A Year of How We Think

One of the great things about research is that you’re exposed to so many different ideas. On Monday you’ll be working on behalf of a charity, Tuesday a retailer — and before the week is out you’ll have dipped into financial services. Each week you interact with people from the shopfloor to the C-suite up and down the UK, and beyond. That variety is a privilege.

Once in a while it’s nice to stand back and reflect on what we’ve been doing, and what it tells us about human decision making. 

For the last year, the team here at Trinity has been regularly sharing their views on both topical subjects and predictive trends — we call this segment “How we think”. Feedback from our clients has been great; they like hearing our experiences, lifting the lid on projects and encouraging cross-fertilisation of ideas. 

So, after 12 months of insights from our team — which articles were the most popular with our readers this year? Let’s find out.

1. The Say Do Gap in Driver Behaviour

This one describes an emblematic project: observational research unearthed a huge say-do gap in driver behaviour. In short: drivers who claim not to speed do so just as often as those who admit to speeding.  Why? Real-world driving is automatic, with habits and environmental cues like road design significantly influencing speeds. It’s interesting as it highlights that attitudes alone are poor predictors of behaviour. And we conclude that behaviour change strategies need to be comprehensive — considering individual, social, and material factors.

2. The Lollapalooza Effect: Decision-Making in the Real World

This one was all about how we make decisions. Academia has given us a long list of cognitive biases but what we need is a holistic cross-disciplinary explanation of human behaviour. Charlie Munger’s multidisciplinary approach to understanding decision-making led him to describe “Lollapalooza effects”, where multiple biases interact simultaneously, amplifying their effects and leading to extreme outcomes in decision-making, such as stock market bubbles or auction prices.

3. Asking Better Research Questions

Gabe in our Financial team wrote about how to apply BeSci thinking to surveys. Poorly framed research questions often lead to inaccurate results, due to biases like social desirability or poor recall. He argues researchers should focus on behaviour rather than attitudes and use granular, context-rich questions to get better data. Techniques like using shorter recall periods, disguising motives, and breaking questions down into smaller parts help avoid common biases and improve the reliability of responses.

4. Is this the end of television as we know it? 

Laura from our media and broadcast team discussed how television is evolving as younger audiences prefer streaming and digital platforms over traditional linear broadcasting. She argued TV brands must adapt, focusing on distributing content through multiple channels rather than sticking to traditional broadcasting methods. Linear TV can still thrive if it creates evergreen or long-lasting content, while streaming platforms are incorporating traits of traditional TV, like live events and ads.

5. What if… alcohol brands can win during Dry January

Rob from our Retail and Leisure team explored dry January, showing how alcohol brands can still thrive during by promoting non-alcoholic options. More and more consumers are now open to ‘no and low’ alcohol alternatives. The key is providing attractive non-alcoholic drinks that offer a similar experience to their alcoholic counterparts, making it easier for people to switch without feeling left out. He argued brands should keep their non-alcoholic options top of mind through clever marketing and storytelling to ensure they stay relevant even after Dry January ends.

There you have it — the most clickable subjects we’ve covered in the last year! Keep an eye on How We Think to read more expert insights over the coming months.