In market research, we pride ourselves on being objective. We design structured questionnaires, recruit carefully screened respondents, and apply rigorous quality control. Yet, one of the most common—and dangerous—mistakes doesn’t come from data collection. It comes from how we interpret people.
That mistake is ad hominem.
Ad hominem happens when we dismiss an argument by attacking the person instead of evaluating what they said. In research, it shows up subtly. A respondent gives an answer that doesn’t fit expectations, and instead of exploring the reasoning, the team labels them as “low understanding,” “not the right target,” or “not representative.”
At that moment, the insight is lost.
This is more common than most teams realize. A Gen Z respondent says they prefer a lower-priced option, and the team concludes they “lack brand awareness.” A rural consumer rejects a premium product, and the assumption becomes “low purchasing power mindset.” A B2B respondent challenges a concept, and suddenly they are seen as “too conservative.”
In all these cases, the focus shifts from what was said to who said it.
And that is where research breaks down.
Good research is not about confirming expectations. It is about understanding reality—even when it is uncomfortable. When teams fall into ad hominem thinking, they filter out inconvenient truths. Over time, this creates a dangerous illusion: the data appears consistent, but only because contradictory signals have been ignored.
In Vietnam, where consumer behavior is evolving rapidly across regions, income levels, and digital exposure, this bias becomes even more risky. What looks like “irrational behavior” is often a signal of emerging trends. What feels like “wrong answers” may actually reveal gaps in positioning, pricing, or communication.
The strongest research teams don’t eliminate difficult respondents. They lean into them.
They ask:
Why does this person think differently?
What context are we missing?
Is this an outlier—or the beginning of a shift?
Eliminating ad hominem bias requires discipline. It starts with separating the respondent from the response. Every answer should be evaluated on its logic, context, and relevance—not on assumptions about the individual. This means building stronger moderation, better probing techniques, and a culture where unexpected answers are explored rather than dismissed.
It also requires humility. Researchers and clients alike must accept that consumers do not exist to validate hypotheses. They exist to challenge them.
The goal of research is not to prove we are right. It is to ensure we are not wrong.
In the end, the difference between average research and great research is simple. Average research explains away contradictions. Great research investigates them.
And that begins by eliminating one small but powerful habit—attacking the respondent instead of understanding the insight.
