Rationale Behind Socially Influencing Design Choices for Health Behavior Change

  • Vasiliki Mylonopoulou
  • Karin Väyrynen
  • Agnis Stibe
  • Minna Isomursu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10809)

Abstract

Persuasive technologies for health behavior change often include social influence features. Social influence in the design of persuasive technology has been described as a black box. This case study sheds light on design practices by identifying factors that affect the design of social influence features in health behavior change applications and the designers’ understanding of the social influence aspects. Our findings are twofold: First, the two most positively inclined social influence features, namely cooperation and normative influence, were missing from the reviewed applications. Second, the medical condition - the persuasive technology targets - has a major influence on consideration and integration of social influence features in health behavior change applications. Our findings should be taken into account when frameworks and guidelines are created for the design of social influence features in health behavior change applications.

Keywords

Health behavior change Social influence Design factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the designers contributing to this research by sharing their experiences. This publication has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions grant agreement no. 676201 - CHESS - Connected Health Early Stage Researcher Support System.

References

  1. 1.
    Fogg, B.J.: Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. Technology 91, 1–6 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1542005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 485–500 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stibe, A.: Towards a framework for socially influencing systems: meta-analysis of four PLS-SEM based studies. In: MacTavish, T., Basapur, S. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9072, pp. 172–183. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20306-5_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oduor, M., Alahäivälä, T., Oinas-Kukkonen, H.: Persuasive software design patterns for social influence. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 18, 1689–1704 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mylonopoulou, V., Väyrynen, K., Isomursu, M.: Designing for behavior change - 6 dimensions of social comparison features. In: 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E.: The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boland, R.J., Collopy, F.: Managing as Designing. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zannier, C., Chiasson, M., Maurer, F.: A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49, 637–653 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gould, J.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28, 300–311 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stolterman, E.: How system designers think about design and methods: some reflections based on an interview study. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 4, 7 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Razzaghi, M., Ramirez Jr., R.: The influence of the designers’ own culture on the design aspects of products. Eur. Acad. Des. 1–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosson, M.B., Maass, S., Kellogg, W.A.: Designing for designers: an analysis of design practice in the real world. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI/GI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interface - CHI 1987, pp. 137–142 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harold, G.N., Stolterman, E.: Design judgement: decision-making in the real world. Des. J 6, 21–31 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldschmidt, G., Planning, T., City, T., Rodgers, P.A.: The design thinking approaches of three different groups of designers based on self- reports. Des. Stud. 34, 454–471 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., Preece, J.: User-centered design, p. 154 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monteiro-Guerra, F., Rivera-Romero, O., Mylonopoulou, V., et al.: The design of a mobile app for promotion of physical activity and self-management in prostate cancer survivors : personas, feature ideation and low-fidelity prototyping. In: 30th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. IEEE, Thessaloniki (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, C.M., Johnson, T.R., Zhang, J.: A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. J. Biomed. Inform. 38, 75–87 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clemensen, J., Larsen, S.B., Kyng, M., Kirkevold, M.: Participatory design in health sciences: using cooperative experimental methods in developing health services and computer technology. Qual. Health Res. 17, 122–130 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aronson, E.: The Social Animal. Macmillan, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7, 117–140 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buunk, B., Gibbons, F.X.: Health, Coping, and Well-Being: Perspectives from Social Comparison Theory. Routledge, London (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M., Namey, E.E.: Applied Thematic Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Paris ESLSCA Business SchoolParisFrance
  3. 3.IT University of CopenhagenKøbenhavn SDenmark

Personalised recommendations