ThinkShift is the podcast from Dr Leanne Elich and Clint Nielsen exploring how people think, decide and act, and what that means for pricing, trust, design, sales and customer experience.
Short, practical episodes for founders, marketers and leadership teams who want to reduce friction, shape perception and make sharper commercial decisions.
Most business decisions get framed as logic, but people do not decide that way. They respond to cues, trust, timing, perceived risk and how something feels in the moment. ThinkShift unpacks the behavioural science behind those decisions and shows you how to apply it in the real world.
Dr Leanne Elich helps businesses understand what is driving behaviour beneath the surface. Her work in applied neuroscience gives leaders a clearer view of how people process information, respond to change, build trust and make decisions. That insight helps businesses communicate with more precision and create experiences that are easier to understand, believe and act on.
Clint Nielsen is the founder of Incept and co-creator of NeuroDesign. He works at the intersection of neuroscience, strategy and design, helping businesses shape brands, products, sales tools and customer experiences that reduce friction and support better decisions. His focus is commercial clarity, turning insight into action that improves trust, conversion and confidence.
Supporting References:
1. Cialdini, R. (2021).
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Revised edition).
2. Stephen Worchel, Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975)
Effects of Supply and Demand on Ratings of Object Value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
3. Berger, J. (2013).
Contagious: Why Things Catch On.
4. Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994)
The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
5. Noah Goldstein, Steve Martin & Robert Cialdini
The Small BIG. How precise wording produces larger behavioural effects than vague persuasion.
Supporting References:
1. Thorndike, E. L. (1920)
A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
2. Nalini Ambady & Robert Rosenthal (1993)
Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations from Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
3. Richard Nisbett & Timothy Wilson (1977)
The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
4. Gitte Lindgaard et al. (2006)
Attention Web Designers: You Have 50 Milliseconds to Make a Good First Impression. Behaviour & Information Technology.
5. Sophie Nightingale & Hany Farid (2022)
AI-synthesized Faces Are Indistinguishable from Real Faces and More Trustworthy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Supporting References:
1. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004).
Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
2. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009).
Metacognitive Experiences and Consumer Judgment and Decision Making.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 156-173.
3. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009).
Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation.
Personality and Social Psychology Review.
4. Sweller, J. (1988).
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Reference Sources:
1. AARP. The Perfect Scam research.
2. Raymond Nickerson (1998)
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.
3. Hong Kong deepfake CFO fraud and Arup deepfake scam (£20 million).
4. Daniel Kahneman (2011).
Thinking, Fast and Slow. System 1 vs System 2.
5. Stanley Milgram (1963)
Behavioral Study of Obedience.
Reference sources:
1. Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh
“The Chameleon Effect” (1999)
2. William Marston (1928): Introduced the foundational theory of four behavioural styles based on two axes (active/passive perception of an antagonistic or favourable environment).
3. Walter Clarke (1956): Created the first practical assessment tool based on Marston’s theories, called the Activity Vector Analysis.
4. John Geier (1970s): Developed the first formalised DiSC profiling instrument (the Personal Profile System).
5. NeuroDesign™ – Dr Leanne Elich and Clint Nielsen
Adaptive DISC profiling tool, NeuroDesign™ Profiling Index (NdPI)
Reference sources:
1. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The Psychology of Sunk Cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
2. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica.
3. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
4. Garland, H. (1990). Throwing Good Money After Bad: The Effect of Sunk Costs on the Decision to Escalate Commitment to an Ongoing Project.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 728-731.
Reference sources:
1. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
2. Arkes, H.R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The Psychology of Sunk Cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
3. Lieberman, M.D. et al. (2007). Putting Feelings into Words: Affect Labeling Disrupts Amygdala Activity.
4. Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. (2015). Emotion and Decision Making.
Reference sources:
1. The Decision Lab. Priming Effect.
Priming occurs when exposure to a stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus without conscious awareness of the connection.
2. Johnson & Goldstein (2003)
The default effect
3. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein
Nudge
4. Robert Zajonc
Mere Exposure Effect
Supporting References:
1. Self-Reference Effect, Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker
Encoding information in relation to the self results in superior recall.
2. Clayton Christensen
Customers don’t buy products. They hire them to do a job.
3. Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman
Psychological distance determines how abstractly or concretely people think.
4. Choice Architecture, Richard Thaler
Small changes in how choices are presented can significantly influence decisions.
5. Selective Attention, Broadbent
The nervous system filters incoming information.
Supporting References:
1. Daniel Kahneman (1973), Attention and Effort
We are limited in how much we can attend to at one time.
2. Michael Posner & Petersen (1990)
Attention is a system that selects information for further processing.
3. Robert Bornstein (1989)
Mere exposure increases liking only when attention is engaged.
4. Norbert Schwarz (2004)
Difficulty in processing leads to negative judgments.
5. S. Dehaene (2014), Consciousness and the Brain
Attention determines what reaches awareness
Supporting References:
1. Satyendra Singh (2006)
Impact of color on marketing: people form judgments about products within 90 seconds, and up to 90% is based on colour alone.
2. Andrew Elliot & Mark Maier (2014)
Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning
3.Stephen Palmer & Schloss (2010)
Colour preferences are tied to learned associations, not just aesthetics.
4. Don Norman (2004)
Emotional Design. Aesthetic responses are emotional, but usability and behaviour are separate systems.
5. Anne Treisman (Feature Integration Theory)
Colour is a pre-attentive feature, processed instantly and guides attention.
Supporting References:
1. Gary Marcus (2022)
“Current AI systems are masters of pattern matching, not understanding.” AI outputs resemble System 1 fluency. Not System 2 judgement.
2. Rolf Reber et al. (2004) – Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure
“Stimuli that are easier to process are judged as more true.”
3. McKinsey & Company (2023, Generative AI report)
“Generative AI can automate 60 to 70 per cent of employee time spent on routine tasks.”
4. Stanford University (2023) – LLM hallucination research
Large language models “hallucinate” incorrect information with high confidence.
5. Harvard Business School (2023 studies)
AI increases productivity, but quality depends on human oversight.
Supporting References:
1. Lindgaard et al. (2006)
Visual impressions of websites form in ~50 milliseconds.
2. Nielsen Norman Group (Jakob Nielsen)
Users typically read in an F-shaped pattern.
3. Itti & Koch (2001). Computational modelling of visual attention
Attention is drawn to contrast, movement, and novelty.
4. Nielsen Norman Group (Eyetracking studies)
Faces that look away from content pull attention away from key messages.
5. Desimone & Duncan (1995)
Competing stimuli reduce clarity and slow attention selection.
Supporting References:
1. Sheena Iyengar & Mark Lepper (2000). Choice overload. “More options reduce decisions”
2. Iyengar (2010), The Art of Choosing. Preference vs capacity gap
3. Johnson & Goldstein (2003). Organ donation rates dramatically higher with default opt-in
4. John Gourville & Dilip Soman (2005). Feature fatigue
5. Brehm (1966), Psychological Reactance Theory. Why recommendations backfire.
Supporting References:
1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
2. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
3. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
4. Fogg, B. J. (2009). Behavior Model for Persuasive Design
5. Nielsen Norman Group (UX research on attention & hierarchy)
Supporting References:
1, OECD (2022, Dark Commercial Patterns Report)
Dark patterns are practices that subvert or impair consumer autonomy, decision-making, or choice.
2. Cass Sunstein & Richard Thaler (Nudge Theory)
Ethical nudges preserve freedom of choice. Manipulation removes it.
3. Psychological Reactance (Brehm, 1966)
When people feel controlled, they push back and reject the influence.
4. Harry Brignull (coined “Dark Patterns”)
Categorised deceptive design tactics.
5. Princeton University (Mathur et al., 2019)
Dark patterns range from mild nudges to aggressive coercion.
6. European Commission (2022 study)
Over 97% of consumers encountered at least one dark pattern online.
7. Federal Trade Commission (2022)
Companies are increasingly using design tricks to trap consumers into subscriptions.
How can the same offer feel expensive or feel cheap based on one sentence?
That’s not hype. That’s how the brain works.
In this episode, we talk about the framing effect. The hidden force that makes something feel expensive or like a no-brainer.
You will learn why the brain does not evaluate value objectively. It interprets meaning through context, language, and perceived risk. And how a single shift in framing can move someone from hesitation to action.
Inside this episode:
• Why identical offers feel different depending on how they are presented
• Why “avoid losing” consistently outperforms “gain more”
• The subtle frames that create safety, trust, and certainty
• Where most brands unintentionally destroy value in their messaging
• How to position premium pricing without sounding defensive
This is not about clever wording. It is about how decisions actually get made.
Because value is not just what you sell.
It is how the brain experiences the choice.
Supporting References:
1. Classic Framing Effect Research – Prospect Theory
Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman
2. Loss Aversion (Core Mechanism Behind Framing)
3. Fuzzy-Trace Theory (Decision Psychology)
4. Peter Gál & Marketing Decision Research
Free feels like a win. But it can also feel like a warning. People sign up fast. Then they disappear faster.
In this episode, we unpack the psychology of “free”.
If you offer trials, consults, audits, or freemium products, this is essential listening.
You’ll learn what happens in the brain the moment someone sees “free”. Opportunity lights up. But so does suspicion. The brain asks, ” What’s the catch?”, recalibrates expectations, and often lowers perceived value before you’ve even begun.
We talk about:
Then it gets practical.
When should you use free, and when should you avoid it completely? And how to design friction that increases commitment instead of killing conversion.
Because the real risk is not giving something away. It’s training your customer to expect it.
Listen now and rethink what “free” is really doing to your business.
Supporting References:
1. Zero-Price Effect – Foundational Research
Shampanier, Mazar & Ariely (2007) – “Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products.”
2. Behavioural Mechanisms Behind “Free”
The Psychology of Free: St. Louis Fed (2025) – Zero-price effect inflates perceived value and draws disproportionate demand.
3. Framing Effects – $0 vs. “Free”
Koo et al. (2020) – “Is $0 Better than Free? Consumer Response to ‘$0’ versus ‘Free’.”
4. Dual-Process Models of Zero Pricing
Fan et al. (2022) – Boomerang effects of zero pricing.
5. Dan Ariely – Predictably Irrational
You know $99 and $100 are basically the same. However, your brain does not treat them that way.
That first number changes the whole story.
In this episode, we unpack the quiet force shaping every pricing decision you make. The first digit. It’s called Left Digit Bias. This is not about clever tricks. It is about how judgment actually forms.
If you sell anything with a price tag, plan, or proposal, this episode shows you why the first number anchors value before people even think.
Inside, you will discover:
From SaaS fees to service proposals, this is pricing through the lens of decision science. Practical, sharp, and immediately usable.
Because pricing is not a numbers game.
It is a perception game.
Supporting References:
1. Sokolova, Seenivasan & Thomas (2020)
Title: The Left-Digit Bias: When and Why Are Consumers Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?
Key point: Consumers judge prices like $2.99 vs $3.00 as if the difference is much bigger than it actually is, because they anchor on the leftmost digit.
Source: Journal of Marketing Research 57(6).
2. Thomas & Morwitz (2005)
Title: Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left-Digit Effect in Price Cognition
Key point: Eight experiments confirm prices ending in ‘.99’ are psychologically smaller than the round price one cent higher — not because of exact math, but because of how magnitude is perceived.
Source: Journal of Consumer Research.
3. Strulov-Shlain (2021, 2023)
Title: More Than a Penny’s Worth: Left-Digit Bias and Firm Pricing
Key point: Large retail datasets show consumers respond to a one-cent change from a 99-ending price as if it were a much larger change — indicating the bias has real economic impact.
Source: Chicago Booth research (SSRN) / The Review of Economic Studies.
4. Anchoring and Heuristics Framework
Left-digit bias is a specific form of anchoring. The first number encountered sets a cognitive reference point that heavily shapes subsequent perception.
Theory: Anchoring effect — Kahneman & Tversky (1974).
5. Psychological Pricing & Cognitive Processing
NetSuite (e-commerce pricing primer) on left-digit bias in pricing perception.
HBS Working Knowledge on why “$1.99 feels closer to $1 than $2” due to subconscious processing.
Psychology Today’s overview of the left-digit effect in pricing.
People lose their minds over a five-dollar price rise, yet are happy to pay $500 for something on impulse.
What is going on?
Most people assume price objections are about money. They are not. They are about perception, trust, and the brain trying to avoid regret.
In this episode, we unpack what is really happening in the first seconds someone sees your price. The brain runs a rapid threat check. It predicts pain. It scans for fairness. It compares your offer to everything it has seen before.
That is why “too expensive” rarely means unaffordable. It means uncertain, unclear, or unsafe.
We talk about:
• Why price triggers emotion, not logic
• What “pain of paying” actually feels like
• Why trust beats discounts every time
• How to make your pricing feel fair, not forced
Then we get practical: pricing pages, hidden fees, messy tiers, and awkward price increases. We fix them.
Because price is not about the number.
It is about the signal you send.
Supporting References:
1. “Consumer researchers define the pain of paying as the negative emotion felt during payment, and it’s stronger with tangible money and unexpected charges.” (Zellermayer, 1996; Prelec & Loewenstein).
2. “Prospect Theory shows that losses, like handing over money, feel psychologically stronger than equivalent gains, which helps explain why a price feels ‘too expensive’ even when affordability isn’t the issue.” (Kahneman & Tversky).
3. “Research finds that fairness judgments aren’t about cost alone; they depend on internal reference prices, comparisons to others, and perceived motives of the seller.” (Price fairness frameworks).
4. Transaction Utility Theory (Thaler) shows that consumers evaluate deals relative to their reference price, not just absolute cost.
5. “Experimental consumer research shows when people discover others pay less, they often feel unfairly treated, and this feeling predicts lower trust and reduced purchase intention.” (Differential pricing).