In market research, we’re trained to look for inconsistencies between what people say and what they actually do. It’s a familiar tension.

Consumers tell us they always choose based on quality…until price promotions drive their behavior. They describe thoughtful decision-making…until we observe how quickly they move through a real purchase. Researchers everywhere are nodding their heads, because this is very familiar.

We’ve long understood that gap isn’t deception. It’s human nature.

People don’t always have direct access to the “why” behind their behavior. They rationalize after the fact, using System 2 thinking to explain decisions that were largely driven by faster, more intuitive processes.

That’s a known, and manageable, limitation of research. But today, there’s a different issue emerging. And it’s more subtle.

When Effort Drops, So Does Meaning

Survey responses assume a certain level of cognitive engagement. We expect that respondents read questions fully. Consider their answers. React with some level of reflection or emotional processing…

But in reality, engagement varies dramatically and often declines over the course of a survey.

When that happens, behaviors shift:

• Questions are skimmed rather than read
• Answers are selected quickly, not thoughtfully
• Grid responses become patterned or automatic
• Open-ends become shorter, more generic, or mechanically constructed

Individually, these moments seem minor. But collectively, they create something much bigger:

Data that is directionally plausible but behaviorally hollow.

The Danger of “Technically Valid” Data

From a systems perspective, this data often looks fine. Respondents pass quality checks, complete in a timely manner, and provide coherent, usable answers. There are no obvious errors or red flags. Which makes this type of issue harder to detect and easier to overlook. But the impact is real.

Because when engagement drops, two things happen simultaneously:

1. Signal weakens — True attitudes and distinctions become less clear
2. Noise increases — Random or habitual responses fill the gaps

Over time, this leads to flatter differences between concepts or ideas, artificial consistency across respondents, and inflated or muted metrics that don’t reflect real-world variability.

The data isn’t “wrong,” but it’s no longer fully representative of real human thinking. I’ve shared lots of thoughts about System 1 and System 2 Thinking… what we’re observing here is what I call “System 0” thinking. 

Why This Matters More Than Ever

As an industry, we’ve made surveys more efficient. Faster to field. Easier to complete. More scalable. But those gains come with trade-offs.

Tighter timelines, longer surveys, and greater respondent demand all put pressure on engagement. At the same time, incentives remain transactional. Participants are rarely motivated to contribute—they’re motivated to complete.

Which means we’re often designing research environments where speed is rewarded more than thoughtfulness. And when that happens, we shouldn’t be surprised by the behaviors we see

Data Quality Isn’t Just a Fraud Problem

When we talk about data quality today, the conversation often centers on fraud. And while that’s important, it can obscure a quieter, more pervasive issue: Poor-quality data from perfectly legitimate respondents.

These are real people who meet targeting criteria, but their level of engagement doesn’t match the assumptions built into the research design. And that misalignment creates risk.

Because the conclusions we draw depend not just on who responded—but on how they responded.

A More Honest View of Data Quality

Not all data issues are the result of bad actors. Many are the result of understandable human behavior in environments that don’t fully account for it. That’s what makes this challenge more complex—and more important.

Unlike traditional “say vs. do” gaps, this isn’t something we can adjust for in interpretation alone. It’s something we have to address upstream:

• How we design studies.
• How we assess quality.
• How we define what “clean” data actually means

   

Final Thought

For years, we’ve accepted that people don’t always say what they do.

Now we have to accept something equally important:

People don’t always answer in a way that reflects what they truly think—especially when we haven’t earned their full attention.

And if we ignore that reality, we risk building insights on data that looks solid on the surface…but isn’t fully grounded underneath.

JUSTIN SUTTON

CO-FOUNDER
CATAPULT INSIGHTS

For years, market research has been built around a simple assumption:
If you ask people the right questions, they’ll tell you why they do what they do.

That assumption is becoming increasingly fragile.

Today’s consumers are making thousands of decisions a day, most of them quickly, emotionally, and with limited attention. They’re not slowing down to carefully weigh trade offs. They’re reacting, responding, defaulting, and moving on.

And the brands that understand how those decisions really happen are gaining a clear competitive edge.

What they miss are the gut reactions, subconscious emotional cues, environmental triggers, and friction that people can’t easily articulate. And as markets become more competitive and timelines shorten, this gap matters more than ever. 

Why System 1 Insights Are Becoming a Competitive Advantage

Organizations that intentionally design research to access System 1 are seeing tangible benefits.

1. Better prediction of actual behavior
   System 1 insights surface what people really notice, instinctively trust, or instantly reject. That makes them far more predictive of in market behavior than post rationalized explanations. 
2. Clearer emotional differentiation
   Brands rarely win because they say the most. They win because they feel right. System 1 research uncovers the emotional signals that create affinity, confidence, and ease, often before respondents can name them. 
3. Faster, more confident decision making 
   When teams understand intuitive reactions early, they spend less time debating subjective opinions internally and more time aligning around evidence that reflects how consumers experience reality. 
4. Reduced risk in innovation
   Many product, design, and messaging failures don’t fail because they’re illogical—they fail because something quietly “doesn’t feel right.” System 1 insight helps teams spot and correct that friction before launch.

What System 1 Research Looks Like in Practice

Accessing System 1 isn’t about asking better “why” questions. It’s about changing how, when, and where insight is captured.

It often includes:

• In context observation
• Fast reaction tasks
• Naturalistic exposure
• Environmental and behavioral cues
• Real world testing vs. artificial evaluation

The goal is to start with reality as consumers experience it, not as we ask them to explain it.

Why System 1 Alone Isn’t Enough (And Why That Matters)

System 1 is powerful—but it isn’t sufficient by itself.

Intuition tells us what is happening.
It doesn’t always explain why or how much it matters.

That’s where System 2 comes in.

The strongest insight organizations don’t choose between fast thinking and slow thinking—they sequence them intentionally. They let System 1 reveal truth, then use System 2 to validate, prioritize, and scale decisions with confidence.

And that’s where modern market research is headed. In today’s markets, the competitive advantage doesn’t belong to the brand with the most data.

It belongs to the one that understands how people actually decide.

JUSTIN SUTTON

CO-FOUNDER
CATAPULT INSIGHTS

There’s a moment in every piece of fieldwork when the clipboard disappears, the guide fades to the background, and the person in front of you steps fully into view. During a recent study at The Home Depot, that moment happened again and again. 

We were there to understand something that seems straightforward on the surface: when shopper journeys reach the store’s aisle, what elements impact product selection?

But as with most human questions, the truth lives in the shadows. It’s in the pauses, habits, and improvised rituals that real shopper behavior is revealed. Our mission: observe those rituals up close and in person at a full-scale mock Home Depot store in Atlanta, a place designed to let people shop like they would in a real store… only with more control over the stimuli.

Product Messages: Loud on Paper, Quiet in the Aisles

Our client sought to understand exactly where certain product messages do (or don’t) play a role in decision-making — trust, purchase intent, differentiation, etc. But the work revealed something more textured.

Consumers often treated messages a bit like background music:
They knew it was there. They noticed when something felt “official.” But unless the messaging tied directly to something personal — health, safety, or quality, especially for more educated or cautious shoppers — the message alone rarely changed their path.

For professionals, it was different. Years in the trades had shaped a quick-scan practicality:
“Will this work? Will it last? Will my client call me back with problems?” Some messages could help answer those questions, but only if the meaning behind them was clear, credible, and relevant to what the pro actually does in the real world

The Human Texture of a Mock Store

What stuck with the team wasn’t just the insights — it was the people.

The young couple genuinely trying to learn, whispering to each other in the aisle as if making a decision right there would remodel their whole home.

The seasoned pro who walked the aisle like he’d been here 10,000 times — because he had — guided by muscle memory until something new jarred him into focus.

The single mom who told us she just wanted whatever would “keep things working so I don’t have to call anybody.”

These weren’t just respondents. They were storytellers revealing the subtle emotional weight that their decisions can carry.

Behind the Glass: The Catapult Insights Crew at Work

From “hallway full” recruitment updates and balancing gender and ethnicity mix to late-night discussions about whether homework text was clear enough, this project had the familiar blend of logistics, improvisation, and shared purpose.

There was the moment (there always is) when the first few participants arrived and you can feel whether the study will “sing,” and this one did. The mock aisle brought people’s natural habits to life. And our triads, a format that often reveals tension, agreement, and humor in equal measure, gave us rich layers of meaning to bring home.

What Atlanta Taught Us

Physical design is emotional. And business strategy is rational. Renovating thousands of stores requires you to honor both truths.

System 1 tells you how a space really makes people feel.

System 2 tells you how to improve it.

If Petaluma showed how reuse systems rely on people being willing to change simple habits, this project taught us something equally human: people crave confidence when they make decisions that touch their homes, their health, or their clients’ trust.

Messages matter in the aisle — but only when they become felt meaning, not just printed badges.

People don’t walk into the aisle thinking about standards and codes.

They walk in thinking about:

• “Will this make my life better?”
• “Can I trust this?”
• “Is this the right choice for my family?”
• “Is this going to work the way it should?”

And in those moments, the magic happens when a message becomes more than noise — when it becomes a cue of reassurance at exactly the moment someone needs it.

Another Road, Another Story

Every Tale From The Road is different. But this one was a window into how everyday people navigate choices that feel small until they’re not.

The mock aisle was just a stage. The real story was the people who walked through it.

JUSTIN SUTTON

CO-FOUNDER
CATAPULT INSIGHTS

Renovating a single restaurant is expensive. Renovating hundreds—or thousands—is a bet on the future of your brand. Once construction begins, there’s no quick pivot. That’s why the smartest organizations lean heavily on consumer insights long before materials are ordered or walls come down. 

But here’s the tricky part: consumers react in emotions and don’t speak in blueprints. They rationalize in hindsight. They say one thing and feel another. And if you only listen to one layer of feedback, you risk making decisions based on a partial truth.

That’s where the partnership of System 1 and System 2 insights becomes essential.

Why Both Systems Matter for High-Cost Decisions

When the stakes are low, brands can tweak a few things and learn as they go. But remodeling an entire system of restaurants requires a high level of confidence. You need to understand what people say PLUS what actually shapes their behavior when no one is watching.

This creates a unique research responsibility:

System 1 tells you the emotional consequences.
It reveals the anxieties, the comforts, the excitement, the subtle signals your space sends within seconds.

System 2 tells you the rational interpretation.
It helps you understand why the space works (or doesn’t) and gives clues to trace emotional responses back to tangible design elements.

The magic happens when you interpret the two together:
System 1 identifies the feeling. System 2 helps you identify the cause.

How We Bring the Two Systems Together: A Real‑World Example

In a recent restaurant design research project, we began with virtual ethnographies—participants shared their experiences and reactions in real time, before they could edit them or detect what the project was about.

This gave us raw System 1 data:

• Spontaneous comments about lighting and noise
• Micro expressions of discomfort or delight
• The hesitation before choosing a seat
• The subconscious scanning for privacy, comfort, or crowding
  

Then we did in restaurant interviews, where the same participants had more time to reflect. We asked them to walk through the space, narrate their thoughts, react to specific design elements, and describe their emotions in a more deliberate way.

This gave us rich System 2 clarity:

• Why certain seating zones felt inviting or off putting
• Subconscious associations at the root of feelings and behaviors
• How design influenced the perception of brand modernity
• What design choices elevated or diminished the dining experience

Careful sequencing is vital to capturing unbiased reactions from each System, and when we overlaid the two, patterns emerged — patterns a single method alone would never have surfaced.

From Insights to Actionable Design Hypotheses

Blending both systems allowed us to translate raw human reactions into structured design hypotheses. And these hypotheses weren’t guesses. They were emotionally grounded and rationally validated.

Then came the exciting part: iteration with the design team. Because insights were so clear, we could easily identify the design deltas holding a restaurant back – and the elements that feel essential to the brand identity.

The Payoff: Confident Decisions at Scale

By the end of the project, the organization wasn’t relying on abstract preference data. They were using a layered, human centered understanding of:

• Which formats to champion
• Which to evolve
• Which design principles should guide future builds

And most importantly, they had the confidence to invest at scale—because decisions were built on the full truth of customer experience.

The Bottom Line

Physical design is emotional. And business strategy is rational. Renovating thousands of stores requires you to honor both truths.

System 1 tells you how a space really makes people feel.

System 2 tells you how to improve it.

When you combine them thoughtfully, you don’t just build better spaces—you build better outcomes, for customers and the business.

Drop us a note at hello@catapultinsights.com if you want to learn more about how you can leverage system 1 and 2 insights to elevate your design strategies.

JUSTIN SUTTON

CO-FOUNDER
CATAPULT INSIGHTS