Thought for today: Heaven is where we get all our old dogs back.
Over the last few years, there's been lots of talk about web site usability: People have found ways to track user behavior and, based on their findings, modify software so it's easier to work with (thank you, Flickr, Google, and Netflix for shaking those trees). Now researchers are looking far beyond layout design, using hard evidence to help companies determine what types of information are most influential (they even have a name for it: PET, or persuasion, emotion, and trust). In the UI Design Newsletter, Kath Straub writes that best practices "for designing effective layout are established. Now the leading edge is exploring evidence-driven methods to describe information exploration and decision patterns. The question is not 'Can they buy the argyle socks?' but rather, 'What experience will drive consumers toward buying OUR argyle socks?' So attention has shifted from ensuring that sites allow people to take specific sub-actions (complete a purchase), to designing sites that encourage people to take larger, business-driven actions. Actions can be anything from buying... argyle socks (!), to joining a club, to signing-up for a specific 401K plan, to advocating for one's own healthcare. The key, though, is that the site content should influence action."
Straub, Chief Scientist with the consultancy Human Factors, highlights research recently published by Rucker, Petty & Briñol, who are investigating whether it's better to disclose both the pros and cons about a product to potential buyers (what they call a two-sided approach), or to present only the positives. Their findings show that "presenting both positive and negative product attributes can generate confidence and influence consumer actions. ...Two-sided messages are more effective at instilling consumers with confidence in that attitude." As luck would have it, more confidence (attitude certainty) equates to greater likelihood to act: "People who were exposed to both pros and cons (two-sided) indicated a greater intention to buy than those exposed only to pros – even though both had developed positive attitudes toward the product."
Makes sense to me. Straub synthesizes the findings by Rucker, Petty & Briñol this way: "People who are exposed to a one-sided frame know consciously that they still need to think about the drawbacks of a given decision. And – worse for persuasion design – they are left to generate the negatives on their own. In contrast, people who are exposed to a two-sided frame are left with the impression that the communication is complete. ...As a result, the consumer doesn't need to expend energy generating and considering the cons before they can make a good decision. Somebody has already done that for them."
OK, as often happens with research published in scholarly journals, we have psychologists providing hard evidence to support what we instinctively knew already: That people are more likely to trust someone who gives them the ol' "On the one hand... But on the other hand... to be perfectly honest" spiel as opposed to a hard sell. But this research could have implications for how we present evidence to someone we want to influence. Straub closes by saying "companies wanting to create advocates should create content that persuades. But critically, they also should strive to create content that instills confidence. Presenting both pros and cons seems to be one way to do that."
P.S. Making it stick. I was also interested in 2007 research by Petrocelli, Tormala & Rucker showing that "confidently held attitudes are more likely to persist over time."
Comments