3 dangerous behavioural science myths - and what to do about them

Behavioural science has become a cornerstone in market research, offering valuable insights into key audiences’ decision-making and behaviour. However, as with any growing field, misconceptions and myths have emerged that can misguide researchers and marketers alike.

In this article we describe three dangerous behavioural science myths…and offer advice on how to navigate around them.

Let’s begin with myth one…

Myth 1: 95% of human decisions happen subconsciously

Arguably the most widespread behavioural science myth is that 95% of human decisions are driven by subconscious processes. This claim came out of Harvard professor Gerald Zaltman’s book “How Customers Think: Essential insights into the mind of the market”.

One of the reasons this idea has spread so well is its seductive nature: if most decisions occur subconsciously then marketers can simply “hack” the brain to influence consumers.

Unfortunately however, there is no evidence to back up this claim.

It is true that some actions, such as automatic habits or quick decisions, may require little conscious thought. However, this statistic vastly oversimplifies how humans make choices, drastically minimising the effects of strong conscious influences including attitudes, values, and goals. Indeed, many decisions made are entirely deliberate, especially when consumers face complex, important, or high-involvement choices.

Finally, appealing though it sounds to be able to pinpoint an exact number (95%), it is simply not possible to accurately determine how much of every decision in every situation is based on conscious versus subconscious processing.

What to do about Myth 1:

• Market researchers should avoid overemphasising the subconscious, and instead focus on exploring the wide range of factors that can – consciously or subconsciously – influence decision-making

• For example, as well as attitudes, values and goals, consumers and other audiences may be influenced by a plethora of other factors – from personality traits, past experiences, and practical considerations – to incentives, cultural influences, and impediments on memory and attention

Myth 2: Implicit association tests provide more meaningful insights than direct questions

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been widely used to uncover subconscious attitudes and biases by measuring how quickly people associate concepts. It is based on the assumption that faster reactions indicate stronger associations between paired ideas. As a result, the IAT is sometimes employed in quantitative market research to predict consumer attitudes, preferences, and behaviour.

However, research challenges the validity and reliability of the IAT, particularly in predicting behaviour. For example, one study found that when compared to agreement scales, implicit approaches were in fact less accurate at predicting purchase intentions.

The test has also been criticised for its inconsistent results, its lack of clarity about how implicit biases translate into real-world actions, and its susceptibility to external influences like mood or context.

What to do about Myth 2:

• If trying to understand subconscious influences on decision-making, market researchers should consider approaches other than the IAT

• Especially in quantitative research, behavioural models and theories provide a prime opportunity to explore deeper relationships between key decision-making influences

• Quantitative experimental methods also help us understand subconscious influences, while valid qualitative approaches include ethnography

Myth 3: Humans have the attention span of a goldfish (or less)

Finally, the idea that the average human attention span is shorter than that of a goldfish – often cited as being around eight seconds – is widely circulated. Indeed, a study from King’s College London found that only a quarter of Britons were able to correctly identify as false the statement that the average attention span of adults is worse than that of a goldfish.

What’s going on here? Well, it is true that digital distractions, social media, and an overload of information can impact attention. However, this myth ignores the complexity of how attention works. Attention is not a fixed quantity that people "lose" but a dynamic process that can shift based on the context, task at hand, and individual interest.

In reality, research suggests that people are able to focus for long periods when the content is engaging and relevant.

After all, if humans’ attention span really is only eight seconds, how would we ever be able to watch a movie, read a book, or even listen to a three-minute pop song without getting bored?

What to do about Myth 3:

• While not many people enjoy completing long market research surveys, the above suggests our primary focus should be not be on survey length, but on creating engaging (and insightful) questions

  • One way we do this in our surveys at Activate Research is through mini-quizzes, which are interesting for respondents…and allow us to measure the impact of respondents’ knowledge on their behaviour (or intended behaviour)

• Similarly, not many people like lengthy Powerpoint research debriefs, but the solution is not only to create shorter decks

  • In particular, behavioural science research suggests factors that drive engagement in debriefs include the level of certainty conveyed in findings (tip: avoid conveying uncertainty), and the volume of actions recommended (tip: don’t recommend too many)

Conclusion

This article has described three dangerous behavioural science myths:

1. 95% of human decisions happen subconsciously

2. Implicit association tests provide more meaningful insights than direct questions

3. Humans have the attention span of a goldfish (or less)

As always, the key takeout when interpreting any ideas or concepts like the above is to err on the side of caution…if something sounds too simple, intuitive or compelling – then it’s likely incorrect.