Have a ‘difficult’ participant? Turn the beat around

How to deal with interesting participant personalities

Source

While I shy away from calling anyone a “bad” participant, I do know, as user researchers, we can come up against some pretty difficult and interesting participant personalities. This can make for really unfruitful conversations. When we only have time and budget to talk to a smaller amount of users, we want the conversations to be as rich and productive as possible. Although we can sometimes become accustomed to playing the role of a psychologist, babysitter, flight attendant and juggler, there is no reason we can’t try to turn these situations around.

Working with a variety of participant types is part of a researchers job. As we go through these experiences, we get better at handling each, unique situation, and are more adept at staying open-minded in the face of adversity. This is a skill you can only learn by encountering these scenarios.

What are some of these personalities?

There are many participant personalities floating around, but I wanted to list out the common ones my colleagues and I have seen. If I had the design skills, I would love to make them into personas, but, alas, I am merely a researcher.

1. Vicious Venter. This person agreed to the research session, not to help, but to make sure you know he/she hates your product, and all the ways your product has messed up his/her life.
2. The Blank Stare. Every time you ask a question, you receive a confused look. This participant speaks very little and is, seemingly, unsure about how to use technology.
3. Distractions Everywhere. Bing, bong, boop. Any distraction available will take the attention away from the interview.
4. No Opinions. No researcher likes to hear the words, “it’s fine” or “it’s pretty good.” When you dig, you hit a cement wall. It is almost as if there are no emotions present.
5. The Perfectionist. One of the most difficult participants for a usability test, since they really want to make sure they are doing everything perfectly. They will often ask you more questions than you ask them.
6. Tech-Savvy Solutionist. They could have built a better app, and they will tell you how.
7. Your New BFF. Because of social desirability bias, some participants may try to befriend you or make sure everything they say is kind or flattering. Almost the opposite of the vicious venter.
8. The Self-Blamer. They will blame themselves for the problems they encounter, instead of the system, and may get easily frustrated.
9. The Rambler. Will often go off-topic and speak about irrelevant information, making the sessions unproductive.

Tips on tough participants

Yes, we have seen these personalities come up, but what can we actually do in these scenarios?

First off, take a deep breath. Normally, when you have a difficult participant, it could actually be your fault. For instance, the time wasn’t taken to make the participant comfortable, or they feel like you aren’t listening. It is important to go through a checklist to ensure you did everything on your side to make the research session as enjoyable as possible.

1. Vicious Venter. We don’t want to interrupt the venter, because that generally doesn’t help the situation, so we have to find ways around this. I try to divert the conversation by saying, “I understand what you are saying, and I want to get back to that later on, but I would like to focus on this…” Another option is actually trying to listen by going on the journey with the venter, and using some quotes for insight.
2. The Blank Stare. It can get frustrating when participants are very unsure about how to use technology, but try your best to resist the urge to immediately help the participant. Let him/her struggle through the process for a little, take note of it and then intervene so you don’t spend the entire session watching the participant on one task.
3. Distractions Everywhere. Ensure there are as few distractions in the room as possible, such as cell phones, computers, even clocks. Additionally, try to make the environment as quiet as possible, with few people walking by the room. I often ask the participant to turn their phone on silent and place it away for the entire session.
4. No Opinions. Make sure you ask open-ended questions as often as possible, as it makes it more difficult for participants to answer with lackluster statements. And, if they do, dig. If something is “fine” or “okay,” ask them why. Ask, what is “okay” or “fine” about it or what do they mean when they say “fine?” I will also ask, “how would you describe this to someone who has never seen it?”
5. The Perfectionist. Whenever a participant asks me a question, such as a perfectionist asking, “is that right?” I turn the question right back to them, “what do you think?” Stress that there are no right or wrong answers in these situations, and you are just interested in their honest opinions.
6. Tech-Savvy Solutionist. It is very easy to focus on solutions when you have a tech-forward participant, especially one who wants to tell you how to do things better. Always remember to focus on the problem. Yes, they may want all of these features, but why, what problem are they trying to solve or goal they are trying to achieve.
7. Your New BFF. Stress how important honest feedback is. When faced with social desirability bias, it can be difficult for people to give critical feedback. Always encourage this type of information. To help, I mention no one in the room designed what they are giving feedback on, and that there will be no hurt feelings.
8. The Self-Blamer. Remind this participant there are no right or wrong answers, and that usability tests are, in fact, not tests. During usability testing, I will refer to tasks as activities, as this takes the pressure off. Additionally, I will reassure a flustered participant that other participants had similar problems (which I tend not to do as this can introduce bias), so they may feel more at ease when encountering problems.
9. The Rambler. It is exciting to find a person who wants to share a lot, but, oftentimes, ramblers can be off-topic, which can lead to very unproductive conversations. Similar to the venter, it is important to always try to steer the conversation back to the relevant topic, by using segues such as, “that is really interesting, and I want to circle back, but for the interest of time, could we focus on…” And just doing this over and over again to try and get as many useful insights as possible.

Overall tips for avoiding these situations

1. Recruiting. Really think about your recruiting strategy. If you find you are getting participants that aren’t the best fit, take a look at how you are screening participants. Are you sure you are asking for the right criteria?
2. Seize the moment. Even if you do everything right during your recruiting, some less than ideal participants can still slip through the cracks. In addition to the above techniques, it is important to use these situations to your advantage. Even though it may not be the best interview you have ever conducted, you can still get something out of it. Don’t just give up, use it as an experience to learn!

Do you have any experiences with the above? Or something different? I’d love to hear about any of your stories with different participants, and how you mitigate these different personalities or scenarios.

As a note: I don’t really think there are “bad” participants — there are some that are less ideal for certain projects, but none of them are downright awful. They serve as great learning experiences on how to improve our perspectives and practice.

[embed]https://upscri.be/ux[/embed]