Since we’ve been exploring a lot of cognitive- and neuro-basics, that are important to understand the principle behind Neurodesign, I wanted to highlight another very important part, which is important to consider while working on any project. As designers we focus on the creative work, but still our work envolves humans, to understand how to communicate with them through our work is crucial. Hence why I decided to research more on the topic of human behaviour and social structures.
Have you ever attended a church or religious service that was not one that you were used to? It might have gone something like this. You weren’t sure what was going to happen next, people were responding or praying or singing of chanting in what seemed like a foreign language. They seemed to be sitting or standing of kneeling at cues. You surreptitiously stole glances at everyone around you and tried to imitate what they were doing. If everyone stood up and put a paper bag on their heads and turned around three times, you probably would’ve looked to see where your paper bag was.
The question is simple: Why is the behavior of others so compelling to us? Why do we pay attention to and copy what others do? It’s called social validation. An instinctive and biological human need our society has become to guilt trip.
Because most people view themselves as independent thinkers, meaning that they like to think they are unique individuals with their own opinion and thoughts. The truth, however, is, that the need to fit in and belong is wired into our brains and our biology. We want to fit in, because evolutionary we were dependent on our social grouping. This is such a strong drive, that when people are in a unknown social situations, they will look to others to see how to behave. It’s not conscious process we don’t know that we’re doing it.
THE BYSTANDER EFFECT
In a study from Latane and Darley (1968), participants sat in a room and completed questionnaires. While they completed their paperwork, smoke was released into the room from a vent. The experimental conditions varied:
• In one experimental condition, there was only one subject in the room, and that subject was not aware of the study.
• In another, there were three individuals in the room, but two were aware of the experiment. Those two were instructed to act unconcerned and continue to fill out their questionnaires while smoke filled the room.
• In a third experimental condition, there were three subjects in the room, all of whom were entirely unaware of the experiment.
So what did the people do? Did anyone take action by leaving the room and reporting the smoke? In the first condition, 75 percent of the subjects left the room and reported the smoke. In the second condition, only 10 percent of the subjects left the room and reported the smoke. In the third experiment, 38 percent left the room and reported the smoke. This research supports the notion that we look to others to validate what our behavior should be. The research shows that this is especially true when we’re uncertain about what to do.
In a more recent study on the bystander effect (Markey, 2000), Markey asked whether the bystander effect would also work in chat groups:
• If you asked a question in a chat group, would your sex determine how long it would take to get an answer?
• Would the number of other people (bystanders) in the chat room affect the time it would take to get help?
• Finally, if you asked for help from a specific person and addressed him by name, would you receive help faster?
The results? Gender didn’t have an effect, but the more people who were present in the chat group, the longer it took for someone to get help. Each additional person added to the chat group added about three seconds to the time it took to get help. For example, with only two people in the chat room, it took 30 seconds to get a response. With 19 people in the chat room, it took over 65 seconds to get a response. If you addressed a particular person, then it was as though no one else were in the room, and it took only 30 seconds to get a response.
WHY WOULD YOU LISTEN TO TOTAL STRANGERS?
Imagine you’re at a chain superstore looking for an HD flat-screen television. You stand there and stare at the large wall of HD televisions showing NASCA races. An innocent bystander walks by and you grab him and say “What do you think of this TV? Did you buy one? Would you buy it again if you had to do it all over?” He tells you his opinion and walks away. You grab the next person you see and say, “Hey there, do you have this TV? What do you think of it?” She tells you her opinion and walks away. You are at the store for 13 hours gathering opinions. This goes on until you feel secure in a decision. Sounds absurd? In the “real world,” it is absurd. Online, it’s not so absurd However, you won’t need 13 hours to browse products on a Web site. The online version of consumer feedback is faster. You can gather data by reading ratings and reviews. We will avidly read reviews from total strangers, and these reviews will sway our decision on whether, what, and when to buy. Why? We don’t know who the people reviewing the product are, where they come from, their likes and dislikes, or if they are anything like us-and yet, we trust them. If we see that a product has received only one out of five stars, we don’t even take a closer look. It’s social validation at work. What do others think?
How does social validation affect how we use websites?
