我最近通过了一只小猫,并面临着对我的小毛皮宝宝购买宠物保险的决定。因为猫无法提供任何家庭健康历史,所以我看到了她有一个问题的可能性,因为一个未知的问题:没有办法预测何时或者如果可能会弹出并成为一个重大费用。这种不确定性使得决定相当困难:我可以挽救我的保险金,希望我的猫保持完全健康,但如果出现健康问题,我可能需要花费过高的待遇金额。经过多审议,我的猫现在有自己的保险范围。

Purchasing insurance plans is an excellent example of the prospect theory at work.

定义:展望理论描述了人们如何在不同的选择(或潜在客户)之间以及它们如何估计(多次以偏见或不正确的方式)之间感知每种选项的可能性。

展望理论由1979年的心理学家丹尼尔·卡纳曼和阿莫斯波尔斯基提出,后来在2002年后,Kahneman被授予诺贝尔经济学奖。(可悲的是,TVERSKY在奖项被授予时死亡。)

One of the biases that people rely on when they make decisions is损失厌恶:就像在上面的保险例子一样,他们倾向于超重的小概率来防止损失。Even though the likelihood of a costly event may be miniscule, we would rather agree to a smaller, sure loss — in the form of an insurance payment — than risk a large expense. The感知主要健康问题的可能性大于实际的probability of such an event actually occurring.

我们都希望相信我们是合乎逻辑决策者。在用户体验领域,我们经常讨论用户如何权衡不同替代方案的预期效用,以确定接下来的采取行动或何处。然而,当涉及做出决定,如是购买东西,捐赠或选择服务水平,人们非常容易受到认知偏见的影响,并且通常不会产生逻辑选择。

For example, what would you choose: to get $900 or take a 90% chance of winning $1000 (and a 10% chance of winning 0)? Most people avoid the risk and take the $900, although the expected outcome is the same in both cases. However, if I asked you to choose between losing $900 and take a 90% chance of losing $1000, most of you would probably prefer the second option (with the 90% chance of losing $1000) and thus engage in the risk-seeking behavior in the hope to avoid the loss.

涉及肯定收益的情景决策图
在处理收益时,人们厌恶的风险,并将在一个风险的前景中选择肯定的收益(红线),即使有风险有可能获得更大的奖励。还要注意,每个选择的总体预期值(或结果)是平等的。
涉及肯定损失的情景决策图
损失以相反的方式处理。旨在避免损失时,人们会成为冒险的风险,并在肯定的损失中取得赌注,希望没有任何支付。同样,这两个选项都有相同的预期值。

这些类型的行为不能通过预期的实用方法很容易解释。在这两种情况下,两种选择的预期效用是相同的(+ / - $ 900):概率乘以预期的胜利。然而,人们在很大程度上更喜欢另一个选择。

展望理论解释了人们在做出这样的决定时使用的偏见:

  • 肯定
  • 隔离效果
  • 损失厌恶

我们在下面详细讨论这些偏差。

肯定

People tend tooverweigh options that are certain, and are risk averse for gains。我们宁愿获得一场放心的胜利,而不是赢得更多的机会(但也有可能得到任何东西的风险)。在处理某些损失时相反:人们从事寻求风险的行为,以避免更大的损失。

要说服用户采取行动,请考虑使用偏见对您的优势:人们宁愿接受一个小但一定的奖励,以巨大的机会。If you offer a reward for users who write a product review, for example, consider giving all reviewers a coupon for 10% their next purchase. This coupon (which would only cost you money if they return to purchase more items) would be more appealing and more effective than a sweepstake for $1000 — a reward that is large, but highly unlikely.

来自Aveda.com的电子邮件屏幕截图要求编写产品评论
The plea to write a review for a recent purchase from Aveda would be much stronger if a sure gain was highlighted instead of the sweepstake. The subject line for the email actually did mention a receiving a free sample with the next purchase in exchange for the review, but it was not stated in the main content of the email. Hence, I did not take the time to write the review.

这一偏见也可以解释为什么人们经常仍然忠于特定的产品,服务,网站或其他工具。我们可以使用其他可能性比我们当前方法更好的东西的风险,或者我们可以继续使用我们的尝试和真实的工具。

隔离效果

隔离效果是指人们的趋势忽略两个选项的任何元素,努力简化和关注不同的不同。

记住每个选项的所有细节都会产生太多的cognitive load,所以它只有意义focus on the differentiators。丢弃共同元素减少了比较替代品的负担,但也可以导致取决于替代方案的选择。

Daniel Kahneman和Amos Tversky呈现了2场景的参与者。在这两个情景中,人们都有初始金额,然后不得不在两个替代方案之间进行选择。

Scenario 1:参与者以1000美元开始。然后他们可以选择:

  1. 使用50%的概率赢得1000美元(并使用50%的概率赢得0美元),或
  2. 肯定地获得另外500美元。

Scenario 2:参与者开始于2000美元。然后他们可以选择:

  1. Losing $1000 with a 50% probability (and losing $0 with a 50% probability), or
  2. 肯定会失去500美元。

因为初始金额在两种情况下不同,所以两种情况实际上是等同的:如果他们选择了第一个情景或第二种情况下的选项B,他们将在最终的最终金额是相同的。(选项A和C同样等同于。)但是,人们在两种情况下取​​得了相反的选择:大多数情况在场景1和情景中的丢失 - 厌恶选项C中选择了风险厌恶选项B.

Changing the framing of the problem (by adjusting the initial gift and the options accordingly) led people to a different decision.

Decision diagram of 2 scenarios framed as either a gain or a loss, with initial gift amounts
When presented with each decision, people make the opposite choice based on whether the options are framed as a gain or a loss. In Scenario 1, most choose option B over A, but in Scenario 2 the majority choose option C over D to try to avoid the loss. In these scenarios, people focus on only the choice between the 2 options, and overlook the initial gift amount because it is a shared factor across the two choices. However, when taking this initial gift difference into account, it can be seen that option A is equal to option C, and option B is equal to option D — only the framing has changed!

When creating content to persuade people into making a certain choice, consider how it is framed. People can respond very differently to negatively framed messages than they would to a positively framed one. Would you rather use a service that has a 95% satisfaction rate or one that has a 5% complaint rate? The negative formulation素瓜人们认为可能的损失或负面的outcome and to act accordingly.

您还应该考虑如何显示信息以帮助用户识别可以安全地忽视的共同元素以专注于关键差分。例如,呈现产品配置器与用户整体选择不同的产品。看到产品或服务的每一个可能的最终排列都可能导致潜在客户做出不同的决定(或只是压倒性,并引导他们放弃任务),而不是呈现一两种产品,然后选择customize them by adding features

支持产品比较中这种简化过程的另一种方法是并排提供重要信息,而不是通过每个产品页面呈现重要信息。比较表突出显示差异工作良好,只要所有物品都包含一致的细节级别。Web上最常见的活动之一涉及用户比较和选择between multiple products or services, so adequately supporting this task is key.

损失厌恶

大多数人都会表现得让他们尽量减少损失,因为losses loom larger than gains,即使这些损失的概率也很小The pain of losing also explains why, when gambling, winning $100 and then losing $80 feels like a net loss even though you are actually ahead by $20. People’s reaction to loss is more extreme than their reaction to gain. (The order here is also important — were we to first lose $80, then come back and win $100, it would shift our reference point and make it feel like a net gain!)

网站上包含的信息可以发挥人民的偏见,以便说服他们购买或其他一些决定。例如,保险网站经常显示我们可能遇到的不太可能的不太可能的昂贵结果,我们不应该购买保险。这列列列出了我们避免这些大损失,让我们忘记了小小的,但经常付款我们将无限期地制定保险保险。

Screenshot of pet insurance web page listing possible health expenses
保险公司经常利用我们不太重要的超重(有多少只猫患脑癌?),但昂贵的事件让我们购买覆盖计划。在这里,GopetPlan.com列出了昂贵的兽医账单,以便让用户宣传猫保险单。

对于并不固有地防范大量损失的产品或服务,我们可以说服用户通过了解他们的抑制可能是什么。如果我们通过用户研究揭示人们的担忧,我们可以提供信息help them overcome those fears or objections。例如,潜在用户可能不愿意在线开始应用程序进程,因为他们担心它需要太多时间,或者需要不容易获得的信息。如果网站知道这种感知,则可以尝试修改它,例如,通过说明应用程序平均需要多长时间,以及需要哪些信息来完成它。

防范用户反对负面体验

展望理论也可以扩展到适用于人民的整体用户体验。我们对损失的时刻更强烈地反应- 以与网站或应用程序的互动期间可能发生的沮丧或混淆的形式。当一切正常工作时,人们认为是常态。但是,一旦任何事情都略有错误,人们的伤害并记住那些不错的经历更长。这就是为什么测试一切都非常重要,并努力解决这些小绊脚石中的任何一个。我们are designing for users who are hard to please.

结论

Prospect theory explains several biases that people rely on when making decisions. Understanding these biases can help persuade people to take action.

有关人们决策的前景理论和其他偏见,请考虑我们的全日制培训课程人类的思想和可用性。有关影响网络的原则和说服技术的更多信息,请考虑我们的全天有说服力的网页设计training course.

References:

Kahneman,D.,&Tversky,A.(1979)。展望理论:风险下的决策分析。Moveryetrica.,47(2),263-291。