Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:56:04.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISCERNING BEHAVIOURAL DESIGN: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

P. R. Khadilkar  and
P. Cash
P. R. Khadilkar*
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
P. Cash
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Behavioural design has emerged as an important domain of design practice and research due to its ability to deliver the desired outcomes beyond technical designs. Research on behavioural design is not successful in discerning it from other design domains, which is important for theory building. This paper discerns the unique characters of behavioural design by tracing the emergence of behaviour in design. Twelve interviews from six behaviour design cases belonging to four firms has been used to further discern the unique characteristics resulting into the conceptual model of behavioural design

Keywords

behavioural designdesign for behaviour changedesign theoryhuman behaviourhuman-centred design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1455 - 1464
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abrahamse, W. et al. (2005), “A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Elsevier, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1998), “Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory”, Psychology and Health, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 623–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Behaviour”. (n.d.), available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/behaviour (accessed 15 November 2019).Google Scholar
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. and Dorst, K. (2017), “Advancing the strategic impact of human-centred design”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 53, pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.-A. (2012), “Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges”, Design Issues, MIT Press, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P.J. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 56, pp. 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P.J., Hartlev, C.G. and Durazo, C.B. (2017), “Behavioural design: A process for integrating behaviour change and design”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 48, pp. 96–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranor, L.F. (2008), A framework for reasoning about the human in the loop, figshare.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2000), Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England, available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/39439/ (accessed 15 October 2014).Google Scholar
Darby, L. and Obara, L. (2005), “Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, S. and Mullainathan, S. (2014), “Behavioral design: a new approach to development policy”, Review of Income and Wealth, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P. and Hekkert, P. (2007), “Framework of product experience”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Vermaas, P.E. (2005), “John Gero's Function-Behaviour-Structure model of designing: a critical analysis”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 16 No. 1-2, pp. 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2010), Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach, Psychology Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Giacomin, J. (2014), “What Is Human Centred Design?”, The Design Journal, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 606–623.Google Scholar
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L. and Difiglio, C. (2000), “Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey”, Energy Policy, Elsevier, Vol. 28 No. 6-7, pp. 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. (2013), “User experience and experience design”, The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, The Interaction Design Foundation, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (2012), Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1989), “On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that design is making sense (of things)”, Design Issues, JSTOR, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Intrinsic motivation and human-centred design”, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2005), The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V. (2012), 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Lilley, D. et al. (2017), “Design interventions for sustainable behaviour”, Design for Behaviour Change, Routledge, pp. 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michie, S. et al. (2015), “Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative da”, Health Technology Assessment, NIHR Journals Library, Vol. 19, p. 99.Google Scholar
Mitcham, C. and Schatzberg, E. (2009), “Defining technology and the engineering sciences”, Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, Elsevier, pp. 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedderer, K., Clune, S. and Ludden, G. (2018), Design for Behaviour Change : Theories and Practices of Designing for Change, Routledge, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2004), Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, Basic Civitas Books.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2013), The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition, Basic books.Google Scholar
Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001), Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. available at: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=up8nAQAAMAAJGoogle Scholar
Poel, I.R. and Royakkers, L.M.M. (2011), Ethics, Technology and Engineering: An Introduction, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, N., Conner, M. and Lawton, R. (2012), “The impact of theory on the effectiveness of worksite physical activity interventions: a meta-analysis and meta-regression”, Health Psychology Review, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 33–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R.H. (2015), Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P.-P. (2011), “Design for socially responsible behavior: a classification of influence based on intended user experience”, Design Issues, MIT Press, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases”, Science, American association for the advancement of science, Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2000), Product Design and Development, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. (1992), Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, second, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage publications.Google Scholar
Young, W. et al. (2010), “Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products”, Sustainable Development, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 20–31.Google Scholar