Online ratings and reviews influence us greatly-most powerfully at a non-conscious level. There are lots of ways to use ratings. Some are more effective than others. For example, the site that follows doesn’t put any rating information on the first page. We have to click on a specific product before the rating appears. This means they aren’t using social validation as effectively as they could. By waiting until a later screen to show rating information, they risk losing our attention. We may never get to the next screen to even see the ratings.
RECENT RESEARCH ON WEB SITE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRODUCTS VERSUS “EXPERIENCES”
Website visitors’ decisions when buying digital cameras (Product Condition) and choosing tourist destinations (Experiences Condition). The researchers were interested in whether recommendations would be equally influential for both products and experiences. When recommendations were provided for a particular item, that item sold 20 percent more volume than an item for which there were no recommendations. If recommendations were provided for a particular travel destination, that destination was selected 10 percent more often than a destination for which there was no recommendation. If a photo of the person accompanied the travel recommendation, the travel experience condition increased to 20 percent. What did others do? Another effective variation is to show what other people actually ended up buying. When the conscious mind kicks in. There is one way the conscious mind might kick in to the conversation. Sometimes (but it’s rare), we start to get suspicious. This usually happens only if we have information that leads us to doubt ratings. For example, a friend of mine used to work at a company that hired people to post positive product ratings. “What if they’re all fake?” she asked. Now her cortex (new brain) is disagreeing with her old brain. Her old brain says, “I want to be like everyone else,” even when she’s not aware it’s saying that. But her new brain says, “Maybe this isn’t accurate data.” The old brain will probably win in the end. If she reads some reviews that are not 100 percent positive, and if the people writing those reviews seem like a “real” person who actually used the product, then the new brain’s objections can be squelched fairly easily.
“Listen to others? Not me, I’m logical”
Ratings and reviews work unconsciously to activate our need for social validation. But they also give us the rationalization we need or want after we have made our decision unconsciously. Data, charts, graphs, and statistics allow us to tell ourselves we are making the wise choice.
TELL ME A STORY
The most powerful ratings and reviews involve narratives and storytelling. Reviewer feedback is most powerful when we know more about the reviewers than just their names and the dates their feedback was posted. We listen more closely to people we know and trust. If we are listening to someone we don’t know, then we will try to (unconsciously) determine if the person is like us. We are also very influenced by stories. Taking this into account, what kinds of ratings and reviews will influence us the most? Were most influenced (in this order) when:
We are most influenced when we know the person and the person is telling a story. It is unlikely that we will be reading a review online by someone we actually know. That brings us then to #2. We are somewhat less influenced when we don’t necessarily know the person, but it’s still someone we can imagine because there is a persona, a name (or company name). Again, it always helps if the person is telling a story. We’re even less influenced when we don’t know the person, and we can’t imagine them, but we are provided with a story. We are least influenced when we don’t know the person, and we’re provided with only a rating.
CONCLUSION
Social validation not only influences our purchase decisions, but it also affects other behavior, such as how we might experience a Website. For example, a highly-rated video might influence us to watch the video ourselves, thereby influencing our behavior. Showing how many people performed a particular action at the Website is powerful. We’re called to act when we know what others have experienced with a product, or we know what they’re doing at a Website, or we even know what they are doing right now. We will do what others are doing. We will be drawn to belong.
Incorporating an understanding of social validation into the education of designers is crucial because it deepens their ability to create meaningful, user-centered designs. As we’ve seen, human behavior is strongly influenced by social dynamics—whether in physical environments or digital spaces. When designers grasp the innate need for connection and the unconscious drive for social validation, they can create experiences that resonate more deeply with users. This insight helps designers craft not only visually appealing projects but also emotionally compelling ones that guide user behavior and engagement. Recognizing that people are drawn to what others are doing, thinking, or experiencing allows designers to predict and influence how their work will be received. By learning these cognitive and social patterns, designers can move beyond aesthetics and build designs that foster community, trust, and a sense of belonging. This approach not only enhances user satisfaction but also drives more effective, purposeful design outcomes. Therefore, integrating these principles into design education ensures that future designers are equipped to create experiences that connect, engage, and ultimately, succeed.
