The same thing goes for designing technologies. The way we design digital platforms and interfaces influences how a technology is supposed to be used and how we feel about interacting with and through technologies. As such, it is sometimes a good idea to think of digital design as a particular type of communication. Through the designer’s choice of shapes, colours, labels and functionality, the designers and developers go beyond providing a new or improved digital service, they also communicate intentions and ambitions for the technology—and for the users.

During my years in research, when talking about digital behaviour design with students or colleagues, I would occasionally experience a hint of confusion or even disappointment at the end of a talk or lecture. The expectation had been that I would share something new and exciting with them in terms of design principles or techniques. But ever so often, especially in my engagements with professional practitioners, they would realise that they were already working with some level of behaviour design but without having this as a core focus of their processes.

My response to their frustration is usually that this realisation is a good thing. In a time where digital application and influence is rapidly changing, it can be comforting to know that neither designers nor users need to approach this development as a new and potentially hard challenge. In fact, recognising that behaviour design is, in some ways, a digital extension of traditional strategic communication gives us the benefit of well-established theories, methods, and experience to draw upon. After all, digital behaviour design may be a new practice, but the art of winning over one’s audience by using communicative skills and compelling arguments can be traced back through history.

Novel as it may be, digital behaviour design is already broadly applied in different domains. While commercial, educational, and experience-oriented contexts already apply behaviour design principles, this chapter will aim to address distinctions at a more general level. Recognising that classical rhetorical concepts such as Kairos remain as relevant to the future as they have been in the past, is one of the main recommendations of this chapter. Neither in design, nor ethics do we necessarily need to start over to keep up with the rapid development of the digital realm. Rather, we should hold on to our insights from the past and strive to incorporate these in the processes and designs of the future.

In the following, behaviour design is discussed in relation to nudging and Persuasive Technology, as both approaches are broadly applied and context independent. The two approaches build on similar philosophical and theoretical foundations but differ in methods and ethical fundamentals. Perhaps the most significant difference, however, is that where nudging is generally understood to influence the user’s automatic cognitive system, Persuasion aims for continuous change and as such, targets the user’s ability to reflect on a subject. The subtle differences in the way end-users process information or respond to digital influence are important to consider, if new solutions are to be efficient. At a time where most interactive technologies are designed to influence users, understanding the possibilities and limitations of different approaches is essential to designers who wish to provide affective technologies with respect for the intended use contexts and overall intention of the technology itself.

The use of technologies in personal and professional contexts has advanced significantly over the past two decades, and there is no reason to expect this to stagnate any time within the near future. When reflecting upon what the future might bring for behaviour design, there is reason to assume that while our use of behaviour design technologies will continue to grow, so will the users’ critical reflection concerning the technologies, their impact, and the consequences of the ongoing transformation of our societies. In the early 2000s, we were easily amazed by new technologies such as smartphones and tablets. However, with experience also comes an ability to critically reflect, and my prediction is that users in the future will become continuously more conscious about what technologies to use, when to use them and what to use them for.

Nuances of behaviour design

When research and practice in persuasive technologies emerged in the early 2000s, the idea that technologies were more than simple tools was new and ground-breaking. Since then, with the progression of social media, smart applications, and complex organisational systems, the understanding that technologies are far beyond simple tools is more generally accepted. As users, we appreciate that technologies make life easy for us, and consequently, we accept that the technologies (and as such the designers) make decisions for us that we would previously have paid more attention to. For instance, we embrace the help we can receive about spelling and grammar, and in return, blindly accept that our way of communicating potentially becomes more systematised and less creative.

Fogg’s original research on the potential of persuasive technologies comprised novelty and foresight in several ways. Not only did it draw attention towards design features and principles, which when applied in a structured and considered manner, had the potential to influence users, but more importantly, it very early on identified a new tendency in the design of digital resources and in the application of interactive systems. Although Fogg’s research in Persuasive Technology is acknowledged as a novel perspective on the potential of interactive technologies, his work was soon followed by Thaler and Sunstein’s introduction of another approach to behaviour change designs, nudging.¹

In classical rhetoric, Kairos refers to the opportune moment for a persuasive initiative to take place to ensure its success. It is most often referred to as timing, however the concept combines the appropriate time with considerations regarding the appropriate place and manner of the action. The three dimensions are inseparable and must all be considered and balanced in accordance with the persuasive intention.

Furthermore, Kairos is multidimensional and should be considered both as a wider and more contextual perspective, as well as a narrower and more specific perspective. Whereas the latter provides insights regarding specific moments in time in which, for example, a mobile app may successfully intervene, the wider understanding of Kairos calls us to reflect more thoroughly on the intended use context and on appropriateness within this context.

The focus on appropriateness underlines the importance of ethical reflections, as that which is appropriate in one situation may not be in another. When considering the dimensions of Kairos, it is understandable that persuasive initiatives that are efficient in one context may not be so in another. For persuasive technologies to have an impact on users, they must be designed in consideration of the intended use context and in a way that would be considered appropriate in the eyes of the intended user.

While designers may be able to determine the right time and place for a persuasive initiative to take place, the appropriate manner is based on the user’s understanding of the context. To fully incorporate all three dimensions of Kairos in a design process, a significant level of user involvement may be necessary. Users may not be technology experts, but they are indeed domain experts.

In comparison, nudging does not disregard ethics, however, it does not share the call for transparency to avoid coercion or manipulation. As the approach targets the previously mentioned automatic system, there is no expectation of the user making reflective decisions. Instead, ethics is very often brought into consideration simply by ensuring that users are not forced into only one possible action. While the desired behaviour may be the most obvious choice, there will always be a way around or a chance to opt out.

Considering the nature of the mind

While the introduction of persuasive technologies focused on transforming physical experience and solutions into digital counterparts, recent studies strongly indicate that the future of persuasive technologies calls for more than digitalisation of the physical realm. As we learn more about the influence of digital resources, it becomes evident that efficient persuasive technologies of the future may require reconsideration of fundamental persuasive principles.

Adding not only to the ethical discussions regarding behaviour design but also to the distinctions between persuasion and nudging, designers and developers of the future may also need to consider biological and neuroscientific perspectives. Recent and ongoing studies indicate that rapid digital development is showing consequences for the human brain, for instance, concerning production of dopamine molecules. Dopamine is generally described as a neurotransmitter, a hormone that influences our desires, motivation, and attention, which is released in response to different inputs and influences our emotions. The human mind strives for pleasure and dopamine is released on the expectation of rewards.²

While unfortunate implications of dopamine influence include addiction, the release of dopamine also influences more general senses of joy, such as receiving a compliment, being acknowledged at work, or winning a game. Unfortunately, one of the observations made when exploring digital influence from a biological perspective indicates that the dopamine release diminishes if the joyful interaction takes place online, compared to real life interactions. Praise given face-to-face by far exceeds the pleasure of receiving a friendly text message.

A second important observation relates to the previously mentioned automatic and reflective systems and more distinctly towards the balance between them. It is argued that the automatic system is by far the most dominant—potentially being applied for as much as 90% of the time, leaving as little as 10% for reflective thoughts. The automatic system is not a challenge in itself—it is rather beneficial that we do not need to think much about breathing. However, what is a challenge is the potential of digital resources enabling the automatic system to take up even more of our time, such as the case appears to be with the mobile phone.

In 2007 in The Future of Persuasion is Mobile,³ Fogg argued that the mobile phone had the potential to be the most important platform for behaviour design, not only due to the technological potential but also due to our emotional connection to our mobile phones. We bring our phones everywhere, personalise them and share our most precious content with them and in return, they comprise the one technology that enables us to do almost anything, including finding our way, shopping and finding information for both work and entertainment.

When Fogg initially addressed mobile persuasion, the world was only witnessing the early days of smartphones. A decade and a half later, the smartphone has become a natural companion for both children and adults in most parts of the world. Moreover, personalisation has shifted from being a manner of expressing oneself to the world through covers and select ringtones to something far more personal and private where the mobile phone contains all things near and dear to us, such as pictures of our loved ones. The challenge in this development is that most actions taken via the mobile phone are done automatically, rather than reflectively. Playing games and swiping social media is with the mind on autopilot.

When considering the future of behaviour design, and in particular future technologies with as great an impact as identified in the mobile phone, it becomes clear that users should become more aware of the way they are being influenced. Particularly to ensure that they can identify digital influence and actively decided whether it is desired or not. Technologies are not inherently evil, but it is simply necessary to make sure that users are well-informed so that they remain in power of the technology and in control of when to apply it and when to switch it off or simply go offline.

Predicting the future of behaviour design

If behaviour design solutions of the future are to be both affective and effective, it is relevant for designers and users alike to be attentive towards the nuances that separate behaviour design approaches, and to offer new insights around neuropsychology.

Previous research within the Persuasive Technology community has included studies on areas such as praise and rewards. Providing the user with positive feedback and rewards for completing or engaging in specific tasks is a recognised way of sparking motivation both in games and in behaviour design systems in general. As mentioned, the release of dopamine hormones motivates humans to enjoy acknowledgement and strive for pleasure. When recognising that dopamine levels differ between physical and digital interaction, future research may need to explore new ways of providing praise and rewards through digital media.

One potential development may be to consider computer-mediated communication as an entirely different way of communicating compared to that of the physical realm. The need to consider computation a fourth language in line with spoken, written and mathematical languages is already suggested within Computational Thinking⁴ and as a result, researchers are suggesting a stronger need for computational empowerment amongst children and young adults. Where previous divides have been identified between users of technology and non-users, this perspective is no longer relevant. Rather, the divide is seen between those who are mere users and those who can apply technologies critically and constructively.

Also on a wider scale, the implications of fast and slow thinking or automatic and reflective systems is important to consider when choosing the right approach for influencing a given behaviour. As mentioned, previous research has suggested that while nudging targets the automatic system, persuasion aims at influencing the user through the reflective system. With transparency and ethics continuously mentioned as fundamental features of persuasion, persuasive systems must aim to ensure these very features to avoid manipulation, coercion, or deception. However, in a potentially digitally polluted future, it is not sufficient that the designer provides information regarding the system and the intended outcomes; reflective user engagement is a necessity for transparency to be implemented in practice.

By bridging the gap between classic rhetorical concepts such as Kairos, and new insight from digital design and neuropsychology, this chapter has sought to highlight some of the subtle yet significant nuances that distinguish current approaches to behaviour design, as well as point towards some of the challenges we may face in the future.

I have highlighted some of the subtle differences between Persuasive Technology and nudging and based on this, pointed towards some of the challenges designers face in the current state of digital behaviour design. Rather than providing answers and solutions, the aim of this chapter is to contribute to the ongoing discussion of the possibilities and limitations of behaviour design. With communication and interaction constantly developing and transforming, I try not to commit hybris by claiming more than that.

That being said, the main points to take away should include the following:

1. The devil is in the detail. Like most other approaches to behaviour design, persuasive design and nudging represent individual approaches to behaviour design, with multiple overlaps but also with clear and important distinctions. The future will undoubtedly bring even more personalised and influential technologies, but good solutions will continue to require a user-centred design approach.

2. Users are different and contexts change—there is no such thing as a “one fits all” solution. Direct transition cannot be made from the physical to the digital context, and within the digital realm, solutions from one domain cannot be transferred directly to another.

3. Ethical considerations remain a defining concept of persuasive design, comprising not only a strength to this behaviour change approach but also some limitations. While design solutions may be transferrable, they may not be ethical in a new context, and consequently, ethical reflections must remain at the core of persuasive design theory as well as in practice.

As mentioned, the world has witnessed a transition over the past decade in how technologies are designed that makes it harder to identify and distinguish different approaches to behaviour design. Whereas Fogg identified these new tendencies very early, developments in digital media have led to the dawn of many other approaches to design, which all hold the potential to intentionally influence users. In an age where UX designers ensure easy navigation for even very young users and where interactive technologies are continuously being applied in new domains, it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the digital realm.

This challenge is relevant not only to the designers who strive to create efficient and engaging systems , but also the end users who potentially lose autonomy because of digital pollution and lack of transparency. Persuasive technologies have often been related to classic and digital rhetoric. At its core, rhetoric is the art of winning over one’s audience through beautiful and affective argumentation. However, even the most affective arguments fail if they drown in a digitally polluted world. When also considering new neuropsychological insights, behaviour designers appear to be facing new challenges when it comes to catching the user’s attention at a reflective level. This challenge becomes even more essential when bearing in mind that users do not appear to have the same hormonal reactions to digital influence as they do to physical interaction. To meet these new challenges, designers must become equipped to navigate in a growing toolbox of behaviour design methods and frameworks. Entangled as the different approaches may appear, they do also have distinctions, which may help indicate situations where they are particularly relevant to apply or particularly likely to fail. Picking the right method for the job should be a first step for designers who wish to make themselves heard above the digital pollution.