After the jump (click below) you'll find a list of ten common cognitive biases we'll talk briefly about in class. Some apply to decision-making in general, others to survey construction in particular.
10 Cognitive Biases
You Shouldn’t Ignore In Research
Thursday, June 7, 2012
by Michaela Mora
What is a cognitive bias?
A cognitive bias describes a replicable pattern in
perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. Here
are 10 common cognitive biases that can affect how we design, interpret, and
use data from primary market research (surveys, usability tests, focus groups,
etc.):
RECENCY BIAS: Tendency to weight recent
events more than earlier events. When we ask people about their past behavior,
their answers are more likely to reflect their latest actions, the ones they
remember best. Question wording can help to minimize this bias, but sometimes
it is inevitable, so factor it in in your data interpretation.
HINDSIGHT BIAS (Simulation Heuristic):
Tendency to see pas events as being predictable at time those events happened.
Sometimes research results yield such obvious insights that even if we didn’t
thought of them at first, when we see them, it feels so logical that suddenly
we feel that we had “a hint” of it from the beginning (e.g. regular customers
having a more positive attitude towards our brand). This can be dangerous in
the management suite, which can conclude that no more research is actually
needed since they “knew it all along.” Document whatever knowledge exists in
the organization, use it to avoid repeating research already done and to compare
with current research and unveil the hindsight bias when it sneaks in the
discussion of the results.
EMPATHY GAP (Attribution Errors):
Tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either
oneself or others and instead attribute behaviors primarily to others. This
bias can lead to over-or under-overstatement of certain behaviors when asked in
a research setting (e.g. How likely are
you to buy brand X?). To fill the gap, we need to strive to provide a realistic
context to the questions we ask, so that respondent can see themselves in the
situation and give more accurate answers.
CONFIRMATION BIAS: Tendency to search
for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. This
common bias is the reason why we must be very careful about how questions are
worded in surveys, interviews or focus groups. Unfortunately, it is harder to
combat this bias in data interpretation. Internal politics, personal goals or
simply lack of knowledge can turn research users into cherry pickers. They will
consider certain results and ignore others. I see this all the time in focus
group settings, when clients behind the mirror get hung-up on the response of a
particular participant who confirms what they already believe about an issue.
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS (Demand
Characteristics): Tendency to over-report socially desirable behaviors and
under-report socially undesirable ones. If you ask questions in a way people
feel they can be judged they will give you socially desirable answers. Good
questionnaire design is key to avoid this bias.
ANCHORING: Tendency to rely too
heavily, or "anchor," on a piece of information when making
decisions. This is an issue in conjoint studies when we ask respondents to make
a choice considering too many or too complex variables. The required cognitive
effort is so big that respondents end up using one or two variables to make
decisions and ignoring the rest of the information. In some situations that is
how people in fact make decisions, and there is no fault in mimicking such
scenarios. However, sometimes choice tasks are made unnecessarily cumbersome
for the respondents, in an effort to measure as many things as possible at one
time for either timing or budgetary reasons. Give fewer choices and control the
amount of information presented if you want to understand the effect of
different variables.
FRAMING EFFECT: Drawing different conclusions from the same
information depending on how the information is presented. We can never escape
this one, so we need to be aware of how it affects research participants’
answers to information provided in a question.
For example, respondents will reply with a different set of brands if we
ask them which clothing retailer or which online clothing retailer comes to
mind. The framing effect is also omnipresent during research reporting. Using
different perspective to present the results can lead to different conclusions.
Be aware of it.
IRRATIONAL ESCALATION (Cognitive
Dissonance): Tendency to justify increased investment in a decision, based
on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the
decision was probably wrong. This one is big in the management suite.
Sometimes, senior management, brand managers or product managers get so
invested in an product idea that regardless of what the research says, they
still will do what they intended to do. They often dismiss the research and try
to poke holes at the methodology, but deeper inside they just feel they can’t
balk out of an idea they have already spent so many resources on. They look
back to what has been invested, not forward to what they could save by cutting
their losses. Try to make a strong case for what they stand to gain by letting
go an idea that is bound to fail.
KNOWLEDGE BIAS: Tendency to choose the
best known option rather than the optimal one. Generally, we are wired to avoid
risk, and a known option (e.g. simply adding to an area of research) is often
preferred than trying things that are novel. When designing surveys, keep in mind that people have a tendency to over-state how likely they are to try new things or change their behavior.
CURSE OF KNOWLEDGE (ego involvement): Failure to
understand how things affect people who don’t have the knowledge we have about
a particular subject. There is such a thing as “being-too-close-to-an issue,”
which is why objective research is necessary to identify gaps in knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment