As researchers, I like to think that we’re naturally curious.
Or just nosey. Either way, we’re always striving for the keys that will unlock our understanding of human
behaviour.
We want to know what people do. More interesting to us though
is why people do what they do. This
is especially important in market research, because if we know why people do things, then we can potentially change or
replace the behaviour in question. Hopefully changing behaviours that lead to
our client’s products being more successful.
Our nemesis on this quest, however, is often Post
Rationalisation.
Post rationalisation - a
defense mechanism in which behaviors or feelings are justified and
explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true
explanation - is something we researchers consistently face when talking
to respondents.
For example, in an interview a dermatologist might give a
detailed explanation of their prescription of a particular topical steroid, and
how they came to this decision during the consultation, but can we be sure that their account captures the true drivers of
their behaviour? Were they omitting that it was actually cost that drove
them to make the decision? Or, were they just not consciously aware of what
factors led them to make this treatment decision? Regardless, it can limit the
validity of our insights.
Let’s look at why post-rationalisation during interviews can happen.
Imagine you are in an interview room, either in a viewing facility or in a
hotel, the chairs are comfy but unfamiliar, there are several papers on the
large desk between a doctor and the moderator, the air heavy with the
expectation that answers will be given to the questions asked.
As you probably guessed, this couldn’t be more removed from the environment in which doctors are
making their decision – their clinic. Plus, it’s likely a long while after
the decision was made.
To overcome these issues, we can try to get as close to the point of a decision as possible, removing some
of the interview bias by assessing a behaviour whilst it is happening. This is
what we refer to as in-the-moment research.
For several projects looking into drivers of prescription,
we’ve used WhatsApp – the free
messaging app – asking doctors to describe a particular patient they last saw
moments after the consultation finished, using both the audio recording and
text messaging functions. Having the app installed on a smartphone makes it
very easy for doctors to do.
The methodology has produced some great, relevant insights
for our clients about how doctors make the decision to prescribe one product
over another, leading to many changes in brand communication strategies.
However, we noticed that some of our doctors tended to treat
the task like the recordings they made for their case notes. As a result, their
responses were more rational than we would have liked. And though we were able
to follow up with them via the text messaging function, they often got busy (as
doctor’s do) and didn’t reply until the evening or even the next day. This
meant that not all of our research was
conducted in-the-moment, but rather, close-to-the-moment.
Is this a bad thing? We don’t think so.
This methodology
still has its merits, especially if done in tandem with more traditional
interviews, like face to face or over the telephone.
Our experience has taught us that we need to think more about
the types of tasks we are asking our respondents to complete, and also how we are
going to use the outputs. What’s more, rather than assuming we are going to get
all our great insights from this methodology alone, we like to think about it more as a source of cues
that can be taken to a face to face interview, a task that will allow the
respondent to travel back in time to the moment they made their decision, offering
a much more valid discussion around what drives their behaviour. Ultimately
giving clients more robust recommendations as to how to optimise their
marketing strategies.
For more information about our
close-to-the-moment research and how it can help your brand, email us at: info@branding-science.com
Written by Sofia Fionda, Research Manager at Branding Science
Written by Sofia Fionda, Research Manager at Branding Science
No comments:
Post a Comment