The psychology of gaps in design

Figure 1: The Psychology of Gaps: the power of intentional incompleteness in design

Originally published on 10th December 2025: https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/design/the-psychology-of-gaps-in-design/

Why do unfinished things draw us in?

The inspiration for this blog came during a lively conversation with fellow designers, as we explored new sources of inspiration. I found myself captivated by the concept of ‘intentional incompleteness’ and began to wonder how leaving things unfinished could transform both my practice and my research.

Imagine handing someone a colouring page with just a small patch filled in. Instinctively, they reach for a pencil, eager to complete the picture. This isn’t magic, it’s psychology at work. Our minds are wired to fill in gaps (Kanizsa, 1979), and incomplete tasks create a subtle mental tension (Zeigarnik, 1927) that urges us towards resolution. Designers can harness this powerful instinct, deliberately leaving elements unfinished to spark curiosity and deeper engagement, often more so than any polished final product. As someone prone to overthinking and perfectionism, I find this approach both challenging and liberating.

In this blog, I’ll explore how intentional incompleteness draws on human-centred design, motivational psychology, and ancient aesthetics to make products and systems more meaningful. Through stories, research on curiosity and dopamine, design frameworks like Agile and co-design, and the Japanese philosophy of wabi-sabi, I’ll show why imperfection and openness to change aren’t flaws, they’re powerful assets.

Figure 2: Examples of Intentional Incompleteness from my research

The Psychology of the Unfinished

Our minds are naturally drawn to the unfinished. Gestalt psychology reveals that when we see a line drawing with missing sections, we instinctively fill in the blanks, perceiving a complete figure even when parts are absent (Wertheimer, 1938; Kanizsa, 1979). This is the principle behind ‘dot to dot’ puzzles, and it’s why partial visuals—like half-visible elements in a digital carousel, invite us to explore further, signalling that there’s more to discover (Interaction Design Foundation, 2025).

But it’s not just about images. The Zeigarnik effect shows that unfinished tasks linger in our minds, creating a subtle tension that compels us to seek closure (Zeigarnik, 1927). Once we start something, we feel an intrinsic pull to complete it—a phenomenon Maria Ovsiankina explored in her research (Liu, 2024). This dynamic is powerful: incomplete tasks keep us engaged and motivated, but if left unresolved for too long, they can also lead to anxiety (Zeigarnik, 1927).

Designers can harness this psychological drive by intentionally leaving elements unfinished. Each small gap or open-ended step creates curiosity and cognitive tension, prompting users to act, whether it’s a child finishing a colouring page or a team member pushing a project forward. Used thoughtfully, intentional incompleteness transforms engagement from passive consumption to active participation.

The neuroscience of intentional incompleteness

Neuroscience has always felt like one of the most challenging areas of psychology to me. Still, I was curious: how does intentional incompleteness actually work in the brain? For this blog, I decided to dig into the science, and here’s what I discovered.

Figure 3: The neuroscience of intentional incompleteness

When something is left incomplete, our brains pay extra attention. Scientists have found that we’re especially sensitive to moments when reality doesn’t match what we expect, these ‘gaps’ make certain parts of the brain work harder to resolve the uncertainty. One area, called the anterior cingulate cortex, helps us notice when things aren’t quite right and encourages us to find answers. At the same time, our brain’s reward system kicks in, releasing dopamine a chemical that makes us feel good, when we get closer to finishing a task. This anticipation boosts our motivation and focus.

Missing information also sparks our imagination. Another part of the brain, known as the default mode network, helps us fill in the blanks, make connections, and produce new ideas. This is why we often remember unfinished tasks better than completed ones, and why we feel a gentle mental ‘tug’  to finish what we’ve started a phenomenon called the Zeigarnik effect.

This mental tension isn’t just a quirk, it can actually help us learn and solve problems, especially when we get helpful feedback along the way. In short, leaving things unfinished taps into our brain’s natural drive for meaning, curiosity, and closure.

Intrinsic Motivation: Curiosity, Competence, and Dopamine

So why does this tension feel rewarding instead of just annoying? Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000; 2020) explains that humans have basic psychological needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness, that fuel intrinsic motivation. Curiosity and interest naturally drive us to explore and learn. In fact, researchers describe intrinsic motivation as the spontaneous tendency to be curious and interested, to seek out challenges and to develop one’s knowledge (Ryan and Deci, 2020).

In practice, encountering something incomplete sparks curiosity, and the desire to explore the missing parts. Dopaminergic brain systems reward this, when we make progress toward a goal, our brains release dopamine, reinforcing the behaviour (Sharma, 2024). Each tiny completion (filling one part of the colouring page, closing one task) gives a hit of satisfaction and motivation to continue. The famous IKEA effect (one of my favourites) in psychology shows that people actually value things more highly when they’ve had a hand in building them (Norton, Mochon, and Ariely, 2012). Part of the reason is that assembling something yourself gives a sense of accomplishment and a boost to competence. In design, this means that inviting users to participate, even in small ways, makes them more attached and engaged.

Moreover, autonomy, the sense of control is also key. Designing tasks to be partially open-ended gives people choices about how to complete them, which further fuels our intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Designing with Incompletion: Agile, MVP, and Co-Creation

Contemporary design and development frameworks are built on the idea of iterative creation rather than all-or-nothing final services and products. In Agile and Lean approaches, teams ship the smallest possible version of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and then improve it rapidly with each iteration (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2020). This deliberate minimalism embraces incompleteness where features are held back until feedback justifies them, allowing real needs to shape the design. Similarly, Scrum was originated on the idea of ‘purposeful incompleteness’ so teams can fill in the gaps in context-appropriate ways (Schwaber and Sutherland, 2020). It also works by breaking the work into short cycles, where each cycle produces a small, usable part of the product. After each cycle, the team reviews what they’ve made and makes improvements before starting the next one.

