Design with Intent: Persuasive Technology in a Wider Context

  • Dan Lockton
  • David Harrison
  • Neville Stanton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5033)


Persuasive technology can be considered part of a wider field of ‘Design with Intent’ (DwI) - design intended to result in certain user behaviour. This paper gives a very brief review of approaches to DwI from different disciplines, and looks at how persuasive technology sits within this space.


User Behaviour Price Discrimination Crime Control Permit Price Teaching Machine 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akrich, M.: The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In: Bijker, W., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society, pp. 205–224. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., et al.: A Pattern Language, OUP, NY (1977)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bång, M., Torstensson, C., Katzeff, C.: The PowerHouse: A Persuasive Computer Game Designed to Raise Awareness of Domestic Energy Consumption. In: IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 123–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beale, R.: Slanty Design. Commun. ACM 50(1), 21–24 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berdichevsky, D., Neuenschwander, E.: Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Commun. ACM 42(5), 51–58 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchanan, R.: Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument and Demonstration in Design Practice. Design Studies 2/1, 4–22 (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caro, R.A.: The Power Broker: Robert Moses & the Fall of New York, A.A. Knopf, NY (1974)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, pp. 127–143. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill, B.M.: Anti-Features. FSF Blog (2007),
  11. 11.
    Jelsma, J.: Design of Behaviour Steering Technology. In: Proceedings of the International Summer Academy on Technology Studies 2000, IFZ, Graz (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joerges, B.: Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science 29/2, 411–431 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katyal, N.K.: Architecture As Crime Control. Yale Law Journal 111, 1039 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katyal, N.K.: Digital Architecture As Crime Control. Yale Law Journal 112, 2261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kesan, J.P., Shah, R.C.: Setting Software Defaults: Perspectives from Law, Computer Science and Behavioral Economics. Notre Dame Law Review 82, 583–634 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latour, B.: Where Are The Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In: Bijker, W., Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society, pp. 225–258. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lessig, L.: Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lilley, D., Bhamra, T., Lofthouse, V.A.: Towards Sustainable Use: An Exploration of Designing for Behavioural Change. In: Feijs, L., Kyffin, S., Young, B. (eds.) Proc. DeSForM 2006, pp. 84–97 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lockton, D.: Benches Archive (2005-8),
  20. 20.
    McGrenere, J., Ho, W.: Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000, Montreal, pp. 179–186 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawyn, J., Intille, S.S., Larson, K.: Embedding Behavior Modification Strategies into a Consumer Electronic Device: A Case Study. In: Dourish, P., Friday, A. (eds.) UbiComp 2006. LNCS, vol. 4206, pp. 297–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Newman, O.: Defensible Space. Macmillan, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things, Rev. edn. Basic Books, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman, D.A.: Affordances, Conventions and Design. Interactions 6(3), 38–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Odlyzko, A.: The Evolution of Price Discrimination in Transportation and its Implications for the Internet. Review of Network Economics 3(3), 323–346 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Packard., V.: The Waste Makers. David McKay Co, New York (1960)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Redström, J.: Persuasive Design: Fringes and Foundations. In: IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 112–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rushkoff, D.: Coercion: Why We Listen to What ‘They’ Say. Riverhead Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shingo, S.: Zero Quality Control. Productivity Press, Portland (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skinner, B.F.: Teaching Machines. Science 128-3330, 969–977 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sommer, R.: Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design, pp. 58–97. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1969)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Underhill, P.: Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping, pp. 77–78. Simon & Schuster, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Winner, L.: Do Artifacts Have Politics? In: The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology, pp. 19–39. U. Chicago Press (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Lockton
    • 1
  • David Harrison
    • 1
  • Neville Stanton
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering & DesignBrunel University, Uxbridge, MiddxUK

Personalised recommendations