Actual behavior

Definition

Actual behavior is what people really do in their lives, rather than what they think they are doing or what they believe they should be doing. In most societies there is a discrepancy between these three kinds of behavior. It is important for anthropologists to distinguish between actual, believed, and ideal behavior when they learn about another society and its culture.

Actual behavior. What a researcher would record by watching. Observable, countable, and available without asking anyone anything.

Believed behavior. What people report doing when asked. This is not lying. Memory is reconstructive, routine actions are the hardest to recall precisely, and people describe their conduct in terms of the pattern they take themselves to follow rather than the individual instances.

Ideal behavior. What people say ought to be done. Norms, rules, and stated values. People can usually articulate these with more confidence than either of the other two, which is why interviews drift toward them.

The gap between the three is the finding, not an error to be corrected. A culture is partly constituted by the distance it maintains between its rules and its practice, and by how members account for that distance when it is pointed out.

Method

Detecting the gap requires a method that does not depend on self-report. The classic techniques are direct observation, time allocation studies using randomized spot checks, and inspection of physical traces.

William Rathje's Garbage Project at the University of Arizona, begun in 1973, is one example. Rathje's team sorted household refuse in Tucson and compared it against what the same households reported consuming. Reported alcohol consumption ran well below what the discarded containers indicated. Reported consumption of fresh produce and lean foods ran above what the refuse showed. The direction of error was consistent: reports moved toward ideal behavior.

Marvin Harris and others developed time allocation methods for the same reason, using randomized visits to record what people were doing at the moment of arrival rather than what they said they usually did.

Explained simply:

• • Logs versus asking.** A product's logs show what people did. Interviews show what people say they did. When the topic makes anyone look good or bad, the second one drifts toward what they think they should have done. People underreport hours on their phone and overreport hours exercising. This happens with screen time, media habits, fitness apps, budgeting tools, and anything involving health or productivity.

• • Two kinds of gap, two different meanings.** If people say they want a feature and then never touch it, they were describing what they think they should want. Build for what they do. If people use something constantly and never mention it when asked about the product, that is the opposite situation. The thing works so well it has stopped being noticeable, the way you do not think about a doorknob. That is success, not neglect.

• • Middle ground.** Diary studies and experience sampling ask people to record what they are doing right now, or a few minutes after. Less time has passed, so there is less room for memory to reshape the story. Closer to the truth than an interview, easier to run than full observation.

Here is the section rewritten in that register, if you want to swap it in:

In technology research

A product's logs show what people did. Interviews show what people say they did. When a topic makes anyone look good or bad, the interview drifts toward what people think they should have done. People underreport their hours on a phone and overreport their hours exercising. This holds for screen time, media habits, fitness apps, budgeting tools, and anything touching health or productivity.

The gap between the two is useful in itself. If people ask for a feature and then never touch it, they were describing what they think they should want, and the design should follow what they do. If people use something constantly and never mention it when asked about the product, the opposite has happened. It works well enough to have stopped being noticeable, in the way nobody thinks about a doorknob. That is a good result, not a sign of neglect.

Diary studies and experience sampling sit between the two methods. They ask people to record what they are doing at the moment or shortly after, so less time passes and memory has less room to reshape the account.

Related Reading

• Emic Approach
• Etic Approach
• Ethnomethodology
• Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
• Material Culture and Technology in Everyday Life: Ethnographic Approaches
• The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
• Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings
• The Design of Everyday Things
• Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
• How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market

Key texts

• Rathje, William, and Cullen Murphy. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
• Bernard, H. Russell. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
• Johnson, Allen. "Time Allocation in a Machiguenga Community." Ethnology 14, no. 3 (1975): 301-310.