Design thinking and doing processes are explicitly iterative and collaborative (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Participatory co-design goes a step further in which users and stakeholders are active partners and decision makers in the creation process. In participatory sessions, non-designers contribute ideas and feedback through their lived experiences by building with designers (Björgvinsson, Ehn and Hillgren, 2012).

From Pixels to Public Systems: Service and Systemic Design

This mindset of openness extends to service and systemic design, where complexity is high and no single answer suffices. In service design, intentionally unfinished elements signal that the system is adaptable (Akama, 2015). Designers often prototype ‘service recipes and pilot them, then adjust based on stakeholder input, an inherently open-ended process. Systemic design also treats solutions as evolving. Research describes systemic design methods as a flexible and adaptable way for groups to work together, using open-ended steps that encourage collaboration (Kimbell, 2011). In broader policy or service contexts, deliberately sharing incomplete frameworks allows communities to adapt and shape solutions with their local knowledge (Simeone, 2019).

An example of an intentionally incomplete parenting support activity from my own research is as follows:

Figure 4: An example incomplete workbook activity from my research

At the end of this example workbook activity there will be answers coded as follows:

              BLUE (Stress) marks physiological strain and cognitive overload.

              GREEN (Attachment) highlights relationship-based motivations.

              PURPLE (Identity) shows how parenting reflects self-story and self-doubt.

              YELLOW (Learning) shows the acquisition of tools and cognitive reframing.

              ORANGE (Environment) captures routine, logistics, and contextual influences.

              RED (Shame/Avoidance) points to sensitive emotional blockers:

Wabi-Sabi: The Aesthetics of Imperfection

Another really interesting idea in this area is Wabi-sabi which is a Japanese aesthetic that finds beauty in imperfection, impermanence, and incompleteness (Johnson, 2024). A classic definition calls it appreciation of beauty that is imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete. It encourages embracing the authentic a cracked pottery glaze, a slightly faded painting, or a design in progress.

Applying this to design means we value the process and its natural rough edges. Traditional Japanese arts often leave visible brushstrokes or natural textures, showing the maker’s hand. In product terms, a wabi-sabi approach might highlight the organic qualities of materials or deliberately leave a prototype slightly rugged. Crucially, wabi-sabi frames incompleteness not as a flaw but as an important part of the story. It nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging that nothing is ever truly finished (Johnson, 2024). For designers and users alike, this mindset can reduce anxiety and ready everyone for change.

Reflecting on this, I thought it might be interesting to look at how this could be used in my research prototyping:

Figure 5: An example wabi-sabi activity from my research

Conclusion

intentional incompleteness is more than just a design strategy; it’s a meeting point between psychological insight and practical creativity. Our minds are naturally drawn to what’s unfinished, and this tendency is harnessed by design frameworks, and participatory methods, all of which thrive on partial solutions and continuous feedback. The philosophy of wabi-sabi reminds us that imperfection and change are not weaknesses, but sources of strength.

What makes the unfinished so powerful is its ability to turn customers, beneficiaries and users into active participants and learners. By tapping into our need for closure and competence, intentional incompleteness transforms engagement from passive consumption to genuine collaboration. It honours the reality that, in both life and design, everything is always evolving. As  wabi-sabi might put it, perfection is an illusion, and true beauty lies in authenticity and imperfection.

References

Akama, Y. (2015) ‘Service Design: From Insight to Implementation’, Design and Culture, 7(2), pp.259–261.

Berlyne, D.E. (1960) Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.A. (2012) ‘Design Things and Design Thinking’, Design Issues, 28(3), pp.101–117.

Interaction Design Foundation (2025) The Law of Closure [Online]. Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/law-of-closure (Accessed: 30 November 2025).

Johnson, M. (2024) ‘Wabi-Sabi and the Psychology of Imperfection’, Psychology Today [Online]. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog (Accessed: 30 November 2025).

Kanizsa, G. (1979) Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Psychology. New York: Praeger.

Kimbell, L. (2011) ‘Designing for Service as One Way of Designing Services’, International Journal of Design, 5(2), pp.41–52.

Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) ‘The effects of feedback interventions on performance’, Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 254–284.

Liu, F. (2024) ‘How to Use the Zeigarnik Effect in UX’, Nielsen Norman Group, 27 March. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/zeigarnik-effect/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).

Norton, M.I., Mochon, D. and Ariely, D. (2012) ‘The IKEA effect’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), pp.453–460.

Panksepp, J. (1998) Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp.68–78.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Self-Determination Theory. New York: Guilford Press.

Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) ‘Co-creation and the new landscapes of design’, CoDesign, 4(1), pp.5–18.

Schwaber, K., and Sutherland, J. (2020) The Scrum Guide. Available at: https://scrumguides.org (Accessed: 30 November 2025).

Sharma, H. (2024) ‘The Psychology Behind Progress Bars and Their Impact on User Behavior’, Userpilot blog, 17 September. Available at: https://userpilot.com/blog/progress-bar-psychology/ (Accessed: 30 November 2025).

Simeone, L. (2019) ‘Incompleteness and Redundancy in Design’, CoDesign, 15(4), pp.361–376.

Wertheimer, M. (1938) Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. London: Harcourt Brace.

Zeigarnik, B. (1927) ‘On finished and unfinished tasks’, Psychologische Forschung, 9, pp. 1–85