The best designers already know very well that they are influencing behavior. In fact, that is often the entire reason they are hired! Exhibit A: HBR article on this very subject: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/merholz/2009/05/customer-experience-is-...

The Hopkins, MN Goodwill has a staffed drive-through lane. They even unload for you. Very smart. Such a simple thing that not only eliminates the behavior you've described, but even encourages my donation. Design may not be THE answer, but it's such an underutilized tool.

Very interesting article, Robert, thanks.

"Should designers focus on changing people's behavior? That is, through what we create, can we help alter human behavior for the common good?"

There are quite a few - diverse but overlapping - efforts in this area of Design for Behavior Change, from areas such as Persuasive Technology (developed at Stanford http://captology.stanford.edu ) to applications of behavioral economics in a design context (http://nudges.wordpress.com ) to - in the UK - the RSA's Design & Behavior project http://designandbehaviour.rsablogs.org.uk and Loughborough University's http://design-behaviour.co.uk

From my own point of view, I've been researching and writing about what I call Design with Intent (http://danlockton.co.uk ) for a few years now, more recently focused on developing a method to help designers faced with influencing user behavior across different fields, though with a main application in reducing environmental impact (& helping society) - http://designwithintent.co.uk

"And is this approach right, ethical, or in fact Orwellian in nature?"

There has been quite a lot of debate on this, from Thaler & Sunstein's 'libertarian paternalism' to the work of people such as Harri Oinas-Kukkonen at the Persuasive conferences. A good review from Jamie Young here - http://rsadesignbehaviour.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/1984/

Now if I post any more links this comment'll probably be moderated forever, but one final one - Robert Fabricant of frog design is increasingly talking about this area too - http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/behaving-badly-in-vancouver.html

Perhaps you saw the recent article in the Wall Street Journal parallel to your concerns? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424873407590721.html) The issue is complex, and much may be at work in this inverse relationship between the decline in social behaviors and the rise of "social media." I do suspect that "design" has a role to play in that wearing sweats to the theater induces (affirms?) a different kind of behavior than wearing a suit and tie does, and leaving a cell phone on in a social context signals (enables?) a resistance to (deep)connection rather than substantial connectivity.

Does the behavioral change start with the design of the device (accessibility, transportability) or with the context (airline "cattle calls," sandwich boxes, and 17-inch wide seats), or with the management of the context ("no shoes, no shirt, no service")? Is the mobility and hyper-connectivity a response to a demand, or does the demand arise – and the behavior change – because the technology enabled a pocket-sized design (Ton Dair's column on the irrelevance of form to function)? Is the issue in the design of the device (hand-held) or in its content (text messaging software)?

One of the commentators on the financial crisis talked of its origins in individual rationality but collective irrationality. I suppose that peer pressure has a compounding influence, and tolerance of the design-enabled superficial at the expense of respectful attention and connection may now be the sign of a collective irresponsibility.

Any new technology goes through a period of rampant mis-use before we figure out what it's really good for. Mobile phones and social media are just two recent examples. We haven't caught up with all the implications yet. As Dan Lockton described in an earlier comment, there's an increasing body of research around how we relate and respond, not just to technology, but to choices and decisions in the low-tech world also. This stuff is really important.

Recent advances in imaging technology have made it possible for researchers to study the brain like never before. For instance, paying for something with cash vs. credit card makes different areas of the brain light up. But proper scientific research can't keep pace with tech. We need to foster awareness of how design impacts our lives (thanks for your article), and designers need to share what they learn, failures as well as successes.

One of my theories (don't take this personally Robert) is that techies are often not socially adept, and are wont to create elaborate solutions (e.g. defining a schedule to receive alerts vs. simply turning the damn thing off) that are fine for techies but not the other 90% of the population. Thus we end up with technologies that we don't understand, that creates more stress than they alleviate, and interfere with relationships.

And ethical issues abound, but I believe that awareness of a phenomenon carries the responsibility to consider it in design, and there's nothing Orwellian about it. That's where we're headed, though each of us can choose whether we go there with our eyes open or shut.

Suggest you read Winifred Gallagher's book: Rapt or the New York Times article on it.

Suggest you read Winifred Gallagher's book: "Rapt" or the New York Times article on it.

I wrote a post about the change happening in human interactions due to the pervasive effect of being always connected last fall:

http://designkloud.com/2008/09/02/culture-my-new-hobby-retro-tasking/

I'm happy to see that others are noting the change. I think it is important to have designers of objects, experiences and other interactions be aware of the effects of their work. These objects are changing society, changing the way we interact and, most fundamentally, whether even interact at all.

People are starting to tune out the real world and live in the digital ether. How many of you have had a day where you had more conversations via e-mail, IM, Twitter, etc. than you actually had with people face to face? Didn't NYC even ban iPods on the streets because so many pedestrians were stepping out in front of cars while rocking out on their iPods? As connectivity becomes increasingly ubiquitous this will only increase as we have the whole world at our finger tips at any given moment to distract us further.

The “things” in our life can never “give” us peace. Peace is an inside job.

The people you describe are searching for peace and self esteem in all the wrong places. And those who seek wholeness from without often use beauty of design as a badge which only exacerbates the problem. An iphone says cool; a Mac Air, cooler. Designer bags and acrobatically tall red-bottomed shoes announce I’m as good as, if not better than, you. An SUV shouts power; a Hummer clobbers the competition.

An object of desire cannot be designed to mandate or even foster serenity. Civility, moderation and concern for others are decisions made in the private recesses of our souls and fought for moment to moment in the face of pressure to possess the latest beautiful object as proof that we are as good as the next guy. Or better.

Check out this Ted Talk by Dan Ariely about how people have certain cognitive limitations regarding decision-making - such as this lady deciding it was appropriate to donate her old clothes to Goodwill (yay!) by dumping them on the ground (boo!):

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

The key point is that you don't need to blame this on cell phones or stress or anything like that, but one the fact that we, as humans, often make particularly bad decisions in certain situations.

I should also add that, yes, design can often mitigate this bad decision-making, or at least take advantage of it to direct people so that their bad decision-making leads to better societal results. Ariely gives several examples in his talk.

Well, design inherently affects behavior. To think that it does not is to believe that a shape of an object doesn't affect its use. The question is not a matter of whether or not designers should affect or modify behavior, it is a question of how do designers shape behavior?

Here is an easy case study: Throw away culture
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=1944

Was it ethical for designers to try to make life "easier"? Maybe? But the consequences of the concept has resulted in many problems.

Are you suggesting that you should design devices that help slow us down?

As for the rude woman with who dumped clothes helter skelter, that might be ruined by rain, for others to pick up, product designers can't take responsibility for people who think only of themselves. There are great paper and green bags she might have used and didn't bother.

It's a funny situation you got into. But why would you blame design for the hasty woman's actions? Besides, she probably dropped hundres of dollars worth of designer clothes in to charity. There goes design!
-Melissa (www.dvisible.com)

I agree with you, but unfortunately that is not the way society or technology is headed. I have been writing about AnyThing, AnyTime, AnyWhere (AAA) for some time and I still believe and want that to be the Grail of Internet, of consumer utility of Information. However, and I think eventually a lot of people will do the same, I manage my "interface." I don't turn on the T.V. cable news the moment I wake up or turn on the lights; I turn everything off when I really don't want background brain "alert" status; when I want to think and write-which is what I do.
And, this is really funny, while I'm writing this, my 34 year-old son just called from California(I'm in Maryland) while at Costco for shopping, and we talked throughout his shopping trip-I guess you could say he was multi-tasking.
Did his activity dusturb other shoppers? I asked him that, and he said the helf the people around him were on their cellphones (with Bluetooth) at the same time.
Confusion? Maybe.
Distraction? For sure.

We could be looking at a whole new level of violence what with the "concealed carry" gun laws, imagined slights, societal paranoia.
"You talking to me? You talking to me? I hope you're not talking to me. You talking to me?" (paraphrasing Robert De Niro in
"Taxi Driver").
Civility Forecast? Chancy today, public challenge ring tomorrow, waiting line forms to the left.

A truly "smart" device might be designed to automatically turn off incoming phone calls, texts and other alerts when an appointment is indicated on the device's calendar.

Design aside, human behavior will out. So the ADD/ADHD and insecure among us will always be too easily distracted, too hyper, too anxious to tune out an ever-connected device. The device is too perfectly matched to their brain chemistry, both over stimulated and overly distracted by constant inputs.

For a large number of people, it's conforming to a social norm of what it means to be modern. To be unconnected is not modern. To shun constant connection, you must be older, unambitious, poorer or clueless and definitely not "hooked up," a doer, a mover/shaker, a master of the universe.

If you're willing to leave your social class ambiguous by limiting or controlling your access to your connected devices, then there's the problem of rudeness and our hesitation in speaking up about it. If a friend or colleague constantly checks their device during a conversation, ask them to pocket it or reschedule for a time when they'll be less distracted. If a friend is alienating you by constantly attending to their device during dinner or while you're trying to tell them something important, tell them. If you wanted intimacy at a distance, you would have sent them email, a text, or posted a note on their Facebook wall. Hmmm... maybe they're an acquiantance after all, not a friend.

Maybe all this rudeness is just an extension of our materialistic society; a desire to always consume more, count more, connect more. Being "connected" is not the same as making a connection.

Think about texting and teens:
NY Times article, May 09.

“Among the jobs of adolescence are to separate from your parents, and to find the peace and quiet to become the person you decide you want to be,” she said. “Texting hits directly at both those jobs.”

Psychologists expect to see teenagers break free from their parents as they grow into autonomous adults, Professor Turkle [MIT] went on, “but if technology makes something like staying in touch very, very easy, that’s harder to do; now you have adolescents who are texting their mothers 15 times a day, asking things like, ‘Should I get the red shoes or the blue shoes?’ ”

As for peace and quiet, she said, “if something next to you is vibrating every couple of minutes, it makes it very difficult to be in that state of mind.

“If you’re being deluged by constant communication, the pressure to answer immediately is quite high,” she added. “So if you’re in the middle of a thought, forget it.”

Michael Hausauer, a psychotherapist in Oakland, Calif., said teenagers had a “terrific interest in knowing what’s going on in the lives of their peers, coupled with a terrific anxiety about being out of the loop.” For that reason, he said, the rapid rise in texting has potential for great benefit and great harm.

“Texting can be an enormous tool,” he said. “It offers companionship and the promise of connectedness. At the same time, texting can make a youngster feel frightened and overly exposed.”

Rob,
ABSOLUTELY! Or, am I being too aggressive or 'shouty' in my answer?

I feel that as designers we have pushed the boundaries of function, aesthetic and manufacturing, however it is time to push the aspect of consequences in our actions in using these products. Social aspects of design are one of our strengths in the West, and should be emphasized.

On the other hand, I would like to make a small point.

People carry and use utility knives. They cut carpet, plastic and other materials. Most people who get into an altercation, do not think to use these 'tools' on a person... but the potential is there.

In other words, the notion of trying to encourage certain behavior- is this nurture, or nature? Is the tendency to use a tool as a weapon inherent in a person, or does the tool encourage this behavior?

The ergonomic hammer you designed could be used as a weapon, but is it?

For my MA Industrial Design in London we took part in the RSA "design against crime" project. It was fascinating to observe how people under stress in an Emergency room waiting area reacted and displayed behavior. From demure to ultra violent, the difference was the person, and their state of mind. I saw gang members calmly waiting for a friend to be released, and a normal elderly man go on a rampage and hurl a metal garbage can at a nurse (as well as visa versa!)
(IN the end we designed a soft garbage can to solve this particular situation!)

All products have the potential to be used correctly and incorrectly.

Brian

I found your comments about Apple design true. Apple does design well, well enough to encourage design or discourage design? You bring up interesting thoughts that appear true to the up coming product designs from competitors. Companies who's product are similar in features, function, basically similar competitive, quality products must be careful to come up with good design. I am also a fan of Apple products. Companies who compete, launch new products in their lines, have just that to worry about it seems, are you just a copy, by design, or are you unique by design?

--
Founder
Hope for Good

Timothy B McDonnell

Everyone had a good time at the retail party, but now the combination of interest rates, petrol prices, wobbly housing prices and global financial uncertainty has made us collectively reconsider our spending.That's why we've cut back. For some people sailing close to the wind, it genuinely hurts. For the nation as a whole, we'll be better off for it down the track.
cheap designer clothes

fashion jewelry

discount jewelry
cheap jewelry
handmade jewelry
discount fashion jewelry
china jewelry
wholesale jewelry
wholesale discount jewelry
cheap costume jewelry
handcrafted jewelry
discount jewelry supplier
discount costume jewelry
discount pearl jewelry
discount crystal jewelry
discount gemstone jewelry

No question at all whether we should influence people's behaviour for the better. How could question of ethics here even come up? Would we as designers intentionally create something that makes people behave badly? Sadly that has happened plenty in history, but we have the power to think the design of a product or service through and make it positive in every way.

O and, a simple drop-off bin/door in Goodwill centers would do a ton of good, as opposed to back-of-the-building hard to access entrances they all seem to have now.

Looking at the design of the Nintendo DSi console, you can see that this is a product that is destined to do well. It's chunky feel, and bright colours make it highly desirable for kids. It looks robust, yet elegant at the same time. I think 2010 will see in a new era of sophisticated electronics for kids, with strong designs, and chunky cases.