A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change  
with the Use of Persuasive Technology 
Ana Pintar 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Slovenia 
pintar.ana4@gmail.com 
Jure Erjavec 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Slovenia 
jure.erjavec@ef.uni-lj.si 
Purpose: There is limited integration of behaviour theories and persuasive technology 
on behavioural change. Previous research calls for employing behaviour change 
theories to inform their persuasive designs and illustrate how the theories used are 
linked to the design features. This paper proposes integrating two theoretical models 
– the compelling system design and the transtheoretical model – to identify which 
persuasive interventions work best for the user to progress through different stages of 
behavioural change. 
Study design/methodology/approach: We performed an in-depth literature review 
of the transtheoretical model and persuasive system design, followed by an initial 
framework conceptualization. The initial framework was validated and finalized 
through in-depth interviews of individuals who have practiced the behaviour change 
for at least half a year. 
Findings: This paper has successfully identified the persuasive system design features 
and mapped them onto the transtheoretical model stages of change. The stages can be 
reduced into early and late stages. Consequently, we have developed a framework for 
designing behavioural change using persuasive technology and validated it through 
empirical research. 
Originality/value: The findings have practical implications for understanding which 
principles UI and UX and designers should follow when designing products for 
behavioural change. Moreover, our work provides insights and recommendations for 
the future design of persuasive interventions that consider the transtheoretical model 
of change. 
Keywords: persuasive technology, behavioural change, compelling system design, 
transtheoretical model 
Introduction 
Smartphones and other mobile devices have become an omnipresent attribute of our daily lives. 
We use them as a tool that offers new ways of creating, accessing, and sharing information. As 
a result, numerous applications are being developed that are constantly present in our daily 
lives. Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) refer to this phenomenon as technology that is 
"always-on" and influences people's attitudes and behaviour in one way or another. Technology 
creators have taken advantage of this and keep developing information technology systems to 
change users' attitudes and behaviour. Fogg (2002) defined this as a persuasive technology, 
which has been a well-established trend in the domain of human-computer interaction design 
and denotes the use of computer technology, focused on the interfaces between people and 
computers. To that end, a comprehensive framework to design and evaluate systems was 
developed, termed the persuasive system design (PSD) model, laid out by Oinas, Kukkonen, 
and Harjumaa (2009). PSD model identifies three potential successful outcomes: 1) voluntary 
reinforcement, 2) change or shaping attitudes, and 3) change or shaping of behaviours. 
Persuasive technology revolves around observing humans' interaction with computers and 
studying how to design technology that allows people to communicate in a new way. This 
highlights the need to incorporate the psychology of human behaviour in building persuasive 
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning | ISSN 2232-5697
                    Volume 10 (2021) 75–84 | https://www.doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.10.75-84
technology, so those intervention strategies are designed around psychological and social 
theories. However, some consideration has been given to applying some of the most promising 
behavioural change theories to the study of persuasive technologies. Scholars have pointed out 
the need to employ behaviour change theories to inform their persuasive design and illustrate 
how the theories are linked to design features. Based on the systematic review (Orji & Moffatt, 
2018), it was identified that approximately 74 per cent of research did not put in use any 
behaviour theories when designing persuasive systems. However, among employed theories, 
the transtheoretical model (TTM) was the most frequently used model.  
The TTM describes five stages of change through which individuals progress when exhibiting 
new behaviour: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Each 
stage is characterized by different intervention strategies that are most effective for the 
individual to progress and reach the ideal stage of behaviour - the maintenance phase (Ferron 
& Massa, 2013). Thus, the purpose behind the TTM is to tailor to specific stages by using 
activities that support progression through the stages and techniques to build self-efficacy and 
avoid temptation. Enabling behaviour change to be consistent and longstanding is an open 
challenge; consequently, combining it with persuasive design opens a new field of 
opportunities. 
Despite the growing body of research in both areas, there is limited integration of behaviour 
theories and persuasive technology on behavioural change. In this respect, previous research 
(Orji & Moffatt, 2018; Ludden & Hekkert, 2014; Aldenaini, Oyebode, Orji & Sampalli, 2020) 
calls for researchers and developers to employ behaviour change theories to inform their 
persuasive designs. Moreover, it should be illustrated how the theories used are linked to the 
design features.  
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to propose the integration of two theoretical models – 
the persuasive system design and the transtheoretical model to identify which persuasive 
interventions work best for the user to progress through different stages of the TTM. The main 
research question is that we try to answer is how to use the PSD to support individual stages of 
the TTM. This is further explored by identifying which stages of the TTM benefit the most 
from the PSD and which PSD elements can be applied in a particular stage of the TTM for 
designing persuasive technology. 
The paper aims at filling the gap between persuasion system design and behavioural theory. 
The following two sections provide an overview of the transtheoretical model and persuasive 
system design, followed by an overview of the methodology. Based on theoretical overview 
and empirical validation, we then develop a framework of design intervention strategies based 
on the PSD that works best at a particular stage of the TTM and support user progress through 
the different TTM stages. Finally, the paper's conclusion offers an overview of our research 
results and discusses limitations and potential further research. 
Persuasive system design 
Persuasion is defined as attempting to change attitudes or behaviours or both without using 
coercion or deception (Fogg, 2002). It denotes influencing one's beliefs towards an idea using 
different tools or communication approaches to convey feelings or messages. Ideally, 
persuasion should bring the user to abandon some habits and adopt another. However, there are 
three possible outcomes: reinforcement, change, and shape (Oinas-kukkonen & Harjumaa, 
2008). Some examples of planned effects might be persuading people to buy things online, 
reminding people to drink more water, and motivating people to take stretch breaks after 
extended periods of desk work. Persuasive technology is “an interactive computing system 
designed to change people’s attitudes or behaviour” (Fogg, 2002). In a broader sense, 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 76
persuasive technology incorporates insights from psychology into the design of digital 
products, such as mobile apps, websites, or wearables. The purpose behind it is to modify or 
change the individual’s behaviour. 
Designing persuasive technology is not an easy process to follow; thus, it requires numerous 
techniques and strategies to succeed. In his book, Fogg (2002) introduced the functional triad 
as a framework that highlights the roles of computing products and makes it easier to design 
persuasive systems. Firstly, computers can take the role of social actors by creating 
relationships, rewarding users with positive feedback, and providing social support. Secondly, 
computers as a medium provide an experience that motivates and helps people practice 
behaviour. Lastly, computers can serve as tools by increasing capability, making activities 
easier to do, leading people through the process, and performing calculations that motivate the 
user towards achieving a target behaviour. 
The critical framework disadvantage is the limited possibility of strategies directly applied 
when designing persuasive systems; therefore, Persuasive System Design (PSD) was proposed 
(Oinas-Kukkonen, 2009). It is comprised out of three core elements: 7 postulates behind 
persuasive systems, 3 ways to analyse the context, and 28 design principles. Thus, PSD consists 
of three key steps; firstly, to understand the assumptions behind persuasive systems, analyse 
the context, and draw out design principles.  
The PSD’s postulates are standards used to meet non-functional software requirements. The 
context can either be an intent, which includes the persuader and the change type, an event, 
which analyses the context of use, the user context, and the technology context; or a strategy, 
which includes the need to identify the route and message. The context itself describes the 
situation within which something happens, and the issue must be situated in the context before 
we can understand it. Hence, the persuasion context is used to consider conditions where 
persuasion takes place, and it is a crucial step first to understand and later promote behaviour 
change. The final stage of the PSD framework is divided into four categories of design 
principles: primary task support, dialogue support, system credibility, and social support. 
Various techniques for designing actual features, content, and functionality are defined in each 
category, so the artefact ends up being more persuasive. The purpose is to understand what 
strategies have the most significant influence on the user's behaviour change. 
PSD framework has been applied in many areas of human-computer interaction design. In 
general, persuasive technology designers aim to address specific challenges within certain 
areas, for example, obesity, alcoholism, internet addiction, environmental issues, and learning 
disabilities. To illustrate that, healthcare software applications might be developed either to 
encourage people towards healthy behaviour (Consolvo, Landay & Mcdonald, 2009; 
Jafarinaimi, Forlizzi, Hurst & Zimmerman, 2005; Lin, Mamykina, Lindtner, Delajoux & Strub, 
2006; Maitland et al., 2006; Dantzig, Geleijnse & Halteren, 2013) or to manage and prevent 
diseases and health conditions (Intille, 2003; Kraft, Drozd & Olsen, 2009). Furthermore, 
persuasive systems within environmental conservation can provide effective solutions aiming 
to support sustainable energy and water consumption behaviour (Kappel & Grechenig, 2009; 
Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010; Elsmore, Wilson, Jones & Eslambolchilar, 2010). In the same way, 
the PSD model can be applied in green mobility initiatives and smart city solutions (Jylhä, 
Nurmi, Sirén, Hemminki & Jacucci, 2013; Meloni & di Teulada, 2015). Persuasive systems can 
also be used in education in assisting the learning process as a support for pedagogical activities 
or as a tool to persuade users in general education activities (Dewi, Widyasari, Nugroho & 
Permanasari 2019). Despite many applications where the PSD has been implemented, it has 
received some critiques (Wiafe, Alhammad, Nakata & Gulliver, 2012; Corbett, 2013) for being 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 77
too general and not providing precise guidelines for engineers and designers on how actually 
to implement the described principles. 
The transtheoretical model of behaviour change 
Human behaviour is any observable physical or verbal activity made by an individual or group. 
On the one hand, it is driven by factors, such as thoughts, feelings, beliefs, values, and other 
psychological traits unique to each individual, and on the other hand by many different factors 
such as environment, social norms, religion, attitude, weather, and others (Lazzeri, 2014). A 
crucial aspect of human behaviour is a habit, which denotes the routine of regularly repeated 
behaviour that usually occurs subconsciously, a formula our brain automatically follows 
(Duhigg, 2014). Habits influence how people work, eat, play, live, spend, and communicate; 
hence, forming good habits is crucial for living our lives to the fullest. However, bad habits 
such as smoking or binge eating indeed exist. Even though people are aware of them, and know 
precisely what strategies they should use to change their habitual behaviour, they still struggle.  
To study human behaviour and, more so, to understand its complexity and thus, to help people 
change destructive behavioural patterns, many theories have emerged. However, research has 
shown that much persuasive technology is developed and designed without any support of 
behaviour theories. Nevertheless, when behaviour theories are employed, the transtheoretical 
model of behaviour change (TTM) appeared to be the most effective of all (Orji & Moffatt, 
2018). 
TTM consist of the following constructs: stages of change, processes of change, decisional 
balance, self-efficacy, and temptation. Processes of change include activities that individuals 
use to modify their thoughts, feelings, and behaviour to progress through the stages. In addition, 
they represent essential guides for designing intervention strategies. The ones that received the 
most empirical support to date are consciousness-raising, dramatic relief, self-reevaluation, 
environmental re-evaluation, self-liberation, social liberation, counterconditioning, stimulus 
control, contingency management, helping relationships. Different processes of change need to 
be emphasized at various stages of change. The early stages should focus on cognitive, 
evaluative, and affective processes, while the later stages that are more action-oriented should 
focus on contingencies, commitments, conditioning, and environmental control (Glanz, Rimer 
& Viswanath, 2015). According to Prochaska and Velicer (1997), the transtheoretical model 
involves progress through six stages of change: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, 
action, maintenance, and termination. 
In the pre-contemplation phase, there is no intention to change the behaviour within the next 6 
months. On the other hand, an individual recognizes problematic behaviour in the 
contemplation phase and intends to change it within the next 6 months. The preparation phase 
includes planning to change, already taking small actions. An action phase follows, where an 
individual performs consistent behavioural change for less than 6 months. Finally, the 
maintenance phase required successful maintenance of behavioural change for 6 months, 
whereas reaching the termination phase implies that an individual has no temptation to relapse. 
The six stages of the TTM represent individual readiness or propensity to engage in particular 
an activity that might lead towards the desired behaviour. The concept of the stage is crucial as 
it reflects a temporal dimension in which change unfolds coupled with a set of tasks required 
for progressing to the next stage. 
Notwithstanding the different time individuals spend in each stage, the tasks to be done to 
progress to the following stages are equal. Therefore, the stages serve as an essential step for 
understanding specific behavioural patterns. Furthermore, targeted behaviour is achieved by 
moving through each stage of behaviour change; hence, skipping stages is not an option as it 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 78
might result in a high risk for relapse (Brinthaupt & Richard P. Lipka, 1994). Furthermore, the 
TTM addresses behavioural change as a dynamic and sequential process and nonlinear 
progression. Therefore, the user can also regress from later stages to earlier ones or remain in 
the same stage for an extended period of time.  
Although the TTM is a sequential process, nonlinear progress across phases is also a possible 
scenario. For example, an individual can return from the later stages to an earlier stage or remain 
in the same stage without moving forward for an extended period of time (Ferron & Massa, 
2013). Furthermore, behaviour change is a complex and dynamic process characterized by 
different motivational levels; thus, adopting an adaptive, personalized approach might be the 
most effective way to encourage users towards healthier behaviour change.  
TTM describes one’s readiness to act on a new desired behaviour (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005). 
Defined as a model of intentional change, it functions on the premise that people do not change 
behaviour decisively and quickly, but slowly and continuously through a cyclical process. 
Behavioural change was often defined as an event, such as starting exercising, though change 
occurs over time as progress through specific stages as individuals struggle to remove 
problematic behaviour. Hence, it is conceptualized as a longitudinal and dynamic process 
across different stages (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). 
Methodology 
To meet the paper's purpose and answer the research questions, we first conducted a theoretical 
overview presented in the previous two sections, which has provided a deep insight into the 
study setup. Then, by studying the TTM, we have identified individual stages that could benefit 
the most from applying the PSD elements. Based on the characteristics of each TTM stage, we 
have identified the need that represents a guideline for designing an intervention. Furthermore, 
we have used the PSD design of the system feature part of the model to link individual feature 
requirements to a particular TTM stage. 
To validate and further refine the conceptual framework, we conducted in-depth interviews. 
The criteria for selecting respondents were 1) the maintenance stage of the TTM model and 2) 
behavioural change in the health domain. Respondents have had to practice the behaviour for 
more than half a year, and the change had to relate to either physical activity, diet change, or 
meditation. We have interviewed five people, out of these two males and three females. The 
men belong to the age group of 30-40, while the women were from the age group of 20-30. The 
design of the questionnaires was based on findings from the theoretical overview. The questions 
were designed according to the qualitative research guidelines provided by Jacob and Furgerson 
(2012) and Turner (2010). The main questions were coupled with probing questions and 
examples. The purpose was to validate if stage-matched interventions based on the PSD are 
helpful in the TTM stages. The questions aimed to validate all the stage interventions; however, 
the focus was on the maintenance stage. The interview contained the following 11 main 
questions: (1) Tell me about your behavioural change.; (2) How did your decision-making 
process of starting behaviour change look like? (3) What emotions and feelings did you 
experience at the beginning? (4) How did you prepare yourself for behavioural change? (5) 
How did your action stage look like? (6) Tell me about temptations. (7) How do you perform 
the desired behaviour change, and how do you keep going? (8) What emotions and feelings do 
you experience now in the maintenance stage? (9) What role does tracking have in maintaining 
your behaviour? (10) What role does social influence have on maintaining your behaviour? (11) 
What support can technology offer you to keep maintaining change. 
Lastly, we have translated the outcomes from interviews to intervention strategies, combined 
them with concepts derived from the theoretical overview, and as a result, designed a 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 79
framework that will provide insights and recommendations for future persuasive design 
strategies. The research process is shown in Figure 1. 
 
Figure 1: Research process 
Framework development and validation 
The purpose of the literature review was to present and analyse both models in detail and to 
identify the specific areas where the models complement each other. In this section, we use the 
system features part of the PSD model and link an individual feature requirement to a particular 
stage of the TTM. Firstly, we identify the characteristic of all the TTM stages of change. 
Secondly, we build upon the already established TTM construct – the process of change-to 
determine each stage's need and intervention requirements. Lastly, we map the PSD system 
features that best match the needs of individual stages and serve as a guideline for designing 
stage-matched interventions.  
Designing stage-matched interventions is a crucial aspect to consider when designing with the 
goal of behavioural change. Despite the process of change generally incorporating core ideas 
of how interventions should be prepared and which stage they should be matched to, they have 
some downsides. One of them is not putting enough emphasis on computer-based interactive 
interventions that emerged with new technology advancements. Processes of change have 
focused mainly on between-person interaction. Still, the advancement of technology brought 
new opportunities to explore behaviour change by collecting individual-level data, using mobile 
devices, wearable gadgets, mapping the digital footprint of online activities, and continuous 
monitoring (Naslund et al., 2017). 
