Psychology for Communication Strategy (1/4): Finding the right information

In our work, strategy and creativity must backed up by data and empirical research.

Today we launch a series of 4 episodes, each dedicated to a phase of the strategic communication process.

Each phase is associated with 5 cognitive psychology concepts that help us make more wise and thoughtful decisions.

The first episode is all about finding the right information.

Confirmation bias

The confirmation bias leads us to prefer information that confirms and reinforces our point of view; discarding, instead, information that denies or questions it.

Similarly, when a situation seems ambiguous and uncertain, we tend to choose, among the several possible interpretations, those that are congruent to our previous beliefs.

In our work we have so many data to evaluate and sources to draw from.

We may fall into the temptation of the most convenient way: to select information that validates our starting assumptions and neglect, more or less consciously, information that contrasts with them.

So we should strive to remain neutral and evaluate all available information with the same care and logic, by adopting consistent and methodical criteria.

Even if it means rethinking our beliefs.

Source: Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998), "Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises", Review of General Psychology, 2 (2): 175–220

Paralysis by analysis

When having too much information and too many options, we risk the paralysis by analysis: overthinking can block our decision making (on an individual or group level).

Ironically, having so many more chances can lead to worse decisions or even to a total inaction.

It happens, for example, when we persist in looking for the optimal decision (the absolute best) instead of settling for a good enough one.

Or when the situation is so complicated that we fear any decision would lead to even bigger troubles.

When we plan a strategy, we usually face a huge amount of information and a wide range of alternatives: the possible paths are countless.

To avoid getting lost and disoriented, we must be drastic and cut the irrelevant.

Even when a selection is very hard.

Source: Roberts, Lon (January-February 2010). "Analysis paralysis: a case of terminological inaccuracy". AT&L Defense: 18–22

Survival bias

The survival bias focuses our attention on people and things that have passed a selection - they were successful in some way, so they survived and are still evident.

Conversely, we tend to underestimate the spread of people and things that didn't make it (because they failed and are gone).

All of this can inspire unwarranted optimism and rough misjudgments.

When we hear stories of great entrepreneurs who didn’t finish university or artists who achieved success after many setbacks, we should not forget they are rare instances: they are few but far more eye-catching than the countless anonymous stories.

The law of large numbers returns a more balanced perception of social or natural phenomena.

Even in our industry many try to replicate the case histories in vogue and ignore the many failed or irrelevant projects, which statistically are more numerous.

Yet failures teach more than successes, at times.

Source: Elton; Gruber; Blake (1996). "Mutual Fund Survival and Performance Bias". Review of financial studies. 9 (4): 1097–1120

Availability heuristic

Because of the availability heuristic, when we remember something more easily, or when examples of it immediately come to mind, we think it is more common, frequent and likely than it actually is.

We overestimate the statistical frequency and probability of very happy or very tragic events - from buying a winning lottery ticket to a shark attack at sea, from getting a high-profile job to a plane crash.

The reason is that they produce vivid images that are imprinted on our mind and memory.

When we plan a strategy, we risk not evaluating all the available knowledge in a balanced way, favoring that readily accessible to our mind because it’s more recent, emotional and ingrained in our memory.

Perhaps settling for the first ideas leads us along safe and tested routes.

However, they are not always the best ones.

Source: Schwarz, Norberto; Bless, Herbert; Strack, Fritz; Klumpp, Gisela; Rittenauer-Schatka, Helga; Simons, Annette (1991). "Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at Availability Heuristics." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (2): 195–202

Ambiguity effect

The ambiguity effect prompts us to avoid ambiguous options, about which we have little information, and choose the most predictable ones.

We need certainties: even when the result of these certainties could be worse than the result of the most ambiguous and risky alternatives.

Such aversion to ambiguity can have well-founded reasons and lead us to quick, easy and reasonably safe decisions in uncertain conditions.

Sometimes, however, it hinders better choices involving a certain margin of risk.

When we set up a strategy, we can try to rationalize the different alternatives and objectively calculate the odds of benefits and losses.

When we reach out to our audience, accurate and consistent information can reduce ambiguity and their sense of uncertainty.

Source: Frisch, Debora; Barone, Jonathan (1988). "Ambiguity and rationality". Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1 (3): 149–157

Final takeaways

Confirmation bias Don't discard information that conflicts with your beliefs
Paralysis by analysis Don't over-analyze a situation
Survival bias Don't overestimate the likelihood of successful experiences
Availability heuristic Don't settle for the first ideas that come to your mind
Ambiguity effect Don't overvalue the best known options