Advertisement

Behavior

  • Roy Bendor
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication book series (PSMEC)

Abstract

This chapter describes the design and use of interactive media aimed at closing the “attitude-behavior gap” by influencing the behaviors of their users. The chapter draws from contemporary work in cognitive science and behavioral psychology and surveys a wide variety of persuasive interactions with varying degrees of prescriptiveness—from “seducing” users to engaging them with what B.F. Skinner calls a “technology of behavior.” The image of sustainability that emerges from persuasive uses of interactive media is of a delicate balance between human and nonhuman interests, one that can only be restored by inculcating more sustainable, or less unsustainable, behaviors.

Bibliography

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. (1992). The Description of Technical Objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Backlund, S., Gyllenswärd, M., Gustafsson, A., Ilstedt Hjelm, S., Mazé, R., & Redström, R. (2006). STATIC! The Aesthetics of Energy in Everyday Things. Paper Presented at the Design Research Society International Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  4. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty Years After Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A New Meta-Analysis of Psycho-social Determinants of Pro-environmental Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Barreto, M., Karapanos, E., & Nunes, N. (2013). Why Don’t Families Get Along with Eco-feedback Technologies?: A Longitudinal Inquiry. In Proceedings of CHItaly ‘13 (Article No. 16). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Berdichevsky, D., & Neuenschwander, E. (1999). Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., & Tang, T. (2011). Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour. The Design Journal, 14(4), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickman, L. (1972). Environmental Attitudes and Actions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 87(2), 323–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boks, C., Lilley, D., & Pettersen, I. N. (2015). The Future of Design for Sustainable Behaviour, Revisited. Paper Presented at the 9th EcoDesign International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  12. Brey, P. (2000). Disclosive Computer Ethics. Computers and Society, 30(4), 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brulle, R. J. (2010). From Environmental Campaigns to Advancing the Public Dialog: Environmental Communication for Civic Engagement. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brynjarsdóttir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E. P. S., DiSalvo, C., & Sengers, P. (2012). Sustainably Unpersuaded: How Persuasion Narrows Our Vision of Sustainability. In Proceedings of CHI ‘12 (pp. 947–956). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 57–76). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice. Design Issues, 2(1), 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burgess, J., Harrison, C., & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental Communication and the Cultural Politics of Environmental Citizenship. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1445–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crompton, T. (2010). Common Cause: The Case for Working with Our Cultural Values. Surrey: WWF-UK.Google Scholar
  19. Crompton, T., & Kasser, T. (2009). Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role of Human Identity. Surrey: WWF-UK.Google Scholar
  20. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  21. Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain (1st ed.). Orlando: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  22. Davidson, R. J. (2000). Cognitive Neuroscience Needs Affective Neuroscience (and Vice Versa). Brain and Cognition, 42(1), 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, J. (2009). Design Methods for Ethical Persuasive Computing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology (pp. 6–13). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Dawson, M. (2003). The Consumer Trap: Big Business Marketing in American Life. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  25. de Oliveira, R., & Carrascal, J. P. (2014). Towards Effective Ethical Behavior Design. In Proceedings of CHI ‘14 (pp. 2149–2154). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  26. DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010). Mapping the Landscape of Sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of CHI ‘10 (pp. 1975–1984). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Dourish, P. (2010). HCI and Environmental Sustainability: The Politics of Design and the Design of Politics. In O. W. Bartelsen & P. Krogh (Eds.), Proceedings of DIS 2010 (pp. 1–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  28. Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2017). Climate Change: US Public Opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ewen, S. (2001). Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Amsterdam/Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Foster, D., Lawson, S., Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2010). Wattsup?: Motivating Reductions in Domestic Energy Consumption Using Social Networks. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2010 (pp. 178–187). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Friedman, B. (1996). Value-Sensitive Design. Interactions, 3(6), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 14(3), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The Design of Eco-feedback Technology. In Proceedings of CHI 2010 (pp. 1999–2008). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Gabrielli, S., & Maimone, R. (2014). Designing a Context-Aware Mobile Application for Eco-driving. In Proceedings of ICCASA 14 (pp. 102–104). Brussles: ICST.Google Scholar
  36. Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., Corradi, N., Jacucci, G., Tusa, G., Mikkola, T., et al. (2012). Tailoring Feedback to Users’ Actions in a Persuasive Game for Household Electricity Conservation. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), Persuasive Technology. Design for Health and Safety. PERSUASIVE 2012 (pp. 100–111). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ganglbauer, E., Reitberger, W., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2013). An Activist Lens for Sustainability: From Changing Individuals to Changing the Environment. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2013 (pp. 63–68). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond (2nd ed.). Eastleigh/Bloomington: John Libbey Pub.Google Scholar
