← back to work

Live Study · Clarity Sticks

Does how a finding is told change whether it's understood?

A live, randomized comparison of two ways to present one real finding from the Empathy Pays case study — a structured narrative vs. a flat data dump. The underlying facts are identical either way; only the structure differs. You'll be shown one version below.

Clarity Sticks · live comparison

Distrust didn't stop the riskier choice — it went with it

People named the interface untrustworthy, and then bet on it.

88 people were randomly assigned to one of 3 simulated fintech apps, and asked to save or spend a $10 welcome bonus.

Each condition tested an interface design:

Transparent information with compounding-interest charts and explicit volatility warnings.
Social recognition mechanics — badges and a peer leaderboard.
A Mystery Growth Box with a variable-ratio reinforcement mechanic.
Dependability vs. share who chose the risky option Dependability (1–7) Chose risky (%)
7.05.33.51.80.0100%75%50%25%0%User-CenteredGamifiedGamblified

Click or hover a condition for exact figures. n = 88 (29/30/29); behavioral n = 86.

Despite rating the Gamblified interface as the least trustworthy of the three, users chose the risky option nearly twice as often as the gamification group. People named the interface untrustworthy, and then bet on it.

Take me to live findings →