=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2340/04-BCSS2019_paper
|storemode=property
|title=BCD Cards: A Tool for Designing Theory-based Behavior Change Technologies
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2340/04-BCSS2019_paper.pdf
|volume=Vol-2340
|authors=Chrysanthi Konstanti,Evangelos Karapanos,Panos Markopoulos
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/persuasive/KonstantiKM19
}}
==BCD Cards: A Tool for Designing Theory-based Behavior Change Technologies==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2340/04-BCSS2019_paper.pdf
BCD Cards: A Tool for Designing Theory-based
Behavior Change Technologies
Chrysanthi Konstanti1, Evangelos Karapanos2, and Panos Markopoulos3
1, 2
Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
3
Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
konstanti.chrysanthi@gmail.com
evangelos.karapanos@cut.ac.cy
P.Markopoulos@tue.nl
Abstract. There is a wealth of theoretical knowledge around behavior change
theories and strategies. However, due to the lack of accessibility of that
knowledge to designers, designing theory-based behavior change technological
interventions can be challenging. Card-based design tools can make academic
knowledge accessible to designers, providing a structured and creative design
process. In this study, we present the Behavior Change Design Cards (BCD
Cards) - a card deck developed from two behavior change theoretical models,
the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change and a Taxonomy of 93 Behav-
ior Change Techniques. Through an empirical study, we aim at evaluating the
impact of the tool on designers’ creativity, their capacity to create theoretically-
grounded designs, as well as the perceived usefulness and ease of use of the
BCD cards as a supporting tool in the design of behavior change technologies.
Keywords: Behavior Change, Behavior Change Technologies, Design Cards,
Design Tools.
1 Introduction
Applying behavior change theory on design practice can be challenging due to the
vast amount of theories, models, and techniques. HCI researchers and designers in-
creasingly engage in the design of technological interventions for behavior change;
however, recent studies have revealed that only a limited number of behavior change
technologies have used theory in their design process, have implemented behavior
change techniques and undergone scientific research [1,2]. Thus a question arises:
How can designers gain access to behavior change literature and therefore design
theory-based technological interventions?
Design cards have been a popular design tool, supporting the translation of re-
search findings from one discipline into another [7] through a simple and easy way. It
has been argued that they can make the design process visible and less abstract, com-
municate knowledge between the members of a group and increase creativity and idea
generation [3].
The goal of this work-in-progress is the development of a card deck named as Be-
havior Change Design Cards (BCD Cards) based on two behavior change theoretical
2
models, the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM) [4] and a Taxonomy
of 93 Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) [5] with the aim to teach designers the
appropriate knowledge when it comes to designing behavior change technologies.
2 Background
According to the Transtheoretical Model (TTM), an individual moves through a series
of stages and processes when modifying a behavior. The core of the model consists of
five stages of behavior change: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action,
and maintenance [4]. One can think of the five stages either as different times in the
process, either as actions that a person takes or is willing to take at each stage;
relapses to previous stages are possible to happen anytime.
An assumption of the TTM is that individuals can apply a set of processes of a
specific behavior. Cognitive, affective and evaluative processes are more used in the
early stages, while commitments, conditioning, contingencies, environmental controls
and support for achieving maintenance, are more used in the later stages. For the BCD
cards development, we focus on three out of ten processes of change that involve the
acquisition of new information and insights of the sort that might be obtained through
Personal Informatics (PI) [6]: consciousness raising, outcome expectancies and self-
monitoring and contingency management; and the self-efficacy construct of the
theory (i.e. the situation-specific confidence that the individual can cope with
challenging situations).
Recent work by Michie et. al [5] has synthesized existing behavior change
techniques into a hierarchically, cross-domain, organized taxonomy based on an
international consensus process. The Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) Taxonomy
consists of 93 behavior change techniques, clustered in 16 categories, which can be
used in multiple behavioral interventions.
Both, the TTM and the BCTs have been expanded, validated, applied and
challenged by researchers all over the world and are considered of the most
potentially useful models applied in multiple health risk behavior interventions.
3 Designing the BCD cards
From the 93 BCTs, we chose and combined into 23 groups those that are easy to
implement in technological interventions; each group represents a technique card of
the BCD deck (see Figure 1). Then, each of those 23 techniques was classified into
the five stages of behavior change (see Table 1).
3
The BCD cards consist of 31 two-sided cardboard cards in total; including, among
others, five stages cards describing the different stages of behavior change and 23
techniques cards describing each of the behavior change techniques. The cards
contain definitions, possible design directions, hints, questions, and pictured examples
for supporting the design process (see Figure 2 for an example).
Classification of the 23
93 Behavior Change 61 Remaining 23 Groups of techniques to the five stages
Techniques Techniques Techniques of behavior change
32 exluded: dificcult to be
implemented in technological Techniques per category:
interventions Min = 1 Max = 8
Fig. 1. The BCTs selection procedure
Table 1. Ten out of 23 BCTs classified to the five stages of the TTM.
TTM Pre- Contemplation Preparation Action Maintenance
contemplation
BCTs
Goal
Setting
Problem Solv-
ing
Action
Planning
Review Goals
Commitment
Feedback on
behavior
Self-
monitoring
Social
support
Information
about
consequences
Prompts/
Cues
4
Through an empirical study, we aim at evaluating the impact of the tool on
designers’ creativity, their capacity to create theoretically-grounded designs, as well
as the perceived usefulness and ease of use of the BCD cards as a supporting tool in
the design of behavior change technologies.
Fig. 2. Two sides of a Stage card (Top), Two sides of a Technique Card (Bottom)
References
1. Conroy, D. E., Yang, C. H., & Maher, J. P.: Behavior change techniques in top-ranked
mobile apps for physical activity. American journal of preventive medicine, 46(6), 649-
652(2014).
5
2. Rivera, J., McPherson, A., Hamilton, J., Birken, C., Coons, M., Iyer, S., ... & Stinson, J.:
Mobile apps for weight management: a scoping review. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(3),
(2016).
3. Wölfel, C., & Merritt, T.: Method card design dimensions: a survey of card-based design
tools. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 479-486. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg (2013).
4. Prochaska, J.O., Velicer, W.F.: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change.
American journal of health promotion. 12(1), 38-48 (1997).
5. Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., ... &
Wood, C. E.: The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered
techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change inter-
ventions. Annals of behavioral medicine, 46(1), 81-95 (2013).
6. Kersten-van Dijk, E. T., Westerink, J. H., Beute, F., & IJsselsteijn, W. A.: Personal infor-
matics, self-insight, and behavior change: A critical review of current literature. Human-
Computer Interaction, 32(5-6), 268-296 (2017).
7. Rogers, Y.: New theoretical approaches for human‐computer interaction. Annual review of
information science and technology, 38(1), 87-143 (2004).