The psychology of scheduling - how to ask so more people reply

How you word a scheduling request changes the burden it places on the other person. Behavioral economics often discusses how the number and arrangement of options affect decision-making, and this article uses widely cited studies, such as the jam experiment and the organ donation consent rates below, as clues to the shape of a request that people can answer without stress. None of these studies was tested directly in a scheduling setting, so in practice, use them while checking whether they fit the people you deal with.

The paradox of choice - things tend to go better without too many options

In the "jam experiment" published in 2000 by Professor Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and colleagues, the share of shoppers who stopped at a tasting booth and went on to buy was reported as 3% when 24 varieties were displayed and about 30% when they were narrowed to 6. Conditions differ between a store shelf and scheduling, so the same numbers cannot be expected, but the suggestion that more effort in choosing makes people unable to decide will likely ring a bell in scheduling too.

When offering candidate dates in a scheduling poll, starting with 3 options is easy to work with. With 2 options it easily falls back to square one with "neither works", and too many options increase the effort of comparing them. The right number varies with the situation, such as adding options when there are many participants or when other people's schedules are hard to read.

The default effect - preset options are rarely changed

Options set in advance as the default tend to be accepted as they are. This is called the default effect. In a study by Johnson & Goldstein (2003) comparing organ donation systems across European countries, figures as of 2003 showed consent rates of 85-99% in opt-out countries (consent unless you act) and 4-27% in opt-in countries (consent by registering yourself). The consent rate here is the share of people treated as consenting under the system, and it does not directly reflect differences in the actual number of donations.

Social proof - say that others are joining

The idea of social proof introduced in Cialdini's "Influence" can also be applied to scheduling requests. Adding "A and B are already planning to attend" makes it easier for the other person to judge who will be in the meeting and the impact of being absent.

Setting a deadline

Showing a reply deadline helps the other person judge by when they need to act. There is a knack to wording it too: writing the time, as in "by Thursday 17:00", rather than "by Friday", makes it easier for them to fit into their own schedule. Also note that putting the deadline right at the end of working hours leaves you no time to tally the answers and get back to everyone.

A self-check before sending a request

These psychological techniques form the foundation of efficient scheduling. Minimizing the other person's cognitive load and lowering the hurdle to reply is the essence of smooth scheduling.