Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Human Computer Interaction›Hick-Hyman Law
Hypothesis testDecision Making

Hick-Hyman Law

Hick-Hyman Law of Choice Reaction Time · Also known as: Hick's Law, Law of Choice Reaction Time

The Hick-Hyman Law predicts that human decision time increases logarithmically with the number of equally likely choices. Independently formulated by William Edmund Hick and Ray Hyman in the early 1950s, this law describes how long it takes a person to make a choice among alternatives. In human-computer interaction, the law is widely applied to menu design, navigation hierarchies, and command selection, showing that users take longer to select from larger sets of options, but the relationship is logarithmic, not linear.

ScholarGate
  1. Hypothesis test
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Hick-Hyman Law
Cognitive WalkthroughKLM-GOMSSystem Usability ScaleThink-Aloud Protocol

When to use it

Use Hick-Hyman Law to evaluate choice menus, command selection, navigation hierarchies, and categorized options. Best applied when users must select among discrete, clearly labeled alternatives. Most applicable to decision-driven interfaces (menus, toolbars, form selections). Do not use for continuous input (sliders, text entry) or tasks involving learning or familiar routines.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Simple, logarithmic relationship makes menu structure optimization straightforward and actionable.
  • Explains decision time in menu-based interfaces; accounts for both number and probability of choices.
  • Directly applicable to information architecture and navigation design decisions.
  • Supported by decades of cognitive psychology research across diverse choice domains.
Limitations
  • Assumes equal or statistically independent choices; real-world menus often have frequency-of-use biases.
  • Does not account for visual search, reading time, or visual distinctiveness of options.
  • Less predictive for novel or unfamiliar choice sets where users lack strategic knowledge.
  • Does not model learning effects; repeated choices become faster as users recognize patterns.

Frequently asked

Should I always use a hierarchical menu structure to minimize Hick-Hyman effects?

Not always. While hierarchies reduce choice per level, they add decision steps and can increase total time if the depth is excessive. Aim for a balanced tree (depth 2–3) and group related options together. Empirical testing with your user population is crucial.

How does the law account for unequal choice probabilities (e.g., some options used more often)?

The entropy-based formulation uses H = −Σpᵢ log₂(pᵢ), which accounts for probability. Frequently used options effectively reduce decision entropy, so users select them faster. Place high-frequency items higher in menus or at the top level.

Is the Hick-Hyman Law still relevant for search-based interfaces?

The law applies less directly to search (e.g., type-to-filter in modern UIs) because users are searching, not scanning discrete choices. However, it remains relevant for structured category selection prior to search, or for voice/gesture interfaces with fixed option sets.

Sources

  1. Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26. DOI: 10.1080/17470215208416600 ↗
  2. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 188–196. DOI: 10.1037/h0056940 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Hick-Hyman Law of Choice Reaction Time. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/human-computer-interaction/hick-hyman-law

Related methods

Cognitive WalkthroughKLM-GOMSSystem Usability ScaleThink-Aloud Protocol

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Cognitive WalkthroughHuman Computer Interaction↔ compare
  • KLM-GOMSHuman Computer Interaction↔ compare
  • System Usability ScaleHuman Computer Interaction↔ compare
  • Think-Aloud ProtocolHuman Computer Interaction↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

Fitts's LawKLM-GOMSHeuristic EvaluationTree TestingCard SortingThink-Aloud ProtocolFirst-Click TestingDrift Diffusion Model

Related reference concepts

Cognitive Models of InteractionPointing and Target AcquisitionUsability and EvaluationHeuristic Evaluation and Inspection MethodsUsability Metrics and MeasurementUsability Testing

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Hick-Hyman Law (Hick-Hyman Law of Choice Reaction Time). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/human-computer-interaction/hick-hyman-law · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
William Edmund Hick and Ray Hyman
Subfamily
Decision Making
Year
1952
Type
Empirical model of choice reaction time as logarithmic function of number of choices
Related methods
Cognitive WalkthroughKLM-GOMSSystem Usability ScaleThink-Aloud Protocol
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account