Blog Layout


There's a fraction too much friction

My family has health insurance. We spend quite a bit on it too, it’s one of those things that just doesn’t get cheaper. And if you have health insurance that covers GP visits, dentists visits and the like – you want to make sure you use it. So why then, despite spending this money for a service I intend to use, do I not claim?


I don’t consider myself a particularly lazy person, or a procrastinator, but there is no denying that the small amount of effort I need to exert when making the claim – having my claim details handy, my insurance details handy, my log in and password – puts me off from doing it.

It's friction.

In the world of psychology, friction is essentially something that slows you down, or acts as an obstacle to performing an intended behaviour. It can be used as a positive (more on that another day) but in many cases it’s negative. And when an organisation is looking to change the behaviour of a consumer or increase the chances of a consumer taking the action they want, one thing we look at is where there is friction in the journey.


Here are some real-world examples of friction exerting an impact.

Organ donation

In one infamous example that demonstrates both the power of default settings, and provides a real world illustration of how a small amount of friction can have real world implications, behavioural scientists looked at the organ donation rates in several European countries. What they found was that some countries such as Austria and Sweden had donation rates of nearly 100% (99.98% and 85.9% respectively). But countries with similar cultures and language had much lower donation rates – Germany (12%) and Denmark (4.25%) as examples.


Why was this? Well Austria and Sweden operate a ‘presumed consent’ rule for organ donations – unless you actively opt out it’s assumed that you give consent for your organs to be harvested after death. In contrast Germany and Denmark require people to actively consent to be organ donors. So the point of friction here is having to actively think about your response to the question, and to tick a box.


What does this tell us? The careful use of default settings can have a large impact on people’s behaviour, outside of any intention to behave in a certain way.

Rural vaccination uptake

A recent example of unintended friction comes from the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccinations in Aotearoa New Zealand. Research from the University of Otago published in October 2021 found that rural populations were 11% less likely to have had at least one dose than in urban areas. Unsurprisingly, it was found that access to vaccination clinics was the main reason behind this – urban dwellers had a median 3-minute drive to a clinic, versus a median of 10 minutes for rural dwellers (with some outlying areas having a 50-minute drive each way to seek out the vaccination). 


While much has been written about health inequities in NZ, one element is clear – travel time (amongst many other factors) limits use of medical services. Which is where taking services to your users (i.e. reducing the friction to seek out a medical service) can lead to greater uptake.

The active inclusion of friction: Sludge

A term coined by the Nobel Prize winning behavioural economist Richard Thaler and his colleague Cass Sunstein, and considered the opposite of a nudge, sludge is essentially added friction with bad intentions. An example would be cancelling subscriptions – often found to be time consuming and effortful. The Wall Street Journal is a good example, with subscribers wishing to cancel required to call their office (friction point 1) during set office hours (friction point 2) and get through the retention processes to retain the subscription (friction point 3). It just seems too hard. 


From the team at NeuroSpot: Please avoid sludge. It’s not good for your users, and it’s not good for your brand. 

And it can be surprising just how little friction can make a difference

Take Google, well known for providing endless snacks for their employees. However, when employees started complaining about gaining weight, Google wanted to help (after all, healthy employees make happy employees).


After studying the behaviour of employees in the kitchens, Google didn’t change what was on offer, but made subtle changes to how it was arranged. The first thing you see upon entering a Google kitchen is now fresh fruit and vegetables. The M&Ms that people couldn’t resist grabbing a handful of when making their coffee were moved further away (now just over 5 metres instead of the 2-metre distance they were) and put into opaque containers.


Personal autonomy remained, but better choices were made.


A previous workplace took advantage of this concept when trying to encourage greater recycling and lower waste going to landfills. They simply picked up everyone’s bins and moved them a few metres past the recycling bins. A small amount of additional effort (friction) that lead to positive outcomes.

It's not all bad: The positive impact of friction

Friction can, on occasion, have unintended positive consequences for consumers, particularly where this disrupts habitual behaviours.


In 2014, staff working on London’s underground network went on strike causing massive disruption to millions of commuter trips. Strikes resulted in some, but not all, of the networks underground stations to be closed, meaning some commuters were forced to look for new routes while others were able to continue with existing routes. After strikes finished, 5% of disrupted commuters continued with their new routines – suggesting that they’d optimised and improved their travel to work. 

Friction in the world around us

Going back to the example of my health insurance. There are a couple of ways you could look at this:


  • Is the friction created on purpose, to discourage me from making a claim (and thus lining their pockets?) or
  • Have they removed a lot of friction in the process by enabling me to claim online or in an app, but some friction remains, which may well be on an agile backlog to address in the future?


My rose-tinted glasses may be on here, but I believe organisations rarely create friction points today with the intention of a negative result for the customer – the organisations I have worked with seem to have an honest desire to remove the effort from their customer experience. My belief is these come about unintentionally – from a lack of awareness that it’s occurring in the first place or uncertainty about how to resolve a known issue.


But it’s in our benefit as organisations to create experiences that support a customer’s best interest and deliver the outcomes we desire – they don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

We’d love to hear your examples of friction you’ve experienced as a customer. Email us at hello@neurospot.co.nz!


Main photo by Sean Foster on Unsplash

By Cole Armstrong September 4, 2024
In recent discussions about customer behaviour, a recurring theme has emerged: the belief that providing more information will lead to better decision-making (“If only they knew … then they would …”). While this perspective isn't entirely misplaced, it overlooks a crucial nuance. It's not merely what people know that drives their behaviour, but rather what information is most salient and readily springs to mind in the moment of decision. The Limitation of Knowledge Alone It's easy to assume that if customers simply knew more, they would make better decisions. For instance, knowing how to budget effectively or save money can indeed be useful. Knowing that I should save more for retirement or for investments. That I should eat less red meat for health or sustainability reasons. That I should be careful about what information I share online. These are all real-life examples of issues I’ve worked on where educating customers (or users) might have been a solution – and where helping people ‘know’ why they should do it failed to shift the needle. The critical factor isn't just having the information, but rather how accessible and prominent that information is when it’s needed. The question then is not do I know something, but rather does it spring to mind when it can actually shape my decisions? The Salience of Information in Decision-Making Consider a scenario where a customer interacts with a product or service. The decision-making process is often instantaneous and intuitive, driven by what immediately comes to mind rather than a comprehensive evaluation of all known benefits. This means that the information most salient at the moment—whether it's the immediate cost or a specific feature—has a more significant impact than the general knowledge a customer might have. As an example, I was involved in a project where my client was responding to new environmental regulations – and wanted to find out how to do this without upsetting their customers. The initial solution didn’t work because what was salient – and thus impacted customers responses – was the benefit to the brand not the benefit to the environment. While both benefits were ‘known’ by customers, it wasn’t till small tweaks were made to subtly emphasise and customer support for such actions, that complaints dropped off. A Case in Point: Council Rates Another example where this idea is relevant are the rates (tax) bills that New Zealanders receive from their local council. While residents might be well aware of the benefits their rates support—such as parks, libraries, and community services—this knowledge doesn’t always translate into a positive reaction when the bill arrives. For many, the first thing that springs to mind is the expense, not the benefits. In my case, receiving a $1,000 council rates bill (these are billed quarterly) was a stark reminder of this phenomenon. Despite understanding the value provided by these rates, the immediate focus was on the financial burden. If the benefits were more salient at the time of billing, the experience could be more positive. For instance, if the rates bill included a summary of the value received from various services—like a breakdown showing the value I obtain from the library based on the number of books borrowed—this could shift the focus from the cost to the benefits. In my case, borrowing 35 books over three months at an estimated value of $30 each amount to $1,050 worth of benefits, which highlights the value received far beyond the cost. And of course there are other services that I use as well – my local park that I go running in, the playgrounds that I take my kids to, the roads I drive along or the public transport that is subsidised. I ‘know’ these things, but do they immediately spring to mind when I see my rates bill? Seizing the Opportunity This concept of salience extends beyond council rates. In various customer interactions—such as bills, invoices, loyalty schemes, and product renewals—the opportunity lies in enhancing the salience of positive attributes at the critical moment of engagement. To effectively leverage this understanding, organisations should focus on making the benefits of their products or services more prominent when customers are most engaged and in a way that is relevant to the context. This means designing communications and touchpoints that highlight the value received, not just the cost or features.  While knowledge is important, it's the salience of that knowledge at the moment of decision that truly influences behaviour. By ensuring that the most relevant and positive information is top-of-mind, organisations can improve customer satisfaction and decision-making outcomes.
By Cole Armstrong July 24, 2024
Navigating the Shifting Landscape of Design
By Cole Armstrong March 15, 2024
How do we create persuasive touchpoints that make a difference? By considering how simple ways of reframing our messages, using insights from psychology and behavioural science, can create greater motivation to act.
Show More
Share by: