Your simulator needs a tune-up
Why every creator and communicator needs to understand human behavior.
We all have a simulator that we use every day to predict how others will react to us — our brain.
This simulator works amazingly well. It lets us construct a joke that other people will laugh at, paint a picture that others will marvel at, and write a sales pitch to get people to buy.
But it’s also hopelessly biased, especially when it comes to predicting how other people will behave. That’s why our jokes often fall flat, our helpful comments get taken as insults, and sales pitches get no takers.
As designers and communicators, we can use behavioral science and psychology to improve our simulators and make better predictions about how people will react to our work. This practice allows us to create more successful communications, products, and experiences.
What do you mean I have a simulator in my head?
We were extraordinarily dependent on others in our community for most of our human existence to keep us alive. If your community exiled you, you lost their protection, shelter, and food — and you probably died. So evolution has made us exquisitely tuned to the behaviors of others and how they will react to us.
Humans refined this into a superpower called the Theory of Mind. This theory is our ability to understand that other people have feelings and desires, just as we do. It also helps us predict how other people will behave based on their thoughts and feelings.
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, and knowledge — to ourselves and others.
We use this ability every time we interact with another person (or even think about it). We predict someone hanging their head low is having a bad day and that someone bouncing on the balls of their feet is feeling energetic. It’s how we anticipate that clearing our throat in a quiet waiting room will get someone’s attention, but yelling, “Hey you!” will startle them.
We aren’t born knowing all of this. And the expectations and predictions are not the same in every culture. We learn over time, like an AI program building a model based on billions and billions of data points. In every waking moment, we are collecting data to improve our model. Every time an interaction doesn’t go the way we planned, we make a tiny adjustment.
Communicating = Simulating
We use this simulation constantly when designing or writing for others. Every time we compose a sentence or draw a line, we run a quick simulation of how our audience will react. Will they like it? Will they understand it? Will they interpret it as intended?
But we often forget that our simulation is flawed and biased. We believe that because we understand or enjoy something, others will too. Fortunately, behavioral science can help us overcome these flaws.
Common biases that trip designers up
Fundamental attribution error
We attribute other people’s actions to their character or personality, but our actions to external factors out of our control.
You’ve probably experienced this behind the wheel of a car. Whenever you’re the one doing something unexpected like making a 3-point-turn in the middle of a busy street, you think, “It’s not my fault. I just got bad directions. Why is everyone honking at me?” But when someone else does the same thing, and you’re the one waiting, you think, “What is wrong with this $@%& person! Don’t they know how to drive?!”
It’s easy to fall into this trap as a designer or communicator. Especially when someone questions a product you’ve put a lot of work into. You think, “I’ve spent days perfecting this. They’re just not very bright if they don’t get it.”
How to avoid it
Be curious and humble instead of responding with frustration and blaming your audience. You’ve just discovered a clue that can improve your product or communication. Was the audience missing a key piece of information? Do they have different beliefs or values than you thought? Dig deeper to figure out what you were missing.
Curse of knowledge
We believe other people have the same level of understanding we do. And we can’t imagine what it’s like not to have this knowledge or understanding.
Think about the last project you worked on. You might have spent days or weeks learning about the topic before you ever put pen to paper. And whatever made it on the page or screen probably represented a small fraction of what you know about the topic. Of course it makes sense to you!
On the other hand, your audience probably knows very little about the topic. And even though you understand this, it’s impossible to forget what you know and put yourself in their shoes. This curse leads you to design things that are easy for you to understand but confusing for your audience.
How to avoid it
The easiest way to overcome your “curse of knowledge” is to share the design with someone who knows nothing about the topic (or has the same level of knowledge as your audience). Without fail, they will reveal some element they didn’t understand or didn’t interpret the way you intended.
Interpersonal Empathy gap
We don’t understand someone else’s preferences and behavior because their emotional state differs from ours.
This empathy gap happens to us all the time. We wonder why a colleague is so worked-up before a presentation because we fail to empathize with their anxiety. Or we tell a friend, “don’t take it so hard,” when we don’t truly understand their frustration at a minor setback.
We do the same thing when we misunderstand (or assume) our audience’s emotional state. We may underestimate their emotions when going through a difficult situation. Or, more commonly, we overestimate their level of excitement about our product or campaign. Anytime you hear how customers are “passionate about our brand,” you’re in Interpersonal Empathy Gap territory.
How to avoid it
To overcome your empathy gap, talk to people when and where you hope to influence them, not in a focus group. In a focus group setting, your audience isn’t as in touch with how they would be feeling while deciding in the real world.
If you can’t talk to your audience, try to put yourself in their place. Remember that they probably aren’t thinking about your topic or solution. They are going about their day, swamped by thousands of distractions and largely acting on auto-pilot. So you will have to earn every moment of attention or interaction.
What could go wrong?
Now that you’re galvanized to create better designs, let’s look at some launches that failed because they incorrectly predicted their audience’s reaction.
Keep America Beautiful — Negative Social Proof
This television ad is one of the most famous public service announcements ever run. There are a lot of problems with this ad, including whitewashing, greenwashing, and Native American stereotypes. On top of all that, it also didn’t work.
The premise is that a Native American travels to the city from the unspoiled wilderness and witnesses rampant littering. As we see a single tear roll down his eye, we’re supposed to be reminded of the pure beauty of America and admonished to clean up our littering ways.
We’re supposed to get the message, “Littering is bad. Don’t do it.” This example is of an injunctive norm. It tells us what we are supposed to do.
