Dissatisfaction and Psychological Motivation

The greatest and most certain source of customer dissatisfaction is the failure of a product to satisfy the need for which it was purchased – which in turn has many possible causes, the first of which is the misidentification or misunderstanding of need and the criteria by which the need will be fulfilled.  This occurs more often where the product is a good (which the customer lacks the skills to successfully employ, or even to select the right good) but is also quite common in services (when the customer has provided incorrect or insufficient information for the service provider to take the correct action).

The problem begins in the process of selection: the customer is unable to choose the correct product because he does not know what will solve his need – sales can be of some assistance, but because sales tends to focus on “selling” it’s rare to encounter a sales professional whose ethics can overpower his mercenary interest in talking to the customer out of buying the wrong product.   A perfect product, proficiently employed, cannot result in satisfaction if it is the wrong product in the first place.

To back it up another step, to select the right product to serve a need, one must understand the need – if the need is not understood, everything after it (the purchasing and use process) cannot succeed except by accident.

Where needs are practical, satisfaction of need is fairly straightforward because the problem can be objectively diagnosed and the results objectively assessed – the use of the product effected the exact change that was desired.  I would propose that for the great majority of products in the present day. 

But where the needs are psychological, satisfaction of need can be extremely difficult.  Who can say, with certainty, what will cause a desired change in emotional state – to make a person happy, or to mitigate their anger, even when that person is oneself?   And how can person who means to serve another know what their psychological state is and how it can be positively affected?  

It seems a trivial thing, but it likely has a very large financial impact on developed markers.  Given the evolution of customer services, we are as a culture extremely good at diagnosing and correcting functional problems – and I would posit that, with some exceptions, the “kings” have been worked out of most product experiences insofar as their ability to satisfy the customer’s functional need - they at least have the capability to solve the need if selected and employed appropriately, by objective and observable criteria.

Thus considered, it is the emotional criteria that are the most likely cause of the greater proportion of customer satisfaction in the present day.   It is not that the product does not deliver its functional purpose, but that its employment does not address the psychological need for which it was sought, not was the correct product even selected because the need was not sufficiently understood.

Design for Positive Emotional Benefits

The post I wrote last month about NineDesirable Emotional States has garnered more attention that I anticipated – and in response, I am getting the question of how an experience designer can leverage this information to improve their customer experience.   The original article explored the emotions, and did not connect the dots.   And so, this follow up:

Tranquility

Tranquility pertains to the status quo: a person feels happy (not merely contented) with their current situation, feeling everything to be acceptable (or even excellent) just as it is.

The most common way in which this emotion is leveraged is to destroy it, to cause a contented person to feel discontented and want something more.  This does not qualify as leveraging positive emotion: it is undermining positive emotion for the sake of restoring it – a sort of Munchausen-by-proxy approach to design, and it is ethically questionable.

Since the emotion pertains to a satisfactory status quo, one which is not motivation to change the way things are, the best way to leverage tranquility is to extend it: to design products for durability (a good will last a long time, or the benefits of a service will be long-lasting).  Where it is not possible to make a good everlasting or a service’s benefits will wane, assurance can be provided that the good will be replaced or the service will be repeated as necessary to maintain the status quo.

Confidence

Confidence is a sense of power to be successful at doing something in the future.   A person may experience a feeling of confidence in their capabilities, even if they have no plan or reasonable expectation of using those capabilities.

To create confidence, customer experience must communicate the capabilities that the product will provide when it is employed.   Because you have this thing, you will be able to accomplish this goal … when you get around to it.

The desire for confidence is what leads consumers to amass a horde of unused products, so caution must be taken.  To stay on the sunny side of the street, ethically speaking, you must avoid creating or pandering to the desire for power that is highly unlikely to be used in the future.   To sell a product that will never be needed is still a “sale” but eventually leads to discontent when the customer recognizes the opportunity cost: the cost and effort expended for an unnecessary product could have been applied to one that would have created value.

Excitement

Excitement is the anticipation of a positive outcome in the course of performing a task.   The key difference between confidence and excitement is that excitement pertains to actions that are taking place immediately or in the very near future, and that it is highly unsustainable: excitement fades quickly.

Creating excitement about a product in advance is similar to creating confidence – the chief difference being that the positive outcome does not depend on the capabilities of the customer himself.   It is the difference between promising “you will enjoy a tasty meal” and “you will have the ability to prepare a tasty meal” – the latter is confidence, the former excitement.

To create excitement in the course of action, a customer experience must be designed to provide a sense of positive progress.   The experience provides reassurance that the customer is doing the right thing and that a positive outcome will be achieved if he continues in his course of action.

