An interesting discussion in behavioral science is the nature of humans as decision-makers. There often seems to be an assumption in the literature that people are terrible decision-makers. Consumers, members of the public, and voters are seen as battered by a host of errors and biases. This is partly because papers showing people making a reasonable decision are ‘dog bites man’, they are hard to publish. There are some challenges with taking the position that people are terrible decision-makers. You can end up thinking that the behavioral scientist always knows best. (There is an obvious contradiction in such a position as the scientists are presumably also subject to errors and biases). An alternative approach is to start from the assumption that people are generally reasonable decision-makers. Starting from there seems much more effective for marketers in particular.
Customers Are Not Morons
There is a famous saying delivered by the advertising legend, David Ogilvy. ‘The Consumer Isn’t A Moron; She Is Your Wife’. Earlier in my career, I tried something similar (but much less famously) doing some work entitled, “Are Your Customers Crazy?”. As a marketer, it is really hard to do a good job if you assume the people buying from you are idiots. Do they just buy randomly? In which case much of what we do in marketing isn’t necessary. Just produce any old shit and people might buy it if you happen to be lucky. That said, I think it is fair to say better products do, on average, tend to do better than worse products.
The authors of a new paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences make a similar point about public policy. (It is a short opinion-style piece, so an easy read).
… we suggest that assuming people are reasonable enables behavioral science to be more effective in shaping public policy.
Madsen et al., 2024, page 1
It is hard to develop effective public policy if you think people are just bouncing around from one bizarre choice to the next.
Seeing Others Make Errors
Of course, we all see occasions where people don’t seem to make the right choice. Some of this comes from different tastes. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to listen to a true-crime podcast but I don’t think people are making a mistake if they do so. (Maybe they are planning a murder and are admirably focused on doing research. Or they might be trying to avoid being murdered — in which case I’d advise taking out the earbuds to listen for their attacker). Ultimately, if (voyeuristically) listening to stories of grizzly murders makes you happy that is a reasonable choice. There is no accounting for taste.
We do see people consistently make some choices that are hard to defend even on grounds of taste. Here people may still have something reasonable behind their decisions. A classic problem is that people tend to worry too little about the future, e.g., investing for their pensions. But it is possible to come up with reasonable explanations. People hate thinking about pensions and old age — it is so painful that a destitute old age seems a small price to pay to avoid the paperwork. Given this, the behavioral research that suggests making pension investments easier/automatic is very welcome.
It is possible to justify even the most myopic view of the future. Spending money now means you secure the benefits in the future. Investing in your pension is only sensible if you are confident that the US won’t be a post-apocalyptic Mad Max-style wasteland when you come to retire. (Heading into the 2024 presidential elections the Mad Max view is becoming harder to completely dismiss out of hand).
Expert Advice Can Be Bad And It’s Hard To Know When It Is
Experts tell us we need to take action on various things. The challenge for those of us who believe any particular piece of advice is that some doubts about the expert advice may be reasonable.
Across Europe, for example, people were previously told by governments to switch to diesel cars because they were better for the environment, but this advice was later reversed. It is therefore reasonable that people would not immediately trust the steps governments are taking.
Madsen et al., 2024, page 2
Volkswagen, by lying to the public and rigging their emissions, did much more than just sell non-environmentally friendly cars. The company created doubt about other (hopefully genuine) claims to be more environmentally responsible.
People Are Generally Reasonable Decision-Makers
To better understand a reluctance to take ‘sensible action’ we need to fully consider why people dismiss arguments that we see as powerful. Note this doesn’t mean we must accept that there is no such thing as reality. People can be reasonable from their perspective but still be profoundly wrong. The point is that engaging with them, and assuming that they are capable of reasonable thought, should allow us to be much more persuasive than simply seeing all those who are not instantly on board with our arguments as irrational.
If you start with the idea that people aren’t stupid it is much easier to develop products, policy, and communications that appeal to them.
Read: Jens Koed Madsen, Lee de-Wit, Peter Ayton, Cameron Brick, Laura de-Moliere, and
Carla J. Groom (2024) Behavioral science should start by assuming people are reasonable, Trends in Cognitive Sciences