Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-determined nudging: a system concept for human–machine interaction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Humans sometimes struggle when making decisions, because what they want to do in a specific moment can differ from what they feel they should do in general. This phenomenon can also be found in situations of human–machine interaction. In order to support humans in making decisions about their behavior, a new form of support is proposed, which is especially suitable for human–machine interaction: self-determined decision-making with nudging methods (or shortly: self-determined nudging). In this concept, firstly the aspirations of the human are assessed and then supporting mechanisms are offered to guide humans towards their self-set goals. With this procedure, machines can for example support humans in driving safely or economically, help them refraining from scheduling other appointments in their gym-timeslots or push them towards going to bed on time. While originally nudging is based on libertarian paternalism, the concept of self-determined nudging enables the person to decide which goals to get nudged towards. By different examples, it is shown that nudging ideas are already present in numerous technical applications. Then, it is demonstrated how the aspect of self-determination can enrich these approaches. Moreover, already existing as well as potential new implementations of self-determined nudging in the automotive domain are described. As an outlook, the set-up of a study on automated driving is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abadie A, Gay S (2006) The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. J Health Econ 25(4):599–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbink DA (2006) Neuromuscular analysis of haptic gas pedal feedback during car following. Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approached. Taylor and Francis Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Altendorf E, Weßel G, Baltzer M, Canpolat Y, Flemisch FO (2016) Joint decision making and cooperative driver-vehicle interaction during critical driving situations. I-Com 15(3):265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf N, Karlan D, Yin W (2006) Tying odysseus to the mast: evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. Q J Econ 121:635–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auberlet J-M, Rosey F, Anceaux F, Aubin S, Briand P, Pacaux M-P, Plainchault P (2012) The impact of perceptual treatments on driver’s behavior: from driving simulator studies to field tests—first results. Accid Anal Prev 45:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin TT, Ford JK (1988) Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Pers Psychol 41(1):63–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Tenbrunsel AE, Wade-Benzoni K (1998) Negotiating with yourself and losing: making decisions with competing internal preferences. Acad Manag Rev 23(2):225–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubb H, Schmidtke H (1993) Systemergonomie. Ergonomie 3:305–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Carsten OMJ, Tate FN (2005) Intelligent speed adaptation: accident savings and cost-benefit analysis. Accid Anal Prev 37(3):407–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken S, Trope Y (1999) Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Comte SL, Jamson AH (2000) Traditional and innovative speed-reducing measures for curves: an investigation of driver behaviour using a driving simulator. Saf Sci 36(3):137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czapla M, Simon JJ, Richter B, Kluge M, Friederich H-C, Herpertz S, Loeber S (2016) The impact of cognitive impairment and impulsivity on relapse of alcohol-dependent patients: implications for psychotherapeutic treatment. Addict Biol 21(4):873–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinner I, Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG, Liu K (2011) Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. J Exp Psychol Appl 17(4):332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1977) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Philos Rhetor 10(2):130–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemisch FO (2016) Professor Flemisch during a discussion about the advantages and drawbacks of nudging (personal communication)

  • Flemisch F, Schieben A, Kelsch J, Löper C (2008) Automation spectrum, inner/outer compatibility and other potentially useful human factors concepts for assistance and automation. In: de Waard D, Flemisch FO, Lorenz B, Oberheid H, Brookhuis KA (eds) Human factors for assistance and automation. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemisch FO, Bengler K, Bubb H, Winner H, Bruder R (2014) Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-mode and conduct-by-wire. Ergonomics 57(3):343–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flemisch F, Abbink D, Itoh M, Pacaux-Lemoine MP, Weßel G (2019) Shared control is the sharp end of cooperation: towards a common framework of joint action, shared control and human machine cooperation. Cognit Technol Work (19)

  • Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002(December):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on persuasive technology (p 40)

