Positive Design: An Introduction to Design for Subjective Well-Being
积极设计：主观幸福感设计导论
Pieter M. A. Desmet* and Anna E. Pohlmeyer
彼得·M·A·德塞梅特*和安娜·E·波尔迈耶
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
代尔夫特理工大学工业设计工程学院，荷兰代尔夫特
This paper addresses the question of how design can contribute to the happiness of individuals–to their subjective well-being. A framework for positive design is introduced that includes three main components of subjective well-being: pleasure, personal significance and virtue. Each component represents an ingredient of design for happiness, and we propose that design that expressly includes all three ingredients is design that promotes human flourishing. People who flourish are developing as individuals, live their lives to their fullest potential, and act in the best interests of society. The intention to support human flourishing is the explicit, central design objective of positive design. Five characteristics of positive design are proposed, all of which are of relevance to organizing design processes that intend to result in designs that stimulate human flourishing. In addition, some contemporary design approaches are discussed that focus on quality of life, including nudge, capability approach, and experience design. Four important research challenges are outlined to indicate directions for a research agenda. Together with the framework, these research directions are intended to offer inspiration for designers and design researchers to join forces in their endeavours to design for subjective well-being.
本文探讨了设计如何促进个体的幸福感——即他们的主观幸福感。引入了一个积极设计的框架，该框架包含主观幸福感的三个主要组成部分：愉悦、个人意义和美德。每个组成部分都代表了幸福设计的一个要素，我们提出，明确包含所有三个要素的设计是促进人类繁荣的设计。繁荣的人正在发展成为个体，充分发挥他们的潜力，并为社会的最佳利益行事。支持人类繁荣的意图是积极设计明确的核心设计目标。提出了积极设计的五个特征，这些特征都与旨在产生刺激人类繁荣的设计的设计过程组织相关。此外，还讨论了一些当代设计方法，这些方法侧重于生活质量，包括助推、能力方法和体验设计。概述了四个重要的研究挑战，以指明研究议程的方向。 与框架一起，这些研究方向旨在为设计师和设计研究人员提供灵感，共同努力致力于主观幸福感的创造性设计。
Keywords – Design for Subjective Well-Being, Happiness, Flourishing, Design Framework, Positive Design.
关键词 – 主观幸福感设计、幸福、繁荣、设计框架、积极设计。
Relevance to Design Practice – This paper introduces a general framework for designing for subjective well-being and discusses research challenges in the domain of “Positive Design.”
与设计实践的相关性——本文介绍了一个用于主观幸福感设计的一般框架，并探讨了“积极设计”领域中的研究挑战。
Citation: Desmet, P. M. A., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5-19.
引用：Desmet, P. M. A., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2013). 积极设计：主观幸福感设计导论. 国际设计杂志, 7(3), 5-19.
Received Sep. 26, 2013; Accepted Oct. 10, 2013; Published Nov. 30, 2013.
收稿日期：2013 年 9 月 26 日；录用日期：2013 年 10 月 10 日；发表日期：2013 年 11 月 30 日。
Copyright: © 2013 Desmet & Pohlmeyer. Copyright for this article is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the International Journal of Design. All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. By virtue of their appearance in this open-access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
版权：© 2013 Desmet & Pohlmeyer。本文的版权由作者保留，首次发表权授予《国际设计杂志》。除另有说明外，所有期刊内容均根据知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎 2.5 许可协议授权。通过在此开放获取期刊上发表，文章可免费用于教育及其他非商业用途，但需注明出处。
*Corresponding Author: p.m.a.desmet@tudelft.nl
*通讯作者：p.m.a.desmet@tudelft.nl
Prof. Dr. Pieter Desmet is chair of the Design for Experience research group and program director of the Design for Interaction master’s program at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at Delft University of Technology. His main research interests are in the fields of design, emotion, and subjective well-being. Desmet is a board member of the international Design & Emotion Society and co-founder of the Delft Institute of Positive Design.
皮特·德塞特教授博士是代尔夫特理工大学工业设计工程学院设计体验研究组的主席，也是交互设计硕士项目的项目主任。他的主要研究兴趣集中在设计、情感和主观幸福感领域。德塞特是国际设计与情感学会的董事会成员，也是代尔夫特积极设计研究所的联合创始人。
Dr.-Ing. Anna Pohlmeyer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial Design at Delft University of Technology, co-chair of the Delft Institute of Positive Design, and co-founder of the research group Intuitive Use of User Interfaces (IUUI). With a background in psychology (Humboldt University of Berlin) and a Ph.D. in engineering (TU Berlin & University of Luxembourg), her research topics include design for subjective well-being, user experience, and user-centered design.
安娜·波尔迈耶博士是代尔夫特理工大学工业设计系的助理教授，代尔夫特积极设计研究所的联合主席，以及用户界面直观使用研究小组（IUUI）的联合创始人。她拥有心理学背景（柏林洪堡大学）和工程学博士学位（柏林工业大学与卢森堡大学），其研究主题涉及主观幸福感设计、用户体验及以用户为中心的设计。
Introduction 引言
In the past, TV commercials for the Dutch national lottery traditionally featured ordinary people enjoying expensive luxury products after winning big on the lottery. (Picture a local farmer driving a Lamborghini: see www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWWkysK7FGo.) The message was straightforward: “Money generates happiness because it enables you to buy the products that you can only dream of with your current bank balance.”Although these campaigns have varied over the years, that message was consistent for at least a decade. Surprisingly, the most recent campaign communicates a very different message. The commercial shows people who are engaging in interesting social activities or giving a helping hand to others. (Imagine a young man helping his grandmother to fulfill a dream: see www.youtube.com/watch?v=st5SL4JiH0g). The new message has become more nuanced and more truthful: “Money generates happiness because it provides you with the means to pursue meaningful goals and to help your loved ones to do the same.” In other words, the lottery is no longer seducing us to buy tickets by addressing our desire for material goods, but by addressing our desire to be meaningful.
过去，荷兰国家彩票的电视广告传统上展示普通人在彩票中大奖后享受昂贵奢侈品的场景。（想象一下当地农民驾驶兰博基尼的画面：参见 www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWWkysK7FGo。）其信息直截了当：“金钱带来幸福，因为它让你能购买当前银行余额下只能梦想的商品。”尽管这些广告活动多年来有所变化，但这一信息至少持续了十年。令人惊讶的是，最近的广告传达了一个截然不同的信息。广告中展示人们参与有趣的社交活动或向他人伸出援手。（想象一个年轻人帮助祖母实现梦想的情景：参见 www.youtube.com/watch?v=st5SL4JiH0g。）新信息变得更加微妙和真实：“金钱带来幸福，因为它为你提供了追求有意义目标和帮助你所爱的人实现同样目标的手段。”换言之，彩票不再通过激发我们对物质商品的渴望来诱使我们购买彩票，而是通过激发我们追求意义的渴望。
The new commercial representation of human happiness in lottery advertisements is by no means a coincidence. It is in line with the gradual but persisting transformation from a materialistic to a post-materialistic value system that is taking place in many Western societies (referred to as the “silent revolution” by Inglehart, 1971, 2000). A materialistic perspective assumes a direct relationship between happiness and material wealth, as seen in the original lottery commercial. Post-material values, however, give higher priority to the fulfilment of personal goals such as belongingness and self-expression. This assumes a more indirect relationship between happiness and material wealth: Material wealth can support individuals in their pursuit of happiness, but it is not a direct source of happiness in itself, as expressed in the new lottery commercial. This change of focus from material to more personal values also aligns with the findings of psychologists examining the conditions for human flourishing (Seligman, 2011; see also Positive Psychology). Numerous studies have confirmed that it is not personal resources that make a person happy, but rather how those resources are exploited (for an overview see Biswas-Diener, 2008).
彩票广告中人类幸福的新商业表现绝非偶然。它与许多西方社会正在发生的从物质主义到后物质主义价值体系的渐进但持续的转变相一致（Inglehart，1971，2000 年称之为“静悄悄的革命”）。物质主义视角认为幸福与物质财富之间存在直接关系，正如最初的彩票广告所展示的那样。然而，后物质主义价值观更重视个人目标的实现，如归属感和自我表达。这假设了幸福与物质财富之间更为间接的关系：物质财富可以支持个人追求幸福，但它本身并不是幸福的直接来源，正如新彩票广告所表达的那样。从物质到更个人化价值观的关注转变，也与心理学家研究人类繁荣条件（Seligman，2011；另见积极心理学）的发现相吻合。 众多研究表明，使人幸福的并非个人资源本身，而是这些资源的利用方式（综述见 Biswas-Diener，2008 年）。
This idea of material wealth as a resource for happiness opens up a different perspective for design, given that consumer products are also resources. A smart phone, for example, is a resource used to listen to music, organise work, or show consideration through thoughtful text messages: activities that can be meaningful by providing joy, personal direction, and even virtue. The concept we wish to advance in this paper is that if products function as resources that address meaningful goals, then they can contribute to users’ happiness: It is not the products nor their material value, but what we do with products that can make us happy. The seven design examples provided illustrate that design can enable, stimulate, and inspire engagement in meaningful activities. We are excited by the idea that design can spark inspiration and empower people, and we believe that it is possible to design for happiness.1
将物质财富视为幸福资源的观念为设计开辟了不同的视角，因为消费品也是资源。例如，智能手机是一种资源，用于听音乐、组织工作或通过贴心的短信表达关怀：这些活动通过提供快乐、个人方向甚至美德，可以具有意义。本文希望推进的概念是，如果产品作为解决有意义目标的资源，那么它们就能促进用户的幸福感：使我们快乐的不是产品本身或其物质价值，而是我们如何使用产品。提供的七个设计示例说明了设计能够实现、激发和激励有意义的活动参与。我们为设计能够激发灵感、赋予人们力量而感到兴奋，并相信设计幸福是可能的。
In recent years, inquiry in the domains of psychology, philosophy, economics, and politics has shown a heightened interest in the science of happiness, or subjective well-being (used interchangeably here). This particular focus on (long-term) human happiness has now entered the arena of design. Clearly, we cannot assume that products, luxury or otherwise, automatically contribute to individual happiness. Someone who lives with an abundance of smart phones, TVs, dishwashers, cars, and computers is not necessarily happy, and likewise, someone who has to do without these resources is not necessarily unhappy. Equally, we cannot assume (as is sometimes done in the domain of positive psychology) that products make no salient contribution whatsoever. The relevant question is not whether products contribute to happiness, but how. How can design increase happiness and support people’s efforts to lead full and satisfying lives? And, how can design processes factor in the explicit intention to increase the happiness of individuals and communities? These questions indicate a need for a fresh perspective not only on what is meaningful in design, but also on how design can intentionally contribute to people’s quality of life and how it can reduce the destructive (long- and short-term) side effects of unsustainable consumption. We have seen this need expressed via a growing number of design initiatives, such as the INDEX design award, the What Design Can Do event, and the Designers Accord project.2 These are three examples out of many similar initiatives. Likewise, in design research, lively discussions have been reported on emerging new approaches, such as design for experience (Hassenzahl, 2010), design for human capabilities (Oosterlaken, 2013), design for socially constructive behaviour (Tromp, 2013), design for social innovation (Manzini, 2007), and design for well-being (Keinonen, Vaajakallio, & Honkonen, 2013). Although varying in focus and theoretical underpinnings, these approaches all aspire to employ design as an enabler, to focus on quality of life and to look at human needs and life aspirations in a constructive and sustainable fashion. We use “positive design” as an umbrella term for all forms of design, design research and design intention in which explicit attention is paid to the effects of design on the subjective well-being of individuals and communities.
近年来，心理学、哲学、经济学和政治学领域的研究显示，人们对幸福科学或主观幸福感（在此可互换使用）的兴趣日益浓厚。这种对（长期）人类幸福的特别关注现已进入设计领域。显然，我们不能想当然地认为产品，无论是奢侈品还是其他，会自动促进个人幸福。一个拥有大量智能手机、电视、洗碗机、汽车和电脑的人不一定幸福，同样，一个缺乏这些资源的人也不一定不幸福。同样，我们不能假设（正如积极心理学领域有时所做的那样）产品对幸福没有任何显著贡献。相关问题不是产品是否有助于幸福，而是如何有助于。设计如何能增进幸福并支持人们过上充实而满意的生活？而且，设计过程如何能明确地考虑增进个人和社区幸福的目标？ 这些问题表明，不仅在设计中何为意义重大的问题上需要新的视角，而且在设计如何有意识地提升人们的生活质量，以及如何减少不可持续消费带来的（长期和短期）破坏性副作用方面，也需要新的思考。我们已通过越来越多的设计倡议看到了这一需求，例如 INDEX 设计奖、“设计能做什么”活动以及设计师协定项目。这些都是众多类似倡议中的三个例子。同样，在设计研究领域，关于新兴方法的活跃讨论也屡见不鲜，如体验设计（Hassenzahl, 2010）、人类能力设计（Oosterlaken, 2013）、社会建设性行为设计（Tromp, 2013）、社会创新设计（Manzini, 2007）以及福祉设计（Keinonen, Vaajakallio, & Honkonen, 2013）。尽管这些方法在焦点和理论基础上各有不同，但它们都致力于将设计作为推动因素，关注生活质量，并以建设性和可持续的方式审视人类需求和生活愿景。 我们将“积极设计”作为涵盖所有设计形式、设计研究和设计意图的统称，其中明确关注设计对个人和社区主观幸福感的影响。
Veenhoven (2011) defined happiness as “the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his/her own life-as-a-whole favourably” (p. 399). In this definition, happiness represents a positive appreciation of one’s life. Several scholars have proposed that this life appreciation is best considered to be a multi-componential phenomenon. Lyubomirsky (2007), for example, defined subjective well-being as “the experience of joy, contentment or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful and worthwhile” (p.32). Eid and Diener (2004) proposed that subjective well-being “refers to one’s multi-dimensional evaluation of their lives, including cognitive judgments of life satisfaction as well as affective evaluations of moods and emotions” (p. 245; see also Diener, 1984; Diener & Larsen, 1993). Despite variations in wording, these (and other) definitions generally agree that subjective well-being includes various affective and cognitive components.
Veenhoven（2011）将幸福定义为“个体对其整体生活质量的积极评价程度”（第 399 页）。在此定义中，幸福代表了对个人生活的正面欣赏。多位学者提出，这种生活欣赏最好被视为一个多成分现象。例如，Lyubomirsky（2007）将主观幸福感定义为“体验喜悦、满足或积极幸福感，同时感到自己的生活美好、有意义且值得”（第 32 页）。Eid 和 Diener（2004）认为主观幸福感“涉及个体对其生活的多维度评价，包括对生活满意度的认知判断以及对情绪和心情的情感评估”（第 245 页；另见 Diener，1984；Diener & Larsen，1993）。尽管措辞有所不同，这些（及其他）定义普遍认同主观幸福感包含多种情感和认知成分。
The multi-componential character of happiness is reflected in the design literature: Different initiatives focus on different components of subjective well-being. While this stimulates a rich discussion, it also makes it more challenging to compare design initiatives because authors often do not explicitly state which component they may have focussed on. This makes it difficult to explore where ideas overlap, contrast, or complement each other. We therefore propose that the field is in need of a language of subjective well-being that is both understandable and relevant to the domain of design. In this paper, we aim to contribute to the development of such a language with a “positive design framework” that addresses three main components of subjective well-being, resulting in three ingredients of positive design. In developing this framework, our theoretical approach was both top-down and bottom-up: We reviewed the currently booming field of positive psychology, and we reviewed current developments in design theory. Our framework for positive design combines and compliments both domains.
幸福的多维度特性在设计文献中得到了体现：不同的倡议关注主观幸福感的不同组成部分。虽然这激发了丰富的讨论，但也使得比较设计倡议变得更加困难，因为作者往往没有明确指出他们关注的是哪个部分。这使得探究想法之间的重叠、对比或互补之处变得困难。因此，我们认为该领域需要一种既易于理解又与设计领域相关的主观幸福感语言。在本文中，我们旨在通过一个“积极设计框架”来促进这种语言的发展，该框架针对主观幸福感的三个主要组成部分，形成了积极设计的三个要素。在开发这一框架时，我们的理论方法是自上而下和自下而上的结合：我们回顾了当前蓬勃发展的积极心理学领域，并审视了设计理论的最新进展。我们的积极设计框架融合并补充了这两个领域。
In this paper, we begin by introducing the framework and its three ingredients, which combined, result in design for human flourishing. We then proceed with a discussion of specifications to be met by positive design and a research agenda that considers both theoretical and methodological aspects. The overall purpose of the paper and our framework is to facilitate the positioning of existing initiatives and to be of help to those who want to design explicitly for subjective well-being or to research the impact of design on people’s happiness.
本文首先介绍了框架及其三个组成部分，这些部分共同构成了促进人类繁荣的设计。接着，我们探讨了积极设计需满足的规范，并提出了一项研究议程，涵盖理论与方法论两方面。本文及框架的总体目的是为现有举措提供定位，并帮助那些希望明确为提升主观幸福感进行设计或研究设计对人们幸福感影响的人士。
Framework for Positive Design
积极设计框架
Positive design initiatives deliberately intend to increase people’s subjective well-being and, hence, increase an enduring appreciation of their lives. It is important to note that this target is the explicit, central objective at the outset of a positive design process, not simply a fortunate side effect of a design: In positive design, the design’s raison-d’être is determined by its effect on subjective well-being. The positive design framework combines three key components of subjective well-being, as shown in Figure 1.
积极设计举措旨在有意识地提升人们的主观幸福感，从而增进对其生活的持久欣赏。值得注意的是，这一目标是积极设计过程开始时明确的核心目标，并非仅仅是设计的幸运副作用：在积极设计中，设计的根本理由取决于其对主观幸福感的影响。积极设计框架融合了主观幸福感的三个关键组成部分，如图 1 所示。
Figure 1. Positive Design Framework.
图 1. 正向设计框架。
The three cornerstones in Figure 1 represent positive design ingredients: design for pleasure, design for personal significance, and design for virtue. Each ingredient independently stimulates subjective well-being; positive design sits in the “sweet spot” where all three ingredients intersect. This intersection is where people flourish. What is flourishing? If we represent subjective well-being as a spectrum, a person who is near the low end of the spectrum is languishing, whereas one who is near the high end is flourishing (Huppert et al., 2009). In the Aristotelian tradition, flourishing is referred to as optimal human functioning and living to one’s full potential (Ryan & Deci, 2001). According to Seligman (2011), to flourish, besides having positive emotions, an individual must also have a sense of meaning, engagement, interest, and purpose in life.3 Accordingly, positive design goes beyond mere pleasure. Although pleasure is an essential component of subjective well-being, it takes more than pleasure to flourish: A full life is one that also gives a person a sense of meaning and results in greater life satisfaction (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005; Sirgy & Wu, 2009).The idea that we advance here is that although each of the three design ingredients can serve as a guide for designing for well-being, positive design, i.e., design for flourishing, takes all three into consideration. This implies that, in our view, experience-driven design that contributes to subjective well-being by generating pleasure is positive design only if it also addresses the user’s sense of virtue and personal significance. Note that positive design does not necessarily address all ingredients to the same degree; there can be an emphasis on one of them. However, in all cases, it should be ensured that the design will not impart any negative effects on the other two. For example, even though a product may not stimulate virtuous behaviour, it can still be considered to be positive design as long as it does not stimulate un-virtuous behaviour when supporting one or both of the other ingredients.
图 1 中的三个基石代表了积极设计的要素：设计以带来愉悦、设计以赋予个人意义，以及设计以体现美德。每个要素单独激发主观幸福感；积极设计位于这三个要素交汇的“甜蜜点”。这个交汇点正是人们蓬勃发展的地方。何谓蓬勃发展？若将主观幸福感视为一个光谱，处于光谱低端的人在消沉，而接近高端的人则在蓬勃发展（Huppert 等人，2009）。在亚里士多德的传统中，蓬勃发展被称为最佳人类功能发挥和潜能的完全实现（Ryan & Deci, 2001）。根据 Seligman（2011）的观点，要蓬勃发展，除了拥有积极情绪外，个体还必须在生命中找到意义、投入、兴趣和目的。因此，积极设计超越了单纯的愉悦。尽管愉悦是主观幸福感的重要组成部分，但仅凭愉悦不足以蓬勃发展：充实的人生还应赋予个体意义感，并带来更高的生活满意度（Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005; Sirgy & Wu, 2009）。我们在此提出的观点是，尽管三个设计要素中的每一个都可以作为促进福祉设计的指南，但积极设计，即促进繁荣的设计，需要综合考虑这三个要素。这意味着，在我们看来，通过产生愉悦感来提升主观幸福感体验驱动的设计，只有当它同时关注用户的道德感和个人价值时，才算是积极设计。需要注意的是，积极设计并不一定在所有要素上同等程度地着力；可以侧重于其中一个要素。然而，在任何情况下，都应确保设计不会对其他两个要素产生负面影响。例如，即使某产品可能没有激发美德行为，只要它在支持其他一个或两个要素时不会引发不道德行为，它仍然可以被视为积极设计。
The Three Ingredients of Positive Design
积极设计的三大要素
The components of Figure 1 are loosely based on classifications proposed by philosophers and psychologists, including Parfit (1984) and Ryan and Deci (2001), and adhere to frameworks suggested in positive psychology (e.g., by Seligman, 2002). Although partly overlapping, they are conceptually different and thus indicate different design opportunities. One may wonder whether these three cover the entire range of essential components of flourishing. Indeed, we argue that the three high-level constituents of subjective well-being—pleasure, personal significance, and virtue—embody the essential ingredients of positive design. A multitude of life domains (e.g., health, work, relationships) can be represented in all of them; however, the forms of operationalization vary among the components. Imagine, for example, the domain of work and someone working in an office environment. This person could find virtue in being sincere, maintaining order, and striving for wisdom; he/she could seek personal significance through the ambition to develop leadership skills, work toward a promotion, or start on a new project; and could find pleasure in enjoying lunches, taking short breaks, and in sharing successes with colleagues. Put differently, although the essential ingredients are universal, their manifestations are personal and depend on context and life domain. In the following, we will first introduce each ingredient, and then discuss how they combine to form a framework for positive design.
图 1 的组成部分大致基于哲学家和心理学家提出的分类，如帕菲特（1984 年）和瑞安与德西（2001 年），并遵循积极心理学（例如，塞利格曼，2002 年）提出的框架。尽管部分重叠，它们在概念上有所区别，因此指向不同的设计机会。人们可能会疑惑这三者是否涵盖了繁荣的所有基本要素。实际上，我们认为主观幸福感的三个高层构成——快乐、个人意义和美德——体现了积极设计的核心要素。众多生活领域（如健康、工作、关系）都可以在这三者中得到体现；然而，各组成部分的操作化形式各异。例如，设想工作领域和办公室环境中的某个人。 此人能在真诚、维护秩序和追求智慧中找到美德；他/她能通过培养领导技能、争取晋升或启动新项目来寻求个人意义；并能在享受午餐、短暂休息和与同事分享成功中找到乐趣。换言之，尽管基本要素是普遍的，但它们的体现是个人的，取决于情境和生活领域。接下来，我们将首先介绍每个要素，然后讨论它们如何结合形成积极设计的框架。
(1) Design for pleasure
(1) 设计以愉悦为导向
The first ingredient addresses happiness that comes from enjoying the moment, i.e., subjective well-being that is achieved by the sum of a person’s momentary pleasures. The focus is on the here and now, the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect: being relaxed, having fun, being free of problems. Products can evoke positive feelings (maximizing pleasure and comfort) or reduce negative feelings (minimizing pain and discomfort). Design can also be a direct source of pleasure (e.g., one can savour the fine details of a handmade leather bag) or facilitate pleasurable activities (e.g., one can enjoy a day of sailing, which is facilitated by a sailboat).
第一种成分关注的是享受当下带来的幸福感，即通过个人瞬间愉悦的总和实现的主观幸福感。重点在于此时此地，积极情绪的存在和消极情绪的缺失：放松、娱乐、无烦恼。产品可以唤起正面情绪（最大化愉悦和舒适）或减少负面情绪（最小化痛苦和不适）。设计本身也可以是愉悦的直接来源（例如，人们可以品味手工皮包的精细工艺），或是促进愉悦活动的手段（例如，帆船使得人们能够享受航海的乐趣）。
Various approaches and frameworks have been articulated that would enable designers to stimulate or generate particular user experiences (see “Recordis” below). Drawing on a framework developed by Tiger (1992), Jordan (2000) introduced his influential pleasure-based approach, which distinguishes four distinct types of pleasure that people may seek in human-product interaction: physical, social, psychological, and ideological. With the goal of investigating nuances of user experience, Desmet (2012) assembled a list of 25 positive emotions that can be experienced in human-product interaction, and Hassenzahl et al. (2013; this issue) have developed a narrative approach to experience design, involving many smaller and contextualised momentary experiences that combine to form holistic user experience narrations.
已经提出了多种方法和框架，使设计师能够激发或生成特定的用户体验（参见下文的“Recordis”）。借鉴 Tiger（1992）开发的框架，Jordan（2000）提出了他具有影响力的基于愉悦的方法，该方法区分了人们在人-产品交互中可能寻求的四种不同类型的愉悦：生理的、社会的、心理的和意识形态的。为了探究用户体验的细微差别，Desmet（2012）整理了一份包含 25 种在人-产品交互中可能体验到的积极情绪的清单，而 Hassenzahl 等人（2013；本期）则开发了一种叙事性的体验设计方法，涉及众多较小且情境化的瞬间体验，这些体验组合起来形成全面的用户体验叙述。
(2) Design for personal significance
（2）设计注重个人意义
The second ingredient addresses happiness that comes from a sense of personal meaning. The focus is not on momentary affect, but on one’s personal (long- or short-term) goals and aspirations, such as getting a diploma, building a tree house, owning a palace or running a marathon. Personal significance can also be derived from the awareness of one’s past achievements or from a sense of progress toward a future goal. With this in mind, products can be resources that people use to attain these goals. For example, musical instruments enable musicians to develop their talent, while running shoes support the development of an athlete’s individual running technique. Products can also remind users of their current goals, (e.g., the MijMo suggests ways for the user to find and maintain a balance of activity and relaxation; see “MijMo”) or symbolize the achievement of past goals (e.g., an energy-saving thermostat that symbolizes one’s achievement of living an eco-friendly lifestyle; see “Nest Learning Thermostat”).
第二种成分关注的是源自个人意义感的幸福。重点不在于短暂的情感体验，而是个人的（长期或短期）目标和抱负，比如获得文凭、建造树屋、拥有宫殿或完成马拉松。个人意义也可以来自于对过去成就的认知或对未来目标进展的感知。基于此，产品可以成为人们实现这些目标的资源。例如，乐器使音乐家得以培养才华，而跑鞋则助力运动员发展个人跑步技巧。产品还能提醒用户当前的目标（例如，MijMo 提供平衡活动与休息的方法；参见“MijMo”），或象征过去目标的达成（例如，象征环保生活方式成就的节能恒温器；参见“Nest Learning Thermostat”）。
An alternative to traditional welfare economics, the “capability approach” proposed by Nussbaum (2000) and Sen (1993) is an interesting example of an economic approach that focuses on personal significance. Instead of judging prosperity based on wealth or resource indicators, their approach looks at what people are able to do with their resources. It is based on the proposition that in order to have a full life, one requires the freedom to pursue one’s personal goals. The approach therefore focuses on fostering fundamental capabilities (or “freedoms”) that enable individuals to pursue their personal version of a full life. Examples are “affiliation” (e.g., the freedom to form friendships or to be treated with dignity) and “bodily integrity” (e.g., to be able to avoid violence or to exercise reproductive choice). For a discussion of these capabilities and their relation to technology, see Johnstone (2012) and Oosterlaken (2013).
作为传统福利经济学的替代方案，努斯鲍姆（2000 年）和森（1993 年）提出的“能力方法”是一个聚焦于个人意义的经济学方法的有趣实例。该方法不以财富或资源指标来评判繁荣，而是关注人们如何利用其资源。它基于这样一个命题：为了拥有充实的生活，个体需要追求个人目标的自由。因此，该方法着重于培养基本能力（或“自由”），使个人能够追求其心目中的充实生活。例如，“归属感”（如形成友谊或被尊重的自由）和“身体完整性”（如避免暴力或行使生育选择的自由）。关于这些能力及其与技术的关系的讨论，可参见约翰斯通（2012 年）和奥斯特兰肯（2013 年）。
(3) Design for virtue
(3) 德行设计
The third ingredient addresses happiness that is the (by-)product of virtuous behaviour. Here, the question shifts to a moral level: “Am I behaving honourably?” The very question implies a normative distinction between what is good (e.g., development of abilities, altruism) and what is bad (e.g., losing dignity, sadistic pleasure) that is independent of what we might enjoy or strive for. It is based on the proposition that there is an ideal mode of behaviour, or a sense of excellence or perfection towards which one should strive, that leads to a virtuous life. Virtue is an idealized human value that is operationalized in many ways (Rokeach, 1973; see “Human Virtues”). For example, one may find virtue in philanthropy and may embody this by giving to one’s favourite charities. Design itself can support people’s efforts to be virtuous: For example, eyeglasses can facilitate reading and learning (i.e., the virtues of knowledge and wisdom; see “See Better to Learn Better”), and thank-you cards can enable us to express our appreciation (i.e., gratitude; see “Thankful Rotterdam”). On the negative side, products can also enable or even stimulate non-virtuous behaviour, such as production that uses polluting technology or products that stimulate unsustainable consumption.
第三种成分关注的是作为美德行为副产品的幸福感。此时，问题转向了道德层面：“我是否举止得体？”这一问题本身就蕴含着一种规范性的区分，即什么是好的（如能力的发展、利他主义），什么是坏的（如尊严的丧失、施虐的快感），这种区分独立于我们可能享受或追求的事物。它基于这样一个命题：存在一种理想的行为模式，或是一种卓越或完美的感觉，人们应以此为目标，从而过上有德性的生活。美德是一种理想化的人类价值，其实现方式多种多样（Rokeach, 1973；参见“人类美德”）。例如，一个人可能在慈善事业中发现美德，并通过向自己喜爱的慈善机构捐款来体现这一点。设计本身可以支持人们追求美德的努力：例如，眼镜可以促进阅读和学习（即知识与智慧的美德；参见“看得更清楚，学得更好”），而感谢卡则能让我们表达感激之情（即感恩；参见“感恩鹿特丹”）。 从负面来看，产品也可能助长甚至刺激不良行为，例如采用污染性技术生产或刺激不可持续消费的产品。
In the last several years, a variety of behaviour-focused approaches have been introduced that use design and technology to stimulate people to be virtuous (e.g., Tromp, 2013). An example is nudge theory, a concept based on the distinction between two systems of human thought: the automatic, which is rapid and instinctive, and the reflective, which is deliberate and self-conscious. According to nudge theory, an individual’s automatic decisions can be “nudged” by altering the environment in which such decisions are made (e.g., Lee, Kiesler, & Forlizzi, 2011). For example, placing fresh fruits at eye level in a canteen can stimulate people to choose this healthy alternative. In their book on nudge theory, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) typify nudge as “libertarian paternalism” because it aims to stimulate better choices without forcing people to make them (i.e., they can still decide to choose an unhealthy snack).
在过去的几年中，一系列以行为为重点的方法被引入，这些方法利用设计和科技来激励人们行善（例如，Tromp, 2013）。一个例子是助推理论，该概念基于人类思维的两种系统之间的区别：自动系统，快速且本能；反思系统，深思熟虑且自我意识。根据助推理论，个人的自动决策可以通过改变决策环境来“助推”（例如，Lee, Kiesler, & Forlizzi, 2011）。例如，在食堂将新鲜水果放在视线水平位置可以刺激人们选择这种健康选项。在关于助推理论的书中，Thaler 和 Sunstein（2008）将助推描述为“自由主义的家长式”，因为它旨在刺激更好的选择而不强迫人们做出这些选择（即，他们仍然可以选择不健康的零食）。
It’s all in the mix: Design for flourishing
尽在融合之中：繁荣设计之道
Our framework for positive design represents an approach to design for human flourishing. Each of the three design ingredients described above can individually contribute to a person’s subjective well-being, but all three are needed for a person to flourish. Flourishing has been referred to as optimal human functioning and living to one’s full potential, or being the best person one can be (Ryan & Deci, 2001). It encompasses (self-focused) personal development as well as (other-focused) virtuous living in the best interests of society. In the words of Diener and Biswas-Diener (2008, p. 8), flourishing requires a “balanced portfolio.” If we only pursue pleasure—to the exclusion of purpose and meaning—we may become hedonists, and unable to find true well-being. Likewise, only focusing on future aspirations, without taking the time to experience momentary joy and pleasure, might make a person miserable. In their research examining the benefits of this more balanced life, Sirgy and Wu (2009) define balance as “a state reflecting satisfaction or fulfilment in several important domains with little or no negative affect in other domains” (p. 185).4 The beauty is that pleasure, significance, and virtue do not have to be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, those emotions that have a meaningful and virtuous cause are likely to have an especially pronounced impact on our well-being. People who flourish have a deeper sense of purpose and meaning in life, yet they also experience frequent positive emotions. Overall, positive design encompasses the entire life of people and communities, including all facets of subjective well-being.
我们的积极设计框架代表了一种促进人类繁荣的设计方法。上述三种设计要素各自都能对个人的主观幸福感产生贡献，但要让一个人真正繁荣，三者缺一不可。繁荣被视为最佳的人类功能发挥和潜能的完全实现，或是成为一个人所能达到的最佳状态（Ryan & Deci, 2001）。它涵盖了（自我导向的）个人成长和（他人导向的）为社会最佳利益而行的美德生活。正如 Diener 和 Biswas-Diener（2008，第 8 页）所言，繁荣需要一个“平衡的投资组合”。如果我们只追求快乐——而忽视了目的和意义——我们可能会变成享乐主义者，无法找到真正的幸福。同样，如果只专注于未来的抱负，而不花时间体验当下的快乐和愉悦，可能会让人感到痛苦。在研究这种更平衡生活带来的好处时，Sirgy 和 Wu（2009）将平衡定义为“在多个重要领域反映出满足或实现感，而在其他领域几乎没有或没有负面影响的状态”（第 185 页）。 4 美妙之处在于，愉悦、意义和美德不必相互排斥。相反，那些具有有意义和道德高尚原因的情感，很可能对我们的幸福感产生特别显著的影响。蓬勃发展的人们在生活中拥有更深层次的目标感和意义感，同时他们也经常体验到积极的情绪。总的来说，积极设计涵盖了个人和社区的整个生活，包括主观幸福感的所有方面。
Towards a Positive Design Approach
迈向积极设计方法
It is quite difficult, perhaps even impossible, to find an example of a product that does not make at least one person happy. In one way or another, all design aims to contribute to the subjective well-being of the user, either by increasing well-being or by resolving (or reducing) threats to well-being (see also the discussion on “Objective Well-Being vs. Subjective Well-Being”).We should therefore be aware that there is no obvious or objective distinction between design that contributes to well-being and design that does not. The novelty of positive design—and how it can be differentiated from other initiatives or design in general—is its explicit focus on designing for human flourishing. Consequently, the three proposed subjective well-being components guide the entire design process. This requires the designer to formulate a vision of how the new design will evoke positive affect, how it will stimulate and enable people in pursuing their personal goals, and how it will support them in being a morally good person.
要找到一个让至少一个人不快乐的产品例子，是相当困难的，甚至可能是不可能的。无论以何种方式，所有设计都旨在促进用户的主观幸福感，无论是通过提升幸福感，还是解决（或减轻）对幸福感的威胁（参见“客观幸福感与主观幸福感”的讨论）。因此，我们应当认识到，在增进幸福感的设计与不增进幸福感的设计之间，并不存在明显的或客观的区别。积极设计的独特之处——以及它如何与其他倡议或一般设计区分开来——在于其明确聚焦于为人类繁荣而设计。因此，所提出的三个主观幸福感组成部分指导着整个设计过程。这要求设计师构想新设计如何唤起积极情感，如何激励并助力人们追求个人目标，以及如何支持他们成为道德上良善的人。
One can use the framework for positive design to explain how existing designs stimulate happiness on all three levels. For example, consider a violin: Playing it can give pleasure (“I love playing the violin”), provide a sense of fulfilment (“I am developing my violin-playing skills”), and facilitate virtuous behaviour (exercising the virtue of self-expression, or the appreciation of beauty). Our point here is that positive design may not always differ from other design approaches in terms of outcome, but it does differ in terms of intentionality and process. In positive design, a balanced, positive effect operationalized in terms of pleasure, virtue, and personal significance is the driver of the design process: It initiates the process and is explicit in decisions made during the process as well as in the assessment of the resulting design. This specific point of departure calls for tailored design approaches. Existing approaches (such as the capability approach or persuasive technology) address parts of the framework, but an integrated approach is yet to be developed (for initial explorations, see Desmet, 2011; Pohlmeyer, 2012). In this section, we discuss five characteristics of positive design that we propose to take into consideration in the development of such approaches: Positive design should be possibility-driven, it should strive for balance, it should accommodate a personal fit, it should promote active user involvement, and it should offer the means for long-term impact.
可以利用积极设计框架来解释现有设计如何在三个层面上激发幸福感。例如，考虑一把小提琴：演奏它能够带来愉悦（“我喜欢拉小提琴”），提供成就感（“我正在提升我的小提琴演奏技巧”），并促进美德行为（锻炼自我表达的美德，或欣赏美的能力）。我们的观点是，积极设计在结果上可能并不总是与其他设计方法有显著差异，但在意图和过程上确实存在区别。在积极设计中，以愉悦、美德和个人意义为操作化标准的平衡、积极效果是设计过程的驱动力：它启动过程，并在过程中做出的决策以及对最终设计的评估中明确体现。这一特定的出发点要求采用定制的设计方法。现有的方法（如能力方法或劝导技术）涉及框架的部分内容，但一个综合的方法仍有待开发（初步探索见 Desmet, 2011; Pohlmeyer, 2012）。 在本节中，我们将探讨五个积极设计的特征，这些特征是我们建议在开发此类方法时应考虑的：积极设计应是可能性驱动的，它应力求平衡，应适应个性化需求，应促进用户的积极参与，并应提供实现长期影响的手段。
Possibility-Driven 可能性驱动
Using the word “positive” in relation to design is potentially misleading, perhaps suggesting that there is some kind of “negative” design counterpart. Certainly, all design should have a positive impact in some way or another and should not lead to negative consequences. The word is, however, more specific than it might appear at first. The reasons for this are twofold: For one, “positive” represents the intention to specifically design for human flourishing and it thereby refers to positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Secondly, a positive, possibility-oriented approach (Desmet & Hassenzahl, 2012) must also be pursued in the process itself. Common problem-driven approaches to design aim to reduce or solve negative circumstances, behaviour, or features (see Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995). This might make a situation better, but not necessarily good; it might only allow for reaching a state of being “not-bad.” In contrast, a possibility-oriented approach enters the positive space beyond neutrality. The originality of this approach is in the design effort itself, which focuses on supporting existing possibilities and creating new ones, rather than reducing or eliminating some pre-existing negative factor. In other words, the focus is not on reducing deficiencies, but on stimulating excellence. In ergonomics research, for example, it has been common knowledge for quite some time that “comfort” is something different than the “absence of discomfort.” In this example, possibility-driven design would stimulate or add comfort, whereas problem-driven design would reduce or eliminate discomfort. Likewise, design that promotes happiness is something different than design that focuses on reducing unhappiness.
将“积极”一词与设计联系起来可能具有误导性，或许暗示着存在某种“消极”设计对应物。当然，所有设计都应在某种程度上产生积极影响，而不应导致负面后果。然而，这个词比初看之下更为具体。其原因有二：首先，“积极”代表了一种专门为人类繁荣而设计的意图，因此它指向了积极心理学（Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000）。其次，在设计过程中也必须追求一种积极的、以可能性为导向的方法（Desmet & Hassenzahl, 2012）。常见的问题驱动型设计方法旨在减少或解决负面情境、行为或特征（参见 Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995）。这或许能使情况好转，但未必达到良好；它可能仅能实现一种“不坏”的状态。相比之下，以可能性为导向的方法则进入了超越中立的积极领域。 这种方法的独创性在于设计努力本身，它专注于支持现有可能性并创造新的可能性，而不是减少或消除某些先前存在的负面因素。换句话说，重点不在于减少缺陷，而在于激发卓越。例如，在人体工程学研究中，长期以来人们普遍认识到，“舒适”与“不适的缺失”是不同的概念。在这个例子中，可能性驱动的设计会激发或增加舒适感，而问题驱动的设计则会减少或消除不适感。同样，促进幸福的设计与专注于减少不幸的设计是截然不同的。
Balance 平衡
Positive design is design in which all three ingredients are deliberately designed for (see Figure 1). It does not mean that the result should always address all three to the same degree, but it does mean that there should be no incongruities produced among these elements. As Waterman (1993) stressed, realizing one’s goals is not always easy: It requires effort and discipline, which may at times be at odds with short-term pleasure. The sense of purpose found in training for a marathon can be gratifying, even though the training itself might be a source of displeasure or even pain. And playing the violin is probably not always pleasurable, especially to new students. In the same way, being honourable may sometimes require us to set aside or delay our personal gratification or achievement of goals. Positive designs might choose to focus on one particular ingredient more than the others, but such designs will universally and explicitly avoid provoking displeasure, immoral behaviour, or threats to personal goal achievement.
积极设计是指所有三个要素都经过精心设计的设计（见图 1）。这并不意味着结果必须同等程度地涉及所有三个要素，但它确实意味着这些元素之间不应产生不协调。正如沃特曼（1993 年）所强调的，实现目标并非总是易事：它需要努力和自律，有时可能与短期愉悦相冲突。为马拉松训练带来的目标感可能令人满足，尽管训练本身可能带来不快甚至痛苦。同样，拉小提琴可能并不总是令人愉悦，尤其是对初学者而言。同样，保持正直有时可能要求我们搁置或延迟个人的愉悦或目标达成。积极设计可能会选择更侧重于某一特定要素，但这样的设计将普遍且明确地避免引发不快、不道德行为或对个人目标实现的威胁。
It is often suggested that engaging in pleasures in the moment can conflict with one’s intentions to achieve long-term goals: People can either enjoy a pleasure (e.g., eating candy; playing computer game) at the expense of meeting a goal (e.g., eating a healthy diet; cleaning the kitchen), or strive for goals and sacrifice pleasures. In that view, the concern for pleasure conflicts with the concern for goal achievement. By harmonizing such conflicts, design can facilitate balance attainment. An example is a candy jar that only allows users to eat one candy at a time, helping them to balance pleasure (“I love candy”) and goal pursuit (“I want to lose weight”). Ozkaramanli and Desmet (2012) have developed an approach to design that proposes to resolve conflicts by motivating people to not let their immediate (pleasure-driven) desires prevent them from pursuing their long-term goals. Note that the greatest degree of happiness can be found when people are able to acknowledge benefits in the present as well as in the future (Ben-Shahar, 2008). Climbing a mountain, for example, is enjoyable as an activity, and not a necessary evil required to reach the mountain’s peak. By focusing on both present and future benefits, and in a wider sense by addressing pleasure and personal significance as well as virtue, positive design can support people in living a balanced life with a minimum of conflicts.
人们常认为，即时享乐可能与实现长期目标的意愿相冲突：人们要么以达成目标（如健康饮食；打扫厨房）为代价享受乐趣（如吃糖果；玩电脑游戏），要么追求目标而牺牲乐趣。在这种观点下，对快乐的追求与对目标达成的关注存在矛盾。通过调和这些冲突，设计可以促进平衡的实现。例如，一个每次只允许用户吃一颗糖果的糖果罐，有助于他们在享受乐趣（“我喜欢糖果”）和追求目标（“我想减肥”）之间取得平衡。Ozkaramanli 和 Desmet（2012）提出了一种设计方法，旨在通过激励人们不让即时（享乐驱动的）欲望妨碍他们追求长期目标来解决冲突。需要注意的是，当人们既能认可当下的好处，也能看到未来的益处时，才能获得最大的幸福感（Ben-Shahar, 2008）。例如，攀登山峰既是一项令人愉悦的活动，而非仅为到达山顶而必须忍受的苦差。 通过关注当下和未来的益处，并在更广泛的意义上解决快乐、个人意义以及美德问题，积极设计能够帮助人们以最少的冲突过上平衡的生活。
Personal Fit 个人契合度
When it comes to the definition of a desirable life, there will clearly be some degree of difference between each person’s preferences and priorities. Not without reason do we term the phenomenon subjective well-being, for it lies in the eye of the beholder. Preferences, values, skills, and aspirations—and a sense of their achievement—differ from person to person (see “Jazz Shower”). A one-size-fits-all design solution is likely doomed. However, positive psychologists have identified general patterns that can be of interest to design. For instance, a number of core components of subjective well-being such as significant relationships, contributing to a greater good, and personal growth (e.g., Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011) all affect people’s happiness. Similarly, psychological needs such as the needs for autonomy, competence, and relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2000) have been shown to be universally of relevance, and Lyubomirsky (2007) compiled a list of 12 happiness activities that have been shown to raise and maintain subjective well-being.
在定义理想生活的内涵时，每个人的偏好与优先级显然存在一定差异。我们之所以称这种现象为“主观幸福感”，正是因为它因人而异，见仁见智。每个人的喜好、价值观、技能及抱负，以及对这些成就的感知，都是独一无二的（参见“爵士淋浴”）。试图用一种设计方案满足所有人需求的做法很可能注定失败。然而，积极心理学家们已经识别出一些普遍适用的模式，这些对设计领域颇具启发。例如，主观幸福感的核心要素，如重要的人际关系、为更大的善做出贡献以及个人成长（如 Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011），都影响着人们的幸福感。同样，心理需求，如自主性、能力与关系需求（Ryan & Deci, 2000）已被证明具有普遍相关性，而 Lyubomirsky（2007）则整理出了一份包含 12 项提升并维持主观幸福感的活动清单。
Consequently, design could build on these and similar insights and target universal components and needs (Hassenzahl, 2010; Hassenzahl & Diefenbach, 2012) in order to address relevant domains and reach a greater target group (for a discussion on the aggregation problem, see Van de Poel, 2012). However, Lyubomirsky (2007) as well as Seligman (2011) stress the importance of personal fit: Not all activities are equally suitable for everyone; ideally, an activity fits with a person’s (character) strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). A user-centred approach and an in-depth understanding of the user’s context, lifestyle, strengths, values, and goals will be key to a design’s success. With this in mind, positive designers might choose to provide targeted solutions that attract fewer users; or perhaps they may furnish users with customizable solutions; or they can supply users with general solutions providing basic support that can be complemented by each individual as he or she engages and sees fit.
因此，设计可以借鉴这些及类似的见解，针对普遍的组件和需求（Hassenzahl, 2010; Hassenzahl & Diefenbach, 2012），以解决相关领域问题并触及更广泛的受众群体（关于聚合问题的讨论，参见 Van de Poel, 2012）。然而，Lyubomirsky（2007）以及 Seligman（2011）强调个人适应性的重要性：并非所有活动对每个人都同样适宜；理想情况下，一项活动应与个人的（性格）优势相契合（Peterson & Seligman, 2004）。以用户为中心的方法和对用户情境、生活方式、优势、价值观及目标的深入理解，将是设计成功的关键。基于此，积极设计者可能会选择提供针对性解决方案，吸引较少的用户；或者他们可能为用户提供可定制的解决方案；又或者他们可以提供通用解决方案，提供基础支持，让每位用户在参与过程中根据自身需求进行补充。
Active User Involvement 用户积极参与
By definition, a person plays an active role in his or her own flourishing. It is that person’s contributions to self-development that will make her thrive. Accordingly, design for flourishing can only have an impact if the user is actively involved. A study by Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Boehm, and Sheldon (2011) illustrates that happiness interventions are effective, but that their success partly depends on whether participants are willing to pursue their own well-being and are actually committed to investing personal effort. The same will likely hold true for design solutions: They may offer the means to enable, optimize, and facilitate well-being-promoting thoughts and behaviour, but to foster flourishing they will have to require the engagement of the user. Put differently, lasting happiness and a full life cannot be passively consumed by drinking a particular soda, or driving a luxury car, or wearing a sexy dress. These things might make people feel good in the moment; yet for them to flourish, and actually identify with the positive change, personal effort must be invested (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Lyubomirsky, 2007). Imagine a machine that could make you feel good and make you believe that you have a great life. However, you would only be imagining events, people, and accomplishments. Would this be a desirable state? Most people would probably be hesitant to use the machine and would opt for a less pleasant, more authentic life (see the “experience machine objection” of Nozick, 1974, as explained by Brey, 2012). An authentic experience and a sense of contribution to a positive outcome therefore appear to be desirable aspects of positive design.
