Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Design Patterns for the Common Good: Building Better Technologies Using the Wisdom of Virtue Ethics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Seven social media patterns pass a virtue-ethics test

desk verdict Useful pattern catalog and honest process, but the virtue-embodiment claim rests on the authors' own interpretive mapping rather than independent evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10288 v2 pith:5HVEMWTA submitted 2025-01-17 cs.CY cs.HC

Louisa Conwill , Megan K. Levis , Karla Badillo-Urquiola , Walter J. Scheirer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords virtueethicsdesignpatternssocialmediaCatholicTeachingdigitalwell-beingValueSensitivehumanflourishingtechnology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a process, Virtue-Guided Technology Design, that converts abstract virtue ethics into concrete, reusable user experience design patterns. As a proof of concept, the authors identify seven social media design patterns grounded in Catholic Social Teaching and interview 24 technology researchers and industry practitioners about them. They find that the patterns mostly enact the virtues they were meant to embody, and that participants generally see the patterns as desirable, especially valuing intentional conversation and personal connection. If the process holds, it gives designers a repeatable way to import ethical and religious traditions into software design instead of stopping at high-level recommendations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the three-stage Virtue-Guided Technology Design process. A conceptual inquiry defines what the chosen virtues mean for the target technology, using a virtue tradition's own sources (here, the book Virtue in Virtual Spaces). A technical inquiry surveys existing platforms, checks their features against those definitions, and names recurring virtuous designs as patterns, with each pattern recorded in a template that includes name, problem, solution, consequences, and embodied virtues. An empirical inquiry uses semi-structured interviews to test whether users and professionals see the patterns as desirable, and the paper's embodiment evaluation is carried by a scoring scheme that maps participant-identified values and concerns onto Catholic Social Teaching principles and subtracts violation counts from embodiment counts to produce a net embodiment score for each pattern.

What would settle it

Show the same participant quotes to two independent panels of Catholic Social Teaching scholars and ask each panel to map every expressed value and concern onto the CST principles; if inter-panel agreement is low, the net embodiment scores that support the paper's main conclusion are not reproducible. A complementary test would be to observe or build apps that use the patterns and measure whether users actually engage in more respectful, attentive conversation and less extractive use over time.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Virtue-Guided Technology Design works: by adapting the conceptual, technical, and empirical investigations of Value Sensitive Design and adding a virtue tradition as the source of values, a designer can examine existing platforms, name the recurring interface features that uphold or violate specific virtues, and document the virtuous ones as design patterns. Applied to Catholic Social Teaching, the process produced seven patterns for social media, and the interview evidence indicated that the patterns generally embodied the principles they were designed for. The principles life and dignity of the human person, option for the poor and vulnerable, and call to family, community, and participation were the most strongly embodied, while solidarity was the least embodied; six of the seven patterns were rated positively overall, with No Lurking the only unfavorable one. The authors take this as validation that a virtue tradition can be translated into concrete design guidance that technology professionals find attractive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the authors' mapping from what interview participants valued or worried about to specific Catholic Social Teaching principles is a correct measure of whether a design pattern embodies a virtue; if that mapping is unreliable, the conclusion that the patterns enact their intended virtues does not follow, even if participants still liked the patterns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the process is correct, designers can repeat it with other virtue traditions, such as Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, or Islamic frameworks, to generate comparable pattern catalogs for social media and other technology domains.
  • A published catalog of virtue-grounded patterns gives socially conscious companies, non-profits, and open-source communities ready-made design options that counter the extractive attention-economy defaults of incumbent platforms.
  • The finding that subsidiarity, meaning small-group or moderated large-group interactions with strong user control, was valued across patterns suggests a general design direction for positive social media that does not depend on any particular religious tradition.
  • The observed tension between intentional conversation and broad information discovery implies that single-purpose social applications may serve users better than multipurpose platforms that try to do both.
  • Industry interviewees' doubts about big-tech adoption suggest that the realistic path for these patterns is community-based and open-source technology rather than the largest platforms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: the embodiment scoring could be validated by asking participants directly whether a pattern embodies a given virtue, rather than inferring embodiment from researcher mappings of open-ended comments; the two methods could reasonably diverge.
  • The process could be merged with community-led design justice methods so that the virtue tradition is interpreted by the affected community rather than by the researchers, directly addressing the acknowledged subjectivity of translating Catholic Social Teaching into features.
  • The conversation-versus-discovery tension points to a testable design hypothesis: a 'virtuous serendipity' pattern that pairs algorithm transparency with limited, curated exposure to unfamiliar voices might embody solidarity better than any of the seven documented patterns.
  • Because most patterns were seen by participants as context-dependent, the pattern template's consequences dimension should be expanded into a full context dimension, and future catalogs should specify which platform types each pattern fits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Virtue-Guided Technology Design, a four-stage process (conceptual inquiry, technical inquiry, empirical inquiry, pattern documentation) for translating virtue-ethics traditions into reusable UI/UX design patterns. As a proof of concept, the authors document seven social-media design patterns intended to embody principles of Catholic Social Teaching and evaluate them in semi-structured interviews with 24 technology researchers and industry practitioners. The paper reports that participant-identified values and concerns, mapped by the authors onto CST principles, show that most patterns embody their intended principles (RQ2); that participants generally rated the patterns as net positive (RQ3); and that industry practitioners see adoption as plausible in socially conscious organizations but unlikely in large technology companies (RQ4).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a concrete contribution to the growing area of faith- and spirituality-informed HCI by offering a repeatable process for converting abstract virtue-ethics frameworks into concrete, reusable design patterns. The empirical study has notable strengths: the virtues-embodied field was hidden from participants (Section 5.3.1), a disclaimer was read to reduce socially desirable responding, saturation was reported at 24 interviews, and the analysis uses reflexive thematic analysis. The paper is also unusually candid about the subjectivity of its interpretive steps, especially in Section 7.4. However, the load-bearing conclusion that the patterns enact their intended virtues depends on an author-made mapping from participant themes to CST principles, and that mapping has not been independently audited. With such an audit or a sensitivity analysis, the paper would provide a useful methodological template for value-oriented design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 6.1.1-6.1.3, Figure 8] The RQ2 conclusion that the patterns 'enact the virtues they were identified to embody' is derived from an author-made mapping of participant-identified values and concerns onto CST principles, not from participants' direct judgments of CST embodiment. Participants were deliberately not shown the virtues-embodied field (Section 5.3.1), so their comments about positive and negative impacts are at the level of concrete design outcomes, not CST principles. The mapping is highly consequential: life and dignity of the human person is attached to six of the eight valued themes, making it nearly impossible for that principle not to appear embodied, while implementation concerns (e.g., N=14 for Notification Intentionality) and undesirable self-knowledge are excluded from violation scores, so they cannot reduce embodiment. A concrete test would be an independent mapping audit, for example having two raters, blind to the authors' mapping, assign the eight valued themes and eight concerns to CST principles, and reporting inter-rater agreement or a sensitivity analysis over alternative mappings. Without such evidence, Figure 8 demonstrates that the authors' interpretive translation connects participant themes to the authors' chosen principles, rather than independently validating that the patterns embody those principles.
  2. [Section 7.4] The paper concedes that 'the translation of virtues to technical features is a subjective process' and that the authors relied on their own prior engagement with Catholic Social Teaching. This concession extends beyond the empirical mapping in Sections 6.1.1-6.1.3: the technical inquiry in Sections 5.1-5.2, where features are classified as upholding or violating CST principles and then grouped into design patterns, is equally interpretive. To make the RQ2 claim load-bearing, the paper should show that the conceptual definitions in Figure 3 constrain feature classification in a testable way. For instance, the authors could report a second analyst's independent coding of the platform features against those definitions, or they could document the decision criteria used in the iterative group discussions that reduced eleven candidate patterns to the seven presented. Without this, the process claim rests on the authors' own interpretive consistency rather than on evidence that the process would yield similar results in other hands.
  3. [Section 6.1.3] The heat map in Figure 8 reports net embodiment scores that are sums of theme-mention counts, but the paper does not report the raw embodiment and violation counts from which those net scores are derived. This matters because a pattern can receive a high net score for a principle even when only one valued theme was mentioned frequently, and the additive treatment of mentions assumes that each mention contributes equally to embodiment. At minimum, the paper should present the raw counts alongside the net scores and justify treating mentions as additive evidence of embodiment, rather than as indicators of thematic salience. This is needed to support the concluding claim that 'each pattern embodied most of the principles it was intended to embody.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'An overview of our proposed approach can be see in Figure 1' should read 'can be seen in Figure 1.'
  2. [Section 5.3.3] The list of valued themes contains the typo 'not exploitatitve'; it should be 'not exploitative.'
  3. [Section 6.1.2] In the paragraph on moral distance, 'call to family, commmunity, and participation' has a repeated 'm'; it should be 'community.'
  4. [Sections 6.1 and 6.1.1] The capitalization of 'Care of God's Creation' is inconsistent with 'care of God's creation' elsewhere, including in Figure 3 and in the technical inquiry discussion.
  5. [Section 6.2] The paper uses 'net neutral' and 'ambivalent' interchangeably; the explanation is clear, but the terminology should be consistent throughout the results and discussion, since 'net neutral' is a participant-facing response option while 'ambivalent' is the authors' interpretation of it.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

