No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Design Strategies to Promote Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2022
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.
Intercultural interactions encourage social inclusion and diversity, but they are often avoided due to prejudices. Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions (IMSI) can overcome such prejudices; still, the literature lacks guidelines on how to promote them by Design. In this study, we propose eight design strategies to facilitate these interactions, which were originated by bridging four theories for prejudice reduction and exemplar IMSI experiences of 15 intercultural participants. This paper presents the strategies and discusses their use to inspire new design concepts for promoting IMSI.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2022.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), “The Nature of prejudice”, The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A. and Scharff, E. (2000), “Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), ACM, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84–113.Google Scholar
Askins, K. (2016), “Emotional citizenry: everyday geographies of befriending, belonging and intercultural encounter”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 515–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askins, K. and Pain, R. (2011), “Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the messiness of interaction”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 803–821.Google Scholar
Associazione Carta di Roma. (2016), “Notizie oltre i muri”, Quarto Rapporto Carta Di Roma.Google Scholar
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., E.P. (1999), “Design: Cultural Probes”, Magazine Interactions, Vol. Volume 6 I No. 1, pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
Batson, C.D., Polycarpou, M.P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H.J., Mitchener, E.C., Bednar, L.L., Klein, T.R., et al. . (1997), “Empathy and Attitudes: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Improve Feelings Toward the Group?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 105–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011), “Design for sustainable behaviour: Using products to change consumer behaviour”, The Design Journal, Taylor \& Francis, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427–445.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019), “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis”, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Taylor \& Francis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 589–597.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2020), “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Taylor \& Francis, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W. and Landay, J.A. (2014), “Designing for healthy lifestyles: Design considerations for mobile technologies to encourage consumer health and wellness”.Google Scholar
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D.W. and Landay, J.A. (2009), “Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalsgaard, P. and Dindler, C. (2014), “Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research”, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, pp. 1635–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esses, V.M. and Dovidio, J.F. (2002), “The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1202–1214.Google Scholar
Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. (2019), “Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research.Google Scholar
Fonseca, X., Slingerland, G., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. (2021), “Designing for meaningful social interaction in digital serious games”, Entertainment Computing, Elsevier, Vol. 36 No. January 2020, p. 100385.Google Scholar
Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Subasi, Ö. and Güldenpfennig, F. (2014), “Think globally, act locally: a case study of a free food sharing community and social networking”, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 911–921.Google Scholar
Grigoryan, L., Cohrs, J.C., Boehnke, K., van de Vijver, F.A.J.R. and Easterbrook, M.J. (2020), “Multiple Categorization and Intergroup Bias: Examining the Generalizability of Three Theories of Intergroup Relations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No. September, available at:10.1037/pspi0000342.Google ScholarPubMed
Grosse-Hering, B., Mason, J., Aliakseyeu, D., Bakker, C. and Desmet, P. (2013), “Slow Design for Meaningful Interactions”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 3431–3440.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1988), “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article”:, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 575–599.Google Scholar
Harrison, S., Sengers, P. and Tatar, D. (2011), “Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 385–392.Google Scholar
Ingram, P. and Morris, M.W. (2007), “Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the ‘life of the party’”, Administrative Science Quarterly, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 558–585.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group. (2018), “Turkeys Syrian Refugees: Defusing Metropolitan Tensions”, Europe Report, Vol. 248 No. January, available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/248-turkeys-syrian-refugees-defusing-metropolitan-tensions.Google Scholar
Karimi, F., Génois, M., Wagner, C., Singer, P. and Strohmaier, M. (2018), “Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks”, Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Kouprie, M. and Visser, F.S. (2009), “A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user's life”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litt, E., Zhao, S., Kraut, R. and Burke, M. (2020), “What Are Meaningful Social Interactions in Today's Media Landscape? A Cross-Cultural Survey”, Social Media + Society, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 205630512094288.Google Scholar
Lukoff, K.A.I., Yu, C., Kientz, J. and Hiniker, A. (2018), “What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful or Meaningless?”, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Mattelmäki, T. and Battarbee, K. (2002), “Empathy Probes”, Conference Proceedings: Participatory Design Conference Malmo Sweden., No. June, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
De Medeiros, J.F., Da Rocha, C.G. and Ribeiro, J.L.D. (2018), “Design for sustainable behavior (DfSB): Analysis of existing frameworks of behavior change strategies, experts’ assessment and proposal for a decision support diagram”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 188, pp. 402–415.Google Scholar
Medeiros, W.G. de. (2014), “Meaningful Interaction with Products”, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 16–28.Google Scholar
Neuliep, J.W. (2012), Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, SAGE Publications, available at: https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=uxynfqkwYe4C.Google Scholar
Ozduzen, O., Korkut, U. and Ozduzen, C. (2020), “‘Refugees are not welcome’: Digital racism, online place-making and the evolving categorization of Syrians in Turkey”, New Media and Society, available at:10.1177/1461444820956341.Google Scholar
Paluck, E.L. (2009), “Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychological Association, Vol. 96 No. 3, p. 574.Google Scholar
Paluck, E.L. and Green, D.P. (2009), “Prejudice reduction: What works? a review and assessment of research and practice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 339–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T. and Tropp, L. (2008), “How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 922–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998), “Intergroup Contact Theory”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 65–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T.F., Tropp, L.R., Wagner, U. and Christ, O. (2011), “Recent advances in intergroup contact theory”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Elsevier, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 271–280.Google Scholar
Pride, M. (2015), “Measuring superdiversity: constructing a theoretical multi-dimensional framework”, Unpublished MA Dissertation. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, School of Social Policy.Google Scholar
Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Sekerli, E. and Coskun, A. (2019), “Ignite, Share and Reflect: Design Tactics to Foster Social Interactions Between Migrants and Locals in Istanbul”, International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference.Google Scholar
Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A., Serdar, B., Coşkun, A. (2021). “Tell Me Your Story, I'll Tell You What Makes It Meaningful”: Characterization of Meaningful Social Interactions Between Intercultural Strangers and Design Considerations for Promoting Them. In: HCI International 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13094. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-030-90238-4_40Google Scholar
Sherman, D.K., Brookfield, J. and Ortosky, L. (2017), “Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground: A self - affirmation perspective”, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Wang, Shu-huei, Hwang, Shyh-huei and Ho, Ming-chyuan. (2018), “Empathic Design: Understanding User Experience Through Schema Changes and Innovative Design”, Journal of Literature and Art Studies, Vol. 3 No. 5, available at:10.17265/2159-5836/2013.05.002.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (2019), The Sciences of the Artificial, The Sciences of the Artificial, available at:10.7551/mitpress/12107.001.0001.Google Scholar
Smith, E.R. (1993), “Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice”, Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping, Elsevier, pp. 297–315.Google Scholar
Steele, C.M. (1988), “The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory., Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wessendorf, S. (2014), “Researching social relations in super-diverse neighbourhoods: Mapping the field”.Google Scholar
Yee, N. and Bailenson, J.N. (2006), “Walk a mile in digital shoes: The impact of embodied perspective-taking on the reduction of negative stereotyping in immersive virtual environments”, Proceedings of PRESENCE: The 9th Annual International Workshop on Presence, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Youn, S., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E. and Zaki, J. (2016), “Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat”, Vol. 60, pp. 398–410.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access