These case studies reframe my research around the questions, methods, and insights most relevant to user and product research. They are academic studies rather than product work, but the craft is the same: understanding how real people behave, designing rigorous studies to test it, and turning the evidence into decisions. Each combines quantitative analysis (R, Stata) with qualitative and behavioural interpretation.
The strategic use of the decoy effect in bargaining
The question. A decoy is an inferior option that, just by being present, shifts which of the real options people prefer. I wanted to know whether people notice this and deliberately introduce decoys to steer an outcome in their favour, and how the type of decoy changes its effect.
What I did. Designed and ran a two-person bargaining experiment in which participants could insert a dominated "decoy" option at a small cost. I varied whether the decoy created an attraction or a compromise effect, varied the payoffs of the real alternatives, and elicited participants' beliefs to separate strategic intent from reaction.
What I found. More than a third of participants chose to add a decoy despite the cost. Compromise-type decoys were used instrumentally, to move the likely agreement toward a preferred option, while attraction-type decoys were often chosen because they were themselves seen as an acceptable fallback.
Why it matters for product. This is choice architecture in action: how the set of options is presented, and how alternatives are laid out beside each other, measurably changes what people pick. It is the mechanism behind defaults, comparison tables, and the ordering of options in an interface.
Threshold proximity, competitiveness, and who a goal actually motivates
The question. Products lean heavily on goals, targets, and progress toward a threshold. I asked whether these incentives motivate everyone equally, and how goal difficulty, competitiveness, and gender interact to shape effort and success.
What I did. Ran a controlled experiment where participants completed a baseline task, revealed their willingness to compete through an incentive choice, and were then randomly assigned an easier ("near") or harder ("far") personalised target.
What I found. More attainable goals raised effort and success for everyone. But responses differed by segment: men were more likely to choose competitive incentives and hit targets more often, competitiveness alone did not explain the gap, and traits such as self-confidence played an additional role.
Why it matters for product. Engagement mechanics like streaks, targets, and progress bars are not neutral. They land differently across user segments, which is a direct inclusion and fairness consideration when designing motivational features.
The local winner's curse: relative rank vs. real odds
The question. Ranking and comparison cues are everywhere in products ("most popular", position badges, leaderboards). I tested whether a relative-ranking signal biases decisions even when the underlying probability of success is held constant.
What I did. In an online experiment, participants were told their card's rank within a random subsample before deciding whether to invest, so local rank varied while the true odds stayed roughly equal across conditions. I used structural equation and mediation analysis to trace the mechanism.
What I found. No effect across the full sample, but clear heterogeneity underneath: where top ranks were distinct, being given the best local rank increased investment among lower-confidence participants, working through a direct effect rather than by changing their beliefs.
Why it matters for product. Comparison and social-proof cues can move a subset of users independent of the underlying facts. Knowing who responds, and why, is what separates a persuasive pattern from a misleading one.
Designing sustainability nudges in an Agile, multidisciplinary team
The context. An Erasmus+ research internship at the Digital Society School in Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam and HvA), with a brief to encourage more sustainable waste-management behaviour among students.
What I did. Researched how students actually behaved around waste, designed behavioural nudges and interactive tools, and delivered the work through five Agile/Scrum sprints, iterating from concept to a live interactive educational website within a multidisciplinary, international team.
Why it matters for product. This is the closest to how a product team works: user-centred, collaborative, and delivery-focused, translating behavioural insight into a real artefact that people interact with, on a sprint cadence.
Full papers and abstracts are on the Research page. Contact: pasandi.pari@gmail.com