Understanding behavioural design: barriers and enablers

References

• Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Talib Rothengatter. 2005. “A Review of Intervention Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3): 273–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawala, Maneesh, Wilmot Li, and Floraine Berthouzoz. 2011. “Design Principles for Visual Communication.” Communications of the ACM 54 (4): 60–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altshuller, Genrich, and H. Altov. 1996. And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ: The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard, Malcolm. 2005. Graphic Design as Communication. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Behrens, Roy R. 1998. “Art, Design and Gestalt Theory.” Leonardo 31 (4): 299–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berdichevsky, Daniel, and Erik Neuenschwander. 1999. “Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology.” Communications of the ACM 42 (5): 51–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhamra, Tracy, Debra Lilley, and Tang Tang. 2011. “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour.” The Design Journal 14 (4): 427–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhamra, Tracy, and Vicky Lofthouse. 2007. Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach. Hampshire, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bijl-Brouwer, Mieke van der, and Dorst Kees. 2017. “Advancing the Strategic Impact of Human-Centred Design.” Design Studies 53 (November): 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.003.
   Google Scholar
• Bjögvinsson, Erling, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. “Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges.” Design Issues 28 (Summer 3): 101–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blessing, Lucienne T M, and Amaresh Chakrabarti. 2009. DRM, a Design Research Methodology. London, UK: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.
   Google Scholar
• Brace, William, and Vincent Cheutet. 2012. “A Framework to Support Requirements Analysis in Engineering Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 23 (12): 876–904. doi:10.1080/09544828.2011.636735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, Philip. 2018. “Developing Theory-Driven Design Research.” Design Studies 56 (May): 84–119. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, Philip J., Charlotte Gram Hartlev, and Christine Boysen Durazo. 2017. “Behavioural Design: A Process for Integrating Behaviour Change and Design.” Design Studies 48 (January): 96–128. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001.
   Google Scholar
• Cash, Philip, Pramod Khadilkar, Joanna Jensen, Camilla Dusterdich, and Ruth Mugge. 2020. “Designing Behaviour Change: A Behavioural Problem/Solution (BPS) Matrix.” International Journal of Design 14 (2): 65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceschin, Fabrizio, and Idil Gaziulusoy. 2016. “Evolution of Design for Sustainability: From Product Design to Design for System Innovations and Transitions.” Design Studies 47: 118–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, Nigel. 2000. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, Nigel. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, Nigel. 2018. “Developing Design as a Discipline.” Journal of Engineering Design 29 (12): 691–708. doi:10.1080/09544828.2018.1537481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daae, Johannes, and Casper Boks. 2018. “Tweaking Interaction Through Understanding the User.” In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephan Cllune, and Geke Ludden, 74–92. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Daalhuizen, Jacobus Jan. 2014. “Method Usage in Design: How Methods Function as Mental Tools for Designers.” Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• da Costa Junior, Jairo, Jan Carel Diehl, and Dirk Snelders. 2019. “A Framework for a Systems Design Approach to Complex Societal Problems.” Design Science 5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmet, Pieter M A. 2008. “Product Emotion.” In Product Experience, edited by Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein and Pau Hekkert, 379–397. San Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50018-6.
   Google Scholar
• Desmet, Pieter, and Paul Hekkert. 2007. “Framework of Product Experience.” International Journal of Design 1 (1): 57–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorrestijn, Steven. 2017. “The Product Impact Tool: The Case of the Dutch Public Transport Chip Card.” In Design for Behaviour Change: Theories and Practices of Designing for Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, 26–39. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Eddy, Douglas C, Sundar Krishnamurty, Ian R Grosse, Jack C Wileden, and Kemper E Lewis. 2015. “A Predictive Modelling-Based Material Selection Method for Sustainable Product Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 26 (10–12): 365–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehn, Pelle. 2008. “Participation in Design Things.” Proceedings participatory design Conference 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, Kathleen M, and Melissa E Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fogg, Brian J. 2002. “Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.” Ubiquity 2002 (December): 2.
