Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T10:34:15.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Behavioural Design: Integrating Process and Cognitive Perspectives

Part of: Human Behaviour in Design and Design Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar  and
Philip Cash

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 is a crucial research area due to its potential in leveraging the positive outcomes of traditional design. Current need for theory building requires discerning the unique characteristics and challenges of behavioural design. To contribute towards this goal, the paper structures the conceptual and operational uniqueness of the behavioural design using the process and cognitive perspective. Process model uses the basic design cycle to discern the tasks and stages of behavioural design. Cognitive perspective uses dual process theory and cognitive strategies used by designers. Integrated model of process and cognitive perspective is the crucial contribution of this paper. A case study involving interview of lead designers from five behavioural design consultancies has been used to present and elaborate the usefulness of the integrated model of behavioural design. Integrated perspective links the process characters like incomplete analysis, simulation and evaluation stages, over reliance on the prescriptive methods, and unequal emphasis to multiple disciplines, with incomplete analytical process, and solution and knowledge driven strategy along cognitive perspective

Keywords

Human behaviour in designBehavioural designDesign cognitionDesign theory

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1863 - 1872
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) 2019

References

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. and Rothengatter, T. (2005), “A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Elsevier, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 273–291.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), “Change, Development, and Conceptualization: Setting the Scene”, Conceptual Design, Springer, pp. 13–34.Google Scholar
Asquith, L., Dorst, K., Kaldor, L. and Watson, R. (2013), “Introduction to Design+Crime”, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 169–174.Google Scholar
Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E. (1999), “Toward an ethics of persuasive technology”, Communications of the ACM, ACM, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 51–58.Google Scholar
Cash, P. and Kreye, M. (2017), “Uncertainty Driven Action (UDA) model: A foundation for unifying perspectives on design activity”, Design Science, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 3, p. e26.Google Scholar
Cash, P.J. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 56, pp. 84–119.Google 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.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Dijkhuis, J. (1995), “Comparing paradigms for describing design activity”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 261–274.Google Scholar
Daae, J. and Boks, C. (2018), “Tweaking interaction through understanding the user”, in Niedderer, K., Cllune, S. and Ludden, G. (Eds.), Design for Behaviour Change, Routledge, New York, USA, pp. 74–92.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J., Person, O. and Gattol, V. (2014), “A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method”, Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 133–159.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Yzer, M.C. (2003), “Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions”, Communication Theory, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 164–183.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (2010), “Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach, Psychology Press, New York”, USA.Google Scholar
Fogg, B.J. and Hreha, J. (2010), “Behavior wizard: A method for matching target behaviors with solutions”, International Conference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 117–131.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., Jiang, H. and Williams, C.B. (2013), “Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured, and structured concept generation creativity techniques”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 196–214.Google Scholar
Girard, P. and Robin, V. (2006), “Analysis of collaboration for project design management”, Computers in Industry, Elsevier, Vol. 57 No. 8–9, pp. 817–826.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.Google Scholar
Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998), “The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the case of TQM”, Journal of Operations Management, Elsevier, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 321–339.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Egan, P. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Vol. 1, Farrar, Straus and Giroux New York.Google Scholar
Kavakli, M. and Gero, J.S. (2002), “The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 527–548.Google Scholar
Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N.A. (2010), “The Design with Intent Method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour”, Applied Ergonomics, Elsevier, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 382–392.Google Scholar
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M.P., et al. (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, Oxford University Press, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar
Michie, S., Thomas, J., Johnston, M., Aonghusa, P. M., Shawe-Taylor, J., Kelly, M.P., Deleris, L.A., et al. (2017), “The Human Behaviour-Change Project: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning for evidence synthesis and interpretation”, Implementation Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 121.Google Scholar
Michie, S.F., West, R., Campbell, R., Brown, J. and Gainforth, H. (2014a), “ABC of Behaviour Change Theories”, Silverback Publishing.Google Scholar
Michie, S. and Abraham, C. (2004), “Interventions to change health behaviours: evidence-based or evidence-inspired?”, Psychology & Health, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29–49.Google Scholar
Michie, S., Atkins, L. and West, R. (2014b), “The behavior change wheel: a guide to designing interventions”, Great Britain: Silverback Publishing.Google Scholar
Nielsen, C.K.E.B.B., Cash, P. and Daalhuizen, J. (2018), “The behavioural design solution space: examining the distribution of ideas generated by expert behavioural designers”, Ds92: Proceedings of the Design 2018 15th International Design Conference, pp. 1981–1990.Google Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995), “Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England.Google Scholar
Schon, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic books.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2009), “Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory”, In Two Minds: Dual Processes and beyond, pp. 55–88.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (2011), Rationality and the Reflective Mind, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K., West, R. and Toplak, M. (2011), “Intelligence and rationality”, Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, pp. 784–826.Google Scholar
Taking Better Care of Children. (2013), available at: https://www.philips.es/c-dam/b2bhc/us/whitepapers/healthcare-experience-solutions/130532_AEPediatricsCS_ReadOnly.pdf.Google 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.Google Scholar
Tromp, N. (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, 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.Google 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.Google Scholar