The evanescence of excitement is worth mentioning, because it is a common mistake to attempt to generate excitement too far in advance of an experience.   The further in the future an event will occur, the less likely a person is to feel excited – and if you generate excitement too far in advance, it will sour and the person will instead feel disappointment that the positive outcome has not happened yet, and begin to doubt it ever will.

Relief

Relief is the emotional consequence of achieving a positive outcome in spite of doubt, which may be a proactive accomplishment but is more often merely the avoidance or mitigation of damage from an external threat.

The most obvious example of commercial solutions that deliver relief are medical care to alleviate pain or restore health after illness or injury.   Insurance products work in much the same way for financially damaging events.   It is possible to cause a person distress for the sake of providing relief afterward, but this is highly unethical.

For the sensation of relief to be genuine, the distress must be genuine (relief from psychological distress is also relief, but it can be difficult to assess and the subject may not recognize the value of the solution).  Moreover, the restoration or alleviation must also be genuine – a “fake cure” may sell on hope, but will not re-sell unless it delivers genuine relief.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction pertains to philosophical fitness rather than the functional outcome of undertaking an action.  It is a sense of justice, that the outcome was “right” regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative. Satisfaction can be difficult to deliver because it requires understanding and meeting expectations, and not all customers have the same expectations.

While “customer satisfaction” is a term that is so widely used it has lost its precise meaning, the core quality of satisfaction is simple enough: the customer felt the service provider did what he was supposed to do and what it was “right” for him to do.  It can occur even when the outcome of a service experience was a functional failure: the customer is satisfied that the firm did its best, even though it did not ultimately succeed.

Conversely, satisfaction may not occur when a service experience is successful, but the customer feels that the firm did something wrong or unethical in their process.    This is the reason that the public turns against brands that are involved in scandals, even if their products are perfectly satisfactory in meeting their functional needs.

Amusement

Amusement is the pleasure that arises from a positive or benign discovery, the self-satisfaction experienced by a person who has “solved” a mystery or untangled a dilemma.   It is an emotion that is short-lived and fades quickly.

Amusement is the emotional benefit of any new product – it is the natural reaction to any non-threatening novelty.   However, the amusement can generally be effected only once: the second time a person solves a puzzle is not as satisfactory as the first.  Once they have experienced it and know what to expect, there is no surprise that causes amusement.

While many products can cause amusement once, few can do it a second time without making significant changes to the product itself.   A person may enjoy a comedy performance once, but the second time the jokes aren’t as funny – the performer must come up with a new routine to re-create amusement.

Gratitude

Gratitude is an emotion felt by one person in regard to another who has rendered them some benefit.  It is an emotional component of any successful brand experience, but is particularly pronounced in personal services in which the customer meets the employee who provides service, or who is responsible for making a good they enjoy.

I cannot conceive of a product whose primary emotional benefit is gratitude, and there likely is not one because gratitude is a reaction to what someone else has done – and there is no action that merits gratitude in and of itself, as it is always attached to the consequences of the action.   So it will always be on the periphery of a brand experience.

While gratitude is generally felt toward individuals, it can also be attached to things through the process of anthropomorphization.   When people state that they “love” a physical good, or that they feel affection toward a company or brand, this is generally gratitude attaching itself to a non-human object or idea.

Admiration

Admiration is a feeling of affiliation to an individual – though, again, it can be attached to an anthropomorphized object, company, or brand.   An individual has positive emotions toward another person and derives personal happiness in having a social connection to them.

The most common cause of admiration is quality: when a firm provides a product that impresses the customer, the customer admires the product or the firm for its competence.   It is not that the person admires the product, but admires the qualities that the product embodies or suggests about its maker.

Admiration can also be for non-functional reasons.  Quite often, a brand is admired for the conduct of the company that makes it – hence many firms make use of conspicuous charitable giving to align themselves with the moral sentiments of desired market segments, thus creating a “brand halo” that wins admiration regardless of the quality of their products.

Wonder

Wonder occurs when an experience defies comprehension, but seems to pose no threat.   It is most often described in the context of something quite large, whether physically or conceptually, or something that has a supernatural quality about it that cannot quite be fathomed.

Products that are described by their customers and prospects as “miracles” instill a sense of wonder – however, wonder is short-lived.  When a person comes to understand something, becomes familiar and inured with it, the sense of wonder fades.   It is not an emotion that can be repeated or sustained with much success, and is generally strongest in the first encounter with a brand.

***

I’ve gone a bit further here in exploring how brand experiences can be aligned with the positive emotional sates – though my sense is that this has been a bit of a meander that has barely scratched the surface.   There are certainly other ways in which these emotions can be leveraged as part of experience design – and much is going to be specific to the product, the customer, and the particulars of their situation.

Nine Desirable Emotional States

I generally subscribe to the notion that the foundation of consumer behavior is rather simple: people are motivated to avoid unhappiness or achieve happiness.   For now, I want to focus on the latter, as it tends to be more difficult to define.  

Even the term “happiness” is vague because it encompasses a broad range of more specific emotional states.   I’ve looked to a handful of sources that describe pleasant, desirable, or positive emotions and compiled the following list:

Tranquility

The term “contentment” is a bit problematic because it is considered to be a neutral emotional state – a sort of blank canvas that describes a person who is not distracted by emotions at the moment.    Tranquility is more of an active state, a sense of satisfaction that arises from the realization that one’s present situation and condition is acceptable.  It is not merely being content on an unconscious level, but being aware of one’s own contentment and the feeling of relaxation and serenity that result of being pleased with one’s condition.

Joy, bliss, and ecstasy are also described as emotional states that arise from a sense of well-being.   I do not see a significant difference – they are merely a more intense experience of the core emption of tranquility.

Belonging is a sense of well-being that arises from relationships with other people (family, friends, peers, etc.).  While some sources classify it as a different emotion, it is a subset of tranquility because it pertains to satisfaction with a situation.

Confidence

Confidence is a positive feeling that comes from the power to achieve something, even if the action to achieve it is not being undertaken at the moment.  The feeling arises from having the capabilities or resources to avoid or mitigate negative outcomes or to achieve positive ones.

It is arguable whether pride is a subset of confidence or of relief.  Where pride is derived from a sense of capability before taking action, it is a subset of confidence.  Where pride is derived from achieving an outcome in spite of doubt, it is a subset of belief.

Excitement

Excitement is an emotion that arises in the course of a challenge in which a person is mostly confident that they will have the ability to succeed.   While some argue that the emotional intensity of excitement is a form of fear, it is not a negative emotion when the individual feels that a positive outcome will be achieved, even if there is some degree of doubt.    And the doubt is necessary for excitement to be experienced: if one is completely certain of the outcome, there is no feeling of excitement.

Hope is merely another form of excitement that focuses on the desire to achieve a positive outcome, even when the obstacles or challenges are not clearly understood.

Relief

Relief is the immediate emotional consequence of achieving a positive outcome in spite of doubt.    This outcome may be a positive accomplishment, but is more often merely the avoidance or mitigation of damage: one feels relief when a threat has passed and the negative consequences that were expected have not occurred.   It’s noted that “thrill seekers” often put themselves in danger in order to experience the relief that occurs when the dangerous event has ended.

Some sources describe achievement and validation as being different emotional states related to success at a goal, but I disagree: these are also forms of relief, occurring when the degree of doubt was relatively low.  There is no emotional reaction to the completion of a task in which the actor had complete confidence and the outcome had been expected.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction occurs when the results of an action were “right” according to a person’s moral standards.   Similar to relief, the emotion occurs only when there was a sense of doubt that the right outcome would occur – but it is distinct from relief in that the functional outcome may have been negative, but it agrees with a person’s moral beliefs.

Satisfaction may occur when good things happen to good people, but it also occurs when bad things happen to bad people.   The concepts of “poetic justice” and “schadenfreude”  describe incidents in which a person suffered harm, but the harm was deserved as a consequence of their actions or their moral character.

Amusement

Amusement is the emotion that surround a positive or benign discovery.   It is a sense of satisfaction that is achieved by making sense of something that seemed confusing.  The “funny” quality of humor arises from the discovery that is made when untangling the riddle of a joke.   Amusement tends to be a short-lived state that fades quickly. 

Though amusement may be re-experienced through memory, remembering something amusing is not the same experience as being amused, but it is not experienced twice from the same stimulus (the joke is not funny a second time), unless perhaps the original solution has been forgotten.

Gratitude

Gratitude is a feeling of thankfulness experienced in response to another person who has done something needful for the benefit of another person, though it may also be effected by the mere promise or statement of intent to do something needful.   Gratitude is also felt when there is not a specific benefactor, though a person who benefits from circumstance may invent or personify an imaginary benefactor.

Where the benefit granted is protection against harm, gratitude is blended with relief.   The feeling we have toward the benefactor, however, is distinct from the feeling of relief at having escaped harm, though the two are experienced simultaneously.

Admiration

Admiration is a sense of affiliation we feel to a specific individual.  This may occur in the context of a social relationship, but it may also occur independent of one, which makes it a separate emotion (from tranqulity).

Friendship, love, and other forms of attachment are subsets of admiration.

Arguably, there are positive emotions that occur when we are the subject of admiration, but these are more in the nature of gratitude.

Wonder

Wonder is an emotion that occurs when an experience defies comprehension but seems to pose no threat.  It is most often described in context of the perception of something on a grand scale (often natural phenomena).   Wonder may also be fascination with a form of technical excellence (watching someone do something well)

The feelings of awe and surprise are sometimes listed separately, but sometimes as a subset of wonder.   However, “awe” is more closely related to fear and is not always a pleasant emotion and “surprise” can include an unpleasant rahter than pleasant sensation.

Note: Vicarious Emotional States

Some sources draw a distinction between an emotion that is experienced personally versus an emotion that is experienced vicariously – but it seems to me that the feeling that is aroused when a person’s sympathy is with another person is essentially the same as the feeling that is aroused when the same situation involves them personally.   That is, the relief a person feels watching someone else escape danger is the same emotion they would feel if they had been the one who had escaped danger.   So there is no need for a duplicate of every term for vicarious emotions.

Snakes, Marshmallows, Desire, and Ignorance

Many years ago in junior-high school, I participated in an experiment that would likely not be allowed in the present day – it would be denounced as cruelty to animals and psychological torture.   The experiment asked schoolchildren (myself included) to place their hand firmly against the side of a large jar containing a rattlesnake, and to keep it there even when the snake struck.

At first, no-one was able to do it at all.  In spite of the fact that there was no danger, everyone jerked their hand away.   The first person who succeeded, and everyone afterward who succeeded, was only able to do so by looking away – so that they did not see the snake strike at their hand.   If they were paying attention, they flinched.

This experiment came to mind while reviewing the results of the Stanford Marshmallow experiment, in which young children were presented with a treat (a marshmallow, as you might have guessed) and told that if they did not eat it (no licking or nibbling either) for fifteen minutes, they would be given a second one.   The purpose of the experiment was to test the ability to delay gratification – to forego a treat now for the sake of two treats (double the pleasure) if they could control their desire to have it right away.

What they found in this experiment was very similar to the snake-in-a-jar experiment that I had participated it: those who were successful in resisting the temptation of the treat refrained from looking at it – to turn their heads, cover their eyes, or use their hands to hide the marshmallow from their vision so that they could resist their natural urges.

And some year later, as I am studying the financial habits of adults, I see the same phenomenon.   People have less trouble saving for retirement when the money is deducted from their paycheck, so that they don’t ever see it.   And people saving for specific goals will often open an account with another bank and transfer money, throwing away the statements that come in the mail, so that they are not tempted to pilfer their own savings.

This contradicts the principle that accomplishing a goal, whether by momentary action or the effort of years, requires constant awareness and monitoring.   Sometimes, it is best not to pay attention – particularly when we know that our inclination is to act in a manner that would be contrary to our best interests if we were attentive.

Research for Innovation

While I am general a strong proponent of research-based approaches to innovation, I often see research being misused in a way that prevents research.   Either the wrong kind of research is conducted, or its results are used in the wrong way, and the result is that an innovation effort becomes an efficiency improvement: no significant changes are made, but the results are marginally improved.

This is because research, by its very nature, is focused on present practices and present results.    The researcher seeks to discover what people are doing right now (or more accurately, he seeks to discover what people have done in the recent past) and those who consume the research use it to propose methods by which existing customers can keep doing what they are already doing and new customers can simply imitate the behaviors of existing ones.   It’s more of the same, perhaps slightly different.

To be innovative, one must disregard what people are presently doing and define a new way to achieve the ultimate result toward which their behavior is intended.  That is, rather than considering the things that people are presently doing, an innovator must seek to discover why they are doing those things – what goal they are attempting to achieve by their actions.

It could well be (and often is) that people are doing the wrong things to achieve their goals, or at least things that are not as efficient or effective as they could be.     Even if people claim to be happy with what they are doing and the results they are getting, this is not to be taken at face value.  There is the psychological tendency to justify past decisions and defend current practices, as well as the tendency to satisfice and accept a margin of frustration or disappointment.

And if the outcome of an “innovation” effort is to keep doing the same thing with minor adjustments, then the customer is being supported in the existing behavior without a substantial improvement.   It will be easier to “sell” the new idea because it isn’t really new at all, and the customer will experience a slightly lesser degree of frustration and disappointment than he presently does, but with less need to change.

In this sense, most of the existing secondary research is not suited to innovation: it tells us what people are doing, but not why they are doing it.   And that information is difficult to collect and even more difficult to quantify.   It requires probing deeper than a multiple-choice questionnaire, and applying greater effort to the analysis of the data collected – which may be one reason that so few sources are conducting the proper kind of research for innovation, and cling to the methods that gain information that justifies a continuation of business as usual rather than disruptive change.