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

[email protected] 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/)


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 Studies Almaliki, 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

+

Relevancy Objectivity

- -

Visibility and Similarity

Response Rate

+


0 0

Social Engagement and/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

-


00

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


+


0

EropeanMiddle Eastern







Low volume of already given feedback

Response Rate

+


00

Low Volume of already given feedback

Response Rate

+


00


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


+


-


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


+-


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?