   Google Scholar
• Fogg, Brain J. 2009. “Creating Persuasive Technologies: An Eight-Step Design Process.” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, California, USA, April 26-29.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, Jill J., Charlotte Stockton, Martin P. Eccles, Marie Johnston, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Chris Hyde, Alan Tinmouth, and Simon J. Stanworth. 2009. “Evidence-Based Selection of Theories for Designing Behaviour Change Interventions: Using Methods Based on Theoretical Construct Domains to Understand Clinicians’ Blood Transfusion Behaviour.” British Journal of Health Psychology 14 (4): 625–646. doi:10.1348/135910708X397025.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• French, S. D., S. E. Green, D. A. O’Connor, J. E. McKenzie, J. J. Francis, S. Michie, R. Buchbinder, P. Schattner, N. Spike, and J. M. Grimshaw. 2012. “Developing Theory-Informed Behaviour Change Interventions to Implement Evidence Into Practice: A Systematic Approach Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.” Implementation Science 7 (1): 38. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gemser, Gerda, Cees de Bont, Paul Hekkert, and Ken Friedman. 2012. “Quality Perceptions of Design Journals: The Design Scholars’ Perspective.” Design Studies 33 (1): 4–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gero, John S, and Udo Kannengiesser. 2004. “The Situated Function–Behaviour–Structure Framework.” Design Studies 25 (4): 373–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grudin, Jonathan. 2005. “Three Faces of Human-Computer Interaction.” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 27 (4): 46–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haberfellner, Reinhard, Olivier De Weck, Ernst Fricke, and Siegfried Vössner. 2019. Systems Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Handfield, Robert B, and Steven A S A Melnyk. 1998. “The Scientific Theory-Building Process: A Primer Using the Case of TQM.” Journal of Operations Management 16 (4): 321–339. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00017-5.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, Marc. 2013. “User Experience and Experience Design.” The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction 2. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design.
   Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, Marc, and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. “User Experience - a Research Agenda.” Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2): 91–97. doi:10.1080/01449290500330331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hekler, Eric B, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E Froehlich, and Matthew P Buman. 2013. “Mind the Theoretical Gap: Interpreting, Using, and Developing Behavioral Theory in HCI Research.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing systems, Paris, France, April 27–May 2, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyle, Christopher, Wei Chen, Nanxin Wang, and Gianna Gomez-Levi. 2011. “Understanding and Modelling Heterogeneity of Human Preferences for Engineering Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 22 (8): 583–601. doi:10.1080/09544821003604496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubka, Vladimir, and W. Ernst Eder. 2012. Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, John Chris. 1992. “Design Methods.” In Design. Vol. 1. Architecture Series, edited by G. T. Houlsby, and A. N. Schofield. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Patrick Egan. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Vol. 1. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kelders, S. M., R. N. Kok, H. C. Ossebaard, and J. E. Van Gemert-Pijnen. 2012. “Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 14 (6): e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khadilkar, Pramod, and Philip Cash. 2019. “Understanding Behavioural Design: Integrating Process and Cognitive Perspectives.” Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1: 1863–1872.
   Google Scholar
• Khadilkar, Pramod, and Philip Cash. 2020. “Discerning Behavioural Design: A Conceptual Model.” Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 1: 1455–1464.
   Google Scholar
• Kouprie, Merlijn, and Froukje Sleeswijk Visser. 2009. “A Framework for Empathy in Design: Stepping Into and out of the User’s Life.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (5): 437–448. doi:10.1080/09544820902875033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilley, Debra. 2009. “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Strategies and Perceptions.” Design Studies 30 (6): 704–720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilley, Debra, Garrath Wilson, Tracy Bhamra, Marcus Hanratty, and Tang Tang. 2018. “Design Interventions for Sustainable Behaviour.” In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, 40–57. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lockledge, Jeffrey, and Filippo Salustri. 1999. “Defining the Engine Design Process.” Journal of Engineering Design 10 (2): 109–124. doi:10.1080/095448299261344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockton, D., D. Harrison, and N. A. Stanton. 2010. “The Design with Intent Method: A Design Tool for Influencing User Behaviour.” Applied Ergonomics 41 (3): 382–392. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, Rachael. 2018. “What Is It That Makes Participation in Design Participatory Design?” Design Studies 59: 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manzini, Ezio. 2014. “Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design.” Design Issues 30 (Winter 1): 57–66. doi:10.1162/DESI.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolin, Victor, and Sylvia Margolin. 2002. “A ‘Social Model’ of Design: Issues of Practice and Research.” Design Issues 18 (Autumn 4): 24–30. doi:10.1162/074793602320827406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows, Donella. 2009. Thinking in Systems - A Primer, edited by D. Wright. London, UK: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Michie, Susan, and C. Abraham. 2004. “Identifying Techniques That Promote Health Behavior Change: Evidence Based or Evidence Inspired.” Psychology & Health 19 (1): 29–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michie, Susan, L. Atkins, and Robert West. 2014. The Behavior Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London, UK: Silverback Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Michie, Susan, Rona Campbell, Jamie Brown, Robert West, Heather Gainforth, Rona Campbell, Jamie Brown, Heather Gainforth, Robert West, and Heather Gainforth. 2014. ABC of Behaviour Change Theories. London, UK: Silverback Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Michie, Susan, Marie Johnston, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, and Martin Eccles. 