All principles

    41 · Researching

    The Say-Do Gap

    What people say they do, or would do, often isn't what they actually do.

    Evidence: Holds, with limits

    What we do with it

    1. 01

      Watch people use the thing. Ask questions afterward to understand what you saw.

    2. 02

      Ask about the last time it happened. Questions about what people usually do, or would do, get guesses.

    3. 03

      Treat a feature request as a clue to a problem, and go find the problem.

    Examples

    Getting it wrong, getting it right.

    Don't

    A survey asks whether people would use a new feature. Most say yes. It ships, and almost nobody turns it on.

    Do

    Watch a handful of people try a rough version of it first, then decide.

    The evidence

    What the research says.

    Evidence: Holds, with limits

    Nisbett and Wilson's review was a landmark, and it has critics. K. Anders Ericsson and Herbert Simon showed in 1980 that people can report what they're thinking while they do a task fairly reliably. What doesn't hold up is asking afterward why they did something, or what they'd do in the future. Thomas Webb and Paschal Sheeran pooled 47 experiments in 2006 and found that a medium-to-large change in what people intended (d = 0.66) produced only a small-to-medium change in what they did (d = 0.36). That's why usability tests ask people to think aloud as they go. Morten Hertzum and colleagues checked in 2009 that classic think-aloud changes little about how people behave, apart from making tasks take longer. The chattier, relaxed kind changes more.

    How our view changed

    We trust what people say while they work, and treat their reasons and predictions afterward as leads to check.

    A second look

    Is your product breaking one of these?

    Most teams can't tell from the inside. Send us the page or the flow that's not working, and we'll tell you which of these we'd look at first.

    Email hello@synergyprod.com