A Case Study on Applications of the Hook Model in Software Products
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Related Work
2. Methodology
2.1. Application Selection Criteria
2.1.1. Popularity
2.1.2. Platform
- 1.
- Instagram [32]:
- (a)
- total number of users = 1 billion (2020);
- (b)
- daily active users = 500 million (Instagram Stories) (2020);
- (c)
- revenue = USD20 billion (ads) (2019).
- 2.
- Uber [33]:
- (a)
- total number of users = 93 million (2020);
- (b)
- daily active users = 18.7 million (2020);
- (c)
- revenue = USD11.14 billion (2020).
2.2. Pattern-Search Process
- 1.
- For each product, we build a use-case diagram.
- 2.
- Further, we examine each use case for the presence of Hook cycle stages. The Trigger for starting the use case, Investments, and Rewards obtained by the user are defined according to the Hook model stages definition.
- 3.
- We calculate the statistics of repetitions of the Hook cycle stage patterns in these use cases (internal patterns). Hence, we determine the percentage of patterns that are met in the use-case diagram for each of the case studies.
- 4.
- Then we look at the transitions between use cases, which are triggered by external patterns. The external pattern is a transition from a use case to the next one. The last Hook stage in the first use case and the first Hook stage in the second are taken as the beginning and end of an external transition, respectively.
3. Results
3.1. Internal Patterns
- 1.
- The percentage of patterns Trigger–Action–Reward and Trigger–Action–Reward–Investment for both services are equal and are numerically about 23%. However, for Instagram, the TARI pattern is more common (28%).We can conclude that on Instagram, the use cases are more complete, i.e., they include all stages of the Hook cycle and often combine both Reward and Investment at the same time. This means that the use case includes a full Hook cycle. This brings us to the conclusion that Instagram use cases are designed so that the user could become used to going through each use case separately. The goal is for them to become accustomed to utilizing at least a portion of the application, if not the entire application.Note that the percentage of use cases with a Reward is the same for both products.
- 2.
- The patterns Trigger–Action–Investment and Action–Investment together represent about 53–54% for each product. However, the percentage of these patterns for each product varies greatly: TAI on Instagram—53%, on Uber—27%; AI on Instagram—0%, on Uber—27%.Recall that the Trigger that is taken into account if the context is internal (the desire or need to do something), and not external, since any clickable element can become an external Trigger during application use [2].A possible explanation is that in Uber, when receiving a specific service, the user goes through a certain scenario (a chain of use cases) because it is necessary to receive the service (tunneling in persuasive technology). On Instagram, the user is free to do whatever they want, because their goal is not to complete a certain sequence of Actions to receive a service.
- 3.
- No certain pattern of Investment and Reward alteration was retrieved. By initial assumption, a Reward is assigned to the use case if there is a chance to obtain it, not a certainty. A user could repeat the use case, and thus Hook cycle several times before they reach the Reward (for example, open several recommended pages until finding some suitable). Therefore, it might be useful to check for users’ behavioral patterns of how persistent they are when trying to obtain a Reward and conduct a UX experiment, but this is beyond this case study.
- 4.
- The Investment stage is more common than the Reward stage, according to statistics for the studied use cases, by 1.7 times (this is true for both products.)The graph in Figure 4 shows the proportions of use cases containing Reward, Investment, or both stages at once.This is important, because the Action stage is present in every use case, just as the Trigger stage, is with the exception of Actions that are performed by the user because they want to finish the Action to obtain the result; therefore they perform the Actions without extra Triggers.
3.2. External Patterns
- 1.
- The transition from Investment to Trigger is similarly popular in both products—around 46%.According to the Hook model this is the classical transition, and thus most expected to be met.
- 2.
- Investment–Investment is not so common. For Instagram, its share is only 7.5%, because, despite the large number of use cases that include Investment (for Instagram and Uber, the proportion of those including Investment stages from all presented is approximately equal—graph in Figure 4). Most of the use cases there begin with an internal Trigger.Moreover, because the Instagram user does not have a “global goal” to obtain some specific benefit/service, they are constantly involved in the use of the application by provoking internal Triggers.In Uber, many use cases start without the participation of an internal Trigger (about 31%), since the use cases are a logical continuation of each other—stages to achieve the goal and obtain the main Reward—so for Uber the percentage of such I–I patterns is much higher—35%.
- 3.
- The pattern Reward–Trigger in Instagram occurs as often as I–T—in 47.5% of cases. In Uber, this pattern is not popular—only 18%. Recall that the ratio of use cases with Investment to use cases with Reward is the same for both products. Therefore, such a difference in the presence of a pattern in the products can be explained by the fact that there are more variations in Instagram for the transition from a use case—greater graph connectivity. In Uber, there is the main scenario and several side ones, plus for many Reward is the final state of the use-case chain. Therefore, there are also fewer transitions from Reward to other use cases.
3.3. Hook Stage Pattern Conclusion
4. Discussion
4.1. Use External Triggers “Within” the Product to Promote or Diverge Usage Scenarios
4.2. An Investment Embedded in an Action Allows Us to Plant an Additional Trigger
4.3. Failing to Receive a Reward Can Serve as a Trigger
4.4. Ethics behind the Hook Model
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Use Case Diagrams
References
- Muller, A.; Välikangas, L.; Merlyn, P. Metrics for innovation: Guidelines for developing a customized suite of innovation metrics. Strategy Leadersh. 2005, 33, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyal, N. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Oulasvirta, A.; Rattenbury, T.; Ma, L.; Raita, E. Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2012, 16, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakhtusova, Y.; Megha, S.; Askarbekuly, N. A case study on combining agile and user-centered design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Software Engineering, Innopolis, Russia, 17–18 June 2021; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 47–62. [Google Scholar]
- Duhigg, C. The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 34. [Google Scholar]
- Pavlov, P.I. Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Ann. Neurosci. 2010, 17, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coon, D.; Mitterer, J. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews; MindTap Course List Series; Cenage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fogg, B.J. Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 18–23 April 1998; pp. 225–232. [Google Scholar]
- Eyal, N. Notifications that Work. 2019. Available online: https://www.nirandfar.com/notifications-that-work/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Neal, D.; Wood, W. How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 48, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Bratslavsky, E.; Finkenauer, C. Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2001, 5, 323–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogg, B. Fogg Behavior Model. Available online: https://behaviordesign.stanford.edu/resources/fogg-behavior-model (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Fogg, B. Prompts Tell People to “Do It Now!”. Available online: http://www.behaviormodel.org/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Pimenov, D.; Solovyov, A.; Askarbekuly, N.; Mazzara, M. Data-Driven Approaches to User Interface Design: A Case Study. J. Phys. 2021, 2134, 12020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, B.F. Reinforcement today. Am. Psychol. 1958, 13, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noel, J. Supercharging New Users’ Desire with Variable Rewards. Available online: https://www.appcues.com/blog/variable-rewards (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Breuning, L.G. Habits of a Happy Brain: Retrain Your Brain to Boost Your Serotonin, Dopamine, Oxytocin, & Endorphin Levels; Adams Media: Avon, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Uusiautti, S. On the positive connection between success and happiness. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2013, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langvardt, K. Regulating habit-forming technology. Fordham Law Rev. 2019, 88, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeek, P.P. Persuasive Technology and Moral Responsibility Toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. Persuasive 2006, 6, 15. [Google Scholar]
