Dr Martin Fracker

Author: Martin Fracker

  • Pricing the Outcome, Not the Hours: Value-Based Pricing for Human Factors and UX Consulting

    Introduction

    Picture a client whose staff uses a data-entry screen several hundred times a day. A seasoned human factors consultant spends four hours with it and finds three problems. Fixing them cuts the time per entry roughly in half. Across the whole staff and a full year, that is worth more than the client’s annual software budget.

    Under hourly billing, the consultant sends an invoice for four hours.

    That invoice measures the one thing the client cares least about: how long the expert took. What clients actually care about is what changes afterward. Fewer errors. Faster task completion. A medical device that clears FDA review. A product customers keep instead of abandon.

    After roughly 20 years in the Air Force, 20 at IBM and 8 in independent practice, I have come to believe that expertise should be priced by the difference it makes. In this post I explain value-based pricing, why it suits human factors and UX work unusually well, and how it plays out in six realistic engagements.

    What value-based pricing is

    Value-based pricing sets the fee by the value the client expects to receive, not by the hours the consultant expects to spend. The fee is fixed and agreed before the work begins. It is typically a modest fraction of the value at stake, often somewhere around 10 to 20 percent, so the client’s return is many times what they pay.

    Three pricing models are worth distinguishing:

    ModelWhat sets the priceWho carries the riskWhat it rewards
    Hourly or daily rateTime spentClientTaking longer
    Fixed project feeEstimated effortConsultantDoing less
    Value-based feeExpected business outcomeSharedSolving the problem well

    The hourly model has a built-in conflict. The faster and more expert the consultant, the less they earn. A client paying by the hour also hesitates to call with a quick question, because the meter is running. Value pricing removes both problems. The client knows the full cost up front, and the consultant is rewarded for insight rather than for effort.

    Value pricing is not the same as charging whatever the market will bear. It rests on a shared, explicit estimate of what the outcome is worth to this particular client. If we cannot agree on that value, we should not agree on the price.

    Why it fits human factors and UX especially well

    Human factors work is unusually measurable. Our discipline was built on quantifying human performance: time on task, error rates, training time, workload, completion rates. Those measures translate directly into money, safety and risk.

    • Time is money at scale. Seconds saved on a task performed thousands of times a day add up to staff hours, and staff hours have a known cost.
    • Errors have prices. A support call, a returned order, a data-correction cycle, an adverse event report or a recall each has a cost the client can usually estimate.
    • Risk has a price. A failed usability validation can delay a medical device launch by months. A confusing control in a safety-critical system can cost far more than any consulting fee.
    • Adoption has a price. Software that people abandon, work around or refuse to learn is a sunk investment.

    The value of expertise is also front-loaded. A senior practitioner often spots the critical problem in the first hour, because they have seen it before. Hourly billing penalizes exactly that experience. Value pricing pays for it.

    How a value price is set

    A value price comes out of a conversation, not a rate card. In practice it follows five steps.

    1. Understand the business problem. Not “we need a usability test,” but why. What happens if nothing changes? What prompted the call now?
    2. Agree on how success will be measured. Fewer support calls, shorter training, a passed validation study, higher conversion. The client names the measures, in their own terms.
    3. Estimate the value together. The client supplies the numbers they know: call volumes, labor costs, revenue per customer, cost of delay. I help structure the arithmetic. Conservative estimates are best, so both sides trust the result.
    4. Offer choices. I usually propose three options at three price points, from a focused engagement to a comprehensive one. The client chooses how much value to buy. The conversation shifts from “how much does it cost?” to “which option fits?”
    5. Fix the fee and the scope. The fee is set in writing, along with what is included. Clients often pay in two or three installments tied to dates, not hours.

    One guideline keeps this honest: if the client cannot see a clear return on the fee, the price is wrong or the project is. Either way, it is better to find out before the work starts.

    Six examples of value pricing in practice

    The examples below are composites built to show the reasoning. The numbers are illustrative; in a real engagement, the client supplies them.

    1. A customer service application that slows agents down

    The situation. A company’s 200 service agents each handle about 60 calls a day. Agents complain that the account screen forces them to jump between tabs to answer routine questions.

    The value. If a redesign saves 20 seconds per call, that is 240,000 seconds, or about 67 staff hours, every day. Over 250 working days, it comes to roughly 16,700 hours a year. At a fully loaded cost of $40 an hour, the savings approach $670,000 a year, before counting shorter customer wait times.

    The price. Three options:

    • Expert review with prioritized recommendations: $25,000
    • Review, redesign of the key screens, and usability testing with agents: $60,000
    • All of the above, plus before-and-after measurement of call handling time: $90,000

    Even the top option pays for itself in under two months.

    2. A medical device heading for FDA review

    The situation. A startup is developing a home-use injection device. FDA expects human factors evidence: a use-related risk analysis, formative evaluations, and a summative validation study. The team has no human factors specialist.

    The value. The company expects about $12 million in first-year sales. If a weak human factors submission delays clearance by six months, the cost of delay is on the order of $6 million, plus redesign and retesting. Investors are watching the date.

    The price. A fixed fee of $120,000 covers the risk analysis, two rounds of formative testing, the validation protocol, and support in preparing the human factors report. The value here is mostly risk reduction. No consultant can guarantee a regulatory outcome, but a well-run program greatly reduces the chance of an avoidable delay.

    3. An online checkout that loses buyers

    The situation. A retailer does $20 million a year online. Analytics show that many shoppers abandon the cart at the shipping and payment steps.

    The value. Raising the overall conversion rate from 2.0 to 2.1 percent, a 5 percent relative gain, would add about $1 million a year in revenue. At a 40 percent gross margin, that is roughly $400,000 in added profit each year.

    The price. $50,000 for a checkout audit, moderated testing with real shoppers, and redesign recommendations ready for the development team. A smaller option at $20,000 covers the audit alone.

    4. An enterprise system rollout with a training problem

    The situation. A company is rolling out a new internal system to 3,000 employees. The vendor’s training plan calls for 16 hours per person. Early pilot users are frustrated and the help desk is bracing for a flood of tickets.

    The value. If better configuration, screen layouts, and job aids cut training to 10 hours, the company saves 6 hours times 3,000 employees, or 18,000 hours. At $50 an hour, that is $900,000 in one-time savings, plus fewer help desk calls in the months after launch.

    The price. $80,000 for a task analysis of the most common workflows, usability testing with pilot users, configuration recommendations, and redesigned quick-reference guides.

    5. A control room with an alarm problem

    The situation. An industrial plant’s operators face hundreds of alarms per shift, many of them nuisance alarms. Management worries that a real alarm will be missed.

    The value. The plant estimates that a serious operator-related incident costs about $2 million in downtime and repairs, and that such incidents occur roughly once every two years. Cutting that likelihood in half is worth about $500,000 a year in expected losses avoided. Improved safety for the workforce matters even more, though it is harder to put in dollars.

    The price. $100,000 for an alarm and display review, operator interviews and observation, workload assessment, and a prioritized improvement plan aligned with recognized alarm management practice.

    6. A software product that customers abandon

    The situation. A software-as-a-service company signs about 4,000 new customers a year at $1,200 each per year. Thirty percent cancel within the first 90 days, and exit surveys point to a confusing setup process.

    The value. Reducing early cancellations from 30 to 22 percent keeps 320 more customers a year. That is $384,000 in first-year revenue, and much more over each customer’s lifetime.

    The price. $45,000 for onboarding research with new customers, a redesigned setup flow, and testing of the new flow. A $70,000 option adds a follow-up review 90 days after launch to confirm the change in cancellations.

    The examples at a glance

    EngagementEstimated value to clientFeeValue per fee dollar
    Customer service application~$670,000 per year$25,000–$90,000about $7 to $27
    Medical device submission~$6,000,000 delay avoided$120,000about $50
    Online checkout~$400,000 profit per year$20,000–$50,000about $8 to $20
    Enterprise rollout~$900,000 one time$80,000about $11
    Control room alarms~$500,000 per year$100,000about $5
    Software onboarding~$384,000 first year$45,000–$70,000about $5 to $9

    In every case the client can see a clear return before signing. That clarity is the point.

    Common questions

    “Isn’t this just a way to charge more?” Sometimes the value price is higher than an hourly estimate would be; sometimes it is lower. What changes is the basis. The client pays for a result they have already judged to be worth far more than the fee, and they know the full cost in advance.

    “What if the project takes longer than expected?” That risk is mine. The fee does not rise because I needed an extra week. This is part of what clients are buying: certainty.

    “What if we can’t put a dollar figure on the value?” Some benefits, like safety, reputation or regulatory confidence, resist precise numbers. We can still estimate ranges and agree on what matters. When value truly cannot be estimated at all, a fixed fee based on scope is a reasonable fallback.

    “Does the fee depend on hitting the numbers?” Usually not. The client controls many things that affect results, such as whether recommendations are implemented. The fee is fixed. The value estimate justifies the investment; it is not a performance contract. Clients who want a share of the risk can choose an option with measurement built in.

    “Can I still just call you with a question?” Yes, and that is one of the best parts. With no meter running, clients call early, before small problems become expensive ones.

    The bottom line

    Human factors and UX work exists to change outcomes: faster work, fewer errors, safer systems, products people actually use. Pricing that work by the hour asks clients to buy effort when what they want is results. Value pricing aligns the fee with the outcome, removes surprises from the budget, and rewards the kind of experience that finds the real problem quickly.

    If you are weighing a human factors or UX project, I would be glad to talk it through. The first conversation is about your problem and what solving it is worth to you. The price comes after that. You can reach me through the contact page at drmartinfracker.com.

  • Value-Based Pricing in Human Factors Engineering and UX Consulting

    When organizations hire a Human Factors Engineering or UX consultant, they are not really buying hours.

    They are buying better decisions, fewer usability problems, reduced risk, increased conversion, faster task completion, improved customer satisfaction, or a clearer path to a product that works better for the people who use it.

    That distinction matters when deciding how to price consulting work.

    Traditional consulting engagements are often priced by the hour or day: estimate the number of hours required, multiply by an hourly rate, and add expenses. That model is familiar and straightforward, but it can create an unfortunate incentive structure. The client may begin evaluating the engagement based on how much time the consultant spends rather than what the work accomplishes.

    Value-based pricing starts somewhere else.

    Instead of asking, “How many hours will this take?” the consultant asks:

    “What is this work worth to the client?”

    The answer does not necessarily determine the exact price. Rather, it provides a framework for establishing a fee that reflects the business importance, expected impact, complexity, risk, and deliverables associated with the engagement.

    This approach is particularly useful in Human Factors Engineering and UX because the economic value of good design can extend far beyond the design artifacts themselves.

    A usability study might prevent an expensive development mistake. A heuristic evaluation might reveal problems that are suppressing sales. A redesign might improve conversion rates across thousands or millions of customer interactions.

    The work may take days or months, but the value created can persist for years.

    What Is Value-Based Pricing?

    In its simplest form, value-based pricing means setting a consulting fee in relation to the value the client expects to receive, rather than strictly tying the fee to the consultant’s time.

    That doesn’t mean hours are irrelevant.

    Time still matters because it affects the consultant’s costs, capacity, scheduling, and ability to deliver the work. But time becomes an input to pricing rather than the primary definition of value.

    A value-based engagement considers questions such as:

    • What business problem is being solved?
    • How significant is that problem?
    • What is the financial or operational impact of the problem?
    • What decisions will the client be able to make because of the engagement?
    • What risks will be reduced?
    • How many users or customers are affected?
    • How long will the benefits potentially persist?
    • How difficult or specialized is the work?
    • How urgent is the problem?
    • What is the cost of doing nothing?
    • What tangible deliverables will the client receive?

    The result is a price that reflects the scope and value of the outcome, rather than simply the number of hours on a timesheet.

    The following scenarios illustrate how this can work in practice.

    Scenario 1: An End-to-End Redesign to Increase Conversions and Reduce Abandoned Shopping Carts

    Imagine an online retailer with a significant amount of traffic but a disappointing checkout conversion rate.

    Analytics show that many customers add products to their carts but leave before completing the purchase.

    The company hires a Human Factors Engineering and UX consulting firm to investigate the problem and redesign the experience.

    The engagement might include:

    1. Reviewing analytics and existing customer data
    2. Conducting stakeholder interviews
    3. Reviewing the current information architecture
    4. Performing a heuristic evaluation
    5. Conducting user research
    6. Observing customers attempting representative tasks
    7. Identifying usability and interaction problems
    8. Developing design concepts
    9. Creating prototypes
    10. Testing proposed designs with users
    11. Iterating on the designs
    12. Delivering specifications or design recommendations for implementation

    This is a substantial engagement, but its value is not simply the number of activities performed.

    The business problem is potentially much larger.

    Consider the economics

    Suppose a shopping site generates $20 million in annual online sales.

    If the redesigned experience ultimately increases completed purchases by even a modest percentage, the incremental revenue could be substantial.

    For example, if the business were to generate an additional $1 million in annual revenue as a result of improvements to the shopping and checkout experience, the organization might reasonably view a six-figure consulting engagement very differently from an engagement that costs the same amount but produces no meaningful business impact.

    The consultant does not need to promise that the redesign will generate $1 million.

    In fact, promising a specific financial outcome can be inappropriate when many factors outside the consultant’s control affect revenue.

    Instead, the business case can focus on the economic significance of the problem and the potential value of solving it.

    What might the pricing conversation look like?

    Rather than:

    “The project will take 500 hours at $200 per hour, so the fee is $100,000.”

    A value-based conversation might sound more like:

    “The shopping experience is a significant revenue-generating channel, and cart abandonment represents a material business opportunity. This engagement will combine research, evaluation, iterative design, and validation to identify and address the usability barriers affecting conversion. Based on the scope, complexity, expected business impact, and resources required, the proposed project fee is $100,000.”

    The distinction is subtle but important.

    The second approach positions the consultant as a partner addressing a business problem rather than simply supplying labor.

    The price is still grounded in reality

    Value-based pricing does not mean charging an arbitrary percentage of the client’s potential revenue.

    A consultant still needs to understand the effort required to perform the work professionally.

    For example:

    Estimated internal effort

    • Research and discovery: 100 hours
    • Evaluation and analysis: 75 hours
    • Design: 175 hours
    • Usability testing and iteration: 100 hours
    • Project management and communication: 50 hours

    Total estimated effort: 500 hours.

    That information is useful for determining whether the proposed fee makes economic sense for the consulting firm.

    But the client doesn’t necessarily need to see a 500-hour calculation as the basis for the price.

    The consultant can instead present a fixed project fee tied to the defined scope and expected value.

    Why this model can benefit both parties

    For the client, the advantage is predictability.

    The organization knows what it will receive and what the project will cost.

    For the consultant, the advantage is that greater efficiency does not automatically reduce revenue.

    Suppose the consultant develops an effective research strategy that produces the necessary insight in 400 hours rather than 500.

    Under strict hourly billing, that efficiency can reduce the consultant’s revenue.

    Under value-based pricing, efficiency can benefit both parties: the client receives the agreed-upon outcome without paying for unnecessary hours, while the consultant retains the economic benefit of its expertise and efficient methodology.

    Scenario 2: A Heuristic Evaluation of an E-Commerce Website

    Now consider a much smaller engagement.

    The client does not want a redesign.

    Instead, the organization wants an expert assessment of its existing shopping site.

    The consultant conducts a heuristic evaluation using Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics and delivers the findings in a PowerPoint presentation.

    The evaluation might identify problems involving:

    • Visibility of system status
    • Match between the system and the real world
    • User control and freedom
    • Consistency and standards
    • Error prevention
    • Recognition rather than recall
    • Flexibility and efficiency of use
    • Aesthetic and minimalist design
    • Error recovery
    • Help and documentation

    The deliverable could include screenshots, descriptions of usability problems, severity ratings, and recommendations.

    This engagement might take only a few days.

    Does that mean its value is necessarily low?

    Not necessarily.

    The value is connected to the decision the evaluation enables

    Imagine that the company is preparing to spend $250,000 redesigning its e-commerce platform.

    A relatively small heuristic evaluation conducted before that investment could uncover problems in the existing experience and help the organization make better decisions about the redesign.

    Alternatively, the company might simply want an independent expert opinion before committing development resources to a proposed change.

    In either case, the value of the evaluation is not determined solely by the number of hours required to conduct it.

    A possible pricing structure

    A consultant might estimate:

    • Preparation and site review
    • Heuristic evaluation
    • Documentation
    • Prioritization of findings
    • Presentation development
    • Stakeholder presentation

    Perhaps the work requires 30–40 hours.

    The consultant could charge an hourly rate for those hours.

    Or the consultant could offer a fixed-price heuristic evaluation package, such as:

    E-Commerce Heuristic Evaluation

    • Evaluation against Nielsen’s ten heuristics
    • Review of specified user flows
    • Annotated screenshots
    • Severity assessment
    • Prioritized recommendations
    • Executive-level PowerPoint presentation
    • Stakeholder presentation

    Fixed project fee: $X

    The actual fee would depend on factors such as the size and complexity of the site, number of workflows, number of templates, number of devices or platforms, depth of analysis, and importance of the business decision the findings will support.

    Notice the flexibility

    A value-based approach does not require every project to be a large transformation project.

    A relatively small expert evaluation can have considerable value if it informs an important decision.

    The client is buying expert judgment and actionable insight, not a certain number of hours spent clicking through webpages.

    Scenario 3: Contextual Inquiry, Usability Testing, and Low-Fidelity Wireframes

    Now consider an engagement that falls between the previous two.

    The client wants to understand how customers actually shop on its website and what should change.

    The consultant proposes:

    1. Contextual inquiry
    2. User observation
    3. Interviews
    4. Analysis of observed behaviors
    5. Usability testing with paid participants
    6. Synthesis of findings
    7. Development of low-fidelity wireframes illustrating a proposed redesign

    This project produces something different from a heuristic evaluation.

    The consultant isn’t simply reviewing the interface.

    The research involves real users, real behavior, and direct observation of the context in which the product is used.

    Why the research changes the value equation

    Suppose stakeholders disagree about why customers abandon the shopping experience.

    The marketing team believes the problem is insufficient product information.

    The product team believes the navigation is confusing.

    The development team believes checkout is too complicated.

    Rather than debating opinions internally, the organization commissions research to understand what customers actually experience.

    The value comes partly from resolving uncertainty.

    The consultant may discover that none of the stakeholders had the complete picture.

    Perhaps customers struggle to compare products. Perhaps shipping costs appear too late. Perhaps a critical control is overlooked. Perhaps users misunderstand product terminology.

    The resulting wireframes then provide a concrete way to explore potential solutions before the organization invests in high-fidelity design and development.

    What is the client really purchasing?

    The deliverables might technically be:

    • Interview notes
    • Observation findings
    • Usability test results
    • Research synthesis
    • Low-fidelity wireframes

    But the deeper value is:

    reduced uncertainty + evidence-based design direction + reduced risk of building the wrong thing.

    That distinction is important.

    A set of wireframes produced without research may look impressive but provide little assurance that the proposed design addresses the real problem.

    Research-backed wireframes can be valuable because they connect observed user behavior to a proposed solution.

    Pricing the engagement

    A value-based proposal might package the entire engagement into a fixed fee that includes:

    • Research planning
    • Participant recruitment coordination
    • Paid research participants
    • Contextual inquiry
    • Interviews
    • Usability testing
    • Analysis and synthesis
    • Design recommendations
    • Low-fidelity wireframes
    • Findings presentation

    The participant incentives and other pass-through expenses can either be included in the project fee or identified separately.

    Again, the consultant can estimate the underlying effort internally without making the client’s bill a function of every hour worked.

    Scenario 4: A One-Day Executive UX Workshop

    Value-based pricing can also apply to very short engagements.

    Suppose a company’s leadership team is preparing to invest heavily in a new digital product.

    Before development begins, the organization wants an experienced Human Factors Engineering consultant to facilitate a one-day workshop.

    The workshop could include:

    • Review of the current product concept
    • Stakeholder alignment
    • Identification of critical user journeys
    • Mapping of major usability risks
    • Prioritization of research questions
    • Definition of next-step research activities

    The workshop may take only one day to deliver.

    But the consultant may have spent decades developing the expertise required to facilitate it effectively.

    The client isn’t simply paying for eight hours in a conference room.

    It is paying for the ability to compress years of experience into a focused decision-making process.

    This is one reason hourly pricing can sometimes create an odd economic signal in professional consulting: the more experienced and efficient the consultant becomes, the less time certain problems may require.

    Value-based pricing allows expertise itself to be part of the value proposition.

    Scenario 5: A Rapid UX Risk Assessment Before a Major Software Investment

    Another useful application is the “before we spend the money” engagement.

    A company may be considering a major investment in a new e-commerce platform, enterprise application, medical device interface, or customer portal.

    Before committing significant resources, the organization wants an independent Human Factors or UX assessment.

    The consultant might conduct a rapid review of:

    • Existing user research
    • Current workflows
    • Existing prototypes
    • Competitive products
    • Known usability problems
    • Technical constraints
    • High-risk user tasks

    The output could be a concise report identifying major UX risks and recommended next steps.

    Here, the value may be associated less with improving an existing interface and more with avoiding an expensive mistake.

    That is an important dimension of value-based pricing: value can come from risk avoided, not just revenue generated.

    What Value-Based Pricing Is—and Isn’t

    Value-based pricing is sometimes misunderstood as simply charging more.

    It isn’t.

    A consultant who charges a high fee without being able to articulate the value, scope, expertise, or outcomes associated with the engagement isn’t necessarily practicing value-based pricing.

    Likewise, value-based pricing does not mean guaranteeing a business outcome that the consultant cannot control.

    Instead, it is a way of aligning the commercial model with the client’s underlying reason for hiring the consultant.

    Hourly pricing asks:

    How much time will this take?

    Project pricing asks:

    What will it cost to complete this defined scope?

    Value-based pricing asks:

    What is this engagement worth in the context of the client’s business problem?

    All three approaches can be appropriate.

    The important question is which model best fits the circumstances.

    When Value-Based Pricing Works Particularly Well

    Value-based pricing can be especially effective when:

    • The client’s problem has a clear economic impact.
    • The engagement supports an important business decision.
    • The consultant has specialized expertise.
    • The work can be defined around outcomes and deliverables.
    • The client wants predictable costs.
    • The potential value extends well beyond the consulting engagement.
    • The consultant’s efficiency and experience materially affect the quality of the result.
    • The cost of making the wrong decision is significant.

    It can be less straightforward when the scope is highly uncertain, the client cannot articulate the problem being solved, or the consultant has little visibility into the potential value of the work.

    In those situations, a time-and-materials model, capped hourly engagement, or phased approach may be more appropriate.

    A Hybrid Approach Can Be Even More Flexible

    Value-based pricing does not have to mean that every project is priced as one large fixed fee.

    A consulting firm can combine approaches.

    For example:

    Phase 1 — Discovery

    A fixed-fee engagement to understand the business problem, users, existing data, and project constraints.

    Phase 2 — Research

    A value-based fixed fee covering defined research activities and participant costs.

    Phase 3 — Design

    A fixed fee for a defined set of design deliverables.

    Phase 4 — Validation

    A fixed fee for usability testing and analysis.

    Phase 5 — Implementation Support

    An hourly or retainer-based arrangement for ongoing consultation during development.

    This structure provides flexibility when the full scope cannot reasonably be known at the beginning.

    It also prevents a common problem in UX projects: pretending that every requirement can be perfectly predicted before anyone has talked to a user.

    The Importance of Defining Value Carefully

    One of the most important parts of value-based pricing is defining what “value” actually means.

    Value can be financial:

    • Increased conversion
    • Increased revenue
    • Reduced support costs
    • Reduced development rework
    • Increased customer retention

    But it can also be operational:

    • Faster task completion
    • Fewer errors
    • Reduced training requirements
    • Better workflow efficiency
    • Greater consistency

    Or strategic:

    • Better product decisions
    • Reduced uncertainty
    • Greater confidence before development
    • Alignment among stakeholders
    • Identification of previously unknown risks

    And sometimes it is defensive:

    • Avoiding a costly redesign
    • Detecting usability problems before launch
    • Preventing requirements from being based on assumptions
    • Reducing the likelihood of an unsuccessful implementation

    A good proposal makes this connection explicit.

    A Practical Framework for Setting a Value-Based Fee

    A useful way to think about pricing a UX or Human Factors engagement is to consider five dimensions.

    1. Business impact

    How important is the problem to the organization?

    2. Scope

    How broad is the engagement, and what activities and deliverables are required?

    3. Complexity

    How difficult is the problem, and how much specialized expertise does it require?

    4. Risk and uncertainty

    What could happen if the problem isn’t properly understood or addressed?

    5. Expected value

    What decisions, improvements, savings, opportunities, or risk reductions could result from the work?

    The consultant can then use an internal effort estimate to make sure the proposed fee is economically sustainable.

    The resulting proposal might look something like:

    Project: E-Commerce Checkout Experience Redesign
    Objective: Identify and address usability barriers contributing to cart abandonment and incomplete purchases.
    Activities: Research, heuristic evaluation, user testing, design exploration, prototyping, and validation.
    Deliverables: Research findings, prioritized recommendations, prototypes, usability test results, and final design recommendations.
    Fee: $XX,XXX
    Timeline: X–X weeks.

    Notice what is missing: a long list of hourly calculations.

    The client receives clarity about what problem will be addressed, what will be delivered, how much it will cost, and why the engagement matters.

    The Real Product of UX Consulting Is Better Decisions

    Perhaps the most useful way to think about value-based pricing is this:

    A UX consultant isn’t merely selling design artifacts.

    The consultant is helping an organization make better decisions about how its products should work.

    Sometimes that means increasing conversion.

    Sometimes it means identifying usability problems before development.

    Sometimes it means discovering what users actually do rather than relying on stakeholder assumptions.

    Sometimes it means testing a design before investing heavily in implementation.

    And sometimes it means determining that a proposed solution is solving the wrong problem.

    The deliverable may be a PowerPoint presentation, a research report, a set of wireframes, a prototype, or a redesigned experience.

    But the underlying value is often the same:

    better evidence, better decisions, less risk, and better experiences for the people who use the product.

    That is why value-based pricing can be such a useful model for Human Factors Engineering and UX consulting.

    It shifts the conversation from “How many hours will this take?” to a more meaningful question:

    “What is it worth to solve this problem well?”

    And when that question can be answered thoughtfully, both the client and the consultant have a much stronger foundation for defining the scope, price, and expectations of the engagement.

  • The Science Behind Effective UX Design

    The Science Behind Effective UX Design

    On this page

    The Scientific Foundation of User Experience (UX)

    The scientific foundation of User Experience is built upon decades of scientific research in engineering psychology and human-computer interaction. The story of UX begins early during World War 2. Army Air Force pilots were crashing airplanes for no discernible reason. There were no mechanical problems, no bad weather, nothing to explain the crashes. The Army decided to ask research psychologists to study what was going on with the pilots in the cockpit. These psychologists quickly realized that the cockpit’s confusing design was causing pilots to make dangerous errors. Based on this realization, they recommended several specific design changes which eliminated the problem of the crashes. Thus was born the scientific discipline of engineering psychology.

    In the next 40 years, the computer age emerged. Engineering psychologists began to study the challenges of working with those early computers. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) made its scientific debut in 1983 with the publication of The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. This book by Stuart Car, Thomas Moran, and Allen Newell summarized hundreds of foundational experiments. These experiments firmly established HCI as a scientific sub-discipline of engineering psychology.

    The Scientific DNA of Design

    Engineering Psychology introduced several important concepts into the study of human performance. It taught us about the consequences of cognitive load on user performance. It emphasized the importance of measuring reaction time. It also explored how mental models affect whether a user interface is intuitive or not. We also learned how the limits of human perception and cognitive tunneling under pressure affect the user experience. One researcher, Daniel Kahneman, even won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the limits of human decision-making. Most importantly, engineering psychology highlighted the ease with which a poorly designed user interface can confuse people. This turns out to be as true for experienced airplane pilots as it is for everyday computer users.

    Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has proven to be an academic powerhouse. It introduced mathematical laws we use everyday because they are crucial for understanding how people interact with computers. For example, Fitts’s Law states that the time to hit a target depends on its distance and size. Hick’s Law explains that more choices lead to longer decision times.  And I have already mentioned Card, Moran, and Newell’s seminal work on HCI.

    Why the Science of UX Still Matters Today

    The scientific foundation of User Experience matters today because it addresses how UX design affects a business. In a crowded market, it reveals how UX can differentiate a business from its competitors. When businesses treat the science of UX as essential rather than an afterthought, they move from guessing to knowing. 

    1. Evidence-Based Decisions: Using the scientific method enables companies to make better decisions. They do this by forming a hypothesis, testing it through UX studies, and analyzing the data. As a result, they stop wasting money on confusing designs that turn customers away, or on features nobody wants.
    2. Predictable Behavior: Engineering psychology allows designers to map out “mental models.” They use various user research techniques like card sorts, tree testing, and talk aloud protocols, among others. An app feels intuitive when its design maps perfectly to the mental models users keep in their heads.
    3. Efficiency at Scale: Some design improvements result in seemingly small practical benefits. Suppose a design change reduces the time to finish a sales transaction by only 10 seconds. Think of a large enterprise with thousands or millions of daily online customers. Those ten seconds saved per transaction lead to reduced costs for server time. In a busy call center, saving 10 seconds on a customer call significantly boosts productivity. Those gains can translate into millions of dollars in recovered productivity.

    Translating Science into Practical Solutions

    The transition from science to high-growth business happens when companies leverage UX to solve business problems. Below are real-world examples of how successful brands applied Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Engineering Psychology to win the market:

    Amazon Reduced “Choice Paralysis” by Applying Hicks’s Law

    Amazon’s massive inventory is a recipe for overwhelming users (Hick’s Law). To counter this, Amazon applies specific psychological filters: 

    • Progressive Disclosure: Instead of showing all options at once, Amazon uses smart categorization to narrow the decision tree. For example, searching for “Harry Potter” first prompts you to choose between Books, Games, or Clothing. Fewer choices leads to less cognitive load and faster response times.
    • The “1-Click” Buy: Amazon reduces the entire checkout process to a single action with their “1-Click” Buy button. They drastically reduced the cognitive load of multi-step forms, making purchases super fast and easy.

    Apple Applied Fitts’s Law to Solve the “Fat Finger” Problem

    Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) are essentially a manual for applied HCI.

    • Touch Targets: Early HCI research identified the occlusion problem (fingers blocking the view of small targets). Apple addressed this by ensuring fingertip-sized targets (roughly 44×44 points). They used Fitts’s Law to place critical actions, like the “Back” button or Tab Bar, in easily reachable areas. Larger targets shorter distances away lead to faster, more precise, and easier responses.
    • Direct Manipulation: Features like shaking the phone to “Undo” or rotating it for video provide instant, visible results. These results mirror physical-world physics, making the digital experience feel “intuitive”. 

    Netflix Uses Customers’ Mental Models to Manage Cognitive Fatigue

    Netflix uses engineering psychology to keep users immersed without burning them out.

    • The “Skip Intro” Button: Netflix researchers identified a repetitive annoyance—the opening credits. By creating a context-aware button that only appears when relevant, they remove a micro-frustration that leads to viewer fatigue.
    • Real-time Recommendations: Nextfix’s recommendation engine uses data to learn what viewers like to watch. Netflix then uses what it learns to predict what specific viewers will want to watch next. When a viewer finishes watching one show, Netflix displays its date-driven recommendations. And it displays them on the screen exactly where and when the viewer expects to see them.

    Case Studies: Applications of the Kano Model of Customer Delight

    The Kano model is a framework for understanding how different application features impact customer satisfaction. The model allows teams to rank what to build based on what will truly matter to customers. The model specifies two dimensions:

    • Functionality and Implementation: How well a feature is implemented, from none to best.
    • Satisfaction: How customers react to a feature, from frustrated to delighted.

    Within this two-dimensional space, features can fall into five categories:

    1. Must-Be (Hygiene Factors): Expected features. Their absence causes dissatisfaction, but their presence doesn’t increase satisfaction. An example would be a shopping website that doesn’t offer a way to actually buy a product.
    2. One Dimensional (Performance): Features that cause linear satisfaction—the more you have, the happier the customer will be. For example, the ability of a search to return a variety of products rather than just one.
    3. Attractive (Delighters): Unexpected features that create high satisfaction/delight, but do not cause dissatisfaction if absent. One-click buying would be such a feature.
    4. Indifferent: Features that do not affect customer satisfaction regardless of whether they are included. An example for most shoppers would be the stock symbol of the company that manufactures a specific product.
    5. Reverse: Features that cause dissatisfaction if included and satisfaction if absent.  Such a feature would requiring shoppers to enter their credit card information before they can shop.

    Return on Investment (ROI) for Prioritizing Application Features

    ROI is the benefit an application provides less the cost of that benefit divided by the cost. ROI can be calculated using the formula below. This formula yields an ROI value on a scale from -100 to 100.

    ROI = ((Benefit – Cost) / Cost) x 100.

    Benefit in this formula can be calculated by measuring outcomes such as the combined value of the four outcomes below:

    • Increase in the likelihood of conversions.
    • Reduction in lost customers and so the lower cost of winning new customers to replace them.
    • Improvement in customer loyalty.
    • Increase in customer lifetime value.

    Unfortunately, few businesses report the true ROI from their marketing efforts. But we can assume ROI will improve if we do two things, all else being equal:

    • Focus on high-value features.
    • Avoid negative and low-value features.

    Healthcare Services Case Study: Identifying High Impact Features

    A study at the Missouri University of Science and Technology used the Kano model to analyze Student Health Services.

    • Findings: The model identified “attractive” features (delighters) that significantly boosted satisfaction. Examples include medical staff availability within 10 minutes of check-in and extended care hours.
    • Impact: By prioritizing these high-impact features over basic expectations, the facility directly increased user satisfaction levels. 

    Automobile Head-Up Displays (HUD) Case Study: Improving Operational Efficiency

    A major American automobile manufacturer wanted to design head-up displays (HUDs) for cars targeted at different customer segments. They used the Kano Model to screen out features that were not important to drivers. This allowed the manufacturer to avoid wasting time and resources building nice-to-have features drivers did not want or need.

    • Findings: Research into consumer preferences for HUD features revealed that different consumer segments had different preferences. The findings demonstrated that one HUD design would not be one-size-fits-all. Rather, auto manufacturers needed to focus on those features that would add value to a specific customer segment.
    • Efficiency Gain: This “lean” approach allowed manufacturers to be more efficient. If a single HUD design would not work for all customer segments, they avoided unnecessary expenses. They saved money by not trying to build a different HUD for each segment. If they decided to target each segment anyway, they avoided wasting time and budget on features no customer segment wanted.

    Summary of Impact by Category

    Metric Impact of Kano Model
    Customer SatisfactionCategorizes features into “Must-be,” “Performance,” and “Attractive” to meet and exceed expectations.
    Operational EfficiencyReduces “research cost” and development waste by identifying “Indifferent” features to be discarded.
    ROIOptimizes resource allocation toward features with the highest potential for revenue growth and customer loyalty.

  • Why Great UX is Essential for a Great Customer Experience

    Why Great UX is Essential for a Great Customer Experience

    A Great Customer Experience Begins with a Great UX

    While related and often used interchangeably, User Experience (UX) and Customer Experience (CX) are two different things. Understanding the difference is critical because 86% of buyers are willing to pay more for a better experience. And a strong UX is often the foundation of a strong CX.

    A perfect example of this UX-CX relationship is Instacart. As you no doubt already know, Instacart is an online grocery shopping and delivery service. You tell the Instacart app what store you want to shop at. Then choose the items you want to buy and checkout. Finally, wait for the Instacart shopper to deliver your groceries straight to your door. While you are waiting, the app shows you your shopper’s progress in real time. It also indicates how long it will be before your groceries arrive at your home.

    Now here is what is amazing about Instacart: it costs more than going to the store yourself. There is a cost for the groceries, of course. And then there is a service charge. And you also tip the shopper when you checkout. And yet Instacart is super popular. (Full disclosure: I shop at three different stores using Instacart several times each month.) Why is that?

    There are at least four reasons for Instacart’s popularity.

    • First, the Instacart app is beautifully easy to use.
    • Second, you avoid the hassle of traffic driving to the store and parking.
    • Third, there are no crowded shopping aisles to contend with.
    • Fourth, your groceries arrive at your front door as scheduled. They are exactly what you ordered, and each item is in perfect condition.

    Now here is the key point: While a great UX is essential, it is not enough. If the Instacart app wasn’t super easy to use, no one would use it. The pain wouldn’t be worth it. But imagine if Instacart didn’t deliver the groceries on time. Customers would use the app only once no matter how good the app itself was. Likewise, if the groceries arrived but were not what the customer ordered, people wouldn’t use the app again. Nor would they use the app again if the groceries arrived in bad shape.

    The bottom line is this. To succeed, a business needs to offer both a great user experience (UX) and a great customer experience (CX).

    So now let’s take a closer look what makes a UX and a CX great.

    What is User Experience (UX)?

    UX focuses on a user’s or customer’s interaction with a digital channel. Such channels include websites, mobile apps, and in-store kiosks.

    • Goal: To make interacting through the digital channel intuitive, efficient, and enjoyable for the end-user.
    • Scope: Narrow and focused. How easy and effortless it is to finish a task with the app, website, or kiosk. And the good feeling a user gets when completing the task.
    • Examples: How easy was it to find the grocery items the customer was shopping for? How fast did the checkout page load? Was it easy to pay with the right credit or debit card or a payment service like PayPal? Was the customer easily capable of tracking the status and progress of their order?
    • Key Metrics: Usability scores, task completion times and rates, backtracking, error rates, and bounce rates.

    What is Customer Experience (CX)?

    CX takes a holistic, “big picture” view of the entire relationship a customer has with your business over time.

    • Goal: To create a positive overall perception of your brand that increases loyalty and advocacy.
    • Scope: Broad and multifaceted. CX includes every touchpoint. These include customer service, sales support, advertising, and marketing. They also encompass the delivery of products and services as well as those products or services themselves.
    • Examples: The helpfulness of a support agent, the ease of returning a product, or receiving a personalized email offer.
    • Key Metrics: Net Promoter Score (NPS), Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT), Customer Effort Score (CES), and Customer Lifetime Value (CLV).

    UX vs CX: Key Differences at a Glance

    FeatureUser Experience (UX)Customer Experience (CX)
    FocusDigital Channel UsabilityBrand Perception
    ScopeFocused InteractionLifetime Journey
    TargetThe Actual End UserAnyone Interacting with the Brand
    TimelineMoment-to-momentLifetime Relationship
    ResponsibilityProduct & Design TeamsCross-Functional Teams

    Think of CX as the destination (the overall journey). Consider UX as the vehicle (the specific product used to get there).

    1. UX Shapes CX: A great user experience (UX) is essential to a providing a great customer experience (CX).
    2. CX Enables UX: At the same time, good branding and customer service (CX) can improve user experience. A great customer experience can make users more forgiving of a small issue in your digital app. But a fantastic app can’t save a brand that has terrible customer service.
    3. The “Org-Chart Disconnect”: The biggest mistake companies make is managing UX and CX in separate silos. To the customer, their experience with your business is seamless. Was a poor customer experience the fault of the UI Team? The customer service team? Someone else? Customers don’t know and don’t care.

  • Why Your Business Needs a UX Architect

    Why Your Business Needs a UX Architect

    Bridging the Gap

    A UX Architect can help you bridge the gap between your business goals and your customers’ needs. Let’s face it, customers care about your business only if it helps them meet their own needs. The same is true for people you are trying to attract as future customers.

    To see how a UX Architect bridges this gap, let’s start with what a UX Architect is. Then let’s review what they do.

    What is a UX Architect?

    We should be clear that a UX Architect is not the same as a UI Designer. A UI Designer focuses on the look and feel of an application including colors, images, and other graphical elements. In contrast, a UX Architect concentrates on how users will interact with the application. This distinction holds regardless of whether the application is a website, mobile app, or kiosk. Of course both the interaction and visual designs of the application together contribute to the overall User Experience. Both are needed, and usually the UX Architect and the UI Designer work together.

    A UX Architect is focused on the needs and perspectives of both business clients and potential users of the business’s applications. Who are these users? What will they hope to achieve when they come to a business website, mobile app, or kiosk? What mental models do they carry with them? How will those mental models affect their ability to understand your business application and how it works?

    For that reason, UX Architects often have a deep understanding of cognitive psychology. They know how people perceive, process, and respond to what they see and hear. Many of them have masters or doctoral degrees in engineering psychology or a closely-related discipline.

    What Does a UX Architect Do?

    A UX Architect works with clients to understand their business objectives for their website, mobile app, or kiosk. The Architect does this through interviews with client executives, marketing managers, and anyone else they need to speak with.

    At the same time, the UX Architect conducts research to thoroughly understand the users. These users include both customers and potential customers. The Architect must understand more than users’ basic psychological characteristics common to everyone. They must also understand their specific motivations, needs, and expectations when coming to your business.

    To fully understand those users. the UX Architect conducts various types of user research. This research includes field observations, surveys, interviews, and focus groups. They also use card sorts and various other foundational user research techniques.

    The UX Architect then develops a user experience blueprint to connect users’ needs and expectations to the client’s business objectives. Think of this blueprint as the skeleton, navigation, and interaction scheme of the application.

    A complete list of everything a UX Architect does would be extensive but the list should include at least these five:

    • Information Architecture (IA): Organize complex content and features so users can find what they need intuitively.
    • User Journeys & Flows: Map out how users move from point A to point B across different screens.
    • Wireframing: Create low-fidelity, structural layouts that dictate functionality rather than the graphical design.
    • Interactive Prototypes: Translate wireframes into interactive prototypes and then test these with representative users.
    • User Research & Data Analysis: Analyze test results, user feedback, heatmaps, and behavior to make evidence-based interaction design decisions.

    Why You Need a UX Architect

    Once you understand what a UX Architect is and does, it may seem obvious why you need one. But let’s take a closer look. In simple terms, hiring a UX Architect is a strategic move. It helps you get the product right the first time. And that saves you time and money.

    There are five important things a UX Architect can do for you:

    1

    Turn complex data into user-friendly solutions.

    If your app is confusing, has high bounce rates, or is too complex, a UX Architect specializes in simplifying it. They take messy, disorganized information and turn it into a logical flow.

    2

    Prevent Costly Rework.

    Fixing a design flaw after it has been programmed is 100x more expensive than fixing it during design. The UX Architect conducts research, creates wireframes, and tests interactive prototypes before anything gets coded. In this way, the UX Architect helps your business build the right thing on the first try.

    3

    Connect Business Goals to User Needs.

    A UX Architect doesn’t just focus on “cool” designs; they focus on ROI. They bridge the gap between what the business wants to achieve (e.g., higher conversion, reduced churn) and what users actually want.

    4

    Offer a Neutral “Fresh Pair of Eyes”.

    Internal teams can become too close to a project, missing subtle design flaws. An external UX Architect brings an unbiased perspective that will spot hidden pitfalls and missed opportunities.

    5

    Empower Your Internal Team.

    A UX Architect doesn’t just deliver an interaction design and leave. They often educate your internal employees, set up design systems, and build a culture of user-centered design.

    When Should You Engage a UX Architect?

    • Before launching a new product: To ensure the foundational structure is sound.
    • Before a major redesign: To avoid repeating past mistakes.
    • When conversions are stalling: When traffic is high, but sales are low.
    • When adding new features: When a previously great user experience degrades as you add new features.

    Why This Matters for Your Bottom Line

    A UX Architect builds your digital presence on a solid foundation. In a competitive market users have short attention spans. A well-structured, easy-to-use application keeps users engaged longer and strengthens the connection of your business goals to user needs. That in turn leads to higher conversion rates, more loyal customers, and a stronger bottom line.

    Ready to Get Started?

    In a 20-minute consultation, we will first review your business objectives for your new or existing application. Then we will discuss who your target audience is and what you know about them. Based on this brief consult, we will recommend whether a UX Architect is a good fit for you.

    Ask for a Free Consultation

  • Integrating UX Design into Agile Development

    Integrating UX Design into Agile Development

    Some years ago, I was consulting with a major insurance carrier in the Northeast US who, prior to my arrival, had spent an entire year developing their user requirements and documenting them in a massive use case catalog. They handed the use cases to me and asked me and my team to start designing the user interface (UI) that would handle all these use cases. Once we had an initial UI design for the first set of related use cases to review with the client, we were told that those use cases (which the client had spent months and thousands of dollars writing) were already out of date. Consequently, we had to update both the use cases and the UI design. What a waste, you say. Indeed. If only my client had adopted an Agile approach from the beginning!

    What is Agile Development?

    Agile is an approach to software development driven by four values. According to the Agile Alliance, these values prioritize:

    • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
    • Working software over comprehensive documentation.
    • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.
    • Responding to change over following a plan. 

    How Agile Works

    Instead of planning the entire project upfront, work is broken into small, time-boxed cycles called sprints (typically 1–4 weeks). 

    • Product Backlog: A prioritized “to-do” list of features and fixes maintained by a Product Owner.
    • Daily Stand-up: A brief 15-minute meeting where the team syncs on progress and identifies blockers.
    • Sprint Review & Retrospective: At the end of each cycle, the team demonstrates the working product to stakeholders for feedback and then reflects internally to improve their process for the next sprint. 

    Common Agile Frameworks

    Agile is an “umbrella term” for various specific methodologies, including: 

    • Scrum: The most popular framework, using defined roles (Scrum Master, Product Owner) and specific ceremonies.
    • Kanban: A visual system focusing on continuous flow and managing “Work in Progress” (WIP).
    • Extreme Programming (XP): Focuses heavily on technical excellence through practices like pair programming and test-driven development.
    • Lean: Focuses on maximizing customer value by eliminating waste.

    Why Agile Development?

    If my northeastern insurance client had adopted Agile for their development project from the beginning, they would have been able to adjust to unpredictable marketplace changes more quickly with less cost. This flexibility would have allowed them to deliver value to their customers faster than the traditional waterfall method they had originally chosen. Agile, as I said above, breaks big projects into short, iterative sprints that allow for continuous testing and feedback. 

    Key reasons for adopting Agile include:

    • Faster Time-to-Market: Businesses can release a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) early to start generating revenue and gathering real-world user data immediately.
    • Adaptability to Change: Requirements can shift mid-project without derailing the entire timeline, as new priorities are simply added to the next sprint’s backlog.
    • Higher Product Quality: Continuous testing and regular retrospectives help teams identify and fix bugs early, reducing long-term technical debt.
    • Increased Customer Satisfaction: Constant stakeholder engagement ensures the final product actually meets user needs rather than just following an outdated initial plan.
    • Risk Mitigation: By producing working software every few weeks, businesses avoid the “big bang” failure of a long-term project that misses its target after months of development.
    • Improved Team Morale: Empowering cross-functional teams with autonomy and ownership often leads to higher productivity and innovation.

    The Challenge of Integrating UX Design into Agile Projects

    When Agile first arrived on the scene, it was focused on backend and server-side development. The basic approach to UI (and UX) design was to ignore it. Developers typically chose the easiest, fastest way to build the UI that would meet both the functional requirements and their production schedule. No one would find out that real users didn’t understand the UI or found it confusing or frustrating until the development team deployed what they had built and started getting user feedback.

    It didn’t take long for everyone to realize that UX needed somehow to be brought back into the development process, but no one was quite sure at first how to do that. After various attempts, a new approach began to emerge: shift from a “deliverables-first” mindset to one of continuous discovery and hypothesis-driven development. Instead of creating high-fidelity UX designs upfront, teams validate assumptions through rapid experimentation and lightweight artifacts directly within the sprint cycle.

    Key Integration Strategies

  • Does Your Mind Wander When You Should Be Paying Attention? Join the Club!

    Imagine you are driving to a meeting. It’s a long drive and you don’t want to miss your exit off the freeway. But while you are driving, your mind begins to wander off to other things, like the argument you had with your spouse yesterday, or the Hawaiian vacation you are planning for next winter. And then after a while you notice that you past your exit over a ten minutes ago! Does this mean there is something wrong with you? Are you starting to lose your mind? The answer is no. As Zanesco and colleagues confirmed in a meta-analysis of 68 studies of mind wandering during task performance, it just means you are like everyone else!

    (more…)

  • How Do Our Cognitive Abilities Change As We Age?

    In July 2024, President Joe Biden withdrew from his campaign for reelection to the US Presidency largely due to concerns over his apparent decline in cognitive abilities. But what do we actually know about how our cognitive abilities decline as we age? Breit and colleagues decided to examine the stability of eleven major cognitive abilities over the lifespan from preschool age to late adulthood (80 and older). They analyzed the results of 205 studies testing over 87 thousand individuals at various points in their lives, using a test-retest procedure. As we might expect, they found that cognitive abilities grow rapidly during the first 20 years of life and then become remarkably stable for the remainder of the lifespan. Nevertheless, significant individual differences in cognitive stability appeared in later adulthood with some older individuals (55 to 90 years of age) showing greater declines in cognitive ability than others in the same age group, with the biggest individual differences in cognitive stability appearing around age 70.

    Fluid versus Crystallized Cognitive Abilities

    One particularly important finding was that reasoning abilities that require cognitive effort (fluid reasoning) were more likely than knowledge-based abilities (crystallized intelligence) to decline as people aged. The authors explained this somewhat counter-intuitive result as follows:

    This theory proposes that during cognitive development, fluid (or effortful processing–based) abilities are invested in the acquisition of crystallized (or knowledge-based) abilities. As the result of years of cumulative investment, these crystallized abilities are acquired and automated, such that they are better maintained even as currently available processing power wanes with aging…or varies from day to day. [p.424]

    President Joe Biden, prior to his decision to end his reelection campaign, similarly argued that while he was indeed aging, he had accumulated vast wisdom and political know-how; that is, crystallized intelligence. He was probably right. Voters’ concern of course was that a President also needs to be able to reason through new problems that inevitably arise from time-to-time, if not daily.

    (more…)

  • Not Getting Enough Sleep Affects Your Emotional Health

    We have all experienced nights when we didn’t get enough sleep. And we may have noticed that as a result we were more irritable or more anxious or generally less able to handle stressful situations. In order to understand better the effects of sleep deprivation on our emotional health, Palmer and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis over 154 relevant studies. They found that, as many of us may have experienced, sleep deprivation often reduces positive emotions and increases anxiety. The authors also found that disrupting REM (normal dreaming) sleep increased negative emotions more than disruptions during other stages of sleep.

    (more…)

  • Cognitive Behavior Therapy Works with Depressed Young People By Reducing Negative Thinking

    The authors of this study tried to determine the mechanisms by which two types of psychotherapy help relieve clinical depression in young people: Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT). To do this, they examined the results of 34 randomized controlled experiments, 27 of which focused on CBT while only 6 examined IPT studies and one included both CBT and IPT. Among their results, they found clear evidence that CBT helps to alleviate depression by reducing negative thinking.

    But how does CBT reduce negative thinking? In theory, CBT should reduce negative thinking by improving the person’s problem solving skills and helping them to reframe or change how they think about problems in their lives. But the authors did not find evidence that CBT improved problem solving or reframing. Does this mean that CBT doesn’t work the way we think it does? Or does it mean that we are just not very good at measuring problem solving skill or reframing? Answers to those questions remain for the future. For now, it may be sufficient to know that CBT does reduce negative thinking in young people and thereby helps them to overcome depression.

    (more…)