Tag Archives: Choice architecture

Cases

How salon-style displays enrich the art viewing experience

Leave a comment

On a recent visit to the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens in Los Angeles, I was struck by the “salon style” display of paintings—a densely arranged presentation that contrasts with today’s minimalistic museum trend.

A “salon style” hang not only looks different from how most museums are arranged today-it also changes the viewer’s experience. Instead of presenting works individually, with lots of space, the crowded layout puts paintings in a network, encouraging comparison and debate. Salon artists felt reaccured if their pictures were hung at eye level, and lamented when they were “skied” close to the ceiling. Placement of particular works was determined by level of detail, the hierarchy of genres (a tradition prioritizing history and religious paintings) and, most importantly, the personal politicis of the Academy.

Unlike the single-piece-focused, widely spaced approach seen in contemporary galleries, salon-style hanging places artworks in close clusters, prompting viewers to think differently. Psychologically, this arrangement affects perception in two ways.

First, works displayed at eye level attract more attention—a phenomenon known as “eye level, buy level.” It is well known that eye-level placement in retail settings drives choices. Similarly, artists historically loved this prime placement, aiming to capture viewers’ gaze.

Second and more importantly, viewers are inclined to compare artworks side by side. This phenomenon aligns with Hsee’s research on “joint evaluation (JE) versus separate evaluation (SE). When items are displayed jointly, people place greater emphasis on attributes that may otherwise be hard to assess, fostering a richer, multi-dimensional engagement with items. In historical salons, this might have encouraged viewers to notice intricate qualities in each painting, which might go overlooked today when artworks are displayed individually in modern galleries.

Building on these insights with another pieces of insights found ten years ago at the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA), Boston, museum directors must carefully consider how presentation contexts shape visitor experiences. Museum visitors, like consumers, are influenced by cognitive biases and contextual cues, making behavioral economics principles crucial for optimizing the museum experience.”

***

Reference

Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low‐value options are valued more highly than high‐value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121.

This research demonstrates a less-is-better effect in three contexts: (1) a person giving a $45 scarf as a gift was perceived to be more generous than one giving a $55 coat; (2) an overfilled ice cream serving with 7 oz of ice cream was valued more than an underfilled serving with 8 oz of ice cream; (3) a dinnerware set with 24 intact pieces was judged more favourably than one with 31 intact pieces (including the same 24) plus a few broken ones. This less-is-better effect occurred only when the options were evaluated separately, and reversed itself when the options were juxtaposed. These results are explained in terms of the evaluability hypothesis, which states that separate evaluations of objects are often infuenced by attributes which are easy to evaluate rather than by those which are important.

Cases

The power of defaults: How DMV’s organ donation question shapes decisions

Leave a comment

Recently, while applying for my driver license in California, I encountered a section about organ donation. The DMV’s (Department of Motor Vehicles) approach is an example of default.

First, they primed me with two statements:

  1. “One person can save up to 8 lives, and heal over 75, through organ and tissue donation for transplantation. You can register regardless of age or health.”
  2. “Organ donation happens after death, and your decision will not impact medical treatment.”

The first statement emphasizes the positive impact, while the second addresses potential concerns. This balanced approach put me at ease and highlighted benefits.

Then comes the question: “Would you like to register?” with two options: “Yes” or “Not at this time.” This is where default comes into play. By framing the question this way, they make saying “yes” feel like the natural choice.

Interestingly, even if I chose “Not at this time,” I was informed that I am still in the registry but without the pink dot on my license that indicates donor status. This opt-out process requires additional steps, making it more likely for people to remain registered.

This example resonates the findings of Johnson & Goldstein’s 2003 study on how defaults influence decision-making. By designing the process this way, the California DMV is likely increasing organ donation rates without forcing anyone’s hand.

***

Reference

Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.

“If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, as can be seen in the figure, defaults appear to make a large difference: the four opt-in countries (gold) had the lower rates than the six opt-out countries (blue)… One reason these results appear to be greater than those in our laboratory study is that the cost of changing from the default is higher; it involves filling out forms, making phone calls, and sending mail.” (pg. 1339)

Cases

Opt in vs. Opt out: Different defaults in different cities

1 Comment

I used to order the same sandwich at the Subway in Toronto (turkey-breast on a six inch, honey oat bread with lettuce, tomatoes, onions, and black olives). Subway opened a store recently in my campus in Seoul. 

I ordered the same meat and the same bread. Then, I said to a server the same vegetables, “lettuce, tomatoes, onions, and black olives.” She added cucumbers and peppers. I asked her why. She answered “I pull out the vegetables customers say.”

I noticed that most customers said nothing about vegetables. They considered the five vegetables on the window as the opt out, default options. Only few customers said “everything but…”

For the people who do not usually make a series of choices for a single meal, opt out default vegetables may relieve their burden. I expect choosing from meats and breads to vegetables and dressings are demanding for most Asians. For them, choosing which vegetables to add are additionally demanding. When they skip choosing vegetables, they may enjoy meals more even though they do not like to eat more vegetables.

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 409–425.

The choice overload hypothesis states that an increase in the number of options to choose from may lead to adverse consequences such as a decrease in the motivation to choose or the satisfaction with the finally chosen option. A number of studies found strong instances of choice overload in the lab and in the field, but others found no such effects or found that more choices may instead facilitate choice and increase satisfaction. In a meta-analysis of 63 conditions from 50 published and unpublished experiments (N = 5,036), we found a mean effect size of virtually zero but considerable variance between studies. While further analyses indicated several potentially important preconditions for choice overload, no sufficient conditions could be identified. However, some idiosyncratic moderators proposed in single studies may still explain when and why choice overload reliably occurs; we review these studies and identify possible directions for future research.