2008. “From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques.” Applied Psychology 57 (4): 660–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michie, Susan, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Martin P Eccles, James Cane, and Caroline E Wood. 2013. “The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 Hierarchically Clustered Techniques: Building an International Consensus for the Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 46 (1): 81–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moray, Neville. 1995. “Ergonomics and the Global Problems of the Twenty-First Century.” Ergonomics 38 (8): 1691–1707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morelli, Nicola. 2002. “Designing Product/Service Systems: A Methodological Exploration.” Design Issues 18 (Summer 3): 3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morelli, Nicola. 2007. “Social Innovation and New Industrial Contexts: Can Designers ‘Industrialize’ Socially Responsible Solutions?” Design Issues 23 (Autumn 4): 3–21. doi:10.1162/desi.2007.23.4.3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mugge, Ruth, Jan P L Schoormans, and Hendrik N J Schifferstein. 2009. “Emotional Bonding with Personalised Products.”.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (5): 467–476. doi:10.1080/09544820802698550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. Laurence. 2011. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London, UK: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Niedderer, Kristina, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden. 2018a. “Introduction: Designing for Behavioural Change.” In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, 3–8. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Niedderer, Kristina, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, eds. 2018b. “Part 2: Models, methods and tools for design for behaviour change.” In Design for Behaviour Change: Theories and Practices of Designing for Change. New York, USA: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Niedderer, Kristina, Geke Ludden, Stephen Clune, Dan Lockton, Jamie Mackrill, Andrew Morris, Rebecca Cain, 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, Donald. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York, USA: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, Donald, and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2016. “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 1 (2): 83–106.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, Sharon, and Steven D Eppinger. 2001. “Sourcing by Design: Product Complexity and the Supply Chain.” Management Science 47 (1): 189–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2017. “Behavioural Insights and Public Policy.” https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270480-en.
   Google Scholar
• Otto, Kevin, and Kristin Wood. 2001. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. H. Grote. 2007. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Edited by Ken Wallace and Luciënne Blessing. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Papanek, Victor. 1984. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. Chicago: Academy Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, Jef I, and Catharine M Curran. 2002. “Oracles on ‘Advertising’: Searching for a Definition.” Journal of Advertising 31 (2): 63–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson, C., and K. McCartan. 2011. Real World Research. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Roozenburg, Norbert, and J. Eekels. 1995. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. A Wiley Series in Product Development. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, Mark S, and Ernest James McCormick. 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Huichao, Rémy Houssin, Mickael Gardoni, and François de Bauvrond. 2013. “Integration of User Behaviour and Product Behaviour During the Design Phase: Software for Behavioural Design Approach.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (1): 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, Xiaoguang, Rémy Houssin, Jean Renaud, and Mickaël Gardoni. 2018. “Towards a Human Factors and Ergonomics Integration Framework in the Early Product Design Phase: Function-Task-Behaviour.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (14): 4941–4953. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1437287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, Xiaoguang, Rémy Houssin, Jean Renaud, and Mickaël Gardoni. 2019. “A Review of Methodologies for Integrating Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering Design.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (15–16): 4961–4976.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, Natalie, Mark Conner, and Rebecca Lawton. 2012. “The Impact of Theory on the Effectiveness of Worksite Physical Activity Interventions: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.” Health Psychology Review 6 (1): 33–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “The European Nudging Network.”. n.d. Accessed February 24, 2020. http://tenudge.eu/home/.
   Google Scholar
• Tromp, Nynke. 2014. “Social Design: How Products and Services Can Help Us Act in Ways That Benefit Society.” TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Tromp, Nynke, Paul Hekkert, and P.-P. P. Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2011. “Design for Socially Responsible Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience.” Design Issues 27 (3): 3–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, Karl, and Steven Eppinger. 2000. Product Design and Development. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Vajna, Sándor, Steffen Clement, André Jordan, and Tibor Bercsey. 2005. “The Autogenetic Design Theory: An Evolutionary View of the Design Process.” Journal of Engineering Design 16 (4): 423–440. doi:10.1080/09544820500267781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2008. “Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis.” Human Studies 31 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1007/s10746-007-9079-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermaas, Pieter E, and Kees Dorst. 2007. “On the Conceptual Framework of John Gero’s FBS-Model and the Prescriptive Aims of Design Methodology.” Design Studies 28 (2): 133–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weck, Olivier De, Daniel Roos, and Christopher Magee. 2011. Engineering Systems: Meeting Human Needs in a Complex Technological World. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wendel, Stephen. 2013. Designing for Behavior Change: Applying Psychology and Behavioral Economics. California, USA: O’Reilly Media.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, Christopher. 1992. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Second. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, Langdon. 1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
   Google Scholar