No abstract

The aim of the work presented in this article was to develop a conceptual model for behavior change progress, which could be used for automated assessment of reasons for progress or non-progress. The model was developed based on theories for behavior change, and evaluated by domain experts. The information models of two prototype systems of a digital coach under development for preventing cardio-vascular diseases and stress respectively, were evaluated by comparing the content of the prototypes with concepts in the model. The conceptual model was found useful as instrument to evaluate to what extent the prototypes are based in theories for behavior change, whether some vital information is missing, and to identify mechanisms for short and long time goal setting. Moreover, the connection between the ontology underpinning the prototypes and the conceptual model could be defined. Future work includes the integration of the conceptual model to function as a meta-ontology, which could be used for capturing causal relationships between information collected by the applications at baseline and at runtime.

This article presents an empirical requirement elicitation study for an argumentation-based digital companion for supporting behavior change, whose ultimate goal is the promotion and facilitation of healthy behavior. The study was conducted with non-expert users as well as with health experts and was in part supported by the development of prototypes. It focuses on human-centric aspects, in particular user motivations, as well as on expectations and perceptions regarding the role and interaction behavior of a digital companion. Based on the results of the study, a framework for person tailoring the agent's roles and behaviors, and argumentation schemes are proposed. The results indicate that the extent to which a digital companion argumentatively challenges or supports a user's attitudes and chosen behavior and how assertive and provocative the companion is may have a substantial and individualized effect on user acceptance, as well as on the effects of interacting with the digital companion. More broadly, the results shed some initial light on the perception of users and domain experts of “soft,” meta-level aspects of argumentative dialogue, indicating potential for future research.