Psychology Map

---
name: psychology-map
description: Map 30 behavioral, perceptual, conversion, and trust mechanisms with evidence ratings and failure modes. Sub-skill: load only when routed from the hook-everything entry skill, not for general writing or editing.
---
# Psychology Map (30 Mechanisms Across 6 Layers)

Select mechanisms based on the user's exact cognitive state. Always state the **Evidence Level** (`STRONG`, `MIXED`, `WEAK`) when explaining a design choice.

## Evidence Rating Key

- **`STRONG`** indicates support from independent replications or meta-analyses with consistent directional effects.
- **`MIXED`** indicates a real theoretical construct or practical framework with contested replication, strong moderators, or indirect transfer to marketing and UX.
- **`WEAK`** indicates failed independent replication in modern meta-analyses, included here to prevent misuse.

## Layer 1: Attention, Curiosity & Creative Bisociation

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M1** | **Information Gap** (Loewenstein 1994) | STRONG | Curiosity triggers when attention focuses on a specific gap between what we already know and what we want to know. | Anchor a question in facts the audience already half-knows, exposing one missing causal link. | Audience has zero baseline context, the gap is too wide, or the answer is trivial. |
| **M2** | **Narrative Transportation** (Green & Brock 2000) | STRONG | Immersion in a concrete scene with sensory detail and human stakes absorbs cognitive bandwidth and lowers counter-arguing. | Open inside a specific moment of action or failure before stating any abstract thesis. | The story feels invented or disconnected from the core utility. |
| **M3** | **Cognitive Fluency & Strategic Disfluency** (Alter & Oppenheimer 2009) | MIXED | High processing ease (fluency) signals safety and truth; a small anomaly (disfluency) can wake up analytical attention, though disfluency effects replicate inconsistently. | Keep UI and prose effortless to scan, and insert one counter-intuitive metric or contrast to stop skimming. | Everything is disfluent (causes confusion) or everything is overly smooth (induces autopilot skimming). |
| **M4** | **Schema Violation / Asymmetric Specificity** | MIXED | The brain predicts the next token or event; exact, unrounded numbers or unexpected pairings break prediction and lock focus (practitioner heuristic). | Use forensic specifics ("4:55 PM on a Friday", "14 lines of SQL", "$84 left") instead of vague summaries. | Specificity is irrelevant trivia that does not connect to the payoff. |
| **M23** | **Bisociation (Cross-Matrix Collision)** (Koestler 1964) | MIXED | Conceptual creativity model where originality occurs when two previously unrelated, self-consistent frames of reference collide to solve a single problem. | Frame a familiar domain problem through the operational mechanics of an orthogonal field (e.g., ER triage applied to incident response). | The analogy is a superficial cliche rather than a structural mechanism match. |

## Layer 2: Perceptual, Spatial & Visual UX Attention (See `skills/visual-ux-hooks`)

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M27** | **Von Restorff Isolation Effect** (Von Restorff 1933) | STRONG | When multiple homogeneous stimuli are presented, the single item that differs in form or spacing is attended to and remembered far better. | Keep 90% of the layout or typography calm and neutral so the single primary action or key metric stands out effortlessly. | Bolding or badging 5 different elements on the same screen (visual noise cancels isolation). |
| **M28** | **Choice Overload & Hick's Law** (Iyengar & Lepper 2000; Hick 1952; Scheibehenne et al. 2010) | MIXED | Decision time increases logarithmically with options (Hick); excessive uncategorized choices can paralyze action (30% vs 3% is the original 2000 jam study result only; Scheibehenne et al. 2010 meta-analysis found a near-zero mean effect across 50 studies unless options are uncategorized). | Cap visible decision points to `1 Primary Action + 1 Escape Hatch`, or pre-filter options via a 1-click diagnostic. | Dumping 12 navigation links, 5 pricing tiers, or 4 competing CTAs in the hero section. |
| **M29** | **Doherty Threshold (<400ms) vs. Labor Perception (>1.5s)** (Doherty & Thadani 1982; Buell & Norton 2011) | MIXED | Direct manipulation requires `<400ms` response to sustain flow; high-stakes background analysis can benefit from `1.5s-3s` visible step-by-step transparency. | Make UI toggles and previews instant (`<400ms`), and show explicit multi-step progress when running deep diagnostics. | Adding artificial delays to basic UI clicks, or returning a complex audit in 10ms with zero explanation of what was checked. |

## Layer 3: Action, Momentum & Behavioral Conversion

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M5** | **Fogg Behavior Model (B=MAP)** (Fogg 2019) | MIXED | Practical diagnostic model stating action happens when Motivation, Ability (low friction), and a Prompt converge at the exact same moment. | Increase action by cutting steps (Ability) and aligning Prompts with existing habits before trying to pump Motivation. | Spamming more prompts when Ability (friction) is the real blocker. |
| **M6** | **Endowed Progress** (Nunes & Dreze 2006) | MIXED | People given a credible head start toward a goal completed it at higher rates (34% vs 19% in field study). | Credit the user for steps already completed via auto-detection or import, stating the exact reason. | Progress bar is padded with fake steps the user sees through. |
| **M7** | **Goal-Gradient Hypothesis** (Hull 1932; Kivetz et al. 2006) | STRONG | Effort accelerates exponentially as distance to a visible milestone shrinks. | Break long onboarding or long reads into short, visibly closeable milestones ("1 step left to live preview"). | The finish line is hidden or moves backward after action. |
| **M8** | **Default & Status-Quo Architecture** (Johnson & Goldstein 2003) | STRONG | People overwhelmingly stick with pre-selected defaults because switching costs cognitive effort and perceived risk. | Ship working defaults, pre-loaded sample data, and sensible configurations out of the box. | Defaults opt users into unwanted billing or privacy exposure. |
| **M24** | **Self-Perception & Foot-in-the-Door** (Bem 1967; Freedman & Fraser 1966; Burger 1999) | MIXED | People infer their own commitment by observing their voluntary micro-actions, though meta-analytic FITD effects are small and sensitive to perceived pressure. | Invite a tiny, zero-risk, high-value micro-action first (e.g., running a 1-click check or toggling a parameter) before asking for signup or purchase. | The first step feels like a trap or requires personal data before delivering value. |
| **M25** | **Mental Accounting & Zero-Price Affect** (Thaler 1985; Shampanier, Mazar & Ariely 2007) | MIXED | People evaluate costs inside separate mental budgets; a $0 utility item reduces downside risk, though zero-price offers can attract low-intent users without qualification boundaries. | Offer an un-gated, zero-price micro-tool that solves step 1 completely, and anchor paid tiers against an existing "weekly waste budget" rather than "new software spend." | Using "Free" as a bait-and-switch where the free output is locked behind a surprise paywall. |

## Layer 4: Memory, Ownership & Return Loops

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M9** | **Ovsiankina Task Resumption** (Ovsiankina 1928; Ghibellini & Meier 2025) | STRONG | An interrupted task the user still intends to complete creates an intrusive urge to resume. Quieted by completion or a concrete plan (Masicampo & Baumeister 2011). | Save exact cursor/workspace state and offer a 1-click resume link or a 1-click "schedule for later" button. | Turning resumption into needy guilt notifications ("We miss you"). |
| **M10** | **Zeigarnik Recall Claim** (Zeigarnik 1927; 2025 Meta-Analysis) | WEAK | Often cited as "unfinished tasks are remembered better," but a 2025 meta-analysis found no reliable memory advantage outside original data. | Never cite Zeigarnik as proof that cliffhangers boost memory. Use **M9 (Ovsiankina)** or **M1 (Information Gap)**. | Used to justify withholding basic answers behind cheap cliffhangers. |
| **M11** | **Generation Effect** (Slamecka & Graf 1978) | STRONG | Information a person actively generates or infers themselves is remembered and valued far higher than passive reading. | Give 90% of a logical chain so the reader connects the final 10% in their own mind; let users tweak an input on screen 1. | Asking the user to generate an answer when they lack the context to succeed. |
| **M12** | **IKEA Effect & Co-Creation** (Norton, Mochon & Ariely 2012) | MIXED | Investing manageable labor into assembling or customizing an artifact increases valuation in lab studies, provided the user succeeds cleanly. | Let users configure 2-3 high-impact building blocks that visibly shape their project before asking for commitment. | The assembly task is too complex and the user fails (ownership drops to zero on failure). |
| **M13** | **Peak-End Rule & Duration Neglect** (Fredrickson & Kahneman 1993) | STRONG | Retrospective judgment of an experience is governed by its single best/worst peak moment and its final moment, not total length. | Engineer one unmistakable "aha" payoff and end every piece of writing or session on a crisp, resonant note. | Ending a piece with a repetitive summary paragraph or ending a trial with a surprise paywall. |
| **M14** | **Hook Loop & Variable Utility** (Eyal 2013; Ferster & Skinner 1957) | MIXED | Trigger -> Action -> Variable Reward -> Stored Investment that loads the next internal trigger (practical framework). | Provide variability through fresh, genuinely useful signal (new anomalies, faster workflows) and compounding user assets. | Using empty extrinsic slot-machine mechanics (badges/streaks) with no utility. |

## Layer 5: Defense Bypass, Cognitive Routing & Regret Regulation

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M15** | **Psychological Reactance & Autonomy Framing** (Brehm 1966) | STRONG | When people sense their freedom to choose or think is being pushed, they resist; explicitly affirming their freedom to refuse disarms resistance. | Explicitly state who should *not* use the product or read the guide, and include visible zero-guilt exit options. | Used as manipulative reverse psychology ("Don't click this link"). |
| **M16** | **Self-Determination & Identity Motivation** (Ryan & Deci 2000; Oyserman 2007) | MIXED | Intrinsic action relies on Autonomy / Competence / Relatedness, and sticks when congruent with the person's craft identity (*difficulty-as-importance*). | Mirror the user's competence and frame manageable effort as a badge of serious craft. | Talking down to the audience or using aspirational lifestyle fluff that clashes with their real identity. |
| **M17** | **Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM)** (Friestad & Wright 1994) | STRONG | Once an audience recognizes a tactic as a "persuasion attempt," they shift from message processing to defense/skepticism mode. | Strip all marketing signposts (exclamation marks, superlatives, artificial countdowns) so the tactic never triggers PKM recognition. | Using templates or hype formulas the audience has already seen a dozen times. |
| **M18** | **Loss Aversion on Owned Assets** (Kahneman & Tversky 1979; Gal & Rucker 2018) | MIXED | Owned losses weigh heavier than hypothetical gains, though general loss aversion is often confounded with status-quo inertia (Gal & Rucker 2018). | Quantify real leakage in the user's current workflow or show what they have already built in the sandbox before asking to save. | Inventing fake scarcity ("Only 2 digital seats left"). |
| **M26** | **Regret Regulation & Process Justification** (Zeelenberg 1999; Zeelenberg & Pieters 2007) | MIXED | Buyers hesitate when they anticipate **Process Regret** (self-blame for making an unjustifiable or gullible decision). | Reduce anticipated regret at conversion by providing clear decision justification (exact benchmarks, failure bounds, and 1-click self-serve reversal). | Pressuring the user with "Buy now before you regret missing out" (increases anxiety and process regret). |
| **M30** | **Elaboration Likelihood (ELM) & Construal Routing** (Petty & Cacioppo 1986; Trope & Liberman 2010) | ELM = STRONG; Construal Level Theory = MIXED | High-motivation/ability audiences process via the **Central Route** (demanding concrete, low-construal forensic proof), while low-ability/skimming audiences enter via **Peripheral Cues** (note: for CLT, publication-bias-adjusted estimates are smaller than the original literature). | Match hook density and construal level to the reader's current route (see `skills/audience-calibration`). | Giving fluffy peripheral slogans to a Central-Route engineer, or dumping a 40-line table on a cold mobile scroller. |

## Layer 6: Deep Trust Architecture (See `skills/trust-architecture`)

| ID | Mechanism | Evidence | Core Psychology | Invisible Application | Fails / Backfires When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **M19** | **ABI Trust Triad** (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman 1995) | STRONG | Trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability based on **Ability** (competence), **Benevolence** (user-first motive), and **Integrity** (honest principles). | Prove Ability with live demos, Benevolence by warning against over-buying, and Integrity with transparent pricing/limits. | High Ability paired with low Benevolence (smart product that traps users in dark patterns). |
| **M20** | **Pratfall Effect** (Aronson, Willerman & Floyd 1966; Helmreich et al. 1970) | MIXED | A competent entity can become more trusted after admitting a small, real flaw, though Helmreich et al. (1970) showed the effect depends on observer traits and baseline competence. | Pair proof of high competence with an upfront admission of a real limitation or past engineering blunder. | Admitting flaws *before* competence is established (makes the creator look amateur). |
| **M21** | **Inoculation Theory (Two-Sided Refutation)** (McGuire 1961; Banas & Rains 2010) | STRONG | Exposing an audience to a weakened version of a counter-argument and refuting it builds lasting immunity against future skepticism. | Raise the reader's strongest objection yourself in paragraph 2 ("You might wonder why we didn't just use Postgres...") and answer it with data. | Raising a strawman objection instead of the real doubt in the user's mind. |
| **M22** | **Operational Transparency & Costly Signaling** (Buell & Norton 2011; Spence 1973) | MIXED | Costly signaling (un-fakeable effort) builds credibility, while operational transparency ("labor illusion") increases value in specific waiting tasks. | Expose the exact steps or benchmarks running under the hood instead of hiding behind vague "AI magic" claims. | Faking slow loading spinners when no real computation or verification is happening. |