Skip to main content

Daily Survey Methods -- Narrative or Not?


Survey methods are the most widespread tools of behavioral science, and I have advocated for more use of daily surveys to study people's experiences in the context of their everyday lives. A central premise of Two Minds Theory is that Intuitive-level thinking is what actually produces behavior, so if we want to understand behavior we need to sample people's experiences at the Intuitive level. My argument has been that real-time, real-world surveys provide information closer to the occurrence of actual health behaviors, which tend to unfold on a day-by-day basis in routine contexts. And on the Two Minds Theory website I have published a list of tools that can be used for daily electronic surveys.

Yet surveys are based in language, and I have also argued that any type of conscious thought using language is a product of the Narrative system. Because surveys are really people's reports of their thoughts or feelings, can surveys really tell us anything useful about the Intuitive mind? 

When I wrote my first article about the Narrative and Intuitive minds, I wasn't actually setting out to create a theory of behavior. My goal was much more modest -- to explain a problem with daily survey methods. I had found that when I asked people "how have you felt over the past 7 days" they told me one thing; but when I asked "how do you feel today" every day for 7 days, and then averaged the answers, they were telling me something else. Logically, the average of 7 days of measurement should be identical to asking a person about their average experience over the past 7 days. So it seemed my survey methods were tapping into different aspects of people's experiences. The following figure shows just how bad the level of agreement was for different types of questions -- the shorter the bar, the lower the level of agreement between the two methods. If the two survey approaches simply generated the same information in different ways, then each of the bars should reach all the way to the right.


Furthermore, these discrepancies between the two types of survey methods turned out to have important consequences: We found that patients' motivation for treatment and their daily mood were strong predictors of whether they took their medication each day, while the same questions asked in "over the past 7 days" retrospective format were weaker predictors. And self-efficacy predicted adherence only in the "past 7 days" format, not in the "how are you feeling today" format. Clearly these two survey approaches are tapping into different kinds of information. My argument is that they actually represent the Narrative ("past 7 days") versus Intuitive ("right now") minds.

Cognitive psychologists describe a number of reasons why people's judgments about average experiences might differ from their judgments about current experiences. The primacy effect suggests that either the first or the most extreme example during a time period exerts an outsized effect on our memories of it. When I think about my last vacation, for instance, I immediately remember a great hike in Rocky Mountain National Park and a canoe excursion that were high points of the week. If I think hard I also remember the day it rained, the kids whined, and nobody seemed to be satisfied. But that part of the trip doesn't come into my "average" rating unless I really think hard; even with that in mind, my overall evaluation of the week is still that it was great. Another memory bias, the recency effect, means that I most strongly remember the things that happened at the end of the trip.

Retrospective surveys reflect the Narrative mind, because when we ask people about their "average experience" what we actually get is their beliefs about what their experience was or should have been. When we ask a question with a high level of immediacy ("right now"), there are no guarantees that we won't hear from people's beliefs, because any information stored in language is likely to tap into belief systems. That's why I have also recommended more use of sensor devices or physiological measures. But surveys that ask about immediate experience, and that are administered in the context of people's everyday lives, may be less likely to distort information through the lens of memory and belief. As a result, daily surveys can bring us closer to accurate data about the Intuitive Mind.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Does Psychotherapy Work? Look to the Intuitive Mind for Answers

  Jerome Frank's 1961 book Persuasion and Healing  popularized the idea of "common factors" that explain the benefits of psychotherapy, building on ideas that were first articulated by Saul Rosenzweig in 1936 and again by Sol Garfield in 1957. Frank's book emphasized the importance of (a) the therapeutic relationship, (b) the therapist's ability to explain the client's problems, (c) the client's expectation of change, and (d) the use of healing rituals. Later theorists emphasized other factors like feedback and empathy that are sub-components of the therapeutic relationship, and that can be clearly differentiated from specific behavior-change techniques like cognitive restructuring or behavioral reinforcement . Additional aspects of therapy that are sometimes identified as common factors include the opportunity to confront difficult past experiences, the opportunity for a "corrective emotional experience" with the therapist, and the chance t
1 comment
Read more

Ethical Improvement in the New Year

  Just after the first of the year is prime time for efforts to change our behavior, whether that's joining a gym, a "dry January" break from alcohol, or going on a diet. (See my previous post about New Year's resolutions for more health behavior examples). This year I'd like to consider ethical resolutions -- ways in which we try to change our behavior or upgrade our character to live more in line with our values.  Improving ethical behavior has been historically seen as the work of philosophers, or the church. But more recent psychological approaches have tried to explain morality using some of the same theories that are commonly used to understand health behaviors based on Narrative constructs like self-efficacy, intentions, and beliefs. Gerd Gigerenzer suggests that an economic model of " satisficing " might explain moral behavior based on limited information and the desire to achieve good-enough rather than optimal results. Others have used simula
Post a Comment
Read more

Year in Review: 2023

Here’s my annual look back at the topics that captured my attention in 2023. Over the past year I taught several undergraduate mental health classes, which is not my usual gig, although it does fit with my clinical training. The Two Minds Blog took a turn away from health psychology as a result, and veered toward traditional mental health topics instead. I had posts on   mania   and   depression .  I wrote about   loneliness   as a risk for health problems, as well as   hopefulness   as a form of stress inoculation. I wrote about the “ common factors ” in psychotherapy, which help to improve people’s mental health by way of the intuitive mind (I was particularly happy with that one). I also shared findings from a recent study where my colleagues and I implemented a   burnout prevention   program for nursing students, and another new paper that looked at the incidence of mental and physical health problems among   back country search and rescue workers . Mental health has received more
Post a Comment
Read more