Dan Ariely is a professor and writer about behavioral economics. Multiple times he has written about an MIT study that demonstrates the psychology of the architecture of choice.
I will tell the story in reverse.
When selling the famous Economist, they set up some experiments.
Scenario 1: Choice to purchase the Economist:
- web version only for $59
- web & print version for $125
When selling a web version only for $59 and a web & print version for $125, 68% of the people bought the web version only.
Scenario 2: Choice to purchase the Economist:
- web version only for $59
- web & print version for $125
- print only version for $125
By adding a print only version for $125 also they were able to flip the purchases entirely to the web & print version … 84% of the people bought the web & print version.
That is almost a three fold increase in exactly the same offering “web & print for $125” just because they added another choice. That choice allows a mental comparison that increased the perceived value three fold.
Consider the following:
- When giving your customers choice, how many options do you provide?
- Do your options tend to follow scenario 1 or 2?
- At what point do we consider the understanding of human psychology in our designs an inappropriate manipulation? Is this architecture of choice ok in this scenario?