Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1197–1210 | Cite as

Designing beyond habit: opening space for improved recycling and food waste behaviors through processes of persuasion, social influence and aversive affect

  • Rob ComberEmail author
  • Anja Thieme
Original Article


Disposing of waste is a common part of our everyday life, yet we do not pay much attention to the process. For many it can be considered a habitual, unconscious process. Disposed goods and materials, however, do not simply disappear. This issue has been approached widely and in a variety of disciplines and arenas, including HCI. We add to this growing literature by considering recycling and food waste as habitual behavior and investigate the potential to design toward conscious reflection on waste disposal intentions and behaviors through social influence and aversive affect. That is, we aim to design beyond habitual performance of waste disposal behavior in two phases of (1) awareness raising and (2) supporting subsequent intentions for behavior change. We present results of a rich qualitative and explorative evaluation of the BinCam system, a two-part persuasive technology, which replaces an everyday waste bin with one enabled to capture and share images of disposed of waste on an online social network. Findings suggest that awareness raising leads to self-reflection and re-evaluation. The re-evaluation causes feelings of shame, where individuals perceive a disparity between their attitudes and their behaviors. Results also highlight the importance of a person’s perceived behavioral control (e.g., a person’s recycling competences or facilities) for enabling behavioral change and confirm the significance of providing “signal triggers” to individuals to remind them about performing the desirable behavior in its required context. Furthermore, as the present research extends its focus beyond the lone individual, it contributes to our understanding and study of social influence processes and group movements.


Persuasive technology Behavioral change Social persuasion Aversion Sustainable HCI 



We gratefully thank all households participating in this research, and for their contributions to the research, Jack Weeden, Julia Miebach, Nick Taylor, Isaac Teece, John Vines, Daniel O’Connor, Nicole Kraemer, Shaun Lawson and Patrick Olivier. We would further like to acknowledge the contribution of the reviewers through their insightful comments. This work is in part supported by Marie Curie Action under the European 7th Framework Program Balance@Home project and the RCUK Digital Economy Research Hub SiDE: Social Inclusion through the Digital Economy.