RQ2's embodiment claim is a self-referential loop: the CST conceptual definitions and the value-to-principle mapping both originate with the authors, so the validation reduces to their own interpretive framework.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5.1 (Conceptual Inquiry), Figure 3, reference [10]]
    "The book Virtue in Virtual Spaces: Catholic Social Teaching and Technology considers how the virtues, or principles, of Catholic Social Teaching apply in a technological context, especially to social technologies [10]. The authors draw on technology ethics literature such as Technology and the Virtues [47] and connect these technology ethics concepts to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. This analysis forms the basis of our conceptual inquiry."

    Reference [10] is Virtue in Virtual Spaces by Conwill, Levis, and Scheirer, three of the four authors of this paper. The 'conceptual definitions' of the CST principles used to judge design features in the Technical Inquiry (Section 5.2) and to interpret participant comments in Section 6.1 are therefore an authorial prior interpretation, cited as though external. The framework that produces the patterns and the framework that later validates them are the same construction, so the RQ2 verdict cannot independently confirm that the patterns embody CST virtues.

  2. self definitional [Sections 6.1, 6.1.1-6.1.3, Figure 8]
    "To evaluate how our design patterns would enact the principles of Catholic Social Teaching in their use, we mapped these values and concerns onto embodiments and violations of Catholic Social Teaching principles. We then used these mappings to identify which principles of Catholic Social Teaching each pattern embodies or violates."

    The net embodiment score is constructed from the authors' mapping: only participant values the authors attach to a CST principle count as embodiments, and only concerns they attach to a principle count as violations. Participants never saw the 'virtues embodied' field (Section 5.3.1), so their comments could not directly confirm or refute CST embodiment. Because life and dignity is mapped to six of the eight values and unmapped concerns such as Implementation (N=14 for Notification Intentionality) cannot reduce violation scores, the heat map largely reflects the authors' interpretive choices.

full rationale

The paper's RQ3 (desirability) and RQ4 (industry adoption) findings rest directly on participant favorability ratings and interview responses, and are not circular. However, the central process claim in RQ2 — that the patterns 'enact the virtues they were identified to embody' — is validated through an author-constructed chain: the CST conceptual definitions come from the authors' prior book (reference [10]); the technical inquiry selects patterns against those definitions; and the empirical analysis maps participant-generated values and concerns onto the same definitions to compute net embodiment scores (Section 6.1.3). Since participants were intentionally not shown which virtues each pattern was intended to embody, their comments never directly tested CST embodiment; the mapping is the sole bridge, and the paper itself acknowledges the subjectivity of this translation (Section 7.4). This makes the RQ2 validation substantially self-referential, though not a formal identity: participant counts do constrain the scores, and the desirability results are independent. A score of 6 reflects partial circularity in the paper's strongest claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted; the central assumptions are interpretive. The most important ledger entries are the conceptual definitions from the authors' own prior book and the value-to-principle mapping used for validation. No hidden physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Good activity is constitutive of human flourishing, and technology that fosters virtue is thereby oriented to the common good.
    Used in the Introduction and Section 3.1 to bridge from virtue ethics to design claims; this is a philosophical commitment, not an empirically established fact.
  • ad hoc to paper The conceptual definitions of Catholic Social Teaching principles in social media contexts, as given in the authors' book 'Virtue in Virtual Spaces', are a valid operationalization for design analysis.
    Section 5.1 adopts these definitions wholesale; they come from the authors' own prior work, and the omission of two principles is a judgment call.
  • ad hoc to paper Participant statements about a pattern's positive and negative impacts correspond to whether the pattern embodies or violates specific Catholic Social Teaching principles.
    Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 rely on this mapping; no external validator or inter-rater check is used.
  • domain assumption A sample of 24 US-based technology professionals, mostly Christian, is sufficient to assess the patterns' desirability and virtue embodiment.
    The paper claims saturation at 24 participants and acknowledges sample limits in Section 7.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design Patterns for the Common Good: Building Better Technologies Using the Wisdom of Virtue Ethics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HVEMWTA

@misc{pith2026250110288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design Patterns for the Common Good: Building Better Technologies Using the Wisdom of Virtue Ethics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HVEMWTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10288}
}
read the original abstract

Virtue ethics is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the cultivation of virtues in achieving the common good. It has been suggested to be an effective framework for envisioning more ethical technology, yet previous work on virtue ethics and technology design has remained at theoretical recommendations. Therefore, we propose an approach for identifying user experience design patterns that embody particular virtues to more concretely articulate virtuous technology designs. As a proof of concept for our approach, we documented seven design patterns for social media that uphold the virtues of Catholic Social Teaching. We interviewed 24 technology researchers and industry practitioners to evaluate these patterns. We found that overall the patterns enact the virtues they were identified to embody; our participants valued that the patterns fostered intentional conversations and personal connections. We pave a path for technology professionals to incorporate diverse virtue traditions into the development of technologies that support human flourishing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Process diagram describing our proposed process for Virtue-Guided Technology Design. The process begins with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The template for our virtue-inspired design pat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conceptual Inquiry of what Catholic Social Teaching principles mean in the context of social media platforms, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the technical inquiry process. When examining the design features that upheld or violated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The seven design patterns for social media we documented that uphold the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Values that our interview participants identified as being embodied by our design patterns, and which principles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Concerns that our interview participants had with our design patterns, and which principles of Catholic Social [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heat map describing which principles of Catholic Social Teaching are embodied or violated by our design patterns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Total numbers of participants who described each pattern as a net positive, net negative, or ambivalent, and the score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Technical Inquiry process for the Friends Over Followers pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Technical Inquiry process for the Moderated Mingling pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Technical Inquiry process for the Clear Algorithmic Comprehension pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Technical Inquiry process for the Moderated Entry pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Technical Inquiry process for the No Lurking pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Technical Inquiry process for the Notification Intentionality pattern. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Charting the Moral Universe: Capturing Virtues and Values of Data Visualization Practice

    cs.HC 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 20-expert interview study yields a taxonomy of 68 values in nine virtue clusters for ethical data-visualization practice.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2022. Situating ethics: A postsecular perspective for HCI. Interactions 29, 4 (2022), 84–86

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Reem S Al-Mansoori, Dena Al-Thani, and Raian Ali. 2023. Designing for Digital Wellbeing: From Theory to Practice a Scoping Review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2023, 1 (2023), 9924029

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Aristotle. 1911. Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 . J.M. Dent & Co., London

    work page 1911

  5. [5]

    Aristotle. 2000. Book III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 37–59

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Borchers

    Jan O. Borchers. 2000. A pattern approach to interaction design. In Proceed- ings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Prac- tices, Methods, and Techniques (New York City, New York, USA) (DIS ’00). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 369–378. https: //doi.org/10.1145/347642.347795

    work page arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597

    2019

  8. [8]

    Budziszewski

    J. Budziszewski. 2017. Whether the Moral Virtues Are Connected with One Another? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 112–132

    work page 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Hyunsung Cho, DaEun Choi, Donghwi Kim, Wan Ju Kang, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Sung-Ju Lee. 2021. Reflect, not regret: Understanding regretful smartphone use with app feature-level analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–36

    2021

  2. [10]

    Scheirer

    Louisa Conwill, Megan Levis, and Walter J. Scheirer. 2024. Virtue in Virtual Spaces: Catholic Social Teaching and Technology . Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. https://doi.org/ 10.7551/mitpress/12255.001.0001

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Crumlish and E

    C. Crumlish and E. Malone. 2015. Designing Social Interfaces: Principles, Patterns, and Practices for Improving the User Experience . O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, California. https://books.google.com/books?id=dchcCgAAQBAJ

    2015

  5. [13]

    Katie Davis, Petr Slovak, Rotem Landesman, Caroline Pitt, Abdullatif Ghajar, Jessica Lee Schleider, Saba Kawas, Andrea Guadalupe Perez Portillo, and Nicole S. Kuhn. 2023. Supporting Teens’ Intentional Social Media Use Through Interaction Design: An exploratory proof-of-concept...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Christian Detweiler and Koen Hindriks. 2012. Value-sensitive design patterns for pervasive health care. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (Lugano, Switzerland). IEEE, New York, 908–913. https://doi.org/10.1109/PerComW.201...

    2012

  7. [15]

    Kevin Driscoll. 2022. Modem World: A Prehistory of Social Media . Yale University Press, New Haven

    2022

  8. [16]

    Nel Escher and Nikola Banovic. 2024. Hexing Twitter: Channeling Ancient Magic to Bind Mechanisms of Extraction. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’24). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Tech- nology With Moral Imagination . MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    2019

  10. [18]

    Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. 1994. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software . Addison-Wesley, Boston

    1994

  12. [20]

    Gaudet, Noreen Herzfeld, Paul Scherz, and Jordan J

    Matthew J. Gaudet, Noreen Herzfeld, Paul Scherz, and Jordan J. Wales. 2024. Encountering Artificial Intelligence: Ethical & Anthropological Investigations . Pick- wick Publications, Eugene, Oregon

    2024

  13. [21]

    Thomas Germain. 2023. The Vatican Releases Its Own AI Ethics Handbook. https://gizmodo.com/pope-francis-vatican-releases-ai-ethics-1850583076

    2023

  14. [22]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media . Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Tim Gorichanaz. 2024. Virtuous search: A framework for intellectual virtue in online search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 75, 5 (2024), 538–549

    2024

  16. [24]

    Jessica Hammer and Samantha Reig. 2022. From individual rights to community obligations: a Jewish approach to speech. Interactions 29, 4 (2022), 30–34

    2022

  17. [25]

    Amy A Hasinoff and Nathan Schneider. 2022. From scalability to subsidiarity in addressing online harm. Social Media+ Society 8, 3 (2022), 20563051221126041

    2022

  18. [26]

    Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo (Ray) Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. MyTime: Designing and Evaluating an Intervention for Smartphone Non-Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Assoc...

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wobbrock

    Alexis Hiniker and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2022. Reclaiming attention: Christianity and HCI. Interactions 29, 4 (June 2022), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3538706

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Emelia May Hughes, Renee Wang, Prerna Juneja, Tony W Li, Tanushree Mitra, and Amy X. Zhang. 2024. Viblio: Introducing Credibility Signals and Citations to Video-Sharing Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, US...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Dina Hussein, Ghada Alaa, and Ahmed Hamad. 2011. Towards Usage-Centered Design Patterns for Social Networking Systems. InFuture Information Technology, James J. Park, Laurence T. Yang, and Changhoon Lee (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 80–89

    2011

  22. [30]

    Naomi Jacobs and Alina Huldtgren. 2021. Why value sensitive design needs ethical commitments. Ethics and information technology 23, 1 (2021), 23–26

    2021

  23. [31]

    Jaejeung Kim, Hayoung Jung, Minsam Ko, and Uichin Lee. 2019. Goalkeeper: Exploring interaction lockout mechanisms for regulating smartphone use. Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 1 (2019), 1–29

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kelly, Angela Y

    JaeWon Kim, Lindsay Popowski, Anna Fang, Cassidy Pyle, Guo Freeman, Ryan M. Kelly, Angela Y. Lee, Fannie Liu, Angela D. R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Amy X. Zhang. 2024. Envisioning New Futures of Positive Social Technology: Beyond Paradigms of Fixing, Protecting, and Preventing...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sharing, Not Showing Off

    JaeWon Kim, Robert Wolfe, Ishita Chordia, Katie Davis, and Alexis Hiniker. 2024. "Sharing, Not Showing Off": How BeReal Approaches Authentic Self-Presentation on Social Media Through Its Design.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2, Article 370 (Nov. 2024), 32 pages. https:...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P

    Christopher A. Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P. Wyche. 2009. Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Associa...

    2009

  27. [35]

    Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A

    Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Himanshu Zade, J. Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A. Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. 2021. How the Design of YouTube Influences User Sense of Agency. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kai Lukoff, Cissy Yu, Julie Kientz, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. What makes smart- phone use meaningful or meaningless? Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (2018), 1–26

    2018

  29. [37]

    Alasdair MacIntyre. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (3rd ed.). Uni- versity of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Conwill et al

    1981

  30. [38]

    Noëmi Manders-Huits. 2011. What values in design? The challenge of incor- porating moral values into design. Science and engineering ethics 17, 2 (2011), 271–287

    2011

  31. [39]

    Beverley McGuire. 2020. Buddhist-inspired Self-tracking Apps: Tracking Emo- tions and Values in a Digital Era. Journal of the Japanese Association for Digital Humanities 5, 2 (2020), 43–60

    2020

  32. [40]

    Khushnood Naqshbandi, Kristina Mah, and Naseem Ahmadpour. 2022. Making space for faith, religion, and spirituality in prosocial HCI.Interactions 29, 4 (2022), 62–67

    2022

  33. [41]

    Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City

    2004

  34. [42]

    Wessel Reijers and Bert Gordijn. 2019. Moving from value sensitive design to virtuous practice design. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 17, 2 (2019), 196–209

    2019

  35. [43]

    Estelle Smith, Bryan Semaan, Shaimaa Lazem, Robert Soden, Michael Muller, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed

    Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Ayesha Bhimdiwala, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Amna Batool, Dipto Das, Nusrat Jahan Mim, Abdullah Hasan Safir, Sharifa Sul- tana, Taslima Akter, C. Estelle Smith, Bryan Semaan, Shaimaa Lazem, Robert Soden, Michael Muller, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2023....

    2023

  36. [44]

    Markum, Elizabeth Buie, Jessica Hammer, Sharifa Sultana, Samar Sabie, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed

    Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Firaz Ahmed Peer, Hawra Rabaan, Nusrat Jahan Mim, Maryam Mustafa, Kentaro Toyama, Robert B. Markum, Elizabeth Buie, Jessica Hammer, Sharifa Sultana, Samar Sabie, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2022. Integrating Religion, Faith, and Spirituality in HCI....

    2022

  37. [45]

    Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. Saturation in qual- itative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & quantity 52 (2018), 1893–1907

    2018

  38. [46]

    Kentaro Toyama. 2022. Technology and the inward turn of faith. Interactions 29, 4 (2022), 36–39

    2022

  39. [47]

    Shannon Vallor. 2018. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press, New York, New York

    2018

  40. [48]

    Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Michael J. Meyer. 2018. The common good. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision- making/the-common-good/

    2018

  41. [49]

    Nicole Winfield and Kelvin Chan. 2024. Pope Francis becomes first pontiff to address a G7 summit, raising alarm about AI. The G7 responds. https://apnews. com/article/pope-francis-ai-g7-italy-610b8f16aac4d36aa8a56c88de2ca09f

    2024

  42. [50]

    Mingrui Ray Zhang, Kai Lukoff, Raveena Rao, Amanda Baughan, and Alexis Hiniker. 2022. Monitoring Screen Time or Redesigning It? Two Approaches to Supporting Intentional Social Media Use. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orlean...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.