Lost in Translation: The Invisible Barrier of Knowing Too Much

Bite-size: Experts, listen up: not all of us understand what you’re saying. Yes, you can know something so well that you forget what it’s like not to know it. This is the Curse of Knowledge and it occurs when someone, who knows a piece of information, finds it difficult to imagine what it’s like for someone else not to know it. This plagues LinkedIn “thought-leaders” and marketers alike.

Full-size:
The Curse of Knowledge happens because once we acquire knowledge, we lose the ability to "unlearn" it or step into the shoes of someone who doesn’t have that same knowledge. This gap in perspective makes it hard to communicate clearly with people who don’t share the same expertise.

This phenomenon is relevant in fields like marketing and communications when marketers overestimate how well their customers understand what they’re saying. Keeping things simple helps, but who’s to say what’s clear to you is easy for your audience? Also why testing is so important. But what about when trying to craft an elusive messaging or communicating with a diverse audience? One sneak way to overcome it? Instead of framing a message rationally or using technical terms, try appealing to the feeling of your message. What’s the emotion you're trying to elicit? That will be much more relatable, and impactful but also translatable.

Default is believing

Bite-size: Do you know that when we see, read, or hear something we assume it is true by default? We do this to save mental effort.

This cognitive bias is called the Truth-Default Theory and it’s important for marketers to understand when crafting their messages, especially in this age of misinformation and distrust.

Full-size:
One reason why misinformation takes hold in the first place is because of the Truth-Default Theory. The belief is that humans are psychologically predisposed to assume truth. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense: constant skepticism would be exhausting and impractical so assuming truth allows us to function efficiently. While it enables smoother social interaction, it makes us vulnerable to deception. And with the burning of mistrust amid the swirl of misinformation, this is NOT good for marketing communication.

Sure some cues/triggers lead to doubt (e.g., inconsistencies, contradictions), but when the audience is in a truth-default state, more complex and misleading explanations are even less likely to evaluate the message critically. This can perpetuate misunderstandings or even misinformation.

This is a cognitive bias but the implications for communication (looking at you marketers) when crafting a message make sure to keep things clear and simple upfront (short term), while building trust and encouraging critical engagement (e.g., clear evidence, transparency) to evaluate your message which fosters a deeper connection.

You’re underestimating context, here’s why.

Bite-size: We often overestimate the character or personality of a person when making a judgment or evaluation, and instead ignore the very powerful influence of the context or situation we’re in.

This is called the Fundamental Attribution Error and it is the main argument for the importance of social psychology.

Full-size:
You're at a coffee shop, and the barista gets your order wrong. You might think, "They're careless and not paying attention to their job". However, they might be dealing with a rush of orders, feeling stressed, or new to the job. You initially attributed the error to a personal trait but in reality, there are situational factors that are more likely to have caused the mistake.

This example reminds us how easily we can overlook external pressures in everyday interactions. But it’s also something that plagues client-agency teams.

Perhaps misattributing lower-than-expected sales from a campaign due to audience preference, when situational factors might be at play. Message misalignment or customer journey gaps are two obvious ones, but it could also be (something that gets in the way of purchase), or less obvious factors like 

You launch a high-budget campaign for a luxury watch brand—it features stunning visuals, celebrity endorsements, and a focus on exclusivity—but the brand sees little uplift in sales. People within the agency might conclude, "Consumers just don’t care about luxury watches anymore" (attributing the poor performance to a lack of interest or changing tastes). But what’s likely to be the case can be attributed to situational factors. Examples: message misalignment, customer journey gaps, over-saturated message or fatigue, or it was just a timing issue. 

Not all attitudes are created equal

Bite-size: Marketing is about changing attitudes, but some attitudes are more difficult to change than others. Preferences toward a brand, for example, are flexible (e.g., positive or negative associations), but attitudes formed along moral lines are much more rigid (e.g., a matter of right vs. wrong).

Full-size:
When we think about attitudes it’s usually simplified as likes and dislikes. Preferences, like positive/negative associations made during experiences and formed as memories are flexible and often what marketing is targeting. But social norms—opinions from friends and family, or rules we follow as a society—also inform our attitudes. These social conventions can be a bit more difficult to affect. Moral convictions, however, are uncompromising. 

Compared to other constructs, attitudes that reflect moral beliefs are seen as “objectively and universally true,” and, “inherently more motivating and self-justifying” than non-moral attitudes. This makes people with moral conviction steadfast and inflexible in their belief, with no actual proof required (think staunch vaccine disbelievers when presented with scientific evidence).

The Moral Foundations Theory says that not only are moral convictions are seen as strong, morally rooted attitudes, but they are equally strong in moral investment. Findings from research make a connection to emotional responses as well. Those with moral convictions tend to be more intolerant of change and more defensive in their position. 

Marketers can overcome this using: moral reframing. By framing a position in a way that appeals to someone's moral values, even if they would not normally support it, is a well-supported scientific technique for effective and persuasive communication. Example: A person who is negative towards vaccines because they believe the mandates violate their personal liberty and freedom. They are not persuaded by scientific evidence alone. So, by re-framing a pro-vaccine message around ‘liberty’ the message challenges the attitude by appealing to the underlying belief: our freedoms must be protected, and COVID-19 is the enemy.

Scarcity Bias: How differences in supply can motivate them to buy.

Bite-size: The harder it is to get something the more valuable it becomes. That is the scarcity bias.

Full-size:
Scarcity is a foundational principle of economics. When things are in limited supply, they're perceived to be more valuable than an equivalent item that's more abundant. Think if scarcity as a supply and demand problem is created in two ways: supply-induced scarcity, or demand-induced scarcity. It's also a powerful psychological tool marketers have the power to create without disrupting business economics. Because scarcity also creates hype. It could be creating "limited edition" versions of a product, or even making the product harder to get ("limited time to buy"). 

Another powerful force that's operating here is loss aversion: a cognitive bias causes us to feel losses more powerfully than gains (the pain of loss is twice as intensive as the equivalent pleasure of gain). As a result of this, individuals tend to try to avoid losses in whatever way possible.

Emotions are information

Bite-size: Emotions affect how we think, judge, and make decisions. But emotions also act as a source of information. Positive mood = positive evaluation. That is called the “affect-as-information” hypothesis.

Full-size:
Emotions are powerful and universal drivers of how we make decisions. While predictable, there are many variables one needs to consider. Context is key. So, consider this: emotions are a source of information itself. This is called the “affect as information” hypothesis.

Having a thought usually triggers some feeling, either positive or negative. But that experience of feeling happy or sad can also act as data for further mental processing (and evaluation of some thought or some thing). A classic example is weather: feeling happy on a sunny day can cause you to make more favorable judgments or focus on things that make you feel good. The opposite is true of feeling sad on a cold, grey, rainey day.

A scientific way to say it: The embodied nature of some of these emotional experiences makes the evaluation of analogous beliefs more compelling. 

Mood can also influence the level of processing information. Positive emotions tend to lead to wider, big-picture thinking, while negative emotions often lead to a more narrowed, detail-oriented focus.

Here’s how this could work in an ad: A car commercial targeted towards an audience who is predictably in a good mood (e.g., their favorite football team is winning) leads with an upbeat track. The viewer can be predicted to make a more positive judgment about the car brand. But knowing that a positive mood can cause them to think about the car in a global way (30,000 ft level), a commercial that hones in on bigger messaging like, “How does this car serve my family?” will do better than an ad that focuses more on the tech and specs.

Selling Creative with Psych

Bit-size: Next time you're selling a creative idea internally, try using the framing effect to influence stakeholder decisions. How an idea is presented (e.g., situation, context) can change how people think about it.

Full-size:
Here’s one example: gain-framed messages are more effective for people who are more approach-oriented, and loss-framed messages are more effective for people who are more avoidance-oriented. To make a case for elevating the creativity in a campaign, a CMO might be motivated by, "to gain market share," while finance or procurement departments are comforted by, "to avoid wasted ad spend."

Selling emotional creative to exec teams that often see advertising as fluffy – at best – is no easy feat. This is where cognitive psychology (how people process information) can come in handy.

It's important to understand the motivations behind key groups to overcome the negative impact that they can have on producing exceptional creative work. So you have to understand who you are selling to to sell good creative. Some common challenges marketers face:

(1) The effect of risk-averse committees that are limited by common-ground thinking.
*Days have changed from one CMO (or one key marketing decision maker), to half a dozen (or more) people that have to come to an agreement on creative. Consensus can be good for smaller decisions but carries risks with more complex decisions, like those in advertising that require creativity (aversion to change, desire for harmony, groupthink). Make sure stakeholders have a structured decision-making process. 

(2) The procurement departments are limited to financial-only decisions
*Procurement departments, which have always been influential in large companies, have crept down to smaller departments. And they all too often are being filters to the creative.

Consider the motivations/priorities of key stakeholders or even the emotional influence that goes into their decisions. Try framing problems/ideas differently for your stakeholders. For example, gain-framed messages are more effective for people who are more approach-oriented, and loss-framed messages are more effective for people who are more avoidance-oriented. To make a case for elevated creativity in a campaign, a CMO might be excited by, "to gain market share," while finance or procurement departments are comforted by, "to avoid wasted ad spend."

This is #Bitesize #BehavioralScience for #Brands. A little series on psych shortcuts that marketers can use without more research or data.

Do we do a lot or a little thinking? ELM and a theory on persuasion.

Bite-size: When forming (or changing) an attitude, our judgments involve different cognitive processes: people either do a lot or very little thinking. The depth of your message should match.

Full-size:
The central route of processing, which requires conscious or elaborative thinking, usually leads to longer-lasting attitude change. The peripheral route, which is a less conscious, more superficial view (e.g., on the surface, not the actual content) tends to lead to fleeting, and temporary attitude change. This theory on attitude change is called the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM).

Unfortunately, markets too often use logic or facts to persuade people and try to create some thought-provoking or clever message. In some cases, very simple emotional appeal will do (e.g., "that looks nice" turns into, "I feel good it"). Marketers, consider the level/depth of the message you're trying to convey while also considering what wavelength your audience is on.

Side note: If you're familiar with "System 1" and "System 2" processing, as taught by Daniel Kahneman in 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' this relates to this concept by explaining how persuasive messages can be processed depending on the individual's motivation and ability to elaborate on the information.

Recency Bias: why we believe recent events will occur again soon.

Bite-size: People incorrectly believe that recent events will occur again soon. This is called recency bias.

Full-size:
How this works: A consumer is choosing between insurance providers. Insurer X offers standard coverage but prominently features flooding events in their ad. Insurer Y offers the same coverage at a lower price showing a mix of covered events. Guided by rational decision-making, the consumer would choose Y, the better price. But we don't make decisions like this rationally (more on that later). In this scenario, the consumer chooses X instead because, as recency bias suggests, since flooding has been a big part of US news lately, Insurer X is more appealing.

Unless it’s a BIG personal, ethical, or moral decision, your customers are making instinctive, lightning-quick decisions when evaluating, judging, remembering and ultimately purchase a brand or product. It is human nature to form biases—shortcuts to quicker thinking. Sometimes that's beneficial sometimes it's not. Marketers, consider what biases might be in play and use them to your advantage.

Why are we so irrational? Well, to act according to perfect rationality would require us not to be influenced by any cognitive biases, to be able to access all possible information about potential alternatives, and to have enough time to calculate the pros and cons of each. But since we are only human after all, it is nearly impossible to satisfy all these factors. This is referred to as bounded rationality, which explains why humans do not make decisions that are perfectly rational. So, instead of striving to make the “best” choices, we often settle on making merely satisfactory choices.