A lot gets written about how people are not particularly rationale, we engage or belief all sorts of irrational things. And yet, when asked why we do certain things we often give very rationale answers.  This seeming split between our rationale reports about why behave the way we do and our irrational acts provides ammunition to criticize the market research field – a business built on asking people what they do and why.

This critique is, often unknowingly, only focused on a particular brand of research – namely poorly conceived studies that rely on direct questions about the “why” and expect real, meaningful answers. The problem – at least for those of us in the field – is that the bad research studies become public and tend to tar us all with the same brush. We’ll continue to try to point out the differences in bad and good design , which lead to bad and good data. (You can find one such post here.)

We came across a great illustration of the kind of response one should expect if using direct questions about why people donate. This is an actual response from an actual donor, we’ll call her Stella, who offered this as an unsolicited comment though one can imagine her giving this same answer in response to a direct question on why she donates.

“I would hate to think that [organization x] wastes money making their donors feel good. Yes, we need enough info to be sure the money’s going to good use but I would stop giving if I thought they were buttering me up or trying to make me emotionally attached in some way. I give to [organization x] because of my objective observation that they are doing an excellent job…we don’t give so that we can feel good.”

Did Stella just lie? No, not really. She just gave an answer that aligns her belief that she is a rationale actor and not swayed by non-rationale ploys to make an emotional connection. This is the answer she would give if directly asked why she gives. It is categorically not the REAL reason. In fact, it is the exact opposite reason. She absolutely wants to feel good and the stronger the emotional bond the more she’ll give. People often have a very difficult time articulating or even knowing why they do certain things that are “irrational” – say for example buying a branded bottle of aspirin that is pharmacologically identical to the generic brand yet costs more. This is considered by some to be irrational. And yet, the branded product likely gives the buyer greater peace of mind, a greater sense of security and safety. Those things, while difficult to measure, have value.

That value adds up and offsets the greater price point.

The point being, giving for emotional reasons and to feel good is actually quite rationale but not easy – and often impossible – to faithfully report.

The market research cynic would stop the post here and write the postscript or eulogy . But, there are plenty of ways with more sophisticated, well crafted studies and methodologies to get at the real “why”, by focusing on asking what people are good at answering and deriving the rest with back-end analysis.

One great example, measuring personality types. The battery of questions used to discern personality type are indirect measures and multifaceted – meaning relying on multiple questions to measure a single construct (a tell tale sign of good design). You won’t see questions asking “are you a really assertive, type A person?” – too direct and too difficult to faithfully answer the question.

The same goes for measuring reasons for giving and the strength of the donor relationship. It can be done and done well but only with good design and analysis. We can also measure the level of emotional connection to an organization and determine what actions an organization takes positively impact that connection. We can’t do this by asking directly but we can do it.

Let’s not blame Stella for her rationale answers and throw the market research baby out with the bath water, let’s just do a better job of asking the questions. We owe it to Stella.