Newsletter — January 2015
UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC BEHAVIOR
PROVETIC SPECIAL ANALYSIS:
VALUE AND MORAL JUDGEMENT
Dear Valued Clients,
First of all, on behalf of Provetic team, I would like
to wish you a happy new year of 2015!
Beginning of the year is always marked by brim-
ming enthusiasm and optimism, as we carry the
lessons learned from the previous year on to the
new one. In the spirit of pushing forward in this
new year, let me take this opportunity to introduce
to you one of our newest special analyses: the Value
and Moral Judgment analysis of Social Media
This analysis focuses on how people perceive,
evaluate, and make decisions over various matters:
from something as trivial as choosing shampoo
brands to something very important like voting for
certain presidential candidate.
We're very excited in introducing this analysis to
you because we believe that this would provide our
clients with more in depth understanding about
their target audience, or even Indonesian people in
general —a very crucial tool for successful
communication and marketing strategy.
We hope you enjoy this edition, and may you have a
productive, insightful, and prosperous year ahead.
Iwan Setyawan, CEO
WORDS FROM THE CEO
Board of Advisors
Iwan Setyawan, Roby Muhamad, Ph.D,
Shafiq Pontoh, Budhi Sumarso
Jl. Kerinci 1 no. 2, Kebayoran Baru
Jakarta Selatan 12120
T: +6221 72799613
F: +6221 72799613
Understanding target audience is crucial in
achieving successful communication. In doing so,
creating segmentation has been one of the most
effective ways to do it. However, in most cases,
demographic segmentation alone might not be
sufficient in providing enough valuable
information regarding our target audience.
Understanding people’s preferences or
evaluations regarding certain issues, events, or
even products, could not be fully done only by
accessing the demographic information.
So what else can contribute to the picture?
Provetic believe that rich information can be
mined from getting qualitative data, especially
from social media conversation.
Social media conversation data not only can
provide the qualitative aspect about what is
being discussed by the people, but also how they
discussed it, as well as (with more in-depth
analysis) why they discussed it the way they do.
These data provide an opportunity to categorize
people not only by demographic segmentation,
but also according to the common themes that
can be identified within their arguments, which
helps to create labels that might give more
colourful definition of our target audience.
Humans are not a passive receiver of
information. In fact, most of the time, people
actively filter, select, and evaluate data using a
set of internal beliefs that they already hold.
These internal beliefs are what we refer to as the
value and moral judgement systems. These
systems have been identified as internal forces
that shaped human behavior —including
opinion and decision making— mostly by
influencing the way people process information
from their social world. If certain information
matches or congruent with their existing value
and moral judgement systems, it would be more
likely to be accepted and adopted. In reverse, if
certain information does not match or
incongruent with their existing belief systems, it
would be more likely to be rejected.
Hence, identifying the value and moral
judgement systems of certain target audience
will be very beneficial for business and
organization aiming to create successful
communication and increasing the likelihood of
acceptance and adoption of message.
In this edition, we would like to illustrate some
of the utilization of this analysis. This is to show
that not only this analysis will help in profiling
and understanding the target market, the
resulting segmentation can also help in creating
the right framing to address the communication
based on the values and moral judgement
identification of the target audience.
KNOWING “WHAT MAKES THEM TICK”:
HOW VALUES AND MORAL EVALUATIONS AFFECT PEOPLE
To understand their social world,
people are equipped with several
sets of beliefs that will help them
to navigate their ways. This
means that people are not
receiving information blindly,
but they actually have “filters”
that help guiding their
judgement and decision making.
What is value and moral
judgement systems and how
do those affect people’s
People’s opinion are not just
influenced by external factors such
as mass media coverage or
prominent opinion of others.
Instead, these external factors are
interacting with people’s internal
set of beliefs to form and influence
their opinion and decision making.
preferences is nothing new for
business and organization.
However, what might be
overlooked is the bigger picture:
what do these preferences actually
saying about our target audience?
Are there any underlying themes
that might interlinked different
preferences? If there is such thing,
how would it help us understand
our target audience better so that
we can communicate with them
We believe that the answer to those
question lies in understanding the
Values system indicates what
people deemed as important,
meanwhile Moral judgement
system is help to evaluate the
how and on what ground
certain event or issue is morally
internal set of beliefs that people
use in navigating their way in socia
People’s internal set of belief is
very strongly linked to their
identities and preferences. Hence, it
is very powerful in helping them
finding things that are preferable,
acceptable, or even just “feel right”.
To be able to identify the internal
forces that drive our audience will
help us to achieve greater
understanding and also knowing
what makes them “tick”.
Furthermore, we can also use this
information to create better ways
to segment and characterize our
audience —a very powerful tool to
ensure effective communication.
Figure I — In the information processing,
internal set of beliefs acts as filters; which
eventually contributes to the formation of
people opinions and evaluation.
In our analysis, the first set of
beliefs that we take into account is
the value systems that people hold.
Values are the motivational basis
that guide people’s behavior that
strongly linked to people’s affect
and emotions. This means that the
values people hold signify the
universal goal of most of their
behaviors and what people
deemed as important. They also
have general use to evaluate most
instances in people’s social world.
The second set of beliefs is the
moral judgement. Different from
the value system, moral judgement
are used to help in evaluating the
certain event or issues as morally
right or wrong.
In Provetic Special Value
and Moral Judgement
Analyses, we use the social
media conversation data to
focus on three main
1) Understanding the way
people evaluating and
responding to specific
events/issues: to get a more
about people’s responses;
2) Identifying the
segmentation of audience
for specific events/issues: to
3) Monitoring the dynamics
between main message and
the public responses: to
know the success rate of
communication based on
“Although values and moral
judgements are usually seen
as individual property;
but it can also be used to
—as people with the same
values or moral judgement
system would most likely
have similar opinion or
behavior towards certain
PEOPLE’S INTERNAL SETS OF BELIEFS:
THE MORAL JUDGEMENT FOUNDATIONS
Care/Harm: judgement based on whether it is harmful to others.
Fairness/Cheating: judgement based on justice and proportionality;
whether it is fair for others
Loyalty/Betrayal: judgement based on whether it violates the in-group
(family, society, or the nation) which one belongs
Authority/Subversion: judgement based on whether it is in line and
being respectful with the tradition and laws.
Sanctity/Degradation: judgement based on whether it evoke feeling of
disgust and contaminates purity. Mostly based on religious teaching.
Liberty/Oppresion: judgement based on whether it is done under
pressure or being tyrannized.
PEOPLE’S INTERNAL SETS OF BELIEFS:
THE TEN BASIC UNIVERSAL VALUES
Power: social status and prestige; needs to control and dominates others;
Achievement: setting and achieving goals; competency and living up to
Hedonism: enjoyment and pleasure;
Stimulation: gaining pleasure specifically from excitement and thrills;
variety and high level of activation;
Self-Direction: needs of control and mastery; autonomy and freedom in
Universalism: social justice and tolerance; peace and equality;
Benevolence: helping others and contributing to general welfare;
nurturing others and the environment;
Tradition: conservative and respectful of the customs; solidarity and
uniqueness as a group;
Conformity: obedience of clear rules and structure; following social
Security: seek health and safety; security of society.
lesser direct impact to people’s
everyday lives, unlike fuel price
increase — people are not looking
at it as an act of betrayal to the
people, but merely an act of
cheating and it is seen as morally
wrong, because cheating is wrong
based on judgement of religious
teaching of purity.
However, both of these issues are
perceived as acts of deviance of
society, and the fact that both
evoked a strong rejection from
people, indicates that most
Indonesian put high importance on
values of conformity,benevolence,
and security of the society.
2014 was one of the year that
politics becomes people’s daily
discussion, especially with the
highly anticipated presidential
election taking place in the
second semester of last year.
Many controversial issues were
circulated and induced heated
reactions from public.
Here, Provetic uses the Special
Value and Moral Judgement
Analyses to see how people
evaluate different major issues of
CASE STUDY #1:
How people reacted to the
issue of fuel price increase
and corruption cases?
Last year, the most discussed
issues are, among others, fuel price
increase and corruption cases of
high profile public officials.
In the previous edition, we have
presented to you how analysis of
values and moral foundation can
be tied in to provide better
understanding on people’s
reaction towards the issue of fuel
Our findings suggest that for those
who are opposed to the decision
on fuel price increase is evaluating
the issue as wrong because it is
violating people’s freedom –
especially of the financial freedom
of the less fortunate groups.
Furthermore, they also see it as an
act of betrayal to the “small
people” because the government
was supposed to be on their side
and not making decision that will
give them hard times.
However, for those who are
supporting it, they see it as a right
move by the government because
instead of bringing harm, it is
perceived to bring greater good for
the people. Here we can see the
difference between the arguments
of the opposing groups.
Apart from the fuel price increase,
2014 was also marked by several
high profile corruption cases,
which have evoked rather large
attention from general public. Last
year, we also conducted an
analysis to see how people are
perceiving the issue on Corruption.
Interestingly, when evaluating the
issue of corruption —which has
CASE STUDY #2:
Values and Moral Judgement
Analysis development in 2014
Presidential election was one of
the main highlight of year 2014 in
Indonesia. With only two
candidates running for the
position, extreme polarization of
support is relatively inevitable.
Both candidates, Joko Widodo and
Prabowo Subianto, also appeared
to adopt different campaign,
communication, and image
building approaches. However,
now the question is: was the
communication being received as
intended by the general public?
Before the campaign period
officially being kicked off, Provetic
data showed that in general both
candidates are being evaluated in
terms of judgement of “purity”,
which actually referring to
candidates’ religiousity as well as
how clean their track record are.
However, apart from the general
the campaign period, Prabowo is
mostly being associated with more
conservative values such as
Conformity and Tradition. While on
the other hand, Jokowi is more
associated with more social values
such as Benevolence and Hedonism.
These divergence can actually
provide information not only on
how people perceive them, but also
about how succesful their attempts
in instilling certain public image.
Interestingly, towards the end of
the campaign period (refer to Chart
II), we can actually see that the
judgment is getting more
convergent and similar for both
This development is actually
expected because, there might be a
need for each candidates in “easing
up” several extreme
characterization on their public
image to gain support from
different groups of voters. The
result of this less extreme
characterization is more uniform
evaluation across all dimension.
Apart from that, the convergence of
evaluation can also indicates how
much they are being compared to
each other. When people are
comparing two different object in a
head-to-head manner, it will be
more likely that they will compare
it under the same judgement
Hence, as we can see, if at the
beginning of the campaign period,
when both candidates are being
discussed independently of each
other, evaluation is relatively
diverge and more extreme in
certain aspects or dimensions.
However, towards the end of the
campaign periods, when they are
being compared more closely with
each other, evaluation tend to be
However, one persistent trend in
evaluating presidential candidate is
actually that people are consistently
using the evaluation that is based
on the judgement of purity —how
“clean” the candidate is; as well as,
how religious they are..
evaluation, apparently the two
candidates are being evaluated in
relatively very different light:
Prabowo is mostly evaluated as a
figure of Authority —especially
related to his military background;
meanwhile, Jokowi is being seen as
more of a Caring character, as he is
known to be less guarded to the
people (See Chart I).
Furthermore, at the beginning of
Chart I — Moral Judgement Analysis for 2014 Presidential Candidates at
the beginning of campaign period (Early June 2014)
Chart II — Moral Judgement Analysis for 2014 Presidential Candidates at
towards the end of campaign period (End of June 2014)
personal or individual benefit (e.g.
clean hair that smells good) but
also in terms of how it can help
them with their interpersonal
relationship (e.g. “If I have a nice
smelling and clean hair, my
boyfriend will love me more”).
In another analysis on RTD milk
products, we have also found out
that people are not discussing the
product only for their own
personal use (e.g. drinking milk
when feeling exhausted), but also
as a tool to help others (e.g. giving
milk product for a friend in need of
a boost, as an act of caring).
In short, we have found that
personal goods are also associated
with the value of benevolence —a
value which goal is to attain social
harmony with others.
Traditionally, most of personal
goods are only conveying
communication or message that is
associated with the value that are
more focused on individual self,
such as self-direction or hedonism.
However, with this insight, brands
can use it to further ezpand
product communication and
marketing strategy —in which
instead of only emphasizing on
personal benefit of consuming
orusing the product, but the
product can also be utilized to
serve social goals.
Value Judgement Analysis is not
limited in its uses to only cater for
evaluation of social events or
issues. In fact, brands can also
utilize this analysis to gain
information on their target market
and monitor people’s evaluation of
One of the most interesting
findings that we have found using
the Value Judgement Analysis for
Brands is that even for personal
goods such as food/drinks and
body care products, people are not
perceiving these products solely as
products to fulfil personal needs,
but also to attain social goals.
In our analysis, we found that
when people talk about body care
products, such as shampoo, people
are not only evaluating it in terms
of how well it can give them
CASE STUDY #3:
For brands, even personal
goods can have social
meaning or goals.
Further analysis can also help to
reveal whether the new
communication strategy actually
resounded as intended to the
audience by evaluating whether
the values conveyed through the
communication is received in the
same light by the consumers.
Personal goods are traditionally
associated with values that are
more focused on self-
enhancement, such as self-
direction or hedonism, but
apparently also associated with
social value of benevolence