There's a very interesting video on TED by Dan Ariely, which asks "Are we in control of our own decisions?". It's rather scientific, but definately worth viewing (it has some well thought off humor in it, too), because it reflects on our everyday behaviour as humans.
It also ties back to IT, and more specifically to (web) development. Halfway through, the question is asked why some countries experience larger organ donation numbers than others. Turns out, it's the difference between the following two phrases.
- Check this box if you want to participate in the organ donor program
- Check this box if you don't want to participate in the organ donor program
If you were to read the above two sentences quickly, without having those 2 words outlined in bold, you could easily be mistaken. People don't like to tic checkboxes, as experience has shown them it usually gets them things they don't want. How often have you accidentally signed up for a newsletter, when registering a new account? Or installed some toolbar, when installing a new program? Because our natural behaviour is reverted -- and used against us.
It's not the prettiets of ways, but the example above shows what can be accomplished by studying human behaviour.
The person who designs the form, will have a huge influence on what you're doing.
That quote is more true, and definitely worth thinking about when creating new (web) applications. The way you design your form, the wording you choose and the options you present, will -- in large part -- control the outcome of that form. The same way you can guide a conversation to a particular ending, by choosing your words and phrases carefully, the same way you can control your visitor's behaviour when using your application.
The video becomes even more interesting around 13 minutes in, where an example is given on choice. These were the three possible choices, and the user percentage that choose that particular option. It's the ability to sign up for a (paid) subscription on a website.
- Economist.com subscription (US $59.00): one year subscription to Economist.com, includes online access to all articles. => 16%
- Print subscription (US $125.00): one year subscription to the print edition of The Economist => 0%
- Print & web subscription (US $125.00): one year subscription to the print edition of The Economist and online access to all articles. => 84%
The above makes sense, since the subscription itself was horrible. Why pay for the "Print subscription" option, if it costs the same as the "Print & web subscription", but you get more from the latter? It's only logical we choose the bottom option. After all, it gives us more for the same amount of money.
Logic dictates us that we could leave the middle option out, since it serves no purpose. Every sane being would choose the bottom option. These were the results when leaving out that middle option.
- Economist.com subscription (US $59.00): one year subscription to Economist.com, includes online access to all articles. => 68%
- Print & web subscription (US $125.00): one year subscription to the print edition of The Economist and online access to all articles. => 32%
That's a huge consequence. While the previous options showed a clear trend towards the latest option (the most expensive one) because it gave us the idea we could get more out of it for the same price, we negate that result by leaving the option out.
The option in the middle was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it, but it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people to figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, the last option looked like a fantastic deal.
We can manipulate our users' behaviour more than I had thought. It's obvious that an intuitive interface can help, but it's now clear that putting some thought in your options, choices, words and phrasing can help get the target we want.