Dual System Theory
Tapping into how users arrive at decisions demands an acute understanding of how the whole choice-making process works in the first place…
Decision making could look so simple to the bystander’s eye & it also possible one may go:
→ “its just a matter of a simple choice between (a) & (b), what’s the fuss about really?”
But, the very fact that choices are available could put one on the spot enforcing a decision out of them with an inherent understanding that they’d weigh out each of the options thoroughly & as suited to their own selves.
Supposing you are travelling along the desert & get stranded (say, due to a disruptive sandstorm) there for an hour although you’re well protected. There could just be one choice to quench your thirst – WATER leaving you with nothing but that to pick. But if you were to feel thirsty strolling around a busy downtown area densely populated with all kinds of restaurants, takeaways & retail stores you may have plenty of choices to pick from, which could never be straightforward & is also where the whole confusion could crop up.
Extrapolating the same to the choice customers / users have in the markets, there may be no real confusion at all if there was just one choice. But, that’s far from the reality given how we witness products just mushrooming into existence out of nowhere today.
So, the cognitive process, the relationship between thinking & doing in theory, how users arrive at a choice could be absolutely crucial to know & factor in for all teams involved in the process of building products (or features for that matter) which the “DUAL-SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK” tries to explain.
Definition: “Dual systems theory suggests that humans broadly adhere to 2 systems that they employ for thinking - SYSTEM-I - unconscious & quick given the reliance on shortcuts which could prove to be sloppy most of the time - SYSTEM-II - totally intentional given how it could be reliant heavily on data, is elaborately calculative, could prove to be more accurate & slower owing to the intensive nature of the process itself”
There may not be much to choose between Fred Flintstone (intuition - SYSTEM I) & Spock (deliberation - SYSTEM II) in terms of cognitive ability, but you don’t have any real control over how your users think & perceive your offering, major or minor. But, what’s certainly possible is for you to use a brand of influence over them, front them with the right options so as to win decisions in your favor.
When the Dual System Theory suggests that there could be 2 types of thinking (System-I & System-II) it could still be perceived as insufficient when it comes to plotting the whole decision-making process in reality, not discounting the possibility of quaint overlaps amongst those 2 types as well.
Justin W. Martin, Steven A. Sloman argue about this very concept over their Harvard journal.
Based on the previous works of Ravi Dhar & Margarita Gorlin the belief was largely tilted towards many people resorting to System-II thinking only after they have factored in all possibilities under System-I aka the “DEFAULT INTERVENTIONIST VIEW” but Sloman came up with an explanation of how these choices could be the result of systems working in parallel although whether it is purely sequential or entirely parallel is still open to debate aka the “PARALLEL COMPETITIVE VIEW”.
But the PARALLEL COMPETITIVE emerged as a clear winner as the evidence eventually pointed to people who are making choices based on what they perceive as right given their “safety in numbers” belief aka conjunction fallacy are proven to be slower & underconfident even when their choice seems to be the correct one. This is also enough reason to believe that there could be some intuition triggered on the back of some deliberate process. Lack of proper clarity on the data that’s fed during decision making could very obviously lead to confusions & that could push people to find comfort sitting on the fence.
“The most important factoid leant here is that the choice / final decision could as well be a result of how the systems interact with each other & it could be very difficult to split it & clearly assign it to either one of the 2 options”
Let’s dive into a case study here to understand this phenomenon better.
Supposing you’re planning a holiday & are looking for options online. You hit a popular booking site and shortlist a few options based on a few parameters alongside other reservations that you may have.
You would obviously check out a few details like:
Visuals
Ratings
Reviews (Verbatim)
Users
And while browsing through those pictures, it would suddenly occur to you some dear friend of yours happened to visit the very same place in the recent past. You may consider picking up the phone and talking to them, collecting all the information you think would be essential in helping you arrive at that decision of PURSUE / PASS.
If you realize now, you have used up both SYSTEM-I & II thinking here to arrive at a final decision. Now, if you go back to analyze, it could be very tough to exactly put a finger on which one of those did influence the decision directly.
Which part of it was deliberation / “reasoning”?
How much of it was reliant on “intuition”?
One thing you can certainly vouch for is the whole thing being gobbled up & processed to arrive at a final decision.
But it is possible that there were some elements that still managed to influence you, like say:
Presence of a private pool
Spacious condo-styled villas
Midst of the lush-green forest
Perched on a cliff with a view
Specific accessibility for the differently abled
Variety of food on offer
Designated areas for kids
And not to mention, these factors could easily differ from person to person, which is where it could look like it is all getting really fuzzy / complicated to process.
When the specific choices here are expectations many could carry, there’s enough room for them to influence a wave of intuition. And of course, living in times of data-overload there’s no scarcity of that as it could be pretty much available ubiquitously.
Another great piece!
Your ideas needs to be seen by more people who build products or work with other people in general.
I have the Kahneman’s book but haven’t gotten around to it yet.