Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams

Abstract

Empathy is seen as essential for user-centered design and thus needs to be taken into consideration in design education. Personas are a design method that is meant to promote empathy with users and are also used to foster an empathic design approach in educational settings. Empathic involvement is considered to be particularly important to overcome egocentric approaches in design, i.e. to relate to users that are dissimilar to the design team. We explored the use of personas as proxies of similar or dissimilar users in a classroom design project phase in a qualitative study of eight student design workshops with personas as user representations. We found that establishing whether a persona was similar or dissimilar to the students played an important role and lead to empathy gaps regarding users that were considered old or less technically inclined. Showing empathy in the student teams was considered risky and perspective taking was limited by the social interaction amongst the team members. We propose that research of design education would benefit from differentiating the multiple aspects that are typically conjoined in the term ‘empathy’. Furthermore raising awareness for the mechanisms of empathy should be incorporated into design and engineering education rather than relying on automatic reactions and intuition.

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

References

  1. Adams, A., Lunt, P., & Cairns, P. (2008). A qualititative approach to HCI research. In P. Cairns & A. Cox (Eds.), Research methods for human–computer interaction (pp. 138–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A., & Krueger, J. (2005). The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ames, D. R. (2004a). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 340–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ames, D. R. (2004b). Strategies for social inference: A similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anvari, F., Richards, D., Hitchens, M., Babar, M. A., Tran, H. M. T., & Busch, P. (2017). An empirical investigation of the influence of persona with personality traits on conceptual design. Journal of Systems and Software, 134, 324–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bardzell, J. (2014). Critical and cultural approaches to HCI. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 130–143). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 675–684).

  8. Bath, C. (2014a). Diffractive design. In N. Marsden & U. Kempf (Eds.), Gender-UseIT—HCI, usability und UX unter Gendergesichtspunkten (pp. 27–36). München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bath, C. (2014b). Searching for methodology. Feminist technology design in computer science. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology (pp. 57–78). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. (2004). Understanding children’s and adults’ limitations in mental state reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blanco, T., López-Forniés, I., & Zarazaga-Soria, F. J. (2017). Deconstructing the Tower of Babel: A design method to improve empathy and teamwork competences of informatics students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bornet, C., & Brangier, E. (2016). The effects of personas on creative codesign of work equipment: An exploratory study in a real setting. CoDesign, 12(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design—How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cabrero, D. G., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., & Nocera, J. A. (2016). Re-conceptualising personas across cultures: Archetypes, stereotypes and collective personas in two locales in pastoral Namibia. In M. van der Velden, M. Strano, H. Hrachvec, J. Abdelnour Nocera, & C. Ess (Eds.), Culture, technology, communication: Common worlds, different futures? Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Culture, Technology, Communication. London, UK, 15–17 June 2016 (pp. 35–48).

  16. Coll, M.-P., Viding, E., Rütgen, M., Silani, G., Lamm, C., Catmur, C., et al. (2017). Are we really measuring empathy? Proposal for a new measurement framework. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Converse, B. A., Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2008). In the mood to get over yourself: Mood affects theory-of-mind use. Emotion, 8(5), 725–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2014). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Decety, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: A social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 527–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dresing, T., Pehl, T., & Schmieder, C. (2012). Manual (on) transcription: Transcription conventions, software guides and practical hints for qualitative researchers (3rd English Edition). Marburg. http://www.audiotranskription.de/english/transcription-practicalguide.htm. Accessed 21 April 2018.

  22. Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240–256). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Epley, N. (2008). Solving the (real) other minds problem. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1455–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2008). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 297–311). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004a). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004b). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 760–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In Handbook of social psychology.

  28. Fenigstein, A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Self-attention and the egocentric assumption of shared perspectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(4), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 107–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gasparini, A. (2015). Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking. In The eight international conference on advances in computerhuman interactions (ACHI’15) (pp. 49–54).

