I decided to take a second stab at grouping artifacts. I feel that this time I was much more successful. Instead of placing artifacts along a scatterplot chart, I came up with different themes (based on the medium or the message) and highlighted the artifacts that fit into each theme.
All of these artifacts dealing with water and/or plastic issues, since those are most closely related to my case study of bottled water. Here are four of the groupings I came up with.
I find it interesting that most of the messages utilized statistics, but only about half explicitly encourage action.
Giving users specific actions to take greatly increases the chance for behavior change. I want to make sure that my prototype does this.
Above, you can see that only 2(!) of the messages took an entertaining or funny approach.
This could be because humor isn’t effective, but I actually think that entertaining/funny approaches are under-used when it comes to persuasive messages about environmental causes.
On the right, I’ve mapped out the emotional tone of each piece—bright pink is mostly positive, and black is mostly negative. The artifacts I’ve collected lean toward the more negative side.
This is also interesting, because I’ve already learned that “doom and gloom” messages are ineffective unless paired with very specific, measurable steps for action.
I will return to these artifact groups after I’ve collected more, and to create a more formal “literature review”. For now, these groupings seem to help me see where there are trends and holes.