Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Último
Último (20)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Persuasive By Design Model presented at Chi Sparks 2014 by Sander Hermsen
- 1. PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN:A MODEL AND TOOLKIT FOR DESIGNING EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS Sander Hermsen Reint Jan Renes Jeana Frost Hogeschool Utrecht Hogeschool Utrecht Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Touchpoints! Persuasief ontwerpen voor duurzaam en gezond gedrag
- 2. Touchpoints ■ Evidence-based design ■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform behavior change concepts ■ gaining importance in past decade ■ health, sustainability 2
- 3. ■ Evidence-based design ■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform behavior change concepts ■ gaining importance in past decade ■ health, sustainability ■ Important source of knowledge: behavioral sciences ■ problem: impenetrable field 3
- 4. Our proposed model • Evidence-based • More possibilities for informing designs • Easy to use 6
- 5. Our proposed model • Evidence-based • More possibilities for informing designs • Easy to use • Uses for model: - Case analysis for target group research - Concept Analysis for discovering strenghts and weaknesses in concepts - Decisional Accountability 7
- 6. Method • literature search • refining draft versions through co-design sessions • first tool: workshop • interviews • observations • questionnaire 8
- 7. Results from literature and co-design sessions 1) Model must distinguish between two modes of behavior: automatic (habits, impulses) and controlled 3) Controlled behavior is best explained by insights from control theory 3) Many processes threaten behavior change 5) We’re social animals 9
- 8. Results from literature 1. Dual process theory • Automatic behavior • Controlled behavior ! Blue layer 10 CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
- 9. 2. Controlled behavior is best explained by insights from control theory - self-regulatory cycle ! Blue layer Results from literature 11 Changed Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
- 10. 3. Many processes threaten behavior change ! Red layer ■ Resistance ■ Biases, white lies ■ Threats to motivation (e.g. frustration) ■ Cognitive dissonance reduction strategies ■ Etcetera... 12 Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information Changed Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Results from literature
- 11. 4. We’re social animals ! Green layer ■ Social comparison ■ Social norms ■ Peer pressure ■ Social commitment ■ Cooperation and shared goals ■ Social inhibition, social validation 13 Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Results from literature
- 12. Black layer ■ Interventions in controlled behavior ■ norm communication, feedback, action planning, involving social factors 14 +! feasible steps Action planning ! ! ! Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved:
- 13. Purple layer ■ Interventions aimed at automatic behavior ■ removing cues, placing alternative cues, disrupting cue-behavior-link 15 i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved:
- 14. 16 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +! feasible steps Action planning ! ! ! Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model tekst http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/
- 15. First tool derived from model: Sets of questions to test concepts ■ Ten sets ■ 6 sets from blue layer, 2 from red layer, 2 from green layer ■ Each set has additional questions from black + purple layers 17
- 16. Testing the model ■ Workshops ■ Anders op Weg, concepts for persuading people to reduce car use during rush our. 8 participants ■ Enexis, concepts for reducing company CO2 footprint through behavior change. 12 participants 18
- 17. Testing the model ■ Workshop consisted of ■ Introduction of the model ■ Introduction of sets of questions derived from the model to challenge the design concepts ■ Working on the concepts using model and questions ■ Feedback, questionnaires and interviews 19
- 18. Workshop results: Questionnaires and interviews ✓ Participants indicated: ■ valuable insights ■ both for current project and for work overall ✓ We observed: ■ richer concepts that were better thought-through and more sharply defined ■ problems and pitfalls of concepts became clear 20 “Of great value. I am one of the more sceptical people in my team; this enables us to think more clearly about our goals and the means that we need to develop to achieve them!”
- 19. Workshop results: Questionnaires and interviews - Participants indicated: ■ the complexity of the model makes it hard to use without guidance - We observed: ■ participant were most likely to use the best explained examples and principles ■ the model is impossible to use without introduction 21 “I would like to see a simpler version.”
- 20. Results ✓ Evidence-based model ✓ More possibilities for informing designs ! Easy to use 22
- 21. Results ✓ Evidence-based model ✓ More possibilities for informing designs ! Easy to use ‣Next phase ■prototyping and testing tools based upon model ■especially aiming at a ‘stand alone’-tool ■ graphic novel techniques ■ interactive infographic techniques 23
- 22. Thank you ■ Your questions? ■ more information: sander.hermsen@hu.nl @sanderhermsen ■ Download model pdf and questions at http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/ 24