How understanding psychology can make you a better designer

Using psychological theory within your design process can help you tackle the challenges you face when creating websites and apps.

A typical design process (develop a brief; discuss an approach; develop a mood board, comps, initial designs; iterate; produce) relies on the skills, experience and expertise of the team behind the design.

Research may play a role: a round of user research or focus groups before the designer begins to understand the problem; a round of research when the first designs are created to understand how effective the designs are; and then perhaps a round of research before the design is launched to iron out any issues. This is a tried and tested approach, one I’ve followed on many projects – producing design based on experience and research.

Introducing psychology theory into this process can happen at any point. But when is the best time to do that? What problems can be solved? Can psychology set product design direction?

Where does psychology fit into design?

A classically trained graphic designer will have studied design theory. Gestalt psychology, colour theory, semiotics and more are taught on most design courses. These basic theories apply in design creation: the form, colour and meaning of the design.

Before long, these theories become second nature. Colour choice becomes a feeling, and the form is sketched quickly with no reference back to the underlying theory. Using psychology in design can often feel like it jars with the creative aspects of design. Applying science to design can somehow feel unnatural.

Let’s take an example. Suppose we’re asked to use a psychological theory in our design. One I get asked about frequently is gamification. Gamification relies on the reward system of our brain. That is, we do something, receive a reward, and that behaviour is reinforced. I’ve had this request on design projects ranging from car insurance to websites for kids. Introducing rewards based on a game feature isn’t always appropriate. Shoehorning popular psychology theory into design is never going to work. Taking a basic design and forcing a theory on it does not always improve that design.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Psychology should be used to help solve specific design issues. Here are a few examples of where it can be used:

• Deciding on how many options to offer in a navigation menu.
• The number and definition of steps in a buying process.
• How many products to show to increase the likelihood a user will choose one.
• The form on your product sign-up page.
• Compelling language to encourage sign-up.

A designer should know when to look for a psychological theory. Trying to solve a specific problem during the design process is when to research a theory. Finding a new theory and applying it to an existing design can be almost impossible.

The problems that psychology alleviates most effectively are often those with a simple application. Wider problems, like customers leaving to use a competitor’s product, are far harder to address using psychology, more often than not because these problems have more than one underlying issue.

Always be nice

Over the last few years there has been a trend of using psychology to influence, nudge, coerce and sometimes trick people into doing something they may not otherwise do.

At the start of my career I worked for a major UK bank on a project to redesign a credit card application process. At the time, interest rates were low and banks were making money by selling insurance that protected the applicant against illness and redundancy. The commercial pressure to sell these products led to pressure on me as a designer to use psychology to influence uptake. I felt uncomfortable, in fact so much so that I held back ideas so as not to feel like I was tricking people. In the meantime, the UK government has ruled that practices of the time were unlawful and countless millions of pounds have been claimed back by those who felt they were mis-sold.

The lessons I learned? It’s important to know your boundaries. Not to approach a project with the potential to use design in a way that would make me feel compromised. I have one rule: design to make people’s lives better. But, of course, that raises the question of how to define better. That is for me (and you) to ponder.

I encourage you to spend some time reading Dennis Kardys’ treaty on ethics and web design and decide on your own boundaries and ethos. Kardys makes the point, “there is no such thing as neutral design”. The quote from the Design Council at the start of this book talks about design influencing its audience. For our designs to create impact they will, by their very nature, influence the audience. Individually, we have to decide how we feel about the amount and direction of that influence.