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

What Years of Anxiety Taught Me About Balancing Two Minds

  Guest post by Dr. Britt Ritchie, DNP, PMHNP-BC   First, a huge thank-you to Dr. Paul Cook for inviting me to contribute here. Paul was my Division Chair when I worked at the University of Colorado (CU) as an assistant professor. During that time, he saw me at one of my most vulnerable points—grappling with anxiety so intense it almost made me abruptly quit my job. I knew it was social anxiety—the kind of fear marked by an overwhelming sense of being judged, embarrassed, or humiliated in front of others—but knowing the label didn’t make it any easier to manage in the moment. Because of that shared history, it feels especially fitting to write about my experience lecturing during my time at CU through the lens of Paul’s Two Minds Theory. I can still picture the lecture hall—the rows of students, the humming projector, the fluorescent lights that were both too hot and too bright. On paper, I was prepared. I had spent hours rehearsing, editing slides, and reviewing notes. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Pursuit of Digital Badges

  What's the appeal of digital badges? I used to think that only a crazy person would be motivated to exercise just to move some electrons around on their smartphone screen. My phone would notify me that a new challenge was available each month, and I would routinely ignore it. I felt no pain or consternation about this -- in fact, I never gave it a second thought, or never notice the challenge at all. But for the past few months it seems that I'm among those who increase their activity level just because their iPhone tells them to (my latest badges shown above). Why does this seemingly stupid behavior-change strategy work, and why did it start working for me when it didn't help me before? First, it's important to know that rewards do motivate behavior. In a previous post on behaviorism I provided some background on how this works by training the Intuitive Mind. Two Minds Theory posits that the final stage before a behavior is produced by the Intuitive Mind (after proc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Self-Determination Theory Through the Lens of Two Minds

  Self-determination theory  (SDT) is a framework for understanding human motivation. It gained a great deal of popularity as a possible explanation for the effects of motivational interviewing  (MI), although MI's primary creator William Miller has said that his understanding of MI is atheoretical . It is certainly the case that MI came about long before SDT was used to explain it. And it's also true that SDT was an established model with its own body of research before it was ever linked to MI. But Stephen Rollnick, Miller's co-author in his most important works on MI, has specifically said that he considers SDT to provide the theoretical explanation for MI's success. Deci and Ryan (2000) propose six "mini-theories" or propositions that together make up SDT: 1. intrinsic motivation  is a strong predictor of behavior, and is related to feelings of competence and autonomy. The intrinsic/extrinsic motivation distinction is an old one in psychology, reflecting ...
Post a Comment
Read more