  32. Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A. M., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gray, C. M. (2016). It’s more of a mindset than a method”: UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4044–4055).

  34. Grudin, J. (2006). Why personas work: The psychological evidence. In J. Pruitt & T. Adlin (Eds.), The persona lifecycle, keeping people in mind throughout product design (pp. 642–663). San Francisco: Kaufmann Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: Neural evidence of an empathy gap. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 596–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. ​Haag, M., Weber, C., Heim, J., Marsden, N. (2016). Geschlechterkonstruktionen in der Anforderungsspezifikation von IT-Projekten. In H. Barke, J. Siegeris, J. Freiheit & D. Krefting (Eds.), Gender und IT-Projekte - Neue Wege zu digitaler Teilhabe (pp. 61–70). Opladen: Budrich UniPress.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hammond, M. M., & Kim, S. J. (2014). Rethinking empathy through literature (Vol. 31). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Higgins, E. T. (1981). Role taking and social judgment: Alternative developmental perspectives and processes. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 119–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hill, C., Haag, M., Oleson, A., Mendez, C., Marsden, N., Sarma, A., & Burnett, M. (2017). Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can we have it both ways? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17) (pp. 6658–6671) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609.

  40. Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of adolescence, 29(4), 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kelley, C. M. (1999). Subjective experience as basis of “objective” judgments: Effects of past experience on judgments of difficulty. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 515–536). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 720–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Krueger, J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. LeRouge, C., Ma, J., Sneha, S., & Tolle, K. (2013). User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(11), e251–e268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2010). Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lux, V., & Weigel, S. (2017). Empathy: Epistemic problems and cultural-historical perspectives of a cross-disciplinary concept. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marsden, N., & Haag, M. (2016). Stereotypes and politics: Reflections on Personas. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4017–4031).

  50. Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50(4), 655–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1035–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nielsen, L. (2013). Personas—user focused design. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(1), 30–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Preston, S. D., & Hofelich, A. J. (2012). The many faces of empathy: Parsing empathic phenomena through a proximate, dynamic-systems view of representing the other in the self. Emotion Review, 4(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ritter, F. E., Baxter, G. D., & Churchill, E. F. (2014). Foundations for designing user-centered systems. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Royzman, E. B., Cassidy, K. W., & Baron, J. (2003). “ I know, you know”: Epistemic egocentrism in children and adults. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 38–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sassenrath, C., Sassenberg, K., & Scholl, A. (2014). From a distance… the impact of approach and avoidance motivational orientation on perspective taking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Smeenk, W., Tomico, O., & van Turnhout, K. (2016). A systematic analysis of mixed perspectives in empathic design: Not one perspective encompasses all. International Journal of Design, 10(2), 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1983). Self-directed attention and taking the other’s perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Thieme, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., Clarke, R. E., Slovák, P., McCarthy, J., et al. (2014). Enabling empathy in health and care: Design methods and challenges. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 139–142).

  65. Toombs, A., Gross, S., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2017). From empathy to care: A feminist care ethics perspective on long-term researcher–participant relations. Interacting with Computers, 29(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2008). Empathy and experience in HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence.

  68. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1 and 2, pp. 591–632). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zhang, X., & Wakkary, R. (2014). Understanding the role of designers’ personal experiences in interaction design practice. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’14) (pp. 895–904).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the Brigitte-Schlieben-Lange-Programm/Ministry of Science, Research, and Arts Baden-Württemberg, Germany; and in part by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) for the project “IT&me—Konzeption, Umsetzung und Evaluation eines modellhaften multimedialen Wissenspools in der IT-Expertinnenbildung unter Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Lebenssituationen und Lernstrategien”, FKZ 01FP1617. The responsibility for the content lies with the authors. We appreciate the helpful comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Marsden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haag, M., Marsden, N. Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 565–582 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9452-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Empathy
  • Perspective taking
  • User-centered design
  • Human–computer interaction
  • Personas
  • Design literacy