.

We do, because the idea of ‘Homo Economicus’ is largely bunkum. As Dan Ariely says, we’re not just irrational we’re irrational in

depressingly predictable ways.

+The Foot in the Door Technique

People are more likely to comply with a large request after complying with a small request. Cognitive dissonance, our old friend, comes into play here.

We feel a psychological need to act consistently with our previous actions.

As long as the larger request is in the same general category as the smaller request, compliance rates increase. And sometimes, quite significantly.

Mirrored by the door in the face technique. Ask for something preposterous and then climbing down to

something less obnoxious. You may recognise this from much governmental policy.

+Wait… remember when you said ‘technology’?

These effects are part of the toolkit of someone looking to make use of Captology. They form part of the suite of techniques you can incorporate

into technology to get people to actually use it.

Within the field of captology, we are looking to bring about ‘positive’ change through the application of technology. Sometimes long terms, sometimes not.

Captology is all around you. Working on you through multiple different channels.

So, how do we make it happen? All images in the next few slides taken from

http://www.behaviormodel.org/.

+Fogg Behavioural Model

+Captology

Captology seeks to: Lower the cost to perform actions. Increase the benefit to performing actions.

The FBM defines three core motivators: Pleasure/Pain, Hope/Fear, Social Acceptance/Rejection

The FBM defines six simplicity factors: Time, money, physical effort, brain cycles, social deviance,

non-routine

It defines three types of trigger: Facilitators, Sparks, Signals

+Fogg Behavioural Model

+Fogg Behavioural Model

Three things need to line up. They need the motivation to perform an action. They need the ability to perform an action. They need to be triggered to perform the action.

I want to keep up with my social networks (motivated)

I have an account for Facebook and I know how to login (ability)

I want to see what my friends have been saying about the newest episode of <some TV show> (trigger)

If we want to change behaviours, we look where there is a lack in one of those three, and adjust it. Triggers are usually the easiest of these.

+Motivators

We’ve talked about motivators quite a bit over the last few weeks. ‘Why people do things’ has been core to many of the lectures.

Techniques we have already discussed can work to aid in motivation. Gamification, for example, is a prime method of addressing

motivation. And gamification, whilst having similar goals to captology, is a

more limited subject.

We can motivate by increasing pleasure, hope or social acceptance.

We can motivate by decreasing pain, fear or social rejection.

+Ability

We are Cost/Benefit Optimisers. The human mind is incredibly good at this role.

When something is more cost than justifies its benefit, we won’t do it.

We can either reduce the cost (simplicity of interaction or training) or increase the benefit (motivations).

Training is costly, and falls foul of the c/b analysis in itself. People need to see the benefit of undergoing the training to justify

the cost.

A simpler path is to reduce the cost of interaction. Reduce the barriers that are in people’s way.

+Ability

Each of us in this room is massively ahead of the technology curve. For every person who knows how to use a computer, there

are several who don’t. That ratio is of course changing every year.

As such, we tend to dramatically overestimate the technical ability of muggles. Dramatically.

One of the experiments I did for my PhD involved getting older users to step through some simple Word and Internet Explorer tasks. It was… instructive.

+Ability

Good interface design is a key lever for captology. Make the behaviour you want from people easy to do.

If people need to go looking to find out how to accomplish a task, they won’t do it. In general, if you want the lowest cost for someone to do

something it has to have a big ol’ button right on the front. The more work it takes, the less chance they will seek out

how to accomplish a goal. Work can be anything from reading a manual to clicking

through some links. Don’t underestimate the impact that costly activities have

on compliance.

+Trigger

Triggers are the tool you use to create a certain kind of behaviour at a certain time in a certain way. Facebook is a master of this.

Emails that say you’ve been tagged in a photo. Emails that you haven’t logged into your account in a

while.

+Trigger

The FBM defines three kinds of trigger. Facilitators, for high motivation but low ability Signals for high motivation and high ability Sparks for high ability and low motivation. (Don’t expect to be able to trigger low ability low motivation

individuals)

A good piece of persuasive technology will have all three kinds of triggers.

Some will need to be unobtrusive. Nobody likes being nagged.

Others will be more in your face.

+Triggers

Facilitators provides a mechanism for the behaviour that is easy to perform. Virus updates on one click. Address book uploaders for social networks.

Sparks act as a way to inspire interaction. Look what your friends have been doing with that thing you

know how to do. Your friends are using this technology in a way that is

leaving you behind.

Signals function simply as a reminder. Hey, remember that thing that you like? Well, see you.

+Individual Exercise

Watch Dan Ariely talk about our own behaviours: http://

www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Have a read of the following papers: http://bjfogg.com/fbm_files/page4_1.pdf http://bjfogg.com/hci.pdf

Research the following cognitive biases for further information: Anchoring Framing Foot in the Door

+Conclusion

Captology is a powerful technique for getting people to engage with technology. Built on two key principles.

An understanding of psychology and cognitive biases. An understanding of technology behavioural models.

Captology is a controversial subject. And you will likely have your own view as to how clean you feel

when applying it.

Nudging is almost impossible to avoid. And so, nudge responsibly?

We are almost always persuading someone with technology. Even if we don’t realise it.