Advertisement

Applications for Persuasive Technologies in Participatory Design Processes

  • Max JalowskiEmail author
  • Albrecht Fritzsche
  • Kathrin M. Möslein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)

Abstract

This paper studies the possibilities to support participatory design processes with persuasive technologies. Drawing on extant work by Elizabeth Sanders, it introduces a comprehensive framework for participatory design which highlights challenges for collaborative attitudes and behavior. To see how persuasive technologies can answer these challenges, the paper reviews the proceedings of the PERSUASIVE conferences since 2010. It identifies 186 application cases, which can be related to twelve different technology platforms. Following a design science research approach, the paper introduces an online navigator to explore different scenarios to support participatory design processes resulting from the findings of the literature review. The navigator can be applied together with Fogg’s eight-step design process for creating persuasive technology. To evaluate the navigator, two artificial evaluation iterations are conducted: ex ante a criteria-based analysis to show its theoretical efficacy and ex post problem-centered interviews with experts to gain further insights. The results contribute to a better understanding of the role that persuasive technologies can play in participatory design activities.

Keywords

Participatory design Co-design Applications of persuasive technology Design science research Technology channels 

References

  1. 1.
    Von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jarvela, S., Jarvenoja, H.: Socially constructed self-regulated learning and motivation regulation in collaborative learning groups. Teach. Coll. Rec. 113, 350–374 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antikainen, M., Mäkipää, M., Ahonen, M.: Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 13, 100–119 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P.: Socially mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educ. Stud. Math. 49, 193–223 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Vreede, T., Nguyen, C., de Vreede, G.-J., Boughzala, I., Oh, O., Reiter-Palmon, R.: A theoretical model of user engagement in crowdsourcing. In: Antunes, P., Gerosa, M.A., Sylvester, A., Vassileva, J., de Vreede, G.-J. (eds.) CRIWG 2013. LNCS, vol. 8224, pp. 94–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41347-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Algashami, A., Shahri, A., McAlaney, J., Taylor, J., Phalp, K., Ali, R.: Strategies and design principles to minimize negative side-effects of digital motivation on teamwork. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 267–278. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fogg, B.: Persuasive computers. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors Computer and Systems - CHI 1998, pp. 225–232 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogg, B.: Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fogg, B.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torning, K., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Persuasive system design: state of the art and future directions. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Designing persuasive systems for user engagement in collaborative interaction. In: Twenty Second European Conferences of Information Systems, pp. 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Lehto, T.: Exploring social influence on customer engagement: a pilot study on the effects of social learning, social comparison, and normative influence. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, pp. 2735–2744 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piller, F., Ihl, C., Vossen, A.: A Typology of customer co-creation in the innovation process. SSRN Electron. J. (2010).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732127
  15. 15.
    Sanders, E.B.-N., Brandt, E., Binder, T.: A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In: Proceedings of 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference - PDC 2010, p. 195 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muller, M.J., Wildman, D.M., White, E.A.: Taxonomy of PD practices: a brief practitioner’s guide. Commun. ACM 36, 24–28 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanders, E.B.-N.: Perspectives on participation in design. In: Mareis, C., Held, M., Joost, G. (eds.) Wer Gestaltet die Gestaltung? Praxis, Theorie und Geschichte des Partizipatorischen Designs, pp. 65–78. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Rijn, H., Stappers, P.J.: Expressions of ownership: motivating users in a co-design process. In: Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, pp. 178–181 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hagen, P., Robertson, T.: Dissolving boundaries: social technologies and participation in design. In: Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7 - OZCHI 2009, pp. 129–136 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24, 45–78 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Research essay design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 77–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Witzel, A., Reiter, H.: The Problem-Centred Interview. Sage, London (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Evaluation patterns for design science research artefacts. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 71–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. In: Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Hasle, P., Harjumaa, M., Segerståhl, K., Øhrstrøm, P. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5033, pp. 164–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68504-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wunsch, M., et al.: What makes you bike? Exploring persuasive strategies to encourage low-energy mobility. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 53–64. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barral, O., et al.: Covert persuasive technologies: bringing subliminal cues to human-computer interaction. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 1–12. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bdeir, A.: Electronics as material. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction - TEI 2009, p. 397 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boukhris, A., Fritzsche, A., Möslein, K.M.: Towards the design of a persuasive technology for encouraging collaborative prototyping. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1582, pp. 126–131 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ganesh, S., Marshall, P., Rogers, Y., O’Hara, K.: FoodWorks: tackling fussy eating by digitally augmenting children’s meals. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational - Nordic 2014, pp. 147–156 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu, S., Ham, J., Midden, C.J.H.: Using ambient lighting in persuasive communication: the role of pre-existing color associations. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 167–178. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    de Vries, P., Galetzka, M., Gutteling, J.: Persuasion in the wild: communication, technology, and event safety. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 80–91. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tikka, P., Laitinen, M., Manninen, I., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Reflection through gaming: reinforcing health message response through gamified rehearsal. In: Ham, J., Karapanos, E., Morita, P.P., Burns, C.M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10809, pp. 200–212. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gram-Hansen, S.B., Ryberg, T.: Acttention – influencing communities of practice with persuasive learning designs. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 184–195. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rapoport, M.: Persuasive robotic technologies and the freedom of choice and action. In: Nørskov, M. (ed.) Social Robots: Boundaries, Potential, Challenges, pp. 219–238. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henkemans, O.A.B., et al.: Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 106, 63–76 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heras, S., Rodríguez, P., Palanca, J., Duque, N., Julián, V.: Using argumentation to persuade students in an educational recommender system. In: de Vries, PW., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 227–239. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chow, K.K.N., Harrell, D.F., Yan, W.K.: Designing and analyzing swing compass: a lively interactive system provoking imagination and affect for persuasion. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 107–120. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hedin, B., Zapico, J.: Kilowh.at – increasing energy awareness using an interactive energy comparison tool. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 175–185. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chittaro, L., Zangrando, N.: The persuasive power of virtual reality: effects of simulated human distress on attitudes towards fire safety. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 58–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Brien, A.J., Alfano, C., Magnusson, E.: Improving cross-cultural communication through collaborative technologies. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 125–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Alharbi, O., Chatterjee, S.: BrightDark: a smartphone app utilizing e-fotonovela and text messages to increase energy conservation awareness. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 95–106. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Basten, F., Ham, J., Midden, C., Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A.: Does trigger location matter? The influence of localization and motivation on the persuasiveness of mobile purchase recommendations. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 121–132. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hammer, S., Lugrin, B., Bogomolov, S., Janowski, K., André, E.: Investigating politeness strategies and their persuasiveness for a robotic elderly assistant. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 315–326. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Costa, A., Heras, S., Palanca, J., Jordán, J., Novais, P., Julián, V.: Argumentation schemes for events suggestion in an e-Health platform. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 17–30. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chow, K.K.N.: Lock up the lighter: experience prototyping of a lively reflective design for smoking habit control. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 352–364. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nooitgedagt, A., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F.: e-Coaching for intensive cardiac rehabilitation. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 31–42. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stibe, A., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Using social influence for motivating customers to generate and share feedback. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 224–235. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Adaji, I., Vassileva, J.: Persuasive patterns in Q&A social networks. In: Meschtscherjakov, A., De Ruyter, B., Fuchsberger, V., Murer, M., Tscheligi, M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9638, pp. 189–196. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31510-2_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hartwig, M., Scholl, P., Budde, V., Windel, A.: Adaptive reminders for safe work. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 135–140. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Clinkenbeard, D., et al.: What’s your 2%? A pilot study for encouraging physical activity using persuasive video and social media. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 43–55. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Daskalova, N., Ford, N., Hu, A., Moorehead, K., Wagnon, B., Davis, J.: Informing design of suggestion and self-monitoring tools through participatory experience prototypes. In: Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8462, pp. 68–79. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    DiMicco, J.M., Bender, W.: Group reactions to visual feedback tools. In: de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., Midden, C., Eggen, B., Fogg, B.J. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4744, pp. 132–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77006-0_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Esakia, A., McCrickard, D.S., Harden, S.M., Horning, M.: FitAware: channeling group dynamics strategies with smartwatches in a physical activity intervention. In: Proceedings of 2017 CHI Conference on Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 2017, pp. 2551–2559 (2017)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reddy, V., et al.: Influencing participant behavior through a notification-based recommendation system. In: Ham, J., Karapanos, E., Morita, P.P., Burns, C.M. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10809, pp. 113–119. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78978-1_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Orji, R., Moffatt, K.: Persuasive technology for health and wellness: state-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Inform. J. 24, 66–91 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Information Systems, Innovation and Value CreationFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)NurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations