I’m curious to know what differences you’re seeing between customer experience insights in the US market versus the rest of the world (bearing in mind that so many companies are global now). I’m not so much thinking about differences in scores, but qualitative differences in how customers thnk about the organizations that serve them. Thanks in advance!

How do you see the application of specific psychological principles, such as behavioral economics or cognitive biases playing a more significant role in the design of EX programs? 

I'm particularly interested in understanding the effort needed to drive genuine behavioral change. 

Thank you so much.

What is the psychology behind the use of QR codes? Is it placement? Is it difficult to use? We have extreme challenges in some of our patient populations to use QR codes and as a result have very low response rates. Wondering if you can shed some light on how we can encourage responses through this mode. 

Thanks!

I’d love to unpack this a bit. We were workshopping a potential information use case this morning and a very serious issue came up, specifically around generational or cultural issues that may result in a lack of awareness or comfort about QR codes.

I've seen particular success using simple NFC chips to initiate a website load as customers seem comfortable with these due to the popularity of contactless payment on mobiles. 

It's essentially the same thing but seems faster.

I love this topic. Some friends and colleagues of mine, Drs. Shonna Waters and Erin Etough, coined the term “psychological ergonomics” and they suggest that organizations design experiences with the ways in which the human mind works (not just for our physical bodies, i.e., ergonomics). To me, this is a perfect term to encompass things like behavioral economics and cognitive biases (how people think). I am noticing a lot more general discussion about the alignment between human psychology and neuroscience in business adjacent fields, such as change management. I am excited about all this because it suggests we’re getting “smarter” about the organ that makes us smart and applying it to work (‘bout time). 

Similarly, one of the fascinating trends we project (and we’re seeing some evidence of) is that as workplace (and consumer) experiences become more automated and AI-driven, peoples’ demand for real, authentic human interaction and experiences will increase. I don’t think this will diminish peoples’ demand for quicker, easier experiences, but I do think we’re going to see a premium placed on human-driven, emotional experiences. Moreover, many of the design principles we’re discovering about successful AI-driven experiences all point to fundamental human needs and motives (a few below).

Taken together, I think we’re going to see an increase in focus around “psychological ergonomics” within the EX programs and specifically the ways in which experiences are designed and measured (i.e., apply those same principles to measurement).

In terms of driving genuine behavior change, here are some principles we’ve seen recently that have good theoretical backing: 

1. If you want people to do something, make it easy for them. (Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge provides a great overview).
2. People react especially strongly when they feel things or control are taken away. We’re seeing this play out with AI-driven experiences - when people feel forced through them without any choice, they don’t like them much. Similarly, many people forced back into the office via RTO policies reacted especially forcefully, especially at first (classic loss aversion). This recalls Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory.

Get people doing something specific and explain the WIIFM. When it comes to new experiences for people, such as a big change or driving AI adoption, many organizations are running around with a solution looking for a problem. Because of this, they’re going on massive campaigns to convince people to do it/ use it. For many employees, they want to know “what’s in it for me?” My advice: flip this script. Get people using specific applications for specific purposes and then let their attitudes follow. This recalls Festinger’s theory of Cognitive Dissonance and Robert Cialdini’s principle of Commitment and Consistency from his classic, Influence.