skip to main content
10.1145/3677045.3685442acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Fostering people's autonomy by foregrounding and questioning daily choices

Published: 13 October 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The experience of autonomy is central to people's wellbeing. Self-Determination Theory suggests that one way to experience autonomy is by making choices that align with one's values and identity. This requires to reflect on what is personally relevant and how a particular choice relates to this. Everyday life consists of a constant stream of choices. However, people often overlook the relevance of everyday choices and rather delegate them to routines or even others. As a consequence, people often miss out on asking themselves whether their routines are still aligned with their values and identity. In this paper, we explore whether and how technology can foster autonomy by foregrounding daily choices and evoking reflection on their alignment with themselves. Intervention interviews (N=8) showed that foregrounding daily choices facilitates self-reflection, and allows to uncover unaligned choices, which in turn fosters autonomy. We present an initial framework for designing technology to improve autonomy.

References

[1]
Dan Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D Mekler. 2023. How does HCI Understand Human Agency and Autonomy? In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580651
[2]
Marit Bentvelzen, Pawel W. Woaniak, Pia S.F. Herbes, Evropi Stefanidi, and Jasmin Niess. 2022. Revisiting Reflection in HCI: Four Design Resources for Technologies that Support Reflection. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517233
[3]
Peter Bieri. 2012. Das Handwerk der Freiheit: über die Entdeckung des eigenen Willens. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG, Munich.
[4]
Marcela Bomfim, Erin Wong, Paige Liang, and James Wallace. 2023. Design and Evaluation of Technologies for Informed Food Choices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 4 (September 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3565482
[5]
Simona Botti, Sheena S Iyengar, and Johnson Grad. 2006. The Dark Side of Choice: When Choice Impairs Social Welfare. 25, 1 (2006), 1547–7207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.24
[6]
Mark Connor and Christopher J Armitage. 2002. The Social Psychology of Food. Open University Press, Buckingham.
[7]
Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology 1, 20 (2012), 416–436.
[8]
Carol M Devine, Margaret M Connors, Jeffery Sobal, and Carole A Bisogni. 2003. Sandwiching it in: spillover of work onto food choices and family roles in low-and moderate-income urban households. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00058-8
[9]
Emma Dixon and Amanda Lazar. 2020. Approach Matters: Linking Practitioner Approaches to Technology Design for People with Dementia. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, April 21, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376432
[10]
Mateusz Dubiel, Anastasia Sergeeva, and Luis A Leiva. 2024. Impact of Voice Fidelity on Decision Making: A Potential Dark Pattern? In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2024. 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640543.3645202
[11]
Claude Fischler. 2011. Commensality, society and culture. Social science information 50, 3–4 (2011), 528–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018411413963
[12]
Rebecca Gerstenberg, Ruben Albers, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2023. Designing for integration: Promoting self-congruence to sustain behavior change. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, July 10, 2023. 725–739. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596050
[13]
Andrea Grimes and Richard Harper. 2008. Celebratory technology: new directions for food research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2008. 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357130
[14]
Marc Hassenzahl, Jan Borchers, Susanne Boll, Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Otherware: How to best interact with autonomous systems. Interactions 28, 1 (2020), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3436942
[15]
Marc Hassenzahl, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, Matthias Laschke, Eva Lenz, and Joonhwan Kim. 2013. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International journal of design 7, 3 (2013), 21–31.
[16]
Dmitri S. Katz, Blaine A. Price, Simon Holland, and Nicholas Sheep Dalton. 2018. Designing for diabetes decision support systems with Fluid Contextual Reasoning. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, April 20, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174199
[17]
Rohit Ashok Khot and Florian Mueller. 2019. Human-food interaction. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 12, 4 (2019), 238–415. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000074
[18]
Cherie Lacey and Catherine Caudwell. 2019. Cuteness as a ‘dark pattern'in home robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2019. IEEE, 374–381. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673274
[19]
Matthias Laschke, Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Thies Schneider. 2014. Keymoment: Initiating behavior change through friendly friction. In Proceedings of the NordiCHI 2014: The 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, October 26, 2014. Association for Computing Machinery, 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670179
[20]
Arunesh Mathur and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. What makes a dark pattern... dark? design attributes, normative considerations, and measurement methods. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, May 06, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445610
[21]
Allen R. McConnell. 2011. The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, 1 (2011), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310371101
[22]
Daphne Menheere, Mathias Funk, Erik van der Spek, Carine Lallemand, and Steven Vos. 2020. A Diary Study on the Exercise Intention-Behaviour Gap: Implications for the Design of Interactive Products. September 10, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.329
[23]
Charlie Pinder, Jo Vermeulen, Benjamin R. Cowan, and Russell Beale. 2018. Digital behaviour change interventions to break and form habits. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25, 3 (June 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3196830
[24]
B Rössler. 2017. Autonomie: Ein Versuch über das gelungene Leben. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin.
[25]
Barbara Sahakian and Jamie Nicole LaBuzetta. 2013. Bad Moves: How decision making goes wrong, and the ethics of smart drugs. OUP Oxford.
[26]
Barry Schwartz. 2004. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.
[27]
Paschal Sheeran and Thomas L Webb. 2016. The intention–behavior gap. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10, 9 (2016), 503–518. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
[28]
Alexa F. Siu, Son Kim, Joshua A. Miele, and Sean Follmer. 2019. Shapecad: An accessible 3D modelling workflow for the blind and visually-impaired VIa 2.5D shape displays. In ASSETS 2019 - 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, October 24, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353782
[29]
Jonathan A Smith and Megumi Fieldsend. 2021. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association.
[30]
Katta Spiel and Kathrin Gerling. 2021. The Purpose of Play: How HCI Games Research Fails Neurodivergent Populations. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 28, 2 (April 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3432245
[31]
Anja Thieme, Rob Comber, Julia Miebach, Jack Weeden, Nicole Kraemer, Shaun Lawson, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. “ We've bin watching you” designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2012. 2337–2346. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208394
[32]
Brian Wansink and Jeffery Sobal. 2007. Mindless eating: The 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environ Behav 39, 1 (January 2007), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506295573
[33]
John Zimmerman. 2009. Designing for the self: Making products that help people become the person they desire to be. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2009. 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518765

Index Terms

  1. Fostering people's autonomy by foregrounding and questioning daily choices

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '24 Adjunct: Adjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
    October 2024
    385 pages
    ISBN:9798400709654
    DOI:10.1145/3677045
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 13 October 2024

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Autonomy enhancement
    2. Self-determination-theory
    3. choice-making
    4. everyday life
    5. self-reflection

    Qualifiers

    • Extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research

    Conference

    NordiCHI Adjunct 2024

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 125
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)125
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media