5 lessons for UX writers from behavioral economics

Depending on who you ask, behavioral economics is either a worthwhile study of the irrational side of humanity, or a method for manipulating folks for fun and profit.

Behavioral economics, at its core, is the study of the biases which lead people to make decisions in an economic context.

It turns out that there may be anywhere up to 180 cognitive biases at play (here’s a more condensed list), and these biases are constantly being examined, probed, and prodded.

The key insight that this gives UX Writers is that human beings are not rational beings, which is good, because we’re not writing for robots (yet).

It gives us a bit of a framework for approaching our copy with a bit more strategic intent — as if we know what biases may be at play for the user and the context of the content you’re providing, you can apply a few interventions to guide users to a desired action.

5 biases you can address with content

Positive and negative framing

Would your users be more inclined to take action if they could get a $20 discount, or miss out on a $20 discount?

What about keeping a password secure by adding a special character, or pointing out that a password is weak and may be compromised if a special character isn’t added?

In either case, our decision making is being affected by the way the information is being presented to us.

Positive framing encourages action by emphasising benefits, progress or possibilities. Negative framing on the other hand encourages action by emphasising risks, losses, or consequences of inaction.

Research suggests that negative framing can tap into loss aversion, but you need to be careful in how you apply these so your relationship with your audience is framed positively instead of negatively.

Anchoring

It turns out when we’re forming a frame of reference about anything, the first piece of information we run into has an outweighed role in forming our expectations about that thing — as we think that information is the status quo.

There’s a reason why pricing tables are a staple of eCommerce websites.

There are a bunch of ways you can play with anchoring, but try presenting a more expensive option first, or as a default, to make a lower-cost option seem more reasonable than it may be.

Another way you can tap into this bias is to show a previous price crossed out in favor of a current, lower, price. By presenting not just ‘20% off’ but showing the user the previous price, they are much more likely to think that the next price offered is more of a bargain.

Endowment

If you’re designing for an experience where users have to complete multiple tasks (like a sign-up flow), remind people how far they’ve come.

It turns out that people are less likely to abandon a behavior once they’ve put in some effort — it’s why people are less likely to turn around half way up a mountain than complete the climb..

That’s why a ‘you’re halfway there!’ message can prompt users to complete the flow rather than abandoning it.

Similarly, in an eCommerce flow adding a ‘your item is waiting for you in your cart’ when prompting the user to check out and complete their purchase adds a sense of ownership to the item — making your users more likely to complete a purchase than not.

Social proof

It turns out we’re more likely to jump off a bridge if somebody else did.

Human beings are nothing if not social creatures who yearn for the approval of others, no matter how much of a maverick they may be. Tapping into this desire to be part of the ‘in group’ can be powerful.

Talking about how many other people completed a key action can help prompt your users to do the same thing. For example, asking people to ‘join 50,000+ satisfied members’ can be a much more effective CTA than ‘join now’.

‘Trust bling’ can also fit into this category as an aspect of authority bias.

Commitment and loss aversion bias

There’s no reason why there isn’t more than one bias at play at any given time.

For example, ever get a bit nervous when you hover your cursor over a ‘buy now’ CTA?

Cortisol levels can spike when users are presented with the moment they need to commit to a financial loss — even if they’ve jumped through dozens of hoops to get to the point of no return.

Here, your user’s commitment bias (feeling like they need to complete the behaviour) and loss aversion (making a financial loss) are in conflict.

So, what to do?

Offering users reassurance by restating benefits (especially if they’re near-term) or de-escalating commitment (you won’t be charged now) can help your users get over that last little hill which looks more like a mountain.

Implementing these ideas

Once you have a good handle on some of the biases which may be at play, the important part is understanding your user’s context within their decision-making process.

Once you understand these, think about how your user’s biases can be tapped into with your content. Then, it’s time to create a ‘pilot intervention’, which sounds fancy, but is really just something UX Writers (should) be doing all the time.

It’s just designing a small test to gather data on whether it actually works or not before you roll it out to a wider audience, or, an A/B or multivariate test. Remember, great content designers (and the UX Content Collective) know that no good content is in want of testing.

This is especially important as some behavioral science-backed interventions may still have the prospect of backfire (such as negative framing) — so it’s important to limit that in the first instance.

Whatever intervention you may design and test, thinking about biases identified by behavioral economics may give you a new way to think about how to best assist your users.

James McGrath is a dashing, witty, intelligent, and overwhelmingly humble experience specialist based in Melbourne, Australia