Skip to main content

Psychology for Communication Strategy (2/4): Reading a situation

In the first episode we reviewed 5 concepts of cognitive psychology that can help us search and select the most useful and relevant information for our communication strategy.

Today we are examining 5 new concepts with another goal: to back the analysis step in a strategic process, when we have to carefully and clearly evaluate the departure scenario, both internally and externally.

Egocentric bias

Egocentric bias leads us to gain excessive self-confidence, overvalue our views and consider ourselves the focus of attention more often than we really are.

We also tend to judge our actions by applying less strict moral criteria than those we apply to others.

This is why, among other things, we tend to overestimate our contribution in a work group compared to that of our colleagues: this overestimation also depends on the functioning of our memory, which remembers more intensely what we are actively involved in or belongs to us.

Moreover, according to research, when we reach or are led to a state of increased self-awareness, we are more likely to evaluate our actions with objectivity and balance and to apply uniform criteria to our own and others' behaviors.

Source: Ross, Michael; Sicoly, Fiore (1979). "Egocentric biases in availability and attribution". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (3): 322–336

False consensus effect

The false consensus effect makes us believe that our traits, beliefs and opinions are more popular and shared by others than they really are.

This misperception strengthens our self-esteem and comforts our need to conform and be accepted by others; it often occurs when we belong to a small and uniform social group and don’t realize that the majority think otherwise.

And, when we find out astonished that our ideas are not so widespread, we could assume that others are wrong anyway...

This can be devastating if, when planning a communication strategy, we attribute to our target habits, opinions and values that are actually ours alone.

We can fight this fatal yet frequent self-reference by practicing a genuine listening: interviews, surveys, focus groups...

Source: Ross, Lee; Greene, David; House, Pamela (May 1977). "The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13 (3): 279-301

Overconfidence effect

The overconfidence effect leads us to overvalue our opinions, results and odds of success.

Ironically, we overestimate ourselves especially when we tackle difficult tasks we are not experts in.

This effect has several facets: the illusion of control (we think we are in control of a situation when it is not so); the planning fallacy (we underestimate the time needed to carry out an activity, especially when it’s quite long-lasting and complicated); the overplacement (we consider ourselves better than average, particularly in tasks seeming more common and simple).

Needless to say what disasters this overconfidence can produce in our work as strategists - as in any life sphere anyway...

However, there are some positives: a stronger self-esteem and a greater determination to achieve our goals.

Source: Moore, Don A .; Healy, Paul J. (April 2008). "The trouble with overconfidence". Psychological Review. 115 (2): 502-517

Naive realism

The naive realism convinces us that we are always able to see things objectively.

So we expect others to come to the same conclusions as us; and, when they don't, others may seem biased, misinformed or irrational.

We often don't realize that our lenses are subjective.

One consequence is the blind spot bias: we recognize cognitive biases in the judgment of others, while we consider ourselves immune to them.

Sometimes, the claim to detect events "as they really are" leads us to consider factious content that is actually neutral; or to ascribe bad intentions to those who just have a different view from ours, thus fueling tensions and conflicts.

These processes act unconsciously and uncontrollably, but an improved self-awareness can reduce their effects, as well as the application of systematic and objective criteria for judgment.

Source: Griffin, Dale; Ross, Lee (1991). "Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding". In MP Zanna (Ed.), "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology" (pp. 319–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Curse of knowledge

The curse of knowledge makes us assume that others know the same things as us and that what is known and familiar to us must also be so for others.

We can't neutralize our previous knowledge and see things with the eyes of a beginner.

This can make it difficult to set a fair price for a product or service (because producers and sellers know their features better than potential buyers) and define a fitting value proposition (because, for example, a product seems handy and effective to its developers, but turns to be useless, uncomfortable or unintelligible for its end users).

Likewise, many communication campaigns fail when planners take for granted concepts, ideas and phrases that their audiences actually ignore or interpret with a different meaning.

Source: Kennedy, Jane (1995). "Debiasing the Curse of Knowledge in Audit Judgment". The Accounting Review. 70 (2): 249-273

Final takeaways

Egocentric bias Apply the same criteria to judge your own and others' behaviors
False consensus effect Don't overestimate the spread of your ideas and values
Overconfidence effect Don't be overly optimistic about your skills and chances of success
Naive realism Don't believe your viewpoints are always objective and unbiased
Curse of knowledge Remember the gap between your knowledge and that of others
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Brands need a strong identity, not to cling to someone else's. The Balocco and Ferragni affair

The fact : the Italian Competition Authority fined the companies of the famous influencer Chiara Ferragni , along with the confectionery company Balocco , with a total penalty of €1,075,000 for unfair commercial practices related to the Pink Christmas pandoro. The fine for Balocco is €420,000. The Antitrust claims that the companies led consumers to believe that by purchasing the pandoro, they were contributing to a donation to the Regina Margherita Hospital in Turin , when in reality, the €50,000 donation had already been made by Balocco months earlier. Companies associated with Chiara Ferragni collected over one million euros from the initiative. How did they get to this point? First mistake: confusion  What was the goal of the marketing campaign ?  To improve the company's ethical reputation or to reach the audience that adores Chiara Ferragni?  They are two different levels: the first is moral, the second is hedonistic.  Why muddy the waters? If the goal was to improve the co
Post a Comment
Read more

The Kit Kat & Twix case. Does kindness really pay off for brands?

  Sometimes, when we think about marketing, an aggressive and unforgiving environment comes to our mind. After all, market is competition , right? However, many people value integrity and fair play . And they wish to reward brands that embrace these values. Is flattery more beneficial to the giver or the recipient? In 2021, in a series of 12 experiments led by Duke University, two groups of consumers were shown two fake tweets (when we could still call them tweets...) by Kit Kat (snacks that I suppose needs no introduction): First tweet - Kit Kat praises Twix : @twix, Competitor or not, congrats on your 54 years in business! Even we can admit - Twix are delicious Second tweet - Kit Kat praises itself :  Start your day off with a tasty treat! 11 days later, the percentage of those who bought a Kit Kat : was 31.95% among those who had seen the first tweet - the competitor's praise was 23.77% among those who had seen the second tweet - the trivial self-praise And the delicious Twix
Post a Comment
Read more

Too much jam can be confusing: the Paradox of Choice

December : a time of carefree afternoons spent shopping with your loved ones.  As you stroll through the crowded, festive streets illuminated with a thousand colors, your attention as food enthusiasts is caught by two stands on either side of the street.  Both sell artisanal jams: on one counter there are 24 variants; on the other counter there are only 6 variants.  Which of the two stands is more likely to pique your interest?  Which of the two stands is more likely to turn you into their customers?  The answers to these two questions may not coincide .  Too much choice leads to no choice  In 2000, psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper conducted an experiment to check the correlation between the number of alternatives available and the customer conversion rate .  The experiment didn't take place in Christmas markets but in Menlo Park, California, in an upscale supermarket, where potential customers were lured with a $1 discount voucher.  The results seem counterintuitive:
Post a Comment
Read more