Shikakeology: Designing Triggers for Behavior Change: Papers from the 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium
[THIS SPACE MUSTBE KEPT BLA
Understanding and Applying Trigger
Piggybacking for Persuasive Technologies
Ashutosh Priyadarshy, Duylam Nguyen-Ngo
EEMe labs
{ashutosh, duylam}@eemelabs.com
Abstract
An archetypal Shikake is the use of the shrine symbol, in
Japan, to prevent people from public urination, spitting,
and other crude acts. The principle is simple. Shrines symbolize holiness; upon seeing this symbol people are compelled to behaviors congruent with their ideas of holiness.
For many, public urination and spitting are obviously excluded from any set of holy behaviors. Figure 1 shows an
example of such a shrine symbol. The low design expertise
required in creating this persuasive “technology” is apparent as the symbol can be painted anywhere a designer desires. Being placed in a public place, it readily triggers anyone who understands the cultural significance of a shrine;
this is a very low barrier to trigger comprehension. The
trigger achieves long-term behavior change in two ways.
First, by always being present in the same location it
triggers behaviors congruent with holiness every time a
person sees it. Second, the trigger only reminds viewers of
the concept of holiness. By piggybacking on a cultural or
social value, the trigger augments the viewer’s motivation
to be holy. This increase in motivation drives the viewer
past the behavior activation threshold. Unlike other triggers, like those in the Fogg Behavior Model, that are designed to compensate for a lack in either motivation or
ability the shrine trigger acts by pushing motivation levels
up thus causing intrinsically-motivated behaviors (Fogg
2009). Examples of Shikake are abundant and diverse. Another classic example is the placement of curious objects in
public places that draw the attention of people and bring
them closer to reading a sign or performing some action
(Matsumura 2007).
Even simpler is the example of a piece of tape on the
spine of a book that spans diagonally across a row of books
on a bookshelf. When placing books on the shelf people
simply complete the “puzzle” of tape and avoid dealing
with the alphabetization of the books. Such Shikake are effective but starkly different from the shrine example.
This paper presents a new methodology for designing motivation-augmenting products along with two example cases.
Like the tiny habits methodology, trigger piggybacking
builds upon the Fogg Behavior Model but unlike the tiny
habits methodology it incorporates a Shikakelogical approach to behavior change. Trigger piggybacking claims
that a trigger rooted in a value system will produce longterm continuous behavior change. By embodying a relevant
value system, the trigger reinforces values and leaves itself
open to interpretation. This openness is the key to driving a
user’s desire to perform a behavior. Trigger piggybacking
adds to the toolkit of those that design persuasive technologies.
Background and Motivation for
Trigger Piggybacking
Shikake is the Japanese term for a specific class of behavior triggers. A trigger deemed to be a Shikake combines
the following features: low design expertise, wide range of
target users, long term continuous behavior changes, and
spontaneous behavior activation. Several archetypal Shikake are timeless, physical manifestations capable of activating desired behaviors simply by being seen. These analog
archetypes inspire new Shikakeological perspectives on
captology and captology design methodologies. In applying Shikakeological principles to captology, we introduce
the concept of Trigger Piggybacking. A particularly potent
Shikake apt for transition into digital form. In understanding Trigger Piggybacking we provide background and historical examples of archetypal Shikake, definitions and advantages of Trigger Piggybacking, examples of current
technologies that use Trigger Piggybacking, design
tradeoffs in comparison to other persuasive design techniques, and finally a methodology for using Trigger Piggybacking.
Copyright © 2013, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
79
observer the freedom and autonomy to act as they wish;
freedom and autonomy in choosing behaviors are cornerstones of Shikake.
The interpretation of a value system ties the first and second effect together; it is possible that the trigger carries no
meaning for the observer or that he acts upon that trigger in
a way that is dissimilar to the designer’s interpretation.
Tradeoffs are inherent in any design. In the case of trigger
piggybacking the transaction is between a single deliberate,
desirable action and the potential for a multiplicity of selfmotivated, desirable actions. Associating a trigger with a
value system and in the case of digital mediums causes the
observer to interact with the digital medium as if the rules,
norms, and values of the real world apply in the digital
one. An alternative interpretation is that trigger piggybacking compels observers to express their motivations and
values via behaviors that would be otherwise suppressed
for any number of reasons. The shrine gate example is a
clear illustration of an analog trigger piggyback. Before
proceeding to a design methodology we illustrate an example of Digital Trigger Piggybacking.
Figure 1: Shrine Gate trigger to prevent vandalism
The shrine Shikake has potential to be more persuasive
due to two key differences. First, subjects are left to their
own interpretation of the symbol and its meaning and social implications. Second, the Shikake does not pigeonhole
the subject into a single action or behavior but into a set of
behaviors that are congruent with the individual’s interpretation of the trigger. Such triggers can effectively translocate value systems from real-world into the digital realm
because subjects create and associate values, social and
cultural norms with the sight of the trigger. Finally, evidence in captology and social psychology that humans perceive computers as social entities indicates promise in designing triggers that migrate values and norms from real
world to digital world (Fogg 2002, Fogg et al. 2009, Nass
et al. 1994, Takeuchi et al. 2000). In particular, studies in
reciprocity relationships show that human actors are more
likely to be persuaded by computer actors that share something in common with them (Takeuchi et al.)
From this motivating example we can define Trigger
Piggybacking. Trigger Piggybacking is a persuasive design
technique and methodology in which a highly observable
trigger is designed and placed to remind an observer of a
particular set of values or norms that tend to alter the observer’s behavior. In particular, we focus on Trigger Piggybacking that, in a digital medium, reminds an observer
of values that exist in their ‘analog’ existence. The central
difference in a piggybacked trigger and a traditional trigger, such as those expounded in the Fogg Behavior Model,
is that instead of “[associating] the trigger with the target
behavior” the trigger is associated with a target value system (Fogg 2009). Association with a target value system
results in the following effects: persuading various behaviors, less predictability in passing activity threshold, and a
blending of media and self managed behavior change. Discussion of the shrine symbol illustrates the effect of various behaviors. The trigger represents a concept leaving the
Analysis and Application
To facilitate the addition of the trigger piggybacking technique into a designer’s toolbox we detail example usages,
tradeoffs, a three-step design process and an educational
example.
Fitbit: Translating Values from Analog to Digital
The Fitbit is a wireless activity tracker worn unobtrusively
throughout the day. It monitors several fitness metrics like
steps taken, distance walked, caloric output, and sleep cycles. The Fitbit is packed with bleeding edge technology to
capture, monitor and interpret fitness and health data. The
key user experience element is a digital flower that correlates with a user’s fitness level shown below in Figure 2.
High activity levels cause the flower to grow whereas low
activity levels cause it to shrink. The digital flower’s simplicity is a classic Shikake. The growth of the flower is a
powerful trigger that creates an association with well-being
and health. Due to this association the Fitbit flower is able
to unlock the potential of persuading multiple behaviors instead of a single behavior. As explained above this trigger
also does not result in the predictability of an alarm clock
or other timed trigger. The designer cannot predict how
much and with what intensity a user will perform behaviors that improve their well-being (and flower’s wellbeing). Finally, users tend towards a blend of media and
self managed behavior change because the flower does not
explicitly demand an intentional action.
80
spontaneity and creativity on behalf of the user. In trigger
piggybacking there is no guarantee of when and how a user
will act. The scope of behaviors varies between the two
methodologies. Tiny habits focuses on accomplishing a
single habit that develops into a single behavior. By nature
of Shikake, trigger piggybacking allows for the interpretation of the trigger thus a set of behaviors is realizable, not
just a single action or behavior. For example, someone
who follows Tiny Habits might start flossing everyday but
someone who experiences a well-designed piggybacked
trigger would feel compelled to brush, floss, rinse, avoid
candy or any other behavior that falls within the scope of
the value of dental hygiene.
The characteristics of the methodologies affect the behavior adoption time. By focusing on small, low hanging
accomplishments, tiny habit users easily begin practicing
the behavior and over time, the tiny habit grows and becomes fully developed. There is a vertical path to achieving and adopting the behavior making design issues apparent, quickly. Thus, behavior adoption time is shortened
greatly. Trigger piggybacking focuses more on values and
organically amplifying latent behaviors and motivations;
different perspectives then generate different interpretations. The openness means variance in trigger interpretation, which leads the user to choose within a set of behaviors. With the freedom, users have the ability to reassess an
interpretation and re-frame the presented trigger and follow
the path to a new set of behaviors. Since Trigger Piggybacking is value based and not timing based a designer
cannot predict the adoption time of a behavior. The designer uses the constant interaction with the trigger as a way of
augmenting the user’s desire to perform behaviors that express latent motivations. This is conducive for long-term
continuous behavior change. There is not a right or wrong
methodology; the optimal methodology is defined by the
designer’s goals. If there is a clear short-to-medium term
single behavior, then tiny habits could be the best fit. If
long-term continuous behavior change is the goal, then
trigger piggybacking could be the best fit.
Figure 2: Fitbit device
Comparison of Existing
Frameworks & Methodologies
Several frameworks and design methodologies exist for
creating persuasive technologies. To illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of the Trigger Piggybacking
concept we compare it to the popular “Tiny Habits” methodology. “Tiny Habits” is a habit-forming process developed by B.J. Fogg that builds upon the Fogg Behavior
Model. The concept is as follows. First, the desired behavior is reduced to the smallest possible behavior so it is easily and quickly accomplished. Users with varying degrees
of motivation are now able to cross the activity threshold.
