You’ve read about color psychology, system one and two, emotional persuasion, etc. I know you have because it’s everywhere. It’s on Forbes, Entrepreneur, Inc., HelpScout, HubSpot… you name it. Hell, we’ve covered some of these topics ourselves.
Why? Well, because many psychological triggers do, in fact work.
But there’s another side to using psychology online that almost no one is talking about: backfiring.
Psychology isn’t a magic formula that can be applied to optimization seamlessly in all scenarios, despite what many self-identified experts are preaching today. [Tweet It!]
Before you apply another psychological trigger to your site, do yourself a favor and understand the risks that come along with the rewards. Better yet, understand how to reduce those risks.
Table of contents
- What is the backfire effect?
- The Intention-Outcome Matrix
- The Likelihood-Severity Matrix
- Where Conversion Rate Optimization Falls Short
- How to Reduce the Risk of Backfiring
What is the backfire effect?
The backfire effect is a phenomenon where a person’s beliefs become stronger when they’re presented with evidence that challenges their worldview.
A psychological backfire occurs when psychology is poorly applied and the exact opposite of the intended behavior is triggered.
So, for example, you believe that social proof will psychologically trigger conversions. When you add social proof to your page, conversions decrease because you’ve chosen the wrong people to feature or because your audience prefers to go “against the grain”. That’s psychological backfiring.
Think of backfires the way you think of A/B test validity threats.
Recently, Dr. Brian Cugelman of AlterSpark and Dr. Agnis Stibe of MIT Media Lab published a scientific paper on psychological backfiring. When asked why he decided to take a more in-depth look at backfiring, Dr. Cugelman had this to say…
Dr. Brian Cugelman, AlterSpark:
“I was persuaded very quickly because there’s not a lot of knowledge on this because it’s a big stigma. If it’s your program or your intervention or your technology that’s causing a backfire, no one wants to write about it because it looks very bad and it’s embarrassing. You know, people don’t want their colleagues laughing at them. Some people could also have their funding cut. If it’s a non-profit or in the private sector, it can look very bad on you.”
Dr. Stibe added that because many people are afraid to talk about backfiring, visibility is important if we want to preserve the scientific integrity of research…
Dr. Agnis Stibe, MIT Media Lab:
“My reason for persuading Brian to work on this was the scientific contribution. I wanted to give the whole research field the tools and encouragement to acknowledge that these things exist and they have happened. By making these negative outcomes visible, we save everyone else from repeating those mistakes. These types of studies have to be published so people know what not to do and where to be more careful with behavioral interventions.”
So, what does all of this have to do with optimization? Well, it’s easy to talk about system one and two or color psychology and call ourselves neuromarketers.
But that’s idealistic and there’s another side to applying psychology to optimization that few people know about, let alone are willing to discuss. That’s where backfiring comes into play.
Here’s Dr. Cugelman on the trend of applying psychology to optimization…
Dr. Brian Cugelman, AlterSpark:
“There’s a big divide between the academic community and the practitioners. The academics have a lot of knowledge, but they don’t apply and test things to the same degree. The professional fields don’t have access to a lot of information.
What you’ll see almost exclusively is a rehashing of Cialdini’s work because he has a handful of principles that are easy to pick out, they’re fairly obvious ones. They’re really good for sales, but they fail in other areas. So, the tools are limited in the private sector.
Also, there’s almost delusional optimism being touted by people who have brought psychology into the private sector and pitched themselves as experts without an actual grounding in science. They tend to oversell and treat it as almost a magic formula, but because they’re actually very inexperienced, sometimes they don’t deal with reality. The impacts are small and they backfire all the time.
Examining the different types of backfiring brings a healthy dose of reality to those using psychology to convert. It’s not a magical formula that can do no wrong. In fact, a lot can (and does) go wrong.
Being unaware of (or unwilling to accept) that is dangerous. You see, psychology can be used in optimization… it works, but rarely as drastically as promised in overhyped articles and not always in your favor.
Right now, you only have half the story on using psychology to optimize your site.
The Intention-Outcome Matrix
Every psychological implementation will fall within one of four categories on the intention-outcome matrix. Two are positive (target behavior and unexpected benefits) while two are negative (dark patterns and backfiring)…
In optimization, we focus almost exclusively on the two positive outcomes, which is a problem. It’s important to be aware of all of the possible outcomes, which will occur whether we have the ability to recognize them or not.
Here’s what you need to know about each category…
1. Target Behavior
This is the positive outcome you were hoping for. For example, young adults reduce nicotine dependency.
2. Unexpected Benefits
Any positive outcome that was not intentionally sought. A “happy coincidence” or “positive side-effect”. For example, regular nicotine screenings encourage young adults to go to the gym more often (i.e. lead a healthier lifestyle).
Includes a variety of negative outcomes, including: the reverse of the target behavior and side effects of the target behavior. For example, regular nicotine screenings lead to young adults competing to see who can smoke more cigarettes.
4. Dark Patterns
Any outcome that benefits the experimenter at the expense of the audience. This is unethical manipulation, which is discussed at length in our article, Online Manipulation: All The Ways You’re Currently Being Deceived.
The Likelihood-Severity Matrix
Of course, backfiring is more complex than “negative and unintentional”. In their paper, Dr. Cugelman and Dr. Stibe propose that all backfires fall within the four quadrants of the likelihood severity matrix…
Within the quadrants, their research found that there are six types of backfires: credibility damage, inexperience, fineprint fallacy, personality responses, poor judgment, and social psychology. Within each type of backfire, there are a number of actual backfires.
Note that this list is incomplete. This is just the beginning of research into psychological backfiring. As psychology continues to be used more widely in marketing and other professions, new backfires will come to light. For now, it’s important that you’re familiar with the original 12…
1. Credibility Damage
- Self-Discrediting: Low likelihood, major severity. This occurs when your message is inauthentic, difficult to believe or based on discredited information.
- Message Hijacking: Low likelihood, major severity. When your audience (or the general public) takes your original message and gives it another meaning.
Example: Heroin Chic
In the 90s, heroin chic became popular…
If you’re not familiar, it’s essentially characterized by pale skin, dark circles underneath the eyes and angular bone structure. Fashion models in the 90s began to adopt this look, a clear reaction to traditional models like Cindy Crawford.
The trend began because heroin prices dropped, its purity increased dramatically and insufflation (vs. a needle) became more popular.
All of this led to heroin chic. Teenagers hung posters of heroin chic models on their walls… they wanted to be just like them. What should have been a startling warning against the effects of heroin became sexy, it became idealized.
You might remember this one. In 2012, McDonald’s thought it would be a good idea to get people to share their heart-warming stories about McDonald’s on Twitter. “We bought Timmy a Happy Meal after he won his first big game,” style stories. Big mistake.
Here’s what people actually ended up tweeting…
Their message was completely hijacked. Instead of the heart-warming stories they were hoping for, they got horror stories and mockery.
- Superficializing: Low likelihood, minor severity. The application of a theory without an understanding of the underlying strategy / logic. In other words, applying superficial tactics without reasoning.
Example: Social Sharing
The dramatic response to Twitter’s decision to stop supporting social share count demonstrates how wide-spread the use of social sharing buttons is. It’s become a best practice to show social sharing buttons with share counts.
Here’s an example from a mommy blogger’s site…
Can you deduce how this might be a backfire? 0 Facebook shares, 0 tweets, 0 pins, 1 G+1, 0 email shares, 0 comments… This is essentially anti-social proof. It’s the blind application of a best practice without an understanding of the underlying strategic / logic behind the practice.
3. Fineprint Fallacy
- Overemphasizing: Exclusively highlighting the benefits while hiding negatives / side effects in the proverbial (or literal) fine print.
Example: Rebill Offers
Anyone who has dealt with rebill offers is familiar with the overemphasizing backfire. Miracle muscle building formulas, acai berry super fruits, etc. Here’s an example…
The entire site is dedicated to highlighting and glorifying the product. Note the phrase “See If You Qualify For Our Trial Program”, which is used to motivate those who are unsure. You don’t get the free trial because you want it, you need to actually qualify for it (which isn’t true).
In the fine print, however, you’ll find that once they submit their information and receive their trial product, they have X days to cancel before they end up with a hefty recurring bill. Will many people cancel? No because the need to do so is hidden.
4. Personality Responses
- Defiance Arousing: When a message does not align with the audience’s self-identity, they are inclined to defy it (i.e. do the opposite behavior).
- Self-Licensing: When someone is succeeding or behaving correctly in one area of life, they sometimes believe they can neglect or misbehave in another.
Example: The Beginner’s Guide to Conversion Rate Optimization
Here’s our beginner’s guide page…
If we sent this page to optimizers who’ve been practicing conversion rate optimization for years, it would not align with their self-identity. As a result, they probably wouldn’t read through it or download it for later.
5. Poor Judgement
- Mistailoring: When a message is not tailored to the audience correctly and creates a negative reaction among part (or all) of the audience.
- Mistargeting: When a message intended for one segment of the audience is misinterpreted by another.
- Misdiagnosing: When you do not correctly analyze your audience’s behavior and cognitive processes.
- Misanticipating: When controlled changes lead to unexpected changes in beliefs and behaviors.
Example: The Economist
When The Economist realized women make up online a small portion of their audience, they decided to run this…
Yikes… not sure who approved that one. Obviously, they meant that The Economist is for everyone, regardless of gender. But since their audience is mostly male, it certainly didn’t come across that way.
6. Social Psychology
- Anti-Modeling: When a negative behavior is shown to demonize and condemn it, but the negative behavior increases as a result of the increased awareness.
- Reverse Norming: When a negative behavior is shown, it can become a social norm, which increases the likelihood that it will be repeated.
Example: Growth Hacking on CXL
Here’s an example of anti-modeling from a previous article of mine…
I clearly show how “growth hacking” should not be looked at by condemning the fluffy “growth hack” articles. If this were to backfire, readers of CXL would write these types of articles to boost their traffic. (Hopefully that didn’t happen.)
Where Conversion Rate Optimization Falls Short
When asked about what optimizers can takeaway from the backfiring research, Dr. Cugelman had this to say…
Dr. Brian Cugelman, AlterSpark:
“The problem with conversion optimization is you’re measuring positive outcomes, not negative outcomes. What are the factors of the website design that are correlated with the positive behavioral outcome? But they are completely incapable of studying what factors are correlated with negative behavioral outcomes. So, instead of people clicking on the button, people bouncing right away and leaving.”
As optimizers, we’re more concerned with superficial psychology. We want to implement whatever psychology improves conversions (positive behavior). We don’t consider the long-term or underlying psychological modifications (negative behavior) whatsoever.
Is this a bad thing? Not really… assuming you’re not out to psychologically damage your audience, of course.
What it does mean, however, is that optimizers remove backfires without even recognizing them as backfires. They’re just “something that decreased conversions for an unknown reason”.
Imagine if you knew what that reason was. You could explain it better to your colleagues / boss / clients, and you could train yourself to identify that “something” before launching the treatment or when conducting heuristic analysis.
Being aware of the different backfires (especially poor judgment and social psychology, which are highly likely and very severe) makes you a smarter optimizer, a more efficient optimizer, an optimizer with fewer losses (and thus, more wins).
How to Reduce the Risk of Backfiring
It’s impossible to completely remove the risk of backfiring because you can’t possibly predict how everyone within your target audience will interpret every element of your site. You have to learn to live with it.
What you can do, however, is identify and reduce the risk of backfiring by following these four simple steps.
1. Be aware of what can go wrong.
For best results, take a risk management approach when creating sites and running tests. With your specific test in mind, consider what could backfire. Audit your site or test for each of the 12 backfires. Start with the high likelihood quadrants. Make a list of threats and keep them in mind as you design your tests.
2. Test your psychology.
Don’t implement psychological tactics blindly. You’re an optimizer… test it! It’s not just about testing to find what works to increase conversions. It’s about removing what’s not working, too. That’s not always immediately obvious.
If you think X will cause a behavior change of Y, test it on a portion of your audience before pushing it live to everyone. After determining whether it improved conversions or not, look for evidence of backfires using qualitative research (e.g. user testing, click maps, scroll maps, surveys).
3. Consider the long-term impact.
If you do successfully modify behavior of your audience, how will that impact similar groups?
Consider the people just outside your target audience. If you change the behavior of your target audience, that might influence the way adjacent audiences behave.
An example I like to use for this is CrossFit. So many people love CrossFit that it puts off others who are “sick of hearing about it”. As a result, people who are interested in going to a gym might turn to GoodLife instead of CrossFit, which they have now developed a negative opinion of without even trying it.
When you implement psychology, you must ask yourself: How will this impact my ability to scale?
You have to look at backfires holistically.
4. Understand the complexity of backfires.
Psychology can work with one part of your audience and backfire with another part. For example, some people will love Peep’s blunt, “I call your bullshit” style. Others will be turned off by it and seek out a “softer” alternative.
There isn’t always a “right vs. wrong” when it comes to backfiring. Just because it backfires with some people does not mean you should remove or change it. Only remove or change it when you find that it backfires holistically.
Also, consider that you sometimes lose control of the backfire. Consider the #McDStories example. Once the message is hijacked, you lose control of it. You can’t remove or change it.
This is is just the beginning of optimizers using psychology to increase conversions. As more “experts” preach the magical results, more backfires will plague unsuspecting optimizers. [Tweet It!]
Here’s how you should handle backfires going forward…
- Remember the 12 backfires and where they fall within the likelihood-severity matrix.
- Audit your site for psychological backfires.
- Before launching a test, audit it for the risk of psychological backfires. Do what you can to reduce those risks.
- Launch an A/B test, limiting the risk of widespread backfires.
- Determine whether the treatment increased conversions or not.
- Using qualitative research, look for evidence of backfires.
- Record all of the backfires and refer to them before running future tests.
- If you still have control of the backfire(s) and it’s causing an overall negative outcome, remove it.
For more scientific / academic papers converted into actionable optimization insights, check out the CXL Institute.
Oh, and if you happen to find any new types of backfires or new examples of the ones identified above, please share them below.
Join the conversation
Add your comment
Great article, Shanelle. This is something I’ve been thinking on and experiencing during the last few months. The truth is that the human decisions are far more complex and illogical than what most of the marketers are considering.
For example, the “send emails to users with abandoned carts” can backfire a lot. There are lots of people who are very sensitive about their online privacy and these emails are stating that you are monitoring them (in some way). These leads to the “Big Brother” effect and you can lose them forever.
To be honest, most of the “growth-hacks” are so obvious, that in the end what gets you to sign up is that the product/service looks cool, you have spare time to test something, and you will probably forget about it in 2 days.
Thanks for the kind words, Plamen.
I love that marketers and optimizers are starting to use psychology to their advantage, I do. But it’s dangerous without knowing what could go wrong (i.e. dark patterns and backfiring). We need to be able to manage risk.
Good point about “Big Brother”. I know Dr. Cugelman is watching these comments for additional examples.
Yes! More people need to realize the dark side of attempting psychological gimmicks.
Big brother email. I agree it is bad idea.
I had to answer “security” questions recently and they asked me what was the year of the car I owned. –I thought REALLY? How and WHY would you know that? I bought that car for cash, no loans, this is not some credit report. They say it is a public record, so I guess it was offered by the DMV. But I tried to figure out how I as a consumer could get this information and couldn’t, in the few minutes that I spent. So now I have a strong aversion to that company based on that experience, even though it wasn’t about buying anything today. I only use them because I have to. (paypal…)
Any time I get a wierd manipulation sense, and I read Oren Klaff talk about this in Pitch anything — where there is a feeling of restriction of freedom, for example. It can quickly turn your customer against you. Forced choices like those lame “negative” choices. “Yes I want this great thing or “No I don’t like great things” -i as a matter of principle pick the no i don’t like great things. Because I rebel at that manipulation.
If you want to do this, do this with some class and even then be super, super, subtle. It is not worth it.
And those pop up ads, I ALWAYS click close, without reading them. Also a rebel “f-you” in my mind when I do it.
Thanks for reading, Tony.
I think a lot of people are struggling with the “Big Brother” issue. How far is too far when it comes to personalization?
I think you bring up a good example of psychological triggers backfiring with part of an audience, but not the entire audience. While you’re saying “I always close popups” and “Forced choices are lame”, there are a dozen optimizers thinking “… but it works!”
I’m with you because I don’t convert in popups and all I get from forced choices are laughs (some of them are pretty funny). But they definitely don’t backfire with everyone.
I’d be really interested in additional research on that. Is backfiring more likely with certain groups of people?
Nowadays it seems the Psychology of marketing has turned into the marketing of Psychology. Often psychology is used as some sort of gimmicky, magic, plug-and-play formula that has the power to increase conversion instantly.
Since Conversion Optimization is still a very young industry (see: Conversionxl State of Conversion Optimization report 2016), there’s a lot room for misconceptions due to a lack of knowledge and experience. Consumer Psychology, being a critical part of Conversion Optimization, is even harder to grasp for many people. What Peep once said about CRO is also true for psychology: it’s becoming SEO-ified. Google’s SERP is filled with an endless collection of the same psychological principles (which people therefore unquestioningly copy without really knowing what they are doing and why they are doing it).
I’m very happy to see that Conversionxl takes the lead in bringing more science in the world of psychology and Conversion Optimization. This article about backfiring was one of the most accessible and modest articles about the use and misuse of psychology in marketing that I’ve read in a while. I want to take my hat of for this very objective article. I think the world of marketing needs more honest articles like this, instead of promoting the overuse of chewed up principles.
Science is not only about celebrating succes, it’s about celebrating failure as well. Critical thinking remains one of the most valuable assets of a scientist. Marketeers should learn from that. Without critical thinking there will be a bunch of random people copying other random people, because they think these random people know what they’re doing, while in fact these other random people also have no idea what they’re doing exactly.
Okay, now that I’ve got that of my chest, time for a more positive note ;)
I hope the CXL institute will be up and running soon, because I’m really looking forward to it. Normally I don’t comment much on articles (and I now fully understand why), but I’ve been flying under the radar for quite a while now and I think you guys deserved a compliment. Keep up the good work.
Greetings from the Netherlands
Very well said, Zowie. I really don’t know what else I could add, except maybe that we’d love to hear from you more often in the comments!
I really appreciate the kind words.
The team is hard at work on CXL Institute. If you liked this article, I know you’ll like the Institute.
wow, such a great article. Thank you for publishing something which others don’t want to say. I was also obsessed with online psychology now I know I should think twice before trying anything blindly.
Thanks for reading, Subrata. Glad you liked the article.
Psychology definitely has a place in optimization. I just hope we can begin using it more responsibly instead of pretending there are no risks involved.
This was a great article.
Another typical way psychology backfires on the inexperienced who are trying to use Cialdini’s principles would be reciprocation.
You can’t just give something away to someone and expect them to hand you money later… Even the examples used in his book explains that most people felt conned afterwards.
Yet too many people give away free content without being upfront their new subscribers and their audience that they are a business and they do sell stuff to make a living.
Then they end up with an audience who are only there to see what they can get for free.
Thanks for this, Will. I know Dr. Cugelman is keeping an eye on these comments, looking for additional examples.
Thank you for this post.
We –marketers–do have a responsibility to leverage all the tools at our disposal. Research like this, as well as the work that leads to this research, all should factor into our development of our strategic thinking. And yet, it is super easy to fallback on tricks and gimmicks. I am constantly reminded of this in client meetings. The urgency to demonstrate effectiveness often out-weighs the need for considered thought. Frequently, we are presented with client expectations gleaned from observations or misguided advice to take approaches that are clearly at odds with a brand. It takes great care to help clients overcome some of these expectations. Research like this is incredibly valuable in helping us keep brands true to their promise. Thanks for sharing.
Glad we could help, Hazen.
When it’s ready for public launch, I definitely recommend checking out CXL Institute… it’s a lot more of this (among other things).
Love this article and the thoughtful comments.
Especially what you said here Shanelle:
“I think you bring up a good example of psychological triggers backfiring with part of an audience, but not the entire audience. While you’re saying “I always close popups” and “Forced choices are lame”, there are a dozen optimizers thinking “… but it works!””
We’re always having to juggle between what the data shows us will work and whether we feel we’re doing the ethical thing. And we have to remember who our audience is – are we providing the best value for them while achieving our own goals?
On another note on backfiring, it freaks me out when I simply peruse a website, and a minute later that site’s ad is showing up on my Facebook feed. Or other times when I’ve simply mentioned a product in conversation, and that ad pops up on my feed. As a marketer, it’s great. As a person, it makes me wince.
I think people are starting to worry about the level of information available about them to marketers. You can’t even write about personal issues in an email without an ad popping up about it later.
Thanks so much, Sheena.
I know what you mean. I sent a text that mentioned Sour Patch Kids and I’ve been seeing Facebook mobile ads for them ever since.
And it’s not just remarketing that causes backfiring, though it’s a common example. It can happen on your site, on a landing page, etc.
Great article. Loved all the examples and steps to take at the end of the article. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Jeni. Happy to help!
Fantastic article, honest and accountable, two things missing in this industry! How refreshing!
I think we all have examples where we’ve felt like the auto-response in someone’s marketing campaign may have grated us the wrong way by making assumptions or being too aggressive, this coming from the end user’s perspective of course. It really depends on the product and their brand image at the end of the day what the repercussions are to these actions and reactions, but at least I can take your article on board and adopt a more informed approach to how I tackle marketing for my own campaigns in the future.
Thanks Rebecca! Really glad you found the article so helpful.
Neuromarketing is a must have for any CRO strategy if you want to grow your conversion rate!
Also, a very nice article Shanelle!
Helps me alot!
Cheers from Romania!
Thanks a lot, Flavius. Glad you liked the article.
Great article, Shanelle! It’s interesting to me as I’ve encountered many of these concepts while studying psychology as an undergrad, but not really applied to marketing. I completely agree that there never aren’t any perfect formulas for psychology to achieve specific results, yet it this article makes me think it rampidly advertised in the marketing world. This being said, there still seems to be a lot of value in neuromarketing when done correctly.
Great read, thank you for sharing.
Thanks for reading, Spencer! I couldn’t agree more re: value.
Is there a TL;DR for this article? It’s too long!! :D
The conclusion should give you a nice little overview, but let me know if you have any questions!
Comments are closed.