Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:19:26.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESIGNING PRODUCT METAPHOR TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOUR: A PROPOSED METHOD

Part of: Socio-technical Issues in Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Huang ,
M. Carulli ,
P. Hekkert ,
R. N. J. Schifferstein  and
M. Bordegoni
S. Huang*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
M. Carulli
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
P. Hekkert
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
R. N. J. Schifferstein
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
M. Bordegoni
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
*
*siyuan.huang@polimi.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Within the scope of Design for Sustainable Behaviour, the connection between behavioural change strategies and design idea generation has received limited attention. This paper highlights metaphorical thinking in product design to stimulate sustainable behaviour. In particular, the current study proposes a metaphor-based design method to guide designers on how to associate product features with behavioural and experiential cues through metaphors. We next report two design cases to evaluate this method. In the end, the shortcomings of current research and future developments are also discussed.

Keywords

design methodologyhuman behaviourproduct designsustainable designecodesign
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1921 - 1930
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barendregt, W., Bekker, M.M. and Baauw, E. (2008), “Development and evaluation of the problem identification picture cards method”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0066-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, C. and Jayaram, J. (1997), “Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective”, The international Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011), “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using products to change consumer behaviour”, The Design Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427–445. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611X13091688930453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A.F. (2006), “The reification of metaphor as a design tool”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 490–530. https://doi.org/10.1145/1188816.1188820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boks, C., Lilley, D. and Pettersen, I.N. (2017), “The future of design for sustainable behaviour revisited”, In: Matsumoto, M., Masui, K., Fukushige, S., Kondoh, S. (Ed.), Sustainability Through Innovation in Product Life Cycle Design. EcoProduction (Environmental Issues in Logistics and Manufacturing). Springer, Singapore, pp. 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0471-1_46Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M. and Thomas, J.C. (1982), “Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1982.4308795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cila, N. (2013), Metaphor we design by: The use of metaphor in product design, [PhD Thesis], Delft University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:b7484b0f-9596-4856-ae9d-97c696f9de79Google Scholar
Coskun, A., Zimmerman, J. and Erbug, C. (2015), “Promoting sustainability through behavior change: A review”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 41, pp. 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogg, B.J. (2009), “A behavior model for persuasive design”, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, California, Claremont, USA, April 26-29, 2009, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. and Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009), Multimodal Metaphor, Walter de Gruyter. Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxon, T. and Pearson, P. (2008), “Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekkert, P. and Cila, N. (2015), “Handle with care! Why and how designers make use of product metaphors”, Design Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S. et al. (2019), “AIM: An interactive ashtray to support behavior change through Gamification”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Delft, the Netherlands, August 5-8, 2019, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3811–3820. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurtienne, J. and Blessing, L. (2007), “Metaphors as tools for intuitive interaction with technology”, Metaphorik.De, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
Hurtienne, J. and Israel, J.H. (2007), “Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: Intuitive patterns for tangible interaction”, TEI’07: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1226996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. (1997), “Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelsma, J. (2006), “Designing ‘moralized’ products”, In: Verbeek, PP., Slob, A. (Ed.), User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technology Development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5196-8_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, H. et al. (2017), “Metaphors, materialities, and affordances: Hybrid morphologies in the design of interactive artifacts”, Design Studies, Vol. 53, pp. 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.004Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993), “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 202–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), “Conceptual metaphor in everyday language”, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 77 No. 8, pp. 453–486. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2013), Metaphor We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Google Scholar
Michie, S., van Stralen, M.M. and West, R. (2011), “The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions”, Implementation Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munksgaard, J., Pedersen, K.A. and Wien, M. (2000), “Impact of household consumption on CO2 emissions”, Energy Economics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(99)00033-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedderer, K., Clune, S. and Ludden, G. (2017), Design for Behaviour Change: Theories and Practices of Designing for Change, Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315576602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1999), “Affordance, conventions, and design”, Interactions, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. and Bodirsky, B. (2010), “Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J.B. (2007), Life in 2030: Exploring a Sustainable Future for Canada, UBC Press, Vancouver. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.34-5396Google Scholar
Van Rompay, T.J.L. and Ludden, G.D.S. (2015), “Types of embodiment in design: The embodied foundations of meaning and affect in product design”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
Saffer, D. (2005), The Role of Metaphor in Interaction Design, [Master Thesis], Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Hekkert, P. (2008), Product Experience, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045089-6.X5001-1Google Scholar
Da Silva, O., Crilly, N. and Hekkert, P. (2016), “Maximum effect for minimum means: The aesthetics of efficiency”, Design Issues, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopory, P. and Dillard, J.P. (2002), “The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.3.382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P.P. (2011), “Design for socially responsible behavior: A classification of influence based on intended user experience”, Design Issues, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandewater, E.A. et al. (2007), “Digital childhood: electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers”, Pediatrics, Vol. 119 No. 5, pp. e1006–e1015. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1804CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbeek, P.P. (2015), “Cover story: Beyond interaction: A short introduction to mediation theory”, Interactions, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2751314CrossRefGoogle Scholar