As of the first week of March 2020, the total number of confirmed cases in mainland China, the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak, is slightly over 80,000. This works out to be no more than 6 cases in 100,000 people. The probability is much lower in most other places, such as 3.38 cases in 100,000 people in Italy, 1.89 in 100,000 in Singapore, and 0.03 in 100,000 in the US.

Despite the low probability, many people are appearing to be more fearful than they should be, with an exaggerated perceived risk.

Panic buying happened within hours when the DORSCON level was raised to Orange in Singapore early last month. Canned food, rice, instant noodles, and even toilet papers were swept off the shelves that evening, with queues longer than we have ever seen in supermarkets. The same phenomenon hit the US, Germany, Italy and Indonesia this week, after more local cases were confirmed. Masks, sanitizers, and disinfectants are sold out, social events and activities are cancelled, and many instances of racism against people of Chinese ethnicity have been observed around the world.

Is this fear rational? It seems the fear is spreading faster, and affecting people’s lives to a larger extent, than the virus itself. Why is that?

The following five cognitive biases can explain most of these irrational behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak.

1.     Negativity bias – we have the tendency to pay more attention to bad things

Humans have a natural tendency to place more emphasis to negative things, such as remembering negative incidents more clearly, being more affected by criticisms than compliments, or feeling more emotional pain for a loss of $10 than happiness gained for the picking up $10.

“Good things last eight seconds…Bad things last three weeks.” – Linus van Pelt, Peanuts

During the COVID-19 outbreak, we tend to pay more attention to bad news (in part also due to news channels’ willingness to focus on negative news as well, following the same principle) – the number of new cases/deaths/infected patients in critical condition – much more than the number of recoveries. Some people actively search for information that scares themselves more, such as ‘evidence’ that shows masks are not effective in protecting you from the virus, reading up on past global pandemics, or even unknowingly landing on fake news which exacerbates the severity of the situation. All these contribute to the psychological fear of ‘Could it happen to me?’.

2.     Confirmation bias – we pay more attention to information that supports our belief

People are prone to believe what they want to believe, and actively look out for evidence to support their beliefs, while dismissing those that contradict. This confirmation bias is more prevalent in anxious individuals, which makes them perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is. For example, an anxious person is more likely to be more sensitive about what people think of him/her, and constantly look out for signs that show people do not like them, biasing towards negative words or actions.

We naturally seek information to protect ourselves, because the ‘unknown’ is more fearful than the ‘known’. If we think the situation is severe, we tend to focus on news that talks about the severity of the situation, which results in a self-fulfilling prophecy. With greater amount of information now being spread much more quickly over social media, the effects of this bias are a lot more pronounced. A cursory scroll through the Reddit thread on COVID-19 can quickly convince someone that it will bring about the end of the world! 

3.     Probability neglect – we have the tendency to disregard probability when making decisions

A potential outcome that is incredibly pleasant or terrifying is likely to affect our rational minds. We are more likely to be swayed by our emotions towards the potential outcome and pay less attention to the actual probability.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

Looking factually at the numbers of COVID-19, the probability of getting the virus is very low, and much lower than many other risks that we are accustomed to, such as the common flu or cold. Yet people are terrified and have extreme panic or preventive behaviours towards the situation. The fact that the virus is new, and that it can be fatal, could have added to the fear, clouding judgement. Many are avoiding malls, reducing dining out, cancelling travels. This effect extends into greater economic implications. The ‘unknown’ is playing with our feelings, and we react to the feelings, not probability, towards the risk. 

4.     Stereotyping – we tend to make unjustified generalisations

On 11 February, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the official new name of the coronavirus to be COVID-19. According to WHO, they had to find a name that did not refer to a geographical location, an animal, an individual or a group of people.

