‘Emotional engagement is an essential part of the design process’

Rachel A.Wood (pictured, left) and Samantha Osys (right) work in the design industry integrating psychology and behavioural science in everyday practice; Rachel as Head of Customer Journey in public services and a graduate member of the British Psychological Society, Samantha as a Design Strategist and Senior Solutions Designer in the financial sector. They are both PhD Researchers with the Open University Design Group.

'The design community has increasingly embraced psychology insights to enhance human centred design in recent years, creating more effective, user-centric designs by using behavioural design, neuroscience, nudge theory, and more. As designers we use behavioural design to predict and influence behaviour using strategies that are undoubtedly psychological. 

Here, we discuss how understanding cognitive and emotional processes can help us to create experiences that better meet needs.'

Samantha: So, Rachel, tell me about your journey from psychological education to service design practice. 

Rachel: As long as I can remember, I have been interested in understanding group and human behaviour, and how we come to the decisions that we do. My graduate education initially started in social science with criminology, and then onto psychology. I also took a British Psychological Society accredited MSc in Forensic Psychology. I moved into service design leadership over a decade ago, which allowed me to apply these skills in a new context, focusing on creating seamless and effective user experiences. 

My background in psychology has really provided me with a unique perspective on behaviour, which I integrate into my service design practice. It is not known how many designers come from this educational background – estimates suggest 10-20 per cent.

Samantha: How do you incorporate your psychology background into your service design work?

Rachel: My psychology background helps me approach design problems methodically. I use behavioural analysis to identify user pain points and motivations. For example, when redesigning a customer service experience, I consider users' psychological states when they seek help. This understanding helps me create empathetic and efficient service solutions.

Samantha: As a product designer, I focus on how products interact with users on a cognitive level. I use neuroscience and design principles to ensure that interfaces are intuitive. For instance, when designing a mobile app, I consider how users' brains process visual information and create layouts that align with these patterns. This reduces cognitive load and enhances usability. 

In one of my projects, I used an app that helped us understand what visuals were working and helped us make data-informed creative decisions. It is an analytic platform that uses AI to predict what users will focus on, allowing us to improve the quality and effectiveness of all the creative visuals like web banners and packaging. 

Samantha: What kind of tools or methods are you using in your work? 

Rachel: Service design often involves orchestrating multiple touchpoints in a customer journey. By applying psychological theories such as nudge theory, we can guide users towards desired behaviours without being intrusive. For instance, in a healthcare service, subtle cues can encourage patients to complete their treatment plans, improving overall outcomes.

Samantha: In product design, heuristics play a critical role. We rely on these mental shortcuts to predict user interactions. For example, when designing an e-commerce platform, we use these to streamline the checkout process, making it as straightforward as possible to reduce cart abandonment rates.

Rachel: Yes, heuristics is incredibly important in all types of design including for services. In design we use them to anticipate user actions, decisions, and judgements, whilst psychology can help us explain the cognitive patterns behind them. Together the two can offer powerful tools to understand things like bias that we all have, to improve the things that we use and experience. This can include things like consistency and standards, error prevention and reducing the potential for cognitive load. As there are estimated to be around 180 biases that humans have, this work can be extremely extensive but critically important in what we do.

Rachel: What strategies from psychology do you use to ensure services are designed inclusively and minimise bias?

Samantha: For inclusivity, it's essential to involve diverse people throughout the design process. I try to conduct workshops at various stages and invite people from diverse backgrounds and organisational levels. If it's not feasible to engage actual users, I aim to involve as diverse a group as possible. This allows us to trial different ideas and perspectives. During testing, I make sure a range of people evaluate the design, as it's important that the team represents, in some way, the audience we're designing for.

When it comes to minimising bias, I often discuss distinct types of biases in workshops. I highlight how our subjectivity and preconceptions can influence design decisions. There are notable examples of products and services that failed due to untested assumptions and premature solutioning. To counter this, I focus on bringing in the user's voice and try to limit my own subjectivity. For instance, I involve different people in user interviews and data analysis, so we approach insights from multiple perspectives and reduce personal bias.

Rachel: This is fascinating. I don't know if this is based in psychological theory, but it reminds me of reflective practice.

Samantha: Yes, absolutely.

Rachel: I've occasionally recorded my own biases and reflections, though I often delete them because it's uncomfortable to confront. But acknowledging our biases is crucial. It not only helps us reflect on others' biases but reminds us that while we can reduce bias, we can't eliminate it. Bias is inherently human, and people often overlook this reality by assuming they can be entirely objective.

Samantha: Exactly. Reflecting on our biases is key. If our team members recognise their own biases, it encourages everyone to be mindful. For example, I tend to assume others know as much as I do, so I often under-explain concepts. My son, on the other hand, tends to over-explain, assuming others don't know as much. This difference illustrates why it's important to bring diverse perspectives into the room, as it helps us challenge our assumptions and be more conscious of our biases. We can't all have the same perspective, like having an entire team of white European women – we need diversity.

Rachel: I'd call this a co-design approach, which is tied to the Endowment or IKEA effect.

Samantha: The IKEA effect?

Rachel: Yes, it's the idea that people value something more if they've had a hand in creating it. This principle underlies co-design, where people become more attached to something they've contributed to, even if it's minor. That's why prototyping is so effective – it lets people invest in the outcome. We see this with self-assembled furniture: despite the effort, we value it because it feels personal. Even children put stickers on things to make them 'theirs'. This sense of ownership is something we carry into adulthood.

Samantha: That's a valuable insight.

Rachel: Indeed, the concept of co-design is indispensable in design. It's hard to imagine creating meaningful solutions without involving people in the process.

Samantha: What challenges do you face when integrating psychology into your work?

Rachel: It's not that people resist directly, but they do mention complex emotions or concerns from past experiences when introduced to new services. I often empathise with them, and while I usually manage, it can take a day or two to process these responses. This emotional engagement, however, is an essential part of the design process – it's part of the passion behind creating solutions that truly work for people.

Even when using secondary data, I always remind myself that there's a person behind every data point. It's not just about numbers; each one represents an individual. In design, it's crucial to blend the numerical data with personal stories, as this brings humanity into our work. Behavioural science has gained popularity due to its focus on observable actions, but psychology delves into the underlying thoughts, which can be harder to access. For example, predicting what someone might think when they buy a product or use a service is complex, as thoughts aren't as easily detectable as behaviours. This makes psychology both valuable and challenging to integrate at the same time.

Capturing these thought processes often requires tools like diaries, which not everyone finds easy to maintain. But without methods like this, understanding the customer's perspective becomes much harder. 

What about you, Samantha? What challenges do you encounter?

Samantha: For me, time is a significant issue. With agile and other project methodologies, we often lack the time needed for in-depth user research and testing. These are the key stages where I would typically apply behavioural theories or psychology, as that's when I'm directly interacting with users. But with budget cuts and time constraints, these elements are often the first to go. So, I do my best to integrate psychology within the limited time I have.

Another challenge is that not all designers are comfortable with psychological and behavioural theories. Many focus on the aesthetics or marketability of a product rather than understanding the user's needs. These limitations in time and skills often mean psychological insights are overlooked in practice.

Rachel: Do you think psychology could help us identify content generated by AI? For instance, I saw a video created entirely by AI, and many viewers didn't realise this. As AI becomes more prevalent, we'll need to learn how to detect it. There's already a shift towards valuing authenticity in content – things that are slightly imperfect are perceived as more genuine. Machines work within logical frameworks, but human creativity often follows less predictable patterns, which AI struggles to mimic.

Samantha: I was discussing this with a friend in biology. He compared AI to a virus – something that infiltrates and evolves, requiring us to develop resistance. Just like with misinformation on social media, we're learning to spot generative AI. But it's also essential for us, as users, to remain vigilant. For instance, AI can replicate voices with just a few seconds of audio, which raises ethical concerns. This technology requires us to question what we see and hear more carefully.

Rachel: Exactly. 

I'll flag another important area of Psychology when it comes to design… Gestalt theory. It emphasises that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. We group icons together on interfaces without even realising it. Minor changes, like moving a button, can significantly disrupt user experience because people rely on these design conventions. So even minor adjustments can impact usability and user satisfaction.

Samantha: Absolutely. Once users become accustomed to a layout, any change creates friction. This familiarity is built into our muscle memory and psychology. Intuitive design, which aligns with psychological principles, is essential to a product's success.

Rachel: Exactly. Shape, colour, and layout all convey messages subconsciously. For instance, a hexagonal icon might suggest connectedness, which aligns with users' associations. These elements are ingrained in design, often without us being fully aware of them.

Samantha: Yes, and cultural context also influences these associations. Assorted colours have different meanings across cultures, affecting how designs are perceived globally.

Rachel: Precisely. That's why rebranding can be risky. When one clothing company attempted a rebrand, it failed because customers were attached to the original logo. This highlights the comfort and familiarity users feel with certain brands, reinforcing the relational aspect of design.

Samantha: I think we're agreed on the value of integrating psychology and neuroscience in both product design – individual interactions with physical or digital products – and service design – the broader user journey, ensuring coherence across multiple touchpoints.

We'll just wrap up with a comment on our collaborative approach. By combining our backgrounds, we ensure a holistic approach where a design's product and service aspects complement each other. This leads to a more cohesive and satisfying user experience. The goal is to create designs that meet functional requirements and resonate with users emotionally, empathetically, and cognitively. We can achieve this goal more effectively by leveraging insights from psychology and neuroscience.