Chapter 7 206 Following ten Klooster et al. [69] we adopt the thesis that “tailoring involves segmentations in groups of users (e.g., for people with diabetes type 1 and type 2), whereas personalization focuses on segmentations on the individual level”. In the previous chapters (Chapters 4, 5 and 6), we explored the possibilities of delivering coaching content tailored to groups of users. During the study we gained more insight into the degree of recognition of the proposed personas, representing the problem situations “Experiencing cravings” and “After giving in to cravings”. Tailoring can be applied to a segmentation of users to which a specific problem situation is applicable, represented by a persona. Tailoring can be applied to BMI, eating behaviour (DEBQ), and neuroticism (Big-5) as the outcomes of these three characteristics affected the extent to which both problem situations were recognized, as revealed in the study of Chapter 5. However, the drawback is that the recognition of “Experiencing cravings” may have been distorted by the representation of the persona (Anita). In Chapter 5, we discussed that this persona may have been found less appealing by the participants. When choosing to tailor on the recognition of the problem situation, it is required to adapt the persona. Predictive characteristics Findings suggest delving further into tailoring to characteristics that are often associated with emotional eaters, such as emotional eating behaviour, neuroticism, and Body Mass Index. Future research should reveal whether it makes sense to tailor on further characteristics associated with emotional eating, such as alexithymia or interoceptive awareness. With such information being available, a virtual coach will be able to provide appropriate coaching strategies tailored to individuals or groups of emotional eaters, ‘in case of emergency’ [76]. Literature has shown that these user characteristics impact the persuasion strategy and might be more effective when tailored to the user than implementing a ‘one size fits all’ version of a technology” [74, 77-78]. Applying tailoring to coaching preferences could be feasible; however, considering the overwhelmingly clear preference expressed by most participants in the study (Chapters 4 and 5) for a dialectical approach, tailoring appears to be unnecessary. On the other hand, tailoring users who are in the problem situation “after giving in to cravings”, to the ambivalent-feeling validating coaching, will force them to reflect on this matter.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw