Research in a World of Irrational Expectations

RESEARCH IN A WORLD OF IRRATIONAL EXPECTATIONS HOW NEW THINKING FROM BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS CHANGES THE WAY WE LOOK AT AND CONDUCT RESEARCH Stephen Phillips • Abigail Hill

ESOMAR Office: Barbara Strozzilaan 384 Eurocenter 2 1083 NH Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31-20-664 21 41 Fax: +31-20-664 29 22 Email: [email protected] Website: www.esomar.org

Publication Date: September 2011 ESOMAR Publication Series Volume C11 ISBN 92-831-0253-3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted or made available in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ESOMAR. ESOMAR will pursue copyright infringements.

In spite of careful preparation and editing, this publication may contain errors and imperfections. Authors, editors and ESOMAR do not accept any responsibility for the consequences that may arise as a result thereof. The views expressed by the authors in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of ESOMAR.

By the mere offering of any material to ESOMAR in order to be published, the author thereby guarantees: • that the author - in line with the ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Marketing and Social Research– has obtained permission from clients and/ or third parties to present and publish the information contained in the material offered to ESOMAR; • that the material offered to ESOMAR does not infringe on any right of any third party; and • that the author shall defend ESOMAR and hold ESOMAR harmless from any claim of any third party based upon the publication by ESOMAR of the offered material.

Published by ESOMAR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Edited by: Deborah S. Fellow

ABOUT ESOMAR

ESOMAR is the essential organisation for encouraging, advancing and elevating market research worldwide.

With more than 4,800 members from over 120 countries, ESOMAR’s aim is to promote the value of market and opinion research in illuminating real issues and bringing about effective decision-making.

To facilitate this ongoing dialogue, ESOMAR creates and manages a comprehensive programme of industry specific and thematic events, publications and communications, as well as actively advocating self-regulation and the worldwide code of practice.

ESOMAR was founded in 1948.

ABOUT ESOMAR MEMBERSHIP ESOMAR is open to everyone, all over the world, who believes that high quality research improves the way businesses make decisions. Our members are active in a wide range of industries and come from a variety of professional backgrounds, including research, marketing, advertising and media.

Membership benefits include the right to be listed in the ESOMAR Directories of Research Organisations and to use the ESOMAR Membership mark, plus access to a range of publications (either free of charge or with discount) and registration to all standard events, including the Annual Congress, at preferential Members’ rates.

Members have the opportunity to attend and speak at conferences or take part in workshops. At all events the emphasis is on exchanging ideas, learning about latest developments and best practice and networking with other professionals in marketing, advertising and research. CONGRESS is our flagship event, attracting over 1,000 people, with a full programme of original papers and keynote speakers, plus a highly successful trade exhibition. Full details on latest membership are available online at www.esomar.org.

RESEARCH IN A WORLD OF IRRATIONAL EXPECTATIONS HOW NEW THINKING FROM BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS CHANGES THE WAY WE LOOK AT AND CONDUCT RESEARCH Stephen Phillips • Abigail Hill

INTRODUCTION Those of us in the industry know only too well that today’s researchers have to be on the pulse of developments in the understanding of human behaviour. Behavioural Economics in the last five years has made a big impact on marketing, business and government strategy. Yet how much of this thinking has fed into the way we conduct Market Research on a day to day basis?

Within this paper we’ll demonstrate behavioural economics at work and the reasoning (or not) behind human behaviour. Firstly, this paper will explore behavioural economics’ relevance, looking at some of the fundamentals of Behavioural Economics and how this translates to human behaviour. We will use this as a starting point to investigate the impact it has on the research processes, particularly looking at four learnings from Behaviour Economics: anchoring, conformity, choice architecture and processing evidence.

ECONOMICS TO MARKET RESEARCH, MAKING MODELS AND DRAWING COMPARISONS My interest in behavioural economics grew as a result of being a classically trained economist; something a predominately, qualitative market researcher would normally avoid admitting. The experience of studying Economics was a really interesting academic pursuit but it was just that, an academic pursuit. Economics works by creating and then analysing models or theories, for example on the working of the global economy, which would be well thought through, intellectually appealing and build a macro view of the world. Then someone would come along with data (annoyingly) having looked at the actuality of what was being studied and discover the model or theory to be flawed. So then another model or theory would be created – often a beautifully simple and compelling intellectual construct – which worked in theory until someone else disproves it with data. Whether Marx, Friedman or Keynes; models would be created, disproved and then changed. These models are based on intellectual constructs of the world; data is then added to it and made to fit until it is then prove or shown to be false, a new model would be worked on and put into practice.

Now, the opposite can almost be said for Market Research, market researchers are often guilty of taking a model or an assumed construct and then populating it with data. It isn’t the model that is argued about; they simply construct or reconstruct the model using different data each time. However, having something in mind before the research begins creates inaccuracies and expected outcomes distort data before it’s even produced. Take the purchase funnel as an example, a model of purchasing behaviour which is not reflective of actual human decision making. It suggests people have an emerging need, then they go into a consideration phase in which they create a short list of potential products, test these and then make a purchase decision.

The purchase funnel is used in market research as a model of behaviour that is fact and then populated through surveys and statistics. But the underlying model is demonstrably wrong, consumers don’t methodically go through options and think of the rationale of each consideration whenever making a purchase, it’s just not possible, especially as we don’t always purchase the most appropriate thing. We simply don’t have time for this, we create shortcuts instead which differ with purchases and people, (see Decision Watch UK: Blades and Phillips, 1995). Purchase decisions therefore are more unlikely to occur as a fixed structure and can be better described as a game of Snakes & Ladders, where various events occur along the purchase journey either fast tracking them to a decision or drop them back down to consider other options (Phillips, 2006). (See figure 1.)

FIGURE 1

We should be aware at the beginning of the research how much we can potentially influence results. Often surveys will include a question about a ‘long list’ of brands a consumer had in their mind and perhaps also a ‘short list’ and consumers will diligently answer with an appropriate list of brands despite the fact that many will not have gone through these steps at all. Currently, rather than throwing out the model altogether, findings are being distorted through these presuppositions. As when people are asked to populate a model that has been presupposed as correct, we shouldn’t be surprised when it comes back to ‘prove’ those thoughts.

This is just one example of how market research uses presuppositions of human behaviour, the same can be argued for conjoint; it is not a structure that should be used for understanding decision making. The reason being it’s based on old utilitarian concepts of utility maximisation, another provably false assertion for many situations - it’s simply not how people behave yet researchers take that on and populate it. Then there is customer satisfaction measurement, by assuming people will act according to an unrepresentative and unnatural model, research results often reproduce this assumption. This occurs due to the way sample is selected, discussion guides or questionnaires are constructed, through to the way language is interpreted. Often the rational response isn’t necessarily the real response; therefore assuming fixed models based on rational man’s behaviour are correct disrupts results before we have even made them.

FIGURE 2, A CARTOON ADAPTION OF DAN ARIELY’S YOUTUBE INTRODUCTION TO BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS Economist’s view Behavioural Economist’s view

We live in a rational world, where we don’t let emotions cloud our judgement I don’t agree, people act irrationally they fight and put things off when it’s not in their interest But I can make a model of rational behaviour and show how human behaviour fits Into one neat, single theory But it’s not reflective of the real world, I use experiments to see behaviour in action, and to see the world as it actually is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa-mIosWOK8

The argument Behavioural Economics makes about Economics is that they are all too often unrepresentative of actual human behaviour as they focus on rational man’s behaviour, one that doesn’t actually exist (see figure 2). Behavioural Economics actually looks at human behaviour and accepts the irrational choices and decisions that are made on a day to day basis.

What we want to investigate now is how behavioural economics learning could help improve market research. So within this paper we will be looking into how market research could take the rigour or discipline of behavioural economics when constructing a model but doing so from data that is not tarnished with preconceived models or constructs.

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS? Behavioural Economics came about as a response to Classical Economic theory. Rather than ignoring or ruling out almost all behaviour studies such as work done by cognitive and social psychologists, Behavioural Economics includes this thinking in their work. It departs from the idea of us solely using rationality in our beliefs and in choices. Behavioural Economics follows the idea that humans make decisions based on a range of emotions, by choice reduction strategies, and are often influenced by the factors such as their environment. Here we outline four of the core intertwined elements of Behavioural Economics and discuss some of their implications for research:

 Anchoring - The setting of reference points (anchors) impact peoples subsequent decisions and opinions;  Herd mentality and conformity - Human beings are social creatures and have an inbuilt tendency to follow the crowd;  Choice: o The paradox of choice - Contrary to the rational view that more choice leads to increased satisfaction, it actually leads to paralysis or buyer’s remorse, o Choice architecture - The way that information is presented to people has an impact on decision making;  Subjective processing of evidence - Human beings bring many subjective preconceptions to the decision making process.

ANCHORING IN PRACTICE Anchoring is one of the most pervasive and easily replicated effects in human nature. It is the effect of reference points which people use as an anchor for subsequent decisions and opinions and is most commonly seen when talking about numbers, especially pricing. When Spring conducted an experiment where we asked people to guess when Leonardo da Vinci was born, people who were asked if he was born before or after 1698 went on to give an average guess of 1638, but if they were fed the year 1391 they gave an average answer of 1413. That seems understandable - if people don’t know the answer it’s natural to look at a number nearby that might be relevant and use it as an anchor or guidance. People tend to keep that number in their mind, use it as a starting point and then move away from it in the direction of the correct answer. They don’t start afresh even though they aren’t necessarily aware they are using the anchor.

It becomes interesting when you insert complete randomness into it. For instance, Dan Ariely (2009) did an experiment on a group of students and conducted a silent auction on four products, a computer mouse, a keyboard, a bottle of 1988 Cote de Rhône and a 1996 Hermitage. He also included a bit of information on each of the wines. He asked the students to write down the last two digits of their social security number against each item before writing next to it what they are willing to pay. The students knew these numbers were random with no relation to the item they were considering purchasing. However, as you see from figure 3, those who have a low social security number were willing to pay less than those with a higher social security number. They have anchored on a number they know is arbitrary.

Figure 3 shows us something else interesting – the anchoring effect can extend beyond the first instance to have an impact on later decision making. Participants in this example were first asked about the computer mouse then the computer keyboard - an easily relatable item. Most people see a computer keyboard as something more expensive than a mouse, so they gave it a much higher price, even though the computer mouse may have been priced too high or low. So they anchored on something arbitrary, and then anchored that on to the next article. Even when based on something completely unrelated, they take that number and use it to make their next decision. The same happened with the wine. They were told the 1996 was a better year so they priced that up from their estimate for the other, ‘inferior’ bottle. They knew the whole time where the original number came from, and yet it had an impact on the price that they felt willing to pay.

FIGURE 3

$60.00

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00 00 ‐ 19 20 ‐ 39 40 ‐ 59 60 ‐ 79 80 ‐ 99 Last 2 digits of social security number Mouse Keyboard 1998 Côtes du Rhône 1996 Hermitage

We see this regularly in daily life, I’m sure those of you reading this have experienced going home after a day’s shopping feeling very smug having found something in the sale. Often it’s something you never intended to purchase but because it was reduced, you feel you have saved money and it was therefore great value. Steve Jobs used anchoring to great effect when announcing the price of the iPad 2. The media had heard the price could be as high as $1000 (no doubt from Apple), as he announces the actual price the $1000 is shown on the big screen and is then shown to shatter, as a lower price drops on it (see figure 4).

FIGURE 4

THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR RESEARCH In one piece of research we were hoping to find out how much people would be likely to pay for concert tickets for a charity event. As we are aware of the effect of anchoring in groups we asked each individual to write down rather than say how much they’d pay. Each group resulted in a large range of prices, anywhere from £15 - £150. However, in one group, despite asking them not to, a lady said aloud “I’d say about £50” then the rest of the group put their price within £10 of that amount. The effects are huge.

The potential impact of this effect on a pricing study is very clear - no matter the order of the questions asking what is too little, too much and just right will always be anchored by their previous answer. Even a survey that isn’t on pricing is susceptible – what numbers are we including or asking respondents to think about which might have an impact on their responses? How is the questionnaire ordered? Will the last question impact the next?

Free flowing conversations allow respondents to use natural anchors rather than hooking on to our imposed ones This is the same for discussion guides, which is why it is important to keep them as open as possible. We use a non- directed interviewing technique where we ask the respondent to tell their ‘story’ of a particular event in their own words, including all that is important to them and adding more as they recall it (see Snakes & Ladders 2006). This way the respondents create the order of the discussion and are anchored on natural points of reference that occur in reality rather than from our presuppositions.

Keeping the conversation free flowing also aids understanding on what is having an impact on them such as price points and brand perceptions. We get to know what the anchors in the actual marketplace are and can gauge what criteria consumers are using as a base point for these comparisons such as price, service features and trust.

Anchoring shows us the importance of always rotating when testing concepts! This is common practice anyway but responses to the second, third or fourth concept will always be anchored by the first. Alongside this we need to be aware of the words we use as moderators to introduce and describe concepts, as these will impact responses.

Think carefully about where research is conducted We must also consider how the context in which we do research might impact our answers. If we do a group in a Hilton it will feel differently and so bring about different responses than if we do it in a community centre. Often hall tests come back with more positive results than online questionnaires due to the different environment in which the research is done. In actual fact it’s worth thinking about how the warm up conversation, or lack of, is where the whole tone is set. Making someone feel at ease can make them become more positive, or telling someone they are an expert can make them more critical.

We can’t escape anchoring – it is part of who we are as people so trying to entirely exclude it from the research process isn’t possible or even preferable – as we would then be measuring something artificial. We must consider both what anchors are out there already and be aware of the anchors we provide, whether they are numerical, verbal or situational.

CONFORMITY IN PRACTICE Humans are social creatures and tend to follow the crowd, we rely on what others do and say to inform our own decisions. Conformity is a very big topic right now and has been brought into the mainstream through an increase in publications in this area such as Mark Earls’ book Herd (2007) and Seth Godin’s Tribes (2008). We are social creatures and we follow people’s actions and leads. But the question is why do we do this? Are we just blindly following what other people do? The answer is we are not, we are constantly making rational decisions along the way. It’s just that we constantly observe and rely on other’s behaviour to inform our own decisions, due to an underlying assumption that the group’s mentality will be superior to our own. Psychologically this is our way of shortcutting, another example of how we are ‘cognitive misers’; if our decision turns out to be wrong then it can be blamed on the group, rather than ourselves.

We are not only motivated by the desire to fit in with others but also through a fear of being left out. Both Behavioural Economists and qualitative researchers have come to realise humans conform to a group as they don’t want to be singled out. Already experts have been looking at how this can be applied to real life, for example in political planning. In Michigan in 2006, research was conducted with the aim to understand the best measures to encourage voting uptake through mailers. Four different mailers were sent out to groups of 20,000 in the run-up to a local election. The mailer sent to group one was the control mailer containing a simple plea containing a message along the lines of ‘vote, it’s your civic duty’. The second group received a mailer explaining that there was a study taking place and their voting records would be studied in order to see how to increase voting turn out. The third group received a mailer that had begun to match the voting behaviour to everyone in the household to show who voted and who haven’t. The fourth group received a mailer that asked ‘what if your neighbour knew if you voted?’ It listed the people in the neighbourhood with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether they voted or not, and also explained that after the upcoming election a follow-up mailer would be sent out indicating who did or did not vote (see figure 5). The results of this research demonstrated that groups two and three had an increased turnout of 2% in comparison with group one. However, group four, those who received the mailer that would display their voting behaviour in relation to those of their neighbours, had an 8% increase in voting turnout, that’s 300% increase on impact in comparison with the other mailers!

WHAT CAN IT DO FOR MARKET RESEARCH? This herd mentality or conformity is apparent in all aspects of our lives, and can be a problem when conducting research. This is something researchers are already aware of; though mainly from the measures they go to in order to see that focus groups aren’t swayed by two outspoken individuals who only too happily (and in the worse cases loudly and forcefully) share their views with everyone. If it gets to this point without the moderator delicately introducing other potential perspectives, you almost feel the attitude in the room change as the rest of the group defaults to these individuals’ perspectives.

Focus groups are an area within market research where conformity is most acknowledged. Many tactics can be used to diminish the ‘herd effect’, those in the industry believe it wouldn’t be worth continuing groups without understanding these group dynamics. It is why frequently we ensure people are questioned before the group or complete ‘homework’ capturing their individual viewpoint. When dealing with stimulus, we ask respondents to write down their reactions first before discussing as a group in order to get individual initial thoughts and to take ownership of their first thoughts.

FIGURE 5

These practices are done throughout qualitative market research and many believe that this is enough. However, looking further into group dynamics from a behavioural economist’s perspective we start to become aware of other things. For instance, what are the consequences of silencing, or at least dialling down, that one person in the group that is influencing the rest of the group? Generally speaking those loud people who are surer of their opinions than others in the group are likely to be like that in everyday life. They probably are constantly influencing their friends and acquaintances around them. Allowing these people to have an impact on the group, and understanding the reactions of the others, could give us a better understanding of how decisions are made and opinions formed in a much more realistic way.

So the idea of getting the individual’s perspective at the beginning of a group isn’t necessarily the best method. An individual’s behaviour and motivations in isolation isn’t necessarily the best way of understanding them. We need to see what people are doing in context – who are their influencers? How do they affect others around them?

Work with the Herd effect rather that against it It’s not necessarily all about counteracting the herd effect but working with it. Cutting it out of focus groups decreases the already diluted reflection of reality groups have. By doing fieldwork that looks at the effects of influencers in group discussions rather than downplaying them we get a better understanding of this. For instance, recruiting connected friendship groups or doing online communities can capture how a social group influences one another.

Other ideas include researchers getting more creative such as looking at running a group with thirty people and multiple moderators seeing how cliques and / or consensus is created. How are people forming their opinions with the others around them? And what are the key things that have the most impact? Researchers could look at different criteria when it comes to the way the sample is split for groups. Rather than simply splitting groups by age or gender or brand preference, look at having a group selected on attitudes such as lovers vs. haters of the brand, etc. By doing conflict groups or using other methods of re-ordering how we group respondents we may get to more interesting group dynamics and uncover surprising insights.

For the right project, disruptive interviewing can be positive By trying to have no impact on the research and taking it out of any context where biases can occur in actual fact creates an environment that is so far out of reality the results too come back unreflective of true behaviour. Instead of trying to minimise any impact research might have on the interviewee, we need to accept that this will happen and explore what impact these different contexts and scenarios have on individuals. We just need to keep aware of the biases and influences we are putting out there.

This is when we start to see that it is not just focus groups that are affected by conformity, but it even affects one-on-one interviews. For instance, it seems that a disproportional weight is put on understanding individual’s preferences in isolation, with moderators often feeling they must remind respondents ‘we are interested in what you think not what other people think’. This leads to important information being dismissed from the picture. Look at the value moderators put on respondents’ opinions of other people’s actions; they often are put aside as some sort of extraneous content. But in view of herd behaviour, when respondents tell us what they think other people will do, they are in actual fact reporting what they will potentially follow later and are reporting on what they think the social norm is. This information in itself is very influential and we should take it more seriously in our analysis. There is room to ask people certain questions about their family and friends and to get respondents to represent their peer groups.

We understand the power of social norms and how influential it is on behaviour. Looking at social norms within research and developing an understanding of them opens the possibility of creating the perception of a norm that can potentially change behaviour - a huge opportunity for any brand.

PARADOX OF CHOICE AND CHOICE ARCHITECTURE IN PRACTICE The classic theory of man being ‘rational and economic’ feeds the expectation that as choice increases, we’d react by evaluating each option and the choose the best product according to price, features and its fit to our needs. This rational, satisfaction maximisation behaviour suggests as choice increases so would satisfaction.

However, as we have looked at in this paper, we are not rational beings and we don’t behave in this way. We are offered so many alternative choices in the current marketplace and we can find products that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. However, with more choice humans have the tendency to default to simple heuristics (rules of thumb) and often base their choice on things that are of little practical use and importance.

Extensive choice leads us to using defaults to make our decision easier or more worryingly, complete purchase paralysis (Schwartz, 2005). We use a variety of strategies to reduce the complexity of the decision and make default choices from ignoring a large number of viable options, to focusing on ones that have been recommended or choosing the brand leader. This goes back to us being “cognitive misers” who outsource our decision making, using cues such as what other people are choosing or doing (linking back to the herd effect) to make our own choice. This is why making choices easy is so powerful.

We see this often in purchase journeys, especially for large products such as TVs or cars. The purchase journey can go on for months and months without a decision being made. Time spent on researching information on different features and functions that the purchaser never considered important to them in the first place, then after all that the buyer defaults to the first one they considered or the one on sale or they decide not to buy the car they originally chose because they were ignored by the staff in the dealership – no, we don’t always make rational decisions ....

While we are looking at choice overload it is also significant to look at choice architecture. This is the idea that there is no neutral and unbiased way to present a choice. People are influenced by the way options are presented to them, so when the context changes so too does the decision we make and again this isn’t done rationally. This isn’t limited to the most recent advertising campaigns; it’s present in the smallest everyday things like the way a canteen is laid out, whether the salads or the sweets are within the closest reach.

A great example of this is an experiment Dan Ariely carried out in response to seeing an advert from The Economist that caught his attention a few years ago. It offered three choices: an online subscription for $59.00, a print subscription for $125.00 or a print and web subscription of $125.00. He found this intriguing so called up The Economist wanting to understand why they did this, however they couldn’t explain it. Having made the call, the next time he looked online the advert had gone. So he decided to do an experiment himself, he gave 100 students the original ad and asked them to give their preference, the results showed the print and web subscription as the most popular offering, see figure 6.

FIGURE 6

Unsurprisingly no one chose the second option, so Ariely redid his experiment after taking that option away. This time the results completely changed, the online subscription became the most popular with a 52% increase in share (see fig.7). So though the print only subscription option was useless in the terms of no one wanting it, it actually had a big impact in the way it framed the other offerings. By displaying that option, it made the print and web subscription look like a bargain comparatively, hence when it was removed the preference for the print and web subscription went down as it looked more expensive.

FIGURE 7

Now the way we make decision happens on a largely unconscious level, some are through shortcuts and we often don’t realise we are doing this. People can only consciously take in seven (plus or minus two) pieces of information (Lehrer, 2010; Miller 1956). In the meantime the unconscious mind is processing a lot more, making shortcuts and leading that person to make ‘instinctive’ choices. These choices can’t be rationalised, therefore when asked why someone has behaved in this way they honestly don’t know as we don’t have that level of introspection.

IN THE WORLD OF RESEARCH WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN USE ROTATION Therefore, in the world of research we need to take into account that some of our consumers’ decisions are happening unconsciously. We can’t simply say that it’s a problem solved by rotating questions, stimulus, and being careful not to bombard the respondent with too much stimulus. Although all of these things are important in research we need to look further into our methods.

As consumers aren’t aware they are making these ‘choices’, we can’t ask ‘why?’ and expect to get a realistic answer. If research gets to the point when discussion guides ask the same questions in the same way as the objectives, we will not get anywhere. This is because when being asked about making a choice there is a pressure to portray them as rational when this is not necessarily the way they act.

“‘Why’ is like asking them to do all our work for us instantly at the moment of contact... They will most likely tell you something you already know, something rational to get you off their backs and through the survey as quickly as possible” (Phillips and Hamburger, 2007)

Non directed questions allow us to understand the non rational There are many methods to reduce post rationalisation and minimise influences on the respondents such as using consumer led and observational research methods. This opens the research up to what is happening as it happens, so we can get a better idea into motivations and influencers in the purchase process. Additionally, seeing something in action and letting the consumer lead the conversation allows the respondent to act in the way that feels natural to them – covering topics that they unconsciously associate with the purchase and giving us a background in which nuggets of useful information will be hidden amongst.

For example, intercepts, accompanied shops and observation can be an ideal way to research purchases such as FMCG. These allow the respondent to take the lead giving us the opportunity to see their decision process without impacting it. Accompanied shops should involve the whole shop rather than an isolated purchase (unless this is how they normally purchase) as again the context and situation will change the way people make their decisions. We can also use technologies like eye tracking in cases such as these, allowing the researcher to see what visual information the respondent is taking in as they make decisions and seeing how this impacts their final choice.

It is our job to then analyse the processes, find the patterns and insights. From that data it could be possible to create a model that represents what happened in that project for the brands looked at. However, at this point it is necessary to mention the purchase funnel (again). It’s important not to shoehorn them into artificial models that don’t reflect real behaviour - the models can only be created, if needed at all, after data has been collected and should be a result of the data not pre-existing hypothesis.

We have clearly demonstrated people aren’t rational; choices vary by people, by product and by context throughout this paper. In order to get a full understanding of any choice process we need to experiment with different methodologies and environments to see differences and compare and contrast results in analysis. Due to budgets we are aware this isn’t always possible, but sensitivity during interpretation, analysis and reporting of how these people have responded to the research context will drive more accurate interpretation of the research itself.

PROCESSING ‘EVIDENCE’ IN PRACTICE Statistics and other pieces of evidence are seen by most of us as hard facts, yet experiments have shown that we interpret ‘fact’ to support previously held beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be. “Anyone who has made a decision is usually extremely reluctant to change it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is wrong” (Sutherland, 1992). We place more value on things that support our current thinking and are more likely to dismiss things that go against our beliefs.

This has massive implications for research as how we go about understanding the person, context and the way information is extracted can have a big influence on the outcome of research projects. Processing evidence relates to how the researcher collects, examines and delivers their findings. For instance, a particularly eloquent respondent who happens to talk in depth about a topic that a researcher agrees with can easily have more weight attributed to their opinions than others who think differently but aren’t as passionate in their delivery. Sometimes because of the researcher’s personal beliefs respondents’ points don’t resonate, now this is something every moderator should be cautious of, however there are ways to reduce the chances of this happening. Projects should be worked on by multiple moderators, this benefits research as it reduces bias created from the researcher’s beliefs and experiences. It allows more ideas and opinions being brainstormed and agreed upon, ultimately ensuring the output is more accurate and insightful.

These benefits extend to other aspects of research. Having two researchers present during groups allows one to concentrate fully on moderation, while the other can observe what is being said, how it is being said, notice body language and mood of the group as the discussions progresses. Also during debriefs, have an additional person present to judge the way the audience takes on the research findings. This way they can go back to any topics and elaborate where necessary or where any misinterpretation could have occurred. Another way to keep the research findings ‘pure’ is by limiting the amount of times a story gets passed on, avoiding a Chinese whispers effect by delivering experiential debriefs where the respondent sits down with the clients and has an honest discussion about the issues.

On the other side of the coin we must bear in mind that how the human brain processes and recalls evidence is flawed. Therefore the person we are talking to can recall different things depending on their preconceived ideas. Evidence collected from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways provides a clearer understanding of these ‘flawed’ recollections. Ensure interviews are as free flowing and non-directed as possible, so they use their own words and their own memory. Avoiding long discussion guides with detailed probing can reduce chances of imposing our own framework

of the world onto respondents. In this way moderators have information to draw on in order to understand the respondent and why they come to the conclusions that they do.

It is also necessary to conduct the research in a way that keeps respondents grounded and talking truthfully about themselves rather than how they aspire to be. Take a cereal research project we worked on as an example, one lady spoke about how she only ever ate healthily, that she eats all bran, fruits and vegetables. However, as people don’t like admitting things they perceive as flaws we included a tour through her kitchen in our research process. While in her kitchen she stated “don’t look in that drawer, that’s my naughty drawer”, which we found full of crisps, sweets and a variety of other food that certainly wasn’t healthy. By conducting the research in context she had to admit to reality.

People’s idea of reality also differs according to individuals because humans draw comparisons from the context they are in to understand their own behaviour. Therefore, your surroundings and those you spend time with frame your reality. People look at their behaviour ranked against people they know. Nick Southgate (2011) used the example of researching drinking habits, which becomes problematic as heavy drinkers, for instance, tend to hang out with people with similar habits. Therefore, when they compare themselves with their friends they seem normal, and as long as they aren’t drinking as much as the guy who is permanently inebriated they feel they are fine.

This demonstrates the need to look at peoples’ habits in context, recruiting people who know each other imposes honesty amongst the group such as friendship pairs and allows the moderator to get a better understanding into their lives, beliefs and values. We often see someone making a claim, such as that they religiously go to the gym every Thursday night, only to have their friend remind them that they have met down the pub for the last three Thursday in a row.

TOP THOUGHTS

Don’t underestimate the role context plays We know that we take cues from our surroundings, using them as anchors and to make choices. As researchers we must be aware of these anchors and influences which change place to place, mood to mood. By using appropriate environments for fieldwork we can create the right atmosphere and understand the decision making process on deeper level. This way we can pay attention to how these places have an effect and incorporate them into our findings.

Real world research gives a broad and accurate picture One of the themes coming from this paper is about real world research. It is easy to focus on cheaper options, but we discover much more getting as close to a real scenario as possible. The benefits are that we get an understanding into the way people are making their decisions. Seeing the process in action is much more enlightening than reports on intended or recalled actions. We have seen that people don’t act in a way they assume they will. We can’t accurately predict how we will be influenced by emotional or unconscious behaviours. Therefore, doing research as it happens we get to see what affects them even when they don’t even realise it’s happening.

This is not to say that research cannot be done out of context, even when done in real time research takes place in an artificial environment. This is something we must be aware of, adapt our research methods to and take into account when it comes to research results.

Recall is stronger than anticipation or justification When research can’t be done in real time, other methods can be used. By using techniques such as regressive storytelling, where we ask respondents to talk us through a purchase as a story from consideration to check out in as much detail that they can remember, we get to see what happened without the respondent having to explain (rationalise) their actions. This way we get to see what they have done and what was important to them along the way without putting our own constructs and presuppositions on to it.

Open conversations avoids leading, overloading and shortcuts Additionally, using regressive story telling techniques allows us to have less of an impact on the respondent. This helps with a lot of the issues that behavioural economics highlights. We avoid placing our own models on to the respondent by mirroring their language rather than using our own internal models. This reduces the chances of anchoring them or framing their responses to what they think we want to hear. Also it makes questioning less dense as we are using subtler probes, reducing the chances of the respondent starting to default to rational answers.

Be aware of individuals following the herd We are influenced by others. By understanding how people work among others rather than in isolation we can get a better picture of their motivations. Researchers can use this to their advantage by conducting groups that allow us to observe

how people are interacting, making decisions and influencing each other. This way we get a glimpse into how decisions are formed in action. This allows us to see what language use, tone, and/or argument is convincing and what isn’t.

Use multiple methods There is an arsenal of different research methods out there and it is worth using a bricolage of methods tailored to each project. With so many new and improved research methods we can create some fascinating studies that really get to the heart of human behaviour. It does take that bit of extra thought but the results are worth it as this paper has highlighted.

Rotation, rotation, rotation When it comes to any sort of testing and stimulus all researchers should know this and be doing it by now.

BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS: A GAME CHANGER FOR RESEARCH PRACTICE! As we draw this paper to a close it is relevant to look at where Market Research is currently at. Where else than to look at one of our recent client examples; basically they had been doing the same type of research with the same audience type over and over again. Before we worked with them they carried out research into their brand and its advertising, using a defined target audience - mothers - in two different settings. The first was focus groups and the second a tracking study, both carried out in a less than perfect way (well that’s the polite way of saying it).

The problems in the focus groups was that when these women were being asked to define the brand, what they were actually doing was coping with having a socialised conversation in an artificial environment with people they didn’t know. So to answer this they defaulted to a brand anchor they picked up on, which unsurprisingly was the one they found easiest to talk about with strangers. This happened to be nostalgia about their youth and ‘wasn’t it better in those days?’ So actually the research was giving the brand a social meaning which had a brand aspect to it, rather than their consumers’ actual behaviour and relationship with the brand.

Insights were distorted in a similar way with the tracking study they conducted. This research took respondents through several things - relationship with the brand in terms of consumption and usage, a predefined competitor set of products, a list of attributes that were decided upon upfront, to be ranked. The brand themselves had picked these characteristics, and at some point they may well have been relevant for the brand, but they had clearly become outdated. Finally the tracker study finished with some ad testing.

The predefined list of attributes morphed the results of the advertising testing. Having ranked some attributes such as “low sugar content” as important, how do you think you’d then react to an ad which communicates the product has 25% less sugar? The reaction is going to be that’s marvellous, because of the journey you’ve been taken on in the research. It’s natural to react thinking ‘I like the ad because that’s talking about something I’ve just said is important to me’.

However, then when this gets aired in the real world, the reaction is very different. Seeing an image of this product with the sugar falling out of it now inspires the thought ‘oh my god there is loads of sugar in that!’ This completely different reaction is down to what the respondents have been anchored to by the company’s beliefs about the brand and their construct of the category. This is all completely irrelevant to the consumer.

Put respondents back in the driving seat – Stop priming them! How did we discover this? Well, it was only until we did auto-ethnography research with this company that this was uncovered. They were prepared to back away from their traditional approach to look at: a) a wider audience; and b) a no set question structure, that they realised their brand had effectively moved on. The target audience’s perspective had moved the brand and without them knowing or having an understanding of what had happened or how. After years of research, (bad research), they came to us believing their target audience was one thing and it turned out it was another. It was our consumer led research that was in some parts carried out by consumers interviewing other consumers that uncovered that it’s actually used by these people as a diet product. They discovered a whole new area and brand perspective that had been missed due to poorly constructed research that was structured to keep the client in one particular mindset. This lack of understanding also meant that their research continued to be distorted as their research was just re-feeding them their assumptions.

Now this is a perfect, and sadly frequently occurring, example of how traditional research is biased. Our current approach to survey research and many other areas of traditional research is providing data that is misleading to client’s business decision processes.

Avoid norm wisdom Now we cannot have a world without anchors, but we need to use the consumers’ anchors, not our own, not the company’s. Research needs to start with the consumer, not with researchers. Otherwise we just come out with Norm Wisdom: Norms that become to be seen as truth or insights because they get locked in.

We need to move away from hidden constructs that research processes are riddled with. After 50 – 60 years of marketing and research we have endless puddles of norm wisdom instead of the depth that comes from a genuine understanding of the customer’s point of view. But research has to change, research that isn’t afraid to put the consumer at the centre can create fantastic research. Those who don’t will just continue the endless cycle of rediscovering the thoughts they themselves created.

So brands, we urge you to review your research methods, remove your anchors and predefined constructs: tracking, conjoint, focus groups - anything that imposes your perspective and marginalises theirs.

Instead, find consumers’ anchors as knowing this alone will change the research you are doing. This will show you how people are navigating your category. Extend the range of customers you speak to, get them researching their understanding of the brand – this is the only way that you will be able to really get to the heart of the matter.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ariely, Dan (2009). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. Blades, Fiona and Phillips, Stephen (1995). Decision Watch UK: How a New Methodology Focusing on the Purchase Journey Helped Uncover Segmentation of Influencers to Harness the Power of Word of Mouth, Paper 24, MRS Conference Earls, Mark (2007). Herd: How To Change Mass Behaviour by Harnessing Our True Nature Hamburger, Sarah and Phillips, Stephen (2008) A Quest for Answers: Campaign Against Why. ESOMAR Congress 2008 Lehrer, Johan (2010). The Decisive Moment: How The Brain Makes Up Its Mind. Phillips, Stephen (2006). Snakes & Ladders Marketing: Understanding Brand Choice and Relationships. ESOMAR Congress 2006 Schwartz, Barry (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. Sutherland, Stuart (1992). Irrationality.

THE AUTHORS Stephen Phillips is Chief Happiness Officer and Founder, Spring Research, United Kingdom.

Abigail Hill is Senior Research Executive and Miracle Worker, Spring Research, United Kingdom.