Captology and Technology Appropriation: Unintended Use as a Source for Designing Persuasive Technologies
In this paper we theoretically reflect upon persuasive technology usage under the light of technology appropriation. The intended usage of technology often fails, meaning that the designers’ intended use is not always translated into user behavior. This is also true for persuasive technology, since technology will always be used within a context involving users’ own intentions that may not always be anticipated by designers. This clashes with Fogg’s framing of captology, which explicitly focuses on endogenous intent, i.e., a persuasive intent that is designed into a technology. With this paper we open up an initial theoretical discourse around these two concepts, highlighting how the design of persuasive technologies can be informed by existing knowledge around technology appropriation. This is done by reflecting upon three identified ‘action points’: (1) learning from appropriation, (2) designing for appropriation, and (3) designing for personal differences and ambiguity of interaction.
KeywordsTechnology appropriation Captology Intentionality Unintended use
The financial support by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged (Christian Doppler Laboratory for Contextual Interfaces).
- 1.Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: Proceedings of the CHI, pp. 225–232. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
- 2.Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Verbeek, P-P.: Persuasive Technology and Moral Responsibility: Toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. In: Proceedings of PERSUASIVE 2006, Springer (2006)Google Scholar
- 7.Ihde, D.: Technology and the Lifeworld. Bloomington/Minneapolis, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
- 8.Dix, A.: Designing for appropriation. In: Proceedings of the BCS-HCI 2007. UK, pp. 27–30 (2007)Google Scholar
- 9.Carroll, J.: Completing design in use: Closing the appropriation cycle. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2004, Turku, Finland, 11 p. Paper 44 (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Dourish, P.: The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. JCSCW 12(4), 465–490 (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Klemmer, S.R., Hartmann, B., Takayama, L.: How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of the DIS 2006, pp. 140–149. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.Henderson, A., Kyng, M.: There’s no place like home: Continuing design in use, pp. 219–240. Lawrence Erlbaum, USA (1991)Google Scholar
- 15.Ehn, P.: Participation in design things. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Design 2008, pp. 92–101 (2008)Google Scholar
- 16.Bijker, W.E., Pinch, T.J.: The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit of Each Other. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1987)Google Scholar
- 17.Bødker, S., Christiansen, E.: Poetry in motion: Appropriation of the world of apps. In: Proceedings of the ECCE 2012, pp. 78–84. ACM (2012)Google Scholar