Bachelor's Thesis
A qualitative research study exploring how digital platforms can ethically influence adoption decisions while maintaining user autonomy and promoting informed choices.
Persuasive Design
Behavioral Psychology
Project Overview
My Role
UI/UX Designer
Timeline
6 months (Jan - Jun 2025)
Team
Two UI/UX Designers (Bachelor's Thesis)
Tools Used
Figma
Miro
Discord
Project Overview
Pet adoption is widespread, yet many placements fail because adopters enter the process with limited preparation and mismatched expectations. In Europe there are an estimated 68.6 million dogs and roughly half of households own a dog or cat, and ownership is even higher in the United States, which means a large share of people will at some point navigate adoption decisions. Still, many adoptions end in returns, creating distress for both animals and adopters. Research links a substantial portion of failed adoptions to inadequate pre-adoption research and underestimation of the long-term commitments required.
Digital adoption platforms are now primary entry points in the journey, yet prior work has focused more on speeding adoptions than on supporting informed, sustainable ones. The sector lacks clear, actionable guidance for shelters on how to design for both adoption rates and long-term fit.
This case study addresses that gap by exploring persuasive design as a practical, ethical strategy for adoption platforms. Persuasive design refers to interactive systems that influence attitudes and behaviors without coercion. Used responsibly, it can nudge prospective adopters to engage with commitment information, surface transparent pet descriptions, and time prompts so that people pause and reflect before applying. The ethical boundary is critical. Techniques must support autonomy and informed choice rather than manipulate emotion.
Research Question
How can digital pet-adoption platforms use persuasive design ethically to increase adoption rates while maintaining user autonomy and informed decision-making?
6.2M+
Pets enter shelters annually
23%
Return rate within 6 months
2.7M+
Pets abandoned each year
Research Approach
Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative, user-centered design methodology to examine how persuasive design can ethically guide prospective adopters toward well-informed, sustainable pet adoptions. A within-subjects comparative design was used so each participant experienced three different website prototypes. This format made it possible to directly compare user reactions to varying levels of persuasive elements while controlling for individual differences.
Participants
Six participants were recruited who expressed an active interest in adopting a dog or cat. They represented a mix of genders and ages, ensuring a range of perspectives. All participants received an information sheet explaining the study purpose, data handling, and their rights before providing informed consent.
Study Procedure
Each participant took part in an individual, moderated session that combined think-aloud testing with semi-structured interviews:
Three Design Approaches
To examine how persuasive design can support a pet-adoption website, we asked participants to explore three distinct prototypes. The first was a Figma recreation of the original Battersea.com site, serving as the baseline. The second was an Optimal version that introduced subtle motivational prompts, clear commitment checklists, and inspiring success stories. The third was an Extreme version that amplified emotional appeals and added urgent calls to action.
The comparison below highlights the key differences between these three designs.
Please note that this case study includes many images to highlight the differences between the three design versions. There may be quite a bit of scrolling, so it’s best viewed on a computer. :)
Home Page
Design A: The design below, based on the original website, includes a prominent banner inviting users to “get a free pack,” which participants found confusing—they were unsure what the pack actually contained. In the global navigation, the term “Rehoming” also caused uncertainty. Participants wondered whether it meant adopting, taking a pet from another home, or something else entirely.
Design B: This version was created specifically for the study. Anticipating that the term “Rehoming” might cause confusion, we replaced it with clearer wording. The banner was redesigned to encourage users to either browse more pets right away or take a custom pet-match quiz that we developed for this experiment. More on that feature is described later.
Design C: This “Extreme” version was designed to push users more strongly toward adoption, allowing us to test the impact of higher-pressure elements. The banner saw only a small change: we removed the pet-match quiz button to drive users directly into browsing pets. There is also a pop-up, appearing right after you enter the home page, encouraging to browse the website.
Design A: Scrolling further down the original website, just below the main banner, there is a “What We Do” section with cards that link to different pages of the site.
Design B: For this section, we added simpler entry points to help users find the right pet. The cards act as filters, allowing visitors to browse pets by lifestyle factors such as “Suitable for Beginners” or “Compatible with Cats/Dogs.” Below the cards, we included a set of success stories to reassure users about the positive outcomes of adoption.
