Determining if a client is more aligned with the Thinking or Feeling preference gives advisors two huge pieces of information about how best to work with them.
In our last couple of articles, we began drilling down on the four continua of personality and psychological preferences that underlie the Myers-Briggs Type indicator:
--Extraversion v. Introversion
--Sensing v. Intuition
--Thinking v. Feeling
--Judging v. Perceiving
An individual's personality will give us vital guidance to the client's psychological needs, behavioral patterns, and the way in which emotions interact with and interrupt financial decision-making. So far, we have covered the Extroversion vs. Introversion continua and the Sensing vs. Intuition continua. We offered observations of both sides of the continua and uncovered some common biases and barriers that advisors might encounter on the way to economically rational decision-making.
This month we take on the next leg of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator and discuss the Thinking vs. Feeling preference. As an advisor, this overview will help you 1) recognize which side of the ledger your clients occupy and 2) give some ideas and advice as to how you can best work with them and the specific behavioral and cognitive biases they may bring into their financial decision-making.
In previous articles, we presented a brief description of the Thinking individual juxtaposed with the Feeling counterpart and gave a ten thousand foot view of their communication styles and tendencies toward certain economically irrational thought processes. Determining if a client is more aligned with the Thinking or Feeling tendency gives advisors two huge pieces of information about how best to work with them. Stated very simplistically:
1) The Thinking preference is objective in decision-making, placing more weight on facts.
2) The Feeling counterpart is expected to be more subjective and place more weight on personal concerns.
Clients are mostly Thinking or Feeling but are likely to still have traits of the other. A Thinking person may make a decision based on his or her need for objectivity but test the decision for success and soundness with a Feeling style of decision-making. So it would not be accurate to pigeonhole individuals into one classification. Although we will discuss them as two separate categories for purposes of contrast, advisors must avoid the misconception that a Thinking person must be overly intelligent and a Feeling person must be overly emotional.
Thinking individuals are likely to be more successful at critical thinking and integrating logic-based data into decision-making processes. They may consider an option and convince themselves it is "irrational," "illogical," or "doesn't make sense." Following are some brief descriptions of observations common in Thinking clients that can help an advisor recognize their personality preferences.
Observations of a Thinking Client
--Drawn to technical and scientific fields
--Decisions happen in the head, not the gut
--Grounded in logical explanations
--Avoids personal interaction in favor of objectivity
--Thinks in terms of pros versus cons
We believe Thinking individuals are inclined to exhibit active, cognitive biases thanks to their preference for logic and thirst for data. Following are some behavioral finance biases we believe should be expected in Thinking personalities:
Aversion to ambiguity. Thinking clients are logical and meticulous in their decision-making. The existence of ambiguity will lead them to seek additional information and avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem unknown and a pro versus con analysis is not possible.
Empathy gap. A Thinking client's avoidance of personal interaction in support of their objectivity may leave them prone to a tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings in others. This is especially true in the world of negotiations. The Thinking client will see divorce, probate, and other disputes as logical business deals to be made and miss the emotional components necessary to navigate.
Focusing effect. Our Thinking clients are very prone to the focusing effect as they actively seek data to inform their decision. Their focus will be the data search, which could lead them to place too much importance on one aspect of the decision-making process and cause errors in judgment when they miss other external information, such as emotional issues and the opinions of others.
Feeling individuals are likely to be the conflict-avoidant type. They may float around with the hope and confidence that things will be OK and allow that belief to affect their decision-making. They have this confidence because they avoid tough decisions and tough communications. They may genuinely believe restoring harmony to their world after a difficult decision is more important than the outcome and long-term ramifications of the decision itself, leading them to look past the information at hand and the cold hard truth of decision problems.
Observations of a Feeling Client
--Values the opinion of others
--Is able to judge decisions from the point of view of another person
--Justifies decisions based on what they perceive to be best for others
--Caring and warm
--Decisions happen in the gut or the heart, not the head
--May sugar-coat or entirely avoid saying things in the interest of being tactful
We believe Feeling clients may be more inclined to exhibit emotional or social biases. Following are some behavioral finance biases we believe to be common in Feeling personalities.
Bandwagon effect, herd behavior. One of the pervasive elements of the Feeling personality preference is the desire to maintain harmony. The Feeling individual will look to others and rely heavily on their opinions and points of view to develop their own perspective, making them prone to the bandwagon effect and herd behavior.
Conflict avoidance, loss aversion. Feeling clients prefer to process information and relay their thinking via tactful, conflict-avoidant communication. We believe this to be true thanks to their desire to avoid the social loss they think that conflict represents. For that reason we consider them likely to suffer from loss aversion in their financial decision-making as well.
Planning fallacy. Feeling clients may suffer from planning fallacy because they underestimate the time necessary to complete important tasks. They might show up unprepared for meetings, even meetings with strict agendas and various reminders.
Confirmation bias, ease of information bias. Because Feeling clients have an overwhelming concern for harmony, and a nervousness when it is missing, they can be led to seek out easily available information that confirms preconceived notions in order to restore the social harmony that was lost. This can lead to missing the cold, logical truth.
Next month we will have a more in-depth discussion and application of the Judging v. Perceiving leg of the Myers-Briggs continua.