=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=None
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-722/PINC2011Proceedings.pdf
|volume=Vol-722
}}
==None==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-722/PINC2011Proceedings.pdf
!
!"#$%&''!
!
!"#$%%&'()*+#,+-.%+!
!!"!!"#$%"&#'("&)*+(%,-.(/*("*
!"#$%&$'()*+,%-."*+/)01%")2"*+&)-+
!"#$%&"'()*$"+,*(-".&/#(0#1&%#2!
!
!"#$%&'($)"*+",-./011"
"
"
"
2+("3*4"/011"5"6*78$9:;%<",*7*=*"
!
"#$%&'()*!+,!
!
>*%?'*"@'A*BC$A8(?*%"D"3*E"FG"H?A'$7"
"#$#%&!'($&%)*$+,(!-&*.(,/,0+&1!2)3!
4,56#$&%!7*+&(*&8!79)(1&)!:(+;&%1+$?!@AA!
B6C&1/)53,/*.+)%8!5C/C9+/1,(DE19)(1&)C)*C#F!
!
.*7"I*&A;4"
G)H&+%)!'($&%)*$+;&!-&*.(,/,0+&1!'(1$+$#$&!
:(+;&%1+H)H&!H)!G)H&+%)!
4)56#1!:(+;&%1+$I%+,!H)!A&($&)H)!
"#(*.)/8!JKKKLMJK8!A,%$#0)/!
+)(E#5)C6$!
!
!7?7="J;4"
N4'!'(1$+$#$&!
4)%(&0+&!G&//,(!:(+;&%1+$;&C!
A+$$13#%0.8!A>!PO?PMLM@JP!
)(+(HE*1C*5#C&H#"
" "
!"##$%&'(')'*"+,-.'
!"#$%&%%'%% ()$%*+#,$-.$/%0)1223-#%(4155$67%*-%*,83$-.%93:25"6%(1%!41;3/$%
0)122$4:%<3.)%=1-'>8;31+:%!41/+?.%@-A14,".31-%
!"#$%&'()$*+&,+$-+.#&/+&01$+#($2,"##1$3"41'56$
%
!"#$%B%'%% !$4:+":31-%@-'03.+7%0)1223-#%A14%C$"5.)6%D11/%3-%0+2$4,"4E$.:%
7.1$-+..18+,1)$9&/+1.$%6$:/",$+#($;&#"$<&+#6%
%
!"#$%FF%'%% (1<"4/:%"%G1835$%*2253?".31-%.1%H4$".$%0$/$-."46%*<"4$-$::%
=&>5$=1.1&>#51)$?+'0$*+#$@+.01'1#$+#($!+#$A&1/8"BB6%
%
!"#$%FI%'% G>=*JH*7%*%!$4:+":3;$%!$4:1-"5%G1-3.143-#%06:.$,%.1%0+2214.%
G"-"#$,$-.%1A%K3215"4%93:14/$4%
=+C'&1.+$9+'DE$+#($!+/"C$%+'('+F6%
!"##$%&'/')'0-.$1#'
!"#$%FL%'% K+35/3-#%!$4:+":31-%!41A35$:%3-%.)$%M35/7%N:3-#%G1835$%9$;3?$:%":%
@/$-.3A3$4:%
9+E'&05$-+G01%
%
!"#$%O&%'%% =+/#3-#%N:$4:%(1<"4/:%!43;"?6%1-%G1835$%9$;3?$:%
31C1DD+$%+.1C+/")$H1('"$I1"#)$@+J&F$?.FE8&F1(&)$H+0'&D/$-1..1K)$
!"#+08+#$9E4+#)$?.155+#('"$?DLE&50&)$I"''&1$M'+#"'$+#($;"'F+#$
:+(186%
%
!"#$%OB%'%% D41,%P.)3?:%.1%Q"5+$:%3-%.)$%9$:3#-%1A%G1835$%!@=H%
!+#10$A+,&5R%
%
!"#$%&F%'%% >2214.+-3.3$:%"-/%H)"55$-#$:%3-%G3-3-#%K$)";314"5%P?1-1,3?:%.1%
9$:3#-%!$4:+":3;$%($?)-151#6%
9&#$-KE#4$I116%
!"##$%&'2')'0&"345'
!"#$%&I%'%% S".)$43-#%"-/%!4$:$-.3-#%01?3"5%D$$/8"?E%.1%H)"-#$%91,$:.3?%
P5$?.43?3.6%H1-:+,2.31-%
9+0081N$:0E(.1K)$:&F"#$M8+FC1'5)$3E08$3100&1$+#($-1,&#$%E'D81..6%
%
!"#$%&L%'%% (1<"4/:%P#1?$-.43?%D+$5%PAA3?3$-?6%D$$/8"?E%
<&+4"$M+F+D8")$O&.&G1$PE�+.)$9&D81..1$:D"00)$*+55&.&5$-"50+/"5$+#($Q+#$
7+/.1K6$
$
!"#$%T&%'%% H4$".3-#%UH115V%G1835$%($?)-151#3$:%(1%J$/+?$%($$-%P-$4#6%N:$%
A+#&1.$O&00"#)$!+#10$31+()$3E551..$%1+.1)$%1#$M"N+#$+#($2E/+#4$=E"6$
%
!"#$%TB%'%% =+/#3-#%!$125$%".%M14E%"-/%>.)$4%()34/'!"4.6%W1?".31-:R%
9+R$I6$S&.5"#)$A1'1/$O"501')$:8+E#$I+N5"#$+#($:&F"#$T((&5"#%
%
The Augmented Shopping Trolley: An Ambient Display To
Provide Shoppers with Non-Obvious Product Information
Jon Bird, Vaiva Kalnikaité and Yvonne Rogers
Pervasive Interaction Lab
The Open University
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
{j.bird, y.rogers}@open.ac.uk, vaivak@gmail.com
ABSTRACT information about the global consequences of their
The Augmented Shopping Trolley consists of an ambient consumer decisions [2]. Our goal is to provide ‘non-
handlebar display connected to a scanner. When a shopper obvious’ nutritional, ethical and environmental product
scans an item the handlebar lights up to provide them with information, that is, information that is not immediately
information about the product, such as its nutritional, obvious from an item’s packaging or label, in a form that is
ethical or environmental attributes, that are not obvious as salient as the features that typically inform consumers’
from its packaging or label. The system is designed to decision making. The Augmented Shopping Trolley (Figure
seamlessly integrate with a shopping experience: it uses 1) is designed so that it fits as seamlessly as possible into a
familiar supermarket technologies; it keeps both of a supermarket shopping experience. We use familiar
shopper’s hands free; and the simple ambient display supermarket technologies: augmenting a standard shopping
facilitates the ‘fast and frugal’ decision-making typically trolley by attaching a scanner and embedding an ambient
observed in a supermarket. Our initial lab-based study display in the handlebar. This gives our system two
shows that the display can be understood at a glance and advantages over using mobile devices to provide product
used to select items based on a product’s nominal properties information. First, the trolley scanning technology is faster
(for example, it is organic), ordinal properties (for example, [4] and second, because the ambient display is built into the
it has low, medium or high food miles), as well as a trolley handlebar a customer’s shopping experience is not
combination of the two at the same time. Where as usability disrupted by having to repeatedly access and store a mobile
was the focus of our initial design, ethical issues have come display. Underhill [10, see chapter 4] emphasizes the
to the fore as we develop the system for use in importance of having both hands free during shopping.
supermarkets and we discuss how these are influencing our
design.
Author Keywords
Persuasive technologies, ambient display, shopping,
product information, ethics.
ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
In a supermarket, shoppers tend to make snap judgments
based on just a few salient cues (low price, recognized
brand and attractive packaging) and they rarely take time to
read product information labels [7]. However, recent Figure 1. The Augmented Shopping Trolley display consists of
consumer surveys indicate that shoppers want more 16 LEDs embedded in the handlebar, each of which can be set
to green, red or orange
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for Our approach to designing an effective ambient display,
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are first outlined in [9], is motivated by studies of ecological
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, rationality which investigate how people make reasonable
or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior decisions given the constraints of limited time, information
specific permission and/or a fee. and computational resources that characterize most real
Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. world situations [6, 8]. This research indicates that most
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume
is published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011..
natural decision making is made on the basis of ‘fast and (idle state) to a half second sweeping movement of orange
frugal’ heuristics – short-cut strategies where people ignore that indicates scanning is in progress. There is then a beep,
most of the available data and instead focus on the most as typically heard at a checkout counter, to signal that
useful information and process it quickly. Often people scanning is completed and the display then changes to a
make a decision based on a single reason as this strategy is new state that provides relevant information about the
quick and simple and avoids having to weigh up trade-offs product. If the display is configured to show a nominal
between multiple and potentially conflicting options. This property of the product, then it flashes green if the property
approach is not rational in certain environments, namely, is present and shows the idle state if it is not. If the display
those where available pieces of information are is providing ordinal information about the product, the
approximately equally useful. However, in a shopping display employs a bar graph metaphor, with the number of
environment, the distribution of information usefulness is red pixels indicating the degree to which an item has a
highly skewed, that is, the most useful piece of information property. Specifically, if an item has a low degree of a
is a lot more important than the second most useful, which property then pixels 1-3 turn red and 4-16 turn green; if
in turn is considerably more important than the third, etc. medium then pixels 1-8 turn red and pixels 9-16 turn green;
Our handlebar ambient display consists of just sixteen and pixels 1–13 turn red and 14-16 turn green if the item
LEDs. When a shopper scans a product, a few pieces of has a high degree of a particular property. Finally, both
non-obvious information, such as whether it contains nuts, these representations can be combined to show the value of
is fair trade or has low food miles, are displayed as a salient a nominal and an ordinal property at the same time. In our
pattern on the display. study, after a participant selected or discarded an item, the
display changed back to the all green idle state.
Given that information salience influences a person’s
behaviour unconsciously [1], rather than through rational
LAB-BASED SYSTEM EVALUATION
reflection, this raises ethical concerns about the Augmented 5 adults (1 female, 4 male, aged between 20 and 40) took
Shopping Trolley, chief of which is that this system could part in a lab-based evaluation of the Augmented Shopping
potentially manipulate people into behaving in ways that Trolley. Each participant completed 12 shopping scenarios
they would not otherwise do, and furthermore, that they where they were asked to pick up and scan 5 items of a
might not be aware that they had been manipulated. This particular product type and only select those items that met
concern, and also issues to do with privacy and clarifying specified criteria. A scanner was attached to the shopping
how our system benefits shoppers, form the ethical trolley (Figure 1) but was non-functional and the handlebar
considerations that are influencing how we deploy the display was changed using a Wizard of Oz methodology.
Augmented Shopping Trolley in a supermarket.
On the basis of the changes in the patterns on the handlebar
The paper is structured as follows: first, we describe the
display, participants had to decide whether to select the
display hardware and how it conveys product information; item and place it in their trolley or discard it and place it on
second, we describe a lab-based evaluation of the system an adjacent table. Since this was an exploratory study, we
that demonstrates the efficacy of the ambient handlebar were intentionally vague about the operation of the ambient
display for conveying non-obvious product information; display as we wanted to see whether participants could
and third, we describe the ethical issues that are informing understand it intuitively. We only told participants that the
the development of the system for use in supermarkets. display patterns would change depending on whether a
product had a specific property (yes/no), the degree to
AMBIENT HANDLEBAR DISPLAY DESIGN
which a product had some property (high/medium/low) or a
The handlebar display was designed to provide shoppers
combination of the two. Participants were allowed to scan
with salient and easy to read information about a scanned
the items as many times as they wanted and in any order,
product’s nominal properties (for example, whether it is
before they made their decision about whether to select a
organic or contains nuts), its ordinal properties (for
particular item. We used 4 product types: milk; breakfast
example, if it has low, medium or high food miles), as well
cereal; wine; and juice. Each shopping scenario used one of
as a combination of the two at the same time. We
the product types and participants were asked to select from
constructed the display by attaching 16 bicolour LED units
5 different items. For example, select those bottles of wines
to a piece of wood inside a transparent plastic tube (Figure
that meet the specified criterion (fair trade) and put them in
1). This replaced the plastic handlebar in a standard
the trolley, and place the others on the discarded items
shopping trolley. The LEDs are controlled using 2
table. Each of the items was a real product but we masked
TLC5940 chips (Texas Instruments) that are driven by an
any product information on the packaging and told
Arduino microcontroller. In our lab-based study this is
participants to only use the handlebar display to decide
attached via a USB cable to a laptop running a Processing
whether they should select an item or not. The experimenter
application. Each LED unit can be set to red, green or
playing the Wizard of Oz role sat at a table on which the 20
orange (when both the green and red LEDs are on). Each
shopping items were grouped by product type. Each item
time a product is scanned, the display changes in the
was individually numbered so that the experimenter could
following way. First, it goes from an all green background
change the display appropriately when the participants use and were able to quickly read it even though they were
scanned a particular item. not given explicit information on the meaning of the display
patterns. Only two participants scanned items more than
In the first 4 shopping scenarios the handlebar display
once and this was exploratory activity at the beginning of
indicated whether a scanned item had a particular nominal
the evaluation when they were seeing how the interface
property or not: whether a milk product was organic;
worked.
whether a breakfast cereal contained nuts; whether a bottle
of wine was fair trade; and whether a carton of juice
ETHICAL ISSUES AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
contained added sugar. In 2 of these scenarios the
Whereas usability issues informed our initial design, ethical
participants had to select items that had a particular
considerations are shaping the development of the
property and in the other half they had to discard items if Augmented Shopping Trolley for use in supermarkets. This
they had a particular property. For example, in the first is because our ambient display not only provides salient
shopping scenario participants had to select a milk product product information for shoppers, but also potentially
if it was organic and discard it if it was non-organic; in the influences what they purchase. The use of persuasive
second shopping scenario participants had to select a technologies raises ethical concerns for many people. For
breakfast cereal if it did not contain nuts and discard it if it example, Page and Kray [3] used an online questionnaire to
did. investigate people’s views on the ethics of using persuasive
In the next stage of the evaluation, the participants technologies to encourage healthy living. 72 participants
completed 4 shopping scenarios where the display indicated rated the ethical acceptability of a number of different
whether a product contained a low, medium or high value scenarios which varied in 3 different factors: whether a
of a particular ordinal property. The task was to select items participant chose to use the technology or an external
that had a specified property to a particular degree. agency initiated its use; whether there was a clear benefit
Specifically, participants were asked to select milk with a for the participant or not; and the technology used (text
medium fat content, cereals with a high sugar content, wine messages to the participant’s mobile phone; public
with low food miles and juice with a medium water content. announcements in the participant’s location; Facebook
In none of these scenarios were participants asked to messages; restrictions on the participant’s bank account;
discard items if they had properties of a particular degree. and electric shocks). The results indicated that the majority
The final 4 shopping scenarios tested whether participants of the participants viewed the use of persuasive
could understand the display when it simultaneously technologies in most of the questionnaire scenarios as
showed information about both a nominal and an ordinal unethical. When there was no clear benefit to the
property of a scanned item. Participants were asked to participant, mobile phone were considered the most ethical
select milk that was organic and low fat, cereals that persuasive technology. However, approximately the same
contained nuts and had a medium sugar content, juice that proportion of participants (40%) considered them very
had added sugar and high water content and wine that was ethical or ethical as the proportion that considered very
not fair trade and had medium food miles. Only in the wine unethical or unethical when. A large majority of
scenario did participants have to reject items on the basis of participants found the other technologies very unethical or
information about a nominal property of the product. unethical. In scenarios where the use of a technology would
clearly benefit the participant, for example, save their life,
USABILITY RESULTS then this usage was considered slightly more ethical than
4 out of the 5 participants were able to interpret the ambient the cases where the technology did not benefit the
handlebar display and complete all the tasks without any participant. However, it is not clear whether these
mistakes. The other participant made one consistent error in differences were statistically significant. When people were
2 of the first shopping scenarios where the task was to able to freely choose whether to use a persuasive
discard items if they had a particular nominal property: they technology or not, then texts, public announcements and
selected, rather than discarded, them, but did not repeat this Facebook messages were considered ethical by the majority
error in the final shopping scenario which also required an of respondents, in comparison to the situation where the use
item to be discarded if it had a particular nominal property. of the persuasive technology was initiated by an external
Several participants reported that they found the tasks entity (for example, the UK’s National Health Service).
where they had to discard items with particular properties Electric shocks and bank account restrictions were
more difficult and it did seem to increase the cognitive load considered very unethical or unethical by the majority of
in all participants, resulting in a slightly slower response respondents, even when a participant chose to use them.
time (approximately 2 seconds, rather than 1 second for the
Page and Kray’s findings seem to concur with a central
other conditions). This could be due to the colours used in
factor identified by applied philosophical analyses of
the display: a nominal property is indicated by a green
ethical behaviour, for example, the use of persuasion in
blinking display, a colour that many people associate with
advertising [5]. Namely, the ethics of an action are
positive properties, rather than ones that should be avoided.
determined, to a large degree, by the extent to which that
All participants reported that the display was intuitive to
action impacts on an individual’s autonomy, that is, their
capacity to choose how to act and determine their own life. nominal and ordinal properties of a scanned product. Our
Page and Kray’s research also highlights that privacy and display is intuitive to use and requires no training.
the extent to which a participant benefits are important Participants find it easier to select items when they have
issues for determining the ethical acceptability of desirable properties than to not select them because they
persuasive technologies. All three of these ethical have undesirable properties. The Augmented Shopping
considerations (autonomy, privacy and benefits) are Trolley makes non-obvious nutritional, ethical and
shaping the development of the Augmented Shopping environmental product information salient to shoppers and
Trolley. facilitates the fast and frugal decision making typically used
in a supermarket. Some of the global consequences of
To ensure shopper’s autonomy, they will be free to decide
selecting particular products can now be made salient to
whether they use the Augmented Shopping Trolley and also
shoppers at the point of decision making, potentially
able to choose which particular non-obvious product
facilitating changes in consumer behaviour. We argue that
information they want to be informed about. Given that
our system is an ethical persuasive technology as it
users can configure the system to provide different product
enhances the ability of shoppers to buy choose products in
information, privacy is not compromised, even though the
accordance with their individual values.
handlebar will be visible to other shoppers, as they will not
understand what particular LED patterns mean. Some of the
REFERENCES
product information that will be provided by the 1. Cabinet Office and Institute for Government (2010)
Augmented Shopping Trolley can clearly benefit a MINDSPACE. Influencing Behaviour through Public
participant, for example, nutritional data, whereas other Policy. London: Cabinet Office.
information, such as food miles, may not have direct http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/content/133/
personal benefits. In fact, trying to minimize food miles mindspace-influencing-behaviour-through-public-policy
may lead, literally, to a personal cost. However, we assume 2. EDS IDG Shopping Report 2007: Shopping Choices:
that if participants choose to be informed about a particular Attraction or Distraction?
type of product information then they do so because it is of http://www.eds.com/industries/cir/downloads/EDSIDG
Report_aw_final.pdf
benefit to them and in keeping with their lifestyle choices.
3. Page, R. E. and Kray, C. Ethics and Persuasive
We are currently considering how to use the display to Technology: An Exploratory Study in the Context of
provide aggregate information about the contents of a Healthy Living. Proceedings of the First International
participant’s trolley. The display could indicate how Workshop on Nudge and Influence in Mobile Devices,
averaged values of all the participant’s purchases relate to pp. 19-22.
some norm(s), for example, is the weekly shop below or 4. Reischach, F., Michahelles, F., Guinard, D., Adelmann,
above the average shopper’s food miles. Clearly, there are R., Fleisch, E., Schmidt, A.: An Evaluation of Product
normalization issues to be resolved to enable such Identification Techniques for Mobile Phones. In:
comparisons to be made. One ethical consideration with Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 international
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 804--
this type of display is that even if an observer did not know
816 (2009)
what aspect of product information the aggregate display 5. Santilli, P. The Informative and Persuasive Functions of
encoded, under certain conditions it could be evident Advertising: A Moral Appraisal. Journal of Business
whether a participant was above or below a norm, thereby Ethics, 27--33, 1983.
compromising a shopper’s privacy. For example, if the 6. Simon, H. A.: Invariants of Human Behavior. Annual
observer had also used the display themselves and the Review of Psychology, 41, 1--19 (1990)
colour encoding was fixed. One way to ensure privacy is to 7. Todd, P.M.: How Much Information Do We Need?
allow participants to customize aspects of the display, such European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1317--
as the colour encoding used. A second ethical concern with 1332 (2007)
this sort of display is that norms, like salience, typically 8. Todd, P.M., Gigerenzer, G.: Environments That Make
Us Smart: Ecological Rationality. Current Directions in
influence people unconsciously. To ensure that the
Psychological Science, 16(3), 167--171 (2007)
autonomy of participants is not compromised it seems 9. Todd, P. M., Rogers, Y. and Payne, S. J. Nudging the
important to inform them about the methods used in a Cart in the Supermarket: How much is Enough
display and how these typically influence behaviour before Information for Shoppers. In: Proceedings of
they choose to use the Augmented Shopping Trolley NIMD2010, pp. 23 – 26 (2010)
10. Underhill, P. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping.
CONCLUSIONS Simon and Schuster: New York. 2009
Our lab-based study shows that participants can rapidly
read a shopping trolley handlebar display to determine both
Persuasion In-Situ:
Shopping for Healthy Food in Supermarkets
Ole Kallehave, Mikael B. Skov, Nino Tiainen
HCI Lab, Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University
Selma Lagerlöfs Vej 300, 9220 Aalborg East, Denmark
ole-kallehave@rocha.dk, dubois@cs.aau.dk, ninodk@gmail.com
ABSTRACT products, e.g. they cannot understand nutrition labels or
Healthy lifestyle is a strong trend at the moment, but at the how much sugar or fat the product contains [5]. Further,
same time a fast growing number of people are becoming one of the fundamental problems resides in the fact that we
over-weight. Persuasive technologies hold promising are confronted with an overwhelming number of different
opportunities to change our lifestyles. In this paper, we food products and it is often difficult to identify and choose
introduce a persuasive shopping trolley that integrates two the more healthy ones. Iyengar and Lepper showed in an
tools of persuasiveness namely reduction and suggestion. experimental study that consumers were more satisfied
The trolley supports shoppers in assessing the nutrition with their own selections when they have fewer options to
level for supermarket products and provides suggestions for select from [5]. Schwartz refers to this as the paradox of
other products to buy. A field trial showed that the choice claiming that the huge number of choices decreases
persuasive trolley affected the behaviour of some shoppers people’s real choice and decision-making [10]. Thus,
especially on reduction where shoppers tried to understand people are likely to continue their current routine type of
how healthy food products are. On the hand, the suggestion behaviour (as illustrated by Park et al. [8]) and this could
part of the system was less successful as our participants potentially prevent them from making healthier choices.
made complex decisions when selecting food. Emerging technologies are increasingly being used to alter
Author Keywords people’s opinions or behaviour, e.g. smoking cessation [4]
Shopping, health, persuasive, supermarkets. or promoting sustainable food choices [7]. Fogg refers to
such technologies as persuasive technologies or captology
ACM Classification Keywords [3]. Fogg states that contemporary computer technologies
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): are currently taking on roles as persuaders including
Miscellaneous. classical roles of influence that traditionally were filled by
INTRODUCTION doctors, teachers, or coaches [3]. Research studies within
Healthy lifestyles is a hot topic in most Western societies as different disciplines are increasingly concerned with such
a rapid growing number of citizens are either over-weight persuasive technologies that may be used to create or
or obese, e.g. more than 50% of the adult population in change human thought and behaviour. As examples, Chang
Denmark are either over-weight or obese [9]. Over-weight et al. [2] propose the Playful Toothbrush that assists parents
problems come from several circumstances, e.g. the lack of and teachers to motivate young children to learn thorough
exercise or unhealthy food, but in general people buy and tooth brushing skills while Arroyo et al. [1] introduce the
consume food that contains a lot of sugar or fat. Thus, we Waterbot that motivates behaviour at the sink for increased
need to alter people’s behaviour and attitude while they safety. Both these examples propose rather simple, yet
shop groceries and other food products in supermarkets. potentially powerful input and feedback that aim to inform
users of their own behaviour.
When supermarket shopping, more studies have shown that
consumer behaviour is highly controlled by routine and is Todd et al. [11] illustrate theoretically how nudging could
not simply changed or altered [8]. In fact, even if shoppers persuade shoppers to select healthy food products based on
want to change their shopping behaviour and patterns, they simplified information to the shoppers in-situ, but call for
find it difficult to understand the nutritious values of many empirical understandings of persuasive shopping. We
propose a persuasive shopping trolley application called
iCART that attempts to motivate change towards more
healthy shopping behaviour. First, we outline the idea
Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' behind the design of the trolley application and then reports
authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic from field studies of use on its effects on behaviour change.
purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by the iCART: INFLUENCING SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR IN-SITU
editors of PINC2011 iCART is a persuasive application mounted on a shopping
trolley that attempts to persuade the shopper’s behaviour
and awareness. The system was implemented in C# using
Windows Presentation Foundation for the interface and a Reduction reduces complex behaviour to simple tasks in
Microsoft SQL server. order to increase the benefit/cost ratio and thereby
From our previous research [6], we learned that many influence the user to perform the behaviour [3]. As stated
consumers actually attempt to buy healthy products when above, consumers find it difficult to assess the overall
supermarket shopping, but often they would find it difficult nutrition level for products. The persuasive trolley reduces
to assess the nutrition value or energy level. In fact, several this nutrition value assessment through the simplification in
consumers are actually unsure what a healthy food product the Eat Most classification and thereby the assessment now
is. Shoppers find it difficult to understand the nutrition becomes a simple task. This is illustrated in figure 2 where
information labels on the food products and they usually different products have been classified, e.g. milk as eat less
don’t bother consulting this information. Supermarket (middle picture).
products and groceries are rather diverse, e.g. ranging from
simple non-processed products (e.g. an apple) to more
complex processed products (e.g. a pizza). Usually people
find it difficult to assess how healthy processed products
are. Furthermore, people find it difficult to change behavior
and usually choose well-known products while shopping.
The overall idea of iCART is that all food products and
items in a supermarket can be classified according to
nutrition level and this classification will be presented to
the user of the trolley every time the shopper puts an item Figure 3: Example of reduction in persuasion: Classification
of the cereal product Havrefras as Eat Least
into the trolley. For our persuasive system, we adapt the
nutrition label initiative called Eat Most from the Danish We colour-coded the three categories with green, yellow,
Veterinary and Food Administration. For our purpose, it and red. Figure 3 shows the classification for a cereal
provides a simple classification of food products based on product called Havrefras and this product is an eat least
the nutrition values of a product. The classification label product. The implementation in iCART reduces the action
includes a table for calculating the value of all food of assessing the nutrition value of a product by providing a
products. According to the label, all products can be simple classification of only three categories.
classified as Eat Most, Eat Less, or Eat Least.
The typical use situation could be as follows (illustrated in
figure 1): The user walks around the supermarket with the
trolley, chooses food products and places them in the
trolley (a), the trolley recognizes the product and displays
its classification according to the Eat Most label (b), and
the system updates the status for the entire trolley on
numbers of Eat Most, Less, and Least food products (c).
Figure 4: Examples of suggestion in persuasion: Two
alternative cereal products that are both Eat Most products.
Suggestion means that persuasive technologies have greater
power if they offer suggestions at opportune moments [3].
(a) (b) (c) Consumers find it difficult to choice healthier alternatives
Figure 1: Illustrating the process of using iCART as they often have limited understanding of the relative
Interaction Design levels of nutrition between more products. The persuasive
We adapted three persuasive design tool principles from trolley offers suggestions for alternative products (Eat
Fogg namely reduction and suggestion [1]. The persuasive Most) within the same product group when the shopper
shopping trolley should 1) present or visualize product choices an Eat Less or Eat Least product in the trolley. We
nutrition in a simple way and 2) present alternatives to less consider this an opportune moment as the shopper often
healthy products. Finally, we decided that the system will find the alternatives in their present supermarket area
should be a walk-up-and-use system on a shopping trolley. (as illustrated in figure 4 where two alternative cereals are
suggested for the cereal in figure 3).
FIELD TRIALS
We conducted field trials with the shopping trolley at the
Figure 2: Three classifications of the Eat-Most nutrition label local supermarket called føtex. It was rather important to us
with eat most (left), eat less (middle), and eat least (right). to understand the use of the system in-situ to facilitate the
whole shopping experience.
11 shoppers were recruited through public announcements guided the shopper while shopping. This also had the
and we required that they shopped for food products on a advantage that shoppers always knew where to look for the
regular basis. The shoppers were between 27 and 58 years nutritious information for all products. Today, this
old and represented different kinds of households and information is located on the packaging of the product and
worked in diverse job professions. We asked them to fill in thereby distributed in the store.
a questionnaire on their supermarket shopping experiences The reduction element of iCART was quite successful. Out
prior to the trials. Some of the participants were highly of the 60 food products selected by the participants using
concerned with nutritious food while others were less the system, 30 were classified as Eat Less or Eat Least.
concerned. The participants were divided into two groups - Thus, half of the selected products were less healthy. In
one group used iCART while the other group served as a several cases, the participants were surprised to realize that
control group using a regular shopping trolley. We a certain product was less healthy. For example, one of the
balanced them in the two groups based on their self- participants chose a bag of carrot buns and got surprised to
reported knowledge and attitudes towards nutritious food. see that these buns were Eat Least: “I thought they were
Before the trials, we carried out a pilot test to verify and healthy as they contain carrots”.
adjust the process and our instructions. Participants were
not informed about the purpose of the study in order to On the other hand, several shoppers chose less healthy food
minimize study impact and iCART participants were told products and were aware of it – even without the help from
about the system but not its focus on healthy food products. iCART. But the classification made them reflect upon their
choices and several of them started talking about nutrition
The trials consisted of a three parts namely an introduction, and healthy food. One participant said: “But the Eat-Least
the actual shopping, and a debriefing. We instructed the classification makes you think and questions whether you
participants to shop items from a pre-generated shopping have made the right choice”. From our analysis, it seemed
list using their own normal criteria for food selection. Thus, that they acted out of routine behaviour and that they
they should try to shop as they normally would. The partially knew the consequences of these choices. This
shopping list contained 12 items, e.g. milk, cheese, pate. confirms the findings by Park et al. [8] on changing
The list included only general product groups (except for shopping routine behaviour. In summary, the reduction
one item) leaving the participants to choose within the element of iCART was quite successful as it raised the
group, e.g. cheese where they could choose more 20 awareness of the shoppers on the nutritious level of the
different cheese products. They were free to choose in chosen products.
which order they would collect the items.
The suggestion component of iCART was less successful
303 food items were entered into a SQL database compared to the reduction. The participants changed their
representing all items in the store within the groups from choices 3 times out of 30 (10%). This low number was
the shopping list. Data collection was done through 1) a somewhat surprising, but shoppers gave several reasons for
trolley-mounted video camera that captured verbal this. Some would not change their choice, as they would
comments and shopping behaviour and 2) the system rather buy an unhealthy food product that was biodynamic
logged and time stamped all user interactions enabling to than buy a healthy product that was not. So the shoppers
reproduce action sequences afterwards. The sessions were would implement their own classification schemes based
done during normal trading hours and they were not on other aspects than nutrition. Also, some shoppers stated
required to check out the collected items. that they never bought any light or zero products, which
We evaluated iCART as a Wizard of Oz experiment where often were the products suggested by our system. They said
one of the authors acted as wizard implementing the actions that they would rather eat less of the unhealthy products
taken by the participant. When a food product was put into than buy a light product.
the trolley, the wizard would update this information in the During the field trials, 18 times did the shoppers take a look
system. Another person observed the participant while at the suggestions made by iCART, but in most situations
shopping in order to facilitate the following interview. The (14 times) they chose not to follow the suggestion. This
same procedure was used for the control group, but without indicates that the shoppers are interested in receiving
the trolley-mounted display. The total time spent ranged suggestions but the actual suggestions made by the system
from 12:08 to 40:28 minutes. Finally, a debriefing session in the situation were not good enough. As illustrated above,
including questionnaires and semi-structured interview was they had different objectives when shopping and perhaps
conducted immediately afterwards, e.g. they were asked to suggestion functionality should be carefully organized.
assess their own session and the collected items.
We identified an interesting observation concerning trust to
OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION the system. Some users expressed scepticism towards the
The five participants using iCART expressed that they suggestion part of the system while none of them really
liked the system and they would possibly use it if available questioned the reduction part. Most of them stated that
in supermarkets. While food products in supermarkets nutrition labelling whether on the actual product or
already have different labels for determining the health or implemented in an interactive system on the trolley should
nutritious level, iCART became a personal technology that be controlled and accredited by public authorities. They
were more critical when it concerned suggestions than REFERENCES
reductions. The problem with suggestion could reside in 1. Arroyo, E., Bonanni, L., and Selker, T. (2005)
that it could feel like ads or commercials for other products. Waterbot: exploring feedback and persuasive techniques
That could be a potential problem when implementing at the sink. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual SIGCHI
suggestion tools. However, as expressed by one of the conference on Human factors in Computing Systems
female participants: “It is cool to be guide. I don’t mind (CHI’05), ACM Press, pp. 631-639
help or receive suggestions, I’m a grown-up who can make 2. Chang, Y-C, Lo, J. L., Huang, C-J, Hsu, N-I, Chu, H-H,
my own decisions”. This could imply that to change Wang, H-Y, Chi, P-Y, Hsieh, Y-L. (2008) Playful
behaviour designers should focus on providing reduction in toothbrush: Ubicomp technology for teaching tooth
complexity of assessing the food product, but they should brushing to kindergarten children. In Proceedings of
perhaps not suggest or give recommendations to the user. 26th Annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in
Shopping in supermarkets is noisy and complex and it can Computing Systems (CHI’08), ACM Press, pp. 363-372
be stressing due to several multimodal inputs. We noticed 3. Fogg, B. J. (2003) Persuasive Technology – Using
how several participants missed reductions or suggestions Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan
on the screen while acting in the environment. Thus, they Kaufmann
would actually not receive the information proposed by the
system. Also, one participant stated that shopping is private 4. Graham, C., Benda, P., Howard, S., Balmford, J.,
even though it takes place in a public environment. Bishop, N., and Borland, R. (2006) "heh - keeps me off
the smokes...": probing technology support for personal
The participants who shopped without the persuasive change. In Proceedings of the Australia conference on
guidance appeared to have fewer reflections on nutrition Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI’06), pp. 221-228
and health. In fact, the iCART participants eventually
bought 25 food items classified as Eat Least whereas the 5. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (2000) When Choice is
other participants bought 34 Eat Least products. The Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good
difference cannot only be explained in terms of the Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
suggestion tool implemented in iCART, but the interaction Vol. 79, pp. 995-1006
made them reflect. 6. Kallehave, O., Skov, M. B., and Tiainen, N. (2010)
Reducing the Paradox of Choice: Designing a Nutritious
CONCLUSION
Persuasive Shopping Trolley. In Hasle et al. (eds.)
We presented the persuasive shopping trolley iCART that
Poster Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
guides supermarket shoppers in choosing more healthy
on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive 2010), Oulu
food products by classifying all products in three groups
University Press, p. 25-28
namely Eat More, Eat Less, and Eat Least. Field trials with
11 shoppers showed that iCART proved to provide good 7. Linehan, C., Ryan, J., Doughty, M., Kirman, B., and
input on reduction, e.g. reducing the complex task of Lawson, S. (2010) Designing Mobile Technology to
assessing whether a product is healthy or less healthy. Our Promote Sustainable Food Choices. In Proceedings of
participants noticed when the system classified a product as first International Workshop on Nudge & Influence
Eat Least and usually they would start reflecting upon this. Through Mobile Devices, pp. 15-18
Only a few times did this result in change of behaviour 8. Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., and Smith, D. C. (1989) The
where the user changed the original choice. But mostly the Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery
suggestion part of the system was less successful. This was Shopping Behaviour: The Role of Store Environment
mainly due to the fact that several participants had rather and Time Available for Shopping. Journal of Consumer
specific requirements to their products, e.g. they should be Research. Vol. 15, pp. 422- 433
biodynamic or they never bought light-products.
9. Richelsen, B., Astrup, A., Hansen, G. L., Hansen, H. S.,
Based on our findings, we see a number of future research Heitmann, B., Holm, L., Kjær , M., Madsen, S. A.,
avenues. First, rather than optimizing the algorithms behind Michaelsen, K. F., and Olsen, S. F.: The Danish obesity
suggestion tools, we propose that we should design systems epidemic
that enables shoppers to make their own decisions in-situ.
10. Schwartz, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice – Why
This could require a different approach to reduction. Also,
More is Less. HarperCollins Publishers, New York
we need to understand the long-term effects of such
systems and we plan to conduct more longitudinal studies. 11. Todd, P. M, Rogers, Y., and Payne, S. J. (2010)
Nudging the cart in the supermarket: How much is
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
enough information for food shoppers? In Proceedings
We would like to thank the shoppers from the field trial as
of first International Workshop on Nudge & Influence
well as reviewer comments on earlier versions of the paper.
Through Mobile Devices, pp. 23-26
Towards a Mobile Application to Create Sedentary
Awareness
Gijs Geleijnse, Aart van Halteren and Jan Diekhoff
Philips Research
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
gijs.geleijnse@philips.com , aart.van.halteren@philips.com
ABSTRACT successful persuasive strategies to establish an increased
Prolonged sitting time is a potential health risk, not only for amount of physical activity.
people with an inactive lifestyle, but also for those who do
meet the recommended amount of physical activity. In this Recent medical literature reports that not only an inactive
paper, we evaluate SitCoach, a mobile application to nudge lifestyle may lead to adverse health effects, but also
people from their seats. The application is targeted to office sedentary behavior itself is harmful. Prolonged sitting time
workers. SitCoach monitors physical activity and sedentary is also dangerous for people who meet the WHO guidelines
behavior to provide timely feedback by means of of 30 minutes of physical activity per day [4,12]. The
suggesting sitting breaks. A pilot experiment with a group reduction of sedentary behavior is hence identified as a
of 8 users learned that the general awareness of the target behavior that contributes to a healthy lifestyle.
importance of sitting breaks is low. Combined with the 6XSSRUW WR FUHDWH DZDUHQHVV RI RQH¶V VHGHQWDU\ EHKDYLRU
belief that the ability to take sitting breaks is highly may be beneficial. However, as Owen et al. state in [12],
dependent on external factors, a strategy of proposing break ³JLYHQ WKH UHFHQW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ RI WRR
reminders may not be the most successful for this target much sitting, there are not yet any recommended clinical
group. Future work should focus on raising awareness of guidelines. Commonsense might suggest that it may be
the problem and providing insights into personal sitting prudent to try to minimize prolonged sitting with 5 minute
behavior. EUHDNVHYHU\KRXU´
Author Keywords In this paper, we describe SitCoach, a mobile application
Sitting time, mobile persuasion, sedentary awareness, that assists the user to create sedentary awareness and to
physical activity. have regular sitting breaks. Such an application can be
combined with additional physical activity promotion
ACM Classification Keywords features. To the best of our knowledge, SitCoach is the first
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): prototype mobile application aimed to reduce sitting time.
Miscellaneous. Using SitCoach, the goal is to collect insights into
INTRODUCTION SRVVLELOLWLHV WR LQIOXHQFH SHRSOH¶V VLWWLQJ EHKDYLRU XVLQJ D
In the past years, a substantial amount of research has been mobile device.
devoted to physical activity promotion through mobile SitCoach targets office workers, a group which is often also
devices. Using the accelerometer embedded in a mobile assisted by break reminder applications on their PCs. Such
phone or in a dedicated device, the energy expenditure of applications are developed to prevent their users from
the user can be estimated. The user may receive feedback repetitive strain injuries. Although such applications show
on his past physical activity level in minutes or burned to be successful in reducing complaints [7], they may not
calories. always be pleasant to use [10]. Morris et al. [10] introduced
Several strategies have been explored to influence the SuperBreak, which stimulates break compliance for
XVHU¶VEHKDYLRUDQGSURPRWHKLJKHUSK\VLFDODFWLYLW\OHYHOV computer usage. Instead of the usual breaks offered by
Most notably, the usage of virtual rewards [1,2], social software packages such as XWrits and WorkRave,
support [3,9] and goal setting [8] have shown to be SuperBreak offers the possibility to make the break time
more productive. By offering the user the possibility to
interact with the PC through gestures during the break,
break compliance is promoted and the productivity during
the break time is increased. Hence, although SuperBreak
may increase break compliance for computer work, it does
Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. not target a reduction in sitting time. Moreover, neither of
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume the computer packages support break compliance during
is published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011." other sedentary time, e.g. during meetings or while reading.
After describing the SitCoach application in the next
chapter, we present a first pilot user experiment to assess
the usability of the application. Through a locus of control
questionnaire and by means of a semi-structured interview,
we gather additional insights on opportunities and
techniques to promote sitting break compliance.
INTRODUCING SITCOACH
SitCoach is an iPhone application that measures physical
activity by means of the built-in accelerometer. The
application records active time and sitting time at a
granularity of one minute.
To fight sitting time and inspire people to take a break once
in a while, the SitCoach reminds users after a configurable
number of in-active minutes via visual, acoustic and tactile
messages. Users set their goals in terms of maximum
number of consecutive sitting minutes and number of active
minutes per day.
Identifying Sitting Time
Using the built-in accelerometer in the smart phone, the
XVHU¶V DFWLYLW\ LV FODVVLILHG LQ DQ DFWLYH DQG LQDFWLYH VWDWH
Every sHFRQG D PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH SKRQH¶V [ \ DQG ] Figure 1. SitCoach main screen.
positioning is taken by the accelerometer. These three
values are compared with the previous measurement. When A FIRST USER EVALUATION
the difference for x,y or z exceeds 0.3 the accelerometer To assess the usability and user acceptance of the
recognizes a movement. The 0.3 was determined application, SitCoach has been evaluated with users. This
empirically: it is low enough to pick up the walking evaluation also provides insights into WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV¶
movement of the user without getting a false reading from current sitting behavior and their awareness of the
other possible movements like a small turn with the chair harmfulness of sedentary behavior. The goal of the study is
while sitting. to identify future directions for persuasive applications
targeting sedentary awareness.
To distinguish walking from other smaller movements like
a small turn or just standing up from a chair the movement In the study, the participants are provided with an iPhone
will be monitored over a certain interval of time. An with the SitCoach application and are invited to use the
empirically determined value of 5 seconds proved to be application throughout a day at the office. At the end of the
sufficient. day, a semi-structured interview is conducted, to discuss
experiences. Moreover, the participants are questioned
Creating Sedentary Awareness about current sitting break habits and the awareness of the
To motivate users to become more active, the application importance of such breaks is assessed. Apart from the
stores the number of active minutes per day for each of the interview, two questionnaires were handed to the
users. This provides a social nudge for users to see how participants: one focusing on the utilitarian and hedonic
others are doing and to comply with the social norm. qualities of the application [5,6] and a second one focusing
When it is time to take a break, SitCoach emits a tactile on the locus of control that people perceive with respect to
(vibration) and an acoustic warning. Users can override the possibilities to reduce their sitting time [13].
acoustic warning. A visual indicator at the main screen Participants
shows when a user is moving, giving the user immediate Eight participants (four females) were invited to participate
feedback about their current behavior. Figure 1 provides a in the experiment, during one working day. All participants
screenshot of the main screen of SitCoach. The green circle were knowledge workers with high computer dependability.
indicates that the application has detect that the user is
Procedure and Design
currently moving and hence the number of active minutes is
increasing while in this state. In the state displayed in the The participants were scheduled on a day they described as
figure, the user is nine inactive minutes away from a break a typical office day. Per participant, a day was selected
reminder. However, if the user is active for a period equal without having appointments outside the office during
to the actual time of the sitting break, the break timer will working hours.
be reset.
In the morning after arriving at the office, the participants
received a fully charged iPhone 3G. SitCoach was the only which is installed by default. The others have disabled it.
application installed, apart from the standard software. The For a mobile application to create sedentary awareness, the
participants were instructed not to use the phone for other perceived control over the sitting breaks should remain with
purposes. No SIM card was installed, limiting the the user.
functionalities of the phone.
The interviews showed that the phone vibration to signal
During the intake meeting, the participants were explained break alerts was appreciated as it is discrete and easy to
the functionality of the applications and guided through the ignore when needed, for example during meetings. On the
features and settings. The standard break timer was set to other hand, the buzzing signal was experienced to be
60 minutes, prompting for a 5 minute break. The standard GLVWUDFWLQJ ³:KHQ , DP ZRUNLQJ , GRQ¶W ZDQW WR EH
activity goal was set to 50 minutes. The participants were GLVWXUEHG´
free to change the settings throughout the day.
The Locus of Control questionnaire revealed that six out of
$URXQG R¶FORFN LQ WKH DIWHUQRRQ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH eight participants scored low on the internality dimension
interviewed based on a list of pre-defined questions on their (scores < 18 on a range from 6 to 36), while the other
sitting behavior, sedentary awareness and the SitCoach scored moderate (18 score 24). This implies that the
application. Moreover, the two questionnaires were handed. office workers participating in the study believe that they
have little control over their sitting behavior. With overall
The Attrakdiff2 questionnaire was presented to assess both
higher scores on the powerful others dimension, it is
the pragmatic and hedonic qualities of SitCoach [5,6]. His
believed that others (colleagues, managers) strongly
scores on both qualities are important for the prolonged
GHWHUPLQHWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV¶VLWWLQJEHKDYLRU
usage of a product. Specifically, the questionnaire measures
perceived pragmatic quality, hedonic quality identification The Attrakdiff2 questionnaire results show favorable scores
LH GRHV WKH SURGXFW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH XVHU¶V LGHQWLW\ LQ D on the pragmatic dimension, implying that the participants
social context?), hedonic quality stimulation (i.e., does the are generally positive about the interaction with the
product help to develop skills or knowledge) and SitCoach application. No remarks were made about any
attractiveness (is the product good, bad or ugly?). Each of inaccuracies of the application. This suggests that the
those four categories contains seven word-pairs on a seven current implementation is well usable to distinguish sitting
point semantic-differential scale (e.g. discouraging vs. time from active time. Lower scores were reported on the
motivating, complicated vs. simple). hedonic dimensions, most notably on attractiveness.
7RDVVHVVWKHSHUFHLYHGORFXVRIFRQWUROWRLQIOXHQFHRQH¶V Table 1. 8VHUV¶UHVSRQVHVWRWKHORFXVRIFontrol questionnaire.
sitting behavior, a locus of control questionnaire was
Participant I nternality Powerful Chance
assessed [13]. The commonly used questionnaire,
others externality
developed by Wallton et al., is adapted for sitting behavior.
externality
The questionnaire measures whether the control over the
sitting behavior is determined internally (i.e. self-control; Person 1 Moderate Moderate Low
example statement: If I take care of myself, I can avoid long
Person 2 Moderate High Moderate
sitting periods), by others (e.g. Whenever I feel I sit too
much and too long, I should consult a trained professional.) Person 3 Low High Moderate
or by chance (e.g. No matter what I do, I 'm likely to have
Person 4 Low High Moderate
long sitting periods).
Results Person 5 Low Moderate Moderate
All participants indicated that they were not aware of the Person 6 Low Moderate Low
harmfulness of sedentary behavior itself. When taking a Person 7 Low High Low
break and getting up from their desk, the participants did so
because they were aware of the adverse effects of Person 8 Low High High
prolonged computer usage and the healthfulness of physical Some of the participants reported battery problems with the
activity. Half of the participants reported to be unhappy smart phone. Although the participants received a fully
with the amount of sitting time during a day in the office. charged phone, the battery time was not enough for the
Suitable moments to take a sitting break are in between application to run for the whole working day. Hence, in
tasks and when feeling less concentrated. The time spent future work, solutions should be researched that take the
during such breaks is not seen as productive. energy consumption of the phone into account when
The lack of control is seen as the largest source of running such accelerometer-based applications.
annoyance with PC break applications. Only one of the The functionality to share the activity minutes on FaceBook
participants is using an RSI prevention program on the PC, or other social media was not well received. Similar to the
findings of Munson et al. [11], participants did not feel the Avrahami, D., Froehlich, J.E., LeGrand, L., Libby, R.,
need to bother their social network with such details. Mosher, K., & Landa\-$³)ORZHUVRUD5RERW$UP\"
Encouraging Awareness & Activity with Personal,
Table 2. 8VHUV¶UHVSRQVHVWRWKHAttrakDif2 questionnaire.
0RELOH'LVSOD\V´3URFRI8EL&RPS-63.
Ppn Pragmatic Hedonic Hedonic Attractive 3. Fujiki, Y (2010). iPhone as a Physical
Quality Quality Quality ness Activity Measurement Platform. In Proceedings of the
I dentification Stimulatio 2010 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
n Systems (CHI).
1 High Moderate High Moderate 4. Hamilton, M.T., Healy, G.N., Dunstan, D.W.,
2 High Low Low Low Zderic, T.W., and Owen, N. (2008). Too little exercise
and too much sitting: Inactivity physiology and the need
3 Moderate Moderate Moderate Low for new recommendations on sedentary behavior. Current
4 Low Moderate Moderate Low Cardiovascular Risk Reports 2(4), 292-298.
5. Hassenzahl, M. (2006) Hedonic, emotional and
5 High High Moderate Moderate
experiental perspectives on product quality. In Ghaoui, C.
6 High High High Low (ed) Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction.
Hershey: Idea group, 226-272.
7 High Moderate High Low
6. Hassenzahl, M. (2010) Attrakdiff. Retrieved
8 High Moderate High Moderate August 11th 2010 from
http://www.attrakdiff.de/en/AttrakDiff-/What-is-
AttrakDiff/Scientific-Background.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we presented an application to assist people to 7. Heuvel, S.G. van den, Looze, M de, Hildebrandt,
control their sitting behavior. The mobile application V.H., and The, K.H (2003). Effects of software programs
combines feedback on physical activity with insights on the stimulating regular breaks and exercises on work-related
XVHU¶V VLWWLQJ SHULRGV SitCoach was developed to gain neck and upper-limb disorders. Scand J Work Environ
LQVLJKWVLQWRSHRSOH¶Vawareness of their sedentary behavior Health 29(2):106±116.
and the user acceptance of a break reminder application. 8. Lacroix, J., Saini, P., Holmes, R. (2008). The
relationship between goal difficulty and performance in
With SitCoach, we have created an application that detects the context of Physical Activity. IQ 0RELOH+&,¶.
sitting time with fair accuracy. However, the users involved
in the trial showed not to be in the right stage of change to 9. Lin, J; Mamykina, L; Lindtner, S; Delajoux, G;
be responsive to the strategies applied in SitCoach. 6WUXE +% ³)LVK¶Q¶6WHSV (QFRXUDJLQJ 3K\VLFDO
Persuasive strategies to stimulate the user to take sitting $FWLYLW\ZLWKDQ,QWHUDFWLYH&RPSXWHU*DPH´8EL&RPS
breaks are likely to be more successful after having 2006.
established awareness of the adverse health effects of sitting 10. Morris, D., Bernheim Brush, A.J. and Meyers, B.R
behavior. This can be done by first providing insights in (2008). SuperBreak: Using Interactivity to Enhance
RQH¶ VLWWLQJ EHKDYLRU DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ VXJJHVWLQJ Ergonomic Typing Breaks. Presented at CHI 2008.
opportunities to reduce sitting time. For users who are
11. Munson, S., Lauterbach, D., Newman, M.W.,
aware of the problem and the adverse effects of their
Resnick, P. (2010). Happier Together: Integrating a
behavior, the triggers applied in SitCoach may be revisited.
Wellness Application into a Social Networking Site.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PERSUASIVE 2010.
This work was funded by the European Commission, within 12. Owen, N., Bauman A., and Brown, W. (2009).
the framework of the ARTEMIS JU SP8 SMARCOS Too much sitting: a novel and important predictor of
project ± 100249 - (http://smarcos-project.eu). chronic disease risk? British Journal of Sports Medicine
42(2).
REFERENCES
1. Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., & Landay, 13. Wallton, K.A, Strudler Wallton, B., DeVellis, R.
-$ ³'HVLJQ 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU 7HFKQRORJLHV WKDW (1978). Development of the Multidimensional Health
(QFRXUDJH3K\VLFDO$FWLYLW\´ 3URFHHGLQJVRI &+, Locus of Control Scales. Health Educ Behav 6(1):160 ±
457-66. 170.
2. Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W.,
MONARCA: A Persuasive Personal Monitoring System to
Support Management of Bipolar Disorder
Gabriela Marcu Jakob E. Bardram
Human-Computer Interaction Institute IT University of Copenhagen
Carnegie Mellon University Rued Langaards Vej 7, Copenhagen, Denmark
5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, USA +45 7218 5311
gmarcu@cs.cmu.edu bardram@itu.dk
ABSTRACT multitude of ways. For example, patients and their clinicians
MONARCA is a persuasive mobile phone application de- can use the data to determine the effectiveness of medica-
signed to support the treatment and management of bipolar tions, find illness patterns and identify warning signs, or test
disorder. Behavioral data is monitored through both sensing potentially beneficial behavior changes. Behavioral data
and manual patient input, while timely feedback is provided collected could be used to predict and prevent the relapse of
based on clinical recommendations to help patients adjust critical episodes.
their behavior and manage their illness. This paper presents Despite the plethora of research into personal monitoring
the design process behind the MONARCA system and ini- systems targeting behavior change [8], health-related behav-
tial findings on the challenge of designing a persuasive sys- ior change (e.g., physical activity [5, 1], diet [9], cardiac
tem for the management of bipolar disorder. We discuss rehabilitation [6], and others [3]), and even the management
how difficult the design of such technology has turned out of chronic illnesses (e.g., diabetes [7, 11], chronic kidney
to be, for two primary reasons: (1) the inherent challenges disease [10], asthma [4]), mental illness has remained rela-
of using persuasive metaphors with a complex mental ill- tively unexplored. One explanation for this untapped poten-
ness, and (2) the tradeoffs encountered due to varying, and tial is the complexity and variation of a mental illness like
sometimes conflicting, stakeholder needs. bipolar disorder, which causes uncertainty in how to manage
it. Moreover, there is no simple connection between measur-
Author Keywords able parameters and the course of treatment; mental illness is
Bipolar disorder, mental illness management, user-centered fundamentally complex and is often tied into physical health
design, personal monitoring systems problems as well as social problems. In the MONARCA
project we aim to overcome this challenge by developing a
ACM Classification Keywords system that, through pervasive data collection and feedback
H.5.2 Information Interfaces and Representation: User In- to the patient, supports the treatment of bipolar disorder.
terfaces – User-centered design. J.4 Social and behavioral As such, the MONARCA system can be classified as a per-
systems: Psychology. suasive technology [2], similar to other persuasive health-
related ubiquitous computing systems. The design of such
INTRODUCTION persuasive systems is, however, extremely difficult. It is
Persuasive personal monitoring systems seem promising for very unclear how feedback should be given to the patient in
the management of mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder. order to influence and change behavior. Numerous studies
Bipolar disorder is characterized by recurring episodes of have proven that that trying to change unhealthy behavior
both depression and mania, with treatment aiming to reduce such as smoking, drinking, or lack of exercise is extremely
symptoms and prevent recurrence throughout a patient’s difficult even with the use of intensive counseling. Medicine
lifetime. By applying pervasive healthcare technologies to compliance is also a fundamentally hard problem in
the treatment of bipolar disorder, we can monitor patients’ healthcare. Therefore, it is quite challenging – some would
behavioral and mood data, and provide timely feedback to say naïve – to rely on non-human actors like computers and
them in order to help them adjust their behavior. This data mobile phones to be able to change unhealthy behavior.
supports the treatment and management of the illness in a
In this paper, we describe the user-centered design process
and initial findings on the challenge of designing a persua-
sive system for the management of bipolar disorder. We
discuss how difficult the design of such technology has
turned out to be, for two primary reasons: (1) the challenges
of using persuasive metaphors with a complex mental ill-
ness, and (2) the tradeoffs encountered due to varying, and
sometimes conflicting, stakeholder needs.
METHOD (based on phone calls and text messages). This data is ab-
Patients and clinicians of a bipolar disorder treatment pro- stracted for analysis, to protect the patient’s privacy while
gram took part in an in-depth participatory design process. still supporting self-assessment using objective data.
They were instrumental in decision-making about features
through collaborative design workshops and iterative proto- Historical overview of data
typing. Patients participated in semi-structured interviews The patient and clinician will both have access to the data
about the treatment and management of their own illness to through a web interface. This will give them the means to
further inform the design process. Notes and artifacts from explore the data in depth by going back and forth in time,
these design activities were analyzed for 1) an understand- and focusing on specific sets of variables at a time.
ing of each stakeholder's motivations and needs, and 2)
indicators of tradeoffs that arose in the design of the sys- Coaching & self-treatment
tem. Psychotherapy will be supported through everyday rein-
forcement in two ways. Customizable triggers can be set to
Workshops were held every other week for six months. At
have the system notify both patient and clinician when the
every workshop, 1-3 individuals attended from each of the
data potentially indicates a warning sign or critical state.
following three stakeholder groups: patients, clinicians, and
Second, after patients are advised by their clinicians about
designers. The designers led each three-hour workshop by
which actions to take in response to warning signs, they can
facilitating discussion about particular design goals and
keep track of and review them through the system.
issues; system features and functionality; and feedback on
mockups and prototypes of the system. During initial work-
Data sharing
shops, overall goals of the system were introduced from In order to strengthen the psychotherapy relationship data
both clinical and technical perspectives. Sharing these per- and treatment decisions are shared between the patient and
spectives of the project involved drawing from their respec- his/her clinician. Similarly, sharing data with family mem-
tive best practices: both medically and practically, clini- bers or other caregivers empowers the patient to support the
cians know what works with patients; and designers are treatment process. Finally, sharing data among patients
aware of related systems and technologies. helps with personal coping and management efforts by re-
Design activities at workshops began in the early stages assuring patients that they are not alone, and helping them
with hands-on brainstorming. We provided materials such see how others manage their illness.
as documents summarizing the goals of the system, images
of existing tools and methods, large poster paper, writing CHALLENGES WITH A PERSUASIVE METAPHOR
materials, scissors, tape, etc. The sketches that came out of One of the main original goals of the user-centered design
this initial brainstorming formed the basis for the first process was to design a persuasive system for bipolar pa-
mockups. For the rest of the process, at each workshop we tients, which could help them constantly adjust their behav-
1) discussed a few design goals and system features in ior to manage their own illness. In particular, the design
depth, and 2) received feedback on the next iteration of the process revealed the following three parameters were cru-
mockups. Mockups presented during workshops progressed cial to keeping a bipolar patient stable:
from sketches to wireframes to interactive prototypes. 1. adherence to the prescribed medication – i.e., ensuring
that the patient takes his or her medication on a daily
SYSTEM DESIGN basis
The design process resulted in 5 focus areas for a persua-
sive system for bipolar disorder: self-assessment, activity 2. stable sleep patterns – e.g., sleeping 8 hours every
monitoring, historical data overview, coaching & self- night and going to bed at the same time
treatment, and data sharing.
3. being physically and socially active – e.g., getting out
of the home, meeting with people, going to work.
Self-assessment
Subjective data is collected through a mobile phone using a Now – at first glance, this may seem simple, but numerous
simple one-page self-assessment form. Less than 10 items studies have shown that each of the above three things are
are entered by the patient on a daily basis, including mood, very difficult to achieve for many patients, and achieving
sleep, level of activity, and medication. Some items are all three consistently is inherently challenging in combina-
customizable to accommodate patient differences, while tion with a mental illness. Hence, the core challenge is to
others are consistent to provide aggregate data for statistical create technology that would help – or “persuade” – the
analysis. A simple alarm reminds the patient to fill out the patient to do these three things every day.
form.
Most persuasive health-related Ubicomp systems have
Activity monitoring
adopted different metaphors with the goal of motivating the
Using sensors in the phone, objective data is collected to patient to perform healthy behavior. Examples of such
monitor level of engagement in daily activities (based on metaphors include a garden that grows when the person is
GPS and accelerometer), and amount of social activity physically active; a fish that grows when the person walks
more; and a dog that is happier when the person eats too much time or attention on the clinician's part, the clini-
healthy meals. Common to these metaphors is a simple-to- cians would reject it. An example of one such feature was
understand relationship between behavior (e.g. exercise) the system suggesting that the patient contact the clinic if
and visualizations in the metaphor (e.g. more flowers in the data collected indicated possible warning signs – and mak-
garden). ing it easy for the patient to place this call. The motivation
behind this feature was to encourage the patient to reach out
In the design of the MONARCA project, we tried to adopt for help when needed, but the clinicians ultimately rejected
the same strategy of creating a metaphor. In total of 5 dif- the idea because we could not find a reasonable protocol to
ferent metaphors were tested and tried out in a series of make the benefits to the patient outweigh the burden on the
design workshops. These metaphors included the use of an clinic's resources. Features of the system also couldn't pre-
abstract color picture, a landscape with a river, a dartboard, sent a liability for clinicians, so they were more likely to
a music equalizer, and a scale. The patients and clinicians reject ideas and limit the role of the system to be on the safe
rejected all of these metaphors – one after the other. side. Any kind of text messages or notes written by the pa-
tient and made available to the clinic were kept out of our
Why did this happen? First we thought that maybe we were design, because we could not ensure that the clinicians
just bad at designing the metaphors, and we kept on trying would always read these messages, so we could not make
with new ones. But since it turned out to be a persistent them liable for their content.
“problem”, we think that something more fundamental was
We therefore realized that designing our system with pri-
at stake, which was expressed by one of the patients as:
marily a clinical focus was limiting. The clinicians we
“I do not want my illness to be reduced to a game.” worked with were clearly most comfortable with strategies
that they were familiar with, they had evidence for based on
We think that this is an important insight into the design of their experiences with patients, and were backed by clinical
persuasive technologies for healthcare and self- trials. Deviating from these practices somewhat, and pushing
management. Many of the technologies and metaphors re- our clinicians a little bit out of their comfort zone, enabled
ported so far deal with personal lifestyle related health us to explore other potential strategies, from the perspectives
management, which is fundamentally different from pa- of the patients and the designers.
tients with a diagnosed mental illness. We think that the
design of feedback to the patient needs to follow another An additional example of a debated feature is reported stress
level. A stress level scale was strongly rejected by a clini-
pattern other than using a metaphor.
cian who argued that stress is not a clinically useful meas-
ure, nor is there any clinical definition of stress that would
DESIGN TRADEOFFS
support accurate data collection. Interestingly, a second cli-
During the user-centered design process, we discovered nician was the one who suggested the stress level scale, and
several tradeoffs in the design of the system due to conflict- argued for it from a very patient-centered perspective based
ing stakeholder needs and motivations. These tradeoffs re- in psychotherapy. This clinician found that external stressors
late to the clinical efficacy of the system, the patient’s pri- play a significant part in the mood of her patients, and it was
vacy, sustained use of the system, and other issues. In this useful for her to consider a patient's reported stress level
section, we highlight two of the primary tradeoffs we dealt when assessing how that patient was doing. She also be-
with during the design of MONARCA. lieved that patients would find it useful to assess their own
level of stress, regardless of the fact that they would be in-
Clinically driven vs. patient driven strategies terpreting its meaning for themselves in the absence of a
If a system has a strong clinical focus – meaning that it clinical definition. The patients tended to agree with her, so
adopts only clinically proven treatment strategies – it could although this feature was under debate for several weeks, the
miss out on patient-driven approaches that may be helpful to designers opted to keep it in the design because enough par-
some patients. In addition, the system may also ignore novel ticipants believed there could be personal value in assessing
technological solutions that the clinical field has yet to one's stress.
evaluate. Since our system was designed for a clinical con-
text, it was important that it adhere to clinical practices so The patients were creative in suggesting strategies based on
that it could be evaluated as a valid intervention. In addition, their personal experiences. Knowing what behavioral
considering clinical practices was crucial in designing a sys- changes have worked for them in the past, and imagining
tem to be viable for adoption and acceptance into a patient's what new strategies might work for them, patients explored
treatment, which includes everyday use by the patient and technological solutions unrestrained by considerations of
occasional use by the clinician. clinical efficacy. This unrestrained creativity was productive
during the design process for two reasons. First, it revealed
The clinicians that took part in our design activities shared what would motivate the patients to use the system, which is
with us scenarios, anecdotes, and commonalities about the critical to adoption and acceptance. Second, it helped us
treatment of their patients. We understood the context we realize which measures, though clinically significant, would
were developing the system for by understanding the prac- ultimately fail because they were too intrusive for the patient
tices of clinicians with their patients. A recurring theme was to collect, or were not interesting enough to the patient to
clinicians' limited resources. This turned into a limitation for motivate collection.
the functionality of the system, because if something took
Egocentric patient bias vs. clinician generalizations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although patients provide valuable insights into the experi- This work has been partially funded by the EU Contract
ence of living with and managing bipolar disorder, their in- Number 248545 - MONARCA under the 7th Framework
put tends to be egocentric, since their knowledge about the Programme. We would like to thank our participants for
disorder mostly comes from their own personal experience their contributions to this project and enthusiasm for the
with it. Discussions about the amount and type of data to work.
collect were complex due to the different experiences and
motivations of the stakeholders: clinicians were interested in REFERENCES
data they knew to be relevant for assessment based on clini- 1. Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., Toscos, T., Chen, M.
cal studies or their own experiences treating patients; and Y., Froehlich, J., Harrison, B., Klasnja, P., LaMarca,
patients were interested in data they thought would be useful
A., LeGrand, L., Libby, R., Smith, I., Landay, J. A. Ac-
to themselves personally for self-reflection. To balance these
sometimes opposing interests, designers focused on what tivity Sensing in the Wild: A Field Trial of UbiFit Gar-
data would be easy and convenient to collect. Without non- den. Proc. CHI 2008, ACM Press, pp. 1797-1806.
intrusive data collection methods, the system will be over- 2. Fogg, B.J., Persuasive technology: using computers to
loaded with features and burden the patients, who are re- change what we think and do. 2003, Morgan Kauf-
sponsible for collecting the data every day. Here, the design- mann.
ers play an important role in keeping in perspective the im- 3. Korotitsch, W. J., and Nelson-Gray, R. O. An Over-
plications of collecting different amounts and types of data. view of Self-Monitoring Research in Assessment and
Treatment. Psychological Assessment, 1999. 11(4), pp.
Patients and clinicians disagreed about how to include cus- 415-425.
tomizable personal warning signs, which patients would
4. Lee, H. R., Panont, W. R., Plattenburg, B., de la Croix,
personalize and track on a daily basis. In addition to the uni-
J., Patharachalam, D., Abowd, G. Asthmon: Empower-
versal warning signs that we selected with the help of clini-
cians to be applicable to most, if not all, patients, we dis- ing Asthmatic Children’s Self-Management with a Vir-
cussed including personal warning signs that each patient tual Pet. Proc CHI 2010, ACM Press, 2010, pp. 3583-
could customize based on personal symptoms. Clinicians 3588.
argued that there should be as few of these items as possible, 5. Lin, J. J., Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G.,
even stating that one personal warning sign was difficult Strub, H. B. Fish‘n’Steps: Encouraging Physical Activ-
enough for patients to attempt to track in their daily life. On ity with an Interactive Computer Game. Proc. Ubicomp
the other hand, patients argued that having more flexibility 2006, LNCS, pp. 261-278.
would allow them to explore multiple warning signs at once 6. Maitland, J., Chalmers, M. Self-monitoring, self-
in order to determine which ones applied to them. One pa- awareness, and self-determination in cardiac rehabilita-
tient, who had difficulty understanding her illness and could tion. Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press, pp. 1213-1222.
not identify any of her personal warning signs, asked for a 7. Mamykina, L., Mynatt, E., D., and Kaufman, D., R.
lot flexibility because she would have no idea what to track, Investigating Health Management Practices of Indi-
so she would need to try many different items. The designers viduals with Diabetes. Proc. CHI 2006, ACM Press,
found a solution by suggesting that the feature be limited but pp. 927-936.
flexible. The agreed upon solution would allow patients the 8. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. Behavior Change Support Sys-
option to include as few as one personal warning sign, but tems: The Next Frontier for Web Science. Web Science
no more than three. Those patients who would only be able Conf. 2010.
to handle one item at a time could customize the system to
9. Pollak, J. P., Gay, G., Byrne, S., Wagner, E., Retelny,
show only one at a time.
D., Humphreys, L. It’s Time to Eat! Using Mobile
Games to Promote Healthy Eating. Pervasive Comput-
CONCLUSION
ing, IEEE CS, 2010, pp. 21-27.
In the design of a persuasive personal monitoring system
10. Siek, K. A., Connelly, K. H., Rogers, Y., Rohwer, P.,
for bipolar disorder, we ran into several challenges unique
Lambert, D., and Welch, J., L. When do We Eat? An
to using persuasive technology for the management of men-
Evaluation of Food Items Input into an Electronic Food
tal illness. Our findings demonstrate that the design of a
Monitoring Application. Proc. Pervasive Health 2006,
system for bipolar disorder is quite different from that of
IEEE.
systems that have been explored for other health purposes
11. Smith, B. K., Frost, J., Albayrak, M., and Sudhakar, R.
such as nutrition, physical activity, and chronic physical
Integrating glucometers and digital photography as ex-
illnesses. In this paper we have highlighted some of the
perience capture tools to enhance patient understanding
main issues that emerged during our design process, includ-
and communication of diabetes selfmanagement prac-
ing using a persuasive metaphor, balancing clinical- and
tices. PUC, 2007, 11(4), pp. 273-286.
patient-centered strategies, and dealing with the biases of
patient and clinician participants. Our work revealed major
challenges due to the complexity of the illness, stigma sur-
rounding the illness, and the often-conflicting needs of cli-
nicians and patients.
Building Persuasion Profiles in the Wild: Using Mobile
Devices as Identifiers.
Maurits Kaptein
Eindhoven University of Technology / Philips Research
Den Dolech 2, 5600MB, the Netherlands. m.c.kaptein@tue.nl
ABSTRACT make their choice—the current version does not imple-
Tailoring — presenting the right message at the right ment social influence strategies and does not adapt to
time — has long been identified as one of the core op- its users.
portunities of persuasive systems. In this paper we de-
scribe a scenario in which an adaptive persuasive sys- Social Influence Strategies
tem which identifies users by the Bluetooth key of their Cialdini [2] shows how small changes to messages—such
mobile phone is used to promote energy savings. By as the message on the door—can increase their effective-
describing this simplistic system and its possible imple- ness. For example, a message in a hotel room asking
mentation we identify several key-criteria of adaptive guests to “reuse their towels” compared to a message
persuasive systems. stating “Join your fellow citizens in helping to save the
environment” led to a difference in towel re-usage of
Author Keywords
28.4% [7]. To structure thes types of messages Cialdini
[2] identifies six social influence strategies: Authority,
Persuasive Technology, Influence strategies
Consensus, Reciprocity, Liking, Scarcity, and Commit-
ment. The message in the towel re-usage example im-
ACM Classification Keywords plements the Consensus strategy: people act like other
H.1.2 User/Machine Systems: Software psychology. people do. A message (e.g.) stating that “The general
manager of this hotel requests you to re-use...” would
INTRODUCTION
implement the Authority strategy. These social influ-
ences strategies can easily be used to improve upon the
CHI2010 attendees were presented with a choice on
effectiveness of the paper-sign.
entering the conference hotel: A large revolving door
provided access to the hotel while next to it was a slid-
The final promise of persuasive technologies however—
ing door—some things simply do not fit through a re-
adapting influence attempts to individuals—will
volving door. With the air conditioning in full opera-
require some kind of interactive system. While
tion revolving doors are efficient at keeping the heat in.
adaptation of persuasive strategies to responses by
Sliding doors, however, are not. To help save energy a
users is mentioned early on in the literature on
paper-sign was put up: “Please take the revolving door”.
persuasive technologies Fogg [5, e.g.] we are unaware
A brief observation proved the paper-sign to be effec-
of any actual implementations.
tive just over half the time: 60% of the visitors took
the revolving door. This scenario, the “Revolving Door
Individual Differences
Problem”, offers a framework to describe adaptive per-
suasive systems. By further elaborating this scenario There is growing evidence that individuals differ in their
and exploring a solution we describe the neccesities and responses to influence strategies: Constructs like Need
difficulties that arise when designing adaptive persua- For Cognition [1] predict the response of individuals to
sive systems. the usage of social influence strategies. More concretely,
Kaptein et al. [9] show that usage of influence strategies
for individuals who are low susceptible to these strate-
The Promises of Persuasive Technology gies can lead to backfiring: for a portion of participants
There are three reasons why employing a persuasive sys- in their study compliance to a request was lower when
tem might be more effective than the current paper- the social influence strategy was presented. Next to this
sign: (1) Persuasive technologies function as social ac- overall tendency to respond to influence strategies, some
tors and can use social influence strategies, (2) they can individuals seem more likely to respond to one specific
be context aware, and (3) they can adapt to individual strategy—e.g. an authority argument—while others are
users [5, 8]. While the paper-sign is probably located more influenced by implementations of other strategies.
at the right place and at the right time—when visitors Cialdini et al. [3] shows that there are sizable and stable
individual differences in people’s responses to the com-
mitment strategy. Similar results have been obtained
when looking at the consensus strategy: Self-reported
susceptibility to this strategy highly correlates with be- of approaches the visitor has made to the doors and p
havioral responses to this strategy [10]. denotes the probability of success: the probability of
taking the revolving door. Given M messages one can
These individual differences in susceptibility to differ- compute for each individual, for each message, proba-
ent persuasive strategies imply that persuasive systems bility pm = km /nm where km is the number of observed
should personalize the way in which they attempt to successes after representation of message m, nm times
influence individuals. Such a class of systems, which we to a specific visitor. It makes intuitive sense to present
call adaptive persuasive systems, are an unexplored area a visitor with the messages with the highest pm .
in that we still need to understand how to model, design
and build these systems. This paper takes a concrete For a large number of observations N of one visitor this
but simple example that encapsulates the quintessence would make perfect sense. However, this will not inform
of this problem to discuss how to address these chal- a decision for a newly observed visitor. For a new visitor
lenges. one would present the message m for which pm is max-
imized over previously observed visitors1 . Actually—
SOLVING THE REVOLVING DOOR PROBLEM? given Stein’s result [4]—for every user a weighted aver-
Returning to the revolving door problem, let us consider age of the pm for an individual user and those of other
what is involved in implementing an adaptive persuasive users—one where the estimated p�m for an individual is
system. We need to (A) identify the visitors entering the “shrunk” toward the population mean—will provide a
lobby—minimally by giving each a unique ID, and (B) better estimate than an estimate based on observations
measure the effectiveness of a presented message. The of a single visitor alone. E.g., if the authority message is
Bluetooth key of visitor’s mobile phone could be used effective 70% of the time over all visitors and only 30%
for identification [11]. This will capture around 12% of percent of the time for the specific visitor under consid-
the visitors entering the lobby. This same identification eration, the best estimate of the (real) effectiveness of
method can also be used to measure the effectiveness of the authority message p�A for this visitor is a weighted
each persuasive attempt: One Bluetooth scanner next average of these two.
to the revolving door and one next to the sliding door
could determine which entrance was used by the current Adapting to Individuals
visitor. Based on this knowledge about the visitor and To include both the known effectiveness of a message
records of earlier decisions a message implementing the for others, and a specific visitors previous responses to
right influence strategy can be selected. In the remain- that same message, into a new estimate of message ef-
der of this paper, we focus on the mechanism by which fectiveness, pm , we use a Bayesian approach. A com-
these strategies can be selected. mon way of including prior information in a binomial
random process is to use the Beta-Binomial model [12].
