Applying Behavioural Science to UX Design — Part 2 of 2
Second of a a two-part series, on attempting to build a framework that guides applications of behavioural science in UX design.
In Part 1, we talked about why our UX team is interested in learning about behavioural science. A better understanding of the psychology of our citizens can lead to more informed designs of our products & services.
However, the body of behavioural science knowledge is huge. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and we want to avoid mis-applying concepts that may have very real consequences on the lives of our citizens.
In this next part, I’ll try to map out a framework to help you identify how any behavioural principles that you come across may be applied to the design of business processes and digital products.
The UX Stack + The Behaviour Change Model
We’ll start with a UX framework that designers would be more familiar with. The UX stack is a conceptual model that categorises the various activities involved in user experience design. It helps us see clearly where our activities and design layers contribute to the overall product experience.
Next, we’ll need a behavioural framework. I have chosen to use BJ Fogg’s Behaviour Change model. This is one of many behaviour change models, but I’ve chosen it because it’s a relatively simple way to thinking systematically about the factors underlying behaviour change. This model hypothesises that behaviour is a product of three factors: Motivation, Ability, and a Trigger.
(Since I began this draft, a couple of good articles have come out about the Behaviour Change Model too!)
What I’ll try to do is map the factors of the Behaviour Change model onto the layers of UX stack. As we learn about new behavioural principles, we can figure out which type of behavioural factor it might influence, and then see how we can apply them to each part of the product design & experience.
Motivation
What is it?
Motivation describes what drives people to make a decision or behave in a certain way. At this point, people may be considering, “What benefits do I get if I do [insert behaviour here]?”, or “How much does it cost to [insert choice here]?”.
Importantly, “motivation” goes beyond conscious decisions. Sometimes, a user may not have a stated, conscious motivation to do things. While they may not be able to clearly articulate why, implicit attitudes or motivations may still drive people to behave in particular, predictable ways.
How does it link to product design?
This is where behavioural science can shape the foundation of the UX stack. What are the user’s needs, and how do we help her meet them? It is here where incentive structures have the strongest influence, as they shape the level of motivation that somebody has to use your product or act in your desired way.
Application to UX: Investigate your value proposition
There are a few ways to change someone’s drive to use your product. The first, and fundamental, way is to look at the value proposition of your product. Does it actually help your user achieve their desired goals? Is it valuable or useful to them?
Application to UX: Use gamification to incentivise behaviour
Alternatively, you could try to change the benefit-cost structure. This is what “gamification” tries to do: by rewarding behaviours with points and unlocking milestones, these gamified services increase the frequency and salience of benefits and therefore increase your motivation to continue using the product or behaving in a particular way.
Application to UX: Establish an emotional connection
Other ways to influence motivation include increasing your user’s emotional connection. These may be direct appeals to someone’s ego (think “Your donation could save a life!”) or just increasing the general positive affect that someone experiences (e.g. donations increased when employees received a candy at the start of the day).
Ability
What is it?
There are two sides to ability. On one side, it is driven by the individual’s capacity or skill to do a task. On the other side, it is also increased by how simple the environment or product makes it for him to complete that task. (It’s why more recent representations of Fogg’s model renames this element to “Ability / Simplicity”. At this point, people are asking, “Can I do it?” or “How easy is it?”
How does it link to product design?
A product’s simplicity is determined by the choices it presents to its users, and how it guides its users through the journey of completing their task. These are influenced by things in the middle of the UX stack, specifically information architecture (what information do we present, and how do we organise them) and interaction design/patterns (what choices do we present, and how are they shown).
Application to UX: Keep it simple
The core concept of “nudging” is to alter the choice architecture to encourage one way of behaving without forbidding any other options. Simplifying the environment of this choice is often the simplest and most direct way of shaping choice architecture.
One of the most extreme forms of “simplification” is to make something a default, i.e. without any active effort from the user, the choice would be “A”. If users would like to choose “B”, they would have to make a conscious, deliberate effort to move away from “A”.
Application to UX: What do other people like me do in the same situation?
Without going to such extremes, we can also make it easier for someone to choose between the options that may be available to them. We can do so by providing social cues as to what other people have chosen. This effectively “outsources” the effort of weighing the benefits and costs of the choice to others who have faced the same situation, thereby making the choice an easier one — just do what others before you have done. If you’ve ever seen the “most popular” dish on a menu, that’s them trying to “simplify” the choice environment and increase your “ability” to make a choice.
Trigger
What is it?
Triggers are the most visible aspects of a product or service. They serve as the signal of when and where to take action. Because triggers form part of the sensory world around us, information about them are processed subconsciously. We don’t actively think about “what” are signals or “where” to find them; most often, we perceive and produce an immediate reaction to triggers.
How does it link to product design?
At the top of the UX stack is a product’s content writing as well as its visual design & hierarchy. It is here that the structures of information and choices take physical form and are perceived by the user. Cognitive psychology — particularly the concepts of gestalt psychology like similarity, proximity, and closure — help to inform how the user interface is designed.
Application to UX: Maximise use of cognitive science when designing visual elements
The psychology of interface design is a well-explored field. Every decision around a product’s content, space, colour, and typography is an opportunity to shape a trigger. Colours call out for users’ attention, differential text sizes signal the importance of its message, while boxes and buttons indicate where users should click and take action.
Application to UX: Frame your content specifically to your user
Beyond visual design, it is also important to consider the context of how the trigger is delivered. For example, a message of “Please donate to the victims of XYZ natural disaster” would be perceived very differently if the messenger was a disaster survivor herself as opposed to being said by a big corporate sponsor.
Application to UX: Make people feel special with the cocktail party effect
Additionally, the content of the message is also an important trigger. The cocktail party effect describes an amazing human ability to recognise when our name is being mentioned even when we are not paying attention to that conversation. We are tuned to pay special attention to information that is related to our own identity. Messages that contain information personalised to you are much more powerful than generic broadcasts (think Amazon’s “Recommended for you” or Netflix’s “Because you watched…”).
It’s important to recognise that there’s a limit to how much triggers can influence a user’s behaviour. If users don’t find value in your product or service, triggers may achieve short term success but their effects rapidly degrade and the behaviour becomes unsustainable. If the choice environment does not make it easy for users to do the desired behaviour, users who are activated by the trigger still have to fight an uphill battle to complete the tasks.
Does this help?
An understanding of behavioural science is just another tool that adds to the designer’s toolbox. It can be difficult to cut through the fog of academic writing and the sheer amount of psychology research out there. Hopefully, this framework provides a practical guide on how to apply behavioural concepts to the design of business processes and digital products.
It’s worthwhile to point out here that when applying behavioural principles to the design of products or services, the designs that perform the best usually aren’t the ones that people say they liked the most or thought would work the best. Applying behavioural science doesn’t mean we can forsake our basic principles of understanding, prototyping, evaluating, and iterating.
Have you tried applying behavioural science to your product design, and how did it go? I’d love to hear about your experiences and share learning points!
If you have thoughts on how UX and Behavioural Science intersect, I’d love to hear from you too!
Many thanks to Edison, Hugo, and Hazel for their support & valuable comments!