  1. 1.
    Ai He H, Greenberg S, Huang EM (2010) One size does not fit all: applying the transtheoretical model to energy feedback technology design. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 927–936. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753464
  2. 2.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 40:471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arroyo E, Bonanni L, Selker T (2005) Waterbot: exploring feedback and persuasive techniques at the sink. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005, pp 631–639. doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055059
  5. 5.
    Bargh JA (1994) The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In: Wyer RS, Srull TK (eds) Handbook of social cognition, vol 1. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braun V, Clarke V (2009) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broms L, Katzeff C, Bång M, Nyblom Å, Ilsted Hjelm S, Ehrnberger K (2010) Coffee maker patterns and the design of energy feedback artefacts. In: Proceedings of DIS 2010, pp 93–102. doi: 10.1145/1858171.1858191
  8. 8.
    Cialdini RB (2009) Influence: science and practice. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu Rev Psychol 55:591–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chetty M, Tran D, Grinter RE (2008) Getting to green: Understanding resource consumption in the home. In: Proceedings of UbiComp 2008, pp 242–251.doi: 10.1145/1409635.1409668
  11. 11.
    Consolvo S, McDonald DW, Landay JA (2009) Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In: Proceedings of CHI 2009, pp 405–414. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518766
  12. 12.
    Deutsch M, Gerard HG (1955) A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51:529–635. doi: 10.1037/h0046408 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiSalvo C, Sengers P, Hrönn B (2010) Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 1975–1984. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753625
  14. 14.
    Dourish P (2010) HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politic. In: Proceedings of DIS 2010, pp 1–10. doi: 10.1145/1858171.1858173
  15. 15.
    Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun 12(4):1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eslambolchilar P, Wilson ML, Oakley I, Dey A (2011) PINC: persuasion, influence, nudge and coercion through mobile devices. Ext Abstr CHI 2011:13–16. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979586 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fogg BJ, Cuellar G, Danielson D (2002) Motivating, influencing, and persuading users. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foster D, Linehan C, Lawson J, Kirman B (2011) Power ballads: deploying aversive energy feedback in social media. Ext Abstr CHI 2011:2221–2226. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979944 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fröhlich J, Dillahunt T, Klasnja P, Mankoff J, Consolvo S, Harrison B, Landlay JA (2009) UbiGreen: investigating a mobile tool for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. In: Proceedings of CHI 2009, pp 1043–1052. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518861
  21. 21.
    Fröhlich J, Findlater L, Landay J (2010) The design of eco-feedback technology. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 1999–2008. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753629
  22. 22.
    Gartland A, Piasek P (2009) Weigh your waste: A sustainable way to reduce waste. In: Ext Abstr CHI 2009, pp 2853–2858. doi: 10.1145/1520340.1520414
  23. 23.
    Godin G, Kok G (1996) The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot 11(2):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Holmes T (2007) Eco-visualization: combining art and technology to reduce energy consumption. In: Proceedings of C&C 2007, pp 153–162. doi: 10.1145/1254960.1254982
  25. 25.
    Hersh MA (1999) Sustainable decision making: the role of decision support systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 29(3):395–408. doi: 10.1109/5326.777075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirman B, Linehan C, Lawson S, Foster D, Doughty M (2010) There’s a monster in my kitchen: using aversive feedback to motivate behavioral change. In: Ext Abstr CHI 2010, pp 2685–2694. doi: 10.1145/1753846.1753852
  27. 27.
    Knussen C, Yule F (2008) “I’m not in the habit of recycling”: the role of habitual behavior in the disposal of household waste. Environ Behav 40(5):683–702. doi: 10.1177/0013916507307527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langley J, Yoxall A, Reed H, Kulhmann S (2011) Is green a grey area? Sustainability and inclusivity; the ageing population and recycling. Accessed 8 Oct 2011
  29. 29.
    Laschke M, Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Tippkaemper M (2011) With a little help from a friend: a shower calendar to save water. In: Ext Abstr CHI 2011, pp 633–646. doi: 10.1145/1979742.1979659
  30. 30.
    Li I, Dey AK, Forlizzi J (2010) A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, pp 557–566. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753409
  31. 31.
    Maio GR, Haddock G (2010) The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. SAGE, London, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mankoff JC, Matthews D, Fussell SR, Johnson M (2007) Leveraging social networks to motivate individuals to reduce their ecological footprints. In: Proceedings of HICSS 2007, pp 1–10. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2007.325
  33. 33.
    Marteau MT, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP (2011) Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? Br Med J 342:263–265. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matthews M, Doherty G (2011) In the mood: engaging teenagers in psychotherapy using mobile phones. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp 2947–2956. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979379
  35. 35.
    McCarty J, Shrum LJ (1994) The recycling of solid wastes: personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. J Bus Res 30(1):53–62. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(94)90068-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ouellette JA, Wood W (1998) Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol Bull 124(1):54–74. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paulos E, Jenkins T (2005) Urban probes: encountering our emerging urban atmospheres. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005, pp 341–350. doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055020
  38. 38.
    Petersen D, Steele J, Wilkerson J (2009) WattBot: a residential electricity monitoring and feedback system. In: Proceedings of CHI EA’09, pp 2847–2852. doi: 10.1145/1520340.1520413
  39. 39.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC (1992) In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 47(9):102–1114. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reif I, Alt F, Hincapié Ramos JD, Poteriaykina K, Wagner J (2010) Cleanly—trashducation urban system. In: Ext Abstr CHI 2010, pp 3511–3516. doi: 10.1145/1753846.1754010
  41. 41.
    Reitberger W, Tscheligi M, de Ruyter B, Markopoulos P (2008) Surrounded by ambient persuasion. In: Ext Abstr CHI 2008, pp 3989–3992. doi: 10.1145/1358628.1358974
  42. 42.
    Schultz PW, Oskamp S (1996) Effort as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship: general environmental concern and recycling. Soc Psychol Q 59(4):375–383. doi: 10.2307/2787078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Skinner BF (1974) About behaviorism. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Strengers Y (2008) Smart metering demand management programs: challenging the comfort and cleanliness habitus of households. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2008, pp 9–16. doi: 10.1145/1517744.1517747
  45. 45.
    Strengers Y (2011) Designing eco-feedback systems for everyday life. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp 2135–2144. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979252
  46. 46.
    Thaler RH, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    The Bottle Bank Arcade Machine (2009) The fun theory. Accessed 18 Oct 2011
  48. 48.
    The World’s Deepest Bin (2009) The fun theory. Accessed 18 Oct 2011
  49. 49.
    Thieme A, Comber R, Miebach J, Weeden J, Krämer N, Lawson S, Olivier P (2012) “We’ve bin watching you”—designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp 2337–2346Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    TrashTrack (2011) MIT researchers map the flow of urban trash? Last retrieved 1 Mar 2012,
  51. 51.
    Tscheligi M, Reitberger W (2007) Persuasion as an ingredient of societal interfaces. Interactions 14(5):41–43. doi: 10.1145/1288515.1288538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Verplanken B (2006) Beyond frequency: habit as mental construct. Br J Soc Psychol 45(3):639–656. doi: 10.1348/014466605X49122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ybarra O, Trafimow D (1998) How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24:362–370. doi: 10.1177/0146167298244003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    WRAP (2011) Research guidance: monitoring and evaluation guidance (annex 3). Accessed 27 June 2011
  55. 55.
    WRAP (2010) Waste and resources action programme. Accessed 29 Dec 2010

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Culture Lab, School of Computing ScienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations