Plan for emotions

Purchase decisions are often made well in advance—subscriptions, resolutions, plans. But the moment of actual use is different: we face stress, fatigue, and distraction. The key question is: How accurately can people predict their future states? What misjudgments arise in this process, and what does the evidence tell us?

Studies

Sexual Arousal and Decision-Making

Dan Ariely and George Loewenstein conducted a daring experiment in 2006: 25 male students at UC Berkeley completed the same questionnaire twice—once in a neutral state and once during sexual arousal. The questions were provocative: "Would you have unprotected sex?" and "Would you give alcohol to a minor in exchange for sex?" In the aroused state, agreement with risky behaviors doubled. The astonishing part: these same men had considered such answers completely unthinkable when in the neutral state. Yet they became different people once emotion took over.

Hunger and Shopping Behavior

In 1998, Daniel Read and Barbara van Leeuwen asked 200 office workers to choose from a list of healthy snacks (apples, yogurt) and unhealthy snacks (chocolate bars, chips) for the coming week. The only difference: half chose shortly before lunch (hungry), the other half after lunch (satiated). Hungry participants chose 74% unhealthy snacks, while satiated participants chose only 42%. Notably, when the satiated participants were asked to predict what they would choose when hungry, they were completely wrong. The rational state does not understand the emotional one.

Pain anticipation

In 1996, George Loewenstein conducted a revealing study with 60 chronic pain patients at a clinic. While pain-free, participants were asked to determine their desired medication dosage for their next pain episode. They chose doses 40% lower than what they actually needed when experiencing acute pain. Despite years of firsthand experience with their condition, they couldn't accurately imagine in their pain-free state how intense the pain would become. This phenomenon explains why good intentions often collapse in emotionally charged moments.

The Cold Water Empathy Experiment

George Loewenstein and his colleagues conducted a revealing experiment at Carnegie Mellon University in 2005. Sixty participants were asked to predict how long they could keep their hand in 3°C ice water. One group made this prediction in a relaxed state; the other made their prediction while already experiencing the cold with their other hand submerged in ice water. The relaxed group estimated an average of 62 seconds—unrealistically optimistic. The group currently experiencing cold pain predicted only 37 seconds, which was much closer to the actual endurance time of 35 seconds. The striking finding: only those who are currently suffering can accurately assess how unbearable that suffering is. This represents a 70% difference between relaxed prediction and reality.

The Hunger Shopping Study

In 2012, Alison Jing Xu and Norbert Schwarz at the University of Minnesota tested how hunger distorts our ability to predict future needs. They asked 200 participants to plan a weekly shopping trip—either satiated after lunch or hungry before a meal. The hungry group purchased 45% more calories and 23% more total products. Even more revealing: one week later, the same individuals were asked to retrospectively assess whether their shopping decisions had been sensible. The satiated group found their earlier hunger-driven shopping excessive and irrational—they remembered being hungry, but not the intensity of that hunger. The now-hungry group judged their previous satiated shopping as too frugal. The finding: we cannot accurately reconstruct our previous emotional states, even when they occurred just days earlier.

Principle

Which principle for Customer Experience Design can be derived from this? The core principle is this: Successful customer experience accounts for the emotional states in which customers actually make decisions, not just those in which they plan. While companies often design for the rational, calm customer, real decisions happen under time pressure, stress, or other heightened emotional states. This principle is particularly effective for impulse purchases and high-emotion situations, but becomes less relevant for highly deliberate, long-term decisions. It has the greatest impact when the gap between planning context and decision-making context is especially wide—such as late-night online shopping versus morning research. The following guidelines demonstrate how to apply this principle in practice.

Guidelines

Understanding the 'hot' moment

Identify the emotional or physical state your customers experience when making decisions. Are they hungry? Stressed? Excited? Anxious? Design your marketing and user experience with empathy for these decision-making moments, not from the comfort of a meeting room. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Lieferdienste: The hungry customer at 8 PM is different from the satisfied customer who rates the app. For the hungry one: Quick selection, large images, no obstacles. For the satisfied one: Rational features.
• Versicherungen: Customers buy insurance in a 'cold' state – when everything is fine. But they need it in a 'hot' state – when panic strikes. Communication must serve both states.

Build in cooling-off mechanisms

For decisions with long-term consequences: Build in delays that enable cooling off. Cancellation rights, waiting periods before finalization, and "sleep on it" reminders protect customers from impulsive choices made in the heat of the moment. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Amazon: 'Add to Cart' instead of 'Buy Now' as the primary CTA. The delay provides room for cooling off – and prevents returns from impulse purchases.
• Trading-Apps: Warning prompts during volatile markets: 'Are you sure?' This interruption forces a brief pause – and prevents panic selling.

Offer annual subscriptions instead of monthly subscriptions

People find it easier to make rational decisions about the future than about the present. Offer commitment devices such as discounted annual subscriptions, savings plans, or automatic payment arrangements. Customers are more willing to commit when the obligation starts at a later date rather than immediately. The following examples illustrate this guideline:

• Spotify: Monthly subscription €10.99, annual subscription €89.99 (= 2 months free). Most choose the annual subscription – and cancel less frequently because the decision has already been made.
• Adobe Creative Cloud: Annual contract with monthly payment: The customer commits for one year but pays monthly. The commitment is long-term, while the costs feel manageable.

Tests under realistic stress

Don't conduct usability tests in a relaxed lab environment—test under realistic stress conditions instead. If your app is used in a hospital, under time pressure, or with a poor internet connection, test it in exactly those conditions. Testing in a comfortable office won't reveal how frustrating your 3-second loading bar actually is. Simulate time pressure, distractions, and mobile use on the go. What works in the lab often fails in the real world.

Proactive help in stressful moments

Identify the most emotionally stressful moments in your customer journey—complaints, cancellations, payment issues, and technical errors. These are precisely where customers need more support, not less. Offer help proactively before being asked. Reduce forms, simplify processes, and enable direct human contact. What seems trivial to you as a designer may be an insurmountable barrier for a stressed customer.

Regular self-experience of one's own service

Require your entire team—including management—to regularly experience your own service as a real customer. Not as a privileged employee, but anonymously, with genuine problems. Attempt to cancel a subscription, file a product complaint, or contact support with a complex issue. The empathy gap closes only through personal experience, and this understanding fades quickly—repeat the exercise at least quarterly.

Design for the worst case

Don't design for the ideal user with fast internet, a large screen, and plenty of time. Design for the 85-year-old grandmother with poor eyesight, a slow connection, and little patience. Design for the stressed father supervising children while trying to complete a task. Design for the sick patient who has just received a shocking diagnosis. If it works in the worst-case scenario, it works for everyone. The reverse is not true.