Cognitive Biases

Cognitive bias is often a result of our brain’s attempt to simplify information processing in a way that causes us to lean in favor of or against someone or something. Our “subjective reality” may dictate our behavior in the world. Jeanne Liedtka of the University of Virginia points out that our biases “make most of us poor experimenters” by limiting our ability to test out new ideas. Since experimentation is an inherent part of science, engineering, and technological development, being aware of our biases and how to address them will increase the likelihood of achieving our objectives.

Liedtka goes on to describe ten cognitive biases that negatively impact our design capabilities. We will focus on two specific biases that are important to recognize at the beginning of the design process and during the ideation phase.

Egocentric Empathy Gap

 This bias causes innovators to consistently overestimate the similarity between what they value and what others value, and to project their own thoughts and preferences onto others. This leads to the creation of new ideas that they value but those they are designing for do not.

Empathizing with the people for whom we are designing is critical in understanding their needs, values, motivations, and barriers to meeting those needs. Dr. Helen Riess of Harvard Medical School describes empathy as a means to gain a meaningful understanding of what others see, feel, and experience. It is a deep appreciation of the problems and realities of the whole person.

In the STEM fields, too often we make assumptions about the problem we are addressing. Our egocentric empathy gap leads us towards solutions based on these mistaken assumptions or our own needs and values. Being aware of this bias is the first step to creating technological innovations that benefit people, society, and the environment. Empathizing with the end-users and a diverse group of stakeholders – those who may be affected by the design – will help us to make sense of and take into account different perspectives during the design process. Through empathy we become aware that what we might have taken as “fact” is actually only one way of seeing a problem – and it is perhaps not aligned with how our intended beneficiaries view it.

Availability Bias

 This causes innovators to undervalue ideas that are harder for them to imagine. Since the familiarity of an idea is likely to be inversely related to its novelty, this leads to a preference for more incremental solutions.

This bias relates to what we as designers do with our understanding of the challenge. During the ideation phase of design thinking we know that being open to “big ideas” — even if they may seem impossible or ridiculous – will lead us to the most creative solutions. The availability bias limits not just our confidence in ourselves to suggest bold ideas in a team environment, but also our ability to embrace the ideas proposed by others and look for ways to build on those. This is often one of the most substantial obstacles for students and novice designers in the process. As Liedtka points out, diversified teams and design thinking approaches can help by collaborating “across diverse perspectives to build higher-order solutions.”