  39. Geelen, D., Keyson, D., Boess, S., & Brezet, H. (2012). Exploring the Use of a Game to Stimulate Energy Saving in Households. Journal of Design Research, 10(1–2), 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York: Perseus.Google Scholar
  41. Guerin, D. A., Yust, B. L., & Coopet, J. G. (2000). Occupant Predictors of Household Energy Behavior and Consumption Change as Found in Energy Studies Since 1975. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 29(1), 48–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Pakkanen, T. (2014). Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? – A Review of Empirical Studies. In A. Spagnolli, L. Chittaro, & L. Gamberini (Eds.), Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2014 (pp. 137–142). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Hassenzahl, M., & Laschke, M. (2015). Pleasurable Troublemakers. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications (pp. 167–195). London/Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hazas, M., Bernheim Brush, A. J., & Scott, J. (2012). Sustainability Does Not Begin with the Individual. Interactions, 19(5), 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hiraoka, T., Terakado, Y., Matsumoto, S., & Yamabe, S. (2009). Quantitative Evaluation of Eco-driving on Fuel Consumption Based on Driving Simulator Experiments. In Proceedings of the 16th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems (pp. 21–25). Washington, DC: ITS.Google Scholar
  46. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-Analyses of the Determinants and Outcomes of Belief in Climate Change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  50. Karppinen, P., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). Three Approaches to Ethical Considerations in the Design of Behavior Change Support Systems. In S. Berkovsky & J. Freyne (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2013 (pp. 87–98). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Kim, P. (1992). Does Advertising Work: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kim, T., Hong, H., & Magerko, B. (2010). Design Requirements for Ambient Display That Supports Sustainable Lifestyle. In Proceedings of DIS 2010 (pp. 103–112). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  53. Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  54. Knowles, B., Blair, L., Coulton, P., & Lochrie, M. (2014). Rethinking Plan A for Sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of CHI 2014 (pp. 3593–3596). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Koger, S. M., & Winter, D. D. N. (2010). The Psychology of Environmental Problems: Psychology for Sustainability (3rd ed.). New York/London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to Pro-environmental Behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. L. (1988). Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process. Dover: Auburn House.Google Scholar
  58. Kuijer, L., & Bakker, C. (2015). Of Chalk and Cheese: Behaviour Change and Practice Theory in Sustainable Design. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(3), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Lavender, T. (2010, July 18). Digital Media Students Want to Raise Your Carbon Consciousness. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/megabytes/2010/07/18/digital-media-students-want-raise-your-carbon-consciousness
  61. Lee, H., Lee, W., & Lim, Y.-K. (2010). The Effect of Eco-driving System Towards Sustainable Driving Behavior. In Proceedings of CHI 2010 (pp. 4255–4260). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  62. Lilley, D., & Wilson, G. T. (2013). Integrating Ethics into Design for Sustainable Behaviour. Journal of Design Research, 11(3), 278–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lilley, D., Lofthouse, V., & Bhamra, T. (2005). Towards Instinctive Sustainable Product Use. Paper Presented at the 2nd International Conference: Sustainability Creating the Culture, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  64. Lockton, D. (2013). Design with Intent: A Design Pattern Toolkit for Environmental & Social Behaviour Change. PhD dissertation submitted at Brunel University, London.Google Scholar
  65. Losh, E. M. (2009). Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., et al. (2015). Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science Can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 32, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D., & Popkin, S. L. (2000). Beyond Rationality: Reason and the Study of Politics. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality (pp. 1–20). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mankoff, J. C., Fussell, S. R., Dillahunt, T., Glaves, R., Grevet, C., Johnson, M., et al. (2010). StepGreen.org: Increasing Energy Saving Behaviors Via Social Networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 106–113). Palo Alto: AAAI.Google Scholar
  69. Mazé, R. (2010). Static! Designing for Energy Awareness. Stockholm: Arvinius Förlag.Google Scholar
  70. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering Sustainable Behavior Through Community-Based Social Marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McRae, L., Freeman, R., & Marconi, V. (2016). The Living Planet Index. In N. Oerlemans (Ed.), Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and Resilience in a New Era. Gland: WWF International.Google Scholar
  72. Niedderer, K., Ludden, G., Clune, S. J., Lockton, D., Mackrill, J., Morris, A., et al. (2016). Design for Behaviour Change as a Driver for Sustainable Innovation: Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation in the Private and Public Sectors. International Journal of Design, 10(2), 67–85.Google Scholar
  73. Nodder, C. (2013). Evil by Design: Interaction Design to Lead Us into Temptation. Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  74. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A Foundation for the Study of Behavior Change Support Systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1223–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(article 28), 485–500.Google Scholar
  77. Packard, V. (1957). The Hidden Persuaders. New York: D. McKay Co.Google Scholar
  78. Peffer, T., Pritoni, M., Meier, A., Aragon, C., & Perry, D. (2011). How People Use Thermostats in Homes: A Review. Building and Environment, 46(12), 2529–2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pettersen, I. N., & Boks, C. (2008). The Ethics in Balancing Control and Freedom When Engineering Solutions for Sustainable Behaviour. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 1(4), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pierce, J., Odom, W., & Blevis, E. (2008). Energy Aware Dwelling: A Critical Survey of Interaction Design for Eco-visualizations. Paper Presented at OZCHI 2008, Cairns.Google Scholar
  81. Prost, S., Schrammel, J., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). ‘Sometimes It’s the Weather’s Fault’: Sustainable HCI & Political Activism, CHI ‘14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2005–2010). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  82. Rozendaal, M. (2016). Objects with Intent: A New Paradigm for Interaction Design. Interactions, 23(3), 62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ruijten, P. A. M., Midden, C. J. H., & Ham, J. (2011). Unconscious Persuasion Needs Goal-Striving: The Effect of Goal Activation on the Persuasive Power of Subliminal Feedback. In Proceedings of Persuasive 2011 (article number 4). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  84. Rutherford, A. (2003). B. F. Skinner’s Technology of Behavior in American Life: From Consumer Culture to Counterculture. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Samuel, L. R. (2010). Freud on Madison Avenue: Motivation Research and Subliminal Advertising in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shove, E. (2010a). Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shove, E. (2010b). Social Theory and Climate Change: Questions Often, Sometimes and Not Yet Asked. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shove, E. (2011). On the Difference Between Chalk and Cheese – A Response to Whitmarsh et al.’s Comments on ‘Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change’. Environment and Planning A, 43, 262–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable Practices: Social Theory and Climate Change. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
  91. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Smids, J. (2012). The Voluntariness of Persuasive Technology. In M. Bang & E. L. Ragnemalm (Eds.), PERSUASIVE 2012 (pp. 123–132). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  93. Snow, S., Buys, L., Roe, P., & Brereton, M. (2013). Curiosity to Cupboard: Self Reported Disengagement with Energy Use Feedback Over Time. In Proceedings of OzCHI ‘13 (pp. 245–254). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  94. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Strengers, Y. (2011). Designing Eco-feedback Systems for Everyday Life. In Proceedings of CHI 2011 (pp. 2135–2144). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  96. Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (Eds.). (2015). Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour Change. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Strike, K. A. (1975). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 9(1–2), 112–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Orlando: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  99. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Thaler, R. H. (2000). From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Krämer, N., Lawson, S., & Olivier, P. (2012). “We’ve Bin Watching You”: Designing for Reflection and Social Persuasion to Promote Sustainable Lifestyles. In Proceedings of CHI 2012 (pp. 2337–2346). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  103. Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2015). Ethical Challenges in Emerging Applications of Persuasive Technology. In T. MacTavish & S. Basapur (Eds.), Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2015 (pp. 196–201). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. Tromp, N., Hekkert, P., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Design for Socially Responsible Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience. Design Issues, 27(3), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 3–20). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Vaughn, R. (1980). How Advertising Works: A Planning Model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27–33.Google Scholar
  107. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Persuasive Technology and Moral Responsibility: Toward an Ethical Framework for Persuasive Technologies. Paper Presented at Persuasive 06, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  108. Wallace-Wells, D. (2017, July 9). The Uninhabitable Earth. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
  109. Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., & Lorenzoni, I. (2011). Climate Change or Social Change? Debate Within, Amongst, and Beyond Disciplines. Environment and Planning A, 43, 258–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilson, G. T., Lilley, D., & Bhamra, T. A. (2013). Design Feedback Interventions for Household Energy Consumption Reduction. Paper Presented at the ERSCP-EMSU 2013 Conference, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  111. Wilson, G. T., Bhamra, T., & Lilley, D. (2015). The Considerations and Limitations of Feedback as a Strategy for Behaviour Change. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(3), 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Yang, R., Newman, M. W., & Forlizzi, J. (2014). Making Sustainability Sustainable: Challenges in the Design of Eco-interaction Technologies. In Proceedings of CHI 2014 (pp. 823–832). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  114. Zachrisson, J., & Boks, C. (2012). Exploring Behavioural Psychology to Support Design for Sustainable Behaviour Research. Journal of Design Research, 10(1–2), 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zapico, J. L., Turpeinen, M., & Brandt, N. (2009). Climate Persuasive Devices: Changing Behaviour Towards Low-Carbon Lifestyles. In S. Chatterjee & P. Dev (Eds.), Proceedings of Persuasive ‘09 (Article 14). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  116. Zappen, J. P. (2005). Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Bendor
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations