Learning to Change by Victoria Langridge

LEARNING TO CHANGE

Fig 1. Dumped. Flytipping at Brunclough. Saddleworth Independent, 2013

Learning to Change Graphic design for social behaviour change. An investigation into the methods and effectiveness of design that seeks to change behaviours

Name:

Victoria Langridge

I.D.: 14414943 Module Code:

2DD4002

Course:

Graphic Communication, BA Hons

Institute:

University of Northampton

Word count:

7,916

Submission Date:

13th March 2015

Contents

Introduction Page 2

Chapter One – Why?

Page 8

Chapter Two – How?

Page 20

Chapter Three – In Use

Page 30

- A Better A&E Page 33 - Smarter Cab Drivers

Page 35

- Charity Litter Bins

Page 37

Conclusion Page 40

References Page 45 Illustrations Page 48 Bibliography Page 49

INTRODUCTION

â&#x20AC;&#x153; There is an appalling

gap, which now exists between that which technology could provide for society, and that which it does actually provide. We have a level of technological sophistication such that we can design and produce Concorde, yet in the same society we cannot provide enough simple heating systems to protect old age pensioners from hypothermia.â&#x20AC;?

- Cooley, 1985 (cited in Whiteley, 1993)

here is a growing understanding that design, in its various forms, can play an important role in influencing human behaviour and, increasingly, design is being utilised as a method to tackle complicated social problems (Brown and Wyatt, 2010). The idea that human interactions can be influenced through products, objects or environments has led to design being used to stimulate desirable human behaviours, resulting in social change (Buchanan, 2001). Behaviour can be defined as anything a person says or does and, through targeting human actions and transforming environments, it can be altered (Martin and Pear, 2010). Design for social change aims to improve societal issues, for example climate change, recycling, and obesity, which can be linked to human behaviour (Hubert, 2010). Simply, it is design that can help to improve the world. Although there has been a recent rise in targeting behavior as a method for social change, the concept of using design for this is not a new one. An early champion for designs’ direct effect on society was William Morris (see fig. 2). Morris has been described as a “significant moral voice” (Margolin, 2005/2006: 119), who believed that all aspects of art could have an impact on society. In his 1883 speech, ‘Art Under Plutocracy’, the term art was redefined to include all aspects of design and in turn to include all aspects of life (ibid). The Dadaists of the early 1900’s used their art to question a society that could allow the horrors of the First World War (see fig. 3). Unorthodox techniques, such as collage and montage, created awareness within society about what was happening in the world (Scalin and Taute, 2012). In the same period, Russian Constructivists were working alongside the government, using art for improved social outcomes (ibid). Bauhaus were also working to create a new breed of more socially responsible designers (Dempsey, 2010). In the mid twentieth century, the ideology of The Situationist International (see fig. 4) hoped

to bring a revolution through the practice of design, and that “artistic intervention in the everyday environment could awaken people to their surroundings and lead to a transformation in society” (ibid: 213). These examples help to demonstrate that design to influence society has been a constant aim by different movements throughout history. Today, design for behaviour change has been gaining recognition and, under the guise of social innovation, is a prominent topic on the European Union agenda. An EU report discussed why focusing on behavior change through social innovation is important and how it could be supported (BEPA, 2010). The report defines social innovation as inventive ideas to meet social needs, which are not only good for society but also “enhance society’s capacity to act” (ibid: 9-10). There are many headings under which this type of work is taking place within the design industry, such as; experience design, mindful design, design activism, sustainable design, design thinking and design with intent, to name a few. This essay aims to discuss the main theme of these headings, to create changes within society, under the umbrella term of ‘design for social behaviour change’. Reasons will be introduced as to why there is a need for this method of design, how it works in terms of targeting human behaviours and how successful it is as a method for social change. The introduction of key case studies will help to assess the effectiveness and whether this type of design can bring a lasting change to society. Secondary sources will be introduced as the foundations of designing for social change, Including Victor Papanek’s ‘Design for the Real World’ and Nigel Whiteley’s ‘Design for Society’. Both discuss the ways in which design can benefit society and argue for a shift in human behaviour. This essay aims to develop the idea that design can make an important impact within the sphere of social change, and that targeting human behavior is an effective method to achieve this.

Fig 2. William Morris. Hollyer, 1887

Fig 3. Cut with the Dada Kitchen Knife through the Last Weimar Beer-Belly Cultural Epoch in Germany Hoch, 1919

Fig 4. Society of the Spectacle Debord, 1967

CHAPTER ONE

WHY?

â&#x20AC;&#x153; Human reason, l

devices is apt number of syste To make better our personal li to seek workaro

left to its own to engage in a ematic errors. decisions in ives we ought oundsâ&#x20AC;Śâ&#x20AC;?

- Steven Pinker (cited in Gardiner, 2014)

Humans are capable of intelligent thought, yet can be driven by poorly considered choices.

Fig 5. Coastal homes devastated by storm. Tallis, 2013

efining what is meant by the term social behaviour change, and also understanding why it is a relevant avenue for designers to pursue, is important to explain. Why is there a need for this type of design? What are the design perspectives on ‘good’ design, and why there is a need for a designer to possess an ‘ethical compass’ when considering how a piece of design will affect others? DEFINITION Designing for social behaviour change can be defined as something that can be a driver for sustainable innovation. By this, it is meant that design can help to transform and maintain improvements within sectors such as health, well-being and safety through altering human behaviours. It also helps to target environmental issues, which can, in the long-term, benefit society as a whole (Behaviourchange.eu, 2015). NECESSITY In order to begin to make a case for the necessity of social behaviour change, it only takes a glance at the newspaper headlines to see stories about the issues society faces today. For example, it has been reported that by 2050, over half of all Britons will be clinically obese, and this is putting mounting pressure on the National Health Service (The Telegraph, 2014). Coastal areas are increasingly threatened by rapidly rising sea levels, (see fig. 5) accelerated by green house gases being produced through rapid industrial growth (Connor, 2015). According to Clune (2010), there is a need for a reduction in the consumption of the Earths resources, equating to around a 90% decrease. This reduction is needed in order to achieve a long-term, sustainable society. A reduction in both the type of resource and ways they are used is needed. Humans are capable of intelligent thought, yet can be driven by poorly considered choices. This has created an unprecedented tipping point within the world, and something must be done in order to try to reverse the damage (Bielenberg, 2011). There is a train of thought suggesting that design can help to encourage better decision making, with designers bringing “invention, innovation, human ingenuity and creative problem solving” to design (ibid). Design for social behaviour change creates a process by which unmanageable human behaviour can be addressed, along with creating a link between design and “positive sustainable behaviour” (Clune, 2010: 69). It can be used to enable, or provide a prompt for, more desirable behaviours. There are possibilities for it to begin to help reverse some of the issues the population and planet are facing. Design in its various forms, such as objects, buildings and environments all have a role to play in altering human behaviour, and graphic communication will be shown, in chapter three, to be an effective method for achieving this change.

HOW CAN THE DESIGN INDUSTRY BEGIN TO APPLY BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE? Whilst designing specifically with an aim to alter human behaviour is a relatively new science, the subject of how design can persuade people is not a new idea. Many within the industry have recognised design as a powerful tool, and in the late twentieth century, there appeared to be a new wave of thinking within the design world. Designers were beginning to question the effect they could create in society, no matter how small, and whether this should begin to be self-regulated. Michael Rock (1992) suggested that all design has a power which must be considered, “There is an implicit power involved in graphic design that is derived from an involvement with image production, and all power carries with it responsibility.” Jan Van Toorn (cited in Armstrong, 2009) suggests that graphic communication is “never neutral” (ibid: 102) and that, in a negative sense, it can serve as an “ideological instrument”(ibid: 103). Van Toorn is implying that those who have the power to promote ideas through design are able to present these ideas, which may only serve the private few, as ideologies that are universally followed. Van Toorn suggests that in order to try to break this way of thinking, design needs to bring “independent and radical [forms of communication]” (ibid: 106) to a wider audience, along with designers beginning to think in a multidimensional way to realise this. Nigel Whiteley (1993) calls for all designers to consider the condition of society and the world and notes, “…[the] mood for reassessment is particularly strong amongst a new generation of designers who are more able (or willing) to grasp the connection between professional activities and the problems facing society” (ibid: 2). Whiteley questions, “Why is ‘socially useful’ design such a small part of industrial production? … It is often the manufacturer who has the real power because he/she has control of the resources” (ibid: 113), linking to Van Toorn’s idea that design can present ideologies which are universally followed. Whiteley suggests that in order to break this cycle, the values and roles of the design profession, within society, need to be assessed (ibid). Designing for consumerism has to be replaced by “informed thought and intelligent action” (ibid: 170). Victor Papanek’s critical writings, ‘Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change’ (1994), added to the argument against design for frivolous, unnecessary products. While commenting on the industrial and product design sector, Papanek’s message was universal. There is a strong need for designers to realise the harm that had been done to the world through the creation of constant need, and what needed happen to begin to reverse this.

“Design must become an innovative, highly creative, cross-disciplinary tool responsive to the true needs [of society]. It must be more research orientated, and we must stop defiling the earth itself with poorly designed objects and structures” – Papanek, 1994: x Papanek’s writing has been described as a catalyst to which designers have responded, by seeking to develop new systems of design for social need (Margolin and Margolin, 2002). The idea that design could do more than simply promote a message, but instead have a more interactive effect, was further discussed in Fabricant’s essay, ‘Design with Intent’ (2009). Fabricant establishes that young designers are now engaging with the need for change. Design is “experiencing a sea change in the way designers engage with the world” (ibid). A new generation of designers are beginning to form a desire to create impact with their work via social engagement (see fig. 6), however Fabricant suggests that although there is this new recognition, it is not wholly accepted as a method for design and there is some hesitation. Instead, designers are continuing to use more traditional methods, such as User Centred Design.1

This method, rather than engaging directly with the end user, creates experiences based on “observed and implied user needs over time” (ibid) and means that designers are often removed from the results. However, this type of design can often be neutral in that the design has no perceivable effect to the user. In other words, UCD may affect behaviour but the result may not be recognised (ibid). This is a pitfall of UCD. If the target audience isn’t aware of their behaviour change, will it provide a lasting effect? More physical and stimulating methods of design, utilising social engagement, could have a more lasting and sustainable benefit over the more neutral and detached methods traditionally used. 1

Fig 6. Targeting Society. Dรถrsch, 2015

15 A DESIGNERS’ CHOICE This increase in awareness of the effects design can have on society has correlated with a growing number of manifestos and writings about designers’ own ethics, helping the individual to regulate and consider their own design work. One of the most reverberating manifestos of the twentieth century is Ken Garland’s ‘First Things First’ manifesto (see fig. 7), which asked designers to take more responsibility for the type of work they produce and whom they worked for, “We think that there are other things more worth using our skill and experience on” (Garland, 1964). Updates to the manifesto by both Adbusters (eyemagazine.com, 1999) and Cole Peters (2014), brought it into the age of digital media. The original manifesto called for designers to move their priorities away from advertising trivial, unnecessary products, “in favour of the more useful and lasting forms of communication” (Garland, 1964). Garland was perhaps already hinting at a method of design that could change people’s behaviours in order to have a beneficial, and long lasting, effect within society. Cole Peters’ updated version of the manifesto elaborates;

“There are pursuits more worthy of our dedication. Our abilities can benefit areas such as education, medicine, privacy and digital security, public awareness and social campaigns, journalism, information design, and humanitarian aid. They can transform our current systems of finance and commerce, and reinforce human rights and civil liberties.” – Cole Peters, 2014 Design which benefits society or our environment, for example finding a way to encourage people to switch energy supplier to save money (Spencer, 2015), or introducing an element of competition to encourage the recycling of more household waste (Barker, 2015), can be seen as ‘good’ design that adds value to society (Heller, 2003). However, when design goes wrong, for example when emergency signage was obscured during a fire at Dusseldorf Airport in 1997, it can have serious consequences. In this case, MetaDesign were employed to redesign the signage to ensure it was visually pleasing, well-lit and legible (see fig. 8). They also worked closely with architects to ensure the signs were placed correctly, moving beyond the realms of graphic designer, into the design of environments (Spiekermann, 2009). This example shows how graphic design merged with another creative practice, such as architecture, in order to provide more suitable and workable solutions.

Fig 7. First Things First Manifesto. Garland, 1964

BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE + DESIGN = SOCIAL CHANGE The Design Council, the UK Government’s advisor on design, in collaboration with Warwick Business School, recently published a document that discussed merging behavioural science within design, to tackle big social issues (Design Council et al, 2013). The report focuses on issues within society, such as obesity and climate change, which are linked to our behaviours and lifestyle choices (see fig. 9). In order to begin to try to solve these issues, understanding how and why people make decisions are incredibly important insights that can be applied within design (ibid). Although behavioural science is a relatively new field, it has a strong scientific background, based on neuroscience, economics and psychology. Traditionally, science suggested that we make our choices with little thought for others – we are “governed by a rational selfinterest” (ibid: 4). However this is now known not to be the case as there is more understanding about the realities of modern day life, wherein we have limited attention, energy and time, which can often lead to selfdefeating behaviours (ibid). We often make decisions unconsciously and these decisions can be influenced by environmental, social or economic factors. In order to try to alter these behaviours, design needs to physically interact with people, rather than simply providing knowledge that requires understanding and willpower to be acted upon (ibid). There is clearly a will within the design industry to create this new type of interaction, and various methods will be discussed in the next chapter, providing some insight as to how this can be achieved.

Fig 8. Airport Signage. MetaDesign, 1996

Fig 9. Junk. n.d

CHAPTER TWO

HOW?

Fig 12. Thinking. Supitar, 2015

esigning for behaviour change is underpinned by psychology, combined with design-thinking theory.2 Seeking to change behaviours can be linked to human reactions. This may be affected by a number of different things – physical and mental, conscious and subconscious elements. Various theories will be introduced in this chapter, to help understand what affects humans from a cognitive perspective, through to how interactions with environments and products occur. Both perspectives are important in explaining how behaviours can be affected within the design sphere, leading to social change.

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT

Fig 10. Loyalty Cards – Small rewards, encouraging loyalty to a brand. thriftoclock.blogspot.co.uk, 2015

Fig 11. McDonalds, Hard to Resist. Getty Images, 2014

Martin and Pear (2010: 3) explain human behaviour as “anything a person says or does”. This is linked to any actions we perform, but also to physiological responses such as muscular, glandular or electrical activity. Human behaviours can be overt, which means how we act externally, or covert, reactions happening internally. They claim that to modify human behaviour, we need to alter people’s environments, but in such a way that it relates to everyday life – small changes will work best (ibid). Targeting behaviours needs to take into account many factors, such as age, gender, race, nationality, location or sexual orientation. It will work best when a required behaviour receives a reward. This is called ‘Positive Reinforcement’. If a person realises that they will be rewarded for an action (see fig. 10), (with rewards ranging from consumables, an activity or a social response) then the action is likely to be repeated with growing frequency (ibid).

THOUGHT-PROVOKING In 2011, The Royal Society of Arts (RSA) published a report on ‘Transforming Behaviour Change’ (Rowson, 2011) in which the ideas of neuroscience, behaviour and society were all linked. The report was concerned with the way current ideas of neuroscience could be used to limit human behaviour to something which could be controlled, as well as the possibilities this idea opened up for Government manipulation through policy-making (ibid). Self-awareness is a key element of behaviour change according to the report. Part of being self-aware is to be reflexive, which requires an understanding of underlying principles of behaviour (ibid). For example, eating fatty foods (see fig.11) is known to be bad for the heart, however, this is difficult for us to resist as our brains provide positive reinforcement

via the ‘feel-good factor’. Instead, alternative approaches need to be considered, in order to avoid fatty foods. Reflexive thinking can be used to adapt to these challenges. This is known as “transformative change” (ibid: 17). However, this type of change is often the most difficult as it requires dedication and willpower. Rowson suggests that awareness of our habits, attention span and decision-making can help us to change in a transformative way (ibid).

HABITS, ATTENTION AND DECISIONS Humans are described as creatures of habit, however, we find it difficult to form new, positive habits and to stick to them. Recognition of the barriers to forming new habits facilitate the design of institutional and social devices, helping us commit to a change. Habits are automatic and our brains reward us for the prediction of these behaviours with a release of dopamine. This links to Martin and Pear’s theory of Positive Reinforcement, and the way in which the repetition of an action is linked to the frequency of reward. New actions undertaken are initially rewarded, but as the frequency of the reward decreases, we are less likely to continue the action. In the Shell ‘Smarter Cab Drivers’ case study, discussed in the following chapter, habit forming was targeted with varying degrees of success, and is shown to be an important factor in whether or not the drivers could reduce their fuel usage. Habits need to be rewarded regularly and enforced in a social setting in order to become easier to maintain (ibid). In a world full of distractions, it is important to find a method to help maintain attention. Rowson suggests we need to learn to be more present and aware of our surroundings (see fig. 12). Reflecting on our own thoughts can help to do this (ibid). Practicing mindfulness, the act of simply being aware, can heighten our ability to be attentive to the world around us. Coming full circle in this idea of reflexivity is the way decisions are made. The decision making process is based on social values as well as past experience. The belief systems on which decisions are based are formed out of habits, and if a change in habits can occur, then in turn belief systems, and ultimately decisions, can be altered (ibid).

Design-thinking is an experimental way of working, with the needs of the consumer at the core of the design process. This differs to traditional design, which focuses on the look or function of a product (Brown & Wyatt, 2010).

A HUMAN CONNECTION With the RSA considering the human element of behaviour change, what can physical design do in order to provide a platform for this? In ‘Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things’, Donald Norman (2004) lists three aspects of design that can affect behaviour: Visceral, Behavioural and Reflective. These observations are based on human interactions with physical objects. >> Visceral is concerned with the appearance of things >> Behavioural is how something is used and how easy it is to use >> Reflective is how we can rationalise it and how it tells something about us

The visceral part of the human brain is the most simple and deep-rooted, and is the part that responds to a wide variety of conditions. For example, a positive response is gained from things such as warm temperatures, soothing sounds, smiling faces, attractive and symmetrical objects. However, a negative effect can be felt by things such as darkness, crowds of people and harsh sounds (ibid). The behavioural element focuses on the performance of an object and can be split into four areas. Function is most important, as the design must fulfil its purpose otherwise it has failed. Understanding of the product is also important. If it is not easy to understand then it cannot be used. Usability comes through a combination of function and understanding. However, if a product is badly designed and cannot be used then people will stop trying to use it. Finally, the physical feel can make a huge difference to a response to a product. Textures and surfaces can all come together to provide a feeling of control, or not, with a product (ibid).

Fig 13. Child with Chicken – shoppers can support people in deprived areas through charity purchases. Oxfam n.d

The reflective aspect of a design is concerned with our personal feelings about a product along with self-image. Reflecting on a product may mean that we agree or disagree with it, such as making a purchase as it supports a charity (see fig. 13), or conversely not making a purchase as the product has been made using child labour. Reflective behaviour can be linked to four specific areas (ibid): >> Culture: learnt social conventions >> Meaning: what impression we want to give to others, or if we have had a good customer experience >> Fun and pleasure: positive emotions >> Sound: producing culturally universal “affective states”

Berger (2009) draws on this theory and concedes that the visceral element of design is the most powerful from a psychological viewpoint. However, the reflective level is actually the most powerful to us at the conscious level, as image portrayal is a major concern.

TARGET DESIRABLE BEHAVIOURS

D E C I SIVE

CIVE

AP P A

RS U AS I VE

COER

SE DU C T I VE

N DE

Coercive design is ‘strong and explicit’ in its influence, for example speed cameras that are obvious to see and offer drivers the choice to either slow down or to incur a fine. Decisive design is both ‘strong yet implicit’, for example a tall building without a lift. This ensures people will use the stairs but may not immediately realise this is the intention of the building design. Decisive designs do not allow undesired behaviours and do not offer a choice, whereas coercive design does give a choice, but it promotes the more desirable choice as the better option. The further two categories Tromp et al distinguish are persuasive and seductive design, which offer guidance rather than reinforcement. A healthy eating campaign could be seen as persuasive design which has a ‘weak yet explicit’ influence, whereas the effect of a microwave on the eating habits of families is a seductive design which has a ‘weak yet implicit’ effect of making hot meals available to any one at any time, therefore affecting family eating habits (ibid). In all of the case studies introduced in the following chapter, Tromp et al’s framework can be seen be in use and help to show how various combinations of areas of influence can be used to facilitate behaviour change.

Leading on from designing with the intention to alter behaviours, Tromp et al (2011) have developed a framework for socially responsible design, based on the intended experience. A map was created, distinguishing four areas that can be targeted by design to promote desirable behaviour, as well as discourage undesirable behaviours. These areas are: coercive, persuasive, seductive and decisive (ibid). These areas can be further sectioned into influences that are weak or strong, versus those which are implicit or explicit (see fig. 14).

Fig 14. Tromp et al’s Areas of Influence

Fig 15. Design with Intent Toolkit Lockton 2015

while there is much written about behaviour change, there are currently no guides to help designers think about how it will work when devising solutions...

Fig 16. Standardised Cigarette Packaging Telegraph & Argus 2015

COMBINING INTO A METHOD With so much theory, there is a need for a useful method of application for designers to use. Lockton’s ‘Design for Intent’ toolkit (2010) has been devised with a strong social approach in mind, offering the design community a simple structure to apply to idea generation. Lockton (2013) realised that while there is much written about behaviour change, there are currently no guides to help designers think about how it will work when devising solutions. The toolkit encourages designers to ask a series of questions about the desired outcomes, with the resulting answers (or patterns as Lockton calls them) promoting a more considered design solution. Lockton uses eight ‘lenses’ through which patterns can be pinpointed and behaviours influenced (see fig. 15). These lenses allow the designer to consider routes to solutions they may not have envisaged before. Within the toolkit, Lockton also describes three types of behaviour that can be targeted: >> ‘Enabling Behaviour ‘: This enables a more desirable behaviour by making it the easiest choice >> ‘Motivating Behaviour’: This uses education, incentives and attitude change in order to promote behaviour change >> ‘Constraining Behaviour’: This promotes the desired behaviour by making all other actions impossible

Using the toolkit to help design for behaviour change is clever in that it also helps to alter the behaviour of the designer, questioning current methods and introducing those that they may not have considered previously. Andrew Shea (2013), a social designer, spoke about similar ways of targeting behaviour to create social change, mirroring Lockton’s defined types of behaviour. Four areas were identified that could be considered when designing for social change: >> Rules: Laws, rules and regulations force people to change behaviours. For example, introduction of the smoking ban meant people had to change their habits. Either stop smoking, or go out of their way to find a place to smoke (Bauld, 2011). >> Motivation: Money motivates humans and, for example, when cigarettes became more heavily taxed, purchases reduced as people could no longer afford to buy them (ibid). >> Emotions: Fear or desire can change our behaviour. Shocking imagery on cigarette packaging, coupled with severe health warnings help to discourage people from smoking (ibid) (see fig. 16). >> Physical Changes: Altering an environment can lead to a behaviour change. Supermarkets are no longer able to display cigarettes; they are hidden behind blank cupboards. Due to environment changes, people are becoming discouraged from asking for cigarettes. This could be linked to personal embarrassment or social pressures from non-smokers (ibid).

WHAT ARE THE PITFALLS? Whilst all of these theories and models address how behaviour can be changed or targeted, they all have their limits. Each person will have a different way of experiencing life, and what influences one person may not influence the next. It is difficult to predict an individual response, which may subvert the original intentions of the design. Martin and Pear (2010) list many variations that can affect behaviour, which need to be considered when designing for behaviour change. Subtle differences in cultures and upbringing may have a large influence on the effectiveness of this type of design. Within the theory of positive reinforcement, further issues need consideration when looking to this as a method for behaviour change. Positive reinforcement could be used unwittingly to reinforce an undesired behaviour, it may not be applied effectively and it can oversimplify behaviours or label people inappropriately. It also requires specialist knowledge and experience and, in the hands of an unqualified designer, it may do more harm than good. Behaviour change requires a “schedule of reinforcement” (ibid: 75) over a period of time in order for that behaviour to become innate. In Tromp et al’s model (2011) there are some issues with the outcome of each design style. In the example of decisive design, the building with no lift, it may well have a desirable effect on people’s health. However, it does not take into account those with a disability or those carrying heavy loads that require the use of a lift. Additionally, the design is implicit. Therefore, it is not an obvious design and may not register in people’s minds. As soon as a lift is provided the user would simply go back to use the lift, rather than consider the health benefits they may have gained from using the stairs. In contrast, coercive design is likely to have a more long-lasting effect as it allows people to reflect on their choices and subsequent actions. Caution should be applied when considering the use of any behaviour change method. Rowson (2011: 4) identifies a fear about these techniques being used to “suppress public dissent”. With behaviour change an integral part of the European Union agenda, it could be used as a goal of governmental policy. Rather than considering whether a positive, long-term effect can be achieved, government policy may only obtain short-term results. As the example of healthy eating from the report suggested, the success of a long-term goal depends on human dedication and willpower, which are often difficult to maintain. Nonetheless, it is still an important sphere within the design world, which should be utilised where appropriate.

CHAPTER THREE

IN USE

raphic design with an inherent intention to alter social behaviours for beneficial outcomes can be said to be on the rise, with many graphic design studios now offering services specifically targeting this outcome (Brown and Wyatt, 2010). Design Institutions such as The Royal Society of Arts and the Design Council focus on this type of design and studios such as IDEO, Shift and We Are Behaviour offer design services specifically with the aim to address social and environmental issues. Case studies will be introduced within this chapter, documenting how graphic design can be used to alter human behaviours, resulting in social change. Methods of behaviour change outlined in the previous chapter will be drawn upon, to offer some explanation as to how the case studies have been successful or could have been improved.

Fig 17. A&E Process Map PearsonLloyd 2013

CASE STUDY 1: A BETTER A&E At the forefront of the rise in design for behaviour change is the Design Council who, for the past seventy years, have been promoting design aiming to improve people’s lives (Design Council, 2015). In accident and emergency departments of British hospitals, violence and aggression towards staff had risen to such a level that it was costing the National Health Service £69 million a year in staff absences, a reduction in productivity and a need for heightened security measures (A Better A&E, 2013). Due to the highly stressful nature of A&E departments, alongside patients arriving in pain and visitors concerned for their welfare, it was found that behaviours were often altered, with people more likely to behave aggressively. The Design Council, along with design studio PearsonLloyd, set out to try to improve the patient experience in order to reduce tensions and create a calmer care environment for all involved (ibid). The solution took a three-pronged approach: >> Guidance Solution: Information panels placed to inform, guide and answer questions for arriving patients, making them aware of which stage of the care process they were at (see figs. 17, 18, 19). This took the form of a process map, leaflets and a live digital stream, allowing patients to see up-to-date information about the department (ibid). >> People Solution: Current A&E staff were provided with a reflective programme, enabling them to consider factors that hindered their capacity to care for patients. The goal of the eight-week programme was to identify factors that affected the mood of staff, the root causes, and to find ways to prevent future occurrences. An induction pack was created, given to all new staff members, ensuring that they were aware of the issues they may face when working in this highly pressured environment (ibid). >> The Toolkit: An online document, offering recommendations for the design of the A&E environment, which could be accessed by NHS managers and other healthcare planners. The aim was to provide a breakdown of the patient journey and provide advice on best practice. The toolkit could be used by all NHS staff, along with architects and interior designers (ibid).

The design solution was piloted at two hospitals, Southampton General Hospital and St George’s Hospital in London, along with control sites, in order to reflect on the results. The outcomes from the pilot scheme were very promising (see fig. 20), with a number of positive results. 88% of patients said that the signage explained the A&E process well, 78% of patients felt that the signage helped them to trust that the staff knew what they were doing and 75% felt that the signage helped to make the wait in A&E less frustrating. There was a 50% reduction in acts of non-physical aggressive behaviour, with an increase in staff morale and well-being, as a result. The solution also helped to address the issue of spiralling NHS costs, with the benefits of the solution outweighing the cost of implementation at a ratio of 3:1, generating £3 for every £1 spent (ibid). In terms of design for behaviour change, there are links within this design solution to methodologies and theories discussed in the earlier chapter. For example, the design studio formed links with psychologists, organisational behaviourists as well as various NHS Trusts to ensure that the overall solution was relevant, easy to implement and effective (ibid). This multi-disciplinary approach has been referenced as a method to create more suitable and sustainable design solutions. Victor Papanek suggested that design needed to become a “cross-disciplinary tool” (1994: x), Jan Van Toorn proposed designers should apply multidimensional thinking to their design process (cited in Armstrong, 2009). PearsonLloyd have been shown to put this way of thinking into action, as they consulted both psychology and healthcare sectors, in order to find the most appropriate solution. Applying Donald Norman’s three aspects of design to this case study, links can be made to the designed outcome. For example, viscerally, the

Fig 18. A&E Leaflet PearsonLloyd 2013

Fig 19. Ceiling Information Panels PearsonLloyd 2013

designs follow a very simple design style. The information is clear to read and presented in small amounts, the colour palette is minimal, including calming blue hues. From a behavioural point of view, this all combines to make the designs very useable and would limit the amount of patients being put off from reading them. With 88% of patients agreeing that the signage and leaflets helped to clarify the A&E process, from a behavioural perspective this has been successful. Providing patients and visitors with a systematic process of their journey may have also helped alter behaviour on a reflective level. If, as Norman states, we are concerned with selfimage, then actively going against obvious instructions, which are placed in obvious locations, may alter behaviour to make people more compliant with the information, rather than become aggressive in order to progress their journey through A&E. In relation to Tromp et alâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s framework (2011), the patients may not have registered that their behaviours were being targeted even though there was a positive change, therefore the design could be said to have a decisive effect. In contrast, the A&E staff were given specific training to make them aware of their working processes and the benefits this could have on their working environment. This provided a coercive design style in that the benefits of behaviour change were made obvious and allowed staff to make a choice whether they wanted to help reduce aggression or to continue negative working practices.

Fig 20. Positive Results PearsonLloyd 2013

CASE STUDY 2: SHELL SMARTER CAB DRIVERS In collaboration with the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), oil company Shell launched a challenge for UK taxi drivers to become more fuel-efficient and save money by changing small things about the way they drive. The challenge ran for four weeks in 2011 and drivers were given simple driving tips, as well as “specially designed ‘nudges’” (Fleetnews, 2011), to see whether drivers could change their behaviours to reduce fuel usage and costs (see fig. 21). Twenty taxi drivers from ten different regions, who monitored their fuel efficiency as they worked, undertook the challenge. The aim of Smarter Cab Drivers was to see whether Shell’s driving tips, combined with the RSA’s ‘steer theory’3, designed to “reinforce long-term behavioural changes”, resulted in greater savings (ibid). All of the drivers received the following: >> >> >> >>

An incentive to participate and win in a national competition Continual comparative online feedback Specialist advice on fuel-efficient driving in real-time contexts Informed reinforcement of driving and car maintenance advice

However, ten of the drivers received additional ‘nudges’ throughout the study, in order to encourage them and help remember their training: >> A silk money bag to prime the idea of smooth driving >> Dashboard stickers to make feedback immediately relevant >> A passenger journal designed to stimulate discussion on fuel efficiency >> A spring device giving audio feedback on harsh braking and acceleration

These nudges modified the taxi ‘habitat’, and were co-designed with the drivers to help apply the advice they had been given (Thersa.org, 2011). The results were very positive; the drivers cut their fuel consumption by an average of 20% a month, which meant that they could potentially save up to £1,552 per year. The average driver could also save up to £500 per year, and collectively the country could potentially save in excess of £18.5billion. Not only does this benefit drivers’ pockets, it also have a benefit to the environment, with less fuel consumed and less CO2 produced as a result (Shell.co.uk, 2011). While the additional incentives, such as the silk purse, were thought to have made a difference by some, there was not enough evidence to suggest they made a real change to behaviour (Rowson and Young, 2011). Perhaps one of the most important findings from this study was that targeting habits is a big part of whether behaviour changes or not. Providing information is not enough to change behaviour, it also needs to be supported by advice about how to make it a habit (ibid). There was also the notion that if a change in behaviour resulted in a monetary reward (i.e. saving money on fuel), this had a motivating effect (ibid). Corresponding with earlier research discussed, it was found in this study that the more the drivers could reflect on the advice they had been given, then the more they were likely to continue to put it into action. This relates to Rowson’s (2011) assertion that becoming mentally present and aware can help to keep focused. In addition, the monetary reward for following the advice given supports positive reinforcement theory. As the drivers kept track of their results via the online leader board, they could see they were saving more money, which would have a positive benefit in their life. This may have helped them to repeat the better driving skills in order to be rewarded and begin to form better driving habits. Applying Lockton (2013) and Shea’s (2013) definitions of behaviour, this study targeted ‘motivating behaviour’, meaning they drivers were educated on better driving and had the incentive of monetary savings if they were successful.

Steer theory suggests that by helping people to learn about their decision-making and habit forming processes, can enable and encourage positive behaviour change. It allows people to be mindful of the choices they make, rather than simply being pushed in a particular direction (The RSA.org, 2010).

Fig 21. Guinea Pig Cabbies Shell UK 2011

Fig 22. Passenger Journal Smartercabdrivers.com 2011

Within two months almost fifty percent less litter was dropped on the Street

Fig 23. Rayleigh Litter Bins Rochford Council 2014

CASE STUDY 3: RAYLEIGH LITTER BINS Rochford District Council took part in a pilot litter scheme, targeting street litter through the innovative use of bin wraps. According to UK charity, Keep Britain Tidy (2013), street cleaning costs the British taxpayer almost £1billion pounds per year. Litter can have a negative impact on communities and the environment, and is said to be “one of the first signs of social decay” (ibid: 3). With 62% of people in England dropping litter (ibid) equating to around 30,000,000 tonnes each year (ibid), it is a problem which could be helped by behaviour change methods. The pilot scheme in Rayleigh was undertaken by the local council, along with support from Keep Britain Tidy, and funded by Wrigley (Rochford District Council, 2014). It hoped to change people’s behaviours by encouraging them to use the litterbins, rather than drop their litter on the floor. A positive outcome was associated with the putting litter in the bin, rather than a fine being imposed that has a negative effect on the public (see fig. 23). A fine may deter some, but as littering is so hard observe, it does not put everyone off. Giving the litter a value helped encourage people to do the right thing as it is giving worth to the action (Don’t Mess With Me, 2014). Before the experiment began, litter was weighed from both the street collection and what was put into the bins to provide a comparison. The bins were then wrapped with special ‘charity box’ graphics for a twomonth period, and the measurements were taken again. After the first month it was found that litter dropped on the street had decreased by 22%, with over £300 being donated to charity. After the second month this figure had increased to almost 50% less litter being dropped on the street, resulting in over £500 going to charity (ibid).Each month, a different charity was selected to receive up to £500, with the final total being decided by the residents and visitors to the town (see fig. 24). The more litter that ended up in the bins, and the less that ended up on the ground, determined the monetary donation (Rochford District Council, 2014). This initiative uses the silhouette of a charity box to denote the concept of charitable giving, as the public are very familiar with this shape. This

Fig 24. Charity Cheques Echo News 2015

in turn implies the idea of a charitable act, making a donation to benefit others, so by putting litter into the bin it will feel like a donation is being made. The colour green has also been used as this is often linked with recycling and looking after the environment, but it also connotes money (green notes). All of this put together helps to signify that this initiative has a monetary value and is good for the environment. Helping the local community by way of supporting local charities would have provided further incentive to put litter in the bins (ibid). Donald Norman’s ideas about the three aspects of design (2004) can be seen to be at work within this case study. Dropping litter isn’t something people are proud to do, so providing an incentive such as charity donations has worked in changing behaviours. It reflects well on the person and makes them look good. It is providing a simple incentive to encourage people to use a bin – it isn’t making it difficult and it isn’t something that people aren’t already used to. Finally, the way the imagery has been designed has a very strong link to a charity box and can be immediately identified. The colours also connote ideas of nature and being clean and tidy, providing further encouragement to put the litter in the bin. By physically altering the environment (Shea, 2013), behaviour has been targeted and successful improvements have been made. However, this is only a small success in that particular town and perhaps when people go on to different places the message may have been forgotten. If this idea were used consistently across the country, so there was a continual message, perhaps it would help to alter behaviours sustainably. Whilst these case studies are all very different in their targets (i.e. reduction of aggression, reduction of emissions, reduction of litter dropped) they all serve as examples of the way graphic design can be utilised to create social behaviour change. Whilst the methodologies differ, the overall effect has been to enable people to think more mindfully about actions, and realise ways that new habits can be formed. All of the case studies have shown, in some way, that cross-sector coordination can be used to achieve results (Kania and Kramer, 2011). Combining graphic design, known to have inherent influential values (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), along with social sector knowledge can form a unified campaign or method to target social behaviour change.

CONCLUSION

There needs to be collaboration with other disciplines in order for graphic design to have widespread success.

he idea of utilising graphic design as a method for enabling social behaviour change has been discussed. Although graphic design with an innate target of changing behaviours to benefit society is a relatively recent endeavour, it can be said to be on the rise as an effective method, with many younger designers beginning to recognise the importance of designing for social engagement. Mounting societal issues, linked to human behaviour, are beginning to be successfully targeted via graphic design. However, whilst graphic design may have good intentions for social change on its own, it has been found that there needs to be collaboration with other disciplines in order for it to have widespread success. This is something that has been mentioned as a possible method for the future of designing for social change. Victor Papanek wrote of a need for design to become innovative and multi-disciplinary, Jan Van Toorn called for more radical design solutions, Ken Garland suggested designers look for more enduring forms of communication and the Design Council seeks solutions through a mixture of behavioural science and design. This idea of a multi-disciplinary approach, suggested by many influential corners of the design world, is only recently being taken up by design organisations and studios. Links between organisations such as the Design Council and the European Union are helping to facilitate social behaviour change at a legislative level, however further co-ordination across government departments and councils could be addressed, in order to disseminate the messages and ensure behaviour change is targeted consistently at a local level. This has been seen to be happening in some of the case studies introduced, with various organisations coming together to help solve issues, however unless the chosen design is applied nationwide, lasting behaviour change may not be achievable. The case studies discussed have only been able to focus on a small area, and benefits cannot be seen outside of their locality. Furthermore, the concept of design that enables people to become more mindful and reflective of their own actions has been introduced. Helping people to consider their actions has been suggested as an aid to changing behaviours, helping to form longlasting habits. Further consideration is needed within the area of mindful graphic design, as an additional approach to be applied when designing for social behaviour change, in order to see if this method could create even more effective design solutions. Finally, although design for social behaviour change is on the rise, and is understood to be having successes, more research and development of the methods will need to be undertaken in order to ensure social behaviour change is targeted in an ethical manner. Designers should take caution when applying these design methods as, without proper training, there may be undesirable outcomes and the potential implications of this will need to be considered.

Fig 25. Graffiti and Bins Leeroy 2015

References BLOGS

JOURNALS

Barker, A. (2015). The Big Idea: The Rubbish Diet. [Blog] RSA Blog. Available at: https://www. thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/ rsa-blogs/2015/01/the-big-idea-the-rubbish-diet/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [online] Available at: http://www.ssireview. org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_ innovation [Accessed 12 Feb. 2015].

BOOKS

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), pp.3-23.

Armstrong, H. (2009). Graphic design theory. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Berger, W. (2009). Glimmer. London: Random House. Berman, D. (2009). Do good design. Berkeley, California: New Riders. Bielenberg, J. (2011). Foreword. In: C. Simmons, ed., Just Design: Socially Conscious Design for Critical Causes, 1st ed. Ohio: How Books. Dempsey, A. (2010). Styles, Schools and Movements. London: Thames & Hudson. Heller, S. and Vienne, V. (2003). Citizen designer. New York: Allworth Press. Martin, G. and Pear, J. (2010). Behaviour Modification. Boston, MA: Pearson. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books. Papanek, V. (1985). Human ecology and social change. London: Thames and Hudson. Roberts, L. (2006). Good. Lausanne: AVA Academia. Scalin, N. and Taute, M. (2012). The Design Activist's Handbook. Ohio: HOW Books. Spiekerman, E. (2009). Foreword. In: Berman, D. Do good design. Berkeley, California: New Riders. Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for society. London: Reaktion Books.

Clune, S. (2010). Design and Behavioural Change. The Journal of Design Strategies, 4(1), pp.67-75. Kania, J. and Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter), pp.3641. Margolin, V. and Margolin, S. (2002). A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research. Design Issues, 18(4), pp.24-30. Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P. (2011). Design for Socially Responsible Behaviour: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience. Design Issues, 27(3), pp.3-19.

ONLINE REPORTS Bauld, L. (2011). The impact of smokefree legislation in england: evidence review. [online] Bath: University of Bath. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/216319/dh_124959.pdf [Accessed 6 Mar. 2015]. Behaviourchange.eu, (2015). Creating Sustainable Innovation through Design for Behaviour Change. [online] Available at: http://www.behaviourchange.eu/ [Accessed 16 Feb. 2015]. BEPA, (2010). Empowering People, Driving Change. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, pp.9-10. [online] Available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_ innovation.pdf [Accessed 2 Nov 2014]

Design Council & Warwick Business School, (2013). Changing behaviour by design. [online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/ files/asset/document/Changing%20behaviour%20 by%20design.pdf [Accessed 12 Jan. 2015]. Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. [online] European Commission. Available at: http://www. net4society.eu/_media/Social_innovation_europe. pdf [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015].

TV PROGRAMMES Don't Mess With Me, (2014). [TV programme] BBC1: BBC.

VIDEOS Shea, A. (2013). Designing for Social Change. [video] Available at: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/ Andrew-Shea-at-TEDxTransmedia-2 [Accessed 27 Oct. 2014].

Keep Britain Tidy, (2013). When it Comes to Litte: Which Side of the Fence Are You on?. [online] Available at: http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/Documents/ Files/Campaigns/WSOTFAYO-report-web.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].

WEBSITES

Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Atanton, N. (2009). Design for Sustainable Behaviour: investigating design methods for influencing user behaviour. [online] Brunel University. Available at: http://eprints. soton.ac.uk/367442/1/__soton.ac.uk_ude_ personalfiles_users_jr1d11_mydesktop_ePrints_ Design%20for%20Sustainable%20Behaviour.pdf [accessed6 Jan. 2015]

Connor, S. (2015). The tides are changing: Sea levels rising at faster rate than predicted, study finds. The Independent. [online] Available at: http://www. independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ the-tides-are-changing-sea-levels-rising-at-fasterrate-than-predicted-study-finds-9978390.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

Rowson, J. (2011). Transforming Behaviour Change: Beyond Nudge and Neuromania. [online] The RSA. Available at: http://www.thersa.org/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0006/553542/RSA-TransformingBehaviour-Change.pdf [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014]. Rowson, J. and Young, J. (2011). Cabbies, Costs and Climate Change: An engaged approach to fuel efficient behaviour. [online] Available at: https://www.thersa. org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/cabbies-costs-andclimate-change.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015]. Thersa.org, (2010). Steer: the report - RSA. [online] Available at: https://www.thersa.org/discover/ publications-and-articles/reports/steer-the-report/ [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015]. Thersa.org, (2011). Smarter Cab Drivers - RSA. [online] Available at: http://www.thersa.org/ action-research-centre/learning,-cognition-andcreativity/social-brain/reports/smarter-cab-drivers [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].

A Better A&E, (n.d.). Home. [online] Available at: http://www.abetteraande.com/#context [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015].

Design Council, (2015). Celebrating 70 years. [online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ about-us/celebrating-70-years [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015]. Eyemagazine.com, (1999). Eye Magazine | Feature | First Things First Manifesto 2000. [online] Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/firstthings-first-manifesto-2000 [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015]. Fabricant, R. (2009). Design With Intent. [online] Design Observer. Available at: http:// designobserver.com/article.php?id=14338 [Accessed 15 Feb. 2015]. Fleetnews.co.uk, (2011). Shell Launches Driving Efficiency Challenge – Fleet News. [online] Available at: http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2011/7/11/ shell-launches-driving-efficiency-challenge/40079/ [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015].

Gardiner, E. (2014). Are behavioural science and design the building blocks of innovation?. [online] Design Council. Available at: http://www.designcouncil. org.uk/news-opinion/are-behavioural-science-anddesign-building-blocks-innovation [Accessed 12 Jan. 2015]. Lockton, D. (2010). Design with Intent toolkit. [online] Architectures.danlockton.co.uk. Available at: http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2010/04/10/design-with-intent-toolkit-1-0now-online/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015]. Lockton, D. (2013). Design with Intent Toolkit. [online] Danlockton.com. Available at: http://www. danlockton.com/dwi/Main_Page [Accessed 6 Jan. 2015]. Peters, C. (2014). First Things First 2014. [online] Firstthingsfirst2014.org. Available at: http:// firstthingsfirst2014.org/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015]. Rochford District Council, (2014). Rayleigh bin charities clean up!. [online] Available at: http:// www.rochford.gov.uk/press-release/rayleigh-bincharities-clean [Accessed 22 Nov. 2014]. Rock, M. (1992). 2 × 4: Essay: Who's responsible?. [online] 2x4.org. Available at: http://2x4.org/ ideas/9/who-s-responsible/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. Shell.co.uk, (2011). British cabbies show motorists could save £500 annually on fuel – Shell United Kingdom. [online] Available at: http://www.shell.co.uk/ gbr/aboutshell/media-centre/news-and-mediareleases/2011/smarter-cab-drivers.html [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015]. The Telegraph, (2014). Britain's obesity epidemic worse than feared. [online] Available at: http://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/10566705/Britains-obesityepidemic-worse-than-feared.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

Illustrations Cover and Content Page: Chung, D. (2015). Storm Rolling In. [image] Available at: https://stocksnap.io/photo/5XXUTFRCDF [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 1: Saddleworth Independent, (2013). DUMPED: Flytipping at Brunclough. [image] Available at: http://saddind.co.uk/swot-the-fly-tippers/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 2: Hollyer, F. (1887). William Morris. [image] Available at: http://upload. wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/William_Morris_age_53.jpg [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 3: Höch, H. (1919). Cut with the Dada Kitchen Knife through the Last Weimar Beer-Belly Cultural Epoch in Germany. [image] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Dada [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 4: Debord, G. (1967). Society of the Spectacle. [image] Available at: http:// www.housmans.com/booklist_situationist.php [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 5: Tallis, J. (2013). Coastal homes devastated by storm. [image] Available at: http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/12/06/the-village-that-fell-into-thesea/#!slide=aol_1914858 [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 6: Dörsch, M. (2015). Targeting Society. [image] Available at: https:// stocksnap.io/photo/2CBA82A98B [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 7: Garland, K. (1964). First Things First Manifesto. [image] Available at: http://infinitism-mag.com.au/ken-garland/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 8: MetaDesign, (1996). Düsseldorf International Corporate Design - Piktogramme. [image] Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ideenstadt/11099305064/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2015]. Figure 9: Junk [image] Available at: https://thejackpetcheyfoundation.files. wordpress.com/2013/04/junk-food.jpg [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 10: thriftoclock.blogspot.co.uk, (2015). Loyalty Cards. [image] Available at: http://thriftoclock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-advantages-of-advantage-cardsapps.html [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 11: Getty Images, (2014). McDonalds. [image] Available at: http://www. businessinsider.com/why-ronald-mcdonald-wont-go-near-big-macs-20146?IR=T [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015].

Figure 12: Supitar, O. (2015). Thinking. [image] Available at: https://stocksnap. io/photo/BW0ZKLEWW1 [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 13: Oxfam, (n.d.). [image] Available at: http://media.oxfam.org.uk/ images/products/Unwrapped/Zoom/ou9003ml_01.jpg?v=1 [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 14: Tromp et al’s Areas of Influence. Reproduced from: Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P. (2011). Design for Socially Responsible Behaviour: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience. Design Issues, 27(3), pp.3-19. Figure 15: Lockton, D. (2015). Design with Intent Toolkit. [image] Available at: http://designwithintent.co.uk/docs/designwithintent_cards_1.0_draft_rev_ sm.pdf [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 16: Telegraph and Argus. (2015). Standardised Cigarette Packaging.[image] Available at: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11743893.MPs_ split_over_cigarette_packaging_vote/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 17: PearsonLloyd, (2013). A&E Process Map. [image] Available at: http:// pearsonlloyd.com/2013/09/healthcare/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 18: PearsonLloyd, (2013). A&E Leaflet. [image] Available at: http:// pearsonlloyd.com/2013/09/healthcare/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 19: PearsonLloyd, (2013). Bedside and Ceiling Information Panels. [image] Available at: http://pearsonlloyd.com/2013/09/healthcare/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 20: PearsonLloyd, (2013). Positive Results. [image] Available at: http:// pearsonlloyd.com/2013/09/healthcare/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 21: Shell UK, (2011). Guinea Pig Cabbies. [image] Available at: http:// www.contracthireandleasing.com/cms-images/2011-07-Smarter-Cab-DriversSteer-Group.jpg [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 22: Smartercabdrivers.com, (2011). Guest Book. [image] Available at: https://smartercabdrivers.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/intervention-3-cabguestbook.jpg [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 23: Rochford District Council, (2014). Rayleigh Litter Bins. [image] Available at: http://www.rochford.gov.uk/press-release/charities-set-benefitground-breaking-%E2%80%98cash-trash%E2%80%99-initiative-0 [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 24: Echo News, (2015). Charity Cheques. [image] Available at: http://www. echo-news.co.uk/news/11740162.Bin_campaign_is_a_winner/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015]. Figure 25: Leeroy. (2015). Graffiti and Bins. [image] Available at: https:// stocksnap.io/photo/33BF4E37C5 [Accessed 11 Mar. 2015].

BLOGS Barker, A. (2015). The Big Idea: The Rubbish Diet. [Blog] RSA Blog. Available at: https://www. thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/ rsa-blogs/2015/01/the-big-idea-the-rubbish-diet/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015]. Spencer, N. (2015).Surprising Ways to Change Behaviour. [Blog] RSA Blog. Available at: https://www. thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/ rsa-blogs/2015/02/surprising-ways-to-changebehaviour/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

BOOKS Adkins, S. (2000). Cause related marketing. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Armstrong, H. (2009). Graphic design theory. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Barnard, M. (2005). Graphic design as communication. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Berger, W. (2009). Glimmer. London: Random House. Berman, D. (2009). Do good design. Berkeley, California: New Riders. Bernays, E. and Miller, M. (2005). Propaganda. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Ig Pub. Bielenberg, J. (2011). Foreword. In: C. Simmons, ed., Just Design: Socially Conscious Design for Critical Causes, 1st ed. Ohio: How Books. Chapman, J. and Gant, N. (2007). Designers, visionaries and other stories. London: Earthscan. Dempsey, A. (2010). Styles, Schools and Movements. London: Thames & Hudson. Hall, S. (2007). This means this, this means that. London: L. King Pub. Heller, S. and Vienne, V. (2003). Citizen designer. New York: Allworth Press. Heller, S. and Vienne, V. (2012). 100 ideas that changed graphic design. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Lavin, M. (2001). Clean new world. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Margolin, V. (2005). Citizen Designer. In: Bierut, M., Drenttel, W. and Heller, S. (2006). Looking Closer. New York: Allworth. Martin, G. and Pear, J. (2010). Behaviour Modification. Boston, MA: Pearson. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books. Packard, V. (1957). The hidden persuaders. New York: D. McKay Co. Papanek, V. (1985). Design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson. Papanek, V. (1985). Human ecology and social change. London: Thames and Hudson. Roberts, L. (2006). Good. Lausanne: AVA Academia. Scalin, N. and Taute, M. (2012). The Design Activist's Handbook. Ohio: HOW Books. Simmons, C. (2011). Just design. Cincinnati, Ohio: How Books.

Spiekerman, E. (2009). Foreword. In: Berman, D. Do good design. Berkeley, California: New Riders. Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of looking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weinschenk, S. (2011). 100 things every designer needs to know about people. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for society. London: Reaktion Books.

JOURNALS Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [online] Available at: http://www.ssireview. org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_ innovation [Accessed 12 Feb. 2015]. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), pp.3-23. Clune, S. (2010). Design and Behavioural Change. The Journal of Design Strategies, 4(1), pp.67-75. Kania, J. and Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter), pp.3641. Lees-Maffei, G. (2012). Reflections on Design Activism and Social Change : Design History Society Annual Conference, September 7–10, 2011, Barcelona. Design Issues, 28(2), pp.90-92. Margolin, V. and Margolin, S. (2002). A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research. Design Issues, 18(4), pp.24-30.

Hubert, A. (2010). Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. [online] European Commission. Available at: http://www. net4society.eu/_media/Social_innovation_europe. pdf [Accessed 10 Feb. 2015]. Keep Britain Tidy, (2013). When it Comes to Litte: Which Side of the Fence Are You on?. [online] Available at: http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/Documents/ Files/Campaigns/WSOTFAYO-report-web.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015]. Lockton, D., Harrison, D. and Atanton, N. (2009). Design for Sustainable Behaviour: investigating design methods for influencing user behaviour. [online] Brunel University. Available at: http://eprints. soton.ac.uk/367442/1/__soton.ac.uk_ude_ personalfiles_users_jr1d11_mydesktop_ePrints_ Design%20for%20Sustainable%20Behaviour.pdf [accessed6 Jan. 2015] Rowson, J. (2011). Transforming Behaviour Change: Beyond Nudge and Neuromania. [online] The RSA. Available at: http://www.thersa.org/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0006/553542/RSA-TransformingBehaviour-Change.pdf [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014]. Rowson, J. and Young, J. (2011). Cabbies, Costs and Climate Change: An engaged approach to fuel efficient behaviour. [online] Available at: https://www.thersa. org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/cabbies-costs-andclimate-change.pdf [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015]. Thersa.org, (2010). Steer: the report - RSA. [online] Available at: https://www.thersa.org/discover/ publications-and-articles/reports/steer-the-report/ [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].

Markussen, T. (2013). The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design Between Art and Politics. Design Issues, 29(1), pp.38-50.

Thersa.org, (2011). Smarter Cab Drivers - RSA. [online] Available at: http://www.thersa.org/ action-research-centre/learning,-cognition-andcreativity/social-brain/reports/smarter-cab-drivers [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].

Mau, B. (2013). Massive Change: Now Everyone Can Design Solutions. New Perspectives Quarterly, 30(4), pp.118-121.

TV PROGRAMMES

Tromp, N., Hekkert, P. and Verbeek, P. (2011). Design for Socially Responsible Behaviour: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience. Design Issues, 27(3), pp.3-19. van Toorn, J. (2010). A Passion for the Real. Design Issues, 26(4), pp.45-56.

Don't Mess With Me, (2014). [TV programme] BBC1: BBC.

VIDEOS Margolin, V. (2012). Democracy and Design in a Troubled World. [video] CMU School of Design. Available at: http://www.design.cmu.edu/designthefuture/ victor-margolin [Accessed 14 Jan. 2015]. Shea, A. (2013). Designing for Social Change. [video] Available at: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/ Andrew-Shea-at-TEDxTransmedia-2 [Accessed 27 Oct. 2014].

WEBSITES A Better A&E, (n.d.). Home. [online] Available at: http://www.abetteraande.com/#context [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015]. Artyfactory.com, (2014). William Morris - The Arts and Crafts Movement. [online] Available at: http:// www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/graphic_ designers/william_morris.html [Accessed 6 Jan.. 2015]. Connor, S. (2015). The tides are changing: Sea levels rising at faster rate than predicted, study finds. The Independent. [online] Available at: http://www. independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ the-tides-are-changing-sea-levels-rising-at-fasterrate-than-predicted-study-finds-9978390.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

Danlockton.com, (2013). Design with Intent Toolkit. [online] Available at: http://www.danlockton.com/ dwi/Main_Page [Accessed 2 Nov. 2014]. Design Council, (2015). Celebrating 70 years. [online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ about-us/celebrating-70-years [Accessed 21 Feb. 2015]. Eyemagazine.com, (1999). Eye Magazine | Feature | First Things First Manifesto 2000. [online] Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/ first-things-first-manifesto-2000 [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015]. Fabricant, R. (2009). Design With Intent. [online] Design Observer. Available at: http:// designobserver.com/article.php?id=14338 [Accessed 15 Feb. 2015]. Fleetnews.co.uk, (2011). Shell Launches Driving Efficiency Challenge – Fleet News. [online] Available at: http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2011/7/11/ shell-launches-driving-efficiency-challenge/40079/ [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015]. Gardiner, E. (2014). Are behavioural science and design the building blocks of innovation?. [online] Design Council. Available at: http://www.designcouncil. org.uk/news-opinion/are-behavioural-science-anddesign-building-blocks-innovation [Accessed 12 Jan. 2015]. Lockton, D. (2010). Design with Intent toolkit. [online] Architectures.danlockton.co.uk. Available at: http://architectures.danlockton. co.uk/2010/04/10/design-with-intent-toolkit-1-0now-online/ [Accessed 5 Jan. 2015]. Lockton, D. (2013). Design with Intent Toolkit. [online] Danlockton.com. Available at: http://www. danlockton.com/dwi/Main_Page [Accessed 6 Jan. 2015]. Peters, C. (2014). First Things First 2014. [online] Firstthingsfirst2014.org. Available at: http:// firstthingsfirst2014.org/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015]. Richardson Taylor, A. (2013). The Psychology of Design Explained. Digital Arts Online. [online] Available at: http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/ features/graphic-design/psychology-of-designexplained/ [Accessed 17 Oct. 2014]. Rochford District Council, (2014). Rayleigh bin charities clean up!. [online] Available at: http:// www.rochford.gov.uk/press-release/rayleigh-bincharities-clean [Accessed 22 Nov. 2014]. Rock, M. (1992). 2 × 4: Essay: Who's responsible?. [online] 2x4.org. Available at: http://2x4.org/ ideas/9/who-s-responsible/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2015]. Shell.co.uk, (2011). British cabbies show motorists could save £500 annually on fuel – Shell United Kingdom. [online] Available at: http://www.shell.co.uk/ gbr/aboutshell/media-centre/news-and-mediareleases/2011/smarter-cab-drivers.html [Accessed 2 Feb. 2015]. The Telegraph, (2014). Britain's obesity epidemic worse than feared. [online] Available at: http://www. telegraph.co.uk/news/10566705/Britains-obesityepidemic-worse-than-feared.html [Accessed 20 Feb. 2015].

Bibliography

“…[the] mood for reassessment is particularly strong amongst a new generation of designers who are more able (or willing) to grasp the connection between professional activities and the problems facing society ”

- Nigel Whiteley, 1993

Tabloid size 289x380mm Newsprint 55GSM

Type set in: Baskerville Din Orator