As human beings, we are inherently somewhat stupid – or perfect, depending on your viewpoint. Our evolution has endowed us with a susceptibility to being suckered by cuteness and beauty; in fact:

“Studies show attractive students get more attention and higher evaluations from their teachers, good-looking patients get more personalized care from their doctors, and handsome criminals receive lighter sentences than less attractive convicts.” [1]

“‘A person’s physical attractiveness — the look that they’re basically born with — impacts every individual literally from birth to death,’ says Dr. Gordon Patzer, dean of the College of Business Administration at Roosevelt University. He’s spent 30 years studying and writing about physical attractiveness. ‘People are valued more who are higher in physical attractiveness. As distasteful at that might be, that’s the reality.’” [2]

This concept carries over into every realm of perception; which obviously includes web, print, and interface design:

“All versions of the ATMs were identical in function, the number of buttons, and how they operated, but some had the buttons and screens arranged attractively, the others unattractively. Suprise! The [researchers] found that the attractive ones were perceived to be easier to use.” – p. 17.” [3]

“Though trust is more a psychological issue, it is nonetheless very important for the relationship between users and the software they use. This is especially true on the Web. A high quality visual design builds up trust in an application while a dull, and even more a flawed, visual design reduces trust. This phenomenon can also be applied to other aspects of interface design, such as terminology and errors. Bugs, jargon, and typos considerably decrease users’ trust in an application and their motivation to use it.” [4]

There’s no question that most people react very differently in the presence of something they find attractive, cute, or beautiful. In basic biological terms, it’s why babies and puppies are cute. Why else would we tolerate a creature that cries, screams, barks, pees on the rug, poops, vomits; and would be an intolerable nuisance in any other scenario?

If we apply this concept broadly to design, you could say that a pretty website is going to have its flaws tolerated much more than an ugly website; and a brilliantly functioning but visually unappealing website will likely lose out to an attractive site that functions averagely.

All of these elements are tied to trust. If it looks like a website is confident and well-groomed, it will get more people to trust it than an unkempt and vague website.

Of course there are exceptions to this concept (ie, Craigslist); but those exceptions usually garner a market that is savvier and more “in the know” than others – the type of audience that tells their friends, “It looks like s**t, but it’s got really powerful features. You should check it out.”
But that’s not a gamble one wants to take when establishing an online presence, especially if an exchange of money is expected.

For companies and organizations whose message is not without controversy, the idea of appealing and professional design is paramount; as it is quite possible, given that message, that it could come off – when coupled with bad design – as unstable or “fringe,” despite the fact that the core message might actually have strong popular support in many areas, when divorced of stereotypical design choices.

Whereas, a more “universal” message can almost be taken as “cute” in and of itself – ie, “save the adorable manatees” – something which people would probably still eat up if it was written in sharpie on a grocery bag. Though, of course, coupling an attractive message with attractive design will help it that much more.