Sign in

Original research · Public evidence audit

What does UX psychology actually support?

A transparent first cut from The UXologist’s reviewed library: what each concept can help explain, where transfer to an interface is uncertain and which confident design rules the evidence does not justify.

105
concepts in the reviewed library
415
checked sources across the library
4
concepts classified in this first cut
3
evidence-fit descriptions

How to read the map

Fit describes transfer—not whether a concept is “good”.

Direct interface relevance combines research about useful task feedback with current digital accessibility guidance.

Adjacent evidence includes interface or memory findings that can inform a UX hypothesis but do not establish a general product outcome.

Limited interface transfer means a controlled effect is documented, while the leap to attention, preference or action remains unsupported.

Only four classifications are published here because every label must be traceable to the reviewed source record. Ambiguous concepts are withheld until that classification is complete.

First reviewed cut · 27 August 2026

Compare support and limits together.

  1. Feedback Loop

    Evidence basis: Performance-feedback reviews plus WCAG guidance for digital status messages.

    What the review supports: Accurate, perceivable task feedback can confirm state, support correction and clarify the next action.

    Limit: More feedback is not automatically better; vague praise, alerts and person-level judgement can distract or reduce performance.
    Evidence fit: Direct interface relevance

  2. Progressive Disclosure

    Evidence basis: Two small interface studies and established interaction-design guidance.

    What the review supports: Layered presentation can change how people approach complex information in defined interfaces.

    Limit: The reviewed studies do not establish a reliable cognitive-load benefit, and hidden options or total scope can be missed.
    Evidence fit: Adjacent interface evidence

  3. Recency Effect

    Evidence basis: Controlled memory experiments using ordered lists and free-recall tests.

    What the review supports: Items near the end of a studied list can have an immediate free-recall advantage under particular conditions.

    Limit: Delay, distraction, modality and recall method can change the result; later placement does not imply persuasion or conversion.
    Evidence fit: Adjacent memory evidence

  4. Von Restorff Effect

    Evidence basis: Laboratory list-learning reviews and recall, recognition and source-memory experiments.

    What the review supports: An isolated item can have a relative memory advantage within an organised set under some study conditions.

    Limit: Isolation does not guarantee attention, comprehension, recognition, source memory or action in an interface.
    Evidence fit: Limited interface transfer