I am so glad I took this class because it helped reshape my perception of how behavior change happens on an individual, societal, and cultural level. I thought a lack of awareness was the main culprit, but I soon began to understand that learning facts is not enough to trigger behavior change.
I was fortunate to take this class with the best team during my time at Stanford. Although I came to this class with an existing team, I was initially disappointed not to be paired with those people I had in mind. Christina had said it is always better to work with a new team, which I had not believed at the time, but it indeed turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise, for which I am thankful to Emily. What made this team so great was that everyone had taken HCI courses. That meant we could dive deeper into some components of the design process; for example, our user interviews, synthesis, and testing were all done at a level I had not done in classes like CS147, CS177, or CS247G. Everyone on the team also wanted to spend a lot of time doing the project well, and all of my teammates were extremely responsible for assigned parts. There were rarely occasions where we had to chase someone down to get their deliverables, which has been my experience in other HCI classes (I am guilty of this myself).
One thing that worked well was that even though all design classes at Stanford talk about user-centered design and iterative prototyping, in this class, we spent a lot of time doubling down on that process, as was evidenced by the number of weeks we spent on just talking and synthesizing user insights.
I was surprised by the complexity of designing for behavior change because it involved a deep understanding of user motivation and the social, cultural, and economic context in which behavior change takes place—not just learning facts about the benefits of behavior change. Because if only information was enough to nudge good behaviors, we would probably not have bad behaviors in this world. I learned that engagement with an activity is crucial before that activity becomes a habit. And equally important was learning that sometimes attitudes have to be formed before behavior is changed, especially for low motivation habits like sunscreen.
My favorite part of this course was the implementation prototype’s user testing day in class. I found it helpful to get feedback from my peers and refine our design based on their input. It was so beneficial to get feedback from other CS247 students because not only were they able to catch issues, but they also helped ideate solutions with us. I liked that there weren’t as many Sketchnotes as in CS247G, but I appreciated them being there because outside of CS247s I rarely ever draw. One thing I wish is added to redesigns of this course is more emphasis on Figma. Even though it was not relevant for our team, in general it would be good if the guidelines from the class stated that each team member needed to complete a significant part of the Figma implementation. To add more to this, sometimes it is straightforward to copy-paste assets and create screens, but what would be good is if every person in the class was required to do a small Figma challenge (including wiring) from scratch.
In terms of tools, it was great to get more time on Figma because I feel like there are always new things I learn while doing a new project. Everyone in our team did everything, so it was also the first time in an HCI class where we all worked on the Figma together. The different models we learned to synthesize habit ecosystems were all individually very powerful to get us to our final product. I think even after 10 years, I will remember the causality loops and perhaps the connection circle. A specific problem I encountered was figuring out how to balance providing users with enough information without overwhelming them. I resolved it by conducting user testing and changing the app’s interface based on user feedback.
An unresolved component for me (and perhaps for many others alike) has been ethical considerations while building. There are many factors to consider, and balancing competing values will be an ongoing challenge—especially given how interconnected and dynamic these issues can be. It was good to take this class concurrently with Media Psychology because there was a week of that class about behavior change but we read more psychology papers, which complemented this class by giving me a better understanding of user motivations.
Our project uses peer pressure and personalization to promote sunscreen use. I think they are acceptable nudges because the end goal (applying sunscreen) is connected to user’s physical wellbeing by reducing risk of skin damage and skin cancer. Moreover, we understand that sun’s harmful effects on skin being not immediate makes sunscreen use a low motivation activity, therefore, having a social element where people can push each other to wear a beneficial product is a moral good. However, I do want to acknowledge there might be usecases where this nudge starts getting a bit on the side of manipulation—especially for people with depression or languishing mental health who might feel individual guilt (seeing plants wilt as a direct result of their inaction) and social guilt (letting friends down) for factors beyond the individual’s control. Given that recent surveys suggest that a significant portion of the world (and Stanford) population live with poor mental health, this is a serious consideration since the nudge starts getting manipulative when a person is not feeling well.
