Smart Defaults and Healthy Snacking

Another great paper on using behavioral science to create smart defaults (it's gated so I can't link to it. Contact me if you want the citation). This study was on healthy snack choices (apples v cookies). They did three studies.

The first one looked at human-human interaction. They had a person walking around an office offering snacks. He either offered both snacks equally or offered the apple and allowed them to opt in for the cookie instead. They picked their snack for that day (immediate gratification) and for the next day (more likely to think logically). As expected, people were more likely to want the cookie right now and the apple tomorrow then vice versa (although lots of people requested the same snack for both days). The interesting finding is that laziness bias arose even when asking for the cookie was very easy. Just being offered the apple first made a difference. They suspected that it was the added social pressure to select the healthy choice when it was the default.

So they ran two more studies, one with a robot and one with a web site interface for picking the snacks. There wouldn’t be any social pressure, instead the default was just convenience. When the robot offered apples and cookies together, more people selected the cookies then when the cookies were on a lower shelf. Even just that much effort elicited the laziness bias.

With the web site, the apples and cookies were either both on the first page, or the apples were on the first page and they had to click to get to the cookies. Again, even just one extra click elicited the laziness bias (although they speculate that maybe some people didn’t notice the button).

Another interesting finding is that the effect was greater for people with less healthy eating habits (they had a snacking profile questionnaire after the snack choice).

A third interesting finding is that when they listed the number of calories, healthier snackers were more likely to pick the cookies. This is either an example of the vicarious goal fulfillment I have blogged about in the past or the healthier snackers discovered that the cookies weren’t as bad as they thought.

Blackberries on Vacation?

I was interviewed by National Geographic earlier this year (yeah, I thought that was funny too). They were interested in a productivity topic. The question was whether executives should leave their Blackberries at home when they go on vacation.

As usual, my response was a little nuanced. But the basic message was that the productivity gains over the next year from a REAL vacation (i.e. leaving the Blackberry at home) easily outweighs the amount of work you get done while on vacation.

But that depends on a few factors. One, you have to trust someone back at the office to take care of things in your absence. If you spend the whole vacation worrying, you don’t get that refreshing boost that vacations are supposed to give you. But when you are planning your vacation, it’s too late to start thinking about this. If you are doing regular succession planning, you should already have your replacement identified and trained. This person should be able to cover your vacations quite well.

The second factor is what you are doing on vacation. If you are missing a gorgeous sunrise eating breakfast on the balcony with your family because you are inside checking email, then you are wasting a great opportunity for an emotionally refreshing boost. But if you are going to be sitting in a cruise ship cabin bored because you hate sitting by the pool, there may be some things you can get done to pass the time. It may even improve the vacation.

Of course, when the article came out, there were maybe two or three sentences that actually made it in. Typical for magazine interviews. But I thought the rest would interest you. Any other thoughts? Disagreements? Other conditions that I missed?

Transparency in Design

Last night, I was walking home from work wearing my new raincoat. This thing is incredible. It's a Gortex shell that is very waterproof. So much so that I didn't even realize it when it started raining. You'd think that's a good thing, right? But my briefcase, which was slung over my shoulder, got soaked! I had an umbrella, but not realizing that it was raining I never opened it up.

This isn't just a story on my foolishness. There are many examples of fantastic design that insulate the user from what is going on outside and cause him/her to lose important situation awareness. I read once of a plane incident where the autopilot adjusted so seamlessly to a lost engine that the pilot didn't know that it was lost. When he took over the controls to land the plane, it veered sharply to the left (2 engines on one side, only 1 engine on the other side). Without some quick thinking, he might have crashed. I am sure he had some nauseated and frightened passengers.

So what is the lesson of the story? There is a user requirement that we often forget about: transparency in automation. When designing automation, make sure that it isn't so good that the user loses important features of situation awareness. I have heard of workers who monitor an automated production process and after a few years of Six Sigma performance they completely forget how to run it manually. If/when the automation does fail - the line is shut down.

Don't let this happen to you!

I was listening to an interview show on NPR last night (2^nd hour of On Point) where the topic was Asian American culture and their performance in the American workforce. The focus was on 1^st and 2^nd generation and made lots of generalizations (which the main interviewee, who was the author of a New York Magazine article on this subject, freely admitted, in part because it was a magazine article not an academic research paper). One stat that he cited was that Asian Americans are overrepresented among law school students and junior associates (thanks to the culture’s focus on professional careers), but underrepresented among law firm partners. Same thing with MBA students and CEOs.

It was also a call in show, so there were lots of opinions and passionate speeches on the reason for the disparity (the “Bamboo Ceiling”). Hypotheses ranged from discrimination by the existing partners/directors (old boy network), the reluctance of Asian Americans to play the political games that it takes to get ahead at law firms and corporations, and something about the culture that makes them less capable at lawyering (such as an inability to connect personally with juries, less flamboyance as litigators, etc) or senior management. The Tiger Mom book came up a lot. There was also some discussion of whether this was an Asian American thing or typical of any 1^st and 2^nd generation immigrant community. Nobody had any definitive answers, but the conversation was interesting (except for some of the extreme call-ins).

What do you think? Is it one of the three reasons I listed, all of the above, or something totally different?

General or Specific skills?

