When people come across digital financial services, it can feel risky to trust a new provider or a virtual process with no human touch points and no tangible paper trail. The stakes are especially high when cash flows are tight. Any delays or errors in processing can result in fees and penalties that may affect long-term economic security. Each individual touch point, whether it is a website visit, a log-in, or an email, represents an opportunity either to reinforce or break feelings of trust and confidence.
Design Principle 1:
Show that others have chosen to trust you
Design Principle 2:
Give transparency to the process
Design Principle 3:
Use visual cues to signal security
Design Principle 4:
Match the tone and style of your users
When we’re not sure of what to do or how to behave, a critical source of information comes from the behavior of others. “Injunctive” social norms tell us what we should be doing, while “descriptive” social norms tell us what others are doing. Social norms can be a powerful driver of behavior, but their effectiveness can depend on how much the consumer identifies with the social group in question.
Social norms can also backfire if the behavior you’re trying to promote is in the minority. In this case, you can use dynamic social norms that describe a change in behavior over time (for example, “The number of Americans who use online banking apps has increased by 37% from 2013 to 2015”).
Dive deeperParents of teenagers have often wheeled out the line, “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?” But high school kids are not the only ones who care about what their peers are doing. All of us are heavily influenced by our perception of what others are doing – the social norm. However, our perceptions are not always reality.
For instance, take binge drinking in college: a survey with French university students found that more than half of them overestimated the prevalence of binge drinking by their peers. Worryingly, the more common they (incorrectly) assumed binge drinking was, the more they themselves binge drank. Such findings suggest that we misperceive social norms when some choices are highly visible (the bar full of college kids drinking), and others are not (the much larger number of college kids not drinking).
When a negative behavior is most prevalent, we need to take care in how we communicate norms. For example, to combat a prevalent negative behavior – such as stealing pieces of petrified wood from Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park – researchers found injunctive norms (what is perceived to be approved by others) to be more effective than descriptive norms (what others are actually doing). In their study, the most effective message was, “Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the Park, in order to preserve the natural state of the Petrified Forest.” This message was paired with a picture of a person stealing a piece of petrified wood, with a red circle-and-bar symbol over his hand. The least effective message used a descriptive norm, most likely because it wound up conveying that the negative behavior was prevalent.
When most people are performing the desired behavior – but perhaps are not a silent majority – it is effective to make the descriptive norm more salient. Simply informing people of the descriptive norm in these situations is often more effective than telling them what they should do (an injunctive norm). In a review of twenty-one studies ranging from pertinent topics such as condom use, healthy eating, smoking and infidelity, researchers found that knowing what others do is a stronger influence on how people eventually behave than knowing what society says they should do
College students conform to perceived social norms around binge drinking. França, L. R., Dautzenberg, B., & Reynaud, M. (2010). Heavy episodic drinking and alcohol consumption in French colleges: the role of perceived social norms. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 34(1), 164-174.
Social norm messaging that draws attention to negative behavior can backfire. Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current directions in psychological science, 12(4), 105-109.
Social norms can help reduce energy consumption or have an undesirable boomerang effect, depending on how much energy households were originally using. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434.
People manage their finances in private, which makes it hard for people to see what others are doing. This makes it especially important to provide clear signals of quality. Show that others trust you and that it’s safe to follow suit by encouraging word of mouth referrals, highlighting user reviews and press mentions, and including visible indicators of usage when they are likely to send a message of growth (count of users logging in, saving money, etc.). Other signals of credibility could include funders, partnerships or other prominent supporters. Remember that the supporters you highlight will also send a message to users about your target market, and could either encourage or discourage use (see “the Science of: Identity”, below).
Getting it right:
Caution!
In a direct mail fundraising campaign for a charity, naming a well-known supporter increased the likelihood of donation by 26% and donation amounts by 51%. Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2012). How can Bill and Melinda Gates increase other people’s donations to fund public goods?(No. w17954). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Using data from reviews on Amazon.com, researchers show that information about the identity of the reviewer helps buyers form judgments about both the reviews and the products themselves, ultimately boosting sales. Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 291-313.
In a study conducted at Stanford University, people ate less meat and used less water for their laundry when told that those behaviors reflected changing societal norms. Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological science, 28(11), 1663-1674.
People tend to reciprocate positive social gestures. In fact, we will often go out of our way to return a small favor. Research suggests that while we’re especially sensitive to this dynamic within established relationships, the impulse to reciprocate still holds when we interact with complete strangers.
Dive DeeperWhen a stranger in an elevator says hello, many of us can’t help but return the greeting. We tip more generously when servers are friendly, buy more products when we receive free samples, and are more likely to comply with requests when others do us a favor first.
