Persuasive and culture aware feedback acquisition

www.bournemouth.ac.uk
Persuasive and Culture-aware Feedback Acquisition
Malik Al Maliki1 and Raian Ali2
1College of Science and Computer Engineering
Taibah University, KSA
2Faculty of Science and Technology
Bournemouth University, UK
malmaliki@bournemouth.ac.uk Persuasive Technology, Salzburg, Austria, 5-7 April, 2016

www.bournemouth.ac.uk 2
Background

Users’ feedback impact
• Users’ feedback is crucial to improve software quality in
general:
• It can be used to identify missing features
• Clarify user trends and preferences for future improvement.
• Reporting software bugs/problems.
• Above all, giving users a voice.
• According to industrial reports, users’ feedback proved to
highly impact the overall success of businesses ( i.e. Ferret
feedback company and it success stories with big brands such
as BMW, Asda, Argos, etc)
(http://www.feedbackferret.com/)

Problem

Users’ motivation and culture
impact to feedback
• The majority of users lack motivation and
interest in providing feedback
Persuasive Technology can be a potential solution to persuade
users to provide feedback frequently!
• Cultural difference plays a key role in motivating
users to give feedback.
Persuasive Technology is more effective when it is tailored to the
culture of its intended target audience!
• The majority of users lack motivation and
interest in providing feedback
Persuasive Technology can be a potential solution to persuade
users to provide feedback frequently!
• Cultural difference plays a key role in motivating
users to give feedback.
Persuasive Technology is more effective when it is tailored to the
culture of its intended target audience!

Previous StudiesAlmaliki, M., Ncube, C., and Ali, R., 2014. The Design of Adaptive Acquisition of Users Feedback: an Empirical Study. In: The IEEE
Eighth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2014). 28-30 May 2014 Marrakesh, Morocco.

Studies design
• Mixed Method approach (sequential-exploratory).
• First phase (qualitative):
• Interviews.
• 7 participants
• Served as a foundation for the second phase.
• Second phase (quantitative):
• Questionnaires.
• 100 participants (BU and overseas participants).
• Good response rate (100 out of 180).
• The survey script contained 31 questions discussing and investigating the
results of the first phase.
• Improved the quality and generalizability of the first phase results.

Findings
• Social Motivations for Accepting/Ignoring Feedback
Requests
• Visibility and similarity of others feedback.
• Volume of already given feedback.
• Social recognition.
• Feedback acquisition as a social activity.

Cultural differences and Social
Motivations
MIDDLE EASTERN WESTERN
KSA Iran Egypt Σ UK NL Spain Σ
Visibility 70% 40% 50% 63% 33% 60% 50% 41%
Similarity 70% 60% 75% 69% 33% 20% 33% 38%
Volume 75% 60% 50% 73% 42% 60% 33% 50%
Social recognition 90% 60% 50% 84% 45% 40% 50% 38%
Social activity 80% 60% 25% 69% 3% 20% 33% 10%
Motivation to give feedback Vs. Users’ countries

Aim of this Study

Aim of the study
• The aim of this study was to :
Empirically investigate potential differences between
Western and Middle Eastern users on how they are
motivated to provide feedback and how this affects the
quality of the feedback provided

Methodology

Methodology
• Interviews and Survey (already reported)
• 4 focus groups (with Middle Eastern and Westerns)
• The first two focus groups were conducted with 13 European participants.
• The other two were conducted with 14 Middle Eastern participants.
• Each focus group session lasted for about an hour (four
hours in total) and preceded with and immersion phase
askign participants to note their behaviour when they
provide feedback for a period of time
• The four social factors (Feedback acquisition as a social
activity, Social recognition, Volume of already given feedback
and Visibility and similarity of others feedback) served as a
foundation to develop the protocol of the focus group.

Participants’ characteristics
Participants’ Characteristics
Participant Age Gender
Home
Country
European Participants
P1 58 Female Italian
P2 45 Female English
P3 22 Male Polish
P4 71 Male French
P5 34 Female Polish
P6 43 Female French
P7 49 Female Swiss
P8 39 Male Sweden
P9 56 Male Irish
P10 35 Female Romania
P11 41 Male UK
P12 27 Female Polish
P13 19 Male Sweden
Total 13 Participants
Middle Eastern
Participants
P1 41 Female KSA
P2 45 Female KSA
P3 35 Female KSA
P4 18 Male KSA
P5 20 Male KSA
P6 27 Female KSA
P7 55 Male KSA
P8 30 Male KSA
P9 22 Male KSA
P10 18 Female KSA
P11 61 Male KSA
P12 28 Female KSA
P13 25 Male KSA
P14 19 Male KSA
Total 14 Participants