Design C: For this version, we added an even simpler entry point that shows examples of pets currently available for adoption, aiming to further encourage users to adopt. The adoption success stories were also included in this design.
Design A: Scrolling further down the original website reveals an advertisement for a TV show, along with sections highlighting ways to get involved and a banner promoting a sale.
Design B: Instead, we added a rehoming slideshow followed by the Get Involved section. Rather than promoting a sale, this version encourages thoughtful adoptions by inviting users to take a quiz.
Design C: This version was nearly identical to Design B, but without the rehoming slideshow.
Pet Browsing Page
Design A: This pet browsing page of the original website displays photos of pets along with their name, breed, age, and reservation status.
Design B: In our version, we enlarged the pet photos to move away from a “shopping catalog” feel and instead highlight each animal’s personality and appearance. The information layout was modernized, and we added filter and sorting options to help users find their perfect match. We also removed the “Reserved” tag to create a cleaner, less transactional look. We also included a banner leading to the pet match quiz.
Design C: For the extreme version, we used emotion as a persuasion technique by highlighting pets that had been in the shelter the longest, aiming to evoke a stronger desire to “save” these animals.
Pet Information Page
Design A: Let’s start with the original pet information page. It shows photos, key details, and a short description, along with an email link for adoption requests. There are also cards that lead to other pages.
Design B: We made several updates to this page to give users a fuller picture of each pet and to encourage thoughtful decisions. The pet details now highlight more of the animal’s personal story and personality. We added tabs with responsibility information directly on the pet page so visitors see what caring for a pet truly involves. This might even change someone’s mind, which is positive since adoption should be a carefully considered and informed choice.
An adoption form was also built into the page to replace the email-only request process. Further down, we included sections showing other ways to help animals in need, a rehoming slideshow, and a list of recommended pets for additional browsing.
Design C: This version kept most elements the same but added an adoption button at the top of the page and slightly rewrote the pet’s story to be more emotionally persuasive.
Key findings from the thematic analysis (what emerged in testing A/B/C)
By testing the three different design versions (Original, Optimal, and Extreme), we explored how small design changes could influence users’ motivation, emotions, and trust during the adoption process. The findings below reveal what really made people click, hesitate, or feel confident when interacting with each version.
Motivation fluctuates and is highly image- and story-driven.
In the baseline (A), motivation was often neutral → low because finding pets and starting the process felt hard; in the Optimal design (B) it rose to neutral → moderate thanks to easier browsing and clearer info; in the Extreme design (C) it was higher but volatile—emotional cues helped, while the landing-page pop-up dampened motivation.
Ability (clarity + accessible features) is decisive.
In (A) the application path felt unclear/long and information existed but took effort to find; (B) made starting and completing the application easy and information easy to digest; (C) was also easy overall, but the new top “Start application” button was sometimes ignored as “an ad.”
Persuasion works when well-timed; poorly-timed triggers backfire.
(B) nudged with a quiz and smooth flow (“adopt the right pet” feel); (C) showed strong persuasion—but the early pop-up annoyed users, reduced trust, and lowered motivation; a later, post-application pop-up worked better because it matched user intent.
Information must be both present and well-delivered.
(A) felt sufficient-but-inconsistent and hard to surface; (B) was clear/transparent (pet backstories + commitments) and built trust; (C) was informative too, but the pop-up made some question trustworthiness.
User autonomy shapes confidence and satisfaction.
(A) lacked filters/quiz and the path felt unclear; (B) provided high autonomy via clear nav, good filters, and flexible entry points; (C) also supported autonomy, briefly disrupted by the intrusive pop-up.
What concretely drove the positive change?
The information accordion on pet pages (B/C) reliably prompted pre-adoption research and simplified finding key commitments; clear filters and browsing increased control and motivation; emotional cues like “days in shelter” (C) boosted interest; poorly-timed pop-ups reduced motivation and trust.
Key Insights
After digging through the research results, we turned the main patterns into clear design insights. These takeaways show what worked best for users and how those lessons could be applied on pet adoption websites.
Clear info + gentle prompts drive research
Pet-page “information accordions” in B/C made pre-adoption research easy and timely, which participants valued and often extended via linked articles
Ease = confidence
Filters, obvious entry points, and a straightforward application flow (B/C) increased perceived control and motivation; the baseline (A) felt effortful and unclear.
Emotion helps, but timing matters
Emotional cues like “days in shelter” (C) boosted interest, while an early landing-page pop-up annoyed users and reduced trust; a post-application pop-up worked better.
Visuals spark action
Images reliably triggered attention and clicks across versions, while stories reinforced motivation when paired with transparent commitments
Conclusions & Implications
Persuasive design can support sustainable pet adoptions when it is transparent, balanced, and helps users both feel motivated and think critically before applying. In our study, patterns that made research easy also lifted motivation and trust, which suggests shelters can raise adoption interest while improving decision quality if they prioritize clarity and timing.
Design B showed the strongest overall balance. Its information accordion and supportive flow helped nearly all participants engage with commitment details and often continue reading via linked articles, which made decisions feel easier and more thoughtful.
Design C confirmed that emotion can raise interest, for example “days in shelter,” but it also highlighted risks. An early landing-page pop-up reduced motivation, trust, and autonomy, while a later, post-application pop-up felt relevant and useful. Emotion-led cues and pop-ups need careful timing and transparency to avoid impulsive choices.
Clear information architecture reduces cognitive load
Gentle reminders encourage self-reflection
Positive storytelling builds confidence
Emotional manipulation undermines trust
Implications for design
The findings didn’t just highlight what users liked; they showed what truly helped them make more thoughtful adoption choices. By looking at moments of motivation, hesitation, and trust across all three designs, we identified a few clear principles that can guide future pet adoption platforms and other products that aim to support ethical decisions. These insights reveal how small details in timing, clarity, and emotional tone can make a big difference in shaping responsible user behavior.
Make research effortless at the right moment.
Keep commitment information on the pet page, in an easy accordion format, so users naturally read before they apply. This soft prompt increased research and supported better decisions.
Lower the barrier to browse and start
Clear entry points, filters, and a short matching quiz increased control and motivation. People felt more confident when they could narrow options and find a good fit quickly
Place calls-to-action with care
Keep the main apply action visible but not “banner-like.” In C, a top button was sometimes ignored as an ad. Positioning the CTA lower on the profile helped reduce banner blindness and premature clicks.
Time persuasive triggers to user intent
Avoid intrusive pop-ups at entry. Use prompts after a meaningful action, like post-application guidance, when motivation to engage with information is naturally higher
Use emotion responsibly
Emotional cues can raise interest but should be paired with transparent information and research prompts to prevent impulsive adoptions.
Expect broader relevance
These patterns apply beyond shelters to any platform that wants to influence behavior ethically while preserving autonomy and trust.
Key Takeaways
Design can inspire empathy and action, but it must do so responsibly. The study showed that people are more likely to make thoughtful and sustainable adoption decisions when design gently supports their motivation rather than pushing it. Clear information, emotional balance, and the right timing of persuasive elements proved far more powerful than aggressive triggers or complex flows. In short, persuasion works best when it feels like guidance, not pressure.
What I Learned
This project taught me how small design choices can completely change how users think and feel. I learned the importance of testing emotional and persuasive elements carefully and paying attention to not only what users do but why they do it. I also saw how valuable it is to design for both motivation and reflection, helping users feel confident in their decisions rather than just excited in the moment. Most of all, it showed me that ethical design can still be persuasive when it respects the user’s autonomy and trust.
Thank you so much for taking your time to read this case study! :)
My other case studies
Clip It.
Transforming a popular Roblox video creation tool to improve usability, reduce drop-offs, and enhance the creative experience.
Task Link
Designing a user-centered gig platform for the Romanian market that prioritizes trust, simplicity, and accessibility for everyday tasks.
Task Ease
A productivity mobile app, designed to help users manage their daily tasks efficiently with an intuitive and clean interface.
© 2023 by Klaudia Krakowiak