Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empathy is seen as essential for user-centered design and thus needs to be taken into consideration in design education. Personas are a design method that is meant to promote empathy with users and are also used to foster an empathic design approach in educational settings. Empathic involvement is considered to be particularly important to overcome egocentric approaches in design, i.e. to relate to users that are dissimilar to the design team. We explored the use of personas as proxies of similar or dissimilar users in a classroom design project phase in a qualitative study of eight student design workshops with personas as user representations. We found that establishing whether a persona was similar or dissimilar to the students played an important role and lead to empathy gaps regarding users that were considered old or less technically inclined. Showing empathy in the student teams was considered risky and perspective taking was limited by the social interaction amongst the team members. We propose that research of design education would benefit from differentiating the multiple aspects that are typically conjoined in the term ‘empathy’. Furthermore raising awareness for the mechanisms of empathy should be incorporated into design and engineering education rather than relying on automatic reactions and intuition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, A., Lunt, P., & Cairns, P. (2008). A qualititative approach to HCI research. In P. Cairns & A. Cox (Eds.), Research methods for human–computer interaction (pp. 138–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D., Dunning, D. A., & Krueger, J. (2005). The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, D. R. (2004a). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 340–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, D. R. (2004b). Strategies for social inference: A similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anvari, F., Richards, D., Hitchens, M., Babar, M. A., Tran, H. M. T., & Busch, P. (2017). An empirical investigation of the influence of persona with personality traits on conceptual design. Journal of Systems and Software, 134, 324–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardzell, J. (2014). Critical and cultural approaches to HCI. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, & B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 130–143). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2011). Towards a feminist HCI methodology: Social science, feminism, and HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 675–684).

  • Bath, C. (2014a). Diffractive design. In N. Marsden & U. Kempf (Eds.), Gender-UseIT—HCI, usability und UX unter Gendergesichtspunkten (pp. 27–36). München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bath, C. (2014b). Searching for methodology. Feminist technology design in computer science. In W. Ernst & I. Horwath (Eds.), Gender in science and technology (pp. 57–78). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. (2004). Understanding children’s and adults’ limitations in mental state reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, T., López-Forniés, I., & Zarazaga-Soria, F. J. (2017). Deconstructing the Tower of Babel: A design method to improve empathy and teamwork competences of informatics students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornet, C., & Brangier, E. (2016). The effects of personas on creative codesign of work equipment: An exploratory study in a real setting. CoDesign, 12(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design—How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrero, D. G., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., & Nocera, J. A. (2016). Re-conceptualising personas across cultures: Archetypes, stereotypes and collective personas in two locales in pastoral Namibia. In M. van der Velden, M. Strano, H. Hrachvec, J. Abdelnour Nocera, & C. Ess (Eds.), Culture, technology, communication: Common worlds, different futures? Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Culture, Technology, Communication. London, UK, 15–17 June 2016 (pp. 35–48).

  • Coll, M.-P., Viding, E., Rütgen, M., Silani, G., Lamm, C., Catmur, C., et al. (2017). Are we really measuring empathy? Proposal for a new measurement framework. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 83, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Converse, B. A., Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2008). In the mood to get over yourself: Mood affects theory-of-mind use. Emotion, 8(5), 725–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C. (2014). About face: The essentials of interaction design. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2014). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decety, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2003). Shared representations between self and other: A social cognitive neuroscience view. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 527–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresing, T., Pehl, T., & Schmieder, C. (2012). Manual (on) transcription: Transcription conventions, software guides and practical hints for qualitative researchers (3rd English Edition). Marburg. http://www.audiotranskription.de/english/transcription-practicalguide.htm. Accessed 21 April 2018.

  • Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240–256). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N. (2008). Solving the (real) other minds problem. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1455–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2008). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 297–311). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004a). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004b). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 760–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In Handbook of social psychology.

  • Fenigstein, A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Self-attention and the egocentric assumption of shared perspectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(4), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1992). Perspectives on perspective taking. In H. Beilin & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp. 107–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent the differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparini, A. (2015). Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking. In The eight international conference on advances in computer–human interactions (ACHI’15) (pp. 49–54).

  • Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A. M., Karutz, C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M. (2016). It’s more of a mindset than a method”: UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4044–4055).

  • Grudin, J. (2006). Why personas work: The psychological evidence. In J. Pruitt & T. Adlin (Eds.), The persona lifecycle, keeping people in mind throughout product design (pp. 642–663). San Francisco: Kaufmann Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). Intergroup differences in the sharing of emotive states: Neural evidence of an empathy gap. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(5), 596–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ​Haag, M., Weber, C., Heim, J., Marsden, N. (2016). Geschlechterkonstruktionen in der Anforderungsspezifikation von IT-Projekten. In H. Barke, J. Siegeris, J. Freiheit & D. Krefting (Eds.), Gender und IT-Projekte - Neue Wege zu digitaler Teilhabe (pp. 61–70). Opladen: Budrich UniPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. M., & Kim, S. J. (2014). Rethinking empathy through literature (Vol. 31). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1981). Role taking and social judgment: Alternative developmental perspectives and processes. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 119–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., Haag, M., Oleson, A., Mendez, C., Marsden, N., Sarma, A., & Burnett, M. (2017). Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can we have it both ways? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘17) (pp. 6658–6671) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609.

  • Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensus and predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of adolescence, 29(4), 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, C. M. (1999). Subjective experience as basis of “objective” judgments: Effects of past experience on judgments of difficulty. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 515–536). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J. K., & Hodges, S. D. (2001). Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 720–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRouge, C., Ma, J., Sneha, S., & Tolle, K. (2013). User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(11), e251–e268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S., Keysar, B., & Epley, N. (2010). Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux, V., & Weigel, S. (2017). Empathy: Epistemic problems and cultural-historical perspectives of a cross-disciplinary concept. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, N., & Haag, M. (2016). Stereotypes and politics: Reflections on Personas. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘16) (pp. 4017–4031).

  • Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50(4), 655–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1035–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, L. (2013). Personas—user focused design. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(1), 30–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, S. D., & Hofelich, A. J. (2012). The many faces of empathy: Parsing empathic phenomena through a proximate, dynamic-systems view of representing the other in the self. Emotion Review, 4(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, F. E., Baxter, G. D., & Churchill, E. F. (2014). Foundations for designing user-centered systems. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Royzman, E. B., Cassidy, K. W., & Baron, J. (2003). “ I know, you know”: Epistemic egocentrism in children and adults. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 38–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath, C., Sassenberg, K., & Scholl, A. (2014). From a distance… the impact of approach and avoidance motivational orientation on perspective taking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeenk, W., Tomico, O., & van Turnhout, K. (2016). A systematic analysis of mixed perspectives in empathic design: Not one perspective encompasses all. International Journal of Design, 10(2), 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, B., & Wicklund, R. A. (1983). Self-directed attention and taking the other’s perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thieme, A., Vines, J., Wallace, J., Clarke, R. E., Slovák, P., McCarthy, J., et al. (2014). Enabling empathy in health and care: Design methods and challenges. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 139–142).

  • Toombs, A., Gross, S., Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2017). From empathy to care: A feminist care ethics perspective on long-term researcher–participant relations. Interacting with Computers, 29(1), 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2008). Empathy and experience in HCI. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence.

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1 and 2, pp. 591–632). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Wakkary, R. (2014). Understanding the role of designers’ personal experiences in interaction design practice. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’14) (pp. 895–904).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded in part by the Brigitte-Schlieben-Lange-Programm/Ministry of Science, Research, and Arts Baden-Württemberg, Germany; and in part by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) for the project “IT&me—Konzeption, Umsetzung und Evaluation eines modellhaften multimedialen Wissenspools in der IT-Expertinnenbildung unter Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Lebenssituationen und Lernstrategien”, FKZ 01FP1617. The responsibility for the content lies with the authors. We appreciate the helpful comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IT Department, Heilbronn University, Max-Planck-Str. 39, 74081, Heilbronn, Germany

    Maren Haag & Nicola Marsden

Authors
  1. Maren Haag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicola Marsden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Marsden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haag, M., Marsden, N. Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 565–582 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9452-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9452-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation