Per Axbom

The more I read about psychology-related studies that are considered "truths" (Heisenberg effect, ego depletion, and more) I realize how much they are all context-sensitive in a way that is never talked about.

I think we as UX practitioners need to be aware of them but stop treating them as truths to abide by, but rather as strong hypotheses that we can test in our own environment.

Effects vary in size and effect in different environments. Don't argue your case based on research conducted in completely different environments.

Really, the less time I spend on trying to influence people using any established cognitive bias, or "known mental effect", and more time on helping people understand themselves and increase their resilience to external pressure, the better I feel.

With regards to ego depletion, here's an interesting article. Don't necessarily take to heart everything it says, but allow it to open your mind. slate.com/articles/healt…

And obviously, Western college students are not the best representatives of human emotion and behavior. They are WEIRD (Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries). slate.com/articles/healt…

Also from that WEIRD article: "Sixty-seven percent of American psychology studies use college students, for example. This means that many or even most of the subjects are teenagers."

And: "But do most WEIRD studies generalize to humanity as a whole? In the case of social punishment, probably not, but in the case of emotional expression, it looks like they do. It depends on what question you’re asking."

In my original tweet I meant to write Hawthorne Effect, darnit. Anyway here's more info on that criticism ("Criticism" is always a good section on WIkipedia). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne…

Further reading. The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. “Like other hallowed but unproven concepts in psychology, the so-called Hawthorne effect has a life of its own.” wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/marku…

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter