Designing applications to encourage a certain kind of behavior (especially with regards to health) is a rapidly emerging subfield of interaction design. Best practices are constantly evolving. With such a wide range of proven applications – from fitness monitoring wristbands to doctor-patient communication tools – the field is a great source of both inspiration as well as design strategies.
Great stuff. Some application of theory.
Designing for Behavioral Change in Health
Or reasoned vs emotional decision making. I’d argue the there is little difference. On the whole your a problem solved by gut feel vs your reasoned response will often result in the same decision. It’ll just be a hell of a lot quicker to make that decision.
When To Go With Your Gut
A great overview of some of the top cognitive biases we can use to design for behaviour.
A cognitive bias is pattern of behaviour or judgment can happen given a certain set of conditions.
They can be used for good and for bad; so be nice!
Cognitive Biases: Why We Make Irrational Decisions
I talked about this a lot at my UX Bristol workshop last year.
Neuroscience marketing reports a recent study on restaurant menus. Looking at how presenting the price influenced sales.
The researchers tried the following:
- Numerical with Dollar Sign: $12.00
- Numerical without Dollar Sign or Decimals: 12
- Written: twelve dollars
Option two, no currency symbol or money reference performed best with patrons spending more.
The question is, Is it ethical to do this? Not giving any indication of the fact money is being spent may seem like a trick. Or is it simply that people don’t want to be worried by how much they spend?
We need to be sure if we use this approach in design we are doing it for the right reasons.
ARCHITECTS HAVE BEEN talking for years about “biophilic” design, “evidence based” design, design informed by the work of psychologists. What can digital designers learn from them?
My Dad is an architect and talking this through with him it’s clear architects do this stuff through gut feel rathe than theory, rather like digital designers.
‘Evidence based design’ informed by the work of psychologists in architecture
“The first time I listened to Pinkerton, Weezer’s second studio album, I hated it. And so did almost everyone else. Rolling Stone readers ranked it as the third worst album in 1996. Writing for Entertainment Weekly Jeff Gordinier compared it to “a collection of get-down party anthems for agoraphobics.” Reacting to a wave of negative reviews the lead singer of Weezer, Rivers Cuomo, confessed that Pinkerton is a “hideous record.” A few years later something changed. In 2002, Rolling Stone readers – the same readers that said Pinkerton was the third worst album in 1996 – voted it the 16th greatest album of all time. In 2004 Rolling Stone re-reviewed the album and gave it five stars. A 2010 “Deluxe Edition” reissue of Pinkerton claimed a perfect score of 100 on MetaCritic.com. Pitchfork likewise gave it a perfect 10.0. Today, Pinkerton is one of my favorites. What, exactly, changed?”
Group thought? Interesting look at how experts and novices view art (and design).
The Expert’s Ear: Expertise And Aesthetic Judgments
“Researchers have suggested that Disney generates a successful experience because our brains are responsive and receptive to art, creativity, storytelling, humor, wit, music, fantasy, and morality, all of which may have been important to social development—and feature heavily in the “Disney experience” in a rather amplified way.”
A great case study in using psychology in design.
This Is Your Brain on Disney