SL Simplification (Facilitate) Flashcards
What is a simplification?
- Reducing complexity to make information easier to understand and act upon.
- Aimed at reducing cognitive demands and enabling efficient decision-making.
Example of simplification nudges are e.g.:
* A simplified form for applying. The applicant is required to fill in most critical fields. (Murayama et al. 2023)
* Nudging taxpayers to pay on time, by sending a simplified reminder message, relative to the original message (Sloboda et al. 2024)
* Fast-food menu designs (Aaron Allen)
How does simplification work to change behavior?
In REFINE we are in the area of facilitate.
- Simplification addresses cognitive biases like “limited attention” and bounded self-control. Reduces cognitive overload and friction barriers.
- Bounded self-control. People would think they want to do something, but due the indentation to action gap they do not come through. By using simplification we can decrease the size of the gap, making it more likely that people behave how we want them to.
What are the mechanisms we can exploit to change behavior.
- Implicit Importance: refers to how people subconsciously assign value or weight to specific attributes or pieces of information. For example, when choosing between two products, a consumer might implicitly prioritize brand reputation over price, even if they don’t consciously realize it.
- Controlled Salience: describes the highlighting of certain information to make it more noticeable or influential in decision-making. For example. placing healthier foods at eye level in grocery stores can make them more salient, influencing consumer choices.
- Partitioning Effect: refers to the way dividing options, resources, or tasks into smaller categories can influence behavior by altering perceptions of choices or encouraging certain actions (relies on mental accounting). For example, a buffet divides desserts into smaller sections (cakes, cookies, fruits), diners might take more items than if all desserts were presented in a single section.
- Information Organization: refers to the way information is structured and presented, which can shape how individuals perceive and respond to it (choice architecture). Organized information reduces cognitive load, making it easier for individuals to process and act on. Order effects
Linos, E., Reddy, V., & Rothstein, J. (2022). Demystifying college costs: How nudges can
and can’t help. Behavioural Public Policy,
a) Outline the research question and the design of the paper.
b) See figure 25 and describe the results
c) What are the limitations?
d) What can we learn from this paper to implement other places?
Question a)
Context: High school seniors in California who met the eligibility criteria for the Cal Grant program, which provides financial aid to low- and moderate-income students. As US college costs continue to rise, governments and institutions have quadrupled finan- cial aid. Yet, the administrative process of receiving financial aid remains complex, raising costs for families and deterring students from enrolling.
Research question:
Can behavioral nudges, such as simplifying communication and affirming students’ sense of belonging, reduce administrative burdens in the financial aid process and influence college enrollment decisions?
Design:
In the 2 years of experiments, the CSAC randomly allocated students to receive letters that varied in language and content.
- year
T1: Control - Baseline letter created by CSAC
T2: Simplified - Simplified language and clear call to action
T3: Simplified + Belonging - Additional sentence: ‘You have shown that you’re the kind of person who belongs in college. We’ve been working hard to help
you get there!’
- year
T4: Simplified - Adjusted T2 served as baseline for Year 2
T5: Simplified + Belonging - Identical letter to T3
T6: Simplified + Social Norm - Additional sentence: ‘Join thousands of
high school seniors who have claimed their
Cal Grant and are not college graduates!’
T7 Simplified + Belonging + Net Costs - Additional table that included the net cost (tuition and living expenses) of attending the
specific colleges listed on student’s FAFSA.
The impact of each intervention was assessed by comparing the registration and enrollment outcomes across the different groups.
Outcomes Measured:
Registration for Financial Aid Accounts: The rate at which students registered for the WebGrants4Students account, a necessary step to receive Cal Grant aid.
College Enrollment Decisions: The choice of college enrollment, particularly whether students enrolled in the institution with the lowest net cost among their options.
Question b)
Results:
Se figure 25
Going from T1-> T2 = +9% (5.5 %-points)
Going from T1-> T3 = +11% (6.8 %-point)
In Year 1, 62% of students who received the control letter created accounts. The Simplified letter (T2) increased this by 8.9% (5.5 percentage points), while the Simplified+Belonging letter (T3) increased it by 11% (6.8 percentage points). Both are highly statistically significant, individually and jointly.
The combined Net Cost letter (T7), however, did raise account creation by 4.6% (3.0 percentage point) over the baseline T4 simplified letter. Remember T4 = adjusted T2
Question c)
Oversimplification can risk excluding valuable information, making it less effective.
Adding a personalized information table made the communication more complex, but it was beneficial, leading to a 4.6% increase in effectiveness compared to the simplified message with belonging affirmations.
Simplification alone is not enough for individuals who lack motivation or have no interest in attending college.
Simplification by itself does not overcome psychological biases, meaning that behavioral barriers remain even when information is clearer.
Question d)
Low-cost intervention
Simplified communication effectively reduces cognitive load through better letter design.
- Clearly outline action steps.
- Avoid acronyms and use simple, clear language.
Cost comparisons can reduce cognitive load while improving transparency, even though they add more information.
Address psychological barriers such as belonging uncertainty by using language that affirms students’ potential for success.
Best approach: Combine simplification with affirmations or personalized data for the most effective results.
Martin, J. M., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Shaping online consumer choice by partitioning the
web.
a) Outline the research question and the design of the paper.
b) Describe the results
Question a)
Context:
The study examines whether partitioning attributes into separate categories increases the perceived importance of those attributes and impacts consumer choices. The authors argue that consumers use the structure of an interface as a cue for which attributes are most important, and this implicit recommendation affects their final decisions.
research question:
“How does the way attributes are grouped and presented in online search interfaces influence consumer decision-making and attribute weighting?”
design:
The study consists of five experimental studies examining how different attribute partitions affect consumer decision-making in online environments.
Study 1 – Weighting of Attributes in Car Purchase Decisions
Objective: Test whether grouping vs. separating attributes influences their perceived importance.
Method: Participants allocated 100 points across different attributes when selecting a car.
Conditions:
- Equally Weighted: Grouped practicality and stylishness attributes together.
- Practicality Weighted: Listed practicality attributes separately, but grouped stylishness attributes.
- Stylishness Weighted: Listed stylishness attributes separately, but grouped practicality attributes.
Expected Outcome: The group with separate practicality attributes should assign higher weight to practicality, and vice versa.
Study 2 – Weighting of Attributes in Online Dating
Objective: Test whether partitioning impacts importance even for self-generated preferences.
Method: Participants either listed their own most important dating traits or received a preset list. Then, they allocated 100 points across these traits.
Conditions:
Equally Weighted: Grouped personality attributes.
Personality Weighted: Listed each personality attribute separately.
Expected Outcome: Separately listed personality traits should receive more weight.
Study 3 – Influence of Partitioning on Choice in Online Dating
Objective: Test whether changes in attribute weight caused by partitioning actually impact consumer choices.
Participants: 38 individuals, completing an online survey.
Method: Participants first allocated 100 points to different attributes (either personality or appearance). Then, they chose between two dating profiles:
- One profile was above average in personality but average in appearance.
- The other profile was above average in appearance but average in personality.
Expected Outcome: Participants should prefer the date that aligns with how their attributes were partitioned.
Study 4 – Hotel Selection Task
Objective: Test whether partitioning affects consumer choices in a more realistic setting.
Participants: 124 individuals, paid $20.
Method: Participants chose a hotel based on ratings in different categories.
Conditions:
- Equally Weighted: Both room and hotel attributes were grouped.
- Room Weighted: Room attributes listed separately; hotel attributes grouped.
- Hotel Weighted: Hotel attributes listed separately; room attributes grouped.
Expected Outcome: If room attributes are separated, participants should choose hotels better rated on room quality, and vice versa.
Question b)
Results:
b) Description of Results
Study 1 (Car Purchasing Task)
Finding: Participants assigned higher importance to attributes that were separated into individual categories.
Example: When practicality attributes were listed separately, they received more weight, making practicality seem more important.
Study 2 (Online Dating – Attribute Weighting) Finding: Personality traits received higher importance when listed separately rather than grouped under a “Personality” label.
Self-generated attributes were still affected, showing that partitioning influences even personally chosen traits.
Study 3 (Dating Choice)
Finding: Participants chose the dating profile that aligned with the attribute weights shaped by partitioning.
Example: If personality traits were separated, participants chose the profile with better personality scores over the one with better appearance.
Study 4 (Hotel Choice)
Finding: Participants preferred hotels with better scores in the attribute category that was separately displayed.
Example: When room cleanliness and comfort were listed separately, participants chose hotels with better rooms, even if the hotel itself had lower overall ratings.
Overall conclusion
- Impact of Information Organization: The way information is organized significantly influences online consumer choices. Attributes displayed in separate categories are given more weight compared to those grouped under umbrella categories
- Partitioning Effect: Partitioning alters the perceived importance of attributes, not just their salience, guiding consumer preferences and choices.
- Role of Implicit Importance: Consumers accept the implicit importance signalled by partitioners, even following recommendations based on altered attribute weights.
Simplification nudges doesn’t work when
Individuals having complex motivational issues
- E.g., simplifying retirement savings plans is unlikely to help individuals who have no interest in saving for the future, regardless of how straightforward the process becomes.
A detailed need for knowledge
- Simplifying some situations may lead to omitted critical/important information, leading to poor decision making. E.g., in healthcare or legal situations, where oversimplification important details may backfire.
The audience being highly engaged
- Simplifying complex financial information/details may lead to more sophisticated actors being distrustful.
Highly motivated individuals may perceive oversimplified information as less credible.
When is it effective to use simplification?
The effectiveness of using simplifications nudges varies widely depending on the context.
The nudge is most effective when targeting individuals facing informational or psychological barriers
The effectiveness is weak for individuals who are already highly motivated or knowledgeable about the process
Tips for implementation of simplification nudges
- User-Centered Design - Understand the specific cognitive and motivational barriers faced by your target group. Simplify based on the needs and abilities of the audience rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach
- Clear and Concise Language - Avoid jargon, unnecessary steps, and irrelevant details. Use plain language and clear calls to action
- Remove unnecessary steps -
Identify and eliminate any steps in a process that don’t directly contribute to the desired outcome - Visual aids - Use visual aids (e.g., bullet points, graphics, or highlighted boxes) to guide attention to important actions or information
- Testing - Simplification should always be tested, as too much simplification may result in information loss. Iterative testing ensures the optimal balance between simplicity and necessary detail
