Influencing Children: Limitations of the Computer-Human-Interactive Persuasive Systems in Developing Societies

Full Text (PDF, 731KB), PP.1-15

Views: 0 Downloads: 0


Odji Ebenezer 1,*

1. Federal University of Technology, Akure/Industrial Design Department, Akure, 340252, Ondo State, Nigeria

* Corresponding author.


Received: 2 Mar. 2020 / Revised: 13 Apr. 2020 / Accepted: 8 May 2020 / Published: 8 Oct. 2020

Index Terms

Accessibility-Persuasion Theory (APT), Computer-Human-Interactive-Persuasive-Systems (CHIPS), Product/Entity-Human Interaction Persuasive System (PEHIPS), Persuasive Design (PD), Persuasive Reach (PR), Poverty Alleviation, Developing Countries, LDC


The phenomenon of product/business failure, as well as lack of environmental sustainability and learning limitations, is fast becoming a recurrent ‘disease’ for investors, designers, design sponsors and education policy makers in many developing countries with poor persuasiveness contributing a large quota to such failures. This has greatly hampered the education, poverty alleviation and developmental efforts of the governments of such societies. In a bid to curb this negative trend, children, who are major influencers in product purchase behaviours of adults, have been targeted specifically by persuasive designers, in an effort to both educate and adopt them as means of reaching the larger populace. However, most researches in current persuasive system designs are limited to the information communication/management technology or computerized environments. These systems are technology/internet-driven and many potential users, in reality, in the developing world, unlike the rest of the world is often made to believe, do not have open access to such systems. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of any persuasive system is dependent on its accessibility to its user(s). Technological backwardness (often concealed behind ostentatious self-deceptive facades) has led to the poor persuasiveness of local persuasive systems and products in the third worlds. Therefore, adopting a mixed method for establishing the factor(s) limiting the efficiency of the computer/electronic-human interaction persuasive systems (CHIPS) in South-West Nigeria (N=900), this study established the need to adopt more of the product/entity-human interaction persuasive system (PEHIPS) as an effective alternative for third world countries as, based on the study outcomes, the CHIPS proved less relatively effective in comparison to PEHIPS in rural regions. It however recommends the alternating adoption of a combination of both computerized and entity/product driven systems for the purpose of optimizing persuasive effectiveness in developing worlds.

Cite This Paper

Odji Ebenezer, " Influencing Children: Limitations of the Computer-Human-Interactive Persuasive Systems in Developing Societies", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science(IJMECS), Vol.12, No.5, pp. 1-15, 2020.DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2020.05.01


[1]UN-OHRLLS. (2018). Criteria for Identification and Graduation of LDCs. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2020, from
[2]Nwokoye, E. S. (2009). Population Growth and Distribution in Nigeria. In M. O. Ezenwa (Ed.), Social Sciences at a Glance (pp. 69-75). Awka, Anambra, Nigeria: School of General Studies, Nnamdi Azikiwe University.
[3]World Population Review. (2020). Nigeria Population 2020. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2020, from
[4]Ilter, C. (2017). What Economic and Social Factors Affect GDP Per Capita A Study of Four Countries. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 11, 51-62.
[5]Odji, Ebenezer, & Oladumiye, E. Bankole. (2019). Adopting Improved Need-Analysis, Persuasion and Aesthetics for Alleviating Local Product Design Fiasco. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(11), 409–418.
[6]Odji, E., Oladumiye, E., & Kayode, O. (2019). The Impact of Product Dis-credibility on Consumer Behaviour, the Manufacturing Sector and the Designer’s Interest. Design In The Nigerian Context; Evolving Indigenous Design Approaches, Concepts, Praxis and Education. 2019 Conference of Visual Communication Design. Akure: Industrial Design Department, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.
[7]Odji, E. (2019). Abuse by Design: The Implications and Prospects of Adopting Child-Character Centred Persuasive Designs and Systems. International Journal of Health and Pharmaceutical Research, 5(2 (2019)), 31-48 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3660706.
[8]Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, Inc., Vol 21, 1-31.
[9]Torning, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2009). Persuasive System Design: State of the Art and Future Directions. April 26-29, Persuasive’09. Claremont, California, USA: DOI: 10.1145/1541948.1541989.
[10]Ferreira, A., Coventry, L., & Lenzini, G. (2015). Principles of Persuasion in Social Engineering and Their Use in Phishing. In &. I. T. Tryfonas (Ed.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20376-8-4.
[11]Kimura, H., & Nakajima, T. (2011). Designing Persuasive Applications to Motivate Sustainable Behavior in Collectivist Cultures. PsychNology Journal, 9(1), 7-28.
[12]Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
[13]Mustaquim, M., & Nystrom, T. (2015). A System Development Life Cycle for Persuasive Design for Sustainability. In T. MacTavish, & S. Basapur (Ed.), Persuasive Technology: 10th International Conference, PERSUASIVE 2015, June 3-5 (pp. 217-228). Chicago, IL, USA: Springer International Publishing Lecture Notes in Computer Science
[14]Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2010). The design with intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 382–392.
[15]Redstrom, J. (2006). Persuasive Design: Fringes and Foundations. In W. I. al. (Ed.), PERSUASIVE 2006 (pp. 112–122). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.
[16]Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2010). Discipline of Information Systems: A Natural Strategic Alliance for Web Science. Proceedings of the Second International Web Science Conference (WebSci 10) April 26-27 (2010). Raleigh, NC, US: WebSci.
[17]IDF. (2019). Persuasive Design. Retrieved May 2019, 30, from
[18]Neeraj, A. (2014). Ethics in Advertisement and impact on Women and Children. International Journal of Research in Business Management, 2(6), 19-26.
[19]Fogg, B. J. (2009). A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. Retrieved August 2017, 25, from
[20]Festinger, L. (1975). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[21]Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
[22]Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive Computers: Perspectives and Research Directions. Proceedings of the CHI 98 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 225-232). Los Angeles: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
[23]Simons, H. W., Morreale, J., & Gronbeck, B. (2001). Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks London New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
[24]Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2008). Towards Deeper Understanding of Persuasion in Software and Information System. Proceedings of The First International Conference on Advances in Human-Computer Interaction (ACHI 2008) (pp. 200-205). electronic publication, ISBN 978-0-7695-3086-4.
[25]Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 24 Article 28.
[26]Arul, M., & Vasudevan, V. (2016). Influence of Children on Parent’s Buying Behaviour;The Cost And Management. Retrieved July 5, 2017, from
[27]Rule, B., Bisanz, G., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a Persuasion Schema: Targets, Goals, and Strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (May), 1127-1140.
[28]Halttu, K., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2017). Persuading to Reflect: Role of Reflection and Insight in Persuasive Systems Design for Physical Health. Human-Computer Interaction, 32(5–6), 381–412.
[29]Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
[30]Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs. China. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(1), 5-27.
[31]Moosa Qasim, M., Sadiq Khalaf, H., Raad Abdulkareem, A., & Md. Yussop, Y. (2018). Design and Development of an Interactive Persuasive Mathematics Game for Primary School Children. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.19), 272-276.
[32]Odji, E., Odewole, O. P., & Oladumiye, E. B. (2019). Application of Design Theories and Principles for Improving Local Agricultural Products and Packaging Design Aesthetics for Optimized Economic Value. International Journal of Agriculture and Earth Science, 5(2), 1-11.
[33]Lewis, M. A., & Lockheed, M. E. (2006). Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 Million Girls Still Aren’t in School and What to Do about It. Washington, DC: United Book Press.
[34]Kazeem, A., Jensen, L., & Stokes, C. (2010). School attendance in Nigeria: understanding the impact and intersection of gender, urban-rural residence and socioeconomic status. Comp Educ Rev., 54(2), 295-319.
[35]Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 97-109.
[36]Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1989). Effects of Message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 3-12.
[37]Claypool, H., Mackie, D., Garcia–Marques, T., McIntosh, A., & Udall, A. (2004). The Effects of Personal Relevance and Repetition on Persuasive Processing. Social Cognition, 22(3, 2004), 310-335.
[38]Weisbucha, M., & Mackie, D. (2009). False fame, perceptual clarity, or persuasion? Flexible fluency attribution in spokesperson familiarity effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (2009), 62–72.