Although I have experience in qual, quant and analytics, I have always been very much a quantie at heart – I love data, scouring for patterns and uncovering insights. However, every so often, I encounter research results that seem to defy expectations: products don’t perform as well as expected; actions deviate from intentions; and data contradicts itself. It’s in these moments that I’m reminded of the invaluable role that a solid grasp of consumer psychology plays in understanding human behaviour and decision-making.
My personal introduction to consumer psychology happened back in university. I was majoring in Marketing with Psychology, but it was when I started my consumer psychology module that things just clicked. Suddenly, I was learning principles that helped connect the dots in behaviour that had previously seemed to defy common sense. In the years since, I have come across many psychological principles that I see appear over and over again in research data. So, if you’ve ever found yourself scratching your head at your research results, I encourage you to review a couple of the below examples and have a think if any of these might hold the key to the insights you’ve been searching for.
The Halo Effect
What is it?
The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias where our impression of a product, brand, or service in one area influences our judgment of other specific traits. Simply put, if we perceive something positively in one aspect, we tend to default to viewing it positively in other unrelated aspects as well.
As seen in the research world
This could manifest as an overly positive or negative evaluation of a product or service – look for consistently high scores across the board, particularly for well-known products, brands or services.
What can we do about it?
We have a couple of options here to help mitigate the impact of the Halo Effect: employing a blind test methodology will help to eliminate the impact of brand or price (for example). If we have a data set that we suspect is influenced by the Halo Effect, there are different kinds of analysis we can also run to downweight its impact (at Boxclever, we use ‘brand signatures’).
Cognitive Dissonance
What is it?
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we feel when holding contradictory beliefs or attitudes. To alleviate this discomfort, we often seek to justify our thoughts and actions to bring them back into alignment. For example, maybe you’re on a health kick and someone brings doughnuts into the office (unfortunately this is quite a common occurrence at our office!)- you might eat a couple and then try to alleviate the guilt/disappointment by telling yourself that it’s not so bad for you, and that you’ll go for a run after work (or play 10 rounds of table tennis with your colleague). This is you trying to shake the discomfort of the intention-action gap that’s been created.
As seen in the research world
Cognitive dissonance is never that far removed from participants who provide conflicting responses. I was once in a focus group years ago that was split into ex-smokers and current smokers. Both groups were absolutely insistent that health was a priority for them but their opinions on cigarettes were startlingly different (and as you can imagine, made for some very tense interactions).
What can we do about it?
Researchers should be aware of cognitive dissonance’s influence and design studies that minimize opportunities for participants to experience conflicting thoughts. In qual research, it’s also worth considering that cognitive dissonance can make participants feel quite uncomfortable and defensive, so to tread very lightly when addressing topics that might be sensitive.
Framing
What is it?
Framing refers to how information is presented- the way statements are framed can lead individuals to perceive the same information differently. A medical procedure that has a 90% recovery rate is exactly the same as one that has a 10% mortality rate, but is viewed completely differently in terms of risk.
As seen in the research world
Researchers may inadvertently bias their studies by framing questions or information in a way that skews participants’ responses. For example, asking people to fully evaluate a concept before deciding whether they would be interested in purchasing can lead to results that have been overrationalised and so are not representative of the real world.
What can we do about it?
Carefully consider how questions are framed and the contextual information we give to minimise bias. Using neutral language and exploring multiple frames can provide a more balanced perspective.
Option Paralysis
What is it?
Option paralysis, also known as choice overload or consumer hyperchoice, occurs when individuals are presented with too many choices, leading to anxiety and difficulty in making decisions.
As seen in the research world
In research, option paralysis can result in participants struggling to make choices, potentially leading to inconsistent or unreliable responses. Providing long lists for comparison in surveys is incredibly mentally exhausting for respondents and hinders their ability to make solid decisions.
What can we do about it?
Aim for simplicity in questionnaires- keep lists and options short. Advanced analytics such as max diff and conjoint are also effective for when we want to robustly evaluate a large set of variables without fatiguing participants.
Incorporating an understanding of these psychological principles into your research can both help make sense of human behaviour, and bolster the credibility of your insight to clients. These are a handful of examples amongst hundreds of different concepts- I still come across new principles regularly! As I mentioned, psychology is a particular passion of mine so for anyone who would be interested in learning more, feel free to reach out or check out the following reading recommendations below.
Books
• The Illusion of Choice: 16½ psychological biases that influence what we buy – Richard Shotton
• Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman
• Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking- Malcolm Gladwell
• Decoded: The Science Behind Why We Buy – Phil Barden
• A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance – Leon Festinger
Academic research
• You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? – Lee et al (2013)
• Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction – Loftus and Palmer (1974)
• The effect of hyperchoice on the consumer and the moderating effect of the brand: An application in the jewelry market – Larceneux et al (2007)
• When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? – Iyengar and Lepper (2000)
• An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory -Harmon-Jones and Mills (2019)
• The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice – Tversky and Kahneman (1981)