Persuasion Profiles to Promote Pedestrianism: Effective Targeting of Active‑Travel Messages

This study proposes novel strategies for tailoring messages that encourage walking, intended for integration into travel‑planning tools, Mobility‑as‑a‑Service (MaaS) platforms and other sustainable‑transport applications. Four hundred and two participants from across the UK evaluated sixteen pro‑walking arguments that varied by argument type (e.g., authority, health, environmental) and the values they appealed to. The analysis examined interactions between argument features and participants’ demographics (age), personality traits, travel attitudes and recent transport‑mode usage. Results show that argument type, travel attitude and prior transport use did not affect perceived persuasiveness. Instead, age, personality (especially agreeableness) and the specific value targeted (e.g., environmental benefits) significantly influenced message effectiveness. The findings suggest that highly individualised “persuasion profiles” can be built from user data to optimise the impact of walking‑promotion messages in digital travel‑planning contexts.

Supporting evidence

• Existing sustainable‑mobility apps often lack sophisticated personalisation; reviews highlight under‑development of tailored persuasive techniques.
• Empirical evidence links individual responsiveness to persuasive strategies with personality and attitudes, yet most apps omit these variables, underscoring the need for explicit persuasion profiles.
• The study’s experimental design (402 respondents, 16 argument variations) provides robust quantitative backing for the identified determinants of persuasiveness.

Key findings

1. Segmentation by driver status is ineffective – Classifying users as drivers, potential non‑drivers or non‑drivers does not reliably predict who will respond to walking‑promotion messages or which persuasive tactics will work.
2. Authority arguments outperform practical ones – Citing experts (doctors, scientists) is significantly more persuasive than generic statements about environmental friendliness.
3. Argument type is not a useful tailoring lever – While authority arguments are generally strongest, manipulating argument type does not interact meaningfully with personality, travel attitude, age or prior behaviour; thus, argument type alone should not drive personalisation.
4. Personality and age enable effective tailoring – Apps that incorporate users’ personality traits (e.g., agreeableness) and age can select the most persuasive value appeals (environmental, health, convenience) for each individual.
5. Policy implication for MaaS – Transport authorities should encourage—or mandate—MaaS providers to embed persuasion‑profile mechanisms to avoid unintended negative impacts and to maximise behavioural change toward walking.