- Askarbekuly, N.; Sadovykh, A.; Mazzara, M. Combining two modelling approaches: GQM and KAOS in an open source project. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, Virtual, 12–13 May 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 106–119. [Google Scholar]
- Askarbekuly, N.; Solovyov, A.; Lukyanchikova, E.; Pimenov, D.; Mazzara, M. Building an educational product: Constructive alignment and requirements engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, San Francisco, CA, USA, 20–24 July 2021; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 358–365. [Google Scholar]
- Weinstein, A.; Johnson, W.C. Designing and Delivering Superior Customer Value: Concepts, Cases, and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Filippou, J.; Cheong, C.; Cheong, F. Combining the fogg behavioural model and hook model to design features in a persuasive app to improve study habits. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.03531. [Google Scholar]
- Razi, A.A.; Putra, R.P. The hooked model as communication strategy of “Kembaliin” app as an information media for handling lost and found. In Proceedings of the 2nd Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (SoRes 2019), Bandung, Indonesia, 23 October 2019; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 214–218. [Google Scholar]
- De Troyer, O.; Maushagen, J.; Lindbeg, R.; Muls, J.; Signer, B.; Lombaerts, K. A playful mobile digital environment to tackle school burnout using micro learning, persuasion & gamification. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Maceio, Brazil, 15–18 July 2019; Volume 2161, pp. 81–83. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, A.; Li, T.M. Develop habit-forming products based on the Axiomatic Design Theory. Procedia CIRP 2016, 53, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ertemel, A.V.; Aydın, G. Technology addiction in the digital economy and suggested solutions. Addicta Turk. J. Addict. 2018, 5, 665–690. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, D. How to Build a Habit-forming Product-to Understand the Hook Model through an Analysis of WeChat. Shodai Bus. Rev. 2018, 7, 141–158. [Google Scholar]
- StatCounter. Desktop, Mobile, Tablet Platform Market Share Statistics. 2021. Available online: https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- StatCounter. OS Market Share Statistics. 2021. Available online: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Instagram Statistics. 2020. Business of Apps. Available online: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/instagram-statistics/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Uber Statistics. 2020. Business of Apps. Available online: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein, S.M.; Johnston, R.; Duffy, J.; Rao, J. The service concept: The missing link in service design research? J. Oper. Manag. 2002, 20, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hook Cycle Stage | Description |
---|---|
Trigger | a prompt to provoke an Action. Can be external (e.g., advertisement, notifications) or internal (e.g., a situational cue, boredom). |
Action | the user’s interaction with the app’s functionality, usually in the search of a Reward |
Reward | satisfaction (pleasure or release) as a result of an Action. The model emphasizes variability of the reward |
Investment | the product’s ability to become more valuable as the user invests into the product (e.g., leaving a data “footprint”, better personalization, growing social network). |
Pattern | Instagram, Occurrences | Uber, Occurrences | Instagram, Ratio to All Use Cases | Uber, Ratio to All Use Cases |
---|---|---|---|---|
Trigger–Action–Investment | 17 | 6 | 0.53 | 0.27 |
Action–Investment | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0.27 |
Trigger–Action–Reward | 6 | 5 | 0.19 | 0.23 |
Trigger–Action–Investment–Reward | 9 | 5 | 0.28 | 0.23 |
Transition between Stages from One Use Case to Another | Instagram, Occurrences | Uber, Occurrences | Instagram, Ratio to All Use Cases | Uber, Ratio to All Use Cases |
---|---|---|---|---|
Investment–Trigger | 18 | 8 | 0.45 | 0.47 |
Investment–Investment | 3 | 6 | 0.075 | 0.35 |
Reward–Trigger | 19 | 3 | 0.475 | 0.18 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lukyanchikova, E.; Askarbekuly, N.; Aslam, H.; Mazzara, M. A Case Study on Applications of the Hook Model in Software Products. Software 2023, 2, 292-309. https://doi.org/10.3390/software2020014
Lukyanchikova E, Askarbekuly N, Aslam H, Mazzara M. A Case Study on Applications of the Hook Model in Software Products. Software. 2023; 2(2):292-309. https://doi.org/10.3390/software2020014
Chicago/Turabian StyleLukyanchikova, Elena, Nursultan Askarbekuly, Hamna Aslam, and Manuel Mazzara. 2023. "A Case Study on Applications of the Hook Model in Software Products" Software 2, no. 2: 292-309. https://doi.org/10.3390/software2020014