Mind before matter

Kees van Duyn

First published in Research World September 2010

Assuming interrogation-based qualitative methods are here to stay, what can we learn from the world of neuroscience to improve the way we conduct group discussions and interviews, and make the results more ‘truthful’?

“Focus groups <…> are a hugely misleading way to reveal what consumers really think”. This is just a random quote from someone called Robin Wight in Admap’s recent issue on neuromarketing. For decades group discussions and interviews have been the backbone of qualitative research. Yet they are criticised by many in the industry for their inability to get beneath the surface of our seemingly rational and logical behaviour.

If there is some truth in Robin’s criticism, can the application of neuroscientific insights to conventional qualitative methods lift our game? Can we get closer to the ‘truth’ if we adjust our practices to reflect how the brain perceives, stores and retrieves commercial messages? The answer is yes, we can.

Mindblowing
Robin Wight is a believer in the merits of neuroscientific methods, such as fMRI scans, for market research purposes. Neuroscience – defined as the science of how our brain works – is hot because it provides a direct, more objective route to what we think and feel when we respond to a research stimulus, use a product or watch an ad. Therefore it promises more reliable results than conventional approaches.

But does it? Neuroscience-based methods have a long way to go before – if ever – they are able to make a useful contribution to mainstream qualitative research. First of all, they are simply not yet scalable. Second, techniques such as fMRI scans stop short of providing the full answer:  they can tell us that something happens in response to a stimulus, and in what parts of the brain, but they cannot tell us why consumers are aroused. To find that out we have to interrogate people, which brings us back to square one.

That said, neurologists and other thinkers have produced a host of hypotheses about the brain that shake the very foundations of how we see ourselves and how we make decisions. One clever thinker that springs to mind is Malcolm Gladwell with his brilliantly insightful book Blink. Not that Gladwell is saying something most of us don’t already suspect – it is his demonstration of the power of our subconscious that leaves an unforgettable impact on the reader.

Complex stuff
Some brave research agencies have applied neuroscientific insights to conventional methods.  Think about Brain Juicer’s FaceTrace, which acknowledge the importance of subconscious reactions when responding to ideas and concepts, and people’s inability to verbalise them. Similarly, Synovate has developed an ESOMAR Award winning brand equity method, Brand Value Creator, which incorporates insights from neuroscience in the design of the questionnaire.

Yet as an industry we seem to feel rather helpless in the face a potentially influential body of knowledge. Sarah Watson, Head of Planning at DDB London, says in a recent Admap issue:  “…there is all this stuff coming through on neuroscience…which compounds the challenges for planning as a discipline”. The fact that she calls it ‘stuff’ suggests neuroscience is too complex and overwhelming to be practically useful.

I suspect this is also the case for qualitative research. Take advertising development. What have we done with the belief that ads that are processed at low attention levels, are better retained in long-term memory, and therefore potentially more effective, than ads that require us to pay conscious attention? Assuming this is true, what exactly are we supposed to look for when we ask consumers to respond to an ad during a group discussion?

Asking questions
What, then, are the insights that we could use to improve conventional qualitative research?

The most obvious, yet important, insight is the powerful influence of the subconscious, and our general inability to access it. Therefore direct questioning has limited value. This may go without saying, but for many researchers (and clients!) the tendency to put too much weight on consumers’ opinions as opposed to their reactions, is always lurking around the corner.  As a result we often fail to distinguish truly meaningful responses from plausible explanations and post-rationalisations.

I could go on and fill this page with relatively recent insights about the brain. Here are just a few:

• Different parts of the brain have different functions. Yet most decisions involve multiple brain regions that ‘communicate’ with each other.
• Emotion and rationality both play a role in decision-making and the creation of brand preferences. But when there is a conflict between the two, emotion wins.
• Many decisions are taken by our subconscious before we become aware. Such ‘snap judgements’ are faster and potentially more accurate than conscious deliberation. Moreover, people are able to make effective snap-judgements based on very little information (Malcolm Gladwell calls this ‘thin-slicing’).
• Brands are clouds of emotionally charged associations in the minds of consumers. These clouds are not static but fluid. Depending on the stimulus that is used, and the context in which it is activated, it may take different forms. Yet some brand associations are hardwired into our brain and therefore very difficult to override.
• Shallow processing of commercial messages may be more effective than conscious consumption because it bypasses our working memory, which ‘filters’ and therefore potentially alters brand information.

Priming – the effect of exposure to one stimulus on a subsequent one – is another, particularly relevant example of how neuroscientific insights could help us do a better job. If we are shown a picture of an old woman an hour or so before we are exposed to the drawing, we are more likely to see an elderly woman. When we look at the actual picture of an elderly woman, a neural network consisting of associations with old-age is activated. This makes us more likely to ‘see’ features associated with old age, such as a bony face.

What does this mean for qualitative research? For example, when we evaluate a creative concept, should we discuss the brand in question upfront? If we do, we may have influenced reactions because people’s sensitivity to particular aspects of the brand has been heightened. If we don’t, our ability to establish the concept’s impact on the brand may be impaired. What, then, is the right thing to do? These are the kind of questions we ought to ask ourselves as a result of neuroscientific insights.

Getting practical
So how can we apply the insight that our actions and preferences are largely determined by subconscious factors, to our daily reality? Below are a few practical suggestions:

• First of all, without discarding direct questions altogether, make use of indirect questioning and projective techniques where possible. For example, get participants to create a collage instead of asking them to verbalise their associations with a brand.
• Critically, when researching ideas or concepts, focus on people’s reactions instead of their opinions: reactions are often intuitive and therefore potentially more truthful.
• When obtaining reactions, carefully observe people’s facial expressions and body language, as they provide a window on the subconscious mind.
• Where reactions are important, don’t let people ‘think’ too long before responding to a stimulus: too much conscious deliberation may only impair their judgement.
• Don’t pressure people into answering:  this increases the risk that they fall back on stereotypes and give plausible yet false answers.
• During discussions that require reactions, keep the pace up: this decreases the likelihood that people over think their answers.
• Assuming emotion underpins reactions, when asking questions choose emotive language.
• Carefully consider environmental factors as they influence reactions: this includes the research setting itself and objects in the group room.
• Get respondents to imagine a relevant context for evaluating stimuli: for example, when researching ads, ask people to imagine they are at home on the couch. This activates relevant neural patterns which increase the validity of reactions.

Food for thought
These are just a few practical tips for qualitative researchers inspired by neuroscientific thinking. Hopefully it provides food for thought and, perhaps, a few useful hints for increasing the ‘truthfulness’ of qualitative research. We owe it to ourselves to use our conscious brain (no matter how  imperfect) and think about the implications of neuroscience for what we do.

Kees van Duyn is Qualitative Insight Director at Synovate in The Netherlands

If you’re interested in learning more about Neuroscience ESOMAR will be holding a one day seminar looking at theory and application next month.