Which is more important, general competence or specific expertise? On the Michael Smerconish show he was talking about hiring a producer for his show. He interviewed a lot of candidates. When faced with the final decision, he chose to hire the person who had general competence (dedication, communication skills, personality) but no experience instead of the person with specific expertise (knowing how to produce a radio show) but less of the general qualities. The station almost didn’t go along with his choice because his choice had no experience being a radio show producer. But he never regretted it. He had faith she would learn what she needed to know when she needed to know it. And she did.

You also hear this a lot in pro sports. There are the players who have tons of skills but are bad teammates/clubhouse personas (like Randy Moss, Many Ramirez) or players with maybe less skill but are great in the clubhouse (Trot Nixon comes to mind). I’m not talking about off the field shenanigans (Michael Vick), but sports related general competence or specific skills. I prefer cheering for teams with lots of good clubhouse guys, but who is better for the team’s winning percentage?

Of course it depends on the requirements of the job, but for those jobs in the middle where both are important, which would you choose if you had to choose?

Understanding the User Experience

Here is a usability testing strategy that I bet few of you have tried. Have someone who doesn’t speak the language observe the user. It’s amazing what you will learn when you have to focus 100% on body language and tone because you can’t be distracted by what the user is saying. We all have experienced the principle that users often can’t articulate what they are thinking and often are downright wrong. The reasons for this are fascinating and worthy of a different blog post. But given that it is true, having at least one observer who can’t listen to the words, even if he/she wants to, is very insightful.

Unexpected responses ruin good ideas

This is a great example of why I am fascinated with human behavior. A recent study on low-salt potato chips found some unexpected results. Good news for those of you who would rather eat the real thing.

First, they looked at people who switched to low-salt chips. Some ate more of them because the chips were less satisfying individually. So their total salt didn't go down and their junk food consumption actually went up. Some people who would have switched to other non-junk food snacks if low-salt chips weren't available felt enabled to eat these instead. So their salt AND junk food consumption went up.

Then they looked at a new invention called Crystal Salt. Because it has smaller crystals, you can use less of it and get the same salty taste. The hope was that this would prevent the first finding of the first study (snackers would need to eat more to feel satisfied). But just knowing that these had less salt made people who were trying to cut down on salt feel enabled to eat more of them, so again salt didn't go down and junk food consumption went up. And again, some people that would have switched to other snacks ate these instead - so salt AND junk food consumption went up. A third group that were used to less salty snacks got used to the salty taste and started needing more salt on their other foods because they habituated to the higher level of salt.

In all fairness, there were people who ate less salt in both studies. But there were enough people who ate more (salt or junk food) that it gave them serious second thoughts on the benefits of either low-salt chips or chips made with Crystal Salt.

Radio Lab - simple fixes for intractable problems

Very interesting Radio Lab this week. They described four stories that had really challenging problems and the simple (although perhaps not 100% ideal) solutions that were developed for them. It's a great example of what creativity can accomplish.

One was a gay couple who lived in a state that didn't even have civil unions let alone same sex marriage. They wanted to make sure that they could make medical decisions and financial decisions for each other, especially as they aged. So one legally ADOPTED the other one. Not exactly marriage, but if you look at the nuances of the law, it gave them just about the same legal rights (except for social security benefits).

They also talked about a mental care facility that had a problem with residents wandering off. They didn't want to turn the place into a jail by adding security. So instead, they built a fake bus stop in the front of the building. They found most of the future wanderers sitting at the bus stop waiting for a bus. After a few minutes of conversation, they forgot where they thought they were going and came back inside. No security, no force, just a little glass and wood.

The third one I liked was about a guy who had rage issues. Whenever anyone told him to calm down, no matter how they said it/did it, he would just get madder and sometimes assault the poor good Samaritan. So he got a gray parrot and trained it to say "Calm Down, everything will be OK" whenever it sensed him getting mad. He couldn't rage against this little bird, especially one he trained himself. He calmed down, saved himself thousands in therapy, and kept himself out of jail.

Creativity and Innovation - that is what will save the world. Not tax cuts and government regulations.

Food size labels

This is why you read my blog. Here is a great example of the value I give you for your time!

A recent study found some results that all of you NEED to know. It's subtle, but powerful - and may explain the obesity epidemic we are facing.

When a food item is labeled "large" it increases how big we perceive it to be. So our internal schema is that it is "a lot of food" so we eat a smaller percentage of it before being satisfied (this satisfaction is some combination of physical satiety and psychological hedonic feelings).

When it is labeled "small", the opposite happens. We perceive it to be smaller, so we eat more of it before being satisfied.

This effect was so powerful that it caused full reversals. People estimated the size of an 8-oz package of nuts (or oreos or sandwiches) that was labeled "large" as being bigger than a 10-oz package of the same item labeled "small."

The presence of nutrition labels or volume labels (quantitative labels such as 8-oz) didn't eliminate the effect. We ignore those. We also ignore more reliable indicators when we have low motivation to be correct or when we are in a rush.

The only time we take care is when we have a specific reason for accuracy (a strict diet) and even then the effect is reduced - not eliminated.

So ignore the size label. Assume everything is large. That popcorn you get at the movie theater - it has 2000 calories of butter, even if it is labeled "medium."