Rethinking the Way We Think

Any time we pay for a product or service, there’s a chance we will be asked if we want to round up to donate to a certain cause. According to Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge Theory and the work of Dan Ariely in Predictably Irrational, most of us shrug our shoulders and answer, “YES,” regardless of our familiarity with that particular organization.

In such moments, there’s a lot of smirking at our perceived irrationality. For a beat, we might even see ourselves as comically flawed. Afterward, it’s pretty easy to return to a state of self-assuredness. After all, we’re experts in this stuff.

It’s been ten years since the original publication of Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, a book that underscores the fallibility of human judgment. In this time, entire cottage industries have sprung up around systems thinking and behavioral economics. If you’ll recall, Kahneman specified two systems:

• System 1: instinctual, emotional, and an optimistic bias toward what we already know.
• System 2: deliberative, logical, and a narrow focus on accomplishing a particular task.

 

Is it now fair to ask if we’ve put these discoveries to their best possible use?

By and large, business—market research, in particular—has cast a gaze into the sea of “other people” and their irrationalities, rather than turning that same eye on our own way of working. Due to many corporate cultures’ obsession with speed and topical efficiency, we obsess over opportunities to ride instinctual and emotional tendencies up through points of purchase. As you’ll see below, it’s costing us opportunity.

 

The powerful background behind Systems 1 and 2

For a few minutes, I want to bend the conversation back toward us, market researchers.

Ten years prior to Kahneman’s book, Dr. Marcus Raichle indicated that a “resting” brain (reference System 1) uses about the same amount of energy as an “active” or task-positive brain (reference System 2). The systems are equally important, consume equal energy, and are simply busy with different responsibilities.

He called the resting state, “default mode,” and its supporting neural components, a Default Mode Network (DMN). A quick examination of the literature reveals that there’s a good deal more to DMN ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} (i.e. System 1) activity than simple emotional reactivity, namely:

• Perspective-taking
• Future thinking
• Dreaming (waking and sleeping)

 

Take a look at the points above as you consider the culture and ethos of your own organization. Perspective-taking, so integral to empathy^[5], so influential in the quality of our research, is an expression of DMN activity.

Future thinking and dreaming–so much a part of our creativity^[6] and strategic planning–are also by-products of DMN activity.

System 1—or DMN activation—is not just fallibility. It carries the potential to transform the way we think, to improve the way we interact with each other, and to powerfully shift the impact of our work as market researchers. And many are dismissing its full value.

System 2—or DMN deactivation—is not merely a logical mechanism. It helps us interpret or make meaning from our lived experiences, to adjust our beliefs and expectations, and to organize the wildly diverse inputs that arrive through System 1. And so, many misinterpret the deepening value of System 2, as well.

 

How can we apply Systems 1 and 2 to become better market researchers?

Be intentional about activating and deactivating your DMN. Here are a few ways to activate (engaging System 1):

• Regular, repetitive actions like walking, cycling, or even driving a car.
• Simple behaviors you could probably do blindfolded!
• Find a single visual focus point, and continue to focus on it, letting your mind drift until the allotted time has expired.

 

Here are some DMN deactivators (engaging System 2)

• Picking someone or something out of a crowd
• Giving names and classifications to groups of ideas
• Irregular, non-repetitive actions like participating in a thoughtful conversation or learning a new skill

 

By intentionally and systematically activating and deactivating our DMN, we naturally lower stress levels, become more open to each other’s new ideas, and begin to find opportunities that would otherwise not have occurred to us.

 

Bringing some caution to the consumer side.

One of the champion points central to System 1 marketing is the suggestion that a brand’s service or product will become a virtually habitual choice or even an unconscious one. If this dubious distinction improves volume in the short term, it’s less clear that a habitual or low-friction relationship to a brand is ideal in the long-run.

For one, if your brand is habitual, it is susceptible! In the face of a similar brand or a tantalizing disruption, an automatic or mindless relationship quickly fades to indifference.

And according to the work of social psychologists like Ayelet Fishbach^[7], an interruption or a delay can enhance the ultimate experience by intimating its rarity or demand. Take, for example, gameplay, restaurant lines, and the initial deprivation strategy deployed to sell Swiffer products. Breaking up an experience into smaller goals and rewards can add friction, and in so doing, enhance the way we remember the overall experience.

That’s because the two systems actually work together, playing off of each other to create and codify experiences. If the brand’s focus lies disproportionately on fluid and emotionally reactive triggers, the story of that brand will erode. By preparing a consumer to pause and consider a narrative aspect of the brand, you engage System 2—which in subsequent decisions will drive a different associative reaction in System 1.

Let’s not be always so automatic to accelerate—not with ourselves, nor with our consumers. We have the power to make ourselves better researchers, better leaders, and better people. The effect will be richer brands that positively impact and resonate deeply in the lives of the people who believe in them.

 

References

^[1] Shapira-Lichter, I., Oren, N., Jacob, Y., Gruberger, M. & Hendler, T. Portraying the unique contribution of the default mode network to internally driven mnemonic processes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4950–4955 (2013).

^[2] Shulman, G. et al. Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 9, 648–663 (1997b).

^[3] Bendetowicz, D. et al. Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations. Brain 141, 217–233 (2018).

^[4] Margaret R. Zellner (2013) Dreaming and the Default Mode Network, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 49:2, 226-232

^[5] Esménio, S., Soares, J.M., Oliveira-Silva, P. et al. Using resting-state DMN effective connectivity to characterize the neurofunctional architecture of empathy. Sci Rep 9, 2603 (2019).

^[6] Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Wilkins, R. W., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Silvia, P. J., Hodges, D. A., Koschutnig, K., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Creativity and the default network: A functional connectivity analysis of the creative brain at rest. Neuropsychologia, 64, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.019

^[7] Ayelet Fishbach, Ravi Dhar, Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 32, Issue 3, December 2005, Pages 370–377

 

Photo by Robina Weermeijer on Unsplash