Data science pipelines inform and influence many daily decisions, from what we buy to who we work for and even where we live. When designed incorrectly, these pipelines can easily propagate social inequity and harm. Traditional solutions are technical in nature; e.g., mitigating biased algorithms. In this vision paper, we introduce a novel lens for promoting responsible data science using theories of behavior change that emphasize not only technical solutions but also the behavioral responsibility of practitioners. By integrating behavior change theories from cognitive psychology with data science workflow knowledge and ethics guidelines, we present a new perspective on responsible data science. We present example data science interventions in machine learning and visual data analysis, contextualized in behavior change theories that could be implemented to interrupt and redirect potentially suboptimal or negligent practices while reinforcing ethically conscious behaviors. We conclude with a call to action to our community to explore this new research area of behavior change interventions for responsible data science.

We conduct a user study to quantify and compare user performance for a value comparison task using four bar chart designs, where the bars show the mean values of data loaded progressively and updated every second (progressive bar charts). Progressive visualization divides different stages of the visualization pipeline-data loading, processing, and visualization-into iterative animated steps to limit the latency when loading large amounts of data. An animated visualization appearing quickly, unfolding, and getting more accurate with time, enables users to make early decisions. However, intermediate mean estimates are computed only on partial data and may not have time to converge to the true means, potentially misleading users and resulting in incorrect decisions. To address this issue, we propose two new designs visualizing the history of values in progressive bar charts, in addition to the use of confidence intervals. We comparatively study four progressive bar chart designs: with/without confidence intervals, and using near-history representation with/without confidence intervals, on three realistic data distributions. We evaluate user performance based on the percentage of correct answers (accuracy), response time, and user confidence. Our results show that, overall, users can make early and accurate decisions with 92% accuracy using only 18% of the data, regardless of the design. We find that our proposed bar chart design with only near-history is comparable to bar charts with only confidence intervals in performance, and the qualitative feedback we received indicates a preference for designs with history.