PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN:A MODEL AND TOOLKIT
FOR DESIGNING EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS
Sander Hermsen Reint Jan Renes Jeana F...
Touchpoints
■ Evidence-based design
■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform
behavior change concepts
■ gaining import...
■ Evidence-based design
■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform
behavior change concepts
■ gaining importance in past...
Our proposed model
• Evidence-based
• More possibilities for informing designs
• Easy to use
6
Our proposed model
• Evidence-based
• More possibilities for informing designs
• Easy to use
• Uses for model:
- Case anal...
Method
• literature search
• refining draft versions through co-design sessions
• first tool: workshop
• interviews
• observ...
Results from literature
and co-design sessions
1) Model must distinguish between two modes of
behavior: automatic (habits,...
Results from literature
1. Dual process theory
• Automatic behavior
• Controlled behavior
! Blue layer
10
CUE
Changed
Beha...
2. Controlled behavior is
best explained by
insights from
control theory
- self-regulatory cycle
! Blue layer
Results from...
3. Many processes threaten
behavior change
! Red layer
■ Resistance
■ Biases, white lies
■ Threats to motivation
(e.g. fru...
4. We’re social animals
! Green layer
■ Social comparison
■ Social norms
■ Peer pressure
■ Social commitment
■ Cooperation...
Black layer
■ Interventions
in controlled
behavior
■ norm communication,
feedback, action planning,
involving social facto...
Purple layer
■ Interventions aimed at automatic behavior
■ removing cues, placing alternative cues,
disrupting cue-behavio...
16
REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR
boundary conditions
i
Communicator interventions aimed at
explicit, controlled b...
First tool derived from model:
Sets of questions to test concepts
■ Ten sets
■ 6 sets from blue layer, 2 from red layer, 2...
Testing the model
■ Workshops
■ Anders op Weg, concepts for persuading people to reduce
car use during rush our. 8 partici...
Testing the model
■ Workshop consisted of
■ Introduction of the model
■ Introduction of sets of questions derived from the...
Workshop results:
Questionnaires and interviews
✓ Participants indicated:
■ valuable insights
■ both for current project a...
Workshop results:
Questionnaires and interviews
- Participants indicated:
■ the complexity of the model makes it hard to u...
Results
✓ Evidence-based model
✓ More possibilities for informing designs
! Easy to use
22
Results
✓ Evidence-based model
✓ More possibilities for informing designs
! Easy to use
‣Next phase
■prototyping and testi...
Thank you
■ Your questions?
■ more information:
sander.hermsen@hu.nl @sanderhermsen
■ Download model pdf and questions at
...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Persuasive By Design Model presented at Chi Sparks 2014 by Sander Hermsen

1,002 views

Published on

More and more, the objective of a designed interaction is to change the behaviour of its users. Knowledge of psychological theory is essential in achieving desired results, but often not sufficiently available to designers. At CHI Sparks 2014, Sander Hermsen, Reint Jan Renes, & Jeana Frost presented a model that will evolve into a tool that will help designers in creating evidence-based interventions for behavioural change.

Published in: Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,002
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
446
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Persuasive By Design Model presented at Chi Sparks 2014 by Sander Hermsen

  1. 1. PERSUASIVE BY DESIGN:A MODEL AND TOOLKIT FOR DESIGNING EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS Sander Hermsen Reint Jan Renes Jeana Frost Hogeschool Utrecht Hogeschool Utrecht Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Touchpoints! Persuasief ontwerpen voor duurzaam en gezond gedrag
  2. 2. Touchpoints ■ Evidence-based design ■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform behavior change concepts ■ gaining importance in past decade ■ health, sustainability 2
  3. 3. ■ Evidence-based design ■ use of reliable, valid knowledge to inform behavior change concepts ■ gaining importance in past decade ■ health, sustainability ■ Important source of knowledge: behavioral sciences ■ problem: impenetrable field 3
  4. 4. Our proposed model • Evidence-based • More possibilities for informing designs • Easy to use 6
  5. 5. Our proposed model • Evidence-based • More possibilities for informing designs • Easy to use • Uses for model: - Case analysis for target group research - Concept Analysis for discovering strenghts and weaknesses in concepts - Decisional Accountability 7
  6. 6. Method • literature search • refining draft versions through co-design sessions • first tool: workshop • interviews • observations • questionnaire 8
  7. 7. Results from literature and co-design sessions 1) Model must distinguish between two modes of behavior: automatic (habits, impulses) and controlled 3) Controlled behavior is best explained by insights from control theory 3) Many processes threaten behavior change 5) We’re social animals 9
  8. 8. Results from literature 1. Dual process theory • Automatic behavior • Controlled behavior ! Blue layer 10 CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
  9. 9. 2. Controlled behavior is best explained by insights from control theory - self-regulatory cycle ! Blue layer Results from literature 11 Changed Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes
  10. 10. 3. Many processes threaten behavior change ! Red layer ■ Resistance ■ Biases, white lies ■ Threats to motivation (e.g. frustration) ■ Cognitive dissonance reduction strategies ■ Etcetera... 12 Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information Changed Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Results from literature
  11. 11. 4. We’re social animals ! Green layer ■ Social comparison ■ Social norms ■ Peer pressure ■ Social commitment ■ Cooperation and shared goals ■ Social inhibition, social validation 13 Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Results from literature
  12. 12. Black layer ■ Interventions in controlled behavior ■ norm communication, feedback, action planning, involving social factors 14 +! feasible steps Action planning ! ! ! Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved:
  13. 13. Purple layer ■ Interventions aimed at automatic behavior ■ removing cues, placing alternative cues, disrupting cue-behavior-link 15 i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved:
  14. 14. 16 REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR REFLEXIVE BEHAVIOR boundary conditions i Communicator interventions aimed at explicit, controlled behaviour threats to self regulatory cycle social influences on self regulatory cycle steps in the self regulatory cycle (model based, reflective behaviour) i Communicator interventions aimed at implicit, automatic behaviour i Intervening in automatic behavior placing alternative cue attractiveness and availability of goal Reporting Performance Feedback i disrupting cue – behavior link i removing cue +! feasible steps Action planning ! ! ! Reporting Performance Feedback Norm / Goal Setting Targets by communicating norms and goals Involving Social Factors Intervening in reflective/controlled behavior Social Norms Peer Pressure, SocialValidation Social Commitment Cooperation, shared goals Social Comparison Social Inhibition Competing / Conflicting Goals Resistance Reactance and scepsis Cognitive dissonance reduction, competing norms Frustration, motivation declineCompeting / conflicting behaviours, habits Biases, White lies Lack of relevant information CUE Changed Behavior Original Behavior No change in Behavior Goal achieved: Self-Monitoring Perception of own behaviour Comparison of goal and behaviour Discrepancy? fitting capability, motivation opportunity Attempting new behaviour Disengagement from goal Goal (want to / ought to) no no yes yes Persuasive by Design Behaviour Change Model tekst http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/
  15. 15. First tool derived from model: Sets of questions to test concepts ■ Ten sets ■ 6 sets from blue layer, 2 from red layer, 2 from green layer ■ Each set has additional questions from black + purple layers 17
  16. 16. Testing the model ■ Workshops ■ Anders op Weg, concepts for persuading people to reduce car use during rush our. 8 participants ■ Enexis, concepts for reducing company CO2 footprint through behavior change. 12 participants 18
  17. 17. Testing the model ■ Workshop consisted of ■ Introduction of the model ■ Introduction of sets of questions derived from the model to challenge the design concepts ■ Working on the concepts using model and questions ■ Feedback, questionnaires and interviews 19
  18. 18. Workshop results: Questionnaires and interviews ✓ Participants indicated: ■ valuable insights ■ both for current project and for work overall ✓ We observed: ■ richer concepts that were better thought-through and more sharply defined ■ problems and pitfalls of concepts became clear 20 “Of great value. I am one of the more sceptical people in my team; this enables us to think more clearly about our goals and the means that we need to develop to achieve them!”
  19. 19. Workshop results: Questionnaires and interviews - Participants indicated: ■ the complexity of the model makes it hard to use without guidance - We observed: ■ participant were most likely to use the best explained examples and principles ■ the model is impossible to use without introduction 21 “I would like to see a simpler version.”
  20. 20. Results ✓ Evidence-based model ✓ More possibilities for informing designs ! Easy to use 22
  21. 21. Results ✓ Evidence-based model ✓ More possibilities for informing designs ! Easy to use ‣Next phase ■prototyping and testing tools based upon model ■especially aiming at a ‘stand alone’-tool ■ graphic novel techniques ■ interactive infographic techniques 23
  22. 22. Thank you ■ Your questions? ■ more information: sander.hermsen@hu.nl @sanderhermsen ■ Download model pdf and questions at http://www.touchpoints-hu.nl/ 24

×