  • Fudenberg D, Levine DK (2006) A dual-self model of impulse control. Am Econ Rev 96(5):1449–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanks AS, Just DR, Smith LE, Wansink B (2012) Healthy convenience: nudging students toward healthier choices in the lunchroom. J Public Health 34(3):370–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman DM, Welch B (2010) Debate: to nudge or not to nudge. J Political Philos 18(1):123–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc J-M (2000) From human–machine interaction to human–machine cooperation. Ergonomics 43(7):833–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E, Woods DD (1983) Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles. Int J Man Mach Stud 18(6):583–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hon AHY, Bloom M, Crant JM (2014) Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative performance. J Manag 40(3):919–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt WA, Bespalec DA (1974) Relapse rates after treatment for heroin addiction. J Commun Psychol 2(1):85–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics Biases 49:81

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan U, Dhar R (2006) Licensing effect in consumer choice. J Mark Res 43(2):259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan U, Dhar R (2007) Where there is a way, is there a will? The effect of future choices on self-control. J Exp Psychol Gen 136(2):277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors 46(1):50–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockton D, Harrison D, Stanton NA (2010) The design with intent method: a design tool for influencing user behaviour. Appl Ergon 41(3):382–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meschtscherjakov A, Wilfinger D, Scherndl T, Tscheligi M (2009) Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp 81–88

  • Michon JA (1985) A critical view of driver behavior models: what do we know, what should we do? Human behavior and traffic safety. Springer, Berlib, pp 485–524

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Milkman KL, Rogers T, Bazerman MH (2008) Harnessing our inner angels and demons: what we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(4):324–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montano DE, Kasprzyk D (2015) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: theory, research and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Nudging traffic (2016) How to save lives in a hurry—iNudgeyou. Retrieved from http://inudgeyou.com/archives/260. Accessed 2 Nov 2016.

  • Oinas-Kukkonen H (2010) Behavior change support systems: a research model and agenda. In International Conference on persuasive technology, pp 4–14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24(1):28

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacaux-Lemoine M-P, Debernard S (2002) Common work space for human–machine cooperation in air traffic control. Control Eng Pract 10(5):571–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacaux-Lemoine M-P, Flemisch F (2016) Layers of shared and cooperative control, assistance and automation. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(19):159–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Manzey DH (2010) Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Hum Factors 52(3):381–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikoff RC, Brez S, Hotz SB (2000) Exercise behavior in a community sample with diabetes: understanding the determinants of exercise behavioral change. Diabetes Educ 26(3):450–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska JO (2013) Transtheoretical model of behavior change. Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer, Berlin, pp 1997–2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1982) Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother Theory Res Pract 19(3):276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1986) Toward a comprehensive model of change. Treating addictive behaviors. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAE International (2016) ®Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems (Revision Sep 2014). Surface vehicle information report. SAE International, Warrendale

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan TB (2002) Humans and automation: system design and research issues. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiv B, Fedorikhin A (1999) Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. J Consum Res 26(3):278–292. https://doi.org/10.1086/209563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2014) Nudging: a very short guide. J Consum Policy 37(4):583–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C, Thaler R (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH, Sunstein CR, Balz JP (2014) Choice architecture. The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 428–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu B, Kaber DB, Zahabi M, Ma J (2017). Effect of feedback type and modality on human motivation. In IEEE International Conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), pp 2838–2843

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research conducted was partly funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the projects “Arbitration of cooperative movement for highly-automated human machine systems” respectively “Systemergonomics for cooperative interacting vehicles: transparency of automation behavior and intervention possibilities of the human during normal operation, at system limits and during system failure” and partly by RWTH Aachen University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, RWTH Aachen University, 52062, Aachen, Germany

    G. Weßel, E. Altendorf, Y. Canpolat, C. Burghardt & F. Flemisch

  2. Institute for Automotive Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, 52062, Aachen, Germany

    M. Schwalm

Authors
  1. G. Weßel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Altendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Schwalm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. Canpolat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Burghardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Flemisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Weßel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weßel, G., Altendorf, E., Schwalm, M. et al. Self-determined nudging: a system concept for human–machine interaction. Cogn Tech Work 21, 621–630 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00556-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00556-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation