GRADUATION REFLECTION
This report builds upon the reflection preparation that is handed in in the previous quartile (M11). Firstly, some information about the key elements of my research project is given. Secondly, stakeholders are described and in what way they may be affected by the research that is done for the project. Thirdly, ways to avoid the problems mentioned in the previous section are discussed and whether/how the research should be protected. Lastly, a concluding reflection is given.
KEY ELEMENTS OF MY RESEARCH PROJECT
In a romantic relationship, intimacy between partners is emphasized as a necessary factor for maintaining the romantic relationship [1]. Social scientists have defined intimacy as a combination of cognitive and emotional expressiveness, support, engagement, and physical contact [1]. However, this physical contact is not possible when two partners are geographically separated. Geographical separation is not only the case for partners in a Long Distance Relationship (LDR), but also for couples that see each other on a regular basis. For these couples, maintaining (physical) intimacy is hard or even impossible with current technology, as current communication devices especially rely on vision and hearing [2].
Physical touch is an important aspect of intimacy between partners. Physical touch between couples (and people in general) has several positive effects. Physical touch between couples may decrease heart rate under stressful conditions [3] and stimulate helping behavior and decision behavior in general [4]. A remarkable phenomenon named “The Midas Touch” [5], named after Greek mythology’s King Midas who changed everything he touched into gold, refers to an increase in altruistic behavior and willingness to agree with a request after a brief touch on the arm or shoulder.
As intimacy is acknowledged as an essential aspect of intimate relationships [6], the loss of (physical) intimacy is potentially problematic. Because of irritations that arise from a lack of intimacy, couples experience even less intimacy, which results in more irritations and arguments [7]. A lack of intimacy causes an increased stress level in a relationship, which subsequently decreases the level of intimacy [7]. This vicious circle may drift couples apart.
To support the feeling of physical intimacy over distance, a device is created that mediates physical touch. Because the touch is mediated, romantic partners do not need to be in immediate proximity of each another. I am creating a pillow-like device which serves as a non-verbal communication device for geographically separated romantic partners. The device focuses on transferring the feeling of a hug by means of warmth. Both partners have their own device. The interaction is as follows: when partner 1 uses his device, it warms up. The other partner (partner 2) gets a notification of her partner using his device by means of an LED lighting up. This LED stays on as long as partner 1 uses his device. When partner 2 also choses to use her device, partner 1 experiences and an increase in warmth/
temperature. Of course this also works the other way around, as the device provides two-way interaction.
STAKEHOLDERS & EFFECTS
This section describes who may be affected by the research that is done in the project. The stakeholders whom are assumed to be affected most severely are discussed in detail. Changes in behavior, beliefs, expectations, opportunities, etc. are analyzed. Based on the Risk Assessment Matrix [21] (see Appendix 1), it is determined how severe these changes are and how likely they are to occur.
Users
Users of the mediated touch device may be affected in different ways. They may experience miscommunications and privacy- and trust issues regarding self-disclosure.
Miscommunications
Users of the device may experience miscommunications. Miscommunications and even arguments between partners may arise when partners accidentally use the pillow, for example when they unknowingly sit on the pillow or touch the pillow in another way when it is not intended. These miscommunications and arguments may also arise when one of the partners is using the device and feels like he/she is being ignored when the other partner does not respond (by also using the device). The other partner may deliberately choose to not respond to the notification of the device (ignoring his/her partner), but it could also be the case that he/she did not notice the notification. In this way, the device might change behavior of the users, but also their expectations towards their partner.
The probability of experiencing miscommunications is seldom, as the pillow case may be changed according to the preference of the user. The pillow case may stand out from other pillow cases the user already owns, which could (partly) prevent unintended usage. The severity of miscommunications caused by the device is negligible to moderate (depends on the users), as they can easily be solved and are probably not critical to a relationship (miscommunications caused by a device will probably not end a relationship). This results in a low to medium risk level of harm caused by miscommunications.
Hacking may be another cause of miscommunications and may cause even bigger problems regarding usage of the device. People with bad intentions can possibly hack the system by hacking the connection between the sender and receiver side. This is a possibility because, eventually, the system will use an internet connection to connect both ends (however, the prototype will not use an internet connection). If you know that the system can be hacked, it can lead to the feeling of not knowing who is “touching” you. If you don’t know who is touching you, because you can’t physically see the other person, will people even want to self-disclose and use the technology?
The probability of the system being hacked is unlikely, as there seem to be no benefits/a lack of reasons to hacking the system. The severity of the system getting hacked is possibly critical, as privacy and trust issues might keep people from using the system [6]. However, people that won’t use the system because of this reason will probably not buy it, and people that buy the system will probably not be afraid of people hacking the system. This is why a moderate severity level is more applicable. This results in a low risk level of harm caused by hacking.
Privacy and trust in relation to self-disclosure
Other important aspects of the system are privacy and trust, in relation to self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is “the act of revealing private information” [6], [8], such as personal thoughts, experiences and emotions/feelings [9]. There are two types of self-disclosures: factual self-disclosure and emotional self-disclosure [10]. Factual self-disclosures are disclosures that “reveal personal facts and information”, such as “I’ve had three romantic partners in my life” [11]. Emotional self-disclosures are disclosures that “reveal one’s private feelings, opinions and judgements”, such as “the last breakup was so painful that I'm not sure if I can love someone again” [11]. Emotional self-disclosures are considered to generate greater intimacy than factual self-disclosures [11].
Emotional self-disclosure is the first step in the communication process between two partners and their devices. Disclosing emotionally by showing that you are willing and feeling like hugging your partner is a form of revealing private information. Intimates reveal something of themselves to each other and they may feel vulnerable if their interactions are exposed to the gaze of outsiders [6]. Self-disclosure (and thus intimacy in general) entails privacy concerns [6]. Ethically problematic scenarios may occur when privacy is not guaranteed and intimate acts, entailing self-disclosure, are exposed to outsiders. This is why a device should be created that invites and encourages couples to self-disclose emotionally, and at the same time make them believe that their interactions are not exposed to outsiders in any way. Because, without this trust, people will probably not use the technology [6].
Trust is linked to privacy worries [12]. The Edelman survey and the Pew study find that Americans hold low levels of trust in the government and the business sector. The government and business sector are specifically associated with data collection and monitoring. Americans have exceedingly low levels of confidence in the privacy and security of the records maintained in this digital age. This is in accordance with the results of a survey that is executed for the project, which clearly indicated that people would want to use the technology inside the house rather than in public. Maybe this is because they feel like they are being watched? In this way, the technology might change behavior of the users in a negative way. See Society at large, Communication behavior.
Additional changes
Additional changes in behavior, beliefs, habits expectations, opportunities, etc. may occur. Changes in habits are likely to occur. Some people like to call or text their partner before they go to bed. In this case, they may choose to use the device instead of their phone or in addition to their phone, which changes their habit. When it makes people happier, it is a change for the better. When it makes people less happy, for example when using the device makes them miss their partner even more and makes them sad, it is a change for the worse. According to research done in the project, this last change may occur occasionally. The severity of this change is moderate, as it might actually make people really unhappy. However, if you have experienced negative consequences of using the device, e.g. getting really unhappy, then you would probably not make a habit out of it. That is why it is chosen to mark this change as negligible, and then the change has a low risk level of harm.
Changes in opportunities may also occur. People may use the device to show empathy over distance and to comfort people that are not in direct proximity of them. Because of the device, people now have the opportunity to comfort and show empathy over distance in a physical way and this might possibly change who we are with regard to (showing) empathy. This change is a change for the better and will probably not cause any risk of harm.
Society at large (including users, researchers, sellers, etc.)
Society at large may be affected in different ways. It might experience a change in communication behavior and a change in view on (physical) intimacy and long distance relationships. The severity of these changes is discussed and how likely they are to occur.
Communication behavior
Communication behavior may be changed by the mediated touch device. The device serves as a non-verbal communication channel to express a hug. As current communication devices especially rely on vision and hearing [2], the device may change communication behavior by adding an extra dimension to current communication technology. This seems to be a change for the better, as it allows people to ‘touch’ each other over distance.
As mentioned before, the results of a survey that is executed for the project clearly indicated that people would want to use the technology inside the house rather than in public. As people would like to use the communication device inside the house, the device may lead to social isolation and may replace face-to-face contact. However, this is unlikely to happen, but if it was to occur, it would be a change of critical severity. It is more likely that the device adds to current communication tools like video conferencing and cell phone calling.
View on (physical) intimacy
The device that is created might change the view on (physical) intimacy. In earlier times, physical intimacy could only be obtained when two people were in immediate proximity of one another. However, in recent times, physical intimacy can be obtained by using mediated touch devices. As the physical touch is mediated by haptic feedback technology [2], people do not need to be in immediate proximity of one another anymore. This might change the view on (physical) intimacy and how it can be obtained.
The mediated touch device might also change expectations of privacy in relation to physical intimacy. Now that it gets easier to ‘hug’ someone who is not in direct proximity, it might change overall expectations of privacy. People that are in direct proximity can hug each other on the corner of the street (so to speak), so why couldn’t two people that are not in direct proximity of one another?
The probability of a changing view on physical intimacy is likely. A lot of people have never heard of the concept of mediated touch and have no idea what has already been created in this area of research. For people that participated in the graduation research, the concept and explanation of mediated touch was eye opening and they could imagine themselves using a mediated touch device in the future. In this way, the device and mediated touch in general could alter the perception of physical intimacy, as opportunities of obtaining physical intimacy are provided to them.
The severity of a change in view on physical intimacy is negligible. It is imaginable that conventional people don’t want anything to do with it, but then their view on (physical) intimacy won’t change as they don’t want to use the device. From the graduation research it resulted that people found the concept and explanation of mediated touch eye opening and that they could imagine themselves using a mediated touch device in the future. In this way, this change would only be a change for the better and therefore would not cause any risk of harm.
View on long distance relationships
The device might change long distance relationships. Several Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) tools, such as email, instant messaging (IM), cell phone calling, texting, video chat, and social networking sites already seemingly lighten the limitations of distance between geographically separated couples [13]. However, these technologies mostly focus on text-based, speech-based, or audio-visual interaction. As we physically interact with everything around us by using our sense of touch [2], it seems weird that current communication devices especially rely on vision and hearing.
Mediated social touch technologies offer possibilities, as it enables partners to touch each other over distance [20]. By means of haptic feedback [2], mediated social touch technologies enhance experiences of presence [14], [15], [16], [17] and simulate physical touch [18], [19], [20]. By contributing to the feeling of presence and physical touch, the device might change the heaviness of and the view on long distance relationships.
This seems like a change for the better, because it might create more happiness among LDR couples. However, the probability of a (positively) changing view on long distance relationships is unlikely, as there is still a lot of unfamiliarity in the area of mediated touch. Despite the fact that it is relatively easy to create a simulation of physical touch with technology, there is still a lack of clarity about how this simulation of touch should feel, to what extent this simulation feels realistic, which effects can be accomplished and what cognitive preconditions should be reached. Because of the lack of clarity in this area, I am unsure if it will actually lighten the limitations of distance, as it will probably not feel as realistic yet. However, using the device may be beneficial for partners that see each other on a regular basis, as then the device does not serve as a full-scale replacement of physical intimacy. In this case, the device might get away with being less realistic, as partners that see each other on a regular basis would not need to use the device as often.
DESIGN DECISIONS AND PROTECTION
This section discusses ways to avoid the problems identified above, including whether/how the research should be protected.
To prevent miscommunications caused by design, several things can be done. Firstly, the pillow could stand out from other pillows that are already owned by the user (‘could’, because if the user doesn’t want to, he doesn’t need to). This can be done by providing different pillow cases, so that the user can choose their own pillow case/design. In addition, the pillow itself can be of a regular size, so that pillow cases created by other companies fit the pillow. Secondly, the device should send a clear notification when someone is using his/her device, but the notification should not be obtrusive. Therefore it is chosen to make a light-based notification, and not for example a sound-based notification. The light (one NeoPixel LED is used) should be bright enough to be noticeable. Research that is done for the project indicated that people want to use the pillow in the evenings, e.g. when they go to bed/when they are in bed, so the light should be noticeable. In addition, light may add to the feeling of presence without being obtrusive/overpowering.
Internet connections are not yet relevant, but some potential solutions are presented now. To prevent the system from getting hacked and causing miscommunications, both technology ends (sender/receiver) are configured using unique numbers. Two unique, fixed numbers match together, the one at the sender side and the one at the receiver side. A website can be created to register both sides and link them. In addition, the signal can be encoded for extra safety.
To prevent negative changes in communication behavior, some things should be kept in mind. Firstly, the device can be used on its own, but it can also be used in combination with other communications technologies. In combination with other communication technologies, the device possibly enhances the interaction between two partners as they can ‘feel’ each other by using the device. Secondly, the device is not comparable enough to face-to-face contact to replace face-to-face contact as a whole, as in real life people would not only communicate by touching. In addition, technologies like cell phone calling and video conferencing haven’t fully replaced face-to-face contact either, it is just a medium that is used when people are not in each other’s direct proximity.
Protection
The research will not be protected by intellectual property as it is inapplicable or unnecessary. Trade secrets will not be used to protect aspects of the technology, because parts such as an Arduino or other technology are hard and unnecessary to protect. However, communication protocols and databases may be protected using trade secrets. No patents are applicable or will be used to protect any aspect of the technology. Trademarks such as distinctive words, names, symbols, slogans, shapes, sounds or logos are not defined yet. As with trade secrets, a copyright claim can be done on the software programs running the technology. However, protection provided by copyrights is limited. It has limited protection for functional aspects of software products, such as underlying algorithms, data structures and protocols. In addition, the software used is quite easy and can be easily reproduced. The software itself cannot be used to cause harm, so there is no point of protecting it. Hence, no copyrights or trade secrets will be used to protect the software programs running the technology. Copyrights could protect graphical aspects of a user interface. However, the device does not have a graphical user interface so copyrights to protect it are unnecessary.