201104019 rgillham-persuasion-unbranded
•
2 gostaram•645 visualizações
Robert Gillham's talk, "The Strategy of Persuasive Design" from HCID 2011 at City University, 19th April 2011.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a 201104019 rgillham-persuasion-unbranded
Semelhante a 201104019 rgillham-persuasion-unbranded (20)
Último
Último (20)
201104019 rgillham-persuasion-unbranded
- 1. Engineering Persuasion, Emotion & TrustThe Strategy of Persuasive Design Robert Gillham 19th April 2011
- 2. 2 Why Consumer Experience (as opposed to ‘usability’) is Important 79% of consumers will commit to a deeper brand relationship – through product or service adoption – after a satisfying online experience 59% of customers will stop doing business with the brand after just one bad experience in any channel IBM customer study
- 3. Initial relationship-building is increasingly in the hands of the customer Online &Self-serve Store Salesman 3
- 4. Is a “rational” person a cool, unemotional user of logic? 4
- 6. Triggered by beliefs about something
- 13. Why is Persuasive Design a Challenge for UX? 13
- 14. Usability is only a hygienic factor ‘Easy to use’ is something consumers always ask for But it’s not a competitive advantage – it’s becoming a given ‘Usability’ doesn’t persuade (but the lack of it can disuade!) 14
- 15. Emotion influences perceived usability Once a consumer feels positively (or negatively) about a product or service, their emotional reaction influences the perceived importance of small usability issues 15
- 17. Measuring Persuasion Through Conversion 17
- 18. Measuring Persuasion: How do people think about a new online banking proposition? 18
- 19. Measuring Persuasion: Task flow on the banking site Commit to Convert Start “Checkout” Enter Site Converted Visitor Browse & Explore Choose a conversion path Unengaged Unpersuaded Unconverted
- 20. Common Conversion Measuring Persuasion: The traditional view - X visitors in, Y visitors out Browse & Explore Choose a conversion path Commit to Convert Start “Checkout” Enter Site Converted Visitor
- 21. Measuring Persuasion: Start measuring from a meaningful point Common Conversion Engaged Conversion Browse & Explore Choose a conversion path Commit to Convert Start “Checkout” Enter Site Converted Visitor
- 22. Engaged Conversion Measuring Persuasion: Distinguish between different cognitive stages Common Conversion Engaged Conversion Browse & Explore Choose a conversion path Commit to Convert Start “Checkout” Enter Site Converted Visitor Committed Conversion
- 24. Usability governs whether or not people cancomplete a task
- 25. Persuasion, emotion & trust determines whetherthey will do it
- 26. Psychological principles give us a framework for thinking about persuasive design solutions
Notas do Editor
- Is a “rational” person a cool, unemotional user of logic and the laws of probability? Two characters from the popular television and movie series Star Trek providean answer. Mr. Spock—who is half Vulcan, a species that suppresses emotion and prizes logic— is presented as a rational thinker who thoroughly considers every piece of information. In contrast, Captain Kirk is likely to respond emotionally. Yet Kirk is portrayed as a good decision maker. Though Spock fully analyzes each situation, he gets too caught up in the details. Emotion allows Kirk to focus and enhances his ability to make critical decisions.
- From Wikipedia: According to Robert Cialdini in his book on persuasion, he defined six "weapons of influence"Reciprocation - People tend to return a favor. Thus, the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing and advertising. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1937.Commitment and Consistency - Once people commit to what they think is right, orally or in writing, they are more likely to honor that commitment, even if the original incentive or motivation is subsequently removed. For example, in car sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works because the buyer has already decided to buy. See cognitive dissonance.Social Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents, such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre.Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people whom they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed, but generally more aesthetically pleasing people tend to use this influence excellently over others. See physical attractiveness stereotype.Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only" encourages sales.
- Findings from Consumer Engagement
- Nisbett and Wilson set up a market survey table outside a big shopping center and asked people to say which of three pairs of panty hose they preferred, and why (Nisbett, R.E., and Wilson, T.D. "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes." Psychological Review, 84 (1977), pp. 231-259). Most people picked the rightmost pair of the three, giving the kinds of reasons you'd expect: "I think this pair is sheerer" or "I think this pair is better made." The trick is that the three pairs of panty hose were IDENTICAL. Nisbett and Wilson knew that given a choice among three closely-matched alternatives there is a bias to pick the last one, and that that bias was the real basis for people's choices. But (of course) nobody SAID that's why they chose the pair they chose. It's not just that people couldn't report their real reasons: when asked they made up reasons that seemed plausible but are wrong.