Deeply ingrained norms of fairness and obligation drive this reciprocal impulse to reward kindness and punish unkindness. We often respond to social gestures even when we need to go out of our way do so and even when we’re interacting with complete strangers.
Researchers tested the impact of reciprocal behavior on charitable giving in a direct-mail fundraising campaign by sending small gifts with donation letters. Households either received a plain letter asking for donations, a letter accompanied by a small gift of one postcard and envelope, or a letter with a large gift of four postcards and envelopes. Those who received a small gift donated at a rate 17% higher than those who received a plain letter. The reciprocal response was even more pronounced for those who received a large gift. This group donated at a rate 75% higher than those who did not receive a gift at all.
By extending small acts of kindness such as a gift, personal favor, or extra attention or service, we establish a reciprocal relationship that supports positive exchanges.
Researchers present a formal theory of reciprocity that takes underlying intentions into account. Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and economic behavior, 54(2), 293-315.
Researchers sent text message reminders for loan repayments to borrowers of three banks in the Philippines. Repayment rates improved when borrowers knew the loan officer and messages included his or her name. Karlan, D., Morten, M., & Zinman, J. (2012). A personal touch: Text messaging for loan repayment (No. w17952). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Researchers found that a small gift elicits a reciprocal response among philanthropic donors and boosts the likelihood of making a charitable contribution by as much as 75%. Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501-1511.
This book outlines fundamental principles of persuasion. Cialdini, R. B., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (pp. 173-174). New York: Collins.
Sharing tangible cues about high-level processes prompts users to think about and appreciate the effort that goes into a service. As a result, they tend to value the service more highly, be more trusting and patient, and feel more satisfied with the user experience. Helping users imagine or check the system’s progress on key steps in a new or unfamiliar process can also increase confidence in expected outcomes. This can be especially important for consumers who are new to digital channels, those who have low initial trust in providers, and low- or middle-income consumers who can’t afford to have delays or mistakes in their finances.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
Getting it right:
Caution!
Don’t confuse or overwhelm your user with technical details or exact operations. Instead, provide representative cues in “live” time, as they fit into a layperson’s understanding of the process.
Researchers found that websites that provide operational transparency, or cues about operational processes, signal that they are exerting effort. This “labor illusion” evokes feelings of reciprocity that lead to increased perceptions of service value.
Buell, R. W., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Science, 57(9), 1564-1579.
New banking customers repeatedly checked balances for several months before increasing deposit activity, demonstrating a need to monitor outcomes and develop trust over time. Bachas, P., Gertler, P., Higgins, S., & Seira, E. (2017). Banking on Trust: How Debit Cards Enable the Poor to Save More (No. w23252). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Most of the time, people think using “System 1”, which is an automatic, quick mode of processing information. System 1 thinking requires little mental energy, but can lead to errors in judgments or decisions. “System 2” thinking is slower and more deliberative, but requires conscious effort. Many of the behavioral biases people exhibit are due to System 1 overshadowing System 2.
Dive DeeperA bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
Two systems are at work in our brains: “System 1” and “System 2.” System 1, fast thinking, operates automatically and intuitively with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control. System 2 is slower and requires conscious effort. System 1 dominates many of the numerous decisions we make every day. We use System 2 less frequently because it demands more effort.
When System 1 is at work, we look at the question above and answer intuitively: the ball costs 10 cents. However, when we slow down and engage System 2 thinking, we realize that the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball and the ball actually costs 5 cents.
Our reliance on System 1 is a deep necessity. If we had to think about every tiny decision consciously, we’d be paralyzed by choice and never leave the house. However, System 1 thinking is prone to error and bias that can cause us to misjudge risks and likelihoods, be inattentive to small details, plan poorly, or make us overconfident in our abilities.
Understanding the shortcomings of System 1 thinking can help us design specifically for moments when it’s best to slow down and take a deliberative approach with System 2.
This article provides an overview of the research on System 1 and System 2 thinking, and how they compete for control over our behavior. Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(10), 454-459.
This book explains System 1 and System 2 thinking and related topics. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
People make quick, automatic judgements about the security of a website based on visual cues, such as an image of a lock or the overall sense of professionalism on a page. Because this initial perception is sticky, spend time perfecting the surface-level cues. Then, identify specific moments when you need users to engage more deliberatively and slow them down at those moments to ensure security.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
Getting it right:
Caution!
In a usability study on detecting fraudulent websites, 23% of the participants did not look at browser-based cues such as the address bar, status bar and the security indicators, leading to incorrect choices 40% of the time. Dhamija, R., Tygar, J. D., & Hearst, M. (2006, April). Why phishing works. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 581-590). ACM.
Human error drives 70-80% of the cost attributed to cyber-attacks. This novella presents challenges and designs for addressing human behavioral factors in cybersecurity. Deep Thought: A Cybersecurity Story, ideas42 (2016)
People form an emotional response to a product almost instantaneously, and that response shapes subsequent, more deliberative judgments even when it’s irrational.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Civitas Books.
Each of us has a multi-faceted identity: we are caregivers, savers, employees, neighbors, and much more. As different situations prompt us to assume particular identities, the values and goals associated with each role dial our choices in subtle ways. We seek to act in accordance with the way we see ourselves, which depends on the identity that is most “top-of-mind.”
Dive DeeperMany of our choices are impacted by our perception of ourselves and our roles. We all have multiple identities – for instance, someone can be a mother, a lawyer, a daughter, and a gardener – and each identity may carry different goals and values. Our perceptions, choices, and actions are often made in accordance with the identity (and its associated values) that is most salient to us in our moment of choice.
For instance, when we are primed to consider a specific identity, we often behave in ways that fit with its associated stereotypes – even if the priming is completely inadvertent and even if we do not believe the stereotype. Relatively miniscule identity-priming interventions can have massive effects on behavior. For example, in a study of college students, researchers found that standardized achievement test scores were affected by whether students had to report their ethnicity. For white students, the ethnicity priming significantly increased performance, but African-American students’ performance suffered. In a similar study, researchers found that when Asian‐American females were primed with their racial identity, they achieved higher scores on a math exam, but the opposite was true when they were primed with their gender. These examples of “stereotype threat” show the pernicious effects that priming negative stereotypes – even in minor ways – can have on our performance.
However, we can also prime positive identities to encourage socially beneficial actions. For example, priming an individual’s identity as a “citizen” or “community member” may increase the likelihood that she recycles or conserves energy. The existence of multiple social identities – and the sway they hold over our choices – means that the extent to which a message or option primes a specific identity can have important effects on the decisions that we make.
Ethnicity priming improves performance for white students and worsens performance for African-American students. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. A. (2004). Stereotype Threat Does Not Live by Steele and Aronson (1995) Alone. American Psychologist, 59(1), 47-48.
Researchers found that when Asian‐American females were primed with their racial identity, they achieved higher scores on a math exam, but the opposite was true when they were primed with their gender. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological science, 10(1), 80-83.
The overall look and feel of your product evokes an identity that either resonates with your user or alienates them. Familiar details in language, presentation, and framing can encourage feelings of closeness and understanding, while unfamiliar or negative cues can create a sense of distance and distrust.
This example does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation of any product or service by ideas42.
Getting it right:
Caution!
People are more likely to comply with a request if they have something in common with the requester, even if it’s an irrelevant coincidence. Burger, J. M., Messian, N., Patel, S., del Prado, A., & Anderson, C. (2004). What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 35-43.
While there is a long history of behavioral science applications within marketing and user experience design, significant behavioral barriers can also arise in underlying product functionality. For instance, speed is the second most common reason that underserved households give for using non-bank check-cashing services (after convenience). When given the choice, 90% of consumers on a banking and payments technology platform chose instant deposit with a fee over free deposit in seven business days.
Speed is critical because many low- and middle-income consumers lack a savings cushion or credit source to cover obligations amid volatile cash flows. These consumers end up needing immediate access to their funds on payday. Unfortunately, few traditional banking products offer instant liquidity. For reasons ranging from fraud protection to systemic delays, most consumers cannot immediately access 100% of funds deposited via paper check in a traditional checking account. Rules surrounding check deposit availability are both complex and vague, leaving consumers unsure when they will be able to access their money.
Design Principle 1:
Show that others have chosen to trust you
Design Principle 2:
Give transparency to the process
Design Principle 3:
Use visual cues to signal security
Design Principle 4:
Match the tone and style of your users
Knowing that others trust you can encourage users to follow suit
Getting a sense of the effort that goes into delivering services can build feelings of appreciation and reciprocity
People may be accustomed to physical cues such as receipts and “paid” stamps, and want to see proof of completion
People make judgments about the security of websites quickly and automatically using salient visual cues
Providing an explanation can give users a reason to respond
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins.
Users are more likely to engage when the tone of your service is familiar to them and resonates with a positive self-image
Stay updated with the
latest news straight from
ideas42.
Copyright 2019 © All Rights Reserved
This link will direct you to one of our partner sites