This is not just a WHO naming guideline, but an important step to reduce negative stereotypes. During the early stages of the outbreak, there was hatred against Wuhan, or China, and this prejudice has even extended to all Chinese people outside of China. In many countries, many people also irrationally avoid visiting the Chinatown, or dining in Chinese restaurants, as if you visit a neighbourhood Chinese restaurant, you will get the virus, even if your neighbourhood is safe[ML1] [DG2] . Aside from how stereotyping individuals is in and off itself a negative social action, such perceptions can also lead to feelings of false assurance, that one is ‘immune’ to the virus, which in turn can result in behaviours that run counter to public health advisories.

5.     Illusory truth effect – it’s true if it’s repeated

 “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth” – people tend to believe what they constantly see or hear in the news, regardless of whether there is any evidence of its veracity. A recent study [ML3] [DG4] has shown this effect to be present even if people are familiar with the subject, as the repeated lies introduce doubt into their psyche.

This is one of the key reasons why “fake news” has been able to take hold during this outbreak – from quack sesame oil remedies to protect against the virus to misconceptions that packages from China are dangerous to handle. In Singapore, after the same few photos of panic buying being circulated via social media many times makes it a ‘nationwide phenomenon’. WHO and governments around the world have been actively trying to take back the narrative from these “fake news” sources, but the prevalence of social media and the ease of sharing such information to one’s friends and families will present an uphill challenge to combat them.

What it means for brands

Firstly, it is important to remember that cognitive biases exist in human beings, and consumer behaviours aren’t always rational. During the crisis, such behaviours are magnified, and the impact/ repercussions of these irrationalities become amplified.  you should consider what consumers are thinking, and how they are reacting. Understanding where the biasness is from, and how it manifests in thinking and actions, can help you decide on strategies what can potentially lead to behavioural changes.

Secondly, we also need to understand that relying on past information may not be able to help you accurately predict into the future, because people’s reaction to the same stimulus may have changed. For example, the last time DORSCON was raised to Orange in Singapore during the H1N1 crisis in 2019, there wasn’t ‘panic buying’ that led to the severe shortage of masks or sanitizers. Planning in the future, you can think about whether your brand will be perceived any differently once the outbreak is over – how would people’s mindset change because of the outbreak? What will people be looking out for, post- this crisis? Consider how you can address the post-crisis world, and find your competitive advantage.

At a time when there is concern that news outlets are feeding coronavirus panic and confusion, it may have been easy to miss some of the more positive news stories emerging in the last few weeks.

Chief among them is the impact that digital technology has had across Asia, as parts of China in particular have gone into lockdown, and the implications of this.

Across China, as The Economist reported earlier this week, subscriptions to digital health services have increased exponentially – a shift in consumer behaviour that previously had been expected to take five whole years. Similarly, we have seen reports that mobile, social media and streaming services are experiencing a strong uptick in usage whilst people are stuck indoors. Schooling has also moved online, with students taking classes through grade-specific TV channels, and the internet.

Above all, we’ve seen people using digital resources to overcome the loneliness of isolation. Gyms are offering sessions via WeChat, clubs are hosting club nights online, and gamers are congregating online to play together in increasing numbers, with Tencent’s Honor of Kings game reaching a peak in average daily users.

So will there be in any digital silver linings for the market research industry?

Non face-to-face methodologies are hardly new in our industry, but a shift towards online – particularly when it comes to qualitative research – now feels unavoidable. Where once a traditional focus group or face-to-face interviews may have sufficed, we’ll undoubtedly see digital techniques coming in to play more and more.

But herein lies a word of caution: because not all digital techniques are created equally, and not all solutions are suitable for certain projects: the most appropriate methodology will always depend on a study’s objectives.

There are plenty of digital options available to researchers: online focus groups, skype depth interviews, mobile diaries, and online communities to name but a few, but how do you work out which methodology is best suited to your study?

First of all, it’s important to start your thinking with your objectives, not your methodology. Just because you might have once used focus groups or face-to-face depth interviews in the past, doesn’t necessarily mean an online focus group or skype interview are the best ways to meet your objectives using digital tools. Start by asking:

  • Are you looking for breadth, or depth of insight?
  • Who are you looking to influence with your findings? What kinds of asset are most likely to have impact and support real change across your organisation? How quickly do your stakeholders need access to your insights?
  • How important is it to observe discussion and interaction between respondents – are you looking to compare different points of view?

How you answer these questions will heavily impact the methodology that’s right for you.

For instance, say you are conducting a concept or product test. Typically, you’d use a focus group setting so your product and design team could observe respondent reactions, and make on-the-spot changes to your product.

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

If you’re looking for breadth, speedy insights, and discussion between respondents to understand how views differ, you might automatically think that an online focus group session, with respondents and stakeholders logging in from separate locations is your answer. However, while online focus group technology mimics the experience of a focus group setting, in practice, it is much harder for respondents to communicate with one anyone other than the moderator – you’re unlikely to meet your ‘discussion between respondents’ objective.

Instead, an online community would allow you to hit the nail on the head of all three of your objectives and then some. The key difference versus an online focus group is your ability to nurture and observe conversations between respondents in the community in a much more natural environment.

You can even use the platform to segment different audiences together, or keep the community broad to observe discussions across the whole group. Stakeholders are able to log on at any time they choose, to observe conversations, and input suggestions for additional questions to the moderators. And say you have one or two topics you’d like to explore in more depth? You can always set up private questions, to conduct one-to-one research as part of the community. And when it comes to final assets, online communities are really unrivalled when it comes to video and photo content that can be used to help land insights with your stakeholders.

If, however, observing interaction between respondents really isn’t a key necessity, and you’re looking for depth of insight, you may want to consider depth Skype interviews instead of your traditional focus group. Digital depth interviews work beautifully for concept and product testing as part of a staged programme of research, especially when you meld multiple touch-points together. You could consider following an initial Skype interview with a selfie-style filmed product review in-home for example, to really dig into consumer views.

Ultimately, while all of these methodologies have been around for some time, it’s likely that a reduction in face-to-face research will see us being far more creative with the digital options available to us. It will be fascinating to see whether or not these changes result in a long-term shift towards digital methodologies. Back in 2014 during London’s tube strikes, commuters were forced to find alternative routes to get travel around the city. Following the strikes, Transport for London reported that one in 20 commuters actually stuck with the new route they’d discovered. Will the research industry see a similar permanent shift? Time will tell.

Kadence has a wealth of experience in using digital research methodologies to help answer critical questions for brands and businesses. If you’re looking for support to help you find the best approach to meet your business objectives, please get in touch.  

Trusted by

As you put the Halloween decorations away for another year, are you one of the many people thinking twice about that age old tradition of carving a pumpkin? 

#pumpkinrescue is trending on social media as organisations and consumers alike raise awareness of unnecessary food waste that the Halloween tradition creates. According to Hubbub, in the U.K., 18,000 tonnes of pumpkin go to landfill every year (that is the equivalent of 360 million portions of pumpkin pie) and many people have had enough, using the hashtag to encourage consumers to eat the remains of their pumpkin instead. 

Concerns around food waste are no fad. Our latest research, The Concerned Consumer, found that food waste is a key issue globally, with 63% of consumers telling us they do their bit to address food waste. This is particularly important for consumers in the UK and the US, where the figure rises to 71%. 

Keen to explore this topic in more detail, we’ve been digging into the conversations around food waste on Twitter, using a comparative analytics tool called Relative Insight. 

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

So aside from discussions around #pumpkinrescue, how is food waste being discussed online?

Freezing food is a key topic of conversation. It is seen as a sustainable way to keep food fresh for longer, minimising food waste overall. And while thinking about pumpkins (which is a fruit by the way – yes, we googled it), we found that consumers are generally confused about whether they can or can’t freeze certain vegetables and fruit.

Another popular topic around food waste is finding a purpose for food scraps. Consumers are calling for more recipe suggestions incorporating vegetable scraps, or ways of composting it. Take a pumpkin as an example; the flesh can be used in pies and bread, the guts can be used for broth and mulled wine, the skin is edible in small varieties, and the seeds can be roasted. 

Want to discover more about the environmental, ethical and health concerns driving purchase behaviour in food and drink? Download our Concerned Consumer research.

Trusted by

The role of leadership is not what you think. The likelihood is, the more you think of yourself as an expert in leadership – the less likely you are to be a ‘great leader’. If, when you try and picture a great leader you see Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Nelson Mandela or Elon Musk. You are probably even further away. Let me explain.

The Rugby World cup is currently on in Japan. A feast of games that has already thrown up an unlikely result such as Japan beating Ireland. The Premier League is also in full swing and it brings an interesting contrast to what a ‘Captain’ looks like for each. I have been lucky enough to captain both a rugby team and a football team (in my younger, fitter days). And the difference is huge. In rugby, you must choose a strategy. When given a penalty, you pick from 1 of 4 potential restarts. It is the captain’s choice and the right decisions at the right time can hugely influence the result. For football, as a recent article talking about the potential for Maguire to be a future captain of Manchester United said, you just have to shout loudly.

So is Elon Musk or Steve Jobs more of a rugby or football captain? Probably neither. They are perhaps more of a Tiger Woods (let’s keep the sporting analogies going!). Tiger Woods has a caddy who helps him immensely. But he has to have his own strategy, play his own way. And he has to execute every shot. That is Elon Musk. He knows more about his products than anybody else. Steve Jobs knew exactly what he wanted to do with his products.

So a leader has to be an expert, know the strategy or shout loudly? According to a new book from HBR – a leader is simply someone who has a follower. This is perhaps a better reference for the workplace – rather than sporting analogies. I am sure there are many people that we have all worked with over the years that have been put into a position of ‘leadership’ that makes you question … why? The problem, in a larger organisation, is that people are mandated to follow. They HAVE to do what their boss says. They don’t follow willingly. They are forced. But that person is still a leader, because they have a ‘follower’.

There are so many books, publications, articles and how tos about leadership, that it is almost impossible to navigate the viewpoints with a clear understanding of what makes a great leader (and I do realise the irony of writing this within a blog about the role of leadership).

Stay ahead

Get regular insights

Keep up to date with the latest insights from our research as well as all our company news in our free monthly newsletter.

How do you identify a leader?

Within an organisational context, how do you find the ‘next great leader’? If the ‘bosses’ are not great and their ‘followers’ only do as the boss decides – how do you identify the next best? For me, that is the opportunity for the organisation. If the company culture and initiatives can be geared up to provide everyone with an equal opportunity – then does the cream naturally rise to the top?

In the past, Kadence has worked with ICLIF – a not for profit that specializes in leadership development. Part of a piece of work that we did was a 28 market study on leadership. It was part of the context for a book written about open source leadership. Within this book it was argued that because of a 24/7 world of connectivity, true leadership can not be done in the same way as before. That at the end of the day ‘leadership is more than an art than a science’ . As such, books on ‘how to lead’ simply don’t work.

One of the key areas of the book raised the question about how to find leaders within your organisation. The suggest was ‘Throw out challenges to the entire employee base and see who comes forward to showcase their talent and energy. Those who raise their hands year after year to solve company problems or exploit revenue opportunities are your natural leaders for tomorrow.’

This is great leadership. Having an organisation that allows those with passion and desire to showcase it off. It is not about forcing Harry Maguire to shout, it is about giving a voice to those that want to. So instead of thinking about individuals that are great leaders, perhaps we should be thinking about cultures that allow innovation to thrive? That the role of leadership is not to lead, but to set up a system that allows people to work on their best ideas.

Trusted by