Did you know of the fascinating study of winners of the popular gameshow The Weakest Link (Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2006)?

Researchers found that contestants randomly assigned to a central position in the semi-circle tv set design were 45% likely to win the show over those positioned at the edges, who were only 10% likely.

Multiple studies have shown a bias like this to prefer central options over ones at the extremes, in what's called "edge aversion".

There are two key mechanics underpinning Centre-Stage:

‍

1. Central gaze:

Eye-tracking research has shown us to have a tendency to give more attention naturally to what is directly in front of our eyes (Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison, 2012)

‍

2. The "Centre is Best" belief:

Where we feel that options placed in the middle are somehow better or more popular than those that them. This may be driven by how we use cues around group status, authority and attractiveness and how we then map these beliefs onto unrelated items so as to make the 'best' choice.

‍

Certainly, Weakest Link contestants are no less subject to this phenomenon than supermarket shoppers.

One wonders, if the tv set was creatively redesigned so that contestants would be stacked vertically, how their odds of winning might be a little better if they were up top, seen as gods looking down on the rest.

Did you know of the fascinating study of winners of the popular gameshow The Weakest Link (Raghubir & Valenzuela, 2006)?

Researchers found that contestants randomly assigned to a central position in the semi-circle tv set design were 45% likely to win the show over those positioned at the edges, who were only 10% likely.

Multiple studies have shown a bias like this to prefer central options over ones at the extremes, in what's called "edge aversion".

There are two key mechanics underpinning Centre-Stage:

‍

1. Central gaze:

Eye-tracking research has shown us to have a tendency to give more attention naturally to what is directly in front of our eyes (Atalay, Bodur, and Rasolofoarison, 2012)

‍

2. The "Centre is Best" belief:

Where we feel that options placed in the middle are somehow better or more popular than those that them. This may be driven by how we use cues around group status, authority and attractiveness and how we then map these beliefs onto unrelated items so as to make the 'best' choice.

‍

Certainly, Weakest Link contestants are no less subject to this phenomenon than supermarket shoppers.

One wonders, if the tv set was creatively redesigned so that contestants would be stacked vertically, how their odds of winning might be a little better if they were up top, seen as gods looking down on the rest.

155 people were shown a cocktail menu, with 5 options listed either vertically or horizontally. They were then asked which drink they'd prefer.

In great contrast with those with a vertical menu, those with the horizontal menu were far more likely to choose a drink in its centre (26.5%) than at its edges (10%).

Put what's 'best' in the centre

Whether it's a product on a shelf, a panelist on a tv show or a set of cocktails in a menu, what's horizontally surrounded by its peers is seen as most popular.

Those unfortunate enough to be placed at the edge are therefore seen as less attractive or riskier, unless actively stated otherwise (e.g. "Market Leader" / "most popular").

If you're designing for 1) new customers with limited knowledge or 2) for a range of products that don't vary too much from one another, reduce cognitive fatigue by presenting a small set of choices horizontally, helping them towards the middle option.

Consider adding in some Social Proof to boost effectiveness and guidance.

Orientation is everything

So, as a general rule, for horizontal lists, we'll more likely choose the middle option given its perceived popularity.

However, for a vertical list of options, the opposite is true: the first and last items are seen as more influential and are more likely to be chosen (See Serial Position Effect).

Put simply, we have an in-built judgement of good as up and bad as down and that, when it comes to making a choice, the higher, the better, quite frankly!

In both an online and physical context, orientation and order matter greatly.

In what orientation order are you currently presenting options to people?

Can this be improved by changing the orientation in some cases?

Use to nudge better choices

A recent project by Behavioural Insights Team and Nesta utilised Centre-Stage Effect to nudge smaller portion sizes by 22%.

Another study (Keller et al, 2015) showed that as well as portion sizes, Centre-Stage can, amongst other things, be used to nudge healthier product choices. Healthier choices increased from 13.3% to 36.7% by placing them centrally.

What better choices do you want to help people make? Presented horizontally, put these in the middle to increase their selection.

The gift-buyer booster

It was also found that the Centre-Stage Effect is stronger when consumers are making purchase decisions for others (e.g. buying a gift, or food for a dinner you’re hosting).

Are any products you're selling predominately bought as gifts? What orientation are you presenting them in? Help people choose the 'most gifted' product by placing it centrally in a horizontal set.

77 people were asked to choose between an entirely certain win of $30 and an uncertain 80% chance of winning $45.

78% of people opted for the significantly smaller, certain reward, despite the risk-adjusted payout being higher for the uncertain reward (0.8 * $45 = $36).

Certainty is valued highly.‍

What ways can your business create reassurance or guarantees that make consumers feel safe?  How can you use exclusive certainty to reward and foster a sense of status with your brand?

Stick to your promises!

Letting consumers down, even once, will trigger uncertainty in the quality perceptions of your brand. If making claims about being the best at something, don’t ever give consumers reason to question that and turn a selling point into an unsustainable headache.

Reframe uncertain offers to appear certain.‍

The uncertain frame here requires consumers to calculate proportional savings, but the certain frame removes this by showing certainty of a zero-priced third lemon.

48 teenagers were divided into 2 groups based on expressing a preference for a painting. They were then told to anonymously award money to other participants involved in the study.

The results demonstrated that when given a choice between maximising profit for all groups and maximising profit for their own group, they chose the latter.

In-Group favouritism can take many forms.

For instance, designers might feel they are the out-group in a meeting dominated by engineers, creating a sense that they're either not as welcomed or have opinions that aren't as valued. Who might be feeling excluded in your projects and meetings?

Turn “Us vs Them” into “We”.

Broaden the perception of group boundaries by cooperating with the out-group in shared activities (Gaertner et al., 1990). Which situations can you create that promote collaboration?

Actively use the benefits of your outgroup.

‍We tend to evaluate the work of our own group as better and more creative than it really is. However, by enlisting the aid of an out-group, you may have an accurate assessment of the actual creative value (Adarves‐Yorno, 2008).

Be careful with unconscious bias.

Groups can be formed by meaningless reasons but also by our own pre-conceived notions or bias. What might be some of the reasons you or others use to place someone in an out-group? How might you raise this in a way to bring disconnected groups together?