When we think about behavioral design, we usually picture small, simple nudges such as changing a default setting on a screen. In academic research, these isolated changes are popular. But in the real world, many other decisions must be made before and after a single nudge is chosen. For instance, teams have to decide for whom and how a specific nudge should be applied. This gap is why I wrote a case-based paper with Philip Cash, published in the journal Designing.
We studied a design team at Samsung Electronics over a 16-week project. Their goal was to help users make better decisions within a smart home system.
We found that the team worked across three different levels of abstraction.
High-level (vision/goals): Focusing on long-term user goals rather than short-term company metrics.
Mid-level (behavioural/technical systems): Organizing how different products connect. For example, instead of looking at home appliances as separate machines, the team grouped products into bundles to help users achieve one main goal like cleaner air at home.
Low-level (Interventions/artefacts): Managing specific design features and psychological details in the interface
Our study also shows that team members must collaborate closely in a non-linear way. Designers (the red line in our framework) often work from the bottom up to change big goals based on design artefacts, while managers (the grey line) work from the top down to keep intervention details aligned with the vision.
The most important part of this process is mid-level coordination, which acts as the critical bridge connecting the big strategy with specific interface details.
While most nudge research simplifies the problem by focusing on either the high level or the low level, behavioural design projects in the wild must navigates all three levels simultaneously. The connection between these layers are consequential for managing process complexity.
If we want behavioral economics to be truly useful, we must change how we design. We cannot treat behavioral design as just a list of separate, simple steps. By focusing on systemic coordination instead of isolated nudges, we can help design teams handle complex projects and create real, long-term value.
Behavioural design has emerged as an important means of shaping behaviour change. Realising such change often necessitates complex combinations of multiple behaviour change interventions and multiple design artefacts. Yet, it is unclear how current practices should be adapted for such contexts. Hence, we ask: How can complexity be addressed in a behavioural design process? Through an in-depth case study, we develop several propositional insights. We theorise Complex Behavioural Design (CBD) in systemic terms and differentiate this from typical behavioural design processes by: (i) the progression of design at multiple abstraction levels requiring different design capabilities (high dealing with vision and goals; mid dealing with the behavioural/technical system; and low dealing with interventions and artefacts), (ii) the presence of both top-down and bottom-up reciprocal interactions across levels, and (iii) the need for mid-level design coordination. These significantly extend current discussions in behavioural design and point to propositional directions for future research.
“Designer 2 expressed how shifting perspectives changed his view of design itself: ‘I used to have times when design itself was my goal. But as I worked through this project, I realized that design shouldn’t be the goal. Design is a methodology for doing something’, and further that this needed to include logic from other aspects of the project: ‘you have to consider the market… since the management has a view close to the market, it will be very helpful when communicating with them’.” (pg. 10)
Background People often choose between two competing options: option A (aesthetically superior but functionally inferior) and option F (functionally superior but aesthetically inferior). We hypothesize that people like option A more when it is presented with option F (joint evaluation) than when presented alone (separate evaluation) because people find aesthetic attributes are hard to evaluate. We further hypothesize that this effect holds neither for option F nor among experts.
Methods We briefly reviewed two cases in the Korean automobile industry and then conducted two experiments in China. In the first experiment, we compared preferences about two USB drivers between two evaluation modes. In the second experiments, we compared preferences about two basketball shoes in the joint evaluation between novices and experts.
Results We found from the first experiment that participants increased their preferences for option A in the joint evaluation compared to the separate evaluation. Their preferences for option F did not differ between the two evaluation modes. In the second experiment, only novices preferred option A over option F in the joint evaluation. Experts did not prefer option A over option F.
Conclusions Our findings contribute to the scholarly discussions about form and function. They also provide practical implications to designers and marketers who need to sell aesthetically pleasing products. This work goes beyond design marketing interface to add evaluation mode as an intervention to nudge people to choose aesthetically pleasing products, which has been barely discussed in behavioral economics.
Banff Aspen Lodge has an interesting environmental incentive program. If guests stay two or more nights and prefer no housekeeping service in this hotel, it offers a choice of options for the guest’s consideration:
Option 1: The hotel will make a donation of $4 on behalf of guests to the Banff Community Foundation, which supports environmental initiatives in their community. To select this option, guests insert the Green Card into the entry door lock.
Option 2: Enjoy one complimentary beverage at the Whitebark Cafe, which is located in the lobby. To select this option, guests insert the Yellow Card into the entry door lock. A complimentary beverage coupon is delivered to the guest’s room.
I suspect someone carefully designed a choice architecture with a psychological intervention to nudge guests to choose “No” housekeeping service. This program will be effective because…
Three options are provided (housekeeping vs. environmental 1 vs. environmental 2). It differs from the choice architecture commonly observed in the behavioral economics in which two competing options are provided. Having three options may relieve the guests’ burden, which decreases their intentions to defer choices.
Only two environmental options are highlighted. As guests read and think about “how” to protect environment, the chance they select one of the two environmental options may increase.
Two environmental options reflect the two motivations why people should behave environmentally friendly; helping others (charitable giving) and helping themselves (economic incentive).
Finally, when guests select one environmental option, they do not speak or write down but simply insert a card into their own entry door lock. This simple behavior has no peer pressure.
This environmental incentive program might be more effective than making a commitment at check-in, a scientifically proven intervention in the prior marketing paper.
Influencing behavior change is an ongoing challenge in psychology, economics, and consumer behavior research. Building on previous work on commitment, self-signaling, and the principle of consistency, a large, intensive field experiment (N = 2,416) examined the effect of hotel guests’ commitment to practice environmentally friendly behavior during their stay. Notably, commitment was symbolic—guests were unaware of the experiment and of the fact that their behavior would be monitored, which allowed them to exist in anonymity and behave as they wish. When guests made a brief but specific commitment at check-in, and received a lapel pin to symbolize their commitment, they were over 25% more likely to hang at least one towel for reuse, and this increased the total number of towels hung by over 40%. This research highlights how a small, carefully planned intervention can have a significant impact on behavior. Theoretical and practical implications for motivating desired behavior are discussed.
River Thames flows through London. People come to the London Bridge to enjoy the river.
When I visited the London Bridge, there was a pink public litter bin in the beginning of the bridge. Many visitors stopped in front of it momentarily and threw litter away before crossing the bridge.
Although adding human faces or adding controversial messages encourages our prosocial behaviors, adding an opportunity to vote could be another effective intervention. Asking people to vote by splitting a litter bin into two sub bins looks more effective than designing a gigantic litter bin like a disposable coffee cup. I believe libertarian paternalism proposed by behavioral economists could help people behave in a better way.
Governments are increasingly adopting behavioral science techniques for changing individual behavior in pursuit of policy objectives. The types of “nudge” interventions that governments are now adopting alter people’s decisions without coercion or significant changes to economic incentives. We calculated ratios of impact to cost for nudge interventions and for traditional policy tools, such as tax incentives and other financial inducements, and we found that nudge interventions often compare favorably with traditional interventions. We conclude that nudging is a valuable approach that should be used more often in conjunction with traditional policies, but more calculations are needed to determine the relative effectiveness of nudging.
Flam is a small village in Norway. Tourists who take the Norway in a Nutshell tours switch ferry boats here. A cozy restaurant called Bakkastova Cafe is located up on the hill.
This restaurant had a note at the cash register. It says, statistics say that women are tipping better than men. I added coins to the tip jar labeled men because I wanted to oppose this questionable argument. Others might tip if they support it.
This suggests that scientifically proven or well supported arguments may fail to motivate people to behave in a certain way. Rather, incomplete, controversial arguments trigger people’s willingness to speak out and may lead them to make an action. From the behavioral economics’ perspective, people’s avoidance for perfection seems to be a better nudge compared to either putting on some lipsticks to make something look like a human or painting foot prints on the street.