Second, the new tiny habit is positioned to fit easily into a
routine. A signal or reminder in the routine then functions
as a trigger for the habit. Mental constructs are easily
adapted when the habit is triggered within the context of a
routine. Finally, the cycle is repeated until it becomes automated. At this point the habit is developed. The classic
example is flossing. If you don't floss regularly, the task of
flossing all of your teeth (approximately thirty-two teeth!)
takes a lot of effort. Instead, it is made easier by shrinking
the habit to a ridiculously simple task - flossing one tooth.
Then you just floss it at a convenient time - in the morning
after you brush your teeth. The completion of brushing is
the timed trigger for flossing. Over time, you repeat this
and eventually you move up to two teeth, then five, then
twelve, and eventually all thirty-two.
There are three main differences between the tiny habits
and trigger piggybacking methodologies: deliberateness,
scope, and behavior adoption time.
In the Tiny Habits methodology the behavior and behavior forming cycle are focused and deliberate. Designers reduce the needed ability level and place the trigger at a specific time and request the completion of a simple task. The
cycle starts at a designated time and ends just as promptly.
The algorithmic approach to timing and task removes any
3 Step Design Process for
Trigger Piggybacking
Previously, we illustrated and defined trigger piggybacking
through various examples and comparisons to other design
methodologies. In this section, we present a generalized 3step process for designing a trigger piggybacking system.
The process described was built through insights gained
through case study. To concretize the process and provide
an example, we applied the steps to an example case: encouraging students to be accountable for each other’s safety when walking home alone.
81
Figure 3 illustrates a way to visualize the Trigger piggybacking methodology. The box labeled “Value” is the initial value system inherent to the problem and the trigger;
the box labeled “Desired Value” is the value that the designer wishes to impart upon the user. The lines at the
topmost of the chart are the set of triggers that can connect
the two value systems. The lines at the bottommost of the
chart are the set of behaviors that are triggered and connect
the two value systems. The bold arrows represent the desired trigger and behavior. The trigger initializes the feedback loop and cues the desired behavior to be performed.
reached home.
Step Three - create trigger:
Finally we need to create the trigger. The trigger should
embody the value system defined in step two. This is the
most difficult and creativity-intensive step in the process.
Example continued:
There are several triggers that can represent friendship.
In our example we choose bumping fists or shaking hands,
both viable gestures and triggers of friendship. Bumping
phones could proxy for bumping fists and act as a mechanism for connecting to mobile phone through the popular
bump libraries for smartphones. With this trigger we successfully transfer the concept of friendship from analog to
digital world and as designers expect user’s to treat in-app
friends with the care and concern as they treat real friends.
Such a trigger sets in motion the multiplicity of desired behaviors and trigger feedback discussed in Figure 3.
Conclusion
The power of triggers that encapsulate value systems is
that they encourage a gamut of desirable behaviors. Instead
of causing only a behavior these triggers activate the intrinsic motivations of the individual and allow them to express their philosophies via behaviors. Over the long term,
triggers that allow individuals express these philosophies
also augment them. In general, Shikake principles should
be applied when users have a latent value or philosophy
that can be piggybacked on. Because of the social nature of
digital interactions, trigger piggybacking is an effective
method for migrating value from the real world to the digital world.
Figure 3: Behavior Multiplicity and Trigger Feedback
Step One - Problem Definition:
To effectively change behavior, the various dimensions
of the problem must be well defined. Key steps are: identification of offending behavior and the enabling behaviors,
understanding user(s) in the realm of the problem and social context (culture), and evaluating the value systems underpinning the problem.
Example:
For the example case, an offending behavior would be
the lack of proactive communication between a pair of
friends. This behavior stems from different behaviors
unique to each individual; laziness, invincibility, apathy. A
characteristic of the student is eagerness for social acceptance, or cherishing friendship.
Step Two - Define target behavior & value system:
Next the designer defines and selects the target value
system, which are likely to compel users to engage in desirable behaviors. Here the designer requires an understanding of the user group to predict whether user behavior
in response to the target value system is desirable.
References
Fogg, B.J. 2002. Computers as Social Actors. Ubiquity 2002(12):
89-120.
Fogg, B.J., Cuellar, G., and Danielson, D. 2002. The humancomputer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging application: Motivating, Influencing, and
Persuading Users. Hillsdale, New J.: CRC Press
Fogg, B.J. 2009. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Article 4. New York, New York: ACM.
Naohiro Matsumura. 2007. Field Mining: Reconstructing Relations between Human, Objects, and Environment, Proc. First International Symposium on Universal Communication, 153-156.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, Ellen. 1994. Computers are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 72-78, New York, New York:
ACM.
Takeuchi, Y., Katagiri, Y., Nass, C., and Fogg, B.J. 2000. A Cultural Perspective in Social Interface. In Proceedings of the CHI
2000 Conference (submitted).
Example continued:
Having identified friendship as the key value, we would
like our students to be accountable and responsible to one
another. Assuming the product is a mobile application, we
want the students to view the other friend’s location via the
mobile application and check for when the other has
82