In the pre-contemplation stage, the user feels unmotivated, resistant to change, and lacks 
knowledge about the consequences of not changing their behaviour. Therefore, there is a need 
for interventions to focus on education, motivation, and increasing awareness at this stage. In 
other words, interventions should focus on revealing the users' behaviours to have a clear 
understanding of their current behavioural patterns and observe their behaviour. In the context 
of change processes, the need is addressed by stimulus control, conscious raising, and dramatic 
relief. The characteristics describing the contemplation stage are ambivalence, chronic 
contemplation, and behavioural procrastination. People at this stage are aware of the 
consequences, understand the benefits of changing, and have the intention to change but did not 
commit yet. To that end, the need for interventions at this stage is to raise awareness and help 
people understand why their behaviour is problematic. 
Furthermore, interventions are more effective if they raise emotions. The preparation stage is 
characterized by people having the intention to perform behaviour change; hence they have 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 80
already developed a plan of action and started taking small actions such as buying a book or 
joining a program. The need for this stage's interventions is to reengineer the environment so 
that performing a behaviour is as simple as possible. The aim is to engage people in the change 
of behaviour, perhaps by recommending or suggesting different types of actions and to make 
people learn about the dynamics of the phenomenon. In the action stage, individuals feel 
motivated, yet there is the highest risk for relapse in this stage. This highlights the need for 
intervention to be protected and support-oriented, meaning they should protect users from risky 
contexts and help to avoid problematic behaviour. 
Furthermore, there is also a need to provide support for possible undesired behaviours. For 
example, an individual in the maintenance stage feels confident and is less tempted to relapse. 
The core need in this stage is to reinforce the desired behaviour and maintain change to make 
it sustainable. Additionally, it is beneficial to assess the conditions under which one can relapse 
and develop alternatives to help them not fall into the relapse phase. 
Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between the PSD elements that should be applied at 
specific stages since the early stages and the late stages have similar needs and characteristics. 
For example, action and maintenance are both focused on social influence; hence, some 
elements from social support might also be a good fit for designing interventions in the final 
stage. When designing systems, the ground rule must follow the need of the early stages to be 
understanding-focused, while the later stages are action-focused. We have marked some PSD 
system features as "universal", which means they should be used throughout the entire system, 
regardless of the stage the user is at. These principles are trustworthiness, expertise, surface 
credibility, authority, real-world feel, third-party endorsements, verifiability (system 
credibility), and liking (dialogue support). The need for the system to be trustworthy and 
credible for the user is the primary criteria designers should keep in mind. These are not nice-
to-have features but must-have features. The same goes with liking, which aims at a system 
being visually attractive. 
The interview results provided an important insight into the stages of change and their 
characteristics and can be summed up into 8 main conclusions: (1) the need to apply for social 
support already in (pre)contemplation stage; (2) the social circle is not that social, it is a 
friend/mentor circle; (3) an experiment as a starter boost; (4) simulation, rehearsal, and 
normative influence as the most significant potential; (5) interventions for addressing negative 
emotions; (6) technology as a (psycho)therapist; (7) making it fun; (8) the need for more early-
stage interventions. 
When analysing results, many PSD elements that we initially mapped at specific stages apply 
to other stages as well. Moreover, some of the respondents remarked they did not exactly feel 
the particular changes of change. To put it simply, they contemplated for a long time, but after 
getting the right trigger and really deciding to change, they quickly progressed into the action 
stage. Thus, even though the respondents subconsciously went through the stages of change, it 
appeared much more effective for the PSD elements not to be strictly linked to one stage but 
instead expanded over more of them. Based on this finding, we concluded that when mapping 
the PSD onto the TTM, the stages of change can be reduced into the early stages that focus on 
understanding, learning, and motivation, and the later stages that concentrate on resisting 
temptations, performing the desired behaviour, and maintaining it. According to the 
terminology used by Laurillau, Calvary, Foulonneau, and Villain (2006), the early stages are 
termed understanding-oriented while the later ones are action-oriented. Their argumentation 
goes hand in hand with our findings. Hence, we propose a framework that follows this view. 
Thus, the main criteria for mapping the PSD elements onto the TTM is that the early stages 
system feature should be focused on providing education, comprehension, and motivation. In 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 81
contrast, the later stages include system features concentrated around reinforcing the desired 
behaviour. Figure 2 provides an overview of a new proposed framework. 
 
Figure 2: Framework for designing behavioural change with the use of persuasive technology 
In general, the early stages have more proposed features than the later stage, as respondents 
initially spent more time and had more difficulties compared to the later stage. This brings us 
to a conclusion; since (pre)contemplation stages sometimes take years, it might be worth 
considering how to shorten this phase by supporting it with the PSD. 
Conclusion 
Previous research has shown that the persuasive technology field lacks the integration of 
behavioural theory. Aiming to fill this gap, we have successfully identified the PSD system 
features and mapped them onto the TTM stages of change. Based on the literature review and 
verified by in-depth interviews, we were able to design a framework for creating behavioural 
change using persuasive technology. 
These findings have practical implications for understanding which principles UI and UX and 
designers should follow when designing products for behavioural change. Moreover, our work 
provides insights and recommendations for the future design of persuasive interventions that 
consider the transtheoretical model of change. The framework we have proposed could serve 
interface designers to firstly identify in which stage of change their potential users are at, and 
then accordingly match the intervention to create software applications persuasively and make 
the users change their behaviour. There are 4 concrete suggestions we would give the designers 
and business analysts developing products for behavioural change: (1) pick a target group and 
conduct user research to find out in which stage of change the users are; (2) try to understand 
users’ emotions; (3) link the PSD features according to the TTM stage; (4) give extra attention 
to simulation, rehearsal, and normative influence. What can be learned from this paper is that 
developing software applications does not only require technical knowledge, but a deep 
understanding of human psychology, behavioural theories, or, more specifically, how human 
minds work and how decisions are made. According to this paper, it is clear that software 
feature requirements should be thoughtfully mapped on one's stage of change. 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 82
However, there are still plenty of opportunities to be explored to bridge the gap between product 
development and behavioural science. Firstly, further research could be conducted with an 
increased sample size and use questionnaires with Likert scales to analyse users' attitudes 
toward specific features. Secondly, these findings highlight the need to investigate further how 
we could better support the early stages of the TTM. Perhaps this could be done by conducting 
experiments and longitudinal studies to evaluate the effectiveness level of the stage-matched 
interventions at different time points during behavioural change. Thirdly, it would be interesting 
to build an actual mobile application, a prototype, that would incorporate stage-matched 
intervention and give it to users to test it. That way, it would be possible to objectively measure 
the effectiveness of system features by data collection via Google Analytics, Hotjar, or some 
other data analytics tool. Lastly, since interventions vary from context to context, it would be 
interesting to examine further which strategies work best under a particular context. Finally, 
other studies could also assess whether stage-matched interventions are clear enough for UI/UX 
designers to translate them into actual design components. 
References 
Aldenaini, N., Oyebode, O., Orji, R., & Sampalli, S. (2020). Mobile Phone-Based Persuasive Technology for 
Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Computer Science, 2(1), 73–
79. 
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Richard P. Lipka, E. (1994). Changing the Self: Philosophies, techniques, and experiences. 
New York: State University of New York Press. 
Consolvo, S., Landay, J. A. & Mcdonald, D. W. (2009). Designing for Behavior Change in Everyday Life. 
Computer, 42(6), 86–89. 
Corbett, J. (2013). Designing and Using Carbon Management Systems to Promote Ecologically Responsible 
Behaviors. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(7), 2. 
Dantzig, S., Geleijnse, G., & Halteren, A. (2013). Toward a persuasive mobile application to reduce sedentary 
behavior. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 17(6), 1237-1246. 
Dewi, Y., Widyasari, L., Nugroho, L. E., & Permanasari, A. E. (2019). Persuasive technology for enhanced 
learning behavior in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher 
Education, 16(1), 1-16. 
Duhigg, C. (2014). The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. Random House Trade 
Paperbacks. 
Elsmore, C., Wilson, M. L., Jones, M., & Eslambolchilar, P. (2010). Neighbourhood Watch - Community Based 
Energy Visualisation For The Home. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Nudge & 
Influence Through Mobile Device. (pp. 23–26). Swansea: Swansea University 
Ferron, M., & Massa, P. (2013). Transtheoretical model for designing technologies supporting an active lifestyle. 
