sustain

A set of semi-viral videos about using “fun to change people’s behavior” have hit the web by a group called Rolighetsteorin.se. So far, the group has posted two videos: the first is on redesigning a garbage can to play back a sound file when depositing garbage and the second is on redesigning a subway staircase to promote walking vs. escalator use by turning the stairs into a giant piano ala Big. Both are examples of Persuasive Technology: technology that changes the way people think and act. It is an area I have been studying in graduate school at the University of Washington for the past few years.

The World’s Deepest Bin

This video starts off with the question “Can we get more people to throw their rubbish in the bin by making it fun to do?” The video then skips through a variety of small vignettes showing people throwing away trash at the bin and being amused by the result. The video discloses that on one day 72kg of rubbish was collected in the redesigned bin, 41kg more than a traditional bin just a small distance away. The video ends with: “Fun can obviously change behavior for the better.”

The academic in me asks, “can it really?” I don’t think anyone would debate that fun can change behavior–indeed, “fun” tends to inspire many activities in our lives. However, to truly evaluate the redesigned bin’s effectiveness, one would need to collect data for weeks if not months and, ideally, in more than one setting and in more than one redesigned bin. Although a 31kg difference in rubbish weight between the traditional bin and modified bin certainly points to a positive effect, we can’t be sure if this is just standard garbage variance (i.e., this was just a busy garbage day at that side of the park) or whether the redesigned bin area always gets more garbage (i.e., that particular bin always gets more garbage whether it has sound feedback or not).

Secondly, a problem that plagues much of Persuasive Technology is whether or not the technological intervention induces long-term change (the so called novelty effect). That is, once the person is habituated to the persuasive tech, it no longer impacts their behavior. In this case, given that the bin is in a public space where usage is predominantly by random passerbys, this may not be so relevant.

Finally, there is actually a slight paradox in their design–they are trying to decrease littering by increasing the usage of a trash bin; however, the only way to interact with the system is to deposit trash in the bin. That is, it is only reinforcing people’s proper trash behaviors not necessarily changing the behavior of litterers (although an argument could be made that a litterer could observe or overhear the bin and decide, then, not to litter).

For those that are interested in persuasive technology for garbage/recycling behaviors, I point you to two other relevant sources. At UbiComp2006, Eric Paulos and Tom Jenkins from Intel Research demo’d JetSam, a trash bin that had a camera and projector installed within it to actually project the bin’s contents on the ground (left and middle in Figure below). At DIS2005, David Holstius and colleagues from Carnegie Mellon University wrote a paper on their Infotropism display, which used sensors and living plants to provide ambient feedback about recycling and waste disposal practices in a cafeteria (right in Figure below).

Of course, technology need not be used at all to increase positive garbage disposal behaviors, we can, instead, rely on good industrial design. In a study by Sean Duffy and colleagues at Rutgers, they found that a redesigned trash bin with specific holes for recycling cans, bottles, and newspapers increased recycling by 34%.

Piano Stairs

This is a really fun digital art installation. It is clearly engaging and promoted curiosity and exploration by subway riders. Given that large amounts of people tend to exit a subway at the same time, sound was a great way of attracting others to take the staircase who may have taken the escalator.

That said, a few questions come to mind. (1) This may improve stair walking in the short term, but a more interesting and useful study would be to investigate whether these changes were maintained for long periods (e.g., weeks or months) and, particularly, whether the commuters of this station were compelled to repeatedly opt for the stairs over the escalator. Of course, the non-regular users may indeed be stimulated to try the stairs over the escalator leading to more stair usage at this station than on average. (2) How could we use this design at multiple stations? There is likely a novelty effect at play here–if all subway staircases had piano stairs–would it still be effective? (3) Finally, given that the escalator appears to be moving whether or not people are on it (i.e., it does not have a motion sensor to start and stop), there is no energy savings for stair use (although there are health benefits).

Finally, I should mention that the stated intentions of Rolighetsteorin.se are “to use fun to change people’s behavior for the better”. However, Rolighetsteroin.se appears to either be sponsored by or affiliated with VW. It’s unclear what constitutes this relationship nor what effect it has on the project undertakings or the videos themselves. Rolighetsteroin.se may simply be part of a VW viral advertising campaign and not actually interested in “changing people’s behavior through fun.”