We all value our opportunities to determine the direction of our lives and those of our families, don’t we? Who we marry, what (if any) religion we adopt, our healthcare, what schools to send our children to, what restaurant to eat at on Saturday, even our sexual orientation. These are freedoms Western societies have increasingly cherished throughout the 20th and now into the 21st Century. The conventional wisdom has been that as society matures, becomes wealthier and offers more choices to its citizens, we all become happier. In any event, we largely take choice for granted, perhaps forgetting that our quite recent ancestors may have been offered very limited choice in any of these areas.
That wisdom has been challenged in recent decades, perhaps most compellingly by Barry Schwartz in his bestselling book The Paradox of Choicel Why More is Less. Schwartz argues that we are now overwhelmed by a bewildering array of choices in our lives. He illustrates this with examples such as supermarkets offering 285 varieties of cookies, 6.5 million combinations for choosing a stereo at a local electronics store, potentially life or death healthcare choices patients are now expected to make, whether we choose to be at work or at leisure (given the way we can always remain connected with the office) and mobile phones that you can do thousands of things with. Choice, he says, can be paralyzing as well as liberating, citing experimental and experiential evidence that too many options mean that people are less likely to select any of them. He argues that more simplicity in our lives may, in many circumstances, be a good thing.
Conversely, there are strong arguments in the other direction‚Ä¶also backed up by evidence. If, indeed, we are paralyzed by too much choice, why do supermarkets, electronics stores, Indian restaurants, bars and so many other retail outlets and websites make such a virtue of the great array of varieties they supply? Perhaps, in the modern world, we actually need to have an array of choices if we are to be able or willing to make purchasing decisions.
This matters rather a lot to UX professionals and their clients, of course. It matters to usability specialists because we make design decisions impacting on the complexity of interactions and associated choices we expect our users to make. But it matters most in the field of Persuasion, Emotion and Trust (PET). Here we design for how to get users to make the decisions we’d like them to make as they interact with our systems, especially in e-commerce where a wide range of products may be available.
Let’s take a look at some of the research evidence.
Philosophers and scientists have been concerned with “search overload” for centuries. The 14th Century French philosopher and monk Jean Buridan speculated that a donkey might procrastinate when choosing between two equally tempting piles of hay and then starve because it failed to decide. The 20th Century psychologist Miller found that relinquishing an attractive option for another choice may lead to procrastination and conflict. But, more recently, an especially compelling body of research shed new light on the idea that people can be overloaded with too many choices. This was the work of Iyengar and Lepper (2000) who, in a now classic experiment, demonstrated this problem with an assortment of jams in a famous deli store.
Draeger’s grocery store near Stanford University prided itself (and still does) on the sheer range of products it offered, with busloads of shoppers and sightseers turning up to look at what was on display and, ideally, to make purchases from the huge array of options available. But did this huge array increase the likelihood of shoppers actually buying? The researchers did an in-store experiment to find out. They set up a tasting table with exotic jams, giving a $1-off coupon to those who approached the table. In one condition six jams were offered and in the other, 24. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they found that the 24-jam condition made a bigger initial splash; more people approached. The surprising finding however was that, when it came to actually making a purchase of at least one jam, 30% of those who approached in the 6-jam condition did so, whereas a mere 3% actually bought in the 24-jam condition. More choices meant less purchasing. Striking evidence for the Paradox of Choice!
In another experiment, the same researchers investigated the effects of the number of options in choosing from an array of luxury chocolates. More options meant more enjoyment in choosing, but less satisfaction with the eventual choice. Other researchers have found similar results with pens, gift boxes and coffee.
In quite different areas, Iyengar and Lepper have shown that search overload occurs in the quality of written essays, which decreased with the more topics the students had to choose from, and in selecting pension plans, where the more plans offered, the less the likelihood of actual participation in the pension plan.
QED, when it comes to making purchasing or other decisions, providing too many choices is a bad thing. But is it that simple?
Well, the answer is: no, it’s not that simple! There are strong arguments in favor of providing plenty of choice, some backed up by good science. The world of retail generally believes this and there is evidence that retailers who offer more choice have a competitive advantage. Providing a large assortment, simultaneously or in one place, means that purchasers don’t need to put so much work into choosing from different locations at different times, can make better direct comparisons and get a better feel for the overall distribution of quality across what’s available.
And, as persuasion engineers, we recognize that people make decisions by comparing between several options. Hence the power of the decoy strategy, in which we might deliberately put an expensive product alongside a comparable, cheaper one, to encourage the purchase of the latter, or an obviously unattractive option alongside a more attractive one for the same reason (Dan Ariely writes engagingly about this “power of relativity” (sometimes referred to as the Contrast Principle or Contrast Effect) in his books on human irrationality).
So what would happen in the extreme case where we were offered no choice at all‚ÄĒjust a single option? Would we then be unable or less likely to make purchase decisions? “Single-Option Aversion” is investigated in a series of experiments, published in 2013, by Daniel Mochon at Tulane University in New Orleans. His work shows that people are much less likely to make purchase decisions when only one option is made available than when there are at least two. He concludes that there’s something “psychologically unique about being presented with a single option which increases consumers’ propensity to search.” So, if you want to stop people feeling they must look for more options after they’ve already been attracted to something you are offering, give them a sensible range of potentially attractive options simultaneously, not one at a time and certainly not just a single choice.
In a 2010 paper, Scheibehenne, Greifeneder and Todd investigated evidence for and against choice overload, conducting a meta-analytic review of around 50 different studies in this area. They discovered that there was a mean effect across all of the studies of virtually zero. In other words there’s about equal evidence, from the research, in favor of either position. It seems that it depends on a range of factors, especially the complexity of the choices available and the individual’s knowledge of the domain in which choices are required.
As UX practitioners we need to recognize the psychological biases that occur around choice in the way that we design for usability and persuasion. In particular, we need to guard against the Paradox of Choice on the one hand, ensuring users are not faced with bewildering choices, and against Single Option Aversion on the other, so they are offered enough options to enable clear choice comparisons. Plainly, investigating factors associated with how users make choices needs to be a key part of user research.
Here are five design guidelines:
The number of guidelines is limited to just five for obvious reasons!
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ‚Äúcookies‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúweb beacons‚ÄĚ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Users‚Äô PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ‚Äúdummy‚ÄĚ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Users‚Äô experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFI‚Äôs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such User‚Äôs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFI‚Äôs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant ‚Äėper module‚Äô processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.