by nina.schmid -

Emotions, Brains & Websites — What makes us click?

You are driving in your car (old brain is moving muscles, scanning the road, new brain is processing visual data and talking to the old brain so that you stay between the lines), and you are thinking about an argument you had with your brother over the weekend (new brain is remembering the argument, mid brain is reliving the argument emotionally). You are, after the fact, thinking about the things you should have said, but didn’t. You feel upset that you didn’t defend yourself (mid brain feeling upset, new brain thinking about things to say, old brain still driving the car). Suddenly, a car in front of you brakes (old brain notices that something has changed that needs attention, old brain floods system with hormones to heighten your ability to fight or flee, old brain has you slam on brakes, mid brain feels scared that you almost had an accident and relieved that you didn’t, new brain analyzes situation and thinks about what you might have done differently). While you drive the rest of the way home, you relive the near miss (new brain plays the memory over and over, mid brain feels the emotions again).You decide not to be angry with your brother any more, life is too short (mid brain feels forgiving and happy, new brain makes decision to call brother on phone, but decides to wait until you get home since talking on a cell phone while driving may not be a good idea right now, old brain is still driving the car).

Our physical bodies and the parts of the brain that govern them are inextricably linked with the parts of our brain that regulate emotions and the parts of the brain that deal with conscious thought and reasoning. These are separate systems in the brain, but they all work together. Our feelings and our reasoning are affected by our physical movement. It is our old brain that is regulating digestion and sleep, but there are controls in the mid brain that govern our emotions and feelings and can then affect our digestion and sleep. And what we think of as our “mind” (the new brain) has an effect on emotions, feelings, and digestion and sleep, too. Although we have three different brain systems, they are all connected and interrelated. We’ve inherited a mindset that tells us that the mind and body are separate, but the research and data show us they are not. Antonio Damasio (1994) calls this separation of mind and body “Descartes’ Error.”

Illustration of the “flawed” mind and body dualism by René Descartes. 

But since the new brain is the only part of brain functioning that we are conscious of, we think it is the most important player. Our mid brain (emotions) and old brain (auto-matic functioning) processing are, for the most part, unconscious, but here’s the interesting thing: our behavior and our decision-making is just as affected, actually, even more affected by our old brain and our mid brain than it is by our new brain.

What does this mean? It means that we think we make decisions about how to act and what to do consciously, but actually most of our decision-making and behavior is governed by unconscious processing. We can’t really separate what we do consciously from the unconscious aspects.

HAVE YOU HAD A BRILLIANT UNCONSCIOUS THOUGHT LATELY?

The new frontier of thought is actually the unconscious. The latest idea is that we are processing information and “thinking” unconsciously all the time.This is why when we are trying to solve a problem and we stop working on it and go to lunch, the solution will suddenly appear as we are munching on our sandwich or driving in the car back to work. Your unconscious was working on the problem, but you weren’t aware of it.

Wilson (2002) defines the unconscious as “mental processes that are inaccessible to the conscious mind, but influence judgments, feelings or behavior… shortcuts that size up our environment, interpret and initiate behavior quickly.”

Imagine a day without the unconscious. We wouldn’t be able to get through five minutes. The estimate from neuroscientists is that our five senses are taking in 11 million pieces of information every second. And now many of those are we processing consciously? A mere 40! So we need the unconscious to deal with the other 10,999,960 pieces of information each second, or we would be overwhelmed in a matter of seconds. Our unconscious mind lets us process all the incoming data from our environment, and it instantly decides whether it is good or bad, something to avoid and run away from, or something to run toward. Our unconscious is a huge efficient shortcut tool, showing us what to pay attention to consciously.

“Automatic cognitive processes are internal automatons that help us navigate a multifaceted and complex environment by slicing it into easily digestible bites. They…can thus free our very limited-capacity consciousness from many burdens.”

Ran R. Hassin (Hassin, 2005)

You’re sitting in front of a computer screen that is divided into four quadrants. The experimenter tells you to watch for an X that is going to appear in one of the quadrants and to press one of the four buttons in front of you to indicate which quadrant the X is in. This experiment was performed by Lewicki in 1988.

The participants didn’t know it, but there was a complex rule about where the X would appear. For example, the X never appeared in the same square two times in a row; the location of the third X was dependent upon the location of the second. The location of the fourth X was dependent upon the location of the set of Xs for the previous two trials. Lastly, an X never appeared in a spot unless it had appeared in at least two of the other squares.

The rules were complicated, but participants learned them. That was evident since as they continued, their performance steadily improved, they got faster and faster at pressing the correct buttons. But not one of the participants could articulate what the rules were. Nor were they aware they were learning rules. Yet their performance improved. Their unconscious mind was learning the rules for them and guiding their behavior about which button to press. Just when participants were starting to perform well, the rules suddenly changed. The participants then started making mistakes, and their response times increased. They noticed that they weren’t doing well, but they didn’t know why. They had no awareness that there were rules that no longer worked. Interestingly, they consciously looked for reasons as to why their performance had deteriorated. They said things like they had “lost the rhythm” or that the experimenters were flashing subliminal pictures on the screen to distract them (which wasn’t true).

We often don’t know why we do the things we do. But we are quick to make up a reason that we actually believe, even though it’s not true. Psychologists call this confabulation. Our unconscious minds are very smart. But we don’t control them.

WHAT MAKES US CLICK?

Most Website-Owners have their Websites for a reason. There are target behaviors that they want us to engage in-quite often, even several target behaviors. An e-commerce site wants us to choose products and buy them. A non-profit site wants us to loan money to help small business owners in different parts of the world. A Fortune 1000 company wants us to be impressed with what they do and buy more stock in the company. A site based on ad revenue wants us to come to the site and then click on an ad. A site that is trying to get acquired wants us to come to the site and register to be a member so that the company can say they have x million registered members. Almost all Websites have target behaviors. How do they get us to engage in the target behavior? How do they get us to buy, register, donate, and click? What makes us click? 

To get us to click, they have to persuade us. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the best way to persuade us is to make a logical presentation. As we learned most behavior and decision-making isn’t conscious. That means that they will have to engage the mid brain and the old brain, in addition to the new brain. We want to think that we are making logical decisions, even though we aren’t. The most effective Websites are Websites that talk to all three brains. When the Web site engages all three brains, then we click.

Old Brain:

Since the old brain focuses on survival instincts and basic needs like safety and comfort, to appeal to this part, websites should ensure clear navigation, fast loading times, and predictable patterns to minimize cognitive load and frustration (Nielsen Norman Group, 2006). For instance, using contrasting colors for call-to-action buttons makes actions immediately visible and instinctive, reducing effort in decision-making.

Lymbic System:

 Visual elements, such as appealing imagery, engaging videos, and emotion-driven copy, can elicit positive feelings and a sense of trust (Petersen et al., 2009). For example, e-commerce websites often use customer testimonials or happy lifestyle images to create emotional resonance, increasing users’ trust and engagement.

Neocortex:

The new brain handles higher-order reasoning and decision-making. Websites must provide informative, structured content and logical layouts to engage the new brain. For instance, product comparison tables in tech retail sites (e.g., Apple or Amazon) help users make rational, informed decisions by clearly presenting features and benefits.

By addressing all three brain systems, a website can create a seamless, intuitive, and emotionally engaging user experience, improving overall satisfaction and usability.

Sources:

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641).

MacLean, P.D. (1970). The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. Springer Science & Business Media.

Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (For emotional processing in the brain and its impact on physical and mental states).

Craig, A.D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655-666. (For the interconnection between brain systems and bodily states).

Nielsen Norman Group. (2006). F-Shaped Pattern for Reading Web Content. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/

Petersen, E., Iyer, G., & Barton, M. (2009). Emotions in web design: An empirical study. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(3), 234-245.

by nina.schmid -

Designing for Connection: The Impact of Social Validation in the Digital Age

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.

by nina.schmid -

Neuro what? How Neurodesign can revolutionize graphic design

When I first tumbled across this topic it was mainly out of personal interest rather than the wish of taking on a year long journey through the depths of neurodesign. In 2022 during my Erasmus semester, between drinks and chips, I had a super interesting conversation with an international student from Sweden who previously studied psychology. He recommended me a book with the title “Neurodesign – What Design and Marketing can learn from neuroscience and psychology”. Funnily enough the author from this book was a professor at my home university, so as soon as I got back to Germany, I had a meeting with him. Afterwards I decided to take on this very new design discipline and turn it into my bachelor thesis. Pretty quickly I realized, that because of it’s depth and potential for a deeper understanding for any designer out there, this topic won’t be completely explored after my bachelor thesis. So what exactly is “Neurodesign”? A question some of you might probably ask yourselves and you’re not alone with this question.

Neurodesign is an emerging field that draws on insights from neuroscience and it’s studies to create improved human centered designs. It recognizes the interplay between design elements and the cognitive patterns as well as functions of users and viewers. To make it a little bit more simple to understand- its basically finding out how our brains work and how to improve designs depending on environment, subconsciousness as well as psychology factors. A topic especially fascinating since we are living in a world where artificial intelligence is getting the overhand, even though we haven’t fully comprehended our own creativity and mind processes. A dangerous pathway we should not fully embrace. We should rather try and find a way to improve our knowledge about ourselves instead of escaping into an easy way out (AI).

In the ongoing research of my topic I want to shift my already existing methodical and scientific research into action, meaning that the exploration of neurodesign techniques in a practical form is my focus.

How can we change the way people perceive certain topics? How can we shift the perception of typography through certain impulses? For example, I stumbled upon a study where researchers in an academic environment tested the effects on students, when it came to the print quality of typography. As a design student the outcome of said study was especially surprising for me, because they found out that work sheets with less optimal print quality was crucial in the improvement of finishing given tasks. The group of students with worse print quality had to focus more on the contents hence why they performed better on the given taks handed to them. An outcome that changes the perception of all the principles we have learned in our studies , when it comes to aspects like readability, print quality and spacing. But why is this so interesting?

“We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.“

Albert Einstein

Thinking about the fact that most of the design principles we are following today found their origin in the late nineteenth century, the question for me is: Is there actual change really happening or are we just repeating what we already know works well enough? Reflecting on the work we see today not much has changed other than the technical advancements. Sure, concepts, trends and techniques might change but our fundamental way of thinking is still the same. Exploring Neurodesign in a more practical way might open new portals for a new and innovative way of designing not only for recipients but also for designers.