News broke Friday that 23andMe, the provider of genetic testing services built around a $99 kit you can use at home, would cease providing health information to consumers while the product underwent a Food and Drug Administration approval process, because the FDA considers the test a medical device that requires regulatory review. While the FDA reviews the product, 23andMe will continue to provide customers ancestry data and raw data.

Coincidentally, right when the news was posted, I was speaking with celebrated behavioral economist Dan Ariely about 23andMe. Ariely saw an ad for the kit and his curiosity prompted him to take the test. When he got the results, he knew he wanted to direct a researcher’s lens on it, because “this was standard, classic, even an exaggerated case of information overload. I wanted to analyze it from the point of view of what we can do with this information, and what should we do. I also had the thought, maybe we could use it for our research on decision making.” So Ariely got kits for all of the researchers on his staff. He spoke to me about the results of that experiment, and how he hopes products like 23andMe could improve based on behavioral science.

What was it about the results that made you think that the 23andMe service warranted more attention?

So I got all these results about my future health and illness, and didn’t know how to digest them. It was overwhelming, and not necessarily useful information. I was also anxious about it. I found myself wondering how my kids were doing. So I also got kits for my family. And then I also got the kits for everyone in my lab.

What was the reaction to the kits in the lab?

One person did not take the test, because she didn’t want to know. Most of the other researchers reacted negatively to the information they received. And in particular they didn’t like that the system did not help you separate things you could do something about from those you couldn’t. If, for example, I know that I might have a chance of high cholesterol, maybe there’s something I can do about it. On the other hand, if I’m likely to have colon cancer, I don’t know what I can do about that. After the initial trial, as far as I know, no one from my research lab went back to the website to get more information. Curiosity drove the initial use, but there wasn’t much interest afterward.

So it was dissatisfaction with the presentation of results.

It was more than that. People were sort of frightened, and we’re a lab of people who work on decision making. On the other hand, they highly valued the family finder aspect — where do you fall on the family tree and what’s your ancestry and who you’re related to. For me it was great to realize my kids were 99.7% mine [LAUGHS].

You said people were sort of frightened. Do you think 23andMe is scaring people to sell their product?

No. But I do think it relates to what psychologists call the burden of choice. If a doctor tells you that you have to make a decision about what to do about a very sick child, that choice becomes a burden in itself regardless of the results. You wake up every day wondering if you did the right thing. If the doctor says “here’s what I think you should do,” the doctor takes on the burden. In the 23andMe case, I think there’s similar thing happening but it’s a burden of knowledge. If you know even possible future illnesses based on genetics, are you already paying a price just by having that knowledge?

I’ll give you a personal example of the burden of knowledge. When I was 25, doctors found out I had Hepatitis C. One of my doctors told me that my life expectancy was 30 years. Later, I found out that wasn’t true and since then I’ve been treated with Interferon and I haven’t had the disease for many years now. But that number, 30 years, stayed with me. It never went away. I have that burden of knowledge. In this case with 23andMe, the test service is creating a burden right now, and not helping to reduce it.

Does 23andMe have an obligation to be better with the information.

I think that they want to get better at it. It’s their mission to get people to make better decisions. In the realm of information that is frightening and worrisome, that’s not an easy thing to do. I met people in 23andMe and they are interested in the well-being of their users. When we did the tests with the people in my research lab I sent a report to them with our thoughts. My sense is that their heart is in the right place. From my perspective, doing the right thing and profiting form it is perfectly fine. It’s a simple starting point they began with: just give people the information and they’ll be better off with it. Now 23andMe need to refine their use of data. They have to have behaviorists on their staff and use them to make the information more useful. If you think you can just give people information and expect good response, no way. It’s way too much information and it is too expensive emotionally.

So how can they start to get better?

If I were their advisor I would make decisions for people. If the test reveals that you have a relatively high chance of colon cancer, but you can’t do anything about it, maybe we don’t even tell you that, but for sure not lead with this news front and center. But, if results suggest that you have a moderate chance of diabetes that you can control by changing behavior, I would emphasize that. I would lead with the family history and genetic mapping. It’s popular and less controversial. Next I would offer information and general suggestions for how you could improve life expectancy and quality of life, based on results that are actionable. Then, I would create another layer that would cost more to access and in that layer I would give all of the detailed information, including information about things that are largely out of your control. I would make that layer cost more because I want people to make an active choice to get that level of information. I basically want to make sure that people who go for that level of information want to invest in the burden of knowing. Even with all of this, I still think that the information communicated has to be better.

We know from research that most people are innumerate when it comes to risk. It’s not easy for us to understand what it means that you have a one in a thousand chance of something happening to you. How can you communicate risks like the chances you’ll get breast cancer in a way that doesn’t frighten people?

This is a really complex issue. If it says you’re likely to get Alzheimer’s–what does likely mean? And at what age? And how severely? There’s also something called focalism. Even if it’s an outcome that’s far away, by reporting it, you make a person focus on it and then they will exaggerate its likelihood or importance. Are you making people miserable, worried and upset for nothing? That was a big missing link for me in the results.

It sounds like this maybe shouldn’t be a consumer product yet?

I’m a big believer in technology and I think if it’s done right 23andME is a great product. I worry a lot that people don’t think about the future enough, and the lack of thinking about the future is a big part of my research. I think the ability to get people to look at the future in a meaningful way and help them shape it, could be very powerful. The promise is tremendous, the execution right now is not my favorite. I don’t’ want people to have the burden of information. I don’t want to frighten people. I don’t want to make them unnecessarily worried. And I suspect that simply giving people all the information will get them to act in all kinds of ways that aren’t optimal.

You said you were surprised by the one researcher who never used the kit. That seems to me to be, maybe not an optimal choice, but a very human one.

This person was thinking that there’s not much she would be able to do about most of what she would learn so the test would just reduce her enjoyment of living. That’s perfectly valid. We know many people get tested for dire diseases all the time and never pick up their results. It is a human response. We researched this general topic once. We asked people on a hot summer day at a local pool, what are the odds that someone had peed in that pool at some point earlier in the day, and the results came back where most people say something close a 100 percent, it was virtually certain that some kid peed in the pool. But people still used the pool. Then we asked them to imagine someone peeing in that pool right there while they were there watching, and asked how they would feel about going in after? You can figure out what they said. Sometimes a little ambiguity makes life much more bearable.