skip to main content
10.1145/3325480.3325490acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Toward a Language of Blended Causality for Transforming Behavioral Data into Reflective User Experiences

Published:13 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

With increasingly pervasive integration of technologies in everyday life, more data are generated around individuals' behaviors. Some of these data are accessible to individuals for reflection yet mostly presented in numbers or graphs, or represented by common metaphorical items, like virtual badges. Grounded in embodied cognition theories including conceptual metaphor and blending, and insights from social psychology, the idea of "blended causality" argues that behavioral data should be represented in virtual terms through blending behavioral consequences with users' existing knowledge of comparable causality. This paper emphasizes elaboration of blended causality into multiple imaginative narratives for reflective user experiences and reports the application of the extended guidelines as a creative design support tool in a series of workshops for designing representations of behavioral data. The concepts developed from the workshops vary in topics and blends, showing the effectiveness of the tool and informing a language of blended causality. Designers can use it to delineate representational mappings in terms of embodied experiences for examination and communication with team members like engineers.

References

  1. Ian Li, Anind Dey and Jodi Forlizzi. A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems. In CHI 2010 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 2010 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. John Rooksby, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison and Matthew Chalmers. Personal Tracking as Lived Informatics. In CHI 2014 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1163--1172. ACM, 2014 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Garrath T. Wilson, Tracy Bhamra and Debra Lilley The considerations and limitations of feedback as a strategy for behaviour change. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8, 3 (2015), 186--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. John Rooksby, Parvin Asadzadeh, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison and Matthew Chalmers. Personal Tracking of Screen Time on Digital Devices. In CHI '16 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 284--296 ACM Press, 2016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kenny K. N. Chow. Designing Representations of Behavioral Data with Blended Causality: An Approach to Interventions for Lifestyle Habits. In PERSUASIVE 2019, Springer, 2019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. James J. Lin, Lena Mamykina, Silvia Lindtner, Gregory Delajoux and Henry B. Strub. Fish'n'Steps: Encouraging Physical Activity with an Interactive Computer Game. In Ubicomp 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4206, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sunny Consolvo, David W. McDonald, Tammy Toscos, Mike Y. Chen, Jon Froehlich, Beverly Harrison, Predrag Klasnja, Anthony LaMarca, Louis LeGrand, Ryan Libby, Ian Smith and James A. Landay. Activity Sensing in the Wild: A Field Trial of UbiFit Garden. In CHI '08 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1797--1806 ACM Press, 2008 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jon Froehlich, Tawanna Dillahunt, Predrag Klasnja, Jennifer Mankoff, Sunny Consolvo, Beverly Harrison and James A. Landay. UbiGreen: Investigating a Mobile Tool for Tracking and Supporting Green Transportation Habits. In CHI '09 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 2009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Meng-Chieh Chiu, Shih-Ping Chang, Yu-Chen Chang, Hao-Hua Chu, Cheryl Chia-Hui Chen, Fei-Hsiu Hsiao and Ju-Chun Ko. Playful Bottle: A Mobile Social Persuasion System to Motivate Healthy Water Intake. In Ubicomp 2009, ACM Press, 2009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Miyuki Shiraishi, Yasuyuki Washio, Chihiro Takayama, Vill Lehodonvirta, Hiroaki Kimura and Tatsuo Nakajima. Using Individual, Social and Economic Persuasion Techniques to Reduce CO2 Emissions in a Family Setting. In Persuasive '09, ACM, 2009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sunny Consolvo, Predrag Klasnja, David W. McDonald and James A. Landay Designing for Healthy Lifestyles: Design Considerations for Mobile Technologies to Encourage Consumer Health and Wellness. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 3--4 (April 2014), 167--315.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner The way we think : conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Icek Ajzen From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Springer, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. B. J. Fogg. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. In Persuasive'09, 2009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Harri Oinas-Kukkonen and Marja Harjumaa. A Systematic Framework for Designing and Evaluating Persuasive Systems. In PERSUASIVE 2008, 164--176. 2008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Cees J. H. Midden, Florian G. Kaiser and L. Teddy McCalley Technology's Four Roles in Understanding Individuals' Conservation of Natural Resources. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 1 (2007), 155--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. John A. Bargh and Tanya L. Chartrand The Unbearable Automaticity of Being. American Psychologist, 54, 7 (1999), 462--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Bas Verplanken and Henk Aarts Habit, Attitude, and Planned Behaviour: Is Habit an Empty Construct or an Interesting Case of Goal-directed Automaticity? European Review of Social Psychology, 10 (1999), 101--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mark Johnson The body in the mind : the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jörn Hurtienne and Johann Habakuk Israel. Image Schemas and Their Metaphorical Extensions -- Intuitive Patterns for Tangible Interaction. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 127--134. ACM, 2007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Alissa N. Antle, Greg Corness and Milena Droumeva What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting with Computers, 21 (2009), 66--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tan Liang and Kenny K. N. Chow An Embodied Approach to Designing Meaningful Experiences with Ambient Media. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2, 2 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Manuel Imaz and David Benyon Designing with blends : conceptual foundations of human-computer interaction and software engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Benyon Presence in blended spaces. Interacting with Computers, 24 (2012), 219--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Thomas Markussen and Peter Gall Krogh Mapping Cultural Frame Shifting in Interaction Design with Blending Theory. International Journal of Design, 2, 2 (2008), 5--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Hans-Christian Jetter, Harald Reiterer and Florian Geyer Blended Interaction: understanding natural human--computer interaction in post-WIMP interactive spaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 5 (2014), 1139--1158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. D. Fox Harrell Toward a Theory of Critical Computing: The Case of Social Identity Representation in Digital Media Applications. CTheory, an international peer-reviewed journal of theory, technology, and culture (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenny K. N. Chow and D. Fox Harrell Understanding Material-Based Imagination: Cognitive Coupling of Animation and User Action in Interactive Digital Artworks. Leonardo Electronic Almanac, 17, 2 (2012), 50--65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenny K. N. Chow Sketching Imaginative Experiences: From Operation to Reflection via Lively Interactive Artifacts. International Journal of Design, 12, 2 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Susanne Bødker and Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose. Dynamics, Multiplicity and Conceptual Blends in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2538--2548. ACM,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books, New York, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. George Lakoff Explaining Embodied Cognition Results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 4 (2012), 773--785.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Seana Coulson Semantic leaps : frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Seana Coulson and Gilles Fauconnier Fake Guns and Stone Lions: Conceptual Blending and Privative Adjectives. CSLI, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kim Halskov Madsen A Guide to Metaphorical Design. Communications of the ACM, 37, 12 (1994), 57--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mark Johnson The meaning of the body : aesthetics of human understanding. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Charles J. Fillmore Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, VI, 2 (1985), 222--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Gilles Fauconnier Mental spaces : aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, N.Y., 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Kenny K. N. Chow. Lock Up the Lighter: Experience Prototyping of a Lively Reflective Design for Smoking Habit Control. In PERSUASIVE 2016, LNCS 9638, 352--364. Springer, 2016 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Kenny K. N. Chow. Time Off: Designing Lively Representations as Imaginative Triggers for Healthy Smartphone Use. In PERSUASIVE 2018, LNCS 10809, Springer, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Toward a Language of Blended Causality for Transforming Behavioral Data into Reflective User Experiences

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          C&C '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition
          June 2019
          745 pages
          ISBN:9781450359177
          DOI:10.1145/3325480

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 June 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          C&C '19 Paper Acceptance Rate30of101submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader