UxCamp Europe 2017
•
0 j'aime•209 vues
This document discusses cognitive biases and how they affect design decisions. It introduces common biases like the endowment effect, affective forecasting, and temporal discounting. It then examines how biases can influence individuals and groups differently depending on their dynamics, goals, and focus (e.g. internal vs. external). Groups in startup, business, corporate, or tribal modes are each prone to certain biases based on factors like expedience, safety, similarity, and distance. Managing biases in groups requires understanding their nature and priorities.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Dernier
Dernier (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
UxCamp Europe 2017
- 1. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 1 designers / debiasing decisions
- 2. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 2 natacha hennocq @nattchah
- 3. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 3 double bind heuristics are helpful up to a point
- 4. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 4 comment ça nous sommes manipulés ?
- 5. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ
- 6. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ
- 7. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ
- 8. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ
- 9. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 9 so … bias hum what if we took a look at our behavior ?
- 10. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 10 Distance “Near is stronger than far.” distance Endowment Effect Affective Forecasting Temporal Discounting via Heidi Grant Halvorson
- 11. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 11 distance effet de dotation prévision affective actualisation temporelle expedience Belief Bias • Confirmation Bias Availability Bias Representativeness Bias Base Rate Fallacy • Halo Effect Hot Hand Fallacy Planning Fallacy • Anchoring Bias Expedience “If it feels right, it must be true.”
- 12. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 12 distance effet de dotation prévision affective actualisation temporelle expedience effet de croyance • confirmation illusion du taux de base illusion de la planification représentativité • effet de halo illusion de la main heureuse disponibilité • ancrage safety Loss Aversion Framing Effect Sunk Costs Safety “Bad is stronger than good.”
- 13. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ Blind Spot • False Consensus Effect Fundamental Attribution Error Hindsight Bias Illusion of Control • Egocentric Bias Illusion of Transparency: 13 distance effet de dotation prévision affective actualisation temporelle expedience effet de croyance • confirmation illusion du taux de base illusion de la planification représentativité • effet de halo illusion de la main heureuse disponibilité • ancrage safety aversion à la perte effet de formulation sophisme du coût irrécupérable experience Experience “My perceptions are accurate.”
- 14. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ angle mort • faux consensus erreur fondamentale d’attribution sagesse rétrospective illusion du contrôle • egocentrisme illusion de la transparence 14 distance effet de dotation prévision affective actualisation temporelle expedience effet de croyance • confirmation illusion du taux de base illusion de la planification représentativité • effet de halo illusion de la main heureuse disponibilité • ancrage safety aversion à la perte effet de formulation sophisme du coût irrécupérable experience similarity Ingroup Outgroup Similarity “People like me are better than others.”
- 15. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 15 feel more in control? expedience safety distance similarity BlindSpot•HindsightBias FalseConsensusEffect FundamentalAttributionError IllusionofControl•EgocentricBias IllusionofTransparency: experience Ingroup Outgroup Belief Bias • Confirm ation Bias Availability Bias • Hot Hand Fallacy Representativeness Bias Base Rate Fallacy • Halo Effect Planning Fallacy • Anchoring Bias EndowmentEffect AffectiveForecasting TemporalDiscounting Loss Aversion Fram ing Effect Sunk Costs
- 16. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 16 Conway’s Law ux design et impermanence committee facilitator
- 17. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 17 dynamic stable internal external via Kim Goodwin how does bias affect groups ? using the competing values framework
- 18. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 18 what if your group is more in startup mode? dynamic stable internal external adhocracy open systems like to innnovate
- 19. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 19 Adhocracy “We make things up as we go” dynamic stable internal external adhocracy open systems like to innnovate expedience experience similarity via Kim Goodwin
- 20. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 20 what if your group is more in business mode? dynamic stable internal external market rational goal like to win, fast
- 21. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 21 market “Always keeping an eye on what others are doing” dynamic stable internal external market rational goal like to win, fast distance safety expedience
- 22. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 22 what if your group is more in corporate mode? dynamic stable internal external hierarchy internal process like to maximize
- 23. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 23 hierarchy “We follow the leader” dynamic stable internal external hierarchy internal process like to maximize safety expedience
- 24. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 24 what if your group is more in tribal mode? dynamic stable internal external clan human relations like to nurture
- 25. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 25 clan “Nobody really understands us the way we do” dynamic stable internal external clan human relations like to nurture similarity distance experience
- 26. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 26 natacha hennocq @nattchah The Bias Bingo is a work in progress
- 27. DEBIASING DESIGN DECISIONS – NATACHA HENNOCQ 27 merci © Angie Eng