Team 18 5A: Synthesis, Proto-Personas, Journey Maps, and Intervention Idea

Team 18: Annabelle Wang, Carina Fung, Jared Poblete, Madison Fan, Serena Kravantka 

Synthesis Process

Team 18 began the synthesis process by rearranging sticky notes of key insights (quotes, assumptions, observations) from our baseline study, interviews and secondary research we conducted. Our initial study and respective data was focused on maintaining relationships.

 

Affinity Grouping & Frequency Grouping

From our affinity grouping and frequency grouping, we found that most of our participants shared similar sentiments on self-initiation in relationships, particularly struggles due to obstacles to convenience i.e. distance and timing. 

Reciprocity was shown to also be a determining factor of a “higher quality” relationship (i.e. a closer emotional bond). Many of our participants noted a newfound awareness of their social interactions after the baseline study, with some stating they would be more mindful of their relationships moving forward. 

As a result of our participant demographics being skewed to older students, maintaining relationships post-graduation was also an understandably pressing topic.

 

Comparative Matrices

Our affinity grouping led us to understand that relationships are valued at different levels of intimacy, and relationships offer some degree of agency to both parties (for better or worse).

Comparative Matrix 1:

As a result of these findings, the first comparative matrix we made measured quality of relationship versus effort of interaction. 

  • High Quality + Low Effort encompasses spontaneous activities and natural connection. 
  • High Quality + High Effort was our most populated quadrant, where conscious efforts such as planning proved to be the most emotionally rewarding.
  • Low Quality + Low Effort includes one-sided rapport.
  • Low Quality + High Effort focuses on a middling emotional response to forging connections.

Comparative Matrix 2:

As a second pass, we developed another comparative matrix that reframed our first idea: satisfaction versus stress. We defined “stress” here as effort and emotional investment. This new approach yielded keywords to describe each category:

  • High Satisfaction + Low Stress: Spontaneity
  • High Satisfaction + High Stress: Intentionality
  • Low Satisfaction + Low Stress: Neglect
  • Low Satisfaction + High Stress: Failure

 

Connection Circle

Using these insights on satisfaction, we constructed a connection circle model by brainstorming what types of activities could potentially result in failure to maintain a relationship, and the unsatisfactory emotions surrounding that failure. From this, we determined that “reaching out” is one of the main hurdles in establishing and maintaining relationships; fear of social norms and fear of not being reciprocated make relationships more difficult to navigate.

 

Feedback Loops

To demonstrate our understanding of the results from our previous techniques, we drew feedback loops of the relationship between stress and satisfaction.

 

Proto-Personas & Journey Maps

First, we settled on two personas that dealt with major problems with saw in affinity grouping and could experience problems on our connection circle. The next step in developing these personas was story mapping in order to hone in on some pain points throughout their experience. In doing so, we brainstormed more practical everyday motivations and actions toward maintaining relationships.

 

 

Name Convenience Clara
Role: Full-time undergraduate student, junior
Goal I want to self-initiate more interactions but always forget / never have the time
Motivation I feel like I don’t have many strong friends, and I also don’t want to fall down anyone’s “friend ranking”. I have friends who are good at maintaining relationships and I want to be like that too.
Conflict I still have social interactions (unplanned by her and spontaneous) so I don’t feel like I need to make more friends or anything. I do realize that many of them are out of convenience and that I very rarely initiate.
Attempts to Solve When I do reach out more, it feels like I’m checking off boxes. I’ve also tried sitting outside more in popular areas (coffee shop vibes, bustling ambiance), so I can see more friends/acquaintances who usually pass by the area and say hi, which makes me feel more connected to them.
Setting/ Environment Popular and well-frequented areas on campus (e.g. CoHo, Tresidder Union)
Tools/Skills I have a laptop to work with and a phone to follow up with friends after seeing them in person.
More She mentioned wanting to reach out to her family during the pre-study interview and didn’t end up doing it at all 

 

12 PM 6 PM 11 PM
Actions: After class, she leaves for Tressider to work.  Her roommates ask her to get dinner with them, and she joins them along with some others in her housing area.  She sees some friends on the way back to her dorm and strikes up a conversation.
Thoughts: I love the atmosphere and maybe I’ll see some friends! Glad I don’t have to get dinner alone. It’s nice to see this person, it’s been a while!
Emotions: Hopeful, longing Content, relieved Happy

 

Name Life Transition Lance
Role: Full-time undergraduate student, senior
Goal I want to make sure my friends that I see often and the ones I don’t see as often (whom I want to keep in contact with after graduation) know that I care for them so that we do not drop off in communication after college. I want thriving post-HS / post-grad relationships. I’m attempting to assess who I want to keep in my life out of my current connections (as well as who likes me back!).
Motivation I don’t know what my social life is going to look like after college.
Conflict I think being intentional and reaching out is important because it’s important to acknowledge that you want to spend time with people. 

I want to be more intentional about how I spend my time in different places, but I realize that most of my interactions are rarely so. When I don’t have time and/or am busy, I don’t try at all.

Attempts to Solve Whenever something reminds me of a friend, I’ll text them.

Most friends are part of larger event social circles, so whenever I see them at so-and-so events, it’s pretty easy to ask to follow up (study together at Lakeside, get food together after, etc)

Understand that sometimes you have to be the one who puts more into maintaining a relationship to make it work — thus reaching out more than the other person.

Setting/ Environment Dorm, Row Houses, Upperclassmen Lounge Spaces, Dining Halls
Tools/Skills Phone, Laptop

 

12 PM 4 PM 8 PM
Actions: After class, he ran into an old friend in the hallway and asked if they should get coffee.  He starts a group FaceTime with his friends abroad when they’re free in their time zones. He does research on cabins so he and his friends can go to Yosemite over break.
Thoughts: Did they think I was being genuine, and that was just a formality? I’m glad I know what my friends are up to. That was worth the scheduling headache. It’s nice that we’ll all be free that week. It’s nice that we’re doing this big event together before we graduate.
Emotions: Hopeful, apprehensive Fulfilled Excited, stressed

 

Intervention Ideation

Between our personas, we decided on focusing on maintaining relationships through life transitions, because of the already-deliberate nature of the persona, as well as personal preference (two of us are seniors, so it felt very close to home).

Intervention Goal:

  • Letting friends know that you care about them and think of them 
  • Cementing relationships before a life transition

Assumptions: 

  • It’s difficult to maintain close relationships with your undergrad friends after graduating… so people want to stay connected with current friends after they graduate by showing their friends now that they care about them
    • It’s important to be intentional about who to hang out with and how
    • Both the frequency and quality of interactions matter 
  • People don’t always know how / when to reach out

 

Intervention Exploration

We decided to explore intervention studies that emphasized deliberate communication. After spending some time throwing out basic concepts, we used heatmap voting to narrow down the list to three different interventions:

1. Working outside with friends

Whenever participants work outside, text a friend to hang out / work with you. 

  • Pro: People don’t always know when to reach out so we’re giving them a reason to get talking, and inevitably connected.
  • Con: Prioritizes purely quantity over quality in interactions. People also want to be intentional about who they’re reaching out to and why. Working outside is also not part of everyone’s everyday routine.

2. Question prompts to learn about your friends

We send questions throughout the day to participants about their friends (e.g. what was the last movie your friend watched? How are your friends abroad doing?) to prompt them to reach out and talk to friends. 

  • Pro: People don’t always know when to reach out, so we’re giving them a reason to get talking, and inevitably connected.
  • Con: Participants may answer questions out of obligation, not because they actually want to know such things about their friends. This also does not fit into any part of a routine since if we sent out questions once a day at a specific time, people would be doing different things across participants and across days.

3. Using memories to connect

Before bed, participants would run through their photo albums to find any photo that upon reflection represents a good memory. They would then text someone involved in the memory, using that memory as a conversation starter. 

  • Pro: This idea leans more into intentionality: we’re hoping this would allow participants enough freedom to reach out to those they genuinely care about and want to see, with a good memory to prime/frame any future follow-up interactions. It also gives the participant more reason to see someone they might not have seen in a while. We’re also leaning on a reliable action that will always happen (getting ready to sleep).
  • Con: People may not have enough time (busy) to be intentional about who they reach out to and may not follow through with any plans made. 

After deliberation, we settled on the third intervention idea, “Using memories to connect” because of its open-endedness, plus logistical convenience and punctuality. This intervention addresses key questions such as how memory influences intentionality in maintaining relationships.

 

Intervention Logistics and Data Collection

  • 5 days (Tuesday to Saturday) 
  • 5 old participants and 6 new participants
  • Pre-study interviews for new participants
  • End-of-day survey with the following questions: 
    1. Photo memory
    2. Summary of the message sent to the other person / group involved
    3. Who is this person to you? (E.g. classmate, a friend from a club, etc.)
    4. How long has it been since you and this person last interacted?
      1. Hours
      2. Days
      3. Weeks
      4. Months 
      5. Years
    5. How do you feel after sending the message? 
  • Post-study surveys for all participants

 

Signing off,

Team 18 

Avatar

About the author