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.

142 people were split into 3 groups and were shown either 72 nouns, abstract words or pictures on a projector for a split-second each, with 5-second pauses in between. They were then asked to recall as many items as possible.

Results showed that those in the picture group recalled far more than either word groups.

Boost your message.

‍Visual ads are remembered better in the long term than verbal ads, especially when we are under greater cognitive load (Childers and Houston, 1984).

What emotional message can you convey more powerfully with a striking, visual metaphor over mere words?

Boost learning by adding in visual references, and not relying solely on text-based language.

This can help broaden understanding across cultures and age ranges.

Where are you trying to change behavior?

What image do you want to stick in peoples’ heads to simplify understanding?

Make product choices distinct.

Images are internalized twice, both visually and verbally (see Dual Code Theory), so they stick in the brain better than just words.

This holds as long as the images aren't abstract or similar to one another (Reder et al, 2006).

So if you sell a large product range that looks similar, consider modifying their design or how they're presented to heighten relative differences and create a more distinct range of choices.

205 people were shown a description of a digital camera printed in a font that was either easy to read (high fluency) or hard (low fluency).

Results found that when easy to read, only 56% delayed choosing the camera, next to 71% when hard. Why? Fluency breeds familiarity, which we value greatly, because it’s unlikely to be harmful (Zajonc, 1968).

Keep it short. Whether for marketing, nudges or political persuading, low syllable, easy-to-conceptualize slogans will feel dramatically more intuitive for consumers. Next to a competing message, they’ll believe the one that’s easier to understand (Schooler & Hertwig, 2005).

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. The mere act of repeating your message will increase its familiarity, which itself increases the extent to which it’s seen as true (Reber & Schwarz, 1999). Keep it consistent across your team and put it everywhere.

Keep product benefits concise. Consumers actually like a product less the more positive traits they bring to mind (Menon & Raghubir, 2003).  This is because they start to associate your product with greater complexity and lower fluency. 

165 people were told of a printer maker and split into four 'halo' groups (environment, community, customers or employees) and a control. Each group were then told of its extra efforts in these areas and then quizzed about its Corporate Social Responsibility in general.

People assumed the halo groups to be more socially-responsible in unrelated areas, despite no evidence!

Invest in reputation. 

‍Since we take shortcuts when judging brand character, first impressions matter. Where in society, the environment, with customers or with employees can you foster initiatives that will trigger the Halo Effect?

Spend wisely

‍i.e. investing in employee and community relations has been found to more persuasively impact the judgements of corruption prosecutors than promoting diversity or being environmentally friendly (Hong & Liskovich, 2015).

Consider co-branding.

‍Evaluations of new products are heightened by the presence of at least one high-equity brand (Besharat, 2010). Instead of launching a sub-brand, consider partnering with other brands that complement your values or already make CSR efforts that you aspire to.

‍

Information has a wonderful way of looking very different, depending on how it’s communicated.

From turning glasses half empty into those half-full, as Designers, we have a great role to play in using framing to help people see things differently and hopefully, for the better too.

Framing is one of your most powerful behavioral tools. Everything can be reframed, depending on what you want.

For example, online second-hand clothing marketplace Vinted has devised a clever strategy to reframe the commonly-used “Service Fee” as a “Buyer protection fee”.

‍
By reframing it as buyer protection and clearly communicating how this amount is calculated, this assurance goes beyond merely paying for the item.

Now, customers will also feel confident that they’re taking extra steps towards safeguarding their purchase.

Information has a wonderful way of looking very different, depending on how it’s communicated.

From turning glasses half empty into those half-full, as Designers, we have a great role to play in using framing to help people see things differently and hopefully, for the better too.

Framing is one of your most powerful behavioral tools. Everything can be reframed, depending on what you want.

For example, online second-hand clothing marketplace Vinted has devised a clever strategy to reframe the commonly-used “Service Fee” as a “Buyer protection fee”.

‍
By reframing it as buyer protection and clearly communicating how this amount is calculated, this assurance goes beyond merely paying for the item.

Now, customers will also feel confident that they’re taking extra steps towards safeguarding their purchase.

96 people were told they’d be given some ground beef to taste, with half told it’d be  “25% fat” (negative frame) and half told it’d be “75% lean” (positive frame). They were then asked to rate the quality of the beef out of 7.

‍Those presented with a positive frame rated the beef as higher quality than those presented with a negative one.

Create a frame using context, words or imagery to help others  to see things according to your needs. 

Wildly different perceptions are made possible by reframing the same evidence.

Reframe statistics as factually-accurate positives against competitors. 

Facts are dramatically reinterpreted when set amongst different data. 

• Create an opportunity to act.

We’re more likely to take up a special offer when the marketing message is framed as a potential loss than a gain (Gamliel and Herstein, 2012). 

150 teachers  in Chicago were either offered a cash incentive up front or after their students’ math test, with better results leading to more money. Subject to results, the money-up-front group would suffer deductions for unmet targets to create a feeling of loss aversion.

Teachers receiving  money up front were found to have much better results than those rewarded at the end.

Increase conversion with trial offers. Though some consumers might not be willing to pay the market price for your product, they may pay the market price to avoid it being taken away.

Offer delayed payments to shift consumers’ judgements from paying to get the product to paying to avoid losing it. For instance, a month delay in paying subscription fees. This means that any extra budgetary cost is then re-estimated as a question of how it can be fitted into an existing budget.

Replace faulty products immediately with an identical or superior model (Novemsky & Kahneman, 2005). Doing it quickly will limit the pain of loss aversion, which builds over time (Strahilevitz and Loewenstein, 1998).

84 people were shown an ad for a known clothing brand that they either had an existing loyalty to or not, written either assertively or not. Based upon the ad, they were then asked how much from a $25 gift card they'd spend.

People spent less money after viewing an assertive ad next to a non-assertive ad, especially when loyal.

Don’t misuse behavioural principles.

‍We've seen a rising use of faux-scarcity to create an uneasy sense of urgency as well as an aggressive use of Defaults that aren't in customers' best interests. Such applications turn positive activities, like booking a holiday into ones riddled with stress.

Give some control (Miller et al., 2007).

Having a feeling of choice can reduce feelings that our freedoms are being taken away. Mix Autonomy with Certainty by reminding of the inevitability ahead while granting other areas where you can give back control in meaningful ways.

Give lots of warning up-front

‍If you're planning a big change that will clearly trigger reactance (Richards and Banas, 2015), giving time for the news to sink in, let people familiarise themselves with the new, uncomfortable normal will then reduce reactance when the change does come about.

Faced with a set of options, when we’re not sure what’s the “right” choice, Defaults offer a helpful guide.

They help people avoid expending vast amounts of cognitive energy to decide between what could be a large number of options.

This is especially the case for those who don’t know much about the products or services, where Default options can take away the fear of getting that first decision wrong.

They're also a powerful remedy to any potential Analysis Paralysis, and are particularly helpful when making multiple choices one after the other.

Consider that you’re buying a computer, with a range of possible customisations to various parts.

If there were no default choices set, we’d quickly become overwhelmed with what was the right choice in each step.

If you have complicated product ranges or customisations, are you setting helpful Defaults? If you are, think hard about whether these need improving to reduce effort further.

But also, a word of warning.

Defaults can be terribly misused to force people into decisions that they don’t want.

Take people down the wrong path and you’ll quickly trigger Reactance; an angry feeling where people will want to reclaim their independence, often doing the opposite of what you Default them to.

Ensure that your Defaults have peoples’ own intentions in mind and don’t deviate too far from what people would do of their own choosing.  

What Defaults are you setting? How can these be improved to help smooth out decision-making and guide people to better  outcomes, either for themselves (e.g. helping them save more money) or for the wider group (e.g. defaulting meeting times to 15 minutes instead of 30).

Defaults are set everywhere. They’re powerful and have a big influence on behavior with little effort.

Faced with a set of options, when we’re not sure what’s the “right” choice, Defaults offer a helpful guide.

They help people avoid expending vast amounts of cognitive energy to decide between what could be a large number of options.

This is especially the case for those who don’t know much about the products or services, where Default options can take away the fear of getting that first decision wrong.

They're also a powerful remedy to any potential Analysis Paralysis, and are particularly helpful when making multiple choices one after the other.

Consider that you’re buying a computer, with a range of possible customisations to various parts.

If there were no default choices set, we’d quickly become overwhelmed with what was the right choice in each step.

If you have complicated product ranges or customisations, are you setting helpful Defaults? If you are, think hard about whether these need improving to reduce effort further.

But also, a word of warning.

Defaults can be terribly misused to force people into decisions that they don’t want.

Take people down the wrong path and you’ll quickly trigger Reactance; an angry feeling where people will want to reclaim their independence, often doing the opposite of what you Default them to.

Ensure that your Defaults have peoples’ own intentions in mind and don’t deviate too far from what people would do of their own choosing.  

What Defaults are you setting? How can these be improved to help smooth out decision-making and guide people to better  outcomes, either for themselves (e.g. helping them save more money) or for the wider group (e.g. defaulting meeting times to 15 minutes instead of 30).

Defaults are set everywhere. They’re powerful and have a big influence on behavior with little effort.

161 people were told that they’d just moved to a new US state and that here, the default was (or wasn’t) to be an organ donor. They were then asked to accept or change this donation status.

Results showed that only 42% donated when the default was to opt out, but 82% when defaulted to opt in.

Defaults are powerful. They’re chosen because consumers take mental shortcuts (especially when tired) and because there’s implied trust that they’re the ‘right’ choice. Defaults also act as a reference point against better or worse options. (Dinner et al., 2011). 

Defaults can be set around anything: from the standard package you offer to new subscribers, to the pre-set top-up amount for your mobile wallet, to whether each order of pizza should come with salad. Each default can dramatically affect conversion levels and behavior.

Get the balance. Ensure your defaults feel natural and in line with consumer aspirations. The more extreme the default you set (i.e. defaulting to the most expensive option), the more effort consumers will expend weighing up the cognitive / emotional costs of not choosing the default, impacting their experience and reducing overall trust.

36 children, young adults and adults were asked to choose between a delayed reward of $1,000 and a number of smaller ones now.

All were quick to accept smaller rewards now over a larger delayed one. The longer the delay, the less perceived value the reward had, so $1,000 next week felt equal to $900 today but $1,000 in five years felt like $600 today.

Embrace the power of now.

‍Immediate gains are valued more greatly than those far off. Similarly, far-off costs seem less painful. Amazon heighten the immediate gain by taking a hit now, for longer term business payoff.

Where in your business can you capitalize upon 'the now'?

‍

Prevent impulsive financial or health decisions by:

• Reframing future rewards around time (by stating a specific date) or by surfacing the painful zero outcomes of short-term choices (Wu & He, 2012).

• Goal Priming. Painting a vivid, personal, emotional picture of someone's future reality will boost their ability to make longer-term decisions now.

Dissuade from inferior choices today with a lock-in for tomorrow

This is when a choice now locks in a set of future inferior outcomes, aggregating any gains and forcing a stronger consideration of less impulsive choices.