5 ms·

Guilt and Shame as a UI Design Element

14 points by samsolomon 11y ago

iamthepieman 11y ago
No thanks I already signed up/am a member but I'm on my smartphone/laptop/friends device and I just want the content No thanks I'm really in a hurry this looks really interesting I'll come back later(I won't) No thanks I'm just kind of randomly surfing while on the loo. No thanks my adblocker went out of business/stopped working/I forgot I was in private browsing mode I'm going to fix that right now. No thanks I have 12000 unread emails from things like this and I don't feel like setting up another filter and trying to decide if this goes in the misc or business folders No thanks i do not care about breeding labradoodles/cooking authentic Cajun food/the latest tech news and deals I just need to figure out how to cut burs out of my dogs hair/get a recipe for gumbo/figure out if anyone else is having connection issues
striking 11y ago
There's nothing wrong with what they call "guilting users." You're simply wording the negative value proposition in a way that they might easily empathize with. That way the user can best evaluate their options rather than the "Subscribe/cancel" model. If someone hates signing up for emails, you want to convince that person that this is the list to sign up for. There's nothing shameful about selling a product. If you think there is, you're not selling hard enough. I'd recommend allowing a path that offers a limited experience, so they can at least try your value prop before they buy it. It's hard to sell someone on GQ's "award-winning journalism" if they've never read it before.
- zepto 11y ago
  It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a sociopath's view of the world. At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel. According to you, there's nothing wrong with that. To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live together as social beings. An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological manipulation. Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least tell it like it is.
  - striking 11y ago
    So fictional books are psychological manipulation? If that's the case, then the phrase "psychological manipulation" is so broadly defined as to be completely useless. And I'm not victim-blaming. Perhaps the consumer doesn't fully recognize the benefits one quick and easy action could have on their lives. Your newsletter could change everything! Why not actually try and sell that, rather than giving unfeeling "Subscribe"/"don't" buttons? I'm not a fan of the Whole Foods "would you like to give a dollar to charity today" thing because it (accidentally or not) leverages social pressure to convince people to give money. Social pressure is a different thing entirely, and it does end up looking like a form of manipulation (although in this context, a fairly weak one at that) But to be unable to resist a couple of words on a screen? At that point, a conversation would fall under "psychological manipulation". So I don't get it. Am I still a sociopath?
    - zepto 11y ago
      Fictional books are not trying to get people to buy anything. Messages designed to induce guilt are not explaining benefits. If your mind doesn't make these distinctions then yes, you may be a sociopath.
      - striking 11y ago
        I'm assuming that the person making the offer lacks malicious intent. And I pretty highly doubt these messages create guilt. "No thanks, I don't want to protect my skin" is something I damn well can imagine saying. The act of closing these ads is a laugh to me, and I don't feel a twinge of guilt about it. "Haha fuck you, I totally would pay full price rather than hear another word from your company" is how I feel towards the ads. If it's something I care about (e.g. blood drives or charity events) then I'm okay with a "guilting" proposition. I'm not actually guilty, and they're not making money. They're honestly just trying to get more people to do something. It is my honest and fervent opinion that, when used in moderation, adding flavor text to help the user picture the positive and negative outcomes of an action helps both the user and the person serving the user. As guilt is a subjective thing that people experience and define differently, it seems to me that neither of our opinions have grounding in fact, and are based on our own perspectives and opinions. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't agree.
nailer 11y ago
GQ citing their dancing starwars girl as 'award winning journalism' is a joke GQ is making at its own expense. Leave it to buzzfeed to turn it into moral outrage. This is one of the publications that got Tim Hunt fired for making an obviously tongue in cheek mock-sexist remark to a conference of female scientists who found it funny. http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-reporting-was-false-royal-society-please-give-him-due-process/ http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-reporting-w...
joesmo 11y ago
Interestingly enough, I just noticed this happening on websites that have been doing it for years. Yes, some of these ads are in your face and you can't help but notice them, but a lot of these ads are in the background. I call the ads because to my mind (and to the mind of most people; see usability studies) this garbage is just automatically tuned out except when it can't be. Whether an actual ad was there or something that looks like an ad is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not going to see it anyway. Which just makes the idiotic messages that try to guilt and shame me more idiotic. For years (this is hardly a new trend) I've been ignoring them. Even after I read them, I ignored them and laughed at them. Seriously, people let a fucking website tell them how to feel to the point that it actually affects their feelings? Now that is a serious security vulnerability that probably can't be patched.

14 points by samsolomon 11y ago

No thanks I already signed up/am a member but I'm on my smartphone/laptop/friends device and I just want the content No thanks I'm really in a hurry this looks really interesting I'll come back later(I won't) No thanks I'm just kind of randomly surfing while on the loo. No thanks my adblocker went out of business/stopped working/I forgot I was in private browsing mode I'm going to fix that right now. No thanks I have 12000 unread emails from things like this and I don't feel like setting up another filter and trying to decide if this goes in the misc or business folders No thanks i do not care about breeding labradoodles/cooking authentic Cajun food/the latest tech news and deals I just need to figure out how to cut burs out of my dogs hair/get a recipe for gumbo/figure out if anyone else is having connection issues

striking 11y ago

There's nothing wrong with what they call "guilting users." You're simply wording the negative value proposition in a way that they might easily empathize with. That way the user can best evaluate their options rather than the "Subscribe/cancel" model. If someone hates signing up for emails, you want to convince that person that this is the list to sign up for. There's nothing shameful about selling a product. If you think there is, you're not selling hard enough. I'd recommend allowing a path that offers a limited experience, so they can at least try your value prop before they buy it. It's hard to sell someone on GQ's "award-winning journalism" if they've never read it before.

zepto 11y ago
It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a sociopath's view of the world. At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel. According to you, there's nothing wrong with that. To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live together as social beings. An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological manipulation. Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least tell it like it is.
- striking 11y ago
  So fictional books are psychological manipulation? If that's the case, then the phrase "psychological manipulation" is so broadly defined as to be completely useless. And I'm not victim-blaming. Perhaps the consumer doesn't fully recognize the benefits one quick and easy action could have on their lives. Your newsletter could change everything! Why not actually try and sell that, rather than giving unfeeling "Subscribe"/"don't" buttons? I'm not a fan of the Whole Foods "would you like to give a dollar to charity today" thing because it (accidentally or not) leverages social pressure to convince people to give money. Social pressure is a different thing entirely, and it does end up looking like a form of manipulation (although in this context, a fairly weak one at that) But to be unable to resist a couple of words on a screen? At that point, a conversation would fall under "psychological manipulation". So I don't get it. Am I still a sociopath?
  - zepto 11y ago
    Fictional books are not trying to get people to buy anything. Messages designed to induce guilt are not explaining benefits. If your mind doesn't make these distinctions then yes, you may be a sociopath.
    - striking 11y ago
      I'm assuming that the person making the offer lacks malicious intent. And I pretty highly doubt these messages create guilt. "No thanks, I don't want to protect my skin" is something I damn well can imagine saying. The act of closing these ads is a laugh to me, and I don't feel a twinge of guilt about it. "Haha fuck you, I totally would pay full price rather than hear another word from your company" is how I feel towards the ads. If it's something I care about (e.g. blood drives or charity events) then I'm okay with a "guilting" proposition. I'm not actually guilty, and they're not making money. They're honestly just trying to get more people to do something. It is my honest and fervent opinion that, when used in moderation, adding flavor text to help the user picture the positive and negative outcomes of an action helps both the user and the person serving the user. As guilt is a subjective thing that people experience and define differently, it seems to me that neither of our opinions have grounding in fact, and are based on our own perspectives and opinions. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't agree.

nailer 11y ago

GQ citing their dancing starwars girl as 'award winning journalism' is a joke GQ is making at its own expense. Leave it to buzzfeed to turn it into moral outrage. This is one of the publications that got Tim Hunt fired for making an obviously tongue in cheek mock-sexist remark to a conference of female scientists who found it funny. http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-reporting-was-false-royal-society-please-give-him-due-process/ http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-reporting-w...

joesmo 11y ago

Interestingly enough, I just noticed this happening on websites that have been doing it for years. Yes, some of these ads are in your face and you can't help but notice them, but a lot of these ads are in the background. I call the ads because to my mind (and to the mind of most people; see usability studies) this garbage is just automatically tuned out except when it can't be. Whether an actual ad was there or something that looks like an ad is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not going to see it anyway. Which just makes the idiotic messages that try to guilt and shame me more idiotic. For years (this is hardly a new trend) I've been ignoring them. Even after I read them, I ignored them and laughed at them. Seriously, people let a fucking website tell them how to feel to the point that it actually affects their feelings? Now that is a serious security vulnerability that probably can't be patched.