But what the ad unwittingly communicates is, “Everybody litters.” This example is a descriptive norm. It tells us what other people are doing.
Unfortunately, research tells us that we are more likely to respond to descriptive norms (what other people are doing) than injunctive norms (what we are supposed to do). Just think about driving your car. You know you are supposed to drive the speed limit, but you’re much more likely to do what others are doing and go a bit faster.
It’s unlikely that this ad convinced anyone to stop littering. It may have even encouraged it by supplying negative social proof that littering is widespread.
McDonald’s Arch Deluxe — Choosing the wrong frame
In the mid-90s, McDonald’s had a problem. Their creepy mascots convinced a generation of kids they needed to celebrate every birthday, baseball, and soccer game with a Happy Meal. But for adults, they were getting a reputation as “kids’ food.”
McDonald’s solution was the Arch Deluxe: a burger so grown up that kids would actually turn their noses up at it. Their campaign went hard on the “not kids food” premise. And in doing so, they chose a negative frame that helped sink the new product.
A frame is an idea or concept that we are already familiar with. When we use an existing frame to present a new idea, the audience uses this frame as a shortcut to quickly interpret and draw conclusions about the new information.
In this case, the frame was “kids don’t like grown-up food.” And the intended logic of the ad was:
- Kids don’t like grown-up food
- Kids are disgusted by this burger
- But you’re an adult, so you’ll enjoy it!
Unfortunately, that’s not how our brains work. We don’t receive a message from beginning to end and only take away the conclusion. Instead, the initial frame often stays dominant throughout, especially when reinforced by strong visuals like a pouting kid.
So, what people were more likely to take away was:
- Kids don’t like grown-up food
- Kids are disgusted by this burger
- This burger is unappetizing
Not exactly a winning sales pitch. After two years of dismal sales, McDonald’s finally pulled the campaign and the burger.
Tropicana — Underestimating habitual behavior
In 2009, Tropicana rolled out a complete redesign of the iconic orange juice packaging they’d had for decades. The design was cleaner, more premium, and clever, with a rounded orange cap as a nod to their old design. After the rollout, sales immediately dropped by 20%, and within three months, the old design was back on the shelf. In short, it was a total disaster.
What went wrong? Tropicana wasn’t taking a wild risk with the updated design. They had developed and tested many new looks. Consumers in focus groups said they liked the new package.
The problem was that both the marketers and consumers were sitting in offices, trying to predict their future behavior in the grocery store. As I mentioned earlier, we are terrible at predicting future behavior, especially in a different context.
They also failed to account for shoppers’ habitual behavior. When we buy orange juice and other frequent purchases, we grab the familiar package and put it in the basket with very little conscious thought. So, when regular Tropicana buyers didn’t see the familiar orange with the straw in it, their automatic behavior was disrupted, forcing them to pause and evaluate other options. This pause opened the door for buyers to choose another brand.
How to give your simulator a tune-up
1. REALLY get to know your audience
Too often, we get a few data points about our audience and use that to weave a story about them as if we know them very well. We’d never expect a stranger to completely understand us from a few pieces of information. But somehow, we think we can do this to our audience. This is called the Illusion of asymmetric insight.
To really understand your audience, you need to combine data and real-life experiences. Focus especially on the context that you are designing for. Don’t talk to your audience in a mirrored focus group room if you’re designing for personal finance. Talk to them when and where they make financial decisions, whether at home or in an advisor’s office.
Be careful not to rely too heavily on their explanation of why they did something or prefer something. We’re all terrible at understanding why we do things. Instead, discuss and observe behaviors. One great tool for talking about behaviors is the jobs to be done framework.
2. Test in the wild
Once you have an idea for a communication or product, don’t rely on your prediction or simulation of how they will respond. Collect more data by getting it in the hands of your audience.
Getting it to your audience doesn’t mean showing them a mockup and asking them to predict how they will use it or feel about it. As discussed, we are terrible at imagining how we will feel and act in the future. Instead, get as close as possible to how the audience will encounter the design in real life. Ask them to use a simple prototype, conduct a quick A/B test on your website, or even run cheap Facebook ads to test different messages.
3. Learn about human behavior
Observing and talking to your audience is helpful, but it won’t explain the hidden motivations and biases that they aren’t even aware of. Behavioral science fills in these blanks and helps us understand the systematic ways in which our actions defy expectations and “common sense.”
Fortunately, there are more resources than ever to help you learn. Here are just a few:
But what if I’m not a designer or communicator?
Anyone can use these tools: designers, marketers, entrepreneurs, educators, healthcare professionals — basically anyone who tries to help others make better decisions. Still not sure? To see if you need an understanding of human behavior for your job, check this list.
So…now what?
There are a lot of big problems in the world caused by faulty human thinking and behavior. Behavioral science can lead us to better solutions. But there are many more designers and communicators in the world than Behavioral Scientists. We need your help.
Can you imagine if every designer and communicator in the world understood how people really make decisions? We’d see billions and billions empowered to make better choices and act according to their values.
It starts with a better simulator.
Please clap 👏👏 if you find this post helpful. Thanks!
Sparky Witte serves as VP, Professional Services at Live Neuron Labs. He guides clients like the American Heart Association, American Medical Association, Moderna, and others in applying behavioral insights to improve lives. Sparky previously spent 18 years in Advertising and Marketing, studying how people think and how to craft messages and experiences to influence their attitudes, behaviors, and buying decisions. You can connect with Sparky on LinkedIn.
