In today’s article you will learn:
👉 What do pigeons, dopamine rush & the famous Tinder swipe have in common — about the famous Skinner experiment from 1948
👉 What other digital solutions use a similar mechanism, how to recognize it and how not to get caught in its trap
It’s not uncommon for me to encounter a situation in which someone tells me about some new app, most often it’s something that has triggered certain emotions, usually positive (so there’s an element of excitement in the story), e.g. “hey, have you tested the new X? it has such a super Y and you can do Z, well mega recommend!”. — For X, insert any name of the app, and for Y, Z — any goals or tasks that can be achieved thanks to it in this very cool, exciting way.
That’s right.
We rarely share among ourselves something that didn’t make a big impression on us, that is, didn’t stir up any emotions. Also, we usually don’t talk in the jargon of programmers or interface designers, but rather simply — calling things (for us) by name, giving them a realistic dimension, rather than describing functional requirements and technical components. And least of all, we wonder:
what’s behind the fact that it’s so engaging?
why did using it evoke so much excitement in me?
how is it so easy to use that I didn’t even have to call 112 for help?
why can’t I stop using this app? and I keep closing it and it annoys me a bit, but after a while I open it again?
Just like that, within seconds there was an evaluation, we decided that ‘well that’s cool!” and that’s enough — I use it, or even recommend it, let others know about it too!
Aside from the fact that there are various (and mostly quite consistent) theories about how many seconds a user takes to evaluate and decide to continue using an app/website, such as:
Users need about 50 milliseconds (ms) (i.e. 0.05 seconds) to form an opinion about your site that determines whether they stay or leave
It takes 2.6 seconds for eyes to focus on key areas of a website.
or that first impressions are 94% related to design evaluation, and only 6% to content!
P.S. Above I’m quoting researches related to websites, it will be a bit different in case of more complex applications or business-type solutions, nevertheless the question of the first evaluation remains at a similar level of sophistication — we evaluate, but we don’t really know why we evaluated so.
So, if we only needed only 0.05 to 2.6 seconds for the initial evaluation, it’s all the more uncommon for anyone to consider: how many people, how much work or how much knowledge is behind this simple solution, e.g. related to 2 clicks and 3 seconds spent in the application, that make it work and it works cool! Well, because if it works and it’s only 1 button, well, hello — what’s the big deal? Definitely not a rocket science!?
Well, let’s jump to the reality. We’ll start with 4 important dates in this story:
Now it’s 2022
Tinder app was launched in 2012
The first iPhone was introduced in 2007
The psychological experiment conducted by Skinner on which the key mechanic of Tinder is based is from 1948
I wonder if Skinner knew back in 1948 that in 64 years some group of interface designers based on the results of his experiment would make a smartphone app (the kind of computer that everyone carries in their pocket) that would revolutionize dating and people from all over the world would be able to pair up or reject each other with a flick of the thumb and why that would be so cool and addictive?
No, it’s not a match!
It was, of course, a rhetorical question. Skinner was certainly no Nostradamus of Psychology kind of human, and behind all these “trivial” solutions is nothing but: science! Biology, psychology, cognitive science, science — facts, research. Breaking news! No, not just drawing pretty colored squares and circles. In this particular case we are dealing with exactly that: behaviorism and operant conditioning (which I had the pleasure of learning about in my first year of psychology).
How did it happen that the 1948 pigeon experiment could serve as the mechanics for the popular 2007 dating app?
In the cited experiment — commonly known as the “Skinner box” — American psychologist BF Skinner locked pigeons in a cage with large buttons that were pecked by them, then he randomly threw food into the cage, an action he repeated several more times (randomly). He observed that the pigeons began to peck more in the hope of receiving additional food (the conclusion was that they related the action they were influenced by = pecking, to the response = the food).
What does this have to do with Tinder?
When users move their finger to the right (signaling interest in the dating app’s profile) or to the left (no interest), it reinforces a behavior similar to Skinner’s experiment — the behavior described above is based on an instrumental (operant) conditioning mechanism and is linked to a system of punishment and reward.
In brief:
pigeons peck at a button because they expect to get food as a result = reward
people swipe because they are getting matched = reward
and all this is accompanied by magic in the form of science: variable reward and dopamine rush.
To complement Skinner’s experiment — in another study (more contemporary) because from 2010, scientists proved that the anticipation of a reward causes a greater rush of dopamine (a neurotransmitter that does a huge job in, among other things, our reward and motivation system) than simply receiving a reward, so the fact that we swipe left and right causes an increase in excitement and continuation of the task, hoping that eventually there will be a reward in the form of finding a match. This also explains why on one “match” we don’t stop. We want to feel the excitement again, so we start the same process again — we continue the task in anticipation of the next reward.. and again and again.
It’s not a secret, the inspiration for the pigeon experiment is bluntly admitted by Tinder’s co-founder Jonathan Badeen himself.
Here you can watch the youtube video that illustrates the experiment itself.
The same mechanism is used not only by Tinder, but by many games and social media, and it’s often turned into quite prosperous businesses — e.g., in the form of limiting the number of available “moves” and having to buy a paid version if you want to use a larger or unlimited number — e.g., swipes as in the case of Tinder: you want to swipe more (feel that pleasant dopamine rush and receive rewards)? you have to pay!
Now, that we’ve disenchanted the scientific theory behind the mechanics of many addictive games that cause a dopamine ejection in our body in anticipation of a reward — woah! Then what can we do to protect ourselves from this and not get sucked in, or know when to stop?
To answer this question, again, we need to take a few steps back and understand: what does dopamine rush give us, and why can it be dangerous to us when, after all, it keeps us feeling good and motivated?
And here we go with some neuroscience.
The dopamine rush brings pleasure, followed quickly by pain or descent to keep us motivated.
Dr. Lembke (Psychiatrist, author of a great book whose title I throw in at the end) said:
“This balancing swing of pleasure and pain made sense in the days of early humans, when we had to constantly seek our basic needs — food, water, shelter. It’s really an ingenious way to make sure that no matter what we do, it’s pleasurable. It doesn’t last long, and with the pain resulting from the descent, it causes us to immediately start looking again.”
And how does this relate to modern times?
I don’t need to convince you that we now live in a world of abundance, not scarcity, and our brains have not evolved to constantly receive huge & frequent doses of dopamine, which we are loaded with at every turn: consuming sugar, browsing social media, watching TV, having sex, taking drugs or any of the other dopamine triggers so readily available.
When we are repeatedly exposed to pleasure-inducing stimuli, our brains adjust and eventually we need more and more to feel “normal” or pain-free. This is called a “dopamine deficit,” and the cycle that leads us there can actually even lead to depression, anxiety, irritability and insomnia because we are unable to enjoy more modest rewards.
So how do we navigate a world overloaded with dopamine?
The 3 survival strategies that Dr. Lembke suggests (and I may disappoint you, but none of them are shortcuts) are:
Physical — creating an actual distance between you and your addiction. This may simply mean removing the addictive substance from your home and space. For someone who is addicted to video games, this could mean a separate laptop for work and one for play.
Chronological — A 30-day fast from your addictive behavior counts as a chronological or temporal strategy. It can also look like intermittent fasting for someone with a food addiction or timeout control on social media apps.
Categorical — means limiting yourself to certain types of “substances.” — perhaps a certain TV show is pulling you beyond your control, but you can watch another series in moderation and with a sense of control. Giving up a TV show from your life would be a categorical strategy.
Sound like a lot of work? Because it is. But as in everything, moderation is the most important thing. Even the smallest step towards conscious enjoyment of surrounding and immersive pleasures should help you consciously and reflectively identify whether you have control over something, but are you driven by balancing on the edge of another dopamine rush, after which, after all, it feels so nice?
📖 The book I’m referring to — Dopamine nation — lots of great knowledge from Dr. Lembke, reg. finding contentment and connection and keeping dopamine under control.
✦ Katy