10.1145/2470654.2466452acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research

Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Researchers in HCI and behavioral science are increasingly exploring the use of technology to support behavior change in domains such as health and sustainability. This work, however, remain largely siloed within the two communities. We begin to address this silo problem by attempting to build a bridge between the two disciplines at the level of behavioral theory. Specifically, we define core theoretical terms to create shared understanding about what theory is, discuss ways in which behavioral theory can be used to inform research on behavior change technologies, identify shortcomings in current behavioral theories, and outline ways in which HCI researchers can not only interpret and utilize behavioral science theories but also contribute to improving them.

References

  1. Adams, M. A., Norman, G. J., Hovell, M. F., Sallis, J. F., Patrick, K. (2009). Reconceptualizing decisional balance in an adolescent sun protection intervention: Mediating effects and theoretical interpretations. Healt Psychol, 28, 217--225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior, Organizat Behav Hum Dec Proc, 50, 179--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J Appl Soc Psych, 32, 665--683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Balaam, M. et al. (2011). Motivating mobility: designing for lived motivation in stroke rehabilitation. CHI'11, 3073--3082. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy - The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bao, L. and Intille, S. S. (2004). Activity Recognition from User-Annotated Acceleration Data. Most, 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, M. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior, J Healt Soc Behav, 18, 348--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Bond, R. M., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Buman, M. P., Giacobbi, P. R., Yasova, L. D., and McCrae, C. S. (2009). Using the constructive narrative perspective to understand physical activity reasoning schema in sedentary adults. J Healt Psychol, 14, 1174--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Collins, L., Dziak, J., and Li, R. (2009). Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: A resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs. Psychol Meth, 14, 202--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., and Landay, J. (2006). Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. CHI'06, 457--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D. W., & Landay, J. (2009). Goal-setting considerations for persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. Persuasive '09, Article 8, 8 pgs. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D. W., et al. (2008). Flowers or a robot army? Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. UbiComp'08, 54--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., and Landay, J. (2009) Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. CHI'09, 405--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., et al. (2008). Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of UbiFit garden. CHI'08, 1797--1806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd Ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. Plenum, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dervin, B. (1983). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use, J Know Manag, 36--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dobson, D. and Cook, T. (1980) Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Eval Prog Plan, 269--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Dourish, P. (2010) HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politics. DIS'10, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dunton, G., Intille, S., Beaudin, J., and Pentz, M. A. (2009). Pilot test of a real-time data capture protocol to assess children's exposure to and experience of physical activity contexts using mobile phones. Obes 17, S150--S151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Eagle, N. and Pentland, A. (2006). Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Pers Ubi Comp, 255--268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Erickson, T. (2005). Five Lenses: Towards a Toolkit for Interaction Design. Theories and Practice in Interaction Design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, December Issue, A-5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., and Landay, J. (2010). The design of eco-feedback technology. CHI'10. 1999--2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Ostergren, M. et al. (2012). The design and evaluation of prototype eco-feedback displays for fixture-level water usage data, CHI'12, 2367--2376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Froehlich, J. (2011). Sensing and feedback of everyday activities to promote environmental behaviors, UMI, 3501869.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Gearing, R. and El-Bassel, N. (2011). Major ingredients of fidelity: A review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clin Psychol Rev, 79--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Glanz, K., Rimer, B., and US-N.C.I. (1995). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice. NIH-NCI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Grimes, A., Bednar, M., Bolter, J. D., and Grinter, R. E. (2008). EatWell: Sharing nutrition-related memories in a low-income community, CSCW'08, 87--96. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Grimes, A. and Grinter, R. (2007). Designing persuasion: Health technology for low-income African American communities. Persuas Tech, 4744, 24--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. He, H., Greenberg, S., and Huang, E. (2010). One size does not fit all: Applying the transtheoretical model to energy feedback technology design, CHI'10, 927--936. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Hekler, E. B., Buman, M. P., Otten, J., et al. (2012) Who responds better to a computer- vs. human-delivered physical activity intervention? Results from the community health advice by telephone (CHAT) trial. In Submission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Hekler, E. B., Buman, M. P., Poothakandiyil, N., et al. (2012) Exploring behavioral markers of long-term physical activity maintenance: A case study of system identification modeling within a behavioral intervention. In Submission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Hersen, M., and Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. Peramon, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim, T., Hong, H., and Magerko, B. (2010). Design requirements for ambient display that supports sustainable lifestyle. DIS'10, 103--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. King, A. C., Sallis, J., Frank, L., et al., (2011). Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income: Associations with physical activity and obesity in older adults. Soc Sci Med, 73, 1525--1533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. King, A. C., Hekler, E. B., Castro, C. M., et al. (2013). Exercise Advice by Humans versus Computers: Maintenance Effects at 18 Months. Healt Psychol.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. King, A. C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G. S., and Killingsworth, R. (2002). Forging a Transdisciplinary Paradigm. Am J Prev Med 23, 15--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. King, A. C., Toobert, D., et al. (2006). Perceived environments as physical activity correlates and moderators of intervention in five studies. Am J. Healt Prom, 21, 24--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Klasnja, P., Consolvo, S., and Pratt, W. (2011). How to evaluate technologies for health behavior change in HCI research. CHI'11, 3063--3072. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Kraemer, H. C. and Kiernan, M., Essex, M., and Kupfer, D. J. (2008). How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches. Healt Psychol, 27, S101-S108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Lee, M., Kiesler, S., and Forlizzi, J. (2011). Mining behavioral economics to design persuasive technology for healthy choices. CHI'11, 325--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Lin, J., Mamykina, L., and Lindtner, S. (2006). Fish'n'Steps: Encouraging physical activity with an interactive computer game. UbiComp'06, 261--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centered design. Intern J Hum Comp Stud, 55, 587--634. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Mamykina, L. and Mynatt, E. (2008). MAHI: investigation of social scaffolding for reflective thinking in diabetes management. CHI'08, 477--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Chetty, M., Tran, D. and Grinter, R. E. (2008). Getting to green: Understanding resource consumption in the home. UbiComp '08, 242--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Michie, S. Ashford, S., Sniehotta, F. F., et al., (2011). A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALORE taxonomy. Psychol Healt, 26, 1479--1498.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Miluzzo, E., Lane, N., Fodor, K., et al. (2008). Sensing meets mobile social networks: the design, implementation and evaluation of the cenceme application, SenSys'08, 337--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Morin, C. and Bootzin, R. (2006). Psychological and behavioral treatment of insomnia: Update of the recent evidence (1998-2004). SLEEP, 29, 1398--1414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Manual, J. K., et al. (2005) Assessing competence in the use of motivational intervention. J Sub Abuse Treat, 28, 19--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol, 2, 175--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Nigg, C., Allegrante, J., and Ory, M. (2002). Theory-comparison and multiple-behavior research: Common themes advancing health behavior research. Healt Educ Res, 17, 670--679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Ogden, J. (2003). Some problems with social cognition models: a pragmatic and conceptual analysis. Healt Psychol, 22, 424--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Prochaska, J., Wright, J., and Velicer, W. (2008). Evaluating theories of health behavior change: A hierarchy of criteria applied to the transtheoretical model. Appl Psychol, 57, 561--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Prochaska, J. O. and DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 51, 390--395.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Purpura, S., Schwanda, V., Williams, K., et al. (2011). Fit4Life: The design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weight. CHI'11, 423--432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Riley, W. T., Rivera, D. E., Atienza, A. et al. (2011). Health behavior models in the age of mobile interventions: Are our theories up to the task? Trans Behav Med 1, 53--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Rovniak, L. S., Hovell, M. F., and Wojcik, J. R. (2005). Enhancing theoretical fidelity: an email-based walking program demonstration. Am J Healt Prom, 20, 85--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Sallis, J. F. and Owen, N. (1997). Ecological models. In K. Glanz, et al. eds., Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 403--424.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., et al. (2009). Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Social Sci Med, 68, 1285--1293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policies and theories in social change. Environ and Plan, A, 42(6), 1273.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Velicer, W. F. and Prochaska, J. O. (2008). Stage and non-stage theories of behavior and behavior change: A comment on Schwarzer. Appl Psychol Interna Rev 57, 75--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Behavior Change Techniques Taxonomy. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/healthpsychology/BCTtaxonomy/index.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Mind the theoretical gap: interpreting, using, and developing behavioral theory in HCI research

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!