Choice architecture: 8 facts about how we make decisions

2024 Author: Malcolm Clapton | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 03:44

About nudge theory, herd instinct, the important role of the subconscious, and why self-choice is not always good.

Behavioral economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their book Nudge. Architecture of Choice”talks about what lies behind our solutions. The life hacker has selected eight interesting facts about how we make a choice.

Cass Sunstein American legal scholar, also deals with behavioral economics. Author of the book "The Illusion of Choice" and one of the founders of the nudge theory.

1. The mutual arrangement of options can influence the choice

As an example, the authors cite the arrangement of meals in school canteens. It turns out that if you place carrots at eye level instead of french fries, you can encourage them to choose healthy foods instead of fast food. We see nudging techniques like this everywhere, from banner ads to the sequence of departments in the supermarket.

The authors also say that we tend to correlate new answers with those that we already know. In this case, the mutual arrangement of questions also plays a role.

As an example, two questions were given to students:

• How happy are you?
• How often do you go out on dates?

When these questions were asked in this order, the relationship between them was low. But after they were swapped, the correlation coefficient increased almost sixfold. Many respondents thought, “Oh, I don’t even remember the last time I went on a date! I must be very unhappy."

2. Presumption of consent is another effective way to influence our decisions

Paradoxically, we often choose not a more profitable option, but a simpler one that requires the least amount of actions.

That is why some magazines imply automatic renewal of subscriptions, and it is this principle that underlies the scandalous decision of the Constitutional Court on the removal of organs for transplantation. Many agree to bequeath organs to those in need in case of brain death, but not everyone decides to figure out how to do this, go somewhere and sign something. Therefore, in some cases, the presumption of consent is not a tool for profit, but an effective way to make the world a better place.

3. Serving size affects the amount eaten

This is confirmed by an experiment by Brian Wansing, carried out in one of the Chicago cinemas. A pack of stale, tasteless popcorn was slipped to the visitors for free. Some people received large packs, some received smaller portions. Naturally, no one liked such a treat, but the owners of large packs ate 53% more.

We have difficulty with self-discipline and tend to choose mindlessly. That is why we sometimes buy what we do not need at all, as soon as we offer a tempting discount.

A similar experiment was conducted by Wansing with subjects who were asked to eat Campbell's tomato soup as much as they wanted. Through the bottom of the special plates, portions were constantly replenished, but many people, even after eating their fill, continued to eat until the researchers took pity on them.

4. The herd instinct exists and works

We tend to learn from others and repeat after them. The authors do not seek to educate a non-conformist in the reader, but simply explain how it works and tell you how to turn the influence of others in your favor.

Are you going to lose weight? Dine with a slimmer coworker.

The authors also cite an interesting example - an action to combat garbage on a highway in Texas. Traditional agitation was perceived with hostility, then the authorities turned to the strength of society. They ran a TV ad featuring famous Texas footballers. Those on the screen were picking up trash, crushing beer cans with their bare hands, and growling, "Don't mess with Texas!" The campaign was successful: 95% of Texans now know the slogan, and the amount of garbage on the sidelines since the launch of the campaign has decreased by 72%.

5. The voiced choice carries more weight

Survey designers want to categorize behaviors, not influence them. But sociologists have discovered an unexpected fact: by measuring people's intentions, you can influence their actions. If you ask people about their intentions, they are more likely to act according to their answer.

Naturally, architects of choice use this effect for their own purposes. For example, the day before the election, people are asked if they are going to vote. A trick like this could increase turnout by 25%.

6. Context and "minor" attributes determine the choice

People tend to succumb to impulses caused by secondary and seemingly irrelevant attributes. For example, the sight of business objects, portfolios and meeting tables makes people more competitive, less interested in collaboration, and less generous. And the subtle smell of cleaning agent in a cafe will make people eat more carefully.

7. We tend to trust subconscious signals more than experience

When Richard Thaler taught at business school, students often left early, during class. The only exit was through a large double door, visible from anywhere in the audience. The doors had large beautiful cylindrical wooden handles about 60 cm high.

As they prepared to sneak away, the students felt two opposing impulses. The handles themselves looked like I wanted to pull them on myself. But the door opened outward, and each of the students, no doubt, knew this. Nevertheless, the students and even Thaler himself continued to fall into this trap, pulling the handles before making a push.

This door is an example of poor choice architecture where the nature of the signal does not match the desired action. We will observe a similar contradiction if we imagine a red hexagon with a white inscription "Forward".

8. Self-choice is not always good

The authors talk about the concept of libertarian paternalism - a compromise between freedom and lack of choice. Indeed, the artificial limitation of options serves noble goals, and the absolute permissiveness and variety of choices can mislead any person.

As the simplest example, the authors cite the original idea of the employees of Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. They noticed that men rarely attach importance to the work of cleaners: they do not particularly aim at the urinal when they need it. Then, by decision of the administration, an ordinary black fly was painted in each urinal. The accuracy of the toilet visitors has reached 80%.

Another common example of the correct architecture of choice and limitation of options is the so-called foolproof, the mismatch of the form factors of plugs and sockets that are not designed to contact each other.

The authors divide people into "econ" and "human": the former are always rational and do not make mistakes. The latter are impulsive, make choices based on subconscious premises and are not friendly with self-control.

Most of us belong to the second group to one degree or another, so the right architecture of choice, built on nudges and limiting options, helps us, and does not seek to deceive or force anything.