Suppose we have only two messages to show, one imple- The Beta Beta(α, β) distribution functions as a con-
menting the authority strategy—“The general manager jugate prior to the binomial. If we re-parametrize the
of this hotel urges you to...” (A)—and one implement- beta distribution as follows
ing the consensus strategy—“80% of our visitors always
use...etc.” (B). The system then needs a mechanism to π(θ|µ, M ) = Beta(µ, M )
choose the message that is most likely to be effective
for the current visitor. It is intuitive that for a new vis- where µ = α+β α
and M = α + β, then the expected
itor the system should present the message which has value of the distribution is given by: E(θ|µ, M ) = µm .
lead to the highest compliance for other, previously ob- In our scenario this represents the expected probability
served, visitors. If this message is successful then there of a successful influence attempt by a specific message.
is no need to try different messages on subsequent visits. The certainty of this estimated success probability is
However, when the selected message is not effective, it represented by:
might become attractive to present another message on
the next visit. This decision logically depends on the µ(1 − µ)
V ar(θ|µ, M ) = σ 2 =
initial succes probabilities of the messages under con- M +1
sideration, the variance of effectiveness of messages be-
tween visitors, and the number of succes’s or failures ob- After specifying the probability of success µm of mes-
served for the current visitor. A collection of estimates sage m and the certainty about this estimate σm 2
we can
of the effectiveness of different influence strategies for treat this as our prior expectancy about the effective-
an individual is called a Persuasion Profile and can be ness of a specific message and update this expectancy
used to select the most-likely-to-be effective message on by multiplying it by the likelihood of the observation(s)
a next visit. to obtain the distribution of our posterior expectation:
p(θ|k) ∝ l(k|θ)π(θ|µ, M )
Formalizing the Adaptation Problem = Beta(k + M µ, n − k + M (1 − µ))
The probability of a single visitor taking the revolving
door on multiple occasions can be regarded a binomial 1
This is assuming the error costs—the effects of presenting
random variable B(n, p) where n denotes the number the wrong message—are equal for each message.
The newly obtained Beta distribution, B(µ, M ), func- A and 50% to strategy B, (2) susceptible visitors,
tions as our probability distribution with a new point- A = 40%, B = 90%, (3) visitors susceptible to message
estimate of the effectiveness of the presented message B, A = 10%, B = 90%, and (4) visitors susceptible
given by: to message A, A = 90%, B = 10%. Table 1 shows
k + Mµ an excerpt of the simulated data. Based on these
E(θ|k) = simulated data we first compute our population
n+M estimates of message effectiveness for each message:
Decision Rule p�A = 0.38, p�B = 0.58. Thus, message B—the
The Beta-Binomial model described above allows us to consensus message—was most effective.
estimate the effectiveness of message m, include prior
knowledge, and update these estimates based on new Type User Occasion Mes. A Mes. B
observations. A individual’s persuasion profile would 1 1 1 1 0 0
be a record of both the expected success, µm , and the 2 1 1 2 0 0
certainty, σm
2
of different influence strategies. 3 1 1 3 0 1
.. .. .. .. .. ..
To determine which message to present next, one could .. .. .. .. .. ..
pick the message which has the highest µm . However, if 1000 4 20 50 1 0
σm2
is large this decision might not be feasible given that
Table 1. Overview of the simulated data for the 4 differ-
the difference between effectiveness estimates might not ent user groups. Columns Mes. A and Mes. B represent
be significant. To address this we can choose to show the success of the influence message at that point in time.
the message with the highest estimate when this es-
timate is “certain enough”—in the binomial case only Next, we simulate for each visitor, each occurrence at
once sufficient observations are obtained. In uncertain the doors. We select the message as specified by our
situations we can randomly present one of the H mes- decision rule and record the (simulated) outcome. Next,
sages which have the highest estimates out of the total we update our expectancy for the selected message and
set of estimates of M messages. This decision rule would iterate through all occurrences. To ensure a flexible
avoid presenting each new visitor with only the single starting point for each user we set the prior variance of
most effective message when responses to messages are each estimate at the first encounter to be high: σA 2
=
variant. σB = 0.05.
2 3
Because the Beta distribution is not necessarily sym- Figure 1 shows for four users—one out of each group—
metrical the variance σm
2
provides and inadequate start- in separate panels, the estimated probability of success
ing point to compute confidence intervals. This prob- of the two messages (left and right side of each panel).
lem can be solved using simulations: By generating a In the upper left panel—representing a general insus-
number of draws from the specified Beta distribution ceptible visitor —convergence to message B, whose esti-
and computing (e.g.) the 20th and 80th percentiles one mated effect is presented on the right side of the upper
can compute a empirical confidence interval. The above left panel, is slow: it takes about 40 observations before
described decision rule for M = 2 would then result in: B is consistently estimated to be the “best” message.
1 µ1 > P erc(80)2 With higher compliance and/or larger differences in ef-
Mselected = 2 µ2 > P erc(80)1 fectiveness of the two strategies convergence is much
faster. The bottom right of figure 1 shows a user from
Rand(1, 2) otherwise the visitors susceptible to message A group. For this
Thus, if the estimated effectiveness of a message 1, user after 10 observations strategy A is correctly iden-
p�1 = µ1 , is higher than the 80th percentile of message tified as the most successful strategy.
2, P erc(80)2 , the system presents message one.2 If the
confidence interval of two messages overlap the system Limitations of the proposed solution
could randomly present one of these two. There are a number of drawbacks of the proposed
Beta-Binomial solution to create adaptive persuasive
Simulations systems. Besides the fact that when the number of
To explore the presented Beta-Binomial approach in strategies grows the number of necessary occasions
the M = 2 scenario we simulated a dataset presenting for convergence will increase, there are three more
different visitors observed at multiple points in time. fundamental issues which are not addressed by this
The simulated data describes the message success algorithm. First, while including prior information
of two different messages for four different groups based on other users, the algorithm described here
of visitors with 20 visitors each on 50 approaches does not use a shrunken estimate on each occasion:
to the doors. The four groups represent (1) general After including the initial knowledge of the behavior
insusceptible visitors—those that respond favorable to of other visitors the model is specific for an individual
only 10% of the message which implement strategy 3
One could estimate this variance based on the between-
2
The 80th percentile is an arbitrary choice. visitor variance.
0 1020304050 0 1020304050 Mobile devices—as used in our scenario—provide a core
opportunity to serve as an identifier for adaptive persua-
lower + mean + upper
lower + mean + upper
0.8 0.8 sive technologies. Currently we are operating a system,
0.6 0.6 like the one described here, in real-life and we would
0.4 0.4 like to share our experiences building and deploying this
system during the CHI 2011 PINC workshop.
0.2 0.2
0 1020304050 0 1020304050
References
Occasions Occasions
[1] Cacioppo, J. T. and Petty, R. E. (1982). The need
for cognition. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psy.
0 1020304050 0 1020304050 [2] Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence, Science and Practice.
Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
lower + mean + upper
lower + mean + upper
0.8 0.8
[3] Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., and Newsom, J. T.
0.6 0.6 (1995). Preference for consistency: The development
0.4 0.4 of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising
0.2 0.2
behavioral implications. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psy.,
69:318–328.
0 1020304050 0 1020304050
[4] Efron, B. and Morris, C. (1975). Data analysis us-
Occasions Occasions ing Stein’s estimator and its generalizations. Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 70(350):311–
Figure 1. Progression of point estimates of the effects of 319.
two messages on four different users (the four panels).
Within each panel the left side shows the estimated ef- [5] Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using
fect of message A, including in gray its 80% confidence
interval, and the right shows the estimates for message
Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Mor-
B. A horizontal section in the estimates of message A gan Kaufmann.
indicates that at that point in time the message B was
shown and updated. [6] Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using
Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cam-
bridge University Press.
visitor. While this provides quick adaptation there
is no opportunity to adapt estimates based on [7] Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., and Griskevicius,
changing population wise trends. Second, since V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social
the estimates for the effectiveness of the strategies norms to motivate environmental conservation in ho-
are treated independently there is no way to of tels. J. of Cons. Res., 35(3):472–482.
“borrowing strength” [6] based on correlations with [8] Kaptein, M., Aarts, E. H. L., Ruyter, B. E. R., and
other strategies. Both of these concerns could be Markopoulos, P. (2009a). Persuasion in ambient in-
addressed using a multilevel approach. Finally, the telligence. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Hu-
proposed model provides no method of including prior manized Computing, 1:43—56.
believes about the distribution of visitor profiles over a
population. [9] Kaptein, M., Lacroix, J., and Saini, P. (2010). Indi-
vidual differences in persuadability in the health pro-
CONCLUSIONS motion domain. In Ploug, T., Hasle, P., and Oinas-
We identified two core necessities of adaptive persua- Kukkonen, H., editors, Persuasive Technology, pages
sive systems: a means to identify users and a means to 94—105. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
measure effectiveness of persuasive attempts. Further- [10] Kaptein, M. C., de Ruyter, B., Markopoulos, P.,
more, we highlighted a number of challenges associated and Aarts, E. (2009b). Persuading you: Individual
with the design of these systems. The presented Beta- differences in susceptibility to persuasion. In 12th
Binomial solution is lightweight and functions well in IFIP TC 13 International Conference - INTERACT,
simulations with only two messages. More elaborate pages 24–28, Uppsala, Sweden. ACM Press.
algorithms which are (1) variant to changing popula-
tion trends,(2) allow for relationships between strate- [11] Kostakos, V. (2008). Using bluetooth to capture
gies, and (3) enable us to include prior beliefs about passenger trips on public transport buses. CoRR,
user profiles should be explored. Given the current state abs/0806.0874.
of social science literature on influence strategies we be-
lieve that persuasive technologies should tailor the influ- [12] Wilcox, R. R. (1981). A review of the beta-binomial
ence strategies they use to their users. We described one model and its extensions. J. of Educ. Stat., 6:3–32.
possible—but limited—implementation of such a sys-
tem. This, and other, implementations should now be
tested empirically.
Nudging Users Towards Privacy on Mobile Devices
Rebecca Balebako, Pedro G. Leon, Hazim Almuhimedi, Patrick Gage Kelley, Jonathan
Mugan, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor and Norman Sadeh
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
ABSTRACT or monitored; other times, while aware of ongoing infor-
By allowing individuals to be permanently connected to the mation flows, we do not understand their consequences, or
Internet, mobile devices ease the way information can be ac- properly assess their risks. Such challenges are magnified
cessed and shared online, but also raise novel privacy chal- in mobile scenarios. Therefore, a mobile device user may
lenges for end users. Recent behavioral research on “soft” end up sharing information in a manner that goes against her
or “asymmetric” paternalism has begun exploring ways of own long-term self interests.
helping people make better decisions in different aspects of
their lives. We apply that research to privacy decision mak- In recent years, there has been growing interest in using
ing, investigating how soft paternalistic solutions (also known lessons from behavioral economics to influence and ame-
as nudges) may be used to counter cognitive biases and ame- liorate decision making in situations where cognitive and
liorate privacy-sensitive behavior. We present the theoret- behavioral biases may adversely affect the individual [11,
ical background of our research, and highlight current in- 16]. This approach is often referred to as soft or asymmetric
dustry solutions and research endeavors that could be classi- paternalism, or with the more popular term “nudges.” Soft
fied as nudging interventions. We then describe our ongoing paternalism aims at countering and overcoming those biases,
work on embedding soft paternalistic mechanisms in loca- so as to assist individual decision making. Our research aims
tion sharing technologies and Twitter privacy agents. at applying and extending lessons from the nascent field of
soft paternalism to the field of privacy decision making. This
Author Keywords paper presents an overview of our research agenda in this
Nudge, Privacy, Security, Location Sharing, Mobile Devices, area. First, we introduce the research exploring cognitive
Soft Paternalism and behavioral biases in privacy decision making. Then, we
examine current academic studies and industry products that
ACM Classification Keywords
focus on influencing privacy (and security) decision making,
and that therefore may be compared to nudging interven-
H.1.2 User/machine systems: Human information process-
tions. Finally, we discuss how we are integrating soft pater-
ing; J.4 Social and behavioral sciences: psychology
nalistic mechanisms in our research on privacy in location
sharing applications and social networks.
INTRODUCTION
As mobile devices and applications become pervasive, pri-
vacy risks to their users also grow. The accessibility and FROM HURDLES IN PRIVACY DECISION MAKING
ease of use of these devices make it easy to casually broad- TO SOFT PATERNALISM
cast personal information at any time, from anywhere, to Findings from behavioral economics and behavioral deci-
friends and strangers. Without a doubt, users benefit from sion research have highlighted hurdles in human decision
and enjoy such streams of information sharing. However, making that lead, sometimes, to undesirable outcomes. The
they also expose themselves to tangible and intangible risks: hurdles are often due to lack of information or insight, cog-
from tracking by commercial entities interested in exploit- nitive limitations and biases, or lack of self-control [16]. Be-
ing personal information for profit, to surveillance or even cause of those hurdles, individuals may end up making de-
stalking by malicious parties. However, it is difficult for in- cisions that they later regret. Those decisions may include
dividuals to determine the optimal balance between reveal- (not) saving for retirement, (not) eating well, or smoking
ing and hiding personal data. Sometimes we are not even cigarettes [11]. They may also include decisions about pro-
aware that information about us is being broadcast, shared, tecting too much, or not enough, personal information [3].
Privacy decisions are complex and often taken in conditions
of information asymmetry (that is, individuals may not have
full knowledge of how much of their personal information is
being gathered, and how it is being used). Furthermore, pri-
vacy decision making may be overwhelming: the cognitive
costs associated with considering all the ramifications of a
Copyright ! c 2011 for the individual papers by the papers’ authors. disclosure may hamper decision making [3]. Finally, cog-
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume is
published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011. nitive biases may affect one’s propensity to reveal personal
1
information: for instance, heightened control of one’s per- users are interested in protecting their privacy and may even
sonal information may, paradoxically, make the user over- pay for it, if appropriate tools and salient, simple, and com-
confident about sharing information [5]. pact privacy information are offered. Specifically, one series
of studies explored the impact of making information about
Paternalistic policies try to solve decision-making hurdles privacy practices on web sites more accessible to buyers.
by mandating decisions for individuals. Such policies are of- The results showed that online customers are more likely to
ten heavy-handed and generate externalities [11]. Soft pater- shop online from websites that exhibit more protective pri-
nalism, on the other hand, avoids coercion; it seeks to steer vacy policies. Additionally, those customers are willing to
users in a direction (believed to be more desirable based on pay a premium for privacy. Furthermore, privacy indicators
the user’s own prior judgement, or on external empirical val- displayed at the moment an individual is shopping online
idation), without impinging on her autonomy. A soft pater- may have an impact on consumer decisions. In particular,
nalistic solution, for instance, would consist of making an they increase the willingness to pay for privacy; however,
individual aware of the biases, lack of information, or cog- if the indicator is provided only after the shopper has al-
nitive overload that may affect her decision. ready chosen the website from which to buy, the user will
not change their already-made decisions. The authors find
Nudges are tools of soft-paternalism, and may be used to that timing is essential when trying to help people to protect
ameliorate privacy (as well as security) decision making [2]. their privacy [17], [6]. Similarly, another study found that
Their application to scenarios involving mobile devices is merely priming Facebook users with questions about their
particularly appealing. In the case of insecure communica- online disclosure behavior and the visibility of their Face-
tion channels, or covert data collection through a mobile de- book profiles was sufficient to trigger changes in their dis-
vice, a nudge may take the form of an alert that informs the closure behavior [13]. Application interface design is also
user of the risk. In the case of mobile devices that store sen- important, and should help users notice when changes in
sitive information (which could be accessed by strangers if context generate changes in information flows and then help
the phone was misplaced), a nudge might discourage users them to maintain their privacy [7].
from storing private data on mobile phones. When informa-
tion is being disclosed through a smart-phone, nudges may In the context of location sharing applications, providing
provide alerts about the recipients, contexts, or type of data feedback to users whose location has been requested by oth-
being shared. ers has been shown to have both positive and negative im-
plications [8]. It can prevent excessive requests and hence
Many different types of nudging interventions are possible. protect people’s privacy. However, unless appropriate notifi-
Some simply consist of informing the user — in which case cations are used, feedback receivers could also be annoyed.
they relate to privacy research on informed consent. Some In addition, notifications may inhibit users from requesting
focus on making systems simpler to use — in which case, others locations and hence affect system usage.
privacy nudges fall into the realm of research on privacy
usability. However, other nudges aim at countering spe- PRIVACY NUDGES IN INDUSTRY
cific cognitive and behavioral biases, such as neutralizing Examples of industry products or solutions that influence de-
the detrimental effects of immediate gratification biases in cision making in regards to privacy (either to better protect
privacy decision making [1] by altering the individual’s per- the user, or instead to influence her to reveal more informa-
ception of the sequence of costs and benefits associated with tion) take various forms, and some have been applied to mo-
revealing sensitive information. bile devices. Some of these solutions may be interpreted as
soft paternalistic for privacy protection, in the sense that they
The literature on soft paternalism applied to privacy deci-
nudge towards privacy. They include privacy/security us-
sion making is in its infancy, and therefore extremely scarce.
ability solutions, simplifications of privacy settings, or tests
However, a number of recent studies and products focus on
and delays before one can post information. More frequent,
mechanisms that may be categorized as nudges. We present
however, are the examples of products and solutions that
a brief overview of them in the following sections.
nudge individuals to give up even more of their privacy, sur-
rendering sensitive information. These include privacy de-
PRIVACY NUDGES IN THE LITERATURE faults that are open, lack of usability in privacy settings in-
Previous research on the drivers of privacy concerns has demon- terfaces, poorly designed warnings, and other rewards for
strated that users’ attitudes towards security and privacy are sharing data or encouraging friends to share data.
influenced by numerous factors, including information avail-
able, personal beliefs, economic valuations, moral reason- Connections in social applications
ing, social values, cognitive biases, and so on. Therefore, Some applications provide information about who can see
providing adequate information, making privacy tools more your data, who has seen your data, or how many people can
evident, or rewarding and punishing users as they make safer see your data. For instance, Flickr.com, a video and image
or riskier decisions are all ways of nudging or influencing sharing website, provides information on each user-owned
privacy behavior. The privacy literature offers some exam- picture stating who can see it, followed by a link to edit the
ples of these approaches. privacy settings for that picture. This may be a nudge to-
wards privacy, as users may decide to share certain photos
For example, recent experimental research has shown that with friends, and share other photos with everyone.
2
Social networking sites often show the number of connec- doing so. Sophisticated users may choose to employ soft-
tions a user has. These connections may be called follow- ware tools to prevent excess disclosure. For example, the So-
ers, friends, or ties. In some cases, connections can have cial Media Sobriety Test, socialmediasobrietytest.
access to all the user’s information that is on the applica- com, and Mail Goggles on Gmail googlelabs.com both
tion. Twitter and Google Buzz are examples of sites that allow the user to set certain hours of the week when they may
prominently show the number of connections. In the case of typically embarrass themselves, such as weekend evenings
LinkedIn.com, a job searching social network, the user may after trips to the bar. During these hours, social network
prefer to add additional connections, even with people they sites or Gmail may be blocked until the user can complete a
don’t know well, in order to grow their job-searching net- dexterity or cognitive test. The user has the option to bypass
work. However, by opening their information to more con- the test. Alternatively, a user may set up a warning system
nections, they may be compromising their privacy. These ap- if a message is likely to be poorly interpreted. ToneCheck
plications may nudge users towards increasing their connec- tonecheck.com scans emails written in Outlook to dis-
tions and revealing more information. Indeed, several online cover whether the tone is off-putting, and will ask the user to
social networks such as Facebook.com and LinkedIn.com confirm before sending it. This may help discourage users
periodically encourage users to add new connections by search- from sending or posting regrettable information.
ing the user’s email accounts for email contacts.
Other tools may discourage users from posting information
Connections such as friends in Facebook and followers in by reminding the user who can see it. NetNanny is a tool
Twitter do not set the boundaries for information flow. One’s that parents can user to protect their children online. It will
connections may be able to share information with other un- show a message every time a child posts on a social network.
intended recipients, or even make it available to the pub- This message reminds the child that her parents will see the
lic. In Twitter, for example, re-tweets allow connections to post as well netnanny.com.
pass on information without the original sender’s control. In
Facebook, default privacy settings usually allow sharing of
individual’s information with friends of friends. Therefore, ONGOING WORK WITH MOBILE APPLICATIONS
the information provided about the number of connections By studying and understanding the specific biases and user
may mislead the user about the privacy of their data and de- actions in regards to mobile applications, we hope to sug-
crease the likelihood that the user will take an information- gest and test nudges that will help users make decisions that
protective stance. improve their satisfaction and well being. We are moving
towards that goal by first understanding users’ needs, prefer-
Privacy Settings ences, biases, and limitations about privacy, and second by
The privacy settings allowed in an application impact the using that information to evaluate the efficacy of techniques
user’s ability to control how their information is shared. Both that exploit biases to improve decision making. As an exam-
the default settings and the usability of the settings user in- ple, we are currently pursuing foundational studies with two
terface create nudges towards and away from privacy [10, applications developed at Carnegie Mellon: a location shar-
12, 13]. ing application called Locaccino [15] and a privacy agent for
Twitter.
Some websites make privacy options very simple. For exam-
ple, Pandora.com, an online music station, explicitly gives Locaccino is a unique location sharing application that al-
users two options regarding their profile page: make pri- lows users to control the conditions under which they make
vate or keep public. These clear options allow a user to their location visible to others. This includes controlling the
choose without understanding complex details or settings. times and days of the week when different groups of people
Conversely, the lack of granularity may encourage users to can see the user’s location as well as the specific locations
make everything public. where the user is willing to be visible. For instance, a user
can specify rules such as “I’m willing to let my colleagues
Several tools provide simple ratings of privacy settings. Pri- see my location but only when I am on company premises
vacyCheck,1 and ProfileWatch,2 give Facebook settings a and only 9am-5pm on weekdays.” Research conducted by
privacy score. Other services provide a user-friendly layer our group has shown that this level of expressiveness is crit-
on the Facebook privacy settings, allowing the user to change ical to capturing the location sharing preferences many peo-
the settings. For example, Privacy Defender3 provides a slid- ple have when it comes to disclosing their locations to oth-
ing color scale that allows the user to set their Facebook op- ers across a broad range of scenarios [4]—in contrast to the
tions as more or less private. These software services ac- much narrower set of scenarios supported by location shar-
tively encourage stricter privacy settings. ing applications such as Foursquare.
As part of our ongoing research, we are interested in bet-
Reduction of Information Disclosure ter understanding how different elements of Locaccino func-
If an individual expects she may be likely to post information tionality effectively nudge people in different directions. This
she may later regret, software exists to discourage her from includes experimenting with new interface designs as well
1
http://rabidgremlin.com/fbprivacy as new ways of leveraging some of the machine learning
2
http://atherionsecurity.com/idpro.html techniques we have been developing, from exposing differ-
3
http://privacydefender.net ent sets of default privacy personas to users [14] to helping
3
them refine their privacy preferences [9]. We are looking at 6. S. Egelman, J. Tsai, L. F. Cranor, and A. Acquisti.
the preferences of like-minded users who have been using Timing is everything?: the effects of timing and
the system for a while and trying to use their preferences to placement of online privacy indicators. In Proceedings
guide new users. This would have the potential of reducing of the 27th international conference on Human factors
regret by giving new users the benefit of the experience ac- in computing systems, CHI ’09, pages 319–328, New
quired over time by others. We plan to explore to what extent York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.
such an approach can be made to work and to what extent it
seems beneficial. 7. G. Hull, H. R. Lipford, and C. Latulipe. Contextual
gaps: Privacy issues on facebook. Ethics and
The Twitter privacy agent is an application we are building Information Technology, pages 1–14, 2010.
to help Twitter users behave in a more privacy protective 8. L. Jedrzejczyk, B. A. Price, A. K. Bandara, and
way. We plan to build tools that will provide nudges that B. Nuseibeh. On the impact of real-time feedback on
guide users to restrict their tweets to smaller groups of fol- users’ behaviour in mobile location-sharing
lowers or discourage them from sending tweets from mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on
devices that they may later regret. We plan to empirically Usable Privacy and Security, SOUPS ’10, pages
test the impact of these nudges on user behavior. We will 14:1–12, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
also examine whether fine-grained privacy controls result in
more or less data sharing. 9. P. Kelley, P. Hankes Drielsma, N. Sadeh, and L. Cranor.
User-controllable learning of security and privacy
We expect our work on nudges in behavioral advertising, so- policies. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on
cial networks, and location sharing to be effective for im- Workshop on AISec, pages 11–18. ACM, 2008.
proving privacy decisions on mobile devices. We further 10. Y.-L. Lai and K. L. Hui. Internet opt-in and opt-out:
hope our soft-paternalistic approach to have a broader im- investigating the roles of frames, defaults and privacy
pact, guiding the development of tools and methods that as- concerns. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS
sist users in privacy and security decision making. CPR conference on computer personnel research,
pages 253–263, 2006.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National 11. G. F. Loewenstein and E. C. Haisley. The Foundations
Science Foundation under Grant CNS-1012763 (Nudging of Positive and Normative Economics, chapter 9: The
Users Towards Privacy), and by Google under a Focused Re- Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifications
search Award on Privacy Nudges. This work has also been of ‘Light’ Paternalism. Oxford University Press, 2008.
supported by NSF grants CNS-0627513, CNS-0905562, and 12. W. Mackay. Triggers and barriers to customizing
by CyLab at Carnegie Mellon under grants DAAD19-02-1- software. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
0389 and W911NF-09-1-0273 from the Army Research Of- Human factors in computing systems: Reaching
fice. Additional support has been provided by the IWT SBO through technology, pages 153–160. ACM, 1991.
project on Security and Privacy in Online Social Networks
(SPION), Nokia, France Telecom, and the CMU/Portugal 13. Ralph Gross and Alessandro Acquisti. Information
Information and Communication Technologies Institute. Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks. In
Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES),
REFERENCES pages 71–80, 2005.
1. A. Acquisti. Privacy in electronic commerce and the
14. R. Ravichandran, M. Benisch, P. Kelley, and N. Sadeh.
economics of immediate gratification. In Proceedings
Capturing social networking privacy preferences: can
of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC
default policies help alleviate tradeoffs between
’04), pages 21–29, 2004.
expressiveness and user burden? In Proceedings of the
2. A. Acquisti. Nudging privacy: The behavioral 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security,
economics of personal information. Security & Privacy, page 1. ACM, 2009.
IEEE, 7(6):82–85, 2009. 15. N. Sadeh, J. Hong, L. Cranor, I. Fette, P. Kelley,
3. A. Acquisti and J. Grossklags. Privacy and rationality M. Prabaker, and J. Rao. Understanding and capturing
in individual decision making. Security & Privacy, peoples privacy policies in a mobile social networking
IEEE, 3(1):26–33, 2005. application. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,
13(6):401–412, 2009.
4. M. Benisch, P. Kelley, N. Sadeh, and L. Cranor.
Capturing Location-Privacy Preferences: Quantifying 16. R. Thaler and C. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving decisions
Accuracy and User-Burden Tradeoffs. Journal of about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale Univ Pr,
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2011. 2008.
5. L. Brandimarte, A. Acquisti, and G. Loewenstein. 17. J. Y. Tsai, S. Egelman, L. Cranor, and A. Acquisti. The
Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control effect of online privacy information on purchasing
Paradox. Technical report, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon behavior: An experimental study. Information Systems
University, 2010. Research, In press, 2010.
4
!"#$%&'()*+%'#%,-./0+%)1%'(0%20+)31%#4%5#6).0%789:
!"#$%&'"()*
!"#$%&'(&)'*#+$",&-./"0."
1,/00"22&)'22"3"
1,/00"224&56&7899:4&;-6
<=>/?@=0A.?%3,/00"22%"<+
;<=>?;:> "[#",/"0."?4 & =0< & ?'./=2 & .+"? & $' & /0(2+"0." & F"E=>/',? & =0<&
B=2+"&-"0?/$/>"&!"?/30&CB-!D&/?&=&#,'*/?/03&*"$E'<&(',& =$$/$+<"?&X98Z%&\E","&/?&=$$"0$/'0&$'&*'F/2"&<">/."?&G/$E/0&
=<<,"??/03&"$E/.=2&/??+"?&=0<&'##',$+0/$/"?&/0&$E"&<"?/30&'(& $E" & #",?+=?/>" & $".E0'2'3K & .'**+0/$KP & 50 & = & .'22".$/'0 & '(&
*'F/2" & $".E0'2'3/"? & $' & #,'*'$" & F"E=>/', & .E=03"% & 6($",& $G"0$K&"??=K?&'0&*'F/2"&#",?+=?/'04&M'33&G,/$"?&=F'+$&$E"&
#'?/$/'0/03 &$E" &G',H & G/$E& ,"?#".$ & $'& $E" & I5J) & ?$,=$"3/"?& +0/]+"&?+/$=F/2/$K&'(&*'F/2"&<">/."?&(',&#",?+=?/'0P&$E"K&=,"&
CI",?+=?/'04&50(2+"0."4&J+<3"4&=0<&)'",./'0D4&5&/0$,'<+."& /0$/*=$"&CVG"&*=,,K&$E"*WD^&$E"K&=,"&'*0/#,"?"0$^&=0<&$E"K&
$E"&B-!&*"$E'<&=0<&=0=2KL"&$E"&,'2"&'(&>=2+"?&/0E","0$&$'& E=>" & ,"*=,H=F2" & .=#=F/2/$/"? & X_Z% & N$E/.? & E=>" & F""0 & =&
I5J)&?$,=$"3/"?&=?&G"22&=?&>=2+"?&/*#2/.=$"<&FK&$E"&*"=0?& ,".+,,/03&.'0.",0&C"%3%4&X`4a49749Y4:8ZD%
=0< & "0/', & .E=03"% & M/0=22K4 & 5 & .'0?/<", & >=2+"&
$"0?/'0?&=0<&/<+=2&>=2+"?% \E" & I5J) & (,=*/03 & ?+33"?$? & 0"G & =##,'=.E"? & $' & F"E=>/',&
.E=03"% & )/=2"? & ?/[ & ?#"./(/.&
;/'(#"%@0AB#"C+ ?$,=$"3/"?&$E=$&=,"&+?"<&FK&#"'#2"&$'&/0(2+"0."&"=.E&'$E",^&
N$E/.?4&>=2+"?4&B=2+"&-"0?/$/>"&!"?/304 &I5J)4&#",?+=?/>"& ?'*"&G',H &/0&#",?+=?/>" &$".E0'2'3K&E=? &<,=G0 &'0&$E"?"&
$".E0'2'3K4&*'F/2"&#E'0"? ?$,=$"3/"?&C"%3%4&X98497ZD%,,-$./%&.'*"?&(,'*&$E"&.'0."#$&'(&
+01(+% , "2+0(3%+3$2%P & $E=$ & '+, & "0>/,'0*"0$ & ?$,+.$+,"? & $E"&
;:5%:.-++)4)*-')#1%@0AB#"C+ .E'/."? & =>=/2=F2" & $' & +?4 & =0< & *',"'>",4 & $E=$ & $E"," & /? & =0&
O7%*%&50(',*=$/'0&/0$",(=."?&=0<&#,"?"0$=$/'0&C"%3%4&O)5DP& /0">/$=F2K&=&<"(=+2$&'#$/'0^&<"?/30",? &.=0&.=,"(+22K&?"2".$&
Q/?."22=0"'+?%&R%S%:%&)'*#+$",?&=0<&?'./"$KP&-'./=2&/??+"?% $E=$&<"(=+2$&$'&3"0$2K&0+<3"&$'&$E"&<"?/,"<&F"E=>/',%&\'&$E"&
F"?$ & '( & *K & H0'G2"<3"4 & $E/? & /<"= & E=? & 0'$ & F""0 & ?$+0"$+ "[#2/./$2K&/0&$E"&<'*=/0&'(&#",?+=?/>"&$".E0'2'3K4&=2$E'+3E&
O+*=0&M=.$',?% <"(=+2$ & '#$/'0? & .=0 & F" & .'0?/<","< & ?+33"?$/'0? & (,'* & $E"&
.'*#+$",&X984&#%9:aZ%&M/0=22K4&+1%2+(1)&"0?+,"?&=&#=,$/.+2=,&
89>?E2F:>8E9 F"E=>/',&$E,'+3E&$E,"=$?&=0<&(',."&X:Z%&50&E/?&(,=*/03&'(&$E"&
B=2+"? & +0<",2K & #",?+=?/'0% & 5*#2/./$ & /0 & #",?+=?/'0 & /? & $E"& (/"2< & '( & #",?+=?/>" & $".E0'2'3K4 & M'33 & "[#2/./$2K & "[.2+<"<&
@+<3*"0$ & $E=$ & '0" & F"E=>/', & ', & '+$.'*" & /? & F"$$", & $E=0& .'",./'0&=?&"&$".E0'2'3K&.'**+0/$K%
O","4&5&,"?#'0<&$'&$E"&.=22&(',&.'0$,/F+$/'0?&=F'+$&"$E/.=2&
/??+"? & $' & $E" & G',H?E'# & VI5J)P & I",?+=?/'04 & 50(2+"0."4& ,;HF&%=&9=8>8,&%2&=8D9
J+<3"4 & =0< & )'",./'0 & $E,'+3E & *'F/2" & <">/."?W & XYZ% & & QK& B=2+" & -"0?/$/>" & !"?/30 & CB-!D & /? & = & $E"',"$/.=2 & =0<&
=##,'=.E&$'&"$E/.?&/?&(,'*&$E"&#",?#".$/>"&'(&E+*=0&!"#$%& *"$E'<'2'3/.=2 & (,=*"G',H & /0$"0<"< & $' & E"2# & <"?/30",?&
'#=,$/.+2=,2K & *',=2 & >=2+"? & ?+.E & =? & (=/,0"??4 & =+$'0'*K4& =..'+0$ & (', & E+*=0 & >=2+"? & /0 & = & #,/0./#2"< & =0<&
#,/>=.K4 & =0< & E+*=0 & G"2(=,"% & 6($", & " & G=K & $E,'+3E'+$ & $E" & <"?/30 & #,'."?? & X9:Z%&
+0<",?$=0=2+"?&'(&*',=2&/*#',$&=0<&$E+?&?#"=H?&$'&
B=2+" & -"0?/$/>" & !"?/30 & $E"',K & =0< & *"$E'<'2'3K & X9:Z% & 5& "$E/.=2&.'0.",0? &/0&$".E0'2'3K&<"?/30%&R"K&B-!&("=$+,"?&
$E"0&?E'G&E'G&"$E/.=2&3'=2?4&#,/0./#2"?4&=0<&#,'F2"*?&'(& /0.2+<"&/$?&.'*#,"E"0?/>"&=$$"0$/'0&$'&?$=H"E'2<",?&=0<&/$?&
I5J)&.=0&F"&(,=*"<&/0&$",*?&'(&>=2+"?&=0<&>=2+"&$"0?/'0?% $,/#=,$/$"&*"$E'<'2'3K&X9:Z%
789:%;92%7&?=F;=8,&%>&:G9EHEDI B-! & <"*=0" & $".E0'2'3K& ?$=H"E'2<",?P & 0'$ & '02K&$E'?" & GE'& +?" &$E" &$".E0'2'3K & F+$&
.'**+0/$K% &I",?+=?/>" & $".E0'2'3K & .'0.",0? & $E" & +?" & '(& $E'?" & GE' & =," & =((".$"< & FK & /$? & +?"% & B-! & =2?' & ?+33"?$?&
$".E0'2'3/.=22K & 3"0",=$"< & ', & *"+20",=F2"&?$=H"E'2<",?%&50&$E"&.=?"&
'(&*'F/2"&#",?+=?/'04&$E/?&*=K&/0.2+<"&$""0?&X749aZ4&;%-%&
)'#K,/3E$ & e & :899 & (', & $E" & /0/<+=2 & #=#",? & FK & $E" & #=#",?b & =+$E',?%& c=$/0'?&=0<&F2=.H?&X:SZ4&=0<&6(,/.=0?&X:7Z&GE'&,"2K&E"=>/2K&
)'#K/03&&#",*/$$"<&'02K&(',&#,/>=$"&=0<&=.=<"*/.&#+,#'?"?%&\E/?&>'2+*"& '0&$E"/,&*'F/2"&#E'0"?&(',&.'**+0/.=$/'0&=0<&d"F&=.."??4&
/?&#+F2/?E"<&=0<&.'#K,/3E$"<&FK&$E"&&"" & F,'="% & -+.E & 3,'+#? & ?E'+2< & F" & 0"/$E", & 0"32".$"< & 0',&
=F+?"<&/0&$E"&<"?/30&'(&*'F/2"&I5J)&$".E0'2'3/"?%
B-!b?&*"$E'<'2'3K&/0.',#',=$"?&$".E0/.=24&"*#/,/.=24&=0<&
!"#!$%&'()*+#,$-&+.(&+"#-/*0$!1#+!()*+#,$-&+.(&+"#-*!"#!$2#* Q#7$2-"# * #"&$-< * R6$3 * =$)+$,$ * &1(& * A!"$2!+"#D * +- * ()3(4-*
1"3 * -4-&$5 * 6$(&'2$- * -'%%"2& * "2 * '#7$25+#$ * %(2&+!')(2* '#_'-&+6+$7< *-+#!$ *+& *-$$5- *&1(& * #"*-"!+$&4*!"')7* 6'#!&+"#*
,()'$-/ * 85%+2+!() * +#,$-&+.(&+"#- * (772$-- * -&(9$1")7$2* 3+&1"'&*-"5$*('&1"2+\$7*'-$-S*ABD/*`(3*.+,$-*.",$2#5$#&-*
!"#!$%&+"#- * "6 * ,()'$- * (#7 * &1$ * 1'5(# * 2$-%"#-$ * &" * &1$* (*)+5+&$7*('&1"2+&4*&"*'-$*!"$2!+"#/*H$%)"4+#.*!"5%'&$2-*
(2&+6(!&/ * :"2 * $;(5%)$< * (# * $5%+2+!() * -&'74 * 5+.1& * %2$-$#&* 6"2 * )(3 * $#6"2!$5$#& * 1(- * %"&$#&+() * =$#$6+&- * (#7 * !"-&-< * (-*
%(2&+!+%(#&-*3+&1*-!$#(2+"-*7$-+.#$7*&"*%'-1*&1$*="'#7(2+$-* !"5%'&$2-*)(!9*&1$*!"#&$;&'()*(3(2$#$--*(#7*_'7.5$#&*"6*(*
"6 *!$2&(+# * ,()'$- * +#* &1$* 7$-+.# *"6 *%$2-'(-+,$ * &$!1#")".4<* 1'5(#*=$+#./*^1+)$*&1+-*5+.1&*=$*-$$#*(-*(#*"%%"2&'#+&4*&"*
-+5+)(2*&"*>(.$*(#7*?2(4@-*2$!$#&*-&'74*"6*$&1+!()*2$-%"#-$-* '-$*!"5%'&$2-*6"2*6(+2*$#6"2!$5$#&<*'#!)"'7$7*=4*1'5(#*
&" * %$2-'(-+,$ * &$!1#")".+$- * ABCD/ * :+#())4< * !"#!$%&'()* =+(-$-<*+&*!(#*=$*-'2%2+-+#.)4*7+66+!')&*&"*%2"7'!$*!"5%'&$2*
+#,$-&+.(&+"#-*$;%)"2$*&1$*,()'$-*(&*1(#7*(#7*&1$*&$#-+"#-* -4-&$5- * &1(& * (2$ * 62$$ * "6 * =+(-/ * H$-+.#$2- * !(# * $#!"7$*
=$&3$$#*&1$5/*01$*2$5(+#7$2*"6*&1+-*%(%$2*!"5%2+-$-*-'!1* '#!"#-!+"'- * =+(-$- * +# * &1$ * -4-&$5< * '#+#&$#7$7 * =+(-$- * !(#*
(*!"#!$%&'()*+#,$-&+.(&+"#/ $5$2.$*+#*'-$<*(#7*#$3*=+(-$-*!(#*(2+-$*(-*(*-4-&$5*+-*'-$7*
+#*#$3*!"#&$;&-*ATPD/*:'2&1$2<*()&1"'.1*1'5(#-*"6&$#*=)(5$*
8)-$31$2$<*E*1(,$*(2.'$7*&1(&*FGH*+-*3$))I-'+&$7*&"*(772$--*
!"5%'&$2- * 6"2 * =(7 * "'&!"5$-< * !"5%'&$2- * )(!9 * 5"2()*
$&1+!() * !"#!$2#- * +# * %$2-'(-+,$ * &$!1#")".4 * AJD/ * 01$ * FGH*
(!!"'#&(=+)+&4 * ATC(.$*(#7*?2(4*2$%"2&*&1(&*-&'74*%(2&+!+%(#&-*
E*!"#-+7$2*&12$$*!)(--$-*"6*,()'$-*2$)(&$7*&"*5"=+)$*>ELM* 6"'#7*!"$2!+,$*R-1"!9*&(!&+!-S*&"*=$*(!!$%&(=)$*+6*+&*3(-*&1$*
&$!1#")".+$-N * ,()'$- * #$!$--(2+)4 * +5%)+!(&$7 * =4 * &1$ * >ELM* %$2-"#@-*"3#*!1"+!$*&"*'-$*&1$*-4-&$5*ABCD/*01+-*2$&'2#-*'-*
(%%2"(!1< * ,()'$- * +5%)+!(&$7 * =4 * %(2&+!')(2 * 5$&1"7- * "6* &"*"'2*$(2)+$2 *7$6+#+&+"#*"6*('&"#"54N *R%$"%)$@- *(=+)+&4*&"*
%2"5"&+#.*=$1(,+"2*!1(#.$<*(#7*,()'$-*+5%)+!(&$7*=4*&1$* 7$!+7$< *%)(#<*(#7*(!& *+#*3(4- *&1(&*&1$4*=$)+$,$*3+))*1$)%*
7$-+2$7 * $#7-/ * E * ()-" * !"#-+7$2 * ,()'$ * &$#-+"#- * (#7 * 1"3* &1$5*&"*(!1+$,$*&1$+2*."()-S*ATBD/*
7+66$2$#!$- * +# * ,()'$- * 5(4 * #"#$&1$)$-- * )$(7 * &" * &1$ * -(5$*
=$1(,+"2/*E*3+))*72(3*%(2&+!')(2)4*'%"#*54*$(2)+$2*(#()4-+-* K"3$,$2<*'-$2-*#$$7*+#6"25(&+"#*&"**(--$--*&1$*-'+&(=+)+&4*"6*
AJD * (#7 * O$27+!1$,-94 * (#7 * L$'$#-!13(#7$2@- * $&1+!()* &1$*-4-&$5*&"*&1$+2*."()-/*O$27+!1$,-94*(#7*L$'$#-!1(#7$2*
%2+#!+%)$-*6"2*%$2-'(-+,$*&$!1#")".4*APD/ -&(&$*&3"*$&1+!()*%2+#!+%)$-*2$)(&$7*&"*7+-!)"-'2$N*
FEV 01$ * !2$(&"2- * "6 * ( * %$2-'(-+,$ * &$!1#")".4 * -1"')7*
+,-&./01-2&34&5*'6 7+-!)"-$ * &1$+2 * 5"&+,(&+"#-< * 5$&1"7-< * (#7 * +#&$#7$7*
01$ * >ELM * $#7$(,"2 * +- * +#&+5(&$)4 * &+$7 * &" * &1$ * ,()'$ * "6* "'&!"5$-< * $;!$%& * 31$# * -'!1 * 7+-!)"-'2$ * 3"')7*
('&"#"54 * AJD/ * Q'&"#"54 * R2$6$2- * &" * %$"%)$@- * (=+)+&4 * &"* -+.#+6+!(#&)4*'#7$25+#$*(#*"&1$23+-$*$&1+!()*."()/
7$!+7$< *%)(#<*(#7*(!& *+#*3(4- *&1(&*&1$4*=$)+$,$*3+))*1$)%*
&1$5*&"*(!1+$,$*&1$+2*."()-S*ATBD/*>ELM*&$!1#")".4*&13(2&-* FEEV>$2-'(-+,$*&$!1#")".+$-*5'-&*#"&*5+-+#6"25*+#*"27$2*
('&"#"54*31$#*+&*+-*'-$7*&"*.$&*%$"%)$*&"*7"*&1+#.-*&1(&*(2$* &"*(!1+$,$*&1$+2*%$2-'(-+,$*$#7/*APD
(.(+#-& *&1$+2*"3#*."()- *U$/./< *&"*3(-&$*5"#$4*"#*'-$)$--* W#$*-&$%*=$4"#7*&1+-*+-*&1$*,()'$*"6*&+5'(2"3)*'+-"+0 )AJDN*
%2"7'!&-V/*O'&*>ELM*!(#*()-"*'%1")7*('&"#"54<*31$#*+&*+-* &1(&*%$"%)$*-1"')7*#"&*"#)4*=$*+#6"25$7<*='&*-1"')7*1(,$*(#*
7$%)"4$7 * +# * -'%%"2& * "6 * (# * +#7+,+7'()@- * ."()- * U$/./< * &"* $;%)+!+&*"%%"2&'#+&4*&"*"66$2*"2*3+&11")7*!"#-$#&/*:2+$75(#<*
=$!"5$ * 5"2$ * (!&+,$V/ * E#7$$7< * W+#(-I?'99"#$# * 1(-* K"3$< * (#7* :$)&$# *+7$#&+6+$7* -+;* !"5%"#$#&- * "6*+#6"25$7*
%2"%"-$7*&1$*7$,$)"%5$#&*"6*&1$"24*(#7*5$&1"7")".4*6"2* !"#-$#&*ATTDN**'+-"+0*!"5%2+-$-*%'4.+0$(&+"--7)*'2/"0"+*"7 )
!"#$%&'()*#$+,")-.//'(0)-1-0"2-*(-*(#*+5%"2&(#&*7+2$!&+"#* $,(""2"+0<*(#7*2&+&2$4)3&-0($*0&'+<*31+)$*6"2*!"#-$#&*&"*=$*
6"2*&1$*>$2-'(-+,$*0$!1#")".4*!"55'#+&4*ATXD/ &+5'(2"3*2$a'+2$-*#"&*"#)4*3&-*4'-.("<*(-*O$27+!1$,-94*(#7*
K"3 * 7" * &1$ * >ELM * (%%2"(!1$- * -&(#7 * 3+&1 * 2$-%$!& * &"* L$'$#-!1(#7$2 * $;1"2&< * ='& * ()-" **'2/("#"+-&'+/ * >ELM*
('&"#"54Y *Q- * :".. * #"&$-< * %$2-'(-+"# * +5%)+$- * ,")'#&(24* &$!1#")".+$-*&1(&*(2$*'#7$25+#$7*=4*+#6"25$7*!"#-$#&b6"2*
!1(#.$ * ATC< * %/TZD/ * E#6)'$#!$< * &""< * -'..$-&- * ,")'#&(2+#$--[* $;(5%)$<*?(%&$+#*(#7*8!9)$-@-*%$2-'(-+"#*%2"6+)+#.*ATZDb
+#7$$7< *M+()7+#+ *-1"3- *1"3*&"*2$!".#+\$ *(#7*!+2!'5,$#&* 7$-$2,$*1$+.1&$#$7*-!2'&+#4*2$.(27)$--*"6*&1$*(!!$%&(=+)+&4*
+#6)'$#!$*(&&$5%&-*A]D/*M$#&2()*&"*&1$*+.3,"*+-*+-*&1$*+7$(*"6* "6*&1$+2*$#7-/*Q-*c+!1()-9+*ATdD*(#7*?(%&$+#*(#7*8!9)$-*
4&!"(0$(&$+)/$0"(+$4&-2)ABBDN*&1"'.1*&1$*7$-+.#$2-*!1""-$*(* ATZD *%"+#& *"'&<* &1$ *%2"=)$5 *+- *&1(& * &1$ *#(&'2() * +#!$#&+,$-*
&4%+!())4*R=$-&S*"%&+"#*6"2*&1$*7$6(')&<*+#7+,+7'()-*()3(4-* 5(4*=$*(.(+#-&*$,$#*7+-!)"-'2$<*)$&*()"#$*+#6"25$7*!"#-$#&/
1(,$*&1$*62$$7"5*&"*!1""-$*"&1$2*"%&+"#-*(!!"27+#.*&"*&1$+2*
"3#*."()- *(#7*9#"3)$7.$/ *:+#())4< *&1$*6"2!$ *"6*!"$2!+"#* +,-&./01-2&34&7-/82
+#1$2$#&)4*7+5+#+-1$-*&1$*('&"#"54*"6*&1$*!"$2!$7*ABD/* W#!$ * 3$ * 1(,$ * 7$!+7$7 * (&&$5%& * &" * !1(#.$ * (#"&1$2@-*
=$1(,+"2<*3$*1(,$*(*#'5=$2*"6*5$(#-*(,(+)(=)$*6"2*7"+#.*
^1$# * 5+.1& * !"$2!+"# * =4 * !"5%'&$2- * =$ * _'-&+6+$7Y * Q-* -"/ * ^1+)$< * 6"2 * $;(5%)$< * &1$ *+.3,"* (%%2"(!1 * +5%)+$- * (*
!"#$%&'("# ) *+&,"-%.* ) /0# ) %-/('+-&%-1 ) &,0%&+.2 )!"#$%&$'()* $0)$,+)+-?.)0/)!+#.'".%0-G
+-&0*!"..+.)")-'*3+#)0/)*+"-.)45625789)
BI J,+)%-$+-?+?)0'$&0*+)0/)"-;)!+#.'".%<+)$+&,-0(01;)
:"-; ) !+#.'".%<+ ) .$#"$+1%+.2 ) .'&, ) ". ) .+(/=*0-%$0#%-12) .,0'(?)-+<+#)3+)0-+)$,"$)C0'(?)3+)?++*+?)'-+$,%&"()
!+#.0-"(%>"$%0-2)$"%(0#%-12)"-?).0&%"()&0*!"#%.0-)45782)#+(;) %/ ) $,+ ) !+#.'".%0- ) C+#+ ) '-?+#$"E+- ) C%$,0'$ ) $,+)
0- ) %-/0#*"$%0- ) "30'$ ) $,+ ) '.+#@. ) &0-$+A$ ) "-? ) "&$%<%$%+.9) $+&,-0(01;)0#)%/)$,+)0'$&0*+)0&&'##+?)%-?+!+-?+-$(;)
B-?++?2 ) $C0 ) 0/ )D+#?%&,+<.E; ) "-? ) F+'+-.&,C"-?+#@.) 0/)!+#.'".%0-
!#%-&%!(+.)!0%-$)$0)!#'+&,-)".)")<"('+)0/)!"#$%&'("#)&0-&+#-G
BBI J,+)*0$%<"$%0-.)3+,%-?)$,+)&#+"$%0-)0/)")!+#.'".%<+)
BHI J,+)&#+"$0#.)0/)")!+#.'".%<+)$+&,-0(01;)*'.$)+-.'#+) $+&,-0(01;).,0'(?)-+<+#)3+).'&,)$,"$)$,+;)C0'(?)3+)
$,"$)%$)#+1"#?.)$,+)!#%<"&;)0/)'.+#.)C%$,)"$)(+".$)".) ?++*+? ) '-+$,%&"( ) %/ ) $,+; ) (+? ) $0 ) *0#+ ) $#"?%$%0-"()
*'&,)#+.!+&$)".)$,+;)#+1"#?)$,+%#)0C-)!#%<"&;9 !+#.'".%0-9
HI K+#.'".%<+ ) $+&,-0(01%+. ) #+(";%-1 ) !+#.0-"() HBBBI)J,+)W0(?+-)X'(+)0/)K+#.'".%0-G)J,+)&#+"$0#.)0/)")
%-/0#*"$%0- )"30'$ ) ") '.+# ) $0 )" ) $,%#? ) !"#$; )*'.$ ) 3+) !+#.'".%<+)$+&,-0(01;).,0'(?)-+<+#).++E)$0)!+#.'"?+)
&(0.+(;).&#'$%-%>+?)/0#)!#%<"&;)&0-&+#-.9)4L8 ")!+#.0-)0#)!+#.0-. )0/).0*+$,%-1)$,+;)$,+*.+(<+.)
C0'(?)-0$)&0-.+-$)$0)3+)!+#.'"?+?)$0)?09)4L8
:03%(+ ) !,0-+. ) &"- ) &"!$'#+ ) "- ) '-!#+&+?+-$+? ) "*0'-$ ) 0/)
%-/0#*"$%0- ) "30'$ ) $,+ ) '.+#2 ) .'&, ) ". ) (0&"$%0- ) &00#?%-"$+.2) Q(( ) $,#++ ) !#%-&%!(+. ) /0&'. ) 0- ) '-"&&+!$"3(+) +-?. ) /0#)
&"((.2)"-?)$+A$)*+.."1+.2)"&&+-$'"$%-1)$,+)-++?)/0#)"$$+-$%0-) !+#.'".%0-9 ) J,+; ) !#0<%?+ ) -0 ) 1'%?"-&+ ) ". ) $0 ) C,"$ ) +-?.)
$0)!#%<"&;)45M89)D'$)&,"--+(.).'&,)".)"'?%02)!,0$01#"!,.2) C0'(?)3+)?+.%#"3(+9)Q$$+-$%0-)$0)<"('+.)&"-)(+"?)$0)?+.%#"3(+)
"-?)!#0A%*%$;)"(.0)&"!$'#+)%-/0#*"$%0-)"30'$)0$,+#.)-+"#3; +-?. ) /0# ) 3+,"<%0# ) &,"-1+9 ) B-?++?2 ) *'&, ) !+#.'".%<+)
N%-?%#+&$).$"E+,0(?+#.)4O89)B-)$,+%#)+*!%#%&"().$'?;)0/)$++-) $+&,-0(01;),".)+A!(%&%$(;)$"#1+$+?),+"($,)0#)+-<%#0-*+-$"()
."/+$;).&+-"#%0.2)P>+.E%.)"-?)&0((+"1'+.)(+"#-+?)$,"$)$++-.) .'.$"%-"3%(%$;9 )Q($,0'1,)$,+.+)"#+)("'?"3(+)10"(.2)!+#,"!.)
C+#+)*0#+)#+('&$"-$ )$0)%-?%#+&$(;).,"#+)%-/0#*"$%0-)"30'$) C+ ) .,0'(? ) "(.0 ) 3+ ) ?+.%1-%-1 ) !+#.'".%<+ ) $+&,-0(01; ) $,"$)
$,+%#)&0-$+A$)"-?)"&$%<%$%+.)C%$,)/#%+-?.@)!"#+-$)$,"-)$0).,"#+) ,+(!.)'.)$0)0<+#&0*+)0'#)#"&%"()3%".+.)Y4#"".(2*4#(2*5'&$I2)
.'&, ) %-/0#*"$%0- ) C%$, ) $,+%# ) 0C- ) !"#+-$. ) 4O89 ) J,'.2 ) %- ) ") &0-$#0()0'#)"-1+#)Y,&12)"$$I2)"-?)(+"#-)$0),+(!)"-?)#+(;)0-)
*03%(+)&0-$+A$2)%$)%.) )%*!0#$"-$)$0)&0-.%?+#)$,+)!#%<"&;)0/) 0'#)-+%1,30#.)Y/#%$/I9)S'#$,+#2)%$)%.)%*!0#$"-$)$0)'-?+#.$"-?)
&0*!"-%0-.)"-?)3;.$"-?+#.N-0$)0-(;)$,+)'.+#9 $,+)<"('+.)0/)$,0.+)C+)"#+)?+.%1-%-1)/0#9
Q($,0'1,)!#%<"&;)%.)%*!0#$"-$)$0)*"-;)KBFP).$#"$+1%+.2)C+)
3&'(#$/#,)4*,)
.,0'(? ) 10 ) 3+;0-? ) !#%<"&; ) $0 ) "&&0'-$ ) /0# ) <"('+. ) .'&, ) ".) J,+)*0.$)03<%0'.)<"('+)$+-.%0-.)%-)KBFP )$+&,-0(01;)!%$)
'.")/'/-0 * ,(%#/"$-2 ) "-? ),&12)"$$) 45R8 ) C,+- ) $,+; ) "#+) ?+.%#+? ) 3+,"<%0# ) &,"-1+. ) "-? ) ) $,+ ) <"('+. ) $,+; ) %*!(%&"$+)
%*!(%&"$+? ) 3; ) $,+ ) *+"-. ) '.+? ) $0 ) "//+&$ ) 3+,"<%0#9 ) ) S0#) "1"%-.$)$,+)%-$+-$%0-)$0)&,"-1+)3+,"<%0#)"-?)*+$,0?.)/0#)
+A"*!(+2 ) &0-.%?+# ) $,+ ) <"('+ ) 0/ )'.")/'/-2 ) T!+0!(+@.) ?0%-1).09)J,"$)%.2)+-?.)&"-)3+)%-)$+-.%0-)C%$,)*+"-.9)Z+)
'-?+#.$"-?%-1 ) 0/ ) C,0 ) $,+; ) "#+ ) 0<+# ) $%*+U ) 45R89 ) J,+) .++)!#0*0$%-1),+"($,2)+-<%#0-*+-$"().'.$"%-"3%(%$;2)"-?).0)
!+#.'".%<+).$#"$+1;)0/)$(,'&1*1"&#)')32)!#0<%?%-1)T*+"-.)$0) 0-2)<+#.'.)!#+.+#<%-1)"'$0-0*;2)!#%<"&;2)"-?).0)0-9)
03.+#<+)0$,+#4.8)C,0)"#+)!+#/0#*%-1)$,+%#)$"#1+$)3+,"<%0#.)
"-?)$0).++)$,+)0'$&0*+.)0/)$,+%#)3+,"<%0#U)45782).,0'(?)3+) [0C+<+#2)$,+.+)"#+)-0$)$,+)0-(;)$;!+.)0/)$+-.%0-.9))S%#.$2)$,+)
*0#+)+//+&$%<+ )C,+-)03.+#<+#. ).,"#+)"-)%?+-$%$;)C%$,)$,+) "&$ ) 0/ ) !+#.'".%0- ) %-,+#+-$(; ) !#%<%(+1+. ) $,+ ) <"('+. ) 0/ ) $,+)
03.+#<+?9)S'#$,+#2)%/)C+)"#+)T*"##%+?U)$0)0'#)&+(()!,0-+.2) !+#.'"?+#)0<+#)$,0.+)0/)$,+)!+#.'"?+?9)D;)".E%-1);0' )$0)
C+ )C%(( )3+ )*0#+)"$$"&,+? )$0)"!!(%&"$%0-. )$,"$ )#+/(+&$ )0'#) &,"-1+);0'#)3+,"<%0#2)B)"*).";%-1)$,"$)*;)<"('+.)"#+)*0#+)
%?+-$%$%+.9)Q.)"-0$,+#)+A"*!(+2)&(%#/"$- *"-? ),&12)"$$) "#+) %*!0#$"-$)$,"-);0'#)<"('+.)Y0#)"$)(+".$2)$,+)<"('+.);0').++*)
%*!(%&"$+?)3;)$+&,-0(01%+.)$,"$)'.+)$,+)$%33"$/'()).$#"$+1;9) $0)3+)"&$%-1)0-I9)B-)$,+)3+.$)&".+2)".)%-)3+,"<%0#)&,"-1+)
Q($,0'1,).'11+.$%0-.)*'.$)3+)1%<+-))"$)$,+)#%1,$)$%*+)"-?) .'!!0#$).;.$+*.2)$,+)!+#.'"?+#)"-?)$,+)!+#.'"?+?)"1#++)0-)")
!("&+)$0)"//+&$)3+,"<%0#)45682).'11+.$%0-.).,0'(?)3+)!0(%$+) <"('+ ) .'&, ) ". ) ,+"($, ) 0# ) +-<%#0-*+-$"( ) .'.$"%-"3%(%$;\ ) $,+)
"-? ) "((0C ) $,+ ) '.+# ) $0 ) #+*"%- ) !+"&+/'( ) "-? ) &0*!0.+?N !+#.'"?+# ) !#0<%?+. ) %-/0#*"$%0- ) 0# ) .'!!0#$ ) $0 ) ,+(! ) $,+)
'-(+..)$,+#+)%.)"-)0<+##%?%-1)#+".0-)$0)0$,+#C%.+9) !+#.'"?+?)"&$)%-)"&&0#?"-&+)C%$,)$,%.).,"#+?)<"('+9)
]+&0-?2 ) !+0!(+ ) *"; ) "1#++ ) 0- ) <"('+. ) 3'$ ) ?%."1#++ ) 0-)
!"#$%&'(#)$*+$#,-)$./&01#/$%&'(#)2
!#%0#%$%+.9)Z+)*%1,$)"1#++)$,"$)+-<%#0-*+-$"().'.$"%-"3%(%$;)
Q.)-0$+?)%-)$,+)%-$#0?'&$%0-2)<"('+.)'-?+#(;)!+#.'".%0-9)B-)
%.)C0#$,C,%(+N3'$)B)*%1,$)#"$+)$,+)&0*/0#$)0#)+A&%$+*+-$)
!+#.'"?%-1).0*+0-+)$0)"&$)%-)0-+)C";)"-?)-0$)"-0$,+#2)C+)
0/)?#%<%-1)".)*0#+)%*!0#$"-$9)B-?++?2)X0E+"&,)&0*!"#+?)
"#+)"..+#$%-1)$,"$)$,+)?+.%#+?)3+,"<%0#)C%(()#+.'($)%-)")3+$$+#)
%-?%<%?'"(.@)<"('+).;.$+*.).0(+(;)0-)$,+)3".%.)0/)?%//+#+-&+.)
0'$&0*+9 ) D+$$+# ) /0# ) C,"$V ) D+$$+# ) /0# ) 0'# ) ,+"($,2 ) /0# ) 0'#)
%-)$,+%#)#"-E%-1.)0/)").+$)0/)!#+?+/%-+?)<"('+.)4R589
/"*%(;@. )."/+$;2)/0#)-"$%0-"().+&'#%$;2)/0#)$,+)+-<%#0-*+-$2)
"-?).0)0-9)B*!(%&%$)%-)+<+#;)"&$)0/)!+#.'".%0-)%.)")<"('+)$,+)
5&6#$7#"&%4*08$-4++#0#,/$%&'(#)
!+#.'"?+#)C"-$.)$0).'!!0#$2)")$"#1+$)<"('+9
S%-"((;2))!+0!(+)*";)"1#++)0-)")?+.%#+?)3+,"<%0#2)3'$),"<+)
D+#?%&,+<.E;)"-?)F+'+-.&,C"-?+#)"??#+..)$,#++)!#%-&%!(+.) ?%//+#+-$ ) #+".0-. ) /0# )<"('%-1 )$,"$ )3+,"<%0#9 )S0# ) +A"*!(+2)
/%<+)!+0!(+)*%1,$ )&,00.+)$0)?#%<+)3+(0C)$,+).!++?)(%*%$2)
!"#$ % &'( % )$!*( % '+, % (!"-',-.% )' % '/!0 % )$! %!"#1 % )' % 2(')!#)% Y?%Z#I6!-%O!3-?P9%C-3+!&.B&*$0"$+-,K%C)",&'(3%T"2)'6'50%U!3*"%
$"%&'(1%)'%2("#)*#! %')*+%'1%)'%(!34#!%3!2!,3!,#!%',%&'(!*5,% OLVVRP9%QNFF?
'*6%",3%2(')!#) %,"'+-,"!.$&/0*+'(1%'(%)'%(!34#!%)$!%,!!3%&'(% A?8'559%D?^?%@,#(!"-*,5%2!(-4"-*',%)$('45$%:'/*6*)0?%@,%D?^?%8'55%
'*6%3(*66*,5%",3%#',)(*/4)!%)'%&,1+*-,2&,'"!.$0$'"+,"3+!+'(4 ",3%Y?%Z#I6!-%O!3-?P9%C-3+!&.B&*$0"$+-,K%C)",&'(3%T"2)'6'50%
U!3*"%OLVVRP9%FQQNFWM?
7-%8'55%2'*,)-%'4)9%)$!%:'/*6!%2$',!%*-%",%*,)*:")!%3!;*#!%
<=>?%@&%*)%3'!-%,')%-$"(!%'4(%5'"6-9%/4)%(")$!(%$"-%5'"6-%'&%*)-% FV?8'559%D?^?%B&*$0"$+1&.>&/),-!-L(D.F$+,L.8-2A0'&*$.'- .
'+,9%+!%&!!6%/!)("0!3%?%B$!%-":!%+'463%-!!:%)'%$'63% 8)",L&.M)"'.M&.>)+,N.",@.O-K.U'(5",%b"4&:",,%OLVVMP?%
&'(%;"64!-?%C422'-!%)$")%:0%$*5$!-)%;"64!%*-%)$!%-"&!)0%'&% FF?8(*!3:",9%D?9%c'+!9%Y?9%",3%8!6)!,9%Z?%@,&'(:!3%T',-!,)%*,%
:0% #$*63(!,? % @& % @ % "3'2) % " % :'/*6! % "226*#")*', % )' % $!62 % :!% )$!%U'\*66"%D('+-!(.%@:26!:!,)*,5%]"64!NC!,-*)*;!%Y!-*5,?%@,%
";'*3%-2!!3*,59%",3%*)%-$'+-%:!%2*#)4(!-%'&%2'6"(%/!"(-9%@% B*-/&&@+,L$.-%.')&.PQ').9"#"++.:,'&*,"'+-,"!.8-,%&*&,/&.-, .
+*66%/!%42-!)?%D!#"4-!%*)%#$"66!,5!- %:0%;"64!-9%@%-!!%)$!% ?($'&2.?/+&,/&$%OLVVLP?
"226*#")*',%"-%"%)$(!")%)'%:0%"4)',':09%",3%@%!E2!(*!,#!% FL?8(*!3:",9%D?9%b"$,9%K?c?%^(?9%",3%D'(,*,59%7?%]"64!%C!,-*)*;!%
2-0#$'6'5*#"6 % (!"#)",#! % G6!"3*,5 % :! % )' % 3(*;! % !;!,% Y!-*5,%",3%*,&'(:")*',%-0-)!:-.%B$(!!%#"-!%-)43*!-?%@,%K?%d$",5%
&"-)!(?%@,-)!"39%@%-$'463%/!%(!:*,3!3%'&%:0%;"64!%'&%-"&!)0? ",3%Y?%e"66!))"%O!3-?PK.%902",R8-2A0'&*.:,'&*"/'+-,.",@.
C","L&2&,'.:,%-*2"'+-,.?($'&2$D.S-0,@"'+-,$4%U?%Z?%C$"(2!%
@%-!!%)+'%"22('"#$!-%)'%"33(!--*,5%*,3*;*34"6%4-!(-H%;"64!-?% OLVVWP9%M[=NMRL?
8*(-)9%3!-*5,!(-H%;"64!%#'::*):!,)-%-$'463%/!%:"3!%#6!"(%
FM?8(*!3:",9%D?9%",3%S*--!,/"4:9%c?%D*"-%*,%#':24)!(%-0-)!:-?%
)$('45$%/(",3*,5%",3%)$!%*,&'(:!3%#',-!,)%2('#!--9%-'%)$")% 78C.>E:?%GT9%MOFAAWP9%MMVNM[R?
4-!(-%#",%:"I!%*,&'(:!3%#$'*#!-?%C!#',39%*,)!(&"#!-%-4#$%
"-%B'339%J'5!(-9%",3%K"0,!H-%*,&'(:")*;!%5('#!(0%-$'22*,5% F[?^'$,-',9%Ye?9%",3%U46;!09%^?U?%7##'4,)"/*6*)0%",3%#':24)!(%
3!#*-*',%-0-)!:-?%878C.P=K.FL%OFAAQP9%Q=NW[?
#"() % % -$'463 % /! % )"*6'("/6!? % B$!0 % -$'463 % 42$'63 % 4-!(%
"4)',':0%/0%"66'+*,5%4-!(-%)'%#$''-!%+$*#$%*,&'(:")*',% FQ?b"2)!*,9%U?%",3%Z#I6!-9%Y?%C!6!#)*,5%!&&!#)*;!%:!",-%)'%",0%
":',5 % ;"64!N6"3!, % '2)*',- % O!?5?9 % -4-)"*,"/*6*)09% !,3?%@,%B*-/4.B5H?F7?:I5.;? T"2)'6'50%U!3*"%OLVVRP9%FQNF=?
FR?U*#$"6-I*9%^?%Z)$*#"6%3",5!(-%'&%:'/*6!%2!(-4"-*',?%@,%D?^?%
!"#!$%&'"# 8'55%",3%Y?%Z#I6!-%O!3-?P9%C-3+!&.B&*$0"$+-,K%C)",&'(3%
7))!,)*', % )' % ;"64!- % :"0 % #',)(*/4)! % ,') % ',60 % )'% T"2)'6'50%U!3*"%OLVVRP9%FMRNF[L??
4,3!(-)",3*,5%!)$*#"6%*--4!-%'&%:'/*6!%K@ST%)!#$,'6'50G
F=?a*,"-Nb4II',!,9%c?%D!$";*'(%#$",5!%-422'()%-0-)!:-.%7%
/(*,5*,5 % "))!,)*', % )' % #',#!(,- % /!0',3 % 2(*;"#0 % ",3% (!-!"(#$%:'3!6%",3%"5!,3"?%@,%B*-/4.B5H?F7?:I5.;<<=9%`STC%
3*-#6'-4(!G/4) % "6-' % )' % *,#(!"-*,5 % )$!*( % -#'2! % ",3% QVMM%OLVV=P9%FW[NFRW?
!&&!#)*;!,!--G)$!*(%2'+!(%)'%3'%5''3%*,%)$!%+'(63?%84()$!(%
+'(I%-$'463%#6"(*&0%('6!%'&%)$!-!%;"64!-%)$('45$%!:2*(*#"6% FA?a*,"-Nb4II',!,9%c?%",3%c"(g4:""9%U?%%7%-0-)!:")*#%
&(":!+'(I%&'(%3!-*5,*,5%",3%!;"64")*,5%2!(-4"-*;!%-0-)!:-?%@,%
",3%)!#$,*#"6%*,;!-)*5")*',-%'&%K@ST%)!#$,'6'50?
B*-/4.B5H?F7?:I5.;<<=9%`STC%WFMR%OLVFVP9%[NF[?
()*)()#!)& LV?K"5!9%J?Z?%",3%b("09%T?%Z)$*#-%",3%2!(-4"-*;!%)!#$,'6'50.%7,%
F?76!"$:"39%B?9%!)%"6?%8*-$*,5%&'(%-4-)"*,"/*6*)0.%B$!%!&&!#)-%'&% !E26'(")'(0%-)430%*,%)$!%#',)!E)%'&%$!"6)$0%6*;*,5?%@,%B*-/4.S+*$'.
*,3*(!#)%",3%3*(!#)%2!(-4"-*',?%@,.56'4.73$'*"/'$.89:.;<<=9%7TU% :,'4.M-*N$)-A.-,.U0@L&.",@.:,%!0&,/&.')*-0L).C-3+!&.O&1+/&$9%
K(!--%OLVV=P? 85FH.M-*N$)-A.B*-/&&@+,L$.VJ<%OLVFVP9%FANLL?
L?7,3!(-',9%C?%T'!(#*',?%@,%>)&.?'",%-*@.5,/(/!-A&@+".-%. LF?J'I!"#$9%U?%>)&.U"'0*&.-%.902",.I"!0&$?%8(!!%K(!--%OFARMP?
B)+!-$-A)(%OLVVWP9%$))2.XX26")'?-)",&'(3?!34X!,)(*!-X#'!(#*', LL?B$"6!(9%J?%c?%",3%C4,-)!*,9%T?J?%U0@L&D.:2A*-1+,L.O&/+$+-,$.
M?D!(3*#$!;-I09%Y?%",3%S!4!,-#$+",3!(9%Z?%B'+"(3%",%!)$*#-%'&% "3-0'.9&"!')K.M&"!')K.",@.9"AA+,&$$K%h"6!%f,*;!(-*)0%K(!--%
2!(-4"-*;!%)!#$,'6'50?%878C%[L9%Q%OU"0%FAAAP9%QFNQ=? OLVV=P?
[?T*"63*,*9%J?D?%:,%!0&,/&D.>)&.?/+&,/&.-%.B&*$0"$+-,9%T'66*,-9% LM?B'339%K?U?9%J'5!(-9%h?9%",3%K"0,!9%C?^?%S435*,5%)$!%#"()%*,%
(!;*-!3%!3?%OFAA=P? )$!%-42!(:"(I!)1%c'+%:4#$%*-%!,'45$%*,&'(:")*',%&'(%&''3%
-$'22!(-i%@,%B*-/4.S+*$'.:,'4.M-*N$)-A.-,.U0@L&.",@.:,%!0&,/& .
Q?T\!-I*-9%7?9%!)%"6?%K"(!,)*,5%&(':%)$!%2'#I!).%]"64!%)!,-*',-%",3% ')*-0L).C-3+!&.O&1+/&$9%85FH.M-*N$)-A.B*-/&&@+,L$.VJ<.
)!#$,*#"6%3*(!#)*',%&'(%-!#4(!%",3%2(*;")!%2"(!,)N)!!,%:'/*6!% OLVFVP9%LMNLW?
-"&!)0?%@,%B*-/4.?EFB?.;-,:+'07.>?@.A5B7.8C. >-,:+'07.>?@.A5B7.8C. E@M.ANN7.8C.
DEF#++'0G8!$10H12H*I. J!?,1%G8!=10H12H*I. -HO,1$,G2:HO"1(H12H*I.
1%#',*2"#' 3/4"#5'6/*''
K%9102,%./0+,-12+#'0.3-'*). D,)1-+(,0+.'<.!'()*+,-.Q2#,02,.
80#9,-:#+;.'<.E#-(#0L"1(. QP10:,1.80#9,-:#+;.
E#-(#0L"1(. Q#0L$,+'0.>1-I.
E@M.ANN7.8C. QP10:,1.QKA.R>>7.8C.
EH?H!'P10G2:HO"1(H12H*I. SH3*'G:P10:,1H12H*I.
! !
"#$%&"'%!
"'3!'452267685)6+9!-./0+,12!
/0.+"#:.)1),-.P,.)-,:,0+.10.'9,-9#,P.10%.#0#+#1$.P'-I.<-'(.
5MH(H. /0<'-(1+#'0. #0+,-<12,:. 10%. )-,:,0+1+#'0. 4,HLH7. 5!/6Z.
1. -,:,1-2". )-'T,2+. 2-,1+#0L. U2''$V. ('O#$,. +,2"0'$'L#,:. +'.
Y#:2,$$10,'*:H..
,%*21+,. 10%. #0<'-(. +,,01L,-:. #0. '-%,-. +'. -,%*2,. +",#-.
,0,-L;.*:,H.N,,01L,-:.1-,.1$-,1%;.O,2'(#0L.2'0:*(,-:.10%. :;%&<=>'%:<;!
P#$$. <'-(. +",. 0,W+. L,0,-1+#'0. '<. P'-I,-:7. "'(,'P0,-:7. 3'9,-0(,0+:. 12-'::. +",. P'-$%. 1-,. 0'P. 2'((#++,%. +'.
(101L,-:.10%.)'$#2;.(1I,-:X.1.$'0L#+*%#01$.2"10L,.#0.+",#-. -,%*2#0L.![A.,(#::#'0:.10%.'0,.I,;.1-,1.<'-.#()-'9,(,0+.
"1O#+:. 2'*$%. "19,. "*L,. #()12+H. 5'P,9,-7. #+. #:. 0'+'-#'*:$;. #:.-,%*2+#'0.#0.%'(,:+#2.10%.),-:'01$.+-10:)'-+1+#'0.,0,-L;.
%#<<#2*$+. +'. ,0L1L,. P#+". +,,01L,-:. 10%. ,<<,2+. 2"10L,:. #0. *:1L,H. /0. +",. "'(,. ![A. #:. -,$,1:,%. )-#(1-#$;. #0. +",.
+",#-. 1++#+*%,:. '-. 12+#'0:H. N,,01L,-:. 1-,. '<+,0. (':+. L,0,-1+#'0. '<. ,$,2+-#2#+;7. +",. 2'(O*:+#'0. '<.L1:.10%.'#$.<'-.
('+#91+,%. O;. +",#-. ),,-. L-'*). 10%. P"1+. #:. 2*--,0+$;. U2''$V. ",1+#0L.10%.2'(O*:+#'0.'<.<*,$.#0.+-10:)'-+H.\#+"#0.+",.)1:+.
'-. U*02''$VH. N",. 2"1$$,0L,:. '<. +"#:. P'-I. 1-,. 0'+. '0$;. +",. A].;,1-:.+",-,."1:.O,,0.1.:+,1%;.#02-,1:,.#0.+",.0*(O,-.'<.
2-,1+#'0. '<. ),-:*1:#9,. ('O#$,. +,2"0'$'L#,:. +'. ,02'*-1L,. 1))$#102,:.#0.+",.('%,-0."'(,.2'*)$,%.P#+".L-'P+".#0.+",.
+,,01L,-:. +'. -,%*2,. +",#-. ,0,-L;. *:,7. O*+. +'. (1I,. +",:,. 'P0,-:"#). '<. ,0,-L;. "*0L-;. %,9#2,:. :*2". 1:. +*(O$,. %-#,-:.
+,2"0'$'L#,:. :*<<#2#,0+$;. U2''$V. +"1+. +",;. 1-,. %,:#-1O$,. 10%. 10%.)$1:(1.N^:.10%.10.#02-,1:,.#0.+",.*:,.'<.%,9#2,:.P#+".
:'2#1$$;. 122,)+1O$,. ,0'*L". +'. :*))'-+. 1%')+#'0. 10%. :+10%O;. <12#$#+#,:. _M`H. Y10;. '<. +",. ,$,2+-#21$. %,9#2,:.
1))-')-#1+#'0. O;. +,,01L,-:H. /0. 1%%#+#'0. +'. )-'9#%#0L. 2'0+-#O*+#0L. +'. +",. -#:,. #0. %'(,:+#2. ,0,-L;. 1-,. *:,%. 10%.
),-:'01$#:,%. 10%. 1LL-,L1+,. ,0,-L;. *:1L,. %1+1. 10%. :'(,+#(,:. 'P0,%. O;. +,,01L,-:H. ?,:,1-2". #0. +",. 8C. "1:.
,%*21+#'01$. #0<'-(1+#'0. #0. 1. (,10#0L<*$. P1;7. +",. ('O#$,. #0%#21+,%.+"1+.aMb.'<.+,,01L,-:."1%.1.N^7.(*:#2.:;:+,(.'-.
+,2"0'$'L#,:. P,. 1-,. %,:#L0#0L. P#$$. 1$$'P. <'-. 1))-')-#1+#'0. )"'0,.#0.+",#-.-''(:7.P#+".+P'.+"#-%:."19#0L.1$$.+"-,,._@c`H.
#0. U2''$V. P1;:. +",-,O;. <':+,-#0L. 10. 12+#9,. 2'((*0#+;. '<. K.:,)1-1+,.:+*%;.-,)'-+,%.+"1+.d]].:*-9,;,%.+,,01L,-:.1L,%.
+,,01L,-:.P",-,.#+.#:.2''$.+'.(#0#(#:,.,0,-L;.*:,H.. @c.+'@a.P,-,.2'$$,2+#9,$;.P1:+#0L.,0'*L".,0,-L;.+'.)'P,-.
d7e]A. :2"''$:. 10%. 1. +"#-%. '<. +",. ,0,-L;. O,#0L. *:,%. P1:. 1.
"()*+,!-./0+,12!
%#-,2+.2'0:,f*,02,.'<.U:+10%O;V.O,"19#'*-._@`H.
B0,-L;.8:,7.N,,01L,-:7.Y'O#$,.N,2"0'$'L#,:..
[*-. P'-I. '0. +",. U+1I#0L. '0. +",. +,,01L,-:V. )-'T,2+:.
4PPPH(1%d0-LH'-L6. P#$$. ,0L1L,. ;'*0L. ),')$,. 41L,%. @A&
@a@6. #0. -,%*2#0L. +",#-. 'P0. ),-:'01$. ,0,-L;. *:,. 10%. (1I,.
!"#$%&'()*+*,-..*/"%*)(0*&12&3&2456*#5#0%7*8$*)(0*#5#0%79*54)("%7:*
!"#$&1'*#0%;&))02*"16$*/"%*#%&35)0*512*5<520;&<*#4%#"707:*=(&7*3"64;0*&7*
.............................................................
#486&7(02*512*<"#$%&'()02*8$*)(0*02&)"%7*"/*>?@!,-..:* @
./+.#:.)-'O$,(1+#2.-*00#0L.:+*%#,:.P#+".+,,01L,-:.<-'(.1L,.
.
@d&@M. #0. :2"''$:. #0. +",. 8C. P",0. +",;. O,L#0. )-,)1-#0L. <'-.
3!QB. ,W1(#01+#'0:7. P,. +",-,<'-,. 1$:'. +1-L,+. )-,&+,,0:. +'.
,0:*-,. P,. 210. P'-I. +",. :1(,. :*OT,2+:. <'-. +",. c. ;,1-.
%*-1+#'0.'<.+",.)-'T,2+H.
!"#$%$&'( )*+,-'#( $,( +%%$%./'#( %"0+1/#( ','1-2( .#'( %*+%( 0$33( /'7$,'( %*'( +%%1$6.%'#( "7( )""3( +,/( 6'$,-( N)""3O( $#( "7%',(
3+#%( %*1".-*( +/.3%*""/4( 5*$#( 0$33( 6'( +)*$'&'/( %*1".-*( %*'( 'B%1'8'32($8!"1%+,%4(L1"8(#%./$'#("7('B$#%$,-(3$%'1+%.1'(+,/(
)1'+%$",( "7( 8"6$3'( %')*,"3"-$'#( 9)+33'/( :;<=( :+>'( ;( $,$%$+3(/'#$-,(#'##$",#(0'(*+&'($/',%$7$'/(%*1''(8+$,(3'&'3#(
<$77'1',)'?(%"('/.)+%'(%'',#(+6".%()*"$)'#(%*'2()+,(8+>'(%"( "7()""3,'##($,(%*'()",%'B%("7(%'',+-'14(5*'(7$1#%A(+,/('+#$'#%(
1'/.)'( ','1-2( .#'( +,/( !1"&$/'( 7''/6+)>( ",( ','1-2( .#+-'4( %"(+)*$'&'A($#(%*'()""3,'##(+##")$+%'/(0$%*(*+&$,-(/'#$1+63'(
:"6$3'( %')*,"3"-$'#( 0$33( +3#"( 6'( .#'/( %"( -+%*'1( ','1-2( %*$,-#( %*+%( "%*'1#( +#!$1'( %"( 9#.)*( +#( 3+%'#%( %')*,"3"-2( "1(
.#+-'( $,7"18+%$",( %*1".-*( #'37@1'!"1%( +,/( #',#$,-( )3"%*'#?A( %*'( #')",/( $#( )""3,'##( +##")$+%'/( 0$%*( +)%$",#( "1(
%')*,"3"-$'#A( 7"1( 'B+8!3'( /'%')%$,-( 0*$)*( %1+,#!"1%( +)%$&$%$'#( %*+%( -+$,( 1')"-,$%$",( 71"8( !''1#4( 5*'( %*$1/A( +,/(
8'%*"/#( +1'( 6'$,-( .#'/A( $,( +//$%$",( %"( 8"1'( .#.+3( ','1-2( 8"#%( )*+33',-$,-( %"( +)*$'&'A( $#( %*+%( "7( *"3$#%$)+332( N6'$,-O(
8",$%"1$,-( $,( %*'( *"8'4( 5*'#'( 8"6$3'( %')*,"3"-$'#( 0$33( )""3( +,/( "7%',( 1'#.3%#( $,( 6'$,-( +/8$1'/( +,/( "7%',( /'7'11'/(
8+>'( !'1#",+3$#'/( +,/( +--1'-+%'/( ','1-2( .#+-'( %"( 62( !''1#4( T%( $#( %*$#( 3+%%'1( )+%'-"12( %*+%( 8+1>'%$,-(
$,7"18+%$",( +))'##$63'( $,( 8'+,$,-7.3( 0+2#( %"( ',+63'( )"8!+,$'#( "7%',( #''>( %"( $,73.',)'( +#A( 62( &$1%.'A( !1"/.)%#(
)"8!+1$#",( +,/( )"8!'%$%$",( 6'%0'',( !''1#( %"( 7"#%'1( +,( %*'2( +##")$+%'( 0$%*( 6')"8'( )""3( +,/( +1'( %*',( /'#$1+63'( 62(
+)%$&'( )"88.,$%2( "7( %'',+-'1#( $,%'1'#%'/( $,( 1'/.)$,-( "%*'1#4((
','1-2( .#'4( 5*'( 8"6$3'( /'&$)'#( 0$33( +3#"( 8+>'( +&+$3+63'(
C""3,'##($#(-','1+332(+()*+33',-$,-(!1"!'1%2(%"(/'#$-,($,%"(
#%+%.#( .!/+%'#( +6".%( $,/$&$/.+3( ','1-2( .#'( +,/( !1"&$/'(
+( !1"/.)%( +,/( 0$%*$,( %*'( %*1''( %2!'#( "7( )""3( 0'( *+&'(
%+1-'%'/('/.)+%$",+3(8+%'1$+3(%"(.#'1#4(
$/',%$72(%*'(#')",/(9+##")$+%'/(0$%*(+)%$",#("1(+)%$&$%$'#(%*+%(
5*'( !"!.3+1$%2( "7( *"8'( ','1-2( 8",$%"1#( 71"8( -+$,(1')"-,$%$",(71"8(!''1#?(+#(8"#%(3$>'32(%"(6'(+)*$'&+63'(
8+,.7+)%.1'1#( #.)*( +#( ;3'1%:'( 90004+3'1%8'4)"8?( +,/( 0$%*$,(%*'(!1"U')%4(5*$#(0$33(6'()".!3'/A(%"(+(3'##'1('B%',%A(
C.11',%( C"#%( 90004).11',%)"#%4)"8?A( +,/( #'1&$)'#( #.)*( +#( 0$%*( %*'( 7$1#%( %2!'( 9*+&$,-( /'#$1+63'( %*$,-#?4( 5*'( 8"6$3'(
D""-3'( E"0'1:'%'1( 90004-""-3'4)"8F!"0'18'%'1?( 8'+,( +!!3$)+%$",#( 0'( +1'( /'#$-,$,-( 0$33( ',+63'( %'',( .#'1#( %"(
%*+%( 8",$%"1$,-( '3')%1$)$%2( .#'( $,( %*'( *"8'( $#( $,'B!',#$&'( 8",$%"1( %*'$1( ','1-2( .#+-'( 9)+!%.1'/( .#$,-( 3"0( )"#%(
+,/( .,)"8!3$)+%'/4( ( G"0'&'1A( '&',( 0*'1'( %*'( ','1-2( 8",$%"1$,-(%')*,"3"-2($,(%*'(*"8'(+,/(8"6$3'(/'&$)'#?(+,/(
)",#.8!%$",( $,7"18+%$",( $#( !1"&$/'/A( %*'( &$#.+3$H+%$",( "7( /'&$#'( %*'$1( "0,( 0+2#( "7( 1'!1'#',%$,-A( #*+1$,-( +,/(
%*$#( $,7"18+%$",( "7%',( )+,,"%( '+#$32( )"11'3+%'/( 0$%*( )"8!+1$,-( %*'( $,7"18+%$",4( 5*1".-*( ".1( !+1%$)$!+%"12(
)",#.8!%$",(6'*+&$".1(IJK4(5*$#($#('$%*'1(6')+.#'(%*'(.,$%#( +!!1"+)*( 0'( 0$33( )1'+%'( +!!3$)+%$",#( %*+%( #.!!"1%(
"7( 8'+#.1'8',%( +1'( 1'3+%$&'32( 8'+,$,-3'##( %"( .#'1#( "1( %*'( ).#%"8$#+%$",( +,/( 'B!1'##$&$%2( #.)*( %*+%( %*'2( )+,( 6'(
$,7"18+%$",( $#( $11'3'&+,%( %"( %*'$1( $,%'1'#%#( 9'4-4( )"#%( +!!1"!1$+%'/( $,( +( N)""3O( 0+2#( 62( %'',+-'1#4( V,'( #)',+1$"(
$,7"18+%$",(8+2(,"%(8'+,(8.)*( 7"1(%'',+-'1#(0*"(/"(,"%( 0'( ',&$#+-'( $#( %'',+-'1#( 6'$,-( +63'( %"( )"8!+1'( ','1-2(
!+2( %*'( 6$33#?4( L.1%*'18"1'( %*'1'( $#( +( )"88",( 3+)>( "7( .#+-'(.#$,-(+(8'%1$)(+,/(&$#.+3$H+%$",(%*'2(%*'8#'3&'#(*+&'(
+0+1','##(+6".%(%*'(+8".,%("7(','1-2()",#.8'/(62(/'&$)'( /'&$#'/( +,/F"1( +/"!%'/( 90*$)*( $#( +##.8'/( %"( 6'( )""3( $,(
#$,(%*'(*"8'(+,/(','1-2@#+&$,-("!%$",#(IMK4( %*'$1(!''1(-1".!?(%"(/'%'18$,'(0*"($#(%*'(0$,,'1(9.#$,-(%*'(
3'+#%(','1-2?(+,/(0*"($#(%*'(3"#'1(9.#$,-(%*'(8"#%(','1-2?4(
5*'( >'2( )*+33',-'( "7( %*$#( 0"1>( $#( ,"%( ",32( /'#$-,( *$-*32(
T,(%*$#('B+8!3'($%($#(3$>'32(%*+%()"8!'%$%$",(0$33(',)".1+-'(
.#+63'( 8"6$3'( %')*,"3"-$'#( %"( !1"&$/'( +))'##( %"( ','1-2(
)",#$/'1+%$",( +,/( 1'/.)%$",( "7( ','1-2( .#'4( ;3#"A( %*'#'(
.#+-'( $,7"18+%$",( !1'#',%'/( $,( +( 8'+,$,-7.3( 0+2( 7"1(
8"%$&+%$",#( 0$33( 6'( ,.1%.1'/( +,/( #.!!"1%'/( %*1".-*( .#'( "7(
%'',+-'1#A(6.%(+3#"(%"(',#.1'(%*+%(%*'#'(%')*,"3"-$'#(%*+%(+1'(
%*'( :;<( %')*,"3"-$'#( %*+%( 0$33( !1"&$/'( $,7"18+%$",( +,/(
#.77$)$',%32( N)""3O( %*+%( %*'2( +1'( /'#$1+63'( +,/( #")$+332(
+/&$)'( ",( 8'+#.1'#( %"( 1'/.)'( ','1-2( .#'A( $,( +//$%$",( %"(
+))'!%+63'4( G+&$,-( )1'+%'/( /'&$)'#( %*+%( +1'( .#'/( +,/(
!1"&$/$,-($,7"18+%$",(",().11',%(','1-2(.#+-'4((((
.,/'1#%""/( 62( %*'( %'',#A( 0'( 0$33( %*',( .#'( +( 1+,-'( "7(
+!!1"+)*'#( %"( 3'+/( %"( 3",-@%'18( 6'*+&$".1+3( 8"/$7$)+%$",4( %"&().()$/#"0.*12$$
5"( +)*$'&'( %*'#'( -"+3#( +( !+1%$)$!+%"12( +!!1"+)*( $#( .#'/( 5*$#( 0"1>( 0$33( 6.$3/( .!",( %*'( 55:( 8"/'3( "7( 6'*+&$".1(
0*$)*( $,&"3&'#( 0"1>$,-( /$1')%32( 0$%*( 2".,-( !'"!3'( $,( )*+,-'( IQQK( +,/( 0$33( 3$,>( $,%"( 8"1'( 1')',%( 0"1>( ",(
#)*""3#(%"()+112(".%(/'#$-,(+,/('&+3.+%$",(#%./$'#4(( '8"%$",+3(',-+-'8',%(7"1(6'*+&$".1()*+,-'(9ISKAIWK?(0*$)*(
/'8",#%1+%'#( %*+%( 6'*+&$".1( )*+,-'( $#( 8"1'( '77')%$&'A(
P'( ,"0( /$#).##( %*'( )*+33',-'( "7( N)""3O( +,/( ".1( $,$%$+3( ',-+-$,-( +,/( !1"/.)%$&'( $7( %*'1'( $#( +,( '8"%$",+3(
7$,/$,-#A( %*'( !'1#.+#$&'( +#!')%#( "7( %*'( %')*,"3"-$'#( 0'( +1'( ',-+-'8',%(6'%0'',(%*'(%')*,"3"-2(+,/(%*'(.#'14(5*.#(".1(
)1'+%$,-A(+,/(%*'(%')*,"3"-$)+3()*+33',-'#(0'(7+)'4(P'(-$&'( 8"6$3'( %')*,"3"-$'#( *+&'( %"( #.!!"1%( +!!1"!1$+%$",( $,( )""3(
+,("&'1&$'0("7(1'3+%'/(0"1>(+,/(7$,$#*(0$%*(+(/$#).##$",("7( 0+2#( 6.%( +3#"( *+&'( %"( 6'( /'#$-,'/( $,( +( 0+2( %*+%( %'',+-'1#(
>'2($##.'#(+,/(7.%.1'(0"1>4( )+,('+#$32(1'3+%'(%"(%*'8(+,/($,(+(8+,,'1(%*+%($#(1')'!%$&'(%"(
!"#$%"&''#()#$*+$,%**'-$ '8"%$",+3($,%'1!1'%+%$",(9$4'4(%*'(#2#%'8#(%*'8#'3&'#(/"(,"%(
P*$3'( %*'( 8'+,$,-( "7( N)""3O( *+#( 6'',( )",#$/'1'/A( 7"1( ,')'##+1$32(*+&'(%"(6'('8"%$",+3A(%*'2(U.#%(*+&'(%"(6'(+63'(
'B+8!3'( IQRK( IQSKA( %*'1'( $#( ,"%( +( #$,-3'( .,$&'1#+332( %"( +!!'+1( '8"%$",+3( '&',( $7( %*+%( '77')%( $#( !1"U')%'/( 62( %*'(
+!!3$)+63'( /'7$,$%$",4( C""3( 8+2( 6'( +,%$@#")$+3( "1( $33$)$%A( $%( .#'1?4(
8+2(6'('B!',#$&'(+,/(*$-*32(/'#$1+63'A("1($%(8+2(1'!1'#',%(
5*$#(!1"U')%(0"1>#(71"8(%*'(+##.8!%$",(%*+%(%'',+-'1#(*+&'(
$,,"&+%$",( 9+,/( %*'#'( +1'( ,"%( 8.%.+332( 'B)3.#$&'(
%*'( !"%',%$+3( %"( 8+>'( #$-,$7$)+,%( )*+,-'#( %"( ','1-2( .#+-'4(
)+%'-"1$'#?4( T,( %*'( )+#'( "7( %'',+-'1#A( !''1( -1".!#( "7%',(
X"%(",32()+,()*+,-$,-(%'',+-'(6'*+&$".1(+77')%(%*'$1(3",-@
!"#$%&"#'()*+%,'"-%.,!%!/"0%*#"%*+'(%1)%*%&('1!1()%2/"#"%!/"0% B!/"%),$."#%7"&")71)9%()%!/"%3('!%(6%!/"%7"813"C-%.,!%*6!"#%
3*)%,'"%4&"'!"#%&(2"#5%!(%*66"3!%!/"%*!!1!,7"'%*)7%."/*81(,#'% 1)1!1*+% !#1*+'% 2"% 21'/% !(% (&")% !/"% '0'!"$% ,&% !(% *'% 217"#%
(6% !/"1#% &*#")!'-% '1.+1)9'% *)7% 6#1")7':% ;'% $*)0% !"")*9"#'% &*#!131&*!1()%*'%&(''1.+":%%%
/*8"% *% 9#"*!"#% *$(,)!% (6% +"1',#"% !1$"% !/*)% *7,+!'-% !/1'% 3*)%
?)% (#7"#% !(% ")*.+"% ")"#90% $()1!(#1)9% 1)% !/"% /($"% !/"%
#"',+!%1)%!/"%,'"%(6%$*)0%/19/%")"#90%!"3/)(+(91"'%',3/%*'%
&#(="3!% 21++% ,'"% +(2% 3('!% XY"% 1!% *8*1+*.+"%
1!'% 21++% ."% &#(817"7% 6(#% *%
!"")*9"#'5% &*!!"#)'% (6% ")"#90% ,'"% 1)% (#7"#% !(% ,)7"#'!*)7%
),$."#%(6%,'"#%43/*$&1()'5%*)7%1'%/(&"7%!/*!%!/"0%21++%/"+&%
!/"1#% ."/*81(,#'% *)7% $(!18*!1()'% $(#"-% *)7% /(2% !/"0% $*0%
")3(,#*9"% (!/"#% !"")'% !(% &"'!"#% &*#")!'% 1)!(% .,01)9% !/"% >1!%
."%1)6+,")3"7:%
'(%!/"0%3*)%!*>"%&*#!:%%
% 1)% !(%
;%&*#!131&*!(#0%7"'19)%&#(3"''%!(%3#"*!"%D;EF%*)7%D;EG%
1)6+,")3"% #"7,3!1()% 1)% "+"3!#13*+% *)7% !#*)'&(#!% ")"#90% ,'":%
21++% ."% ()9(1)9% 21!/% '"8"#*+% 7166"#")!% 9#(,&'% 1)% !"")*9"#'%
?)1!1*++0-% '!(#1"'% (6% ")"#90% ,'*9"% 21++% ."% 3(++"3!"7% 6#($%
1)%'3/((+'%*3#(''%!/"%QR%1)8(+8"7:%%L"%"@&"3!%!(%7"8"+(&%*%
!"")*9"#'% 1)% !/"% '3/((+'% 21!/% 2/13/% 2"% *#"% 2(#>1)9:% "0%$(.1+"%&#(7,3!'-%()"%6(#% ,'*9"%/*.1!'%*'%!/"%&#(="3!%&#(9#"''"':%%%%%
FHIFJ% 0"*#% (+7'% BD;EFC% *)7% *)(!/"#% 6(#% FJIFK% 0"*#% (+7'%
+"(,!"-$.'+/$
BD;EGC:%;%>"0%1'',"%1'%'"+"3!1)9%2/13/%$(.1+"%&+*!6(#$B'C%
;% '$*++% ),$."#% (6% 2"*#*.+"Z$(.1+"% #"'"*#3/% &#(!(!0&"'%
!(% !*#9"!% *)7% !/1'% 1'% +1>"+0% !(% ."% !/"% !#*7"I(66% 1)% !"#$'% (6%
*)7% &#(7,3!'% /*8"% ."")% 7"8"+(&"7% 6(#% 3()8"01)9% ")"#90%
6"*!,#"'% &#(817"7% *)7% 7"813"% &(&,+*#1!0:% L/1+"% '$*#!%
,'*9"% 1)6(#$*!1():% Q.1[#"")% \T]% ,'"7% $(.1+"% &/()"'% *'%
&/()"'% ',3/% *'% M+*3>."##0% 7"813"'-% 1N/()"'-% ;)7#(17%
*$.1")!% 71'&+*0'% !(% 918"% ,'"#% 6""7.*3>% ()% !/"1#%
7"813"'-% *)7% O(>1*% P0$.1*)% /*)7'"!'% *#"% 1)3#"*'1)9+0%
!#*)'&(#!*!1()%."/*81(,#':%?!%#"+1"7%()%!/"%2"*#*.+"%'")'1)9%
&#"8*+")!% *$()9% *7,+!'% 1)% !/"% QR-% !/"1#% /19/% 3('!% (6!")%
,)1!-%[PD%3"++%'19)*+'%*)7%!/"%&*#!131&*)!'5%$*),*+%1)&,!%!(%
$*>"'% !/"$% 1)*33"''1.+"% !(% 0(,)9"#% !"")*9"#'% 21!/% +1!!+"%
7"!"3!% !#*)'&(#!*!1()% $(7":% ^3(I6#1")7+0% !#*)'&(#!*!1()%
'&")71)9%&(2"#%*)7%#"'!#13!"7%!(%4&*0% *'%0(,%9(5%B3()!#*3!%
."/*81(,#'-%',3/%*'%3*#&((+1)9-%!*>1)9%.,'%*)7%303+1)9%"!3:%
6#""C% 3*++% &+*)':% S#($% (,#% 3,##")!% '!,71"'% 1)% '3/((+'% 21!/%
2"#"% ")3(,#*9"7% *)7% '/(2)% *'% #"2*#7'% ()% !/"% *$.1")!%
0"*#%T'%B*9"%FUIFFC%*)7%0"*#%FU'%B*9"%FHIFVC%1!%1'%*&&*#")!%
71'&+*0:%^)"#90_16"%\H]%1'%*%&"#8*'18"%'")'1)9%*)7%6""7.*3>%
!/*!% !/"% &/()"'% !/"0% (2)% *#"% .*'13% 7"813"'% (6!")% /*)7"7%
'0'!"$:% ;% '"#8"#% 2*'% 3())"3!"7% 21#"+"''+0% 81*% *% .*'"%
7(2)%6#($%*)%(+7"#%'1.+1)9%(#%&*#")!:%L"%/*8"%*+'(%6(,)7%
'!*!1()%!(%")"#90%'")'(#'%2/13/%#"&(#!"7%!/"1#%")"#90%,'*9"%
!/*!% !/"% 3/1+7#")% 1)% (,#% 1)1!1*+% '!,71"'% /*8"% +1!!+"% 1)!"#"'!% 1)%
"8"#0% 3(,&+"% $1),!"':% "%3*++':%P"8"#*+%0"*#%
,&()%,'"#`'%#"A,"'!%,'1)9%*%X*#(,'"+%1)!"#6*3":%[#17X*#.()%
FU%.(0'%3+*1$"7%!/*!%!/"0%6(,)7%!/"1#%$(.1+"%&/()"%,'"6,+%
1'% *)% 1N/()"% *&&% &#(7,3"7% !/#(,9/% !/"% 1E^*P% N#(="3!%
*'%*)%*+*#$%3+(3>%.,!%+1!!+"%"+'":%%
B222:17"*'&#(="3!:1)6(C% 2/13/% '/(2'% !/"% 3,##")!% 3*#.()%
<"3/)(+(91"'% *7(&!"7% .0% (+7"#% !"")*9"#'% BFTIFKC% 21!/% 1)!")'1!0-% !/"% A,*)!1!0% (6% XYG% &#(7,3"7% 6(#% F% >L/% (6%
'+19/!+0%/19/%'&")71)9%&(2"#%*#"%(6!")%6*'/1()%+"7-%.,!%)(!% "+"3!#131!0% 3()',$"7-% (6% !/"% "+"3!#131!0% 3,##")!+0% ."1)9%
)"3"''*#1+0%!/('"%2/13/%/1!%!/"%$*1)'!#"*$%(#%*7,+!%$"71*:% 9")"#*!"7%1)%!/"%QR:%."##0%7"813"'%(,!),$."#"7% XYG% "$1''1()':% ;+"#!D"% &#(817"% *)% 1N/()"% *&&% !(% *++(2%
.(!/%O(>1*5'%*)7%1N/()"'-%6(#%"@*$&+":%."##0% D"''")9"#% ."1)9% *% ."%81"2"7%#"$(!"+0%*)7%&#(817"'%*%4&"#'()*+%'21)9($"!"#5%
&(&,+*#% ()"-% .,!% )(!% B"*'1+0C% *33"''1.+"% 21!/(,!% *% 2/13/% 1'% *% '1$&+"% 9#*&/13*+% #"&#"'")!*!1()% !(% /"+&% 3()8"0%
M+*3>."##0% /*)7'"!:% L1!/1)% !/"% &#(="3!% 2"% /*8"% 6,)7'% !(% ")"#90% ,'*9"% 1)% *)% "*'1+0% ,)7"#'!*)7*.+"% $*))"#:% L/1+"%
&#(817"%*%'$*++%),$."#%(6%&*#!131&*)!'%21!/%$(.1+"%7"813"'% !/"'"% "@*$&+"'% /19/+19/!% '($"% 1))(8*!18"% *&&#(*3/"'% !(%
!"#$%&'() "'"!(*) $+") ,-.$(-) /.0&1") ,"%-'.1.(&"+) '.'") .2) @eB) Q!""#>) Q7) 3'#) T"31">) P7>) M'(3(&'() MC<"!&"'%"+) 4&,-)
,-"/) 31&(') 4&,-) ,-") /.!") -.1&+,&%) 3'#) 1.'(5,"!/) "'"!(*) M/.,&.'31) f&!,$31) =-"!3<&+,+7) &') 8',"!'3,&.'31) H"+&(')
!"#$%,&.')3&/+).2),-&+)4.!67)) 3'#)M'(3(30&1&,*)Q.'2"!"'%")g)U.!#&QE8>)?+1.>)JVVW7)
!"#$%##"&'( @]B) H"<3!,/"',) .2) M'"!(*) h) Q1&/3,") Q-3'(") RJVVZS)
8')%!"3,&'()"'"!(*)+39&'()#"9&%"+)2.!),""'3("!+)4")%.'+&#"!) M'"!(*)Q.'+$/<,&.')&'),-")c'&,"#)i&'(#./7)P",!&"9"#)
,-3,) :%..1;) &+) 3) <.4"!2$1) 23%,.!) &') /.,&93,&'() 3#.<,&.') 3'#) 2!./)
3<) 4") '""#) -,,) <"!+.'31) (.31) 3,&.'+Y"%$6)Y"%$673+) 3'#) /36") (..#) $+") .2) "'"!(*) 3') @WB) [3/"+) N&"!%">) H&3'") [7) O%-&3'.>) 3'#) M!&%) N3$1.+>)
&',"(!31) <3!,) .2) ,-") ("'"!31) #&+%.$!+") 0",4""') ,""'+7) ?$!) aE./">) -30&,+>) 3'#) "'"!(*X) "C3/&'&'() #./"+,&%)
3<) &',"!3%,&.'+) 3'#) "'"!(*) %.'+$/<,&.'>b) &') QE8dIVX)
0$,) ,.) %!"3,") ,"%-'.1.(&"+) ,-3,) %3') 0") <"!+.'31&+"#) 3'#) N!.%""#&'(+) .2) ,-") JA,-) &',"!'3,&.'31) %.'2"!"'%") .')
3<) U"4) j.!6>) Uj>)
=-") ",-&%+) .2) <"!+$3+&.') @AB) &') ,-") %.',"C,) .2) ,-&+) )<<7)IZA]5IZZe>)GQF>)JVIV7)
3!")+./"4-3,)/&,&(3,"#)&'),-3,),-")!"#$%,&.').2)"'"!(*)$+") @\B) [.') k!."-1&%->) =343''3) H&113-$',>) N!"#!3() i13+'D3>)
&+) 3%%"<,"#) ,.) 0") 3) '"%"++3!*) /.9"7) E.4"9"!>) ,-&+) 4&11) 0") ["''&2"!) F3'6.>) O$''*) Q.'+.19.>) T"9"!1*) E3!!&+.'>)
3') 3!"3) 4") "C<1.!") &') #",3&1) 3+) ,-") #"9"1.)ac0&(!""'X)&'9"+,&(3,&'()3)/.0&1")
FGHI) 3'#) FGHJ) b) &') N!.%""#&'(+) .2) ,-") J\,-) &',"!'3,&.'31)
"C<1.!") &'&,&31) +%"'3!&.+) 3'#) !"K$&!"/"',+) 2.!) FGHI) 3'#) %.'2"!"'%") .') E$/3') 23%,.!+) &') %./<$,&'() +*+,"/+>)
2$!,-"!) $'#"!+,3'#) ,-") 6"*) %-3!3%,"!&+,&%+) .2) %..1) 2.!) U"4) j.!6>) Uj>) cOG>) QE8) dVZ>) <<7IVe^5IV]J>) GQF>)
#&22"!"',) (!.$<+7) 8') <3!311"1) 4") 3!") 31+.) "C<1.!&'() 3'#) JVVZ7)
,"%-'&%31) <.++&0&1&,&"+) 3'#) "C<"!,) ,"%-'&%31) #"+&('+>) 3'#)
@AB) H3'&"1) T"!#&%-"9+6*) 3'#) M!&6) U"$"'+%-43'#"!7) IZZZ7)
&'9"+,&(3,&'() ,""'3("!+;) %$!!"',) 3,,&,$#"+) ,.43!#+) "'"!(*)
=.43!#) 3') ",-&%+) .2) <"!+$3+&9") ,"%-'.1.(*7) Q.//$'7)
$+"7)L")-.<"),-3,),-")'.9"1),-"/"+)&'),-&+)4.!6)4&11)0").2)
GQF)eJ>)])RF3*S>)]I5]A>)IZZZ7))
&',"!"+,) ,.) ,-") <3!,&%&<3',+) .2) ,-") 4.!6+-.<) 3'#) ) H39&#) =!3'>) 3'#) P"0"%%3) M7) _!&',"!>)
a_",,&'() ,.) (!""'X) $'#"!+,3'#&'() !"+.$!%") %.'+$/<,&.')
)$*'&+,-!./-'0#( &') ,-") -./">b) &') N!.%""#&'(+) .2) ,-") IV,-) &',"!'3,&.'31)
L") 4.$1#) 1&6") ,.) ,-3'6) MNOPQ) R$'#"!) ,-") H&(&,31) %.'2"!"'%") .') c0&K$&,.$+) %./<$,&'(>) U"4) j.!6>) Uj>)
M%.'./*)3'#)M'"!(*)N!.(!3//"S)2.!)2$'#&'(),-&+)4.!67)))! cOG>))c0&Q./<)dVA>)<<7)JeJ5J]I>)GQF>)JVVA7)
1-2-1-'$-#( @IVB) ?dH.''"11>) i7G7) 3'#) H7`7) L3!#1.4>) G) ,-".!*) .2) ,-")
@IB) TTQ) U"4+) RJVVWS) =""'3("!+) 3!") :+,3'#0*) 9&113&'+;7) .!&(&'+) .2) %..1'"++>) G#93'%"+) &') Q.'+$/"!) P"+"3!%->)
P",!&"9"#) 2!./) J\>))<3("+7)I^)5)IA>)JVVV7)
-,,) [7?7>) U.!%!.++>) [7Q7) 3'#) H&%1"/"',">) Q7Q7)
Q-3'(&'()k.!)_..#7)G9.')T..6+>)U"4)j.!6>)IZZe7)
@JB) T"31">) P7) 3'#) Q!""#>) Q7) G22"%,&9") 8',"!3%,&.'X) E.4)
"/.,&.'31) 3("',+) 322"%,) $+"!+7) 8',"!'3,&.'31) [.$!'31) .2) @IJB) =3<<>) G7) 3'#) O7) T&!#>) O.%&31) /3!6",&'() 3'#) ,-")
E$/3'5Q./<$,"!)O,$#&"+>)W\)RZS7)\]]5\\W>)JVVZ7) /"3'&'() .2) %..1>) O.%&31) F3!6",&'() l$3!,"!1*>) Ie>) I)
<3("+7)IA)5)JZ>)JVVA7)
@^B))Q-!&+,."!) G7) TD.!6+6.(>) _&$1&.) [3%$%%&>) `$%&3'.)
_3/0"!&'&>) =3,$) U&"/&'"'>=.<&) F&66.13>) Q3!&') @I^B)=-")O1""<)Q.$'%&1)RJVV\S)[$'6)O1"") 3'#) F3++&/.) T"!,.'%&'&>) aM'"!(*1&2"X) =-!"3,) ,.) =""'3("!+7) P",!&"9"#) 2!./)
<"!93+&9") "'"!(*) 343!"'"++) 2.!) -.$+"-.1#+>b) &') -,,) c0&%./<) dIV>) JVIIS7)
<<7)^WI5^WJ>)JVIV7)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Nudging People at Work and Other Third-Party Locations
Max L. Wilson1, Derek Foster2, Shaun Lawson2, Simon Eddison1
1
Future Interaction Technology Lab Lincoln Social Computing Research Centre
College of Science School of Computer Science
Swansea University, UK University of Lincoln, UK
m.l.wilson@swansea.ac.uk, simon.d.eddison@gmail.com {defoster,slawson}@lincoln.ac.uk
ABSTRACT A recent report [1] has indicated that if the 17 million UK
Nudging people towards positive behaviour change is an workers, who regularly use a desktop PC, powered it off at
important issue recognised by academia, individuals, and night this would reduce CO2 emissions by 1.3 million tons
even governments. Although much research has been - the equivalent of removing 245,000 cars from the road.
published in this area, little has focused on non-domestic Similarly, if a UK business with 10,000 computers leaves
environments such as the workplace. It is widely reported them on all night for one year, it will cost £168,000
that changing individual behaviour of employees can make ($220,000) and emit 828 tonnes of CO2. The same report,
a significant contribution to sustainable resource however, suggested that at least three in ten workers in the
consumption. This position paper focuses on the unique UK do not always power off their PC overnight. Further,
aspects that make nudging consumption behaviour in third- many more machines are in use or provide services 24
party environments like the workplace a very different hours a day, all year round.
problem to that of nudging in people’s domestic and private
lives. Several studies are discussed to provide context as As an example in our own context, Figure 1 compares the
well as evidence towards our position. electricity usage at the University of Lincoln campus for the
first week in December in 2009 and 2010. There are two
Author Keywords compelling features of Figure 1 that characterise the typical
Persuasion, Nudge, Work, Ownership, Sustainability, energy consumption of a workplace. First, the graph clearly
Behaviour Change. shows how little energy the university uses at the weekend.
Second, this period in 2010 coincided with severe weather
ACM Classification Keywords that meant that many staff members were unable to travel to
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): the campus. The dramatic reduction in energy consumption
Miscellaneous. can be clearly seen in the first 3 days of the graph and
highlights that people can have a significant impact on
General Terms consumption at work, as well as in their own personal
Theory, Human Factors, Design. environments.
INTRODUCTION
The HCI community has recently shown a great deal of
interest in the development of interactive systems that
facilitate behaviour change for sustainability. Much of this
research has exploited ideas recently re-popularised by
Thaler and Sunstein [10] in that individuals can be ‘nudged’
to make better lifestyle decisions, given the right
information and the environment in which to do so. Much
of this work has focused on how individuals might improve
their own private and domestic lifestyle, behaviour, and
sustainable resource consumption; however such work has
Figure 1 Campus electricity usage December 2009/10
rarely taken account of the fact that people spend a
significant amount of their waking hours at work where Despite environmental concerns now playing an established
they also contribute towards resource consumption. role in the public sector, as well as the corporate and
business agenda, there is still much to gain by exploring
new ways of persuading people to adopt positive energy
usage behaviour. The first and obvious research question is:
Copyright © 2011 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. Do domestic PINC (Persuasion, Influence, Nudge &
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes. This volume is Coercion) methods simply translate to workplace and other
published and copyrighted by the editors of PINC2011.
third-party environments? In this position statement we
review initial evidence that they do not, and discuss the environmentally friendly is, as Stebbins called it, a Serious
reasons why. We propose a framework for thinking about Leisure, where people work hard at achieving their goals.
Nudge methods in different contexts, and discuss our future Installing home technology is often a temporary project,
work in this area. and can be seen as Project Leisure, where people take
behaviour change to be a new task. The aim of much
RELATED WORK nudging research, however, is to be embedded in people’s
Thaler and Sunstein [10] have recently re-popularised the Casual Leisure, so that good consumption is encouraged
interest in the idea of Nudge, where the right environments simply and unobtrusively within our lives. These forms of
and the right information delivered at the right time can leisure, however, are very different from our work lives,
encourage people to adapt and improve their behaviours. which are goal-oriented, formalised, and externally driven.
Much research has focused on directly improving one’s
own behaviour, whether it be reminders to exercise, or to EARLY EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS
notably reduce energy consumption. Research into simple
Study 1 – Water Consumption in the Work Place
home energy monitors [3], for example, suggests that pay- One early finding in this space was from Kuznetsov and
as-you-go meters typically reduce consumption by only 3%, Paulos [7] who anecdotally saw unexpected results in a
while those that focus on reducing their payments often work environment, and so proceeded to focus on domestic
reduce their consumption by 0-10%. Having an in-house scenarios. Their anecdotal findings saw consumption
monitor that provides instant feedback has been shown to increase – double in fact.
reduce consumption by between 5 and 15%. Other
prototype systems, such as Kuznetsov and Paulos’s One of our recent studies in Swansea University, UK,
domestic ambient light display [7] successfully encouraged focused directly on this surprising issue. We created a series
people to reduce their water consumption, by visualising of feedback installations, and installed them in a shared
better or worse consumption to their previous average use. work-place kitchen. Like the work by Kuznetsov and
Paulos, the installations used a Phidget microphone to track
Other research typically provides anonymous averages from water flow through the pipes. The installations were
a group or community to a user, so that the user can see supported by informational posters, which included a link
their own behaviour or consumption in the context of to a website to provide feedback. Otherwise, we remained
others. In previous work [5], we reduced domestic energy as un-intrusive as possible in order to record normal usage
consumption through a carefully designed mixture of online as closely as possible. After recording baseline average
social media and home energy monitors. Our findings readings, we first recreated the ambient light display
suggested that the use of energy feedback delivered in a provided used by Kuznetsov and Paulos, which: glowed
social context significantly reduced consumption when green with less-than-average consumption; glowed yellow
compared to energy feedback without a social context. We 10% either side of the mean; and glowed red thereafter.
have also shown similar results in a personal fitness/activity
domain [4].
A related approach involves facilitating ‘friendly’
competitive behaviour; for instance it has already been
shown that the work environment affords powerful
opportunities for facilitating such behaviour – for instance
Siero et al [8] demonstrated that when a group of
employees received information not only about their own
energy usage, but also about that of a ‘competing’ group of
employees from the same company but a different
workplace, they significantly altered their energy usage
behaviour compared to a situation in which they only Figure 2: Our ambient-light installation
received information about their own usage.
Three further displays were installed in subsequent weeks.
Despite the success of the work by Siero et al some thirteen The first used similar measures, in respect to average
years ago, little research since has explored energy consumption, to create competitive gaming-style text-
behaviour interventions based on competition between oriented messages on an LED display, such as: “You’re
employees. Therefore, a key question for Nudge researchers beating most people” and “Sorry, you lost”. The second
going forward is how do differences between the work and display converted the light system into a series of audible
domestic leisurely sides of life affect the potential of beeps. The final display tried a different tack altogether, by
behaviour change interventions? Also, what theoretical simply providing environmental information relating to
grounding can we draw upon to begin to explore any their water consumption, such as the average amount of
differences? Stebbins [9] introduced a seminal framework water available to people in the third world on a daily basis.
for understanding people’s leisure time. For some, being
Initially, as per the prior anecdotal evidence, the ambient To mitigate the absence of financial motivation in
light display did double the average consumption of water employees and to develop workplace energy metaphors, we
during the 2 weeks it was displayed. In comparing studying intend to run a series of focus groups and participatory
the additional displays, we saw all but the audio condition design workshops to engage and empower the employee in
increase the consumption. While the increase shown by developing an understanding of both the economic and
these alternatives was significantly less than the ambient environmental impact of their working practices. The
light display in particular, none were significant. Although participatory design workshops will provide an opportunity
the audio feedback did marginally reduce consumption, we for employees to be directly involved in designing the UX
also recorded a significant number of opt-out button presses element of Electro-Magnates therefore helping to address
in the audio condition, indicating that people disliked this ethical concerns over privacy and appropriate disclosure of
particular installation. Qualitative comments from an energy data.
optional online survey confirmed this. Given the surprising
Early work to date includes prototyping a high-impact
increase created by the ambient light display, we concluded
energy interface for overall energy usage in Figure 3, page
the study by reinstalling the ambient light display for a final
viewed on 09/01/2011, as well as a competitive league table
week. Although not quite double the average consumption,
for buildings. Both prototypes are designed for large
we again saw a significant increase in energy consumption.
situated displays and are abstracted presentations of what is
In the end, none of the displays managed to significantly possible with raw energy sensor data which in itself is
decrease consumption of water. It is promising, however, intangible and difficult to interpret.
that not all the displays increased consumption
significantly. This means that such displays do not simply
have the opposite effect in work environments. Instead, the
results suggest that people simply do not care for the
consumption of the company as a whole, and potentially do
not mind entertaining themselves with the resources of the
company by using additional resources. The fact that
significantly more users opted out of the audio display,
which was the only one to reduce average consumption,
further indicates that people do not mind avoiding resources
in this area; that they do not feel personally motivated to
accept the nudging technology.
Study 2 – Energy Consumption in the Work Place
Our recently commenced Electro-Magnates study [6] aims
to reduce energy usage in the workplace by utilising a suite
of social persuasive applications to encourage pro-
environmental behaviours. Personal desktop applications
(social widgets) and situated displays will be used to deliver
energy feedback to individuals, groups and communities Figure 3 High-impact visualisation of overall energy usage
about their own – and others’ – energy usage to foster
exchange of performance and to support constructive DISCUSSION
competition to reduce consumption. The workplace in the The workplace, as an example of a non-domestic, non-
context of this study is educational and public sector work- personal environment, creates many unique issues for the
place environments in the county of Lincolnshire, UK. ideas behind nudging behaviour. Consequently, we have
identified three initial dimensions that differentiate
In previous work [5], we reduced domestic energy domestic and workplace environments that might be used as
consumption through social norms and social technology. a formative framework for thinking about applying nudging
However, designing a similar system for the workplace technology in different environments:-
presents greater challenges across a range of design, ethical
and technical issues. From our study focus groups in the Expression of Self. First, the workplace may be termed a
domestic environment we discovered that for some people special environment in that there are usually constraints and
cost was the primary motivating reason to reduce their rules in how employees can interact and carry out activities
energy use. In the workplace employees are not typically in the workplace compared to their less inhibited personal
responsible for paying energy costs, neither are they life. This is particularly important when considering
directly responsible for meeting any governmental carbon employee consumption of resources with emphasis on
policies in place that could lead to institutional ‘carbon’ ownership, freedom of choice and sustainable behaviour.
fines. Ironically, an individual may be committed to pro-
environmental behaviour when at home but is forced to
engage in negative practices at work such as using ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
inefficient energy-intensive equipment or sitting in an over- We’d like to thank the NIMD2010 participants for
heated environment. discussions. The Electro-Magnates project is funded by the
HEFCE LGM fund.
Sense of Responsibility. Second, prior research typically
assumes that individuals are trying to change their REFERENCES
behaviour, or reduce their consumption, but for many the [1] 1E PC Energy Report 2009. online at
workplace is not their own and not their responsibility. http://www.1e.com/Energycampaign/Index.aspx
Consequently, not only is the environment and technology
controlled for them, people have a diminished sense of [2] Arroyo, E., Bonanni, L. and Selker T., Waterbot:
responsibility for the energy costs and environmental Exploring Feedback and Persuasive Techniques at the sink,
impact. In Proc CHI 2005, ACM Press(2005)
[3] Darby, S. The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy
External Constraints. Third, the workplace or type of work
Consumption. Enironmental Change Institute, The
has its own requirements – they may need to maintain 24-7-
University of Oxford, 2006.
365 server support. It may be normal for some businesses to
have 3 or more machines running per individual, but [4] Foster, D., Linehan, C., Lawson, S., and Kirman, B.
unusual for others to have a computer at all. This kind of Motivating physical activity at work: using persuasive
top-down requirement might make individuals feel out of social media for competitive step counting. In Proc.
control of the environment and its consumption, leading to Mindtrek 2010, ACM Press(2010)
lack of motivation. [5] Foster, D., Lawson, S., Blythe, M., and Cairns, P.
Given these limiting and influential factors, it is hard to Wattsup?: Motivating reductions in domestic energy
consider how we can utilise the same nudging technology consumption using social networks. In Proc. NordiCHI
that we typically apply in domestic contexts. The few 2010.ACM Press(2010)
successful workplace nudging installations have typically [6] HEFCE 2010. online at
been dependent on a driven community. The CleanSink http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lgm/build/lgmfund/projects/show.as
project [2] saw some positive influence in hospitals, where p?id=195&cat=15
cleanliness is both required and important for care. Our on- [7] Kuznetsov, S. and Paulos, E. UpStream: Motivating
going study on energy consumption in Lincoln, is focusing Water Conservation with Low-Cost Water Flow Sensing
on driving community motivation, which may encourage and Persuasive Displays. In Proc. CHI 2010, ACM Press
expression of self and increase sense of ownership, whilst (2010).
working within the external constraints of the workplace.
[8] Siero, F.W., A.B. Bakker, G.B. Dekker, and M.T.C. van
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK den Burg. . Changing organizational energy consumption
Much of the prior research on Nudge, and other PINC behavior through comparative feedback. In Journal of
issues, has assumed that individuals are focusing on their Environmental Psychology 16: 235-246. (1996)
environments, behaviours, consumption, and other things [9] Stebbins R. (2007) Serious Leisure: A Perspective For
that they are in some control over. How does Nudge fare in Our Time. Transaction: New Brunswick.
environments, like the workplace, that are typically outside
[10] Thaler, R and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: Improving
of an individual’s control? Such questions are important for
Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness: Yale
larger organisations who want to improve their collective
University Press.
behaviour, whether it is a business trying to reduce its own
consumption or meet it’s quota of carbon credits, or a
government trying to reduce the nation’s consumption.
In our future work, we are focusing on this issue in two
ways. First, our funded research is focusing further on
encouraging community-driven nudges for reducing
business and employee consumption. Second, we are
planning future studies that specifically investigate the
nudge of groups and communities rather than of
individuals, as to meet the UN’s Millennium Goals1, we
need to nudge the behaviour of the global community and
not just that of individuals.
1
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/