Use “pseudo-sets” to control how many actions people take
ariyh.substack.com
ariyh.substack.com
there are also people (like me) for whom arbitrary structure is a complete turn off. If I feel manipulated or like there are arbitrary restrictions or peculiar structure to things that I can't justify, what you're liable to get is disengagement, leaving, etc. From a survivorship bias point of view, you might find that the kind of people who stick around and show a positive effect are those who react and apply themselves positively to structure + externally set goals + feedback.
That positive bump might be because the entire set of people who leave your little experiment or disengage as a result. I suggest this was/is one of the reasons I have problems with formal education environments, much modern game design, and an general dislike of bundles and sets in products.
Again, that's not to say it can't work for your use case and temperament, but be aware you're also likely going to turn some people off, and they'll tune/ opt out altogether if that's any concern to you...
Why do sets turn you off, but not the activity itself?
> That positive bump might be because the entire set of people who leave your little experiment or disengage as a result.
Why do you assume that those people arent counted?
not the parent, but arbitrary suggestions provide options whereas arbitrary structure limits options arbitrarily.
"Set" is a standard term for this, as in weightlifting.
Sets make sense because they make small efforts bigger (N items instead of 1), for economy of scale, and make big efforts smaller (M sets instead of M*N) and less intimidating.
It's the magic of exponential growth.
Whereas in a weightlifting set, the # of lifts in a set are intentional (low-rep vs high-rep debate). But here, the # within a set is just a number so there's some number. Like the # of yaks to shave to get an in-game achievement.
""" Pseudo-set framing—arbitrarily grouping items or tasks together as part of an apparent “set”—motivates people to reach perceived completion points. """
One app that uses this well is Duolingo, which has a circular progress bar for 'leveling up' each activity, as used in the study.
But it's such a missed opportunity in so many other domains, like encouraging people to eat healthier (although the UK Government does a good job with the "Five a day" slogan)
I imagine a psychologist might be able to answer with reference to empirical studies, but can/could any neuroscientist answer with details of a mechanism?
Or do we just not know enough about how the brain works yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
I doubt we have neurology-based explanations. Nor do I think that's the right level of analysis for many psychological phenomena (including this one).
- Framing tasks or items in pseudo-sets works by (a) conveying the notion of a larger group or entity, which (b) increases perceptions of incompleteness, and in turn (c) a activates people’s desire for completeness.
- We naturally find complete, cohesive units to be symbolic and meaningful, so we strive to achieve them. Think of the slight annoyance you may feel when buying a ‘6 pack’ of sodas with 1 missing.
- If the goal is too high to achieve (e.g. workout 10 times this week), we expect we won’t reach a satisfying endpoint - so we won’t even start it.
The article also links this paper: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37985562/barasz,...
They could make an average (altered) movie script have more value but turning it into a set.
The length of the set and the size of the pieces and the cost per minute and the value to customer makes for a complicated formula.