Tom Greever's Articulating Design Decisions is a masterclass in how to collaborate, communicate and gain alignment with your team members in order to build world-class user experiences.   Purchase a copy here   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References: Greever, Tom. Articulating Design Decisions. “O’Reilly Media, Inc.,” 25 Sept. 2015.

More options often cause decision paralysis, buyer’s remorse, and dissatisfaction. Help users make faster decisions by providing less choices.   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References: Williams, Darrell. “What Is Hicks Law and How Can We Use It to Simplify Choices?: VWO.” Blog, 20 July 2023, vwo.com/blog/what-is-hicks-law-and-how-it-can-simplify-choices/. Iyengar, Sheena S., and Mark R. Lepper. When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too ... - UW Faculty Web Server, faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Iyengar%20%26%20Lepper%20(2000).pdf. Accessed 4 Aug. 2023. W. E. Hick (1952): On the rate of gain of information, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4:1, 11-26

Dual Process Theory suggests we have two general modes, or systems, of thinking that we use to navigate our every day lives. System 1 refers to our automatic, reactive, emotional, unconscious thought processes that occur almost instantaneously without conscious effort. System 2 refers to our mode of thinking that  slow, deliberate, intentional, and analytical. This topic is fundamental for understanding how to build intuitive product experiences.   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References: Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Print.Poole, Steven. The VR Book: Virtual Reality in Art and Culture. London: Laurence King, 2017. Print.Nielsen, Jakob. "Mental Models." Nielsen Norman Group, 2005, www.nngroup.com/articles/mental-models/.Nielsen, Jakob and Whitenton, Kathryn. The Aesthetic-Usability Effect. Nielsen Norman Group. 2007. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/aesthetic-usability-effect/.Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of reasoning. Annual review of psychology, 64(1), 255-286.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135-171). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Evans, J. S. B. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processing in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 451-466.Evans, J. S. B., & Over, D. E. (1996). The two faces of reason: A dual-process account of reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 1(1), 46-52.Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(5), 645-665.Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Stroop/. Frederick, Shane. (2005). Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. American Economic Review, 95(4), 829-836. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.

Learn how to influence your users to have a more positive perception of your product or service, as well as make them think your products actually perform better, using the Halo of Social Goodwill Effect, discovered by Sean Blair and Alexander Chernev in their 2012 study, Doing Well By Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Social Goodwill.   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References: 1. Zoom (2022). Zoom Cares Global Grants 2022. Retrieved from https://blog.zoom.us/zoom-cares-global-grants-2022/ 2. Avada (n.d.). Tom’s Marketing Strategy. Retrieved from https://blog.avada.io/resources/toms-marketing-strategy.html 3. Blair, S., & Chernev, A. (2012). Doing Well By Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Social Good Will. Marketing Science Institute Report, 12(103). Retrieved from http://thearf-org-unified-admin.s3.amazonaws.com/MSI/2020/06/MSI_Report_12-103.pdf 4. Oremus, W. (2022, September 14). Patagonia’s Big Bet on Climate Philanthropy. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate-philanthropy-chouinard.html

Today we discuss David Kahneman & Amos Tversky's discovery of Loss Aversion, which is a cognitive bias in which people are more averse to losses than they are to gains. We are even more likely to take on risk to avoid a loss rather than gain rewards.   Learn how to apply Loss Aversion to your product in today's episode.   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References:   Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263-291. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185?seq=1.   Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American psychologist, 39(4), 341. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-09731-001.   Goldstein, W. M., & Weber, M. (1994). A cognitive process theory of risk perception and attitudes.   In M. W. Schofield (Ed.), Choice and decision making: Psychological and normative considerations (pp. 187-226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.   Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.   Miller, N. (2003). Prospect theory and macroeconomics: The state of the art. International Review of Economics & Finance, 12(3), 445-457.   Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.   Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.   Camerer, C. F. (1995). Individual decision making. In J. Kagel & A.E. Roth (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 587-703). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.   Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "Global study confirms influential theory behind loss aversion." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 18 May 2020. .

The Zeigarnik effect refers to the psychological phenomenon where people remember unfinished tasks more easily than completed tasks.   Today we explore how we can use this effect to motivate users to complete tasks, increase user engagement, and make products more sticky.   3 months free off yearly subscription for Interaction Design Foundation: Interested in boosting your career in UI/UX or learning how to build world-class products? The Interaction Design Foundation is offering 3 free months off your yearly membership to Actionable UX Podcast listeners! Use the link below to take advantage of this exclusive offer: https://www.interaction-design.org/learn-ux-design?ep=the-actionable-ux-podcast   References   1. Zeigarnik, B. (1938). Über das Behalten von erledigten und unerledigten Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 18(1), 1-85.   2. Pohl, R. F. (2004). The Zeigarnik effect: A review of the literature and some new empirical studies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(5), 637-656.   3. Zangeneh, H., Fathi, A., & Montgomery, B. (2011). Is the Zeigarnik effect generalisable over time? An empirical study. International Journal of Psychology, 46(1), 8-17.   4. Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious processes. Consciousness and cognition, 15(1), 135-146.   5. Süssenbach, P., & Kühnen, U. (2003). The Zeigarnik effect in achievement contexts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 816-824.