In Proceedings of the Biannual Conference of the Italian Chapter of SIGCHI (pp. 1-8). 
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Burlington: Morgan 
Kaufmann. 
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K. & Viswanath, K. (2015). Health behavior: Theory, Research and Practice. Hoboken: John 
Wiley & Sons. 
Intille, S. S. (2003). Ubiquitous Computing Technology for Just-in-Time Motivation of Behavior Change. Studies 
in Health Technology and Informatics, 107(2), 1434–1437.  
Jacob, S. A. & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). The qualitative report writing interview protocols and conducting 
interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1–10. 
Jafarinaimi, N., Forlizzi, J., Hurst, A. & Zimmerman, J. (2005). Breakaway: an ambient display designed to change 
human behavior. In CHI'05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1945-1948). 
Jylhä, A., Nurmi, P., Sirén, M., Hemminki, S. & Jacucci, G. (2013). Matkahupi: a persuasive mobile application 
for sustainable mobility. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous 
Computing Adjunct Publication (pp. 227–230). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 
Kappel, K. & Grechenig, T. (2009). Show me: water consumption at a glance to promote water conservation in 
the shower. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 1–7). New 
York: Association for Computing Machinery. 
Kraft, P., Drozd, F. & Olsen, E. (2009). Digital therapy: Addressing willpower as part of the cognitive-affective 
processing system in the service of habit change. In International Conference on Persuasive Technology 
(pp. 177–188). Berlin: Springer. 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 83
Kuznetsov, S. & Paulos, E. (2010). UpStream: motivating water conservation with low-cost water flow sensing 
and persuasive displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing 
Systems (pp. 1851–1861). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.  
Laurillau, Y., Calvary, G., Foulonneau, A. & Villain, E. (2016). SEPIA, a support for engineering persuasive 
interactive applications: properties and functions. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on 
Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (pp. 217–228). New York: Association for Computing 
Machinery. 
Lazzeri, F. (2014). On defining behavior: some notes. Behavior and Philosophy, 42, 65–82. 
Lin, J. J., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G. & Strub, H. B. (2006). Fish’n’Steps: Encouraging physical 
activity with an interactive computer game. In International conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 261–
278). Berlin: Springer. 
Ludden, G. D. S. & Hekkert, P. (2014). Design for healthy behavior design interventions and stages of change. In 
Proceedings of the Colors of Care: The 9th International Conference on Design & Emotion. Ediciones 
Uniandes (pp. 482–488). Bogotá: Cali & Medellin. 
Maitland, J., Sherwood, S., Barkhuus, L., Anderson, I., Hall, M., Brown, B., Chalmers, M. & Muller, H. (2006). 
Increasing the awareness of daily activity levels with pervasive computing. In 2006 Pervasive Health 
Conference and Workshops (pp. 1–9). New York: IEEE. 
Meloni, I. & di Teulada, B. S. (2015). I-Pet Individual Persuasive Eco-travel Technology: A tool for VTBC 
program implementation. Transportation Research Procedia, 11, 422–433. 
Naslund, J. A., Aschbrenner, K. A., Kim, S. J., Mchugo, G. J., Bartels, S. J. & Marsch, L. A. (2017). Health 
Behavior Models for Informing Digital Technology Interventions for Individuals With Mental Illness. 
Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 40(3), 325. 
Norcross, J. C. & Goldfried, M. R. (2005). Handbook of psychotherapy integration. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press. 
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. & Harjumaa, M. (2008). A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive 
systems. In International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 164–176). Berlin: Springer. 
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system 
features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 485–500. 
Orji, R. & Moffatt, K. (2018). Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends. 
Health informatics journal, 24(1), 66–91. 
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal 
of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48.  
Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. Qualitative Report, 
15(3), 754–760. 
Wiafe, I., Alhammad, M. M., Nakata, K. & Gulliver, S. R. (2012). Analyzing the persuasion context of the 
persuasive systems design model with the 3D-RAB model. In International Conference on Persuasive 
Technology (pp. 193–202). Berlin: Springer. 
Pintar & Erjavec | A Framework for Designing Behavioural Change with the Use of Persuasive Technology 84