innovation with behavior in mind
rani saad october 30, 2012
game
BLUE
we do not always act on our intentions
Behavioral science tells us they behave in odd ways‌
9
Typical breakdown among 100 employees
Out of every 100 surveyed employees
68 self-report saving too little
24 plan to raise savings rate in next 2 months
3 actually follow through Choi, Laibson, Madrian, Metrick (2002)
how do we bridge the intention-action gap?
designing with behavior in mind requires
a different representation of us
Deliberate Logical Slow Self-aware Effortful
Fast Intuitive Error-prone Not voluntary
the impact is
large
___ Enroll in 401(k) ____ Deduction ___ Not to Enroll in 401(k) ____ Change Deduction
(Johnson & Goldstein, Science, 2003)
Sweden
Portugal
Poland
Hungary
France
Belgium
Austria
Germany
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Denmark
Effective Consent Rate (%)
Organ Donation Rates
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Voters
Untreated Control
Standard GOTV
SelfPrediction
Reminder
Reminder ✚ Do you intend to vote?
PlanMaking Reminder ✚ Do you intend to vote? ✚ If yes: What time? How will you get there? Where will you be before?
(Nickerson & Rogers, 2010)
Increase in Turnout 5% 4.1% 4% 3% 2.0%
2% 1% 0% -‐0.2% -‐1% Standard
(Nickerson & Rogers, 2010)
Self-‐predic7on
Plan-‐making
Story about vaccinations Information only: 3% Information, map, plan: 28%
Photo: Andres Rueda, Flickr Creative Commons
(Leventhal, Singer, and Jones , 1965)
2-3% reduction in electricity use equivalent to raising prices 18-34%
Behaviorally-minded approaches matter in big and small ways
Often overlooked design features matter… – a lot – an unreasonable amount for their size This is the sponge (or thinking we’re always Spock and never Homer)
examples of behaviorally informed products
Changing minds: time inconsistency
Clocky