Findings

Findings
Theme1: Visibility and similarity of others feedback
 Anonymity of feedback providers.
 Cross conversation
o Feedback objectivity and relevancy
o Language used among given feedback.
 Gender
 Social position or a personal relationship with a feedback provider
Theme2: Volume of already given feedback
 Feedback objectivity and relevancy
Theme3: Social recognition
 Suitable and unsuitable uses of social recognition
o More beneficial with close friends and small community
o Social recognition can result in ignoring unrecognized users’ feedback
o Social recognition might result in addiction especially for young users
Theme4: Feedback acquisition as a social activity
A breakdown of the themes, sub-themes and codes of the focus groups analysis.

Visibility and similarity of
others’ feedback
Plus (+) = potential increase
Minus (-) = Potential decrease
Zero (0) = No noticeable effectVisibility and Similarity
Response Rate
+
RelevancyObjectivity
- -
Visibility and Similarity
Response Rate
+
0 0
Social Engagement and/
or behaviour
+
or behaviour
+
Middle Eastern European
Middle Eastern and European Cultural and Social Impacts on the Quality of Given Feedback
Zero or likely Minus (0/-) = No
noticeable effect or likely potential
decrease.
Anonymity (in publicly visible
feedback)
Response Rate
+
-
-
Anonymity (in publicly visible
feedback)
Response Rate
+
-/0
-/0
EuropeanMiddle Eastern

Visibility and similarity of others
feedback
Zero (0) = No noticeable effect
Cross Conversation and Language
Used
Response Rate
-
-
-
Cross Conversation and Language
Used
Response Rate
-
0
0
EuropeanMiddle Eastern
Middle Eastern and European Cultural and Social Impacts on the Quality of Given Feedback Social Engagement
Gender, Social Position or personal
relationship
Response Rate
+
- -
Gender, Social Position or personal
relationship
Response Rate
0
0 0
or behaviour
+
or behaviour
0
EropeanMiddle Eastern

Low volume of already given
feedback
Response Rate
+
0
0
Low Volume of already given
feedback
Response Rate
+
0
0
Volume of already given
feedback

Zero or likely Plus (0/+) = No noticeable
effect (Default) or likely potential
increase.
Social Recognition
Response Rate
+
- -
Social Recognition
Response Rate
0/+
0 0
or behaviour
+
or behaviour
-
Social Recognition

Feedback Acquisition as a
Social Activity
Zero or likely Minus (0/-) = No
noticeable effect (Default) or likely
potential decrease.
Feedback acquisition as a social
activity
Response Rate
+
-
Feedback acquisition as a social
activity
Response Rate
0/-
0 0
or behaviour
+-
or behaviour
0

Culture impact of users
behaviour to feedback
• Culture has a noticeable impact on users’ behaviour with regard to
feedback acquisition.
• Middle eastern seemed to be more into socially motivated feedback
acquisition.
• Relevancy and objectivity of feedback differs among users from different
cultures.
• A culture-aware feedback acquisition is needed to empower adaptability
to different cultures

Our other work: Personalization
Malik Almaliki, Cornelius Ncube, Raian Ali. Adaptive Software-based Feedback Acquisition: A Persona-based Design. The
IEEE Ninth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, May 13-15 2015, Athens, Greece.

Conclusion and future work
• There exist a culture factor which heavily influence motivation and quality in
feedback on software and other products
• Current feedback acquisition seem to be little concerned about that
• Acquiring feedback within social settings make that far more challenging
Future work
• Conceptualizing/structuring feedback and their acquisition process
• Elicitation method of feedback with regard to the product, e.g. software
requirements
• Participatory approach to evolving the feedback in a dynamic and context-aware
style
• Concretizing the “Wisdom of Crowd” by streamlining the process and making it
systematic

Acknowledgement
• We would like to thank:
• Participants who took part in our study
• The anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback
• The research is supported by:
• EC FP7 Marie Curie Grant (the SOCIAD project)
• Taibah University, KSA

Feedback?

Persuasive and culture aware feedback acquisition

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Persuasive and culture aware feedback acquisition

Similar to Persuasive and culture aware feedback acquisition (20)

More from Engineering and Social Informatics (ESOTICS)

More from Engineering and Social Informatics (ESOTICS) (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Persuasive and culture aware feedback acquisition