从定义上讲，一个人在其自身的繁荣发展中扮演着积极的角色。正是她对自我发展的贡献，使得她得以茁壮成长。因此，促进繁荣的设计唯有在用户积极参与的情况下才能产生影响。Lyubomirsky、Dickerhoof、Boehm 和 Sheldon（2011 年）的一项研究表明，幸福干预措施是有效的，但其成功与否部分取决于参与者是否愿意追求自身的福祉，并真正致力于投入个人努力。设计解决方案很可能也是如此：它们可能提供手段来实现、优化和促进有利于幸福的思想和行为，但要培养繁荣，它们必须要求用户的参与。换言之，持久的幸福和充实的生活不能通过被动消费某种汽水、驾驶豪华汽车或穿着性感服装来获得。这些事物或许能让人在当下感到愉悦；然而，要真正繁荣并认同这种积极变化，必须投入个人努力（Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Lyubomirsky, 2007）。 想象一台能让你感觉良好并让你相信自己拥有美好生活的机器。然而，你所经历的只是想象中的事件、人物和成就。这种状态是否值得向往？大多数人可能会犹豫是否使用这台机器，而选择不那么愉快但更真实的生活（参见 Brey, 2012 年解释的诺齐克 1974 年的“体验机异议”）。因此，真实体验和对积极结果的贡献感似乎是积极设计中值得追求的方面。
Long-Term Impact 长期影响
Another distinguishing feature of positive design is its long-term perspective. As mentioned above, pleasures, i.e., positive physical and emotional sensations, are a component of subjective well-being and often provide immediate gratification. The affective balance of our day-to-day experiences substantially influences our overall subjective well-being. Life satisfaction, on the other hand, is an evaluation that evolves gradually, spans longer time periods, and lasts for a longer period (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Subjective well-being is a process, a way of living, a state of mind, but not an end-state (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008). This process-orientation is perhaps best exemplified by the developmental characteristic of flourishing: Continual development and self-actualization become goals for their own sake instead of only means to reach perfection. While some design projects only aim for user satisfaction during interaction with the designed object, or for the immediate benefits that may be garnered as a result of product use (e.g., task facilitation products), recent attempts in the design field are addressing wider personal and societal issues with accordingly longer-term effects, i.e., behaviour change and life satisfaction (see “Echo”).
积极设计的另一个显著特点是其长远视角。如前所述，愉悦感，即积极的身体和情感体验，是主观幸福感的一部分，并常常带来即时的满足。我们日常经历中的情感平衡在很大程度上影响着我们的整体主观幸福感。而生活满意度则是一种逐渐形成的评价，跨越更长的时间段，并持续更久（Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999）。主观幸福感是一个过程，一种生活方式，一种心态，而非一个终点状态（Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008）。这种过程导向在蓬勃发展的成长特性中得到了最好的体现：持续的发展和自我实现本身成为目标，而不仅仅是达到完美的手段。虽然某些设计项目仅旨在用户与设计对象互动时的满意度，或是产品使用可能带来的即时利益（例如，, 任务辅助产品），设计领域的最新尝试正着手解决更广泛的个人和社会问题，并带来相应更长远的影响，即行为改变和生活满意度（参见“回声”）。
In this section, we have outlined a number of points to consider when designing for subjective well-being. In accordance with the positive design framework (Figure 1), an explicit part of the design process is to formulate ideas about the pleasures, goals, and virtues of the user. Further characteristics of positive design that are of relevance for the design process have been reviewed. We do not consider the above list to be complete, nor do we propose that all the specifications we have proposed are required; rather, they represent some initial insights that were generated by exploring possibilities of the positive design framework in design projects. Future work will further refine and advance the framework. Some challenges in this effort are discussed below.
在本节中，我们概述了设计主观幸福感时需考虑的若干要点。根据积极设计框架（图 1），设计过程中的一个明确部分是构思用户的愉悦、目标和美德。进一步回顾了与设计过程相关的积极设计的特征。我们不认为上述清单是详尽的，也不主张我们所提出的所有规范都是必需的；相反，它们代表了在设计项目中探索积极设计框架可能性的初步见解。未来的工作将进一步完善和推进该框架。以下讨论了这一努力中的一些挑战。
Design Research Challenges
设计研究挑战
Though still in its infancy, the field of positive design continues to evolve. The current picture remains fragmented however, and a number of design research challenges are waiting to be addressed in the future. Below, some of these challenges are discussed. The list is by no means exhaustive. It does, however, indicate important directions of a research agenda that is intended to offer guidance as well as inspiration for designers and design researchers to join forces in their endeavours to design for subjective well-being.
尽管仍处于起步阶段，积极设计领域持续发展。当前图景依然零散，众多设计研究挑战有待未来解决。以下探讨其中一些挑战，此清单绝非详尽无遗，但指出了旨在为设计师和设计研究者提供指导与启发的研究议程的重要方向，以期他们携手努力，致力于主观幸福感的设计。
Empirical Evidence and Assessment Tools
实证证据与评估工具
Empirical evidence is needed with regard to how design affects subjective well-being. Research to date has been limited to a focus on the connection of happiness and material wealth, i.e., income and financial security (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002), but not on design in general. This data only offers a glimpse of the impact that design can have. The material value of a design is neither its only nor its best descriptor. On the contrary, the least valuable design from a material point of view might be the most valuable from a psychological point of view. As stated in the introduction to this paper, in a post-materialistic age, the contribution of design, in particular of positive design, lies in the possibilities of what one can do with it, what it facilitates, or what it stands for (Desmet, 2011; Pohlmeyer, 2012) rather than what it is worth. Empirical findings in this respect are lacking.
关于设计如何影响主观幸福感的实证证据是必要的。迄今为止的研究主要集中在幸福与物质财富（即收入和财务安全）的联系上（Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002），而未涉及设计本身。这些数据仅揭示了设计可能产生影响的一瞥。设计的物质价值既不是其唯一的，也不是最佳的描述符。相反，从物质角度看最不值钱的设计，从心理角度看可能最为珍贵。正如本文引言所述，在后物质主义时代，设计，尤其是积极设计的贡献，在于它能实现什么、促进什么或代表什么（Desmet, 2011; Pohlmeyer, 2012），而非其价值几何。在这方面，实证发现尚属空白。
The importance of empirical evidence applies to investigating the impact of existing design solutions, and also to foresight regarding future solutions deliberately designed to increase subjective well-being. In addition to correlational results, controlled and longitudinal studies are needed to argue for causal effects of different design interventions.
经验证据的重要性不仅适用于探究现有设计方案的影响，也适用于对旨在提升主观幸福感的未来解决方案的前瞻性研究。除了相关性结果，还需要控制性和纵向研究来论证不同设计干预措施的因果效应。
In order to study how design affects subjective well-being, appropriate assessment tools are also needed. The positive design field requires validated scales and evaluation methods that rate the influence of design on different components of subjective well-being, i.e., pleasure, personal significance, virtue. So far, assessment tools have been developed to measure the pragmatic as well as perceived hedonic contribution of products, but their effect on higher-order forms of subjective well-being has remained unexplored. Assessment tools will primarily need to rely on self-reporting, due to the nature of subjective well-being. One difficulty might lie in the potentially indirect link of design to well-being; in other words, if design enables, facilitates, or represents meaningful experiences, the more prominent link is between the experience itself and well-being and not directly between the design and well-being. It is thus a question of attribution, asynchronous timing, and whether users are actually aware of the implications the design interventions might have had. Note that for a design to be successful, it is not a requirement that the user is aware of its link to well-being. The design can stay as it is; however, the assessment instrument might need to change. This again calls for controlled intervention studies in which subjective well-being is assessed before and after the use of a design and compared to control measurements.
为了研究设计如何影响主观幸福感，同样需要适当的评估工具。积极设计领域需要经过验证的量表和评估方法，这些方法能够评价设计对主观幸福感不同组成部分（即愉悦、个人意义、美德）的影响。迄今为止，已开发出评估工具来衡量产品的实用价值及感知享乐贡献，但它们对更高层次主观幸福感的影响尚未得到探索。由于主观幸福感的性质，评估工具主要需依赖于自我报告。一个难点可能在于设计与幸福感之间潜在的间接联系；换句话说，如果设计能够实现、促进或代表有意义体验，那么更显著的联系在于体验本身与幸福感之间，而非直接在设计与幸福感之间。因此，这涉及到归因、异步时间以及用户是否真正意识到设计干预可能带来的影响。需要注意的是，设计要取得成功，并不要求用户意识到其与幸福感的联系。 设计可以保持原样；然而，评估工具可能需要调整。这再次要求进行受控干预研究，在使用设计前后评估主观幸福感，并与对照测量结果进行比较。
Empirical evidence of the practical consequences of design for subjective well-being, e.g., how everyday practices change, would provide important feedback for our theoretical understanding and could contribute to public policy formation and the ethical considerations of design.
设计对主观幸福感实际影响的实证证据，例如日常实践如何变化，将为我们的理论理解提供重要反馈，并可能有助于公共政策制定和设计伦理考量。
Design approaches and methods
设计方法与途径
The process of designing for subjective well-being is different from a traditional, problem-focused design process. Therefore, the design field needs approaches that fit with this new vision and the intention to focus on opportunities, enabling people to thrive, and creating a lasting effect on people’s lives. After all, the aim of positive design is to innovate by offering new designs or advanced re-designs that specifically target subjective well-being. We need to develop general approaches that can be applied in a variety of design domains, as well as distinct approaches that develop various aspects of subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is a complex concept with a multitude of components and influencing factors (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011). Each component might necessitate a different (organisation of a) design approach, e.g., nurturing relationships vs. exercising on a regular basis. Therefore, it is important to understand process foundations as well as the distinctions required by respective domains of positive design and how design processes can be best organized to optimize the end result. This may require a holistic approach to design—an approach that capitalizes on the multitude of influencing factors and results in a constellation of designed (material and non-material) interventions. An interesting development in this direction is the application of “theories of practice” in design practice. Design researchers have recently started to explore how such theories, which have been developed in sociology (e.g., Reckwitz, 2002), can be used in holistic design practice. Kuijer, De Jong, and Van Eijk (2013), for example, developed a design approach that focuses on socially shared practices (e.g., cooking, laundering) as the unit of design. With their focus on opportunities for systemic change, these approaches are also promising for positive design.
设计主观幸福感的过程与传统的、问题导向的设计流程有所不同。因此，设计领域需要适应这一新愿景并聚焦机遇的方法，以助力人们蓬勃发展，并在人们的生活中产生持久影响。毕竟，积极设计的目标是通过提供针对主观幸福感的新设计或高级再设计来实现创新。我们需要开发能在多种设计领域应用的通用方法，以及针对主观幸福感不同方面发展的独特方法。主观幸福感是一个复杂的概念，包含众多组成部分和影响因素（如 Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011）。每个组成部分可能需要不同的（组织）设计方法，例如培养关系与定期锻炼。因此，理解过程基础以及积极设计各领域所需的区分，以及如何最佳组织设计流程以优化最终结果至关重要。 这可能需要一种整体设计方法——一种利用众多影响因素并产生一系列设计（物质与非物质）干预的方法。在这方面的一个有趣发展是将“实践理论”应用于设计实践。设计研究者最近开始探索如何将这些在社会学中发展起来的理论（例如，Reckwitz，2002 年）用于整体设计实践。例如，Kuijer、De Jong 和 Van Eijk（2013 年）开发了一种设计方法，该方法以社会共享实践（如烹饪、洗衣）作为设计单元。由于它们关注系统性变革的机会，这些方法对于积极设计也颇具前景。
Future work should also be devoted to the development of appropriate hands-on methods that equip designers—in particular in the early stages of a design process, i.e., strategic planning, task clarification, problem framing, and conceptual design. In the end, design research methods are needed to understand the happiness of individuals and to translate these insights into designs for many (Van de Poel, 2012). More guidance regarding the identification of patterns and subsequent aggregation for a greater user group (see Hassenzahl et al., 2013, in this issue, on experience patterns) would be desirable. It goes without saying that a user-centred approach is pivotal to positive design, because the user will be the only expert truly able to assess her own subjective well-being. However, despite being the only valid critic regarding personal happiness, when evaluating the effect of a happiness intervention, people are often not aware of the most effective antecedents of happiness and might be misled by commonly-held myths about where we find true happiness (Lyubomirsky, 2013). As a result, user research methods are needed that provide the designer the possibility of taking a similarly empathetic as well as critical stance. A further challenge is that positive design is not simply the optimization of a product’s next generation by fine-tuning its features and minimizing its flaws. Instead, it is a proposal for an innovative new design opportunity, possibly expanding into altogether uncharted terrain and therefore new product development.
未来的工作还应致力于开发适当的实践方法，以装备设计师——尤其是在设计过程的早期阶段，即战略规划、任务明确、问题构建和概念设计。最终，需要设计研究方法来理解个体的幸福感，并将这些洞察转化为面向大众的设计（Van de Poel, 2012）。关于识别模式及其后续聚合以服务于更广泛用户群体的更多指导（参见 Hassenzahl 等人在本期中的经验模式讨论，2013）将非常理想。不言而喻，以用户为中心的方法对积极设计至关重要，因为用户将是唯一真正能够评估自身主观幸福感的专家。然而，尽管在评价幸福感干预效果时，人们是个人幸福的唯一有效批评者，但他们往往并不了解最有效的幸福先决条件，并可能被关于幸福来源的普遍误解所误导（Lyubomirsky, 2013）。 因此，需要采用能够使设计师采取同样同理心和批判性立场的用户研究方法。进一步的挑战在于，积极设计不仅仅是通过微调产品特性和最小化缺陷来优化下一代产品。相反，它提出了一种创新的新设计机会，可能会扩展到完全未知的领域，从而涉及全新的产品开发。
Consumer behaviour 消费者行为
After a presentation made by one of the authors of this paper, a woman in the audience asked: “Isn’t what you presented bad for the economy?” The answer was (and is) that it does not have to be “bad” at all. However, market offerings might have to change, e.g., there may need to be a stronger emphasis on experiences, social interactions, and meaningfulness. As material accumulation per se does not make consumers lastingly happy and as it endangers our ecological resources (Patterson & Biswas-Diener, 2012), the time seems ripe for new business opportunities that strive to facilitate human flourishing. Experiences, activities, and abilities that focus more on the doing than on the having, and that are personally meaningful to users, can create relevant markets.
在一次由本文作者之一进行的演讲后，观众席中一位女士提问：“您所展示的内容难道不会对经济产生负面影响吗？”答案是（且一直是）这未必是“坏”的。然而，市场供应可能需要调整，例如，可能需要更加强调体验、社交互动和意义感。由于物质积累本身并不能使消费者持久幸福，且它危及我们的生态资源（Patterson & Biswas-Diener, 2012），现在似乎正是开拓新商机的成熟时机，这些商机致力于促进人类繁荣。那些更侧重于行动而非拥有、对用户具有个人意义体验、活动和能力，能够创造出相关市场。
In order for these markets to be successful, we need a grasp of subjective well-being from a business point of view, e.g., by asking such questions as: Which stakeholders would need to be involved to ensure success? What kind of business models are applicable? How could oversight be achieved? Would there be an impact on the production process? Furthermore, subjective well-being in business is not only a matter of delivering appropriate design solutions, but also a matter of making appropriate value propositions in marketing. Most importantly, these should go hand in hand in order to create authentic value propositions (see Sääksjärvi & Hellén, 2013, this issue). Future work is needed to determine the best practices for “positive marketing” (Lerman & Kachersky, 2012).
为了使这些市场取得成功，我们需要从商业角度理解主观幸福感，例如通过提出以下问题：哪些利益相关者需要参与以确保成功？哪些类型的商业模式适用？如何实现监督？是否会对生产过程产生影响？此外，商业中的主观幸福感不仅关乎提供适当的设计解决方案，还关乎在营销中提出适当的价值主张。最重要的是，这两者应相辅相成，以创造真实可靠的价值主张（参见 Sääksjärvi & Hellén, 2013, 本期）。未来的工作需要确定“积极营销”的最佳实践（Lerman & Kachersky, 2012）。
As compelling as the findings on the advantages of happiness (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) and the effectiveness of psychological interventions (Seligman, Steen, & Peterson, 2005) might be, people’s behaviour in the real world does not necessarily correspond to participants’ behaviour in research studies. In the real world, subjective well-being is a matter of motivation, awareness, and willingness to put effort into becoming a happier person (Lyubomirsky et al., 2011). While study participants might be instructed to engage in certain happiness-enhancing behaviours, it cannot be taken for granted that people will generally do the same in everyday life with no explicit encouragement. Pursuing happiness, focusing on personally significant goals, and living a virtuous life should be intrinsically motivated. Nonetheless, they can be facilitated or even enabled by external factors such as design. The paradigm shift to positive design calls to some extent for a paradigm shift on the consumer side: Instead of only regarding design as either a means to compensate for practical limitations in everyday life or as a source of hedonic pleasure, it can also be viewed as a means to achieving proactive, personal development. We need a better understanding of consumer behaviour in relation to positive design. For instance, we need to consider: When are people motivated to purchase or use a positive design? What is needed to maintain commitment of usage? Who are typical users of positive design (see Bergsma, 2008, on self-help books) and how could this target group be extended? These insights are needed in order to bring knowledge and design concepts out of studios and exhibition spaces, and into people’s lives.
尽管关于幸福优势（Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005）和心理干预效果（Seligman, Steen, & Peterson, 2005）的研究发现引人注目，但人们在现实世界中的行为未必与研究中参与者的行为相符。在现实生活中，主观幸福感涉及动机、意识以及愿意付出努力成为一个更快乐的人（Lyubomirsky et al., 2011）。虽然研究参与者可能会被指导进行某些提升幸福感的活动，但不能理所当然地认为人们在日常生活中会普遍这样做，而无需明确的鼓励。追求幸福、关注个人重要目标以及过一种有德行的生活，应源自内在动机。然而，这些行为可以通过设计等外部因素得到促进甚至实现。 向积极设计的范式转变在某种程度上也要求消费者端的范式转变：不再仅仅将设计视为弥补日常生活实际限制的手段或享乐的源泉，而是可以被看作实现主动性个人发展的途径。我们需要更深入地理解消费者行为与积极设计之间的关系。例如，我们需要思考：人们何时会被激励去购买或使用积极设计？维持使用承诺需要什么？积极设计的典型用户是谁（参见 Bergsma, 2008 年关于自助书籍的研究），以及如何扩大这一目标群体？这些洞察力是必要的，以便将知识和设计理念从工作室和展览空间带入人们的生活。
Ethical issues 伦理问题
We need to explore the practical, theoretical, and ethical consequences of design for subjective well-being. The approach outlined in this paper aims to exert a positive impact on people’s lives by facilitating a lasting increase in the happiness felt by individuals and communities. In order to feel this impact, people might need to change their behaviour and attitudes, for example, by learning to avoid social comparisons, to savour life’s joys or to be open to new experiences. Facilitating these kinds of changes is a delicate balancing act between empowerment and freedom on the one hand, and determination on the other (see Dorrestijn & Verbeek, 2013, this issue).
我们需要探讨设计对主观幸福感在实践、理论和伦理层面的影响。本文提出的方法旨在通过促进个体和社区持久幸福感提升，对人们的生活产生积极影响。为了感受到这种影响，人们可能需要改变行为和态度，例如学会避免社会比较、品味生活中的快乐或乐于接受新体验。促成这些改变需要在赋予能力和自由与决心之间巧妙平衡（参见 Dorrestijn & Verbeek, 2013, 本期）。
Recently, a number of design initiatives have advanced under the umbrella term of “behaviour change.” These approaches, e.g., persuasive technology (Fogg, 2003), aim to influence human behaviour using products or services that are socially or commercially favourable. When these approaches are deliberately intended to foster subjective well-being, they can be seen as examples of positive design. However, the concept of persuasion, or in general any attempt to change a person’s attitudes or behaviour, can immediately prompt a heated debate revolving around ethical concerns (see discussion on ethics in Fogg, 2003). Many questions can be raised: Is persuasion per se unethical? How much influence or guidance through a design is appropriate? At what point does it become critically manipulative? Such debate likely concerns the designer’s objectives, at least in part. According to Fogg: “Identifying intent is a key step in making evaluations about ethics. If the designer’s intention is unethical, the interactive product is likely to be unethical as well” (p. 221). The reverse of this argument, however, cannot be claimed: Ethical intent is no guarantee of purely ethical consequences. Hence, positive design, despite its honourable goal, needs to be aware of potential ethical considerations.
近期，在“行为改变”这一总称下，多项设计举措得以推进。这些方法，例如说服技术（Fogg, 2003），旨在利用社会或商业上有利的产品或服务来影响人类行为。当这些方法有意促进主观幸福感时，它们可被视为积极设计的实例。然而，说服的概念，或更广泛地说，任何试图改变个人态度或行为的行为，都会立即引发围绕伦理问题的激烈辩论（参见 Fogg, 2003 中关于伦理的讨论）。许多问题随之而来：说服本身是否不道德？通过设计施加多少影响或指导是恰当的？何时会变得严重操纵性？此类辩论至少部分关乎设计师的目标。根据 Fogg 的观点：“识别意图是评估伦理的关键步骤。如果设计师的意图不道德，互动产品也很可能不道德”（第 221 页）。然而，这一论点的反面不能成立：道德意图并不能保证纯粹的道德后果。 因此，尽管正面设计具有崇高的目标，但也需要意识到潜在的伦理考量。
Positive design is not value-free; by including virtue as a fundamental component in a design’s elucidation and outcome, it affects a moral judgment of what is considered good or what prescribes a “balanced” life. Design-related experiences that are pleasurable and personally relevant for an individual should be discarded if they contradict shared morals, despite their ability to evoke individual happiness. While it might be fairly easy to determine desirable outcomes in economic terms, e.g., higher sales, and to some extent also in terms of collective concerns, e.g., keeping the crime rate low, it is much more difficult to define the sorts of behaviour outcomes that are desirable on an individual level, in particular with respect to a person’s happiness.
积极设计并非价值中立；通过将美德作为设计阐释和结果的基本组成部分，它影响了对何为善或何为“平衡”生活的道德判断。尽管能引发个人幸福感，但如果与共享的道德相悖，那些对个人而言愉悦且具有个人相关性的设计体验应被摒弃。虽然在经济层面，例如更高的销售额，以及在一定程度上集体关切层面，例如保持低犯罪率，确定理想结果可能相对容易，但要界定个体层面哪些行为结果是理想的，尤其是涉及个人幸福时，则要困难得多。
To propose universal virtues can be perceived as paternalistic, even though virtues seem to appeal to a majority. A compelling wealth of empirical evidence from positive psychology has identified activities that can improve subjective well-being, including virtuous behaviour (e.g., Lyubomirsky, 2007), virtuous interventions (e.g., Seligman et al., 2005), and virtuous domains (Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011). Wide-scale application, however, is not a guarantee of desirability or effectiveness at an individual level. Furthermore, design for happiness does not necessarily build upon people’s desires, as people are often not aware of what affords them the most happiness and often even look for it in the wrong places (Lyubomirsky, 2013). Thus, two design caveats ought to be made in this regard: Firstly, the design must not thwart any person’s individual desires, and secondly, it is only deemed successful if the user eventually benefits from it. Still, a future challenge will be to study how design can empower people to flourish without being prescriptive.
提倡普遍美德可能被视为家长式作风，尽管美德似乎能吸引大多数人。积极心理学中丰富的实证证据已确定了一系列能提升主观幸福感的活动，包括美德行为（例如，Lyubomirsky, 2007）、美德干预措施（例如，Seligman 等人, 2005）以及美德领域（Ryff, 1989; Seligman, 2011）。然而，大规模应用并不保证在个体层面上的可取性或有效性。此外，幸福设计并不必然基于人们的愿望，因为人们往往不清楚什么能给他们带来最大的幸福，甚至常常在错误的地方寻找（Lyubomirsky, 2013）。因此，在此方面应提出两个设计注意事项：首先，设计不得阻碍任何人的个人愿望；其次，只有当用户最终从中受益时，设计才被认为是成功的。未来的挑战将是研究如何在不强加规定的情况下，通过设计赋予人们蓬勃发展的能力。
Another point to consider is that one person’s happiness may come at the expense of another’s. It might even result in negative consequences for some. In general, a range of social implications would need to be investigated–as should be the case with any design.
另一个需要考虑的点是，一个人的幸福可能是以另一个人的牺牲为代价的。这甚至可能对某些人产生负面后果。通常，一系列社会影响需要被调查——正如任何设计都应如此。
Conclusion 结论
Positive design is design for human flourishing. People who flourish are those who live to their fullest potential. They are functioning optimally, developing as individuals and acting in the best interests of society. The design discourse related to flourishing and subjective well-being is in its early stages, describing relationships between phenomena and relying on influences from disciplines outside of design. This effort is typical of nascent theory development, suggesting a research area for further refinement (Edmundsen & MacManus, 2007). In design, nascent theories often take the form of taxonomies or frameworks that draw from literature in the human sciences. Theory is more fully developed as researchers make repeated observations over time, producing abstractions that help to make sense of ideas and their underlying complexity. Intermediate theories contribute to a part of research discourse in which researchers propose new work to extend, refine, or refute the work of others. Intermediate theories also evolve when researchers consolidate many small theories into a larger whole. Mature theory is that which is well established, suggesting that no new evidence is likely to alter an explanation (Edmundsen & MacManus, 2007). Clearly, our work here has been inspired by positive psychology. We have introduced a framework for positive design that combines three main components of flourishing: pleasure, personal significance, and virtue. It establishes a nascent theory and hopefully sets out a research agenda for the larger community. Our aim is to take a step towards operationalizing the holistic phenomenon of human happiness in user-centered design processes. We hope that the design research community will adopt this nascent theory so as to further develop it into a refined and validated methodology.
积极设计旨在促进人类繁荣。繁荣的人是指那些充分发挥潜能的人。他们处于最佳功能状态，作为个体不断发展，并为社会的最佳利益行事。与繁荣和主观幸福感相关的设计论述尚处于初级阶段，描述现象之间的关系，并依赖于设计学科之外的影响。这一努力是新兴理论发展的典型，暗示了一个有待进一步细化的研究领域（Edmundsen & MacManus, 2007）。在设计领域，新兴理论往往以分类学或框架的形式出现，借鉴人文科学文献。随着研究者随着时间的推移进行反复观察，理论得到更充分的发展，产生有助于理解思想及其内在复杂性的抽象概念。中间理论有助于研究论述的一部分，研究者在此提出新工作以扩展、细化或反驳他人的工作。当研究者将众多小理论整合成一个更大的整体时，中间理论也会随之演进。 成熟理论是指那些已经稳固确立，表明新证据不太可能改变其解释的理论（Edmundsen & MacManus, 2007）。显然，我们在此的工作受到了积极心理学的启发。我们引入了一个积极设计的框架，该框架结合了繁荣的三个主要组成部分：愉悦、个人意义和美德。这确立了一个初生的理论，并有望为更广泛的社区设定研究议程。我们的目标是朝着在以用户为中心的设计过程中操作化人类幸福这一整体现象迈出一步。我们希望设计研究社区能采纳这一初生理论，以便进一步发展成为一种精细且经过验证的方法论。
It should be mentioned that there are a number of different theories in positive psychology, e.g., need and goal satisfaction theories, activity theories, and theories on personality predispositions (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2009), and that not all the concepts and approaches of these theories are accepted unequivocally. Likewise, different approaches with different emphases will develop in the field of positive design. The uniting element however is the quest to enable or to stimulate people to live full lives, to flourish.
需要指出的是，积极心理学领域存在多种不同理论，例如需求与目标满足理论、活动理论以及人格倾向理论（Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2009），并非所有这些理论的概念和方法都得到无异议的接受。同样，在积极设计领域，也会发展出强调点各异的不同方法。然而，它们的共同点在于追求帮助或激发人们过上充实生活、实现繁荣的目标。
Note that many positive psychologists agree that not too much ought to be expected from the contributions to subjective well-being made by consumer products (e.g., Csikzentmihalyi, 1999). In the words of Patterson and Biswas-Diener (2012), “People likely overestimate the extent to which goods will produce happiness and likely invest disproportionately more energy into their acquisition [than] is sensible from a happiness-return perspective” (p. 154). These words endorse the well-accepted proposition that the effect of changing one’s behaviour on a person’s happiness is much stronger than the effect of changing his or her circumstances (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). It is therefore no surprise that well-being psychologists provide us with the following advice: If you want to increase your happiness, don’t buy new products, change your behaviour. In line with this advice, some theorists have suggested that material purchases contribute to happiness only to the degree to which they enable the buyer to engage in enjoyable activities (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). We believe that design can do more than that: Besides facilitating enjoyable activities, design can offer a tangible representation of personal significance or purpose, it can direct one’s intentions toward desirable goals, and it can inspire and empower human engagement in activities that are meaningful both to the individual and to the community (see Desmet, 2011; Pohlmeyer, 2012).
值得注意的是，许多积极心理学家一致认为，不应过分期待消费产品对主观幸福感所做的贡献（例如，Csikzentmihalyi, 1999）。用 Patterson 和 Biswas-Diener（2012）的话来说，“人们很可能高估了商品带来幸福的能力，并可能不恰当地投入更多精力去获取它们，从幸福回报的角度来看，这并不明智”（第 154 页）。这些话支持了一个广为接受的命题：改变一个人的行为对其幸福感的影响远比改变其环境的影响更为强烈（Lyubomirsky 等人，2005）。因此，幸福心理学家给出以下建议也就不足为奇了：如果你想提升幸福感，不要购买新产品，而是改变你的行为。根据这一建议，一些理论家提出，物质购买只有在能够使购买者参与愉悦活动时，才会对幸福产生贡献（Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006）。 我们相信设计能做的远不止于此：除了促进愉悦的活动，设计还能提供个人意义或目的的具体体现，引导人们的意图朝向理想目标，并激发和赋予人们参与对个人和社区都有意义的活动的能力（参见 Desmet, 2011；Pohlmeyer, 2012）。
In the introduction to this paper, we mentioned that we had discerned a real interest in subjective well-being in the design community. Yet our focus on flourishing might also stimulate critical response. To some, investing resources in the alleviation of human suffering may appear more appropriate to the challenges humans face (e.g., improving health conditions or relieving loneliness), or perhaps identifying solutions for societal problems (e.g., illiteracy or disrespect for human rights) may seem to call for more immediate attention. We would never dispute that design has an important role to play in these domains. But we argue that design also has a responsibility to contribute to the lives of people above and beyond solving their problems and relieving their misery (see Morelli, 2007). Life is more than a problem to be solved and users are more than vessels of unfulfilled needs. Besides their needs and problems, people have values, virtues, personal strengths and talents; they can develop their skills, experience hope, show gratitude, be optimistic, and live full lives.
在本论文的引言中，我们提到在设计界发现了对主观幸福感真正兴趣的迹象。然而，我们关注繁荣发展也可能引发批判性回应。对某些人而言，将资源投入于减轻人类苦难似乎更贴切于人类面临的挑战（例如，改善健康状况或缓解孤独感），或者解决社会问题（如文盲或对人权的尊重）可能显得更需要立即关注。我们绝不会否认设计在这些领域的重要作用。但我们主张，设计同样有责任为人们的生活贡献力量，不仅仅局限于解决问题和减轻痛苦（参见 Morelli, 2007）。生活不仅仅是待解决的问题，用户也不仅仅是未满足需求的容器。除了需求和问题，人们还拥有价值观、美德、个人优势和才能；他们能够发展技能、体验希望、表达感激、保持乐观，并过上充实的生活。
Moreover, the list of benefits to human functioning produced by happiness is impressive (for reviews, see Eid & Larsen, 2008; Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005; Veenhoven, 2008). To name a few, happier people are more sociable and energetic, more charitable, cooperative, and open-minded. They are better liked by others and have richer networks of friends and social support. Furthermore, they show more flexibility and ingenuity in their thinking, are more creative, and are more productive in their jobs. They are better leaders and negotiators, are more resilient in the face of hardship, have stronger immune systems, and are physically healthier. These are the by-products of happiness, and it is these by-products that positive designs aspire to bring about. In this view, positive design does not deny the place of loss, failure, and negative emotions in the richness of life experience. The intention is not to design so that people always feel good and never feel bad. Instead, it is to design such that people have a chance to embrace all the dimensions of life, including hardship, adversity, and opportunity.
此外，幸福对人类功能的诸多益处令人瞩目（综述参见 Eid & Larsen, 2008; Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005; Veenhoven, 2008）。仅举几例，幸福的人更善于社交、充满活力，更慷慨、合作且思想开放。他们更受他人喜爱，拥有更广泛的朋友圈和社会支持网络。此外，他们在思维上更具灵活性和创造力，更具创新精神，工作效率更高。他们担任领导和谈判者时表现更佳，面对困难时更具韧性，免疫系统更强健，身体健康状况更佳。这些都是幸福的副产品，而正是这些副产品，积极设计力求实现。从这个角度看，积极设计并不否认失落、失败和负面情绪在丰富人生体验中的地位。其目的并非设计让人们永远感觉良好、永不感受痛苦，而是设计让人们有机会拥抱生活的各个层面，包括艰辛、逆境与机遇。
The work presented in this paper expresses our conviction that it should be possible to develop design approaches that are driven by the intent to enable human flourishing, embedded in theory and, at the same time, pragmatic and usable by designers. Ideally, these approaches will support designers in deliberately designing for long-term well-being and in embodying these visions through realistic designs that find their way into the real world.
本文所呈现的工作表达了我们的信念，即应当有可能开发出以促进人类繁荣为意图的设计方法，这些方法根植于理论，同时兼具实用性和可操作性，便于设计师应用。理想情况下，这些方法将支持设计师有意识地为长期福祉进行设计，并通过切实可行的设计方案，将这些愿景转化为现实世界中的成果。
Acknowledgements 致谢
This research was supported by the MAGW VIDI, grant number 452-10-011, of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N.W.O.) awarded to P. M. A. Desmet. We acknowledge Anna Stekelenburg, Ellen Isaacs, Gyán Santokhi, Ilona Owusu, Imke Höhler, Janine Innemee, Stina Vanhoof, and Yves Béhar for allowing us to include their images and designs as examples. We express our gratitude to Jodi Forlizzi for her valuable suggestions, the reviewers for their constructive feedback, and to copyeditors Jianne Whelton and Sarah Brooks for their contributions to this manuscript.
本研究得到了荷兰科学研究组织（N.W.O.）授予 P. M. A. Desmet 的 MAGW VIDI 项目资助，资助编号为 452-10-011。我们感谢 Anna Stekelenburg、Ellen Isaacs、Gyán Santokhi、Ilona Owusu、Imke Höhler、Janine Innemee、Stina Vanhoof 和 Yves Béhar 允许我们将其图像和设计作为示例纳入。我们向 Jodi Forlizzi 表示感谢，她的宝贵建议对我们帮助极大，同时也感谢审稿人的建设性反馈，以及文稿编辑 Jianne Whelton 和 Sarah Brooks 对本文稿的贡献。
Endnotes 尾注
- 1. In this paper, the word happiness (being happy) is used as a synonym for subjective well-being. Other authors sometimes use the word happiness to refer to a momentary feeling (feeling happy). When used with that meaning, happiness is, however, not a synonym but a component of subjective well-being (see Haybron, 2008).
1. 本文中，“幸福”（感到快乐）一词作为主观幸福感的同义词使用。其他作者有时用“幸福”来指代瞬间的感受（感到快乐）。然而，在这种意义上使用时，幸福并非主观幸福感的同义词，而是其组成部分（参见 Haybron, 2008）。 - 2. INDEX is a biannual international competition that awards design that improves life, with the intention to stimulate discussion on how to “move and expand the borders and impact of design in the world.” The second is an Amsterdam-based annual conference that is organized by Dutch designers who feel the responsibility to make their profession useful for society and who want to reflect on this with fellow designers. The third is an international five-year design research project that aims to “advance the conversation around the ethics, practices, and responsibilities of the creative community.”
2. INDEX 是一个半年一度的国际竞赛，旨在表彰那些改善生活的设计，并意图激发关于如何“推动和扩展设计在世界中的边界和影响”的讨论。第二个是阿姆斯特丹举办的年度会议，由荷兰设计师组织，他们感到有责任使自己的职业对社会有益，并希望与同行设计师就此进行反思。第三个是一个为期五年的国际设计研究项目，旨在“推进关于创意社区的伦理、实践和责任的话题讨论”。 - 3. Huppert et al. (2009) propose that to flourish, an individual must have three “core features” (positive emotions; engagement & interest; meaning & purpose), and at least three of six “additional features” (self-esteem, optimism, resilience, vitality, self-determination, and positive relationships).
3. Huppert 等人（2009 年）提出，为了蓬勃发展，一个人必须具备三个“核心特征”（积极情绪；投入与兴趣；意义与目的），并且至少拥有六个“附加特征”中的三个（自尊、乐观、韧性、活力、自我决定和积极关系）。 - 4. People’s activities can correspond or conflict with all three components of subjective well-being. Think, for example, of a student who needs to study over the weekend because he has an important exam on Monday. He may decide to go to the beach instead (supports pleasure; conflicts with personal significance). What if he decides to ride his bicycle instead of driving his car? (supports virtues of health and sustainability). And what if he brings his study books to the beach? (supports all three components). Or, what if the student decides not to go to the beach and instead to study the whole weekend? (conflicts with pleasure). Or if he decides to go to the beach and not study at all and cheat on his exam (supports pleasure and personal significance; conflicts with the virtue of honesty).
4. 人们的行为可以与主观幸福感的三个组成部分相契合或产生冲突。以一名学生为例，他需要在周末学习，因为周一有一场重要考试。他可能会选择去海滩而非学习（支持愉悦感；与个人意义相冲突）。如果他决定骑自行车而非开车去呢？（支持健康和可持续性的美德）。又或者，他带着学习资料去海滩呢？（支持所有三个组成部分）。再者，如果学生决定不去海滩，而是整个周末都用来学习呢？（与愉悦感相冲突）。或者，他决定去海滩而不学习，并在考试中作弊呢？（支持愉悦感和个人意义；与诚实美德相冲突）。
References 参考文献
- Ben-Shahar, T. (2008). Happier: Can you learn to be happy? Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
本-沙哈尔, T. (2008). 《更快乐：你能学会幸福吗？》 英国伯克郡: 麦格劳-希尔出版社. - Bergsma, A. (2008). Do self-help books help? Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(3), 341-360.
Bergsma, A. (2008). 自助书籍真的有用吗？幸福研究杂志, 9(3), 341-360. - Biswas-Diener, R. M. (2008). Material wealth and subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 307-322). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Biswas-Diener, R. M. (2008). 物质财富与主观幸福感。载于 M. Eid 与 R. J. Larsen（编），《主观幸福感科学》（第 307-322 页）。纽约州纽约市：吉尔福德出版社。 - Brey, P. (2012). Well-being in philosophy, psychology, and economics. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 15-34). New York, NY: Routledge.
布雷伊, P. (2012). 哲学、心理学与经济学中的福祉. 见 P. 布雷伊, A. 布里格勒, & E. 斯彭斯 (编), 技术时代的美好生活 (第 15-34 页). 纽约, NY: 劳特利奇. - Brey, P., Briggle, A., & Spence, E. (2012). (Eds.). The good life in a technological age. New York, NY: Routledge.
布雷, P., 布里格, A., & 斯彭斯, E. (2012). (编). 技术时代的美好生活. 纽约, NY: 劳特利奇. - Bryant, F. B., Smart, C. M., & King, S. P. (2005). Using the past to enhance the present: Boosting happiness through positive reminiscence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 227-260.
布莱恩特, F. B., 斯马特, C. M., & 金, S. P. (2005). 利用过去增强现在：通过积极回忆提升幸福感. 幸福研究杂志, 6, 227-260. - Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist, 54(10), 821-827.
奇克森特米哈伊, M. (1999). 如果我们如此富有，为何我们不快乐？美国心理学家, 54(10), 821-827. - Desmet, P. M. A. (2011, November 01). Design for happiness: Four ingredients for designing meaningful activities. In L. -L. Chen, N. F. M. Roozenburg, & P. J. Stappers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Design Research [CD-Rom]. Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft.
德斯特姆，P. M. A. (2011 年 11 月 01 日)。幸福设计：设计有意义活动的四大要素。在陈丽丽，N. F. M. 鲁岑伯格，& P. J. 斯塔珀斯（编），第四届世界设计研究会议论文集[CD-Rom]。荷兰，代尔夫特：代尔夫特理工大学。 - Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). Faces of product pleasure: 25 positive emotions in human-product interactions. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 1-29.
德斯特姆, P. M. A. (2012). 产品愉悦的面孔：人类与产品互动中的 25 种积极情感. 国际设计杂志, 6(2), 1-29. - Desmet, P. M. A., & Hassenzahl, M. (2012). Towards happiness: Possibility-driven design. In M. Zacarias & J. V. de Oliveira (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: Springer.
德斯特姆, P. M. A., & 哈森扎赫, M. (2012). 迈向幸福：可能性驱动的设计。在 M. 扎卡里亚斯 & J. V. 德奥利维拉 (编), 人机交互：代理视角 (第 3-27 页). 纽约, NY: 斯普林格. - Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.
迪纳, E. (1984). 主观幸福感. 心理学公报, 95(3), 542-575. - Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? A literature review and guide to needed research. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119-169.
迪纳, E., & 比斯瓦斯-迪纳, R. (2002). 金钱会增加主观幸福感吗？文献综述与研究需求指南。社会指标研究, 57(2), 119-169. - Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell publishing.
迪纳, E., & 比斯瓦斯-迪纳, R. (2008). 幸福: 揭开心理财富的奥秘. 马萨诸塞州, 马尔登: 布莱克威尔出版社. - Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 405-416). New York, NY: Guilford.
迪纳, E., & 拉森, R. J. (1993). 情感幸福感的体验. 载于 M. 刘易斯 & J. M. 哈维兰 (编), 情感手册 (第 405-416 页). 纽约, NY: 吉尔福德. - Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 187-194). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.
- Dorrestijn, S., & Verbeek, P. -P. (2013). Technology, wellbeing, and freedom: The legacy of utopian design. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 45-56.
- Doyal , L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York, NY: Macmillan.
- Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264.
- Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research, 65(3), 245-277.
- Eid, M., & Larsen, J. R. (Eds.). (2008). The science of subjective well-being. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
- Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
- Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
- Gable, S. L., & Haid, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103-110.
- Griffin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
- Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Claypool.
哈森扎赫, M. (2010). 体验设计：为所有正确理由的技术. 旧金山, 加利福尼亚州: 摩根与克莱普尔出版社. - Hassenzahl, M., & Diefenbach, S. (2012, June 11). Well-being, need fulfillment, and experience design. Paper presented at the Designing Well-being Workshop. Retrieved August 25, 2013, from http://di.ncl.ac.uk/designwellbeing/papers/
哈森扎赫, M., & 迪芬巴赫, S. (2012 年 6 月 11 日). 幸福感、需求满足与体验设计. 在设计幸福感研讨会上发表的论文. 2013 年 8 月 25 日检索自 http://di.ncl.ac.uk/designwellbeing/papers/ - Hassenzahl, M., Eckoldt, K., Diefenbach, S., Laschke, M., Lenz, E., & Kim, J. (2013). Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 21-31.
- Haybron, D. M. (2008). Philosophy and the science of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 17-4). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
- Höhler, I. (2013). How to improve the subjective well-being of the future elderly of the baby boom generation. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
- Huppert, F. A., Marks, N., Clark, A., Siegrist, J., Stutzer, A., Vitters, J., & Wahrendorf, M. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research, 91(3), 301-315.
- Inglehart, R. (1971). The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in post-industrial societies. The American Political Science Review, 65(4), 991-1017.
- Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington Quarterly, 23(1), 215-228.
- Isaacs, E., Konrad, A., Walendowski, A., Lennig, T., Hollis, V., & Whittaker, S. (2013). Echoes from the past: How technology mediated reflection improves well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1071-1080). New York, NY: ACM Press.
- Johnstone, J. (2012). Capabilities and technology. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 77-91). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
- Keinonen, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Honkonen, J. (Eds.). (2013). Designing for wellbeing. Helsinki, Finland: School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University.
- Kuijer, L., De Jong, A., & Van Eijk, D. (2013). Practices as a unit of design: An exploration of theoretical guidelines in a study on bathing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(4), Article 21.
- Lee, M. K., Kiesler, S., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Mining behavioral economics to design persuasive technology for healthy choices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 325-334). New York, NY: ACM Press.
- Lerman, D., & Kachersky, L. (2012). V-positive report. New York, NY: The Center for Positive Marketing at Fordham University. Retrieved August 25, 2013, from http://www.centerforpositivemarketing.org
- Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness: A new approach to getting the life you want. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
柳博米尔斯基，S. (2007)。《幸福的秘诀：实现理想生活的新方法》。纽约州纽约市：企鹅图书。 - Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). The myths of happiness: What should make you happy, but doesn’t, what shouldn’t make you happy, but does. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
- Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391-402.
- Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
- Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131.
- Manzini, E. (2007). Design research for sustainable social innovation. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 233-245). Berlin, Germany: Birkhäuser Basel.
- Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
- Morelli, N. (2007). Social innovation and new industrial contexts: Can designers “industrialize” socially responsible solutions? Design Issues, 23(4), 3-21.
- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Woman and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Oosterlaken, I. (2013). Taking a capability approach to technology and its design: A philosophical exploration. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
- Ozkaramanli, D., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). I knew I shouldn’t, yet I did it again! Emotion-driven design as a means to subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 6(1), 27-39.
Ozkaramanli, D., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2012). 明知不该，却一再重蹈覆辙！情感驱动设计作为主观幸福感的手段。国际设计杂志，6(1), 27-39. - Owusu, I. (2012). Design for pride: Elicitation of pride in human-product interaction for people with dementia. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
- Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Patterson, L., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2012). Consuming happiness. In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 147-156). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 25-41.
- Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2012). Design for happiness. Interfaces, 92, 8-11.
- Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263.
- Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.
- Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
- Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081.
- Sääksjärvi, M., & Hellén, K. (2013). How designers and marketers can work together to support consumers’ happiness. International Journal of Design,7(3), 33-44.
- Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York, NY: Free Press.
- Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. New York, NY: Free Press.
- Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
- Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.
- Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30-53). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
- Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: Change your actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(1), 55-86.
- Sirgy, M. J.,& Wu, J. (2009). The pleasant life, the engaged life, and the meaningful life: What about the balanced life? Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(2), 183-196.
- Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Tiger, L. (1992). The pursuit of pleasure. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
- Tromp, N. (2013). Social design - How products and services can help us act in ways that benefit society (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
- Van de Poel, I. (2012). Can we design for well-being? In P. Brey, A. Briggle, & E. Spence (Eds.), The good life in a technological age (pp. 295-306). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Veenhoven, R. (2008). Healthy happiness: Effects of happiness on physical health and the consequences for preventive health care. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(3), 449-464.
- Veenhoven, R. (2011). Greater happiness for a greater number: Is that possible? If so, how? In K. N. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology (pp. 392-409). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678-691.
