Editor's note: Stephen Turner is president of Creative & Response Research, Chicago.

Occasionally when I am conducting focus groups, clients, especially those who are not used to my particular style, will ask me (younger ones tend to instruct me) not to spend much time up front regarding respondents' current behavior vis-a-vis the subject category. The usual rationale is something to the effect of, "We have done a ton of work on the category and don't want to waste our time on things we already fully understand."

While I sympathize with my clients' need for efficiency (or escape from boredom), there is an important case to be made for a thorough discussion of respondents' recent behavioral patterns despite the fact that such conversations reveal little "news" for the client and, at least on the surface, relatively few insights regarding the product or concept being considered.

Here is the argument: Let's say we're doing focus groups about a new formulation of frozen pizza. Early on, the following exchange takes place:

Moderator: "Tell me about you and frozen pizza."

Respondent: "Frozen pizza is pretty grim. It tastes like cardboard."

Moderator: "But you do use it. . ."

Respondent: "Only for emergencies. When I absolutely have no other choice. I would never use it on a regular basis."
Moderator: "So, how many do you have in your freezer right now?"

Respondent: "There are six. You see, we have emergencies every Thursday before soccer practice and again on Saturdays when Bill and I go out to eat and the kids have to fend for themselves."

Clearly, this person doesn't like the idea of frozen pizza. She doesn't like herself for using it. But the truth is she does use it with considerable regularity.

Why is this information so important to gather? My client is far from naive regarding the lackluster image of the category. He has heard the above exchange many times in the past.

The answer comes with a later exchange - one following exposure of the concept being studied:

Moderator: ". . . dessert pizza with ricotta and kiwi."

Respondent: "That's a disgusting idea."

Moderator: "To be used only in emergencies?"

Respondent: "Actually, it wouldn't be so bad for my Tuesday mah-jongg group. I'm always looking for something easy and different for them."

The truth is that frequently people need to see things in the context of their own behavior before they can react to them realistically. By not accepting the respondent's first, visceral response but, instead, alluding to this individual's known behavior, the moderator has imposed a framework of thought that put consideration of the concept into a perspective reflecting what the person does rather than what she thinks.

We should note it is not sufficient to allude to people's "general" behavior. In many cases, people project an idealized vision of themselves when describing their usual patterns of activity to a group of strangers. They paint a picture having more to do with how they would like to see themselves than what actually transpires in their lives.

"I rarely watch television. When I do, it's the news and National Geographic. And, I hate advertising. It's an insult to my intelligence."

(This last sentence, incidentally, appears to be hard-wired, word-for-word into the psyches of most Americans.)

This is a statement of personal legitimacy. It is posturing - a way of telling others in the group that you are socially aware and adept. If you don't allow people the opportunity to make such statements as if they were gospel, they will never tell you the real truth about their lives. They will get stuck in the business of documenting the public persona they are trying to establish and carefully screen you from their private one.

But ask the same person what happened yesterday and you will find out that . . .

"Yesterday was unusual. I watched Seinfeld - my favorite - and the Country Music Awards, which only happen once a year. Did you see that Bud Light commercial? It was hysterical."

Here the respondent is dismissing yesterday as an anomaly - not a true reflection of his "usual behavior." He can talk comfortably about his television habits because he has made it seem atypical. He can even disregard his own disdain for advertising. This is an unusual case. This isn't the real me we are talking about here.

The interesting thing is that yesterday is almost invariably seen as an anomaly. Same thing with the day before yesterday -and the day before that. The fact is, we rarely do what we "usually do."

It's not that we lie about our behavior; it's that our memories get colored by our social aspirations. We replace lost details with good ideas. In the end, assessment of one's "general" behavior is almost always as much an expression of attitude as it is empirical observation.

Attitudinal information is important. Knowing that people have some serious misgivings about frozen pizza gives us some critical insights on how to position our new pizza. At the very least, we know we can't rely on a foundation of goodwill to help sell-in the basic concept.

But the job of a good researcher (qualitative or quantitative) is to put what consumers say into focus by plugging it into what they do, not just what they say. As experts in consumer-speak, we should be able to wade through the posturing of a social discourse to a more realistic interpretation of what it all means.

The only good way I know of doing that is to spend some time up front finding out what these people's lives are like, even if it means we are "wasting our time" getting information that is of limited use in and of itself. So, eat some more M&Ms and relax. Your patience will pay off in a better final report. Guaranteed.