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 15 Mar, 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.
By Cole Armstrong 19 Jul, 2023
If I asked you to think back about an event, maybe a holiday or your last plane trip, your last dinner out, or a shopping experience, what would you remember? If I asked you to describe the experience, chances are you’d feel pretty confident about your memory, or at least some of the key elements. It turns out though, that confidence you’re feeling - it doesn’t relate to the accuracy of your memory. Faulty memories You’re not losing your mind, it’s just that your mind is playing tricks... sort of. We’ve spent quite a bit of time using eye tracking technology through our client projects. It enables us to see a participant’s behaviour – what they actually see and engage with - and the journeys people take through a physical environment, like a mall or retail setting. One project saw participants navigating a store with eye tracking glasses, getting items off a shopping list. As soon as they’d completed their journey, we asked which way they’d walked. Participants confidently recounted their route, and yet despite having literally just finished their journey, consistently missed out details. In another project we asked focus group participants about an image we’d shown them 20 minutes earlier. This elicited quite a spirited conversation about skin colour and how the illustrator’s choice of using a dark skin colour for all of the characters pointed to the racism of the illustrator and client. The thing was though, the characters weren’t dark skinned. Not one of them. And yet all of the participants convinced themselves this was the case. We’re certainly not the first to have encountered this phenomenon. There’s quite an active scene looking into issues with eyewitness testimony, and under which conditions our memory maybe unduly swayed or prone to errors. As you can imagine, the consequences of this could be huge. How can we stop getting it wrong? We’re not saying that our memories are always wrong – clearly that’s not the case! But there’s a rhyme and reason behind how our memory operates – both for good and bad. Our brains are BUSY. It’s like a hamster wheel going full on 24/7. Even when sleeping our brain is taking stock of the day, filing away moments into short and long-term memory. In order to look after us, our brains have to prioritise its resources, and it essentially takes shortcuts wherever possible, driving the same way to work each day, ordering the same coffee and so on. Imagine the fatigue we would face if we had to make every decision and action consciously, rather than letting our brains run the show. Which moments matter? So when our brain – a lazy but efficient workaholic – is sorting through events and the happenings of our day, it throws out the mundane, peripheral information it deems unimportant. It instead focuses on creating a highlight reel, and takes the moment of the events and experiences that were the most emotionally intensive, and the final moment. The concept is known as The Peak-End rule, and comes from Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Donald Redelmeier. Their 1996 study, which I am very pleased to not have been a participant in, involved 154 colonoscopy patients rating their level of discomfort at 60-second intervals throughout the procedure, as well as being asked to retrospectively describe how uncomfortable the procedure was. The level of discomfort during the procedure had no correlation to the discomfort they reported retrospectively. As an aside, they followed-up this study with yet more colonoscopy patients, who were split into two groups. One group had the standard procedure and experience of the camera being somewhat painfully removed, and the other had an amended experience that lasted three minutes longer, but which the camera removal was more uncomfortable than painful. The second group – with a longer procedure but less discomfort in the final moments – rated the procedure as less painful than the first group and were more likely to return for subsequent procedures. What was relevant was the peak level of discomfort experienced, as well as the level of discomfort in the final, end moments of the procedure. So what does this tell us? Firstly, that our memory is more fallible than we’d like to realise, more often made up of a series of stitched together moments and thoughts that can be revised and reinterpreted after the fact. Here’s an example - one of the best flights I’ve had was on Air New Zealand to Sydney – the first time we’d flown with my then-infant daughter (you can imagine our nerves!). At the end of the flight we apologised to the man next to us who’d (somehow) been working the whole 3.5 hours. We were suitably self-conscious at the amount of screaming he’d been subjected to but were greatly surprised at how nice he was – telling us that she’d been great, and how his (now teenage) children had subjected him through worse. Then some of the other passengers near us congratulated us on surviving a flight with an infant and how good a flyer she’d been – alongside the cabin staff who were making faces at our daughter to get her to laugh. It's honestly one of the best flights I remember – but clearly it wasn’t that pleasant at the time! The Peak-End rule in action – our actual and remembered experiences diverting wildly. How to apply these learnings to your work Don’t rely on people providing an accurate testimony of their experience. It’s more important to look at what a customer does vs what they say they do. When reviewing a process, journey or customer experience, focus on the moments that matter – the peak emotional moment and the final moment. This provides direction, stopping you from spreading your resources too thin and helping concentrate efforts on the moments most likely to have an impact. Be creative when designing experiences. Because our remembered experience is more important than our actual experience, you have a unique opportunity where you can creatively leave customers with an experience perhaps better than what they had… If you know there’s a frustration or issue during a process, while working on a fix for that, make sure your final moment knocks their socks off.
08 Nov, 2022
JCDecaux is one of the largest Out-of-Home businesses worldwide; in New Zealand it specialises in high quality Large Format and Airport touchpoints. JCDecaux is committed to delivering research-led validation to its partners regarding Out-of-Home effectiveness and looks for partners who can deliver neuro or behavioural methodologies that can deliver on this objective.
Show More
Share by: