Designing Teenage Emotions with a Life of Their Own

  • Neil WinterburnEmail author
  • Peggy Gregory
  • Daniel Fitton
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


In this chapter, two participatory design activities are described in which teenagers create lo-fi designs describing emotions and explain the rationale for their design choices. Designs annotating and describing emotions are categorised as anthropomorphic, abstract, object based, or biomorphic. The chapter concludes: (i) teenagers use a variety of visual metaphors to describe emotions, (ii) teenagers use anthropomorphic visual metaphors most often to describe emotions and (iii) teenagers make more use of abstract and biomorphic visual metaphors to describe ‘negative’ emotions. The effect of materials on designs is analysed, suggesting that teenagers are more likely to create designs describing emotions featuring anthropomorphic visual metaphors when using malleable three-dimensional materials. Suggestions are made for the use of externalisation and personification as part of interactive emotion displays within affective systems. A focus group evaluation of a prototype mobile app is described, which suggests that teenagers place more importance on an affective systems ability to support social relationships than they do its ability to support psychological development. This research will be of value to interaction designers and Child-Computer Interaction researchers seeking to understand how teenagers use different visual metaphors to describe different emotions


Autonomous Agent Design Activity Personal Development Emotion Display Affective Computing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amin AK, Kersten BTA, Kulyk OA, Pelgrim PH, Wang CM, Markopoulos P (2005) SenseMS: a user-centered approach to enrich the messaging experience for teens by non-verbal means. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices & services. ACM, New York, pp 161–166Google Scholar
  2. Astington JW, Harris PL, Olson DR (1990) Developing theories of mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bang A, Krogh P, Ludvigsen M, Markussen T (2012) The role of hypothesis in constructive design research. In: Proceedings of the Art of Research Iv.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop C (2005) The social turn: collaboration and its discontents. Artforum 44(6):178Google Scholar
  5. Boehner K, DePaula R, Doursh P, Sengers P (2007) How emotion is made and measured. Int Hum-Comput Stud 65(4):275–291Google Scholar
  6. Botar OAI, Wünsche I (2011) Biocentrism and modernism. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler S, Guterman JT, Rudes J (2009) Using puppets with children in narrative therapy to externalize the problem. J Ment Health Couns 31(3):225–233Google Scholar
  8. Carey M, Russell S (2002) Externalising – commonly asked questions. Int J Narrat Ther Commun Work 2002(2):76Google Scholar
  9. Chandler M, Astington JW, Harris PL, Olson DR (1988) Doubt and developing theories of mind. Dev Theor Mind 1: 387–414Google Scholar
  10. Clynes M, Menuhin Y (1977) Sentics: the touch of emotions. Anchor Press, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  11. Druin A (1999) Developing cooperative new technologies inquiry: for children with children, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 592–599Google Scholar
  12. Eysenck H (1991) Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? – criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personal Individ Differ 12(8):773–790Google Scholar
  13. Fitton D, Bell BT (2014) Working with teenagers within HCI research: understanding teen-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 28th international BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI 2014 – Sand, Sea and Sky – Holiday HCI (BCS-HCI ’14). BCS, UK, pp 201–206Google Scholar
  14. Fitton D, Read JCC, Horton M (2013) The challenge of working with teens as participants in interaction design. In: CHI’13 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 205–210Google Scholar
  15. Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist EL (2004) Affect regulation, mentalization and the development of the self. Karnac Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Froggett L (2011) New model visual arts organisations & Social engagement, Psychosocial Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire. Available at: Accessed Mar 2014
  17. Guha M, Druin A, Chipman G (2005) Working with young children as technology design partners. Commun ACM 48(1):39–42Google Scholar
  18. Guha ML, Druin A, Chipman G, Fails JA, Simms S, Farber A (2004) Mixing ideas: a new technique for working with young children as design partners. In: Proceeding of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children building a community, ACM, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  19. Hoffman ML (1986) Affect, cognition, and motivation: foundations of social behavior, 1, pp 244–280.Google Scholar
  20. Horton M, Read J, Fitton D, Little L, Toth N (2012) Too cool at school-understanding cool teenagers. PsychNology J 10(2):73–91Google Scholar
  21. Iversen O, Dindler C (2008) Pursuing aesthetic inquiry in participatory design. In: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008. Indiana University, pp 138–145Google Scholar
  22. Klein M (1929) Personification in the play of children. Int J Psycho-Anal 10:193Google Scholar
  23. Lutz C (1988) Unnatural emotions: everyday sentiments on a micronesian atoll and their challenge to western theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Marti P, Rizzo A (2003) Levels of design: from usability to experience. In: HCI International 2003, 10th international conference on human-computer interactionGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazzone E (2012) Designing with children : reflections on effective involvement of children in the interaction design process. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central LancashireGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazzone E, Read J, Beale R (2008) Understanding children’s contributions during informant design. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: culture, creativity, interaction, vol 2. British Computer Society, pp 61–64Google Scholar
  27. Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36:1–11Google Scholar
  28. Picard RW (1995) Affective computingGoogle Scholar
  29. Picard RW, Papert S, Bender W, Blumberg B, Breazeal C, Cavallo D, Machover T, Resnick M, Roy D, Strohecker C (2004) Affective learning—a manifesto. BT Technol J 22(4):253–269Google Scholar
  30. Prinz J (2012) Emotion. In: Calvo P, Gomila T (eds) The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Read JC, Bekker M (2011) The nature of child computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS conference on human-computer interaction, British Computer Society, pp 163–170Google Scholar
  32. Read JC, Beale R (2011) What teenagers think about when they think about safety in the cloud. ACM SIGCHI Workshop, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  33. Read JC, Horton M, Iversen O, Fitton D, Little L (2013a) Methods of working with teenagers in interaction design. In: CHI’13 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 3243–3246Google Scholar
  34. Read JC, Fitton D, Horton M (2013b) Theatre, playDoh and comic strips: designing organic user interfaces with young adolescent and teenage participants. Interact Comput 25(2):183–198Google Scholar
  35. Read JC, Markopoulos P (2013) Child–computer interaction. 2013. Int J Child-Comput Interact.Google Scholar
  36. Read J, MacFarlane S, Kelly S (2006) The ChiCI group. In CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 295–298Google Scholar
  37. Resnick M (1997) Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Resnick M, Silverman B (2005) Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children, ACM, pp 117–122Google Scholar
  39. Reynolds CW (1999) Steering behaviors for autonomous characters. In: Game developers conference, vol 1999, pp 763–782Google Scholar
  40. Salovey P, Mayer JD (1990) Emotional intelligence. Imagin Cogn Pers 9(3):185–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Susi T, Johannesson M, Backlund P (2007) Serious games: an overview. University of Skövde, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  42. Velásquez J (1997) Modeling emotions and other motivations in synthetic agents. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp 10–15Google Scholar
  43. White M (2006) Narrative practice with families with children: externalising conversations revisited. In: White M, Morgan A (eds). Narrative therapy with children and their families.Google Scholar
  44. Xu D, Read J, Sim G, McManus B (2009) Experience it, draw it, rate it: capture children’s experiences with their drawings. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children, ACM, pp 266–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Child-Computer Interaction GroupUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK
  2. 2.School of Physical Sciences and ComputingUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK
  3. 3.Child-Computer Interaction Group, School of Physical Sciences and ComputingUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK

Personalised recommendations