[Full-Length] Spreading innovation through Empathy Propagation Design
The use of Empathy Propagation Design, or design that incorporates persuasive techniques to induce empathy in users, is one way innovators can multiply their design impact.
Empathy is the key to creating effective and impactful solutions in the field of innovation. As IDEO states, “human-centered design is premised on empathy” and “empathizing with the people you’re designing for is the best route to truly grasping the context and complexities of their lives” [1]. This act of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and imagining their emotions and experiences is what the field of psychology calls perspective-taking [2]. Perspective-taking is difficult to do, but innovators are doing this all the time to solve users’ pain points and improve people’s lives [3].
This made me wonder — what if we could propagate the empathy from human-centered design to not only the users but also to those around the users? What if products could not only empathize with users but also influence users to better empathize with those around them? Empathy Propagation Design aims to do just that.
WHAT IS EMPATHY PROPAGATION DESIGN?
Empathy Propagation Design is a type of design that aims to nudge users of a product* to be more empathic by incorporating various persuasion techniques into the product from fields like psychology, behavioral science, human-computer interaction, and more. The design of the product (e.g., user flow, language, color, shape) is strategically executed in a way that it triggers increased empathy in the users. The main purpose of the product could be completely unrelated to empathy or mental health too. The increase in empathy in measured in change in behavior such as reduction of implicit bias, reduction in prejudice, or increase in altruistic or prosocial behaviors [4]–[7].
* The term “product(s)” in this article will refer to physical and digital products including services and experiences.
For example, an app that is used to buy and sell used car could incorporate UI designs that trigger empathy in the users. The empathy trigger might nudge sellers of the used car to set a fairer price or be more willing to negotiate with users which could result in a more civil and pleasant transaction for all users. If your product has a social aspect where users interact with each other like this example (Figure 1), increasing empathy seems pretty straight forward — the community will potentially be more welcoming and peaceful. But even if there isn’t any social aspect (Figure 2), it still makes sense to increase empathy since that might positively affect those around the users. For example, an in-car entertainment system created with Empathy Propagation Design might nudge users to be more considerate of other drivers on the road.
WHY SHOULD INNOVATORS USE EMPATHY PROPAGATION DESIGN?
Before I answer this question, I would like to share how I became interested in this topic. My motivation as an innovator is quite simple: to reduce people’s stress. I’m the type of person that thinks humans are good at its core and think that the one major hurdle that prevents people from exercising that goodwill is stress. I truly believe people will naturally want to do good if their stress is at a manageable level. Hence, my goal for innovation is to reduce people’s stress as much as possible whether that be through products that are directly involved with improving people’s health or just by simply creating a user flow that does not add stress (i.e., aligns with the users’ mental models).
This work is my passion and I enjoy doing this, but I also think this stress-reducing effect from products I work on are not at a scale large enough to solve wicked problems*** in our society. This is when I thought perhaps there is a way to use the products to not only reduce stress of its users, but prompt users to reduce the stress of those around them. Instead of a product simply empathizing with the active user, perhaps the product could effortlessly nudge those users to empathize with those around them — or, become innovators themselves.
If more products incorporate Empathy Propagation Design, more people can be nudged to act a little kindlier to those around them. Even if this kindness is not great enough by itself to solve a wicked problem, users will at the very least not be adding stress to someone around them. The less stress circulating in this world would mean less strain on someone’s willpower and capacity to do good. More people doing good will cause less problems in the world, and perhaps could be one step closer to combating wicked problems in this world.
*** Wicked problems as defined by the Interaction Design Foundation: social or cultural problem that’s difficult or impossible to solve — normally because of its complex and interconnected nature [8].
EMPATHY PROPAGATION DESIGN TECHNIQUES
There are not many commercially available products that incorporate Empathy Propagation Design. However, there have been numerous experiments that have successfully nudged users toward increased empathy. In some cases, the designs that were developed for the experiments were later commercialized. The below list explains how people were nudged toward increased empathy, the theoretical logic behind this, and examples of products that incorporate this technique (if it exists), or hypothetical examples of how this could be incorporated into future products.
I. Embedded Design Approach is a method that interweaves or conceals the intended persuasive nudge so the persuasive nudge is not obvious to the users [9]. The persuasive nudge is not obvious but is still there so users do not activate reactance and become more receptive to the persuasive message. The drawback of this approach is that it may not work well if the aim is to provide facts and information to the user or if the aim is to teach them a new skill [9]. For those cases, a more explicit persuasion is effective (e.g., provide explicit information on how to engage in safe sex). This approach is also not as effective on those who already support the persuasive message (i.e., they don’t get any more mobilized than they already are) [9]. Outlined below are two techniques within this approach.
a. Intermixing is a technique where the persuasive message is interweaved with other unrelated topic [9]. In an experimental setting, a board game called Awkward Moment was developed with this technique where players imagine being a target of the awkward moments. The on-topic awkward moments were all related to players being a target of stereotype and bias against girls and women in STEM. The off-topic awkward moments ranged from embarrassing social situations to uncomfortable work situations. The intermixing technique aimed to “inspire players to be more vigilant about occurrences of social bias — and to confront and overcome social biases in an effective, assertive manner” [9], [10]. The experimenters measured implicit bias in the participants afterwards and found that, despite not having an explicit persuasive message, the game was able to reduce gender bias and increase “players’ motivation to recognize and overcome their own biases” [9]. This game was later commercialized and is available for purchase [10].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT INTERMIXING
A way to leverage intermixing for Empathy Propagation Design might be to simply add in messages that remind users to be empathic in products that have nothing to do with empathy. For example, a music streaming platform might show short inspirational quotes or statistics on benefits of being empathic as an advertisement. The increased empathy does not benefit music streaming platforms (especially those with little to no social component), but users who are exposed to increased reminders of being empathic might positively affect their environment afterwards.
b. Obfuscation is a technique where the persuasive aim is concealed or stealthily introduced [7]. In an experiment, a board game called Buffalo: The Name Dropping Game was created using this technique. Players are required to pull a card from two different stacks. One stack has adjectives (e.g., “female”, “Hispanic”, “tattooed”), the other stack has nouns (e.g., “scientist”, “lawyer”, “genius”), and players are asked to name a real or fictional person who matches the pair of cards they pulled (e.g., “female scientist”, “Hispanic lawyer”, “tattooed genius”). This game aimed to expose players to a “plethora of counter-stereotypical or otherwise unexpected exemplars” [7]. The experimenters found that players showed reduced prejudice after playing this game, but the effects were significantly weaker for those who had been notified of the game intentions [7]. Obfuscation via Delayed Revelation is very similar in that “potentially counterattitudinal, threatening, or alienating information” is withheld from users until they have formed “an affinity toward or psychological connection with a game character” [11], [12]. For example, in an experimental setting, a group of adolescent male players who were later told their game character was female reported “higher identification with the character and reduced gender bias” [12].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT OBFUSCATION
A way to incorporate obfuscating via delayed revelation might be to reveal a photo of the minority customer service agent after a customer has a good experience. For example, during a chat-based customer service, natural language processing techniques may be used to detect that the customer is having a positive interaction. Near the end of the interaction, a photo of the customer service agent could pop up to thank the customer. The customer will have a greater positive association of the service agent’s gender and/or ethnicity with the positive service they just received. Since this interaction is most likely not on-going, this kind of increased empathy and reduction in implicit bias will not necessarily benefit the company. However, these users may act in a more inclusive manner after they are exposed to such situations.
II. Self-Awareness Theory states that when people are put into situations that increases self-awareness, it opens an opportunity to realize self-discrepancies [13], [14]. For example, when we see our own reflection in a mirror, hear a recording of our own voice, or read our own name, we start to unconsciously compare our current self or behavior to a goal or aspiration that we have [13], [14]. If there is a discrepancy, we either respond by changing our behavior to match those aspirational state or withdraw from self-awareness [13], [14]. The difference in response is based on our motivation level, physical capability, and whether or not if there is a high chance of filling that discrepancy gap [13], [14]. In experimental settings, heightening self-awareness has shown to promote prosocial behaviors, or behaviors that benefit others. For example, trick-or-treaters instructed to only take one piece of candy from an unattended bowl were more likely to follow the instructions when a mirror was present [15]. In another experiment, participants were asked to give video feedback to a poor performer of a standardized test [16]. Those participants who gave feedback while the video feed of themselves were visible “gave feedback that was rated higher in interactional justice (e.g., more polite, more clarity of explanation, fewer inappropriate remarks, etc.)” [16].
TIPS TO HEIGHTEN SELF-AWARENESS
A way to heighten self-awareness is quite simple as noted above (e.g., using mirrors, voice recordings) but integrating them naturally into an unrelated product might be difficult. Always addressing the user with their name (i.e., so the user reads their name) is one simple method. Another method might be to make loading screens all black. Depending on the environment the users are in, they will see their reflection on the screen which could act as them looking into a mirror.
III. Deindividuation with Positive Group Norms is a method that leverages lowered private self-awareness along with making positive group norms more salient [17]. The combination of this has been proven in experimental settings to be particularly effective in promoting prosocial behaviors. In an experiment, participants were first deindividuated by wearing the same clothes where one group was told the clothes were nursing scrubs and the other as cleaner’s scrubs [18]. Those who were in the nursing scrubs responded more empathetically to and helped out other participants in subsequent activities [18]. When we have reduced self-identity and increased activation of social identity, we are more likely to assimilate our behavior to the salient group norm or behavior. This means that if the salient group norm is a negative one, we are more likely to follow that as well.
TIPS TO COMBINE DEINDIVIDUATION WITH POSITIVE GROUP NORMS
A way to implement this method would be a bit tricky since two nudges will need to be designed in: (1) making users feel like they are part of a greater whole; then (2) make the positive group norm obvious. An example method might be to first make users feel they belong to a group. Perhaps there is a pronoun that describes the users of your product much like names of fans for an idol group (e.g., Korean pop group BTS’ fans are called ARMY). Once that community association is established, the product might highlight characteristics of that group. This might be through actual examples of heartwarming interaction between users or displaying statistics of the users (e.g., “X% of users __do a certain kind act__ on this platform”).
IV. Self-Affirmation Theory states that engaging in self-affirmation “provides a psychological buffer that reduces the impact of identity threat or provocation” [19]. This means that activating people’s positive values, attributes, or relationships that are part of their existing self-definition, can make people face stressful and potentially threatening situation with more confidence [19]. Hence, they can perform better whether that be from the less mental stress, or because they are willing to take in critiques and change their behavior for the better [19]. In an experiment, Arab-Americans along with highly prejudiced non-Arabs together over MySpace [20]. If the Arab-American participants asked questions that prompted self-affirmation to the other participant first (e.g., “How did someone treat you fairly this week? How did you treat someone fairly this week?”), the other participant was more likely to be interesting in meeting, more open to acknowledging their biases, and “more likely to take the perspective of persecuted Arab-Americans” [20].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT SELF-AFFIRMATION
A way to implement self-affirmation might be through some of the examples listed above: “activating people’s positive values, attributes, or relationships that are part of their existing self-definition”[19]. The product could ask the users to choose a few values that resonate with them the most during the onboarding process. These keywords can be used to trigger self-affirmation in the users at a later point in time. One point of caution is that the researchers of the self-affirmation paper avoided activating words that might be related to relationships and health since these may trigger negative responses depending on the person and situation [19].
V. Influence are six norms proposed by psychologist Robert Cialdini to “gain compliance to a request” which was identified through observations of “professional persuaders (e.g., salespeople, fundraisers)” [21]. All six norms could be leveraged for Empathy Propagation Design but I have excerpted a few that I think are more relevant.
a. Social Proof is when humans turn to and imitate how the majority is acting especially when we are in a new situation or environment and are unsure of how to act [21]. The way this technique is most commonly leveraged is by showing number of reviews on a product or showing the number of views or ‘likes’ on a media (i.e., people are more likely to buy products with high number of reviews and watch media with high number of views or likes). In an experiment, the reuse rate of hotel room towels was studied [22]. The group that had been told that the majority of their fellow guests reused the towels were 26% more likely to reuse their towels compared to those who received a generic environmental protection message to reuse their towels [22]. The group that was told the last guest in the same room reused their towels reused their towels 33% more [22].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT SOCIAL PROOF
A way to implement social proof in the context of Empathy Propagation Design might be to present user statistics to make empathic behaviors more salient within the platform. Perhaps the publicly accessible messages sent between users could be analyzed through natural language processing for its use of non-aggressive or non-offensive words. The percentage of such messages could be shown to users (e.g., “73% of our users communicate using non-aggressive words”). A point of caution with this is that the way in which this message is delivered must also be designed. In an experiment at Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park, where they had issues with many visitors taking petrified wood home with them, experimenters found that “focusing message recipients on descriptive normative information was most likely to increase theft” [23]. As in, a message that read “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest’’ were more likely to actually steal because stealing was a common thing (social norm) in this environment [23].
b. Liking is a principle that states people are more agreeable with people who they like (i.e., have positive opinions about, think as attractive, consider as in-group members) [21]. We are biased toward people who we find attractive as shown in a study where criminals rated as attractive by an independent group were given lighter sentence while those rated unattractive were given longer terms [24]. We are also more agreeable to those who are similar to us as shown in a study where dressing similarly to people who they approached (e.g., business vs hippy attire) increased requests for money from 50% to 67% [25].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT LIKING PRINCIPLE
A method that has commonly implemented social proof is through celebrity endorsements. The most difficult part may be to identify which celebrity your core users resonate with the most. Depending on the product, the celebrity might not be a real person, but a character from a fictional work or an animated character. Simply using actors hat has been rated as attractive by independent group (or focus user groups) may be another way. Having these characters make a positive group norm (e.g., empathic communication) could be one way to implement the liking principle.
c. Authority is a principle where people are more likely to comply to those who have more knowledge, training, and/or power [21]. In an experiment, people were willing to comply to request to feed another person’s parking meter if they were asked by someone wearing a police uniform (as opposed to plain clothes) 92% of the time as opposed to 42% [26].
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT AUTHORITY PRINCIPLE
A method to implement authority principle might be to bring in actors dressed in authority figure that matches your product (e.g., doctor’s/lab coat, police uniform, professor, etc.) and have them deliver a message related to empathy or morality. I was unable to find studies on this but it would be interesting to see if emojis with such uniforms would also have some effect or not.
VI. Priming is a method in which we present a stimuli that makes users unconsciously think of related concepts [27]. These concepts can be anything humans can feel, do, or think (e.g., emotions, traits, goals, attitudes, identities, behaviors, mindsets) [27]. Awareness of the priming actually reduces or eliminates the effect of priming so this must be delivered implicitly and/or subtly [27]. Riot Games found that displaying their game tips in blue font color decreased toxic behaviors while using red font color increased them. The logic behind this might be that there is a link in our minds with red color to anger or hostility while blue is linked to peace. An experiment found that presence of priming images that stimulate happiness (e.g., smiling babies) resulted in participants displaying greater creativity (e.g., increase in greater number of unique uses of an object) compared to neutral or negative priming images [28]. Another experiment used strategically designed CAPTCHA images to prime positive emotions and reduce online harassment and trolling [29]. A method in which System 2 thinking** could be primed is by making users complete tasks that require narrow focus. In an experiment, participants who were asked to complete narrow focus tasks (e.g., identifying specific shade of eye color) showed reduced cognitive biases in subsequent tasks that required them to make judgements [30].
** See “ETHICS OF EMPATHY PROPAGATION DESIGN” section for explanation of System 2 thinking
TIPS TO IMPLEMENT PRIMING
Priming has many opportunities for implementation since many visual designs can be strategically changed to create a specific effect. One tip may be that it might be more effective to review and change a completed design for places where it can be swapped with primes to ensure that the primes are implemented in a natural way. This way, designers can first focus on the primary purpose of the product as opposed to getting too caught up in adding in primes from the beginning and distracting the product from the primary purpose.
VII. Embodied Cognition is a concept where metaphors or abstract concepts that are stored in our schemas can be triggered by a sensory stimuli to induce an emotion or concept in us [31]. For example, an experiment showed that participants rated a man as less warm and friendly when reading information about the man while holding an iced coffee compared to those who were holding warm coffee [32]. In another experiment, “participants gave harsher moral judgements about others” when a foul odor was piped into the room [33]. There are other sensory-conceptual links such as: weight — seriousness / importance; rough texture — harshness / difficulty; black and white — polarized / extreme; grey — ambiguous; outstretched arms — power; learning forward — future; leaning back — past [31].
TIP TO IMPLEMENT EMBODIED COGNITION
Embodied cognition may be easier to implement in a natural way for products with physical aspect since sensory stimuli may already be part of the product/experience. Even if the physical products, experiences, services don’t actively incorporate embodied cognition, it may be worth making sure there is no unintended stimuli in your product. In terms of digital products, the color (black and white — polarized / extreme; grey — ambiguous) may be the only accessible method.
ETHICS OF EMPATHY PROPAGATION DESIGN
Many of the decisions we make in our lives is determined by our subconscious mind. Psychologists now believe our brains work on dual-process theories where we have two modes of cognition: System 1 “Fast” thinking and System 2 “Slow” thinking [34]. System 1 is on autopilot and makes decisions for us quickly while System 2 is what we use to make more concisions decisions by taking more time. Around 95% of decisions we make in our lives is done so by our System 1 or our subconscious mind [35]. Empathy Propagation Design most of the time taps into this System 1 which people might find unethical. But not using Empathy Propagation Design doesn’t mean our mind is in a neutral state. We are still influenced by the language, color, shape and other design choices even if they weren’t meant to influence us. I think this paper from Human-Computer Interaction field put it well: “…there is no such thing as a ’neutral’ design; we either spend the resources to understand and guide the impact of our design choices or we allow them to produce results we don’t choose or understand” [29]. Neglecting to consciously design positive outcomes is one way we end up perpetuating things like implicit bias ][36]. So if anything and everything can trigger our subconscious mind, I believe we should be consciously designing to trigger positive outcomes.
Some may argue that the ethical dilemma could be solved by being explicit about the persuasive message. However, humans have an interesting psychology where they can react negatively to explicit persuasion especially if they feel that their choice of making a decision has been threatened [37]. This reaction is called “reactance” and once this has been activated, some people will act against the explicit persuasion in an attempt to take back the autonomy to make choices [37]. Thus, trying to persuade others using explicit methods may harm the overall goal and result in a negative outcome (i.e., people purposefully acting against empathy or engaging in antisocial behaviors).
Lastly, Empathy Propagation Design is so subtle it doesn’t work on everyone. And even if it does, psychologists have found these kinds of persuasive techniques is “not an effective means of inducing individuals to engage in counterattitudinal behaviors or to endorse beliefs or actions that are not already within their latitude of acceptance” [29]. This means that these designs cannot change people’s beliefs or make people behave in ways they never would, so I believe it is worthwhile for innovators to explore Empathy Propagation Design.
REFERENCES
[1] “Design Kit: The Human-Centered Design Toolkit.” https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit (accessed Nov. 25, 2021).
[2] C. D. Batson, S. Early, and G. Salvarani, “Perspective Taking: Imagining How Another Feels Versus Imaging How You Would Feel,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 751–758, Jul. 1997, doi: 10.1177/0146167297237008.
[3] S. Samuel, G. G. Cole, and M. J. Eacott, “Two independent sources of difficulty in perspective-taking/theory of mind tasks,” Psychon. Bull. Rev., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1341–1347, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3758/s13423–020–01789–6.
[4] C. D. Batson, D. Lishner, and E. Stocks, “The empathy-altruism hypothesis,” Oxf. Handb. Prosocial Behav., pp. 259–281, Jan. 2015.
[5] J. K. Maner, C. L. Luce, S. L. Neuberg, R. B. Cialdini, S. Brown, and B. J. Sagarin, “The Effects of Perspective Taking on Motivations for Helping: Still No Evidence for Altruism,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1601–1610, Nov. 2002, doi: 10.1177/014616702237586.
[6] P. A. Oswald, “The Effects of Cognitive and Affective Perspective Taking on Empathic Concern and Altruistic Helping,” J. Soc. Psychol., vol. 136, no. 5, pp. 613–623, Oct. 1996, doi: 10.1080/00224545.1996.9714045.
[7] G. Kaufman, M. Flanagan, and M. Seidman, “Creating Stealth Game Interventions for Attitude and Behavior Change: An ‘Embedded Design’ Model,” Trans. Digit. Games Res. Assoc., vol. 2, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.26503/todigra.v2i3.57.
[8] “What are Wicked Problems?,” The Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/wicked-problems (accessed Dec. 07, 2021).
[9] G. Kaufman and M. Flanagan, “A psychologically ‘embedded’ approach to designing games for prosocial causes,” Cyberpsychology J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace, vol. 9, no. 3, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.5817/CP2015–3–5.
[10] “Tiltfactor | Awkward Moment.” https://tiltfactor.org/game/awkward-moment/ (accessed Dec. 04, 2021).
[11] G. F. Kaufman and L. Libby, “Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 2012, doi: 10.1037/a0027525.
[12] “Not Just for Girls | Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play.” https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3311350.3347177 (accessed Dec. 04, 2021).
[13] P. J. Silvia and T. S. Duval, “Objective Self-Awareness Theory: Recent Progress and Enduring Problems,” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 230–241, Aug. 2001, doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_4.
[14] M. F. Scheier and C. S. Carver, “Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 625–636, 1977, doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.35.9.625.
[15] A. L. Beaman, B. Klentz, E. Diener, and S. Svanum, “Self-awareness and transgression in children: two field studies,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1835–1846, Oct. 1979, doi: 10.1037//0022–3514.37.10.1835.
[16] D. Whiteside and L. Barclay, “The Face of Fairness: Self-Awareness as a Means to Promote Fairness among Managers with Low Empathy,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. in press, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10551–014–2357–7.
[17] C. B. Spivey and S. Prentice-Dunn, “Assessing the Directionality of Deindividuated Behavior: Effects of Deindividuation, Modeling, and Private Self-Consciousness on Aggressive and Prosocial Responses,” Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 387–403, Dec. 1990, doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1104_3.
[18] B. López-Pérez, T. Ambrona, E. Wilson, and M. Khalil, “The Effect of Enclothed Cognition on Empathic Responses and Helping Behavior,” Soc. Psychol., vol. 47, pp. 223–231, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1027/1864–9335/a000273.
[19] G. Cohen and D. Sherman, “The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 65, pp. 333–71, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213–115137.
[20] J. Stone, J. Whitehead, T. Schmader, and E. Focella, “Thanks for asking: Self-affirming questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice,” J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 589–598, May 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.016.
[21] R. B. Cialdini, Influence: the psychology of persuasion, Rev. ed., [Nachdr.]. New York, NY: Collins, 20.
[22] N. Goldstein, R. Cialdini, and V. Griskevicius, “A Room With a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 35, pp. 472–482, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1086/586910.
[23] R. B. Cialdini, L. J. Demaine, B. J. Sagarin, D. W. Barrett, K. Rhoads, and P. L. Winter, “Managing social norms for persuasive impact,” Soc. Influ. 11 3–15, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2006, Accessed: Dec. 06, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/45277
[24] G. Leventhal and R. Krate, “Physical Attractiveness and Severity of Sentencing,” Psychol. Rep., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 315–318, Feb. 1977, doi: 10.2466/pr0.1977.40.1.315.
[25] C. L. Kleinke, “Effects of Dress on Compliance to Requests in a Field Setting,” J. Soc. Psychol., vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 223–224, Apr. 1977, doi: 10.1080/00224545.1977.9924011.
[26] B. J. Bushman, “The Effects of Apparel on Compliance: A Field Experiment with a Female Authority Figure,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 459–467, Sep. 1988, doi: 10.1177/0146167288143004.
[27] “Multiple Mechanisms of Prime‐to‐Behavior Effects — Wheeler — 2009 — Social and Personality Psychology Compass — Wiley Online Library.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00187.x?casa_token=F1QqHhhaSOkAAAAA%3AYrjyhB303qXdrpTwyt_6AuBF23zPbGgnvMRXUk6iTzuc_NErcyK6D5l2XBlcHh5mz0ZtT3rP3hD3a6Sk (accessed Dec. 06, 2021).
[28] S. Lewis, M. Dontcheva, and E. Gerber, “Affective computational priming and creativity,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, May 2011, pp. 735–744. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979048.
[29] J. Seering, T. Fang, L. Damasco, M. “Cherie” Chen, L. Sun, and G. Kaufman, “Designing User Interface Elements to Improve the Quality and Civility of Discourse in Online Commenting Behaviors,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow Scotland Uk, May 2019, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300836.
[30] G. Ülkümen, A. Chakravarti, and V. G. Morwitz, “Categories Create Mind-Sets: The Effect of Exposure to Broad versus Narrow Categorizations on Subsequent, Unrelated Decisions,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 659–671, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.4.659.
[31] G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Accessed: Dec. 07, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html
[32] “The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world — Williams — 2009 — European Journal of Social Psychology — Wiley Online Library.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.665?casa_token=_WCgvdWwIUoAAAAA:_EDC5GpO9_bYJxph1jTOWUc8ZRqG3zMMvNsQy-dbqNAAM51fi85VF52mRoiGR6t7ZVggcrRf3Tlzh4iV (accessed Dec. 07, 2021).
[33] S. Schnall, J. Benton, and S. Harvey, “With a Clean Conscience: Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments,” Psychol. Sci., vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1219–1222, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02227.x.
[34] E. R. Smith and J. DeCoster, “Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems,” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 108–131, May 2000, doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01.
[35] D. Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow, 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
[36] S. T. Fiske and S. L. Neuberg, “A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 23, M. P. Zanna, Ed. Academic Press, 1990, pp. 1–74. doi: 10.1016/S0065–2601(08)60317–2.
[37] J. W. Brehm, A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press, 1966, pp. x, 135.
