Designed Influence.

By Damiano Cerrone and Menno Cramer

How Architectural Spaces Shape Our Decisions.

This is a set of semi curated notes of discussions between Damiano and Menno after reading “Creating useful policy steering rooms” by Mulgan and Quaggiotto. This set of notes laid the foundation for the article: “Rethinking the architecture of choice.”

1 PREMISE 

Summary of the article, problem statement and opportunity.

Imagine entering an environment where every element, from the ceiling height to the ambient scent, is strategically designed to influence your next decision. This is a deliberate orchestration of space, where every designed element is optimised to elicit specific emotional and cognitive responses. Textures and materials are not merely chosen for their appeal but for their profound psychological impacts—each element fine-tuned to support cognitive functions and modulate emotional states.

Welcome to the fascinating world of environmental psychology and neuroergonomics, where architects and designers wield the subtle power to shape our thoughts and behaviours through the spaces we inhabit. By transcending aesthetics we move to the intangible forces that shape our decisions, whether in the tranquil setting of an artist's studio or the high-pressure atmosphere of a strategic command centre.

This narrative guides you through various meticulously designed spaces.. Picture the boardroom, where executives face high-stakes decisions that could pivot the future of their companies. Now, contrast that with the sparse functionality of an emergency bunker, where world leaders must think clearly amid a crisis. At the launch of an enemy ICBM, the president of the United States of America has a 6 minute window to decide how to respond. Where is this decision taken? What does the room look like? What is the president looking at? City halls, parliaments, or the house of representatives, where each member represents nearly 800 000 people. Each environment, whether designed for calm deliberation or rapid response, plays a crucial role in the outcomes of the decisions made within its walls. (can we add a funny quote, like “the wallpaper started the war?”

2 PATTERNS

Framing-Definition - Diverge - Converge

Drawing on interdisciplinary research from behavioural psychology and biourbanism, we can explore how our environments shape our cognitive processes in unexpected, yet predictable, ways. This exploration uncovers the nuanced language of space, revealing how skilled designers leverage this vocabulary to influence our decisions—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. This process, however, comes with its ethical complexities, as designers navigate the fine line between guiding decision-making and manipulating it. As we examine these dynamic environments, we come to understand the critical role that designed spaces play in shaping the decisions that ultimately sculpt our society.

One immediate concern is the inherent bias that such design introduces when tasked with creating a space that is conducive to decision making. As creatures, through an ongoing process of experiencing, understanding and assimilating, we engage with our surroundings. This engagement allows us to 'own' our interpretation of reality. It's inescapable that any designed space or object will influence us in some way, shaping how we perceive what is attractive, useful or intuitive. Feelings of security, awe or decisiveness can be evoked by certain environments. For example, casinos avoid the use of right angles to minimise decision points, use scents such as lemon to dampen emotional responses, and use intricate patterns to maintain a state of subdued engagement. Drawing on a wide range of studies from behavioural psychology to bio-urbanism, this concept, which might be called 'neuro-ergonomics', examines how spatial design and object interaction affect our behaviour.

Our species processes the surrounding world through lived experiences.

When contemplating the design of a space intended for decision-making, the inherent concern of bias emerges starkly. This experiential engagement allows us to assimilate and reinterpret reality, tailoring it to our own perceptions. Invariably, it's impracticable to craft a space, object, or experience devoid of influence. Attributes such as aesthetics, utility, and intuition shape our reactions—certain environments instil safety, others awe, while some guide our choices or deter decision-making (consider how casinos, devoid of right angles, facilitate continuous play, or how the scent of lemon might suppress the amygdala, alongside intricate patterns that mildly sedate our senses to keep us engaged). The interplay between spatial design and behavioural outcomes spans multiple disciplines, from behavioural psychology to biourbanism, culminating in the field of neuroergonomics.

One particular study resonates with these themes. In 2012, Meyers Levy and Zhu investigated how the spatial dynamics of a room, specifically ceiling height, affect human cognition and behaviour. Their findings suggest that high ceilings, which symbolise spatial freedom, encourage abstract and creative thinking, while lower ceilings, which evoke a sense of confinement, encourage focusing on detail and precision. The research also shows how these cognitive styles influence individual preferences and actions: Participants in environments with high ceilings tended to favour abstract and innovative products, while those in more confined spaces tended to favour practical, detail-oriented items.

This research as well as many others have significant implications for architectural and interior design, suggesting that the design of physical spaces can be strategically used to influence cognitive processing and behaviour. For example, creative workspaces or brainstorming rooms might benefit from higher ceilings to enhance creative thinking, while environments requiring attention to detail, such as laboratories or financial offices, might be more effective with lower ceilings.

We are entering a new cycle, experiencing a sea change.

Navigating through the maze of buzzwords has become a fascinating journey of social discovery. It is both exhilarating and daunting to live at the edge of a transformative era, where the pressure of technological advancements and the sheer magnitude of global challenges—such as the distressing fact that 195 countries are entangled in 110 armed conflicts—weigh heavily upon us. Yet, in this complexity, there lies a stark reminder: every decision that shapes our world is still a human-made one. The collective nature of decision-making holds a promise—the more inclusive and collaborative our approaches, the better the outcomes are likely to be.

ShapingBiassing experiences through design, like using specific scents, assumes a designer knows exactly how people will react. This method pre-determines the outcome, making the designer the decision-maker. For example, adding a pleasant smell to encourage environmental actions assumes everyone will respond positively, which isn't always true. There's a fine line between guiding decisions for the greater good and manipulating them. Perhaps only truly insightful artists can manage this balance effectively, influencing without overstepping.

3 PROVEN

Ingredients of good decision making (until 2030) with Benchmarks

This article takes you on a narrative journey through these compelling spaces. Picture the boardroom, where executives face high-stakes decisions that could pivot the future of their companies. Now, contrast that with the sparse functionality of an emergency bunker, where world leaders must think clearly amid a crisis. At the launch of an enemy ICBM, the president of the United States of America has a 6 minute window to decide how to respond. Where is this decision taken? What does the room look like? What is the president looking at? City halls, parliaments, or the house of representatives, where each member represents nearly 800 000 people. Each environment, whether designed for calm deliberation or rapid response, plays a crucial role in the outcomes of the decisions made within its walls. (can we add a funny quote, like “the wallpaper started the war?”

Meyers-Levy and Zhu's work highlights an intriguing aspect of environmental psychology, emphasising how subtle architectural features can have profound effects on cognitive function and decision-making processes. It provides valuable insights for architects, designers, and even marketers, offering a unique perspective on the interaction between physical space and human cognition.

So let's call this bias… It is impossible to have a space that does not impact us. Now the question is how can it impact us for the greater good, or how can it be done in a fair way so it biases us all equally. Or how can the room adjust to what the user needs? Maybe the room should be designed for the problem, and not for the user. The greater good would be the end outcome of the decision, and not experience eor journey of the user. 

Let's go through a small thought experiment. There is a lot of resistance to the adoption of AI. AI is going to kill us, overtake us and rule over us (like we have done over so many..) Imagine we get to the point where AI becomes so smart (if we aren't already there) where it could make the right decision. Imagine it would calculate all possible options to solve e.g. climate change, and it would “objectively” calculate that the best way for nature and this planet or this universe to survive would be to obliterate human species. Would we accept this decision? Should we accept this decision for the greater good? Who is there to decide, and for whom? Us? Us as a species? Us in the future? Everyone equally? 

Now having said this is a bit bizarre, because the whole point of taking decisions is to ensure survivability and evolution of the human species. In comparison to nature we should even question why humans (which are “nature”) are worth more than other life forms? But maybe all we should seek for is balance. 

Whatever this decision making room or space is, let this be online or offline, and real time, or async the key is to Think constructively, Connect meaningfully and Act purposefully. What Rushkoff called Team Human is the agenda for interaction architects. This framework recognizes that while technology can facilitate collaboration and mediate between parties, it is ultimately the quality of human interaction within these systems that determines their effectiveness. By fostering environments where diverse voices can converge and deliberate, Team Human enables a synthesis of perspectives that might not otherwise occur. This collaborative ethos not only supports but demands that we engage deeply with complex issues, challenging us to transcend individual biases and short-term thinking.

Understanding how the brain prioritises change over constant elements provides a framework for stimulating engagement. By focusing on changes rather than static information, designers can create environments that more effectively capture attention and influence decision-making processes. The key to facilitating good decisions lies in the interplay of psychological, physiological, and social factors. 

Architectural features can be strategically employed to enhance decision-making. For example, making the balance of conversation visible could encourage fairer discussions, while highlighting the emotional tone of speech might deepen understanding of the content versus the impression it makes. Other considerations include managing biases introduced by rhetorical skills or charisma, recognizing person-specific biases, and addressing factors like "meeting fatigue" that can impair decision-making. To support rational decision-making, humans need environments that promote well-being and fairness, potentially monitored through biofeedback markers. This holistic approach can create a space conducive to effective and balanced decision-making.

In the exploration of designing spaces that influence decision-making, the inevitable impact of bias presents both challenges and opportunities. The insights from environmental psychology and neuroergonomics, such as those highlighted by Meyers-Levy and Zhu regarding the effect of ceiling heights on cognitive processing, emphasise that every design choice has the potential to mould human thought and behaviour. Recognizing that spaces can either constrain or enhance our cognitive abilities, designers and architects have the profound responsibility to sculpt environments that consciously influence outcomes for the greater good, while striving to mitigate unintended biases.

Furthermore, the integration of technology in decision-making processes, as seen in speculative scenarios about AI's potential role in critical global issues, raises significant ethical considerations. The question of whether AI could make decisions beneficial for the planet at the expense of humanity underscores the complex interplay between technological advancement and human values. This balance between using designed environments and technological tools to guide decision-making, without overriding essential human instincts and freedoms, is paramount.

4 PROMISING 

Potential solutions, suggestions

The very act of redesigning decision-making processes entails the restructuring of the institutions that wield them. As we refine how decisions are made, we also question the frameworks and hierarchies that currently give structure to our institutions. Enhanced decision-making isn't merely about improving outcomes within the existing structures—it’s about examining and redesigning the institutional architectures themselves.

Redesigning the decision making process entails a redesign of the underlying institutions.

We will need to redesign the environments where these critical choices are made. We aim to establish a new frontier in the design of high-stakes decision-making spaces by creating 'Cognitive Sanctuaries'—spaces that are scientifically crafted by neuroergonomic principles to optimise collective cognitive performance, emotional balance and physiological comfort during crucial moments. Cognitive sanctuaries will support decision makers by fostering clarity, promoting rational thinking, and mitigating stress responses under pressure. They are radical spaces where the architecture itself challenges the status quo, where every element—from the curvature of the walls to the acoustic properties of the room—is designed to subvert external influences and amplify human potential.

Our current institutions are designed in an era where the political body controls the narrative. The whole world is a data blender. The power of the social construct supporting the knowledge transfer and facilitating the accelerated collective intelligence. Maybe Earth would have a higher carrying capacity if we had less global communication.

Autonomy and Agility. 

Our institutions are designed to produce a sense of stability. Current generations favour agility over stability. GenZ vs Boomers are almost like different species. Act, vote, behave and most of all relate… Newer generations are better at changing, transforming, reinventing and adapting their life to new scenarios. There will come a time that the core differentiator will be our AQ, Our Adaptability Quotient, rather than our beloved IQ and EQ. Institutions will need to become adaptable much faster than they can now.

People (were) are challenging traditional institutions such as the communication and banking system, as can be seen in the rise of blockchain and crypto. Crypto ETF however is an attempt of institutionalising Crypto so that public organisations can balance the threat of alternative markers by holding a portion of that market.

Suppressing our instinct is what is making us better than animals. This is what makes us more powerful. However we can forget that the vast majority of decisions we need to take are a direct consequence of the fact that we are trying to cohabitate on this blue ball. Because we as species have evolved to become one global society, with one fairly homogenous social and governing structure. Decision making goes against our nature but may be necessary for cohabitation. Us as primates have simple decisions to make, survival and reproduction. 

Our brains are fully saturated with information and digital expressions of collective emotions that bear psychological weight on us. This digitalisation process has improved services but atomized human networks.

In traditional settings, decision-making can be obscured by ageing protocols and hindered by environmental stressors that degrade cognitive functions. Cognitive Sanctuaries break away from this, offering a blueprint for institutional reform. By demonstrating how physical and sensory optimizations can lead to clearer thinking and more effective collaboration or conflict, these spaces advocate for a new type of institution that turns conflict into resolution and resolutions into social innovations—one that is built from the ground up to support the best cognitive practices.

Imagine governmental bodies operating within spaces that actively reduce adversarial interactions and promote ideation, or corporate boards that meet in environments that are engineered to boost creativity and problem-solving and leave the room refreshed. The redesign of these spaces can lead to a fundamental shift in organisational culture and gain positive spillover into our personal lives - ie. feeling refreshed after a big day in the war cabinet. Moving away from confrontational supremacy and towards a more collaborative design approach to governance.

The implications for global leadership are immense. As leaders become accustomed to making decisions within Cognitive Sanctuaries, they will begin to see the limitations of traditional decision-making environments. This awareness could drive a movement towards institutional redesign, where the principles of neuroergonomics guide not only the creation of new physical spaces but also new underlying structures of decision-making bodies = new institutions.

Cognitive Sanctuaries become incubators for a new era of governance and corporate strategy, challenging leaders to not only use these tools for immediate decision-making needs but to reimagine and reconstruct the very institutions they lead.

Now having said this is a bit bizarre, because the whole point of taking decisions is to ensure survivability and evolution of the human species. In comparison to nature we should even question why humans (which are “nature”) are worth more than other life forms? But maybe all we should seek for is balance. 

Nature, the original architect, contrasts sharply with human design, as humans often seek to enhance their capabilities beyond natural limits. This raises questions about our trustworthiness as stewards of our environment. In "Are We Human?" from Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley, the unique human desire to extend beyond our natural state is explored, highlighting our distinct role in shaping the world, sometimes to the detriment of natural systems. Especially the fact that what we have produced, or what is around us, what is designed, has such a profound impact on us, that we should question to what extent we are still fully human. 

It is not possible to design something without designing an experience. We cannot consume anything unless we design the experience. It is impossible to design something that does not impact you.

Universal human responses, like the need to eat, demonstrate our biological similarities. Yet, when it comes to decisions, would we all choose the same if isolated from social influences? Our disagreements often stem from social biases, and we inhabit places for reasons beyond biological necessity. This raises doubts about making unbiased decisions. How can we ensure our environments are free of biases to make the best decisions for the future, not just for ourselves?

Exploring the dynamics of decision-making in a capitalist society, where investing in something typically increases one's commitment to it, raises the question: What is the entry cost of participating in the decision-making process? As people feel the impact of decisions, their perspectives often shift, emphasising the need for investment in both the process and its outcomes.

The decisions that will be taken should enable us to take decisions against our collective instinct, the bitter pill. You swallow the bitter pill you get the better, there is no reason for medicine to taste bad, but it makes us feel it works better. Our brains are wired to think this will be better.

All species produce elements that temporarily or permanently transform the environment. Judging whether an action or construction is deemed positive or negative it’s a matter of alignment. There is the myth that we’ll be ok with AI as far as it aligned to human values but that might be either conceptually wrong, as Larry Page called Musk a “speciesist” for insisting that humanity should always take precedence over AGI, or simply too late as we see that is already possible to jump over alignment barriers.

So what we can do is to align AI to achieve our democratically determined goals and projects

One could question why we as a species live in cities, and why this cohabitation is beneficial for us. One aspect that clearly comes to mind would be the quality of life is higher as we proffit and benefit from goods and services provided by others. Therefore cohabitation, economy, wellbeing and quality of life are directly tied with one another. In cities we experience more, buy more, meet more, we have a better quality of life (maybe for the mind but not for the body). Add studies coming out that prove cities are not good for us? (body as well as mind?)

Designing spaces focused on the problem rather than the user could lead to better decision-making. Who should make these decisions: an individual, a group, or a collective? Often, those closest to a problem, like subway riders, understand its nuances, yet might lack creative solutions that outsiders might offer. Considering who owns a problem helps determine who should decide, acknowledging that sometimes no single decision-maker holds all the answers. This challenges us to consider what sacrifices are necessary for the best possible decisions.

Ultimately, creating spaces and systems that foster effective decision-making requires a multidisciplinary approach that considers psychological, physiological, and social factors. By designing for the problem rather than the user, and allowing for diverse inputs and perspectives, we can aim to create more equitable and balanced environments. These environments should not only accommodate but also enhance our collective ability to make decisions that are fair, informed, and aligned with both individual and societal well-being. Thus, in our quest to design decision-making spaces, we must navigate the fine line between influence and manipulation, ensuring that our creations serve to enrich and empower humanity, respecting the delicate balance of our natural and constructed ecosystems.

Exploration on how bias could be governed across the different actors leading to “controlled” innovation.

1. Deconstructing Institutional Architecture

Traditional decision-making environments are far from neutral grounds; they are deeply infused with the power dynamics and hierarchical structures that dominate our institutions. To embark on a genuine transformation of how decisions are made, it's imperative to first dismantle both the physical and metaphorical walls that uphold these existing dynamics.

The process begins with conducting spatial audits of existing decision-making environments. This involves a detailed examination of the design elements that potentially reinforce traditional hierarchies, such as the placement of seats, the height of tables, and the overall shape of the room. These audits serve to unearth the often-subtle architectural cues that influence and maintain power imbalances.

Following the audits, the next step is to organise workshops with decision-makers. These workshops are designed to explore how specific elements of space influence their perceptions of power and authority. By engaging directly with the individuals who operate within these spaces, we can gather insights and foster discussions that challenge and question the status quo of decision-making environments.

Through this discursive and participative approach, we aim not only to identify and critique the physical embodiments of institutional power but also to set the stage for redesigning these environments in ways that promote a more egalitarian and collaborative decision-making process.

2. Integrating Neuroergonomic Principles

Provocation: If we are to engineer spaces that enhance human potential rather than constrict it, every element of our Cognitive Sanctuaries must be a deliberate choice to promote cognitive freedom, creative thinking, and emotional well-being.

• Collaborate with neuroscientists to embed sensors in the environment that monitor brain activity, allowing for spaces that adapt dynamically to the cognitive states of their users.

• Experimenting with non-traditional materials and layouts that research shows can reduce anxiety and enhance creative problem-solving, like organic shapes and incorporation of nature into design elements.

3. Redesigning Cognitive Sanctuaries

Provocation: Decision-making should not just be effective—it should be emancipatory. Cognitive Sanctuaries should be revolutionary spaces that actively subvert the norms of traditional environments, fostering egalitarianism and collaboration instead of conformity and control.

• Design prototype spaces that incorporate radical elements, such as circular seating arrangements to eliminate head-of-the-table power positions and adjustable lighting systems that respond to the emotional tone of discussions.

• Implement technology that measures and reacts to stress and engagement levels, using data to continuously adapt the environment in real-time to support optimal decision-making states.

5 POSSIBLE

New institutions

By fundamentally altering the spaces where decisions are made, we don't just change the backdrop of decision-making; we change its very nature. These new environments—Cognitive Sanctuaries—are designed to challenge the routine patterns of thought and interaction that currently govern our institutions. When we change how decisions are made, we set the stage for the reinvention of the institutions themselves.

• Implement experimental decision-making labs where spatial variables can be manipulated and the impacts on decision outcomes can be meticulously tracked and analysed. Use these findings to demonstrate how changes in the environment directly correlate with changes in decision styles and outcomes.

• Foster a series of cross-disciplinary forums held within these Cognitive Sanctuaries, bringing together urban planners, behavioural scientists, and anarchists to reassess and redesign traditional decision-making processes. Document these interactions and publish the outcomes to showcase how different environments can lead to different institutional behaviours and priorities.

As this is being written, you can find yourself skiing in the mountains or sunbathing along Europe's coastlines. Our planet is simultaneously experiencing extremes of melting and freezing. Collective intelligence has historically been both a solution to our social and ecological challenges and a contributor to our failures. Yet, our decision-making processes have struggled to prioritise and make clear, effective choices in response to these challenges.

If your organisation embraces decision-making distributed among the population, it's time to really go into optimising the potential of widespread participation in these processes. If your organisation is guided by charismatic leadership, then exploring how to integrate collective intelligence into maintaining and enhancing decision-making is crucial. Regardless of the structure, decision-making requires information, constructive antagonism and clarity of thought are the crucial elements we need to investigate further.

Questions for transformational leadership

Deconstructing Institutional Architecture

• How to identify and alter the architectural features that most significantly regulated traditional power structures? Is there a universal set of characteristics, or do these vary significantly between institutions?

• What is the optimal balance between AI-driven decision-making and human oversight? How can this balance prevent potential AI overreach while still benefiting from AI efficiencies?

• How transparent can an AI-led decision-making process be made to ensure that all stakeholders understand the basis of decisions?

Integrating Neuroergonomic Principles

• Which neuroergonomic interventions could be most impactful in decision-making environments to promote cognitive freedom and emotional wellness?

• Balancing the benefits of responsive environments with privacy concerns, what safeguards need to be in place when implementing technologies that adapt to the cognitive states of individuals?

• Addressing the ethical considerations, how can we ensure that the monitoring of brain activity in workplace settings respects individual privacy and consent?

Redesigning Cognitive Sanctuaries

• How can we use technology to create adaptive environments that are supportive but not overbearing or controlling?

• What are the practical challenges in scaling up the innovative designs of Cognitive Sanctuaries for use in larger, more traditional institutional settings?

• In what ways can we quantitatively and qualitatively measure the success of these redesigned spaces in fostering more egalitarian and collaborative decision-making processes?

It is not just about redesigning physical spaces but exploring a fundamental shift in how small human environments can evolve to meet the complex needs of cognitive clarity and exploit the full potentials of collective (human-AI) intelligence. We are  to spark a dialogue that challenges reaching out with organisations that acknowledge the power of demolishing comfort zones and policymakers reshaping the urban and institutional design societies.