Design Empathy
Drawbacks & Benefits of Design Empathy
Objectivity is the most important Design Skill — Part 2
Empathy is a Tricky Subject
Empathy as Framed by Human Centered Design Practice.
Within Human Centered Design exercises, Empathy is the ability of the Designer to take on the perspective of the human actor who will directly benefit from the Design solution.
Because many Design contributors consider “Empathy” to be a universally understood word, with applications and meanings outside of the Human Centered Design process, setting expectations for how best to practically apply Empathy during Collaborative Design phases becomes a critical factor in focusing team discussions and exercises productively.
Affective Empathy establishes an emotional perspective, while Cognitive Empathy establishes a psychological perspective.
Affective Empathy (AE) — Emotional Empathy
Affective Empathy is the act of understanding the perspective of a human actor by emotionally identifying with their feelings or emotional condition. Affective Empathy identifies with the emotion of the human actor, and as a result, exhibits an emotionally-driven response.
Taking on the emotional perspective of the human benefiting from the solution is intended to minimize the inherent emotional biases of the Design practitioner, and provide a holistic understanding of emotionally complex problem statements. When applied to Human Centered Design methods, Affective Empathy runs the risk of encouraging an “Emotion By Proxy” mindset within the practitioner.
Cognitive Empathy (CE) — Analytical Empathy
Cognitive Empathy is the act of understanding the perspective of a human actor by psychologically identifying with their mental model, point of view, or state of being. Cognitive Empathy provides Design practitioners with an analytical model to identify with the psychology, thought process, and methods of human actors to better understand their world view and associated perspectives.
Adopting the psychological perspective of the human actor gives Design practitioners a way to represent and respond to the human attitudes, expected systems, and underlying mental models that most resonate with the actor inside the space of the Design solution. Human Centered Design exercises also commonly focus on using Tactical Cognitive Empathy to identify possible Design solutions that resonate with the perceptions, functions, or mental models of the human actor.
{A Brief Word of Caution: In Human Centered Design conversations involving the philosophical meaning, or practical application of the word “Empathy,” voices have become raised.
In a twist of “Design-rony,” it is extremely difficult to change a Design contributor’s interpretation of the word “Empathy,” even when trained in objective Design methods.}
Drawbacks of Affective Empathy
Common issues of Affective Empathy within Human Centered Design practices.
Design choices driven by Affective Empathy create several detrimental types of fallacies. When left unchecked, these fallacies undermine the success of the Human Centered Design solution, as measured by the degree of benefit to the human actor.
“I know the human, I am the human.”
“I have facilitated quantitative and qualitative research including the human. I have spoken directly with the human. I know intimate details about the human. I feel emotions on behalf of the human. I sympathize with the human. I have taken on the emotional role of the human. I am connected with the emotional perspective of the human. I know the human. I understand the human. I share the point of view of the human.”
“I am the human.”
The primary philosophy behind the use of Empathy within the Human Centered Design process is the clear acknowledgement that Design practitioners are creating solutions on behalf of other humans. Taking on the emotional perspective of the other human does not make you that human.
No matter how closely you identify with the feelings of the human, or how strongly you identify with the human’s emotional world view, or how often you have the same emotional response when using the same Design solution, you will never be the human.
Design practitioners who view themselves as the human, instead of an objective advocate of our humans, do so as a representation of their own subjective world view, not out of objective consideration for the human benefiting from the solution.
Emotional Confirmation Bias
When taking on the emotional perspective of a human actor, Affective Empathy quickly becomes “Inherited Emotion.” By inheriting emotions, the Design practitioner assumes their own subjective interpretation of the human’s emotion, rather than objectively determining an interpretation based on known perspectives, or new observations of the human actor.
Inherited Emotion facilitates Emotional Confirmation Bias when the emotional disposition of the contributor inherits only those emotions with which the practitioner resonates. While not explicit, these intrinsic emotional value judgements wildly skew interpretations of Qualitative Research, resulting in Designs that do not address the human actor’s need.
When prioritizing only the emotions of the human actor which create resonance within the Design practitioner, many other causal factors, alternate interpretations, and resulting solutions, are often de-prioritized, or ignored.
Emotional Justification
Affective Empathy creates a sense of emotional justification, whereby the practitioner operationally prioritizes the emotional representation of the human over the direct feedback of the humans themselves.
When taking an “Emotion by Proxy” approach, the practitioner feels empowered to take emotional leaps in logic to justify Design decisions, rather than objectively qualifying the value of the decision as measured against the degree of benefit to the human actor.
Because the practitioner now emotionally represents the human, they feel empowered to make choices as framed by their own emotional lens, as they have now qualified themselves as the true “Emotional Voice of the User.”
When acting within Human Centered Design processes, Appealing to Affective Empathy is commonly used as a justification for a choice which may not have clearly defined logic, reason, or purpose, other than to address the emotional priority as conveyed by the Design practitioner.
Emotionally justified actions on the part of the Design practitioner ultimately undermine the core principles of Human Centered Design as an objective system of representation for the human benefiting from the solution.
Affective Empathy “Sells”
When the feelings of the human are represented emotionally by the practitioner to a stakeholder in an effort to elicit an emotional response on which to base a decision of approval, Affective Empathy becomes a sales position.
At this point, the Design practitioner is no longer advocating for the human, they are advocating for the solution by associating it with the human’s emotional story in the hopes of “selling” the solution to a collaborator, or stakeholder.
When used in ways that are subjectively (or politically) motivated, the technique of “The Empathetic Sell” often misrepresents the emotional need of the human, without creating a solution that has the same level of commensurate benefit.
The “Sales” fallacy occurs when Affective Empathy is not used on behalf of the human benefiting from the solution, but is instead used to illicit an emotional response within the stakeholders, or points of review, by which projects are approved.
Although beneficial to establish the emotional needs of the human within the minds of the Design team or business stakeholders, the solution itself should not need to evoke an emotional response in the stakeholder to have proven its objective benefit to the human actor.
Misattributed Solutions
Design practitioners who incorporate Affective Empathy into the Design process can often prioritize solutions incorrectly, as a response to the emotion, rather than the cause of the emotion.
Because the use of Affective Empathy is such a successful sales technique, it’s possible that no stakeholder noticed the fact that the solution does not address the causal need of the human actor, but only addresses the emotion itself.
When the solution does not meet the needs of the human actor, the value of the tangible business metrics suffer as a result.
- Does the recommended solution effectively and meaningfully address the human need driving the emotion which is now being used as justification for the recommended decision?
- Is there a direct correlation between the value of the solution to the human actor and the emotional weight being placed on the advocacy of the solution?
- Does the weight of the practitioner’s emotional advocacy, in fact, represent the causal need on behalf of the human actor?
If the human for which the solution is being designed does not directly benefit from the practitioner’s emotional representation of their need, the solution will be unsuccessful when judged by the metric of that human’s benefit.
“I Am My Own Measure of Success.”
“I understand the human’s emotions. I know what will make the human happy. I know what the human wants. I find this solution emotionally compelling. I like it. I believe this solution will address my emotional need. I feel like this is the right decision. This is the decision that means the most to me, the arbiter of the human’s emotions.”
“I like this one better.”
Design practitioners who take on the emotional burden of the human actor are also clearly defining the measure of their own success. When Design practitioners act emotionally, even on behalf of the human actor, they have now shifted the stated measure of Human Centered Design “success” to reflect their own emotional qualification. This attitudinal shift minimizes the practical needs of the human actor and establishes the metric for “success” with the practitioner themselves.
By gauging their own emotional reaction as a litmus for solution success, Design practitioners operating with Affective Empathy are qualifying their own subjective emotional reaction above the needs of the human actor.
Self-congratulatory emotional qualifications undermine the value of Human Centered Design methods. Design practitioners must objectively understand the nature of the human need, while also facilitating human-driven evaluations of the proposed solution.
Inherited Bias
When Design practitioners come to an understanding of the emotional point of view of the human, they must not take on the emotional burden of that understanding, as it will shift “practitioner bias” into “emotion by proxy.”
Introducing one more layer of emotional complexity by asking the Design practitioners to “feel” on behalf of the human actor creates confusion, opinion, and frustration, on teams specifically assembled to objectively create meaningfully impactful solutions on behalf of a human actor.
When Design practitioners express points of view based on a feeling, rather than a thought, they have either unknowingly adopted the Human’s bias as their own, or are presenting their own emotional biases under the guise of “representing the human.”
Inherited emotional bias is what designers, researchers and product leaders must maintain objectivity to resolve, especially within teams focused on the Design “Solutioning” phases of Human Centered Design processes.
Fallacies, Summarized
Affective Empathy erodes the value of objective reasoning by unnecessarily introducing an emotional component into an otherwise objectively driven framework. Because the objective representation of the human actor is the critical cornerstone of Human Centered Design methods, objectively responding with meaningful Design solutions should be the Collaborative Design team’s highest priority.
Conversations that incorporate the use of Affective Empathy, or other subjective representations of the human, should be re-framed to identify objective methods to verify team assumptions. If Affective Empathy becomes an issue, re-center the collaborative conversation on the objectively identified perspective of the human actor, rather than the emotionally interpreted perspective of the Design practitioner.
In the ideal Human Centered Design model, the human benefiting from the solution is always the point of approval, and ultimately, the final word on the metric of the solution’s success.
Benefits of Cognitive Empathy
The benefits of objectively understanding the perspective of the human actor.
While Affective Empathy takes on the emotional perspective of the human actor, Cognitive Empathy focuses instead on the human actor’s psychological point of view, existing mental model, or established analytical mindset.
The use of Cognitive Empathy is an extremely effective method for Design practitioners to consider a series of possible Design solutions, while also systemically gauging likely human responses, based on the understood motivating perspective of the human actor.
Design practitioners who understand the psychological perspective, or the way the human thinks, are better equipped to troubleshoot points of Design friction as solutions are actively being created.
Solutions based on Cognitive Empathy are grounded in the practitioner’s objective understanding of the human’s mental model, psychological perspective, or expected metrics for solution success.
Applying Cognitive Empathy objectively means observing, measuring, and assessing Design decisions from the perspective of the human actor in an effort to better understand the context, condition, and circumstances of their needs, goals, and outcomes.
Tactical Cognitive Empathy in Functional Design
Design practitioners often use Tactical Cognitive Empathy when exploring Design options to meet specific functional needs. Assuming the perspective of the human interacting with the functional solution drives interaction models, data architecture, and platform strategy across a wide variety of system touch points.
After objectively identifying known human functional needs, goals, and metrics for success, it becomes much easier for Design practitioners to generate directly beneficial solutions as a response.
Cognitive Empathy serves as a method to approximate the human’s reaction to the tasks, steps, and processes necessary to achieve the desired functional outcomes.
Incorporating Empathy objectively into Human Centered Design solutions enables Design practitioners to Design systems of interaction which mirror a human actor’s intent, expectation, and progressive need.
Cognitive Empathy is especially beneficial when Designing solutions including highly specialized, or enterprise-level digital applications. Because the mental models of human actors performing functional tasks at the enterprise level so closely align to the “why” and “where” of the human need, Design practitioners are able to add significant benefit by considering the psychological and functional perspective of the human actor.
When Design practitioners focus on understanding the “Why” of functional needs, they are able to more effectively determine the “How” of the Human Centered Design solution.
Balancing Technical Solutions with Cognitive Empathy
Design practitioners are often challenged with balancing practical system variables against the needs of the human actor.
In some environments, these challenges are based on limited budget, resources, or technology. In other environments, they are based on requirements, delivery timelines, or market spend. In all cases of Human Centered Design, the limitations of the system, the team, or the company, also directly shapes the solution.
Cognitive Empathy gives Design practitioners a method of mentally gauging the human’s reaction to “Technically Feasible” solutions in order to establish a balance between the needs of the human actor, and the practical solution limitations.
When facing a technical challenge, Cognitive Empathy gives the Design practitioner a frame of reference to create assumptions, or hypothesis, on how the human might react to feasibility limitations.
Once a hypothesis has been created, practitioners can then approximate the response of the human actor for further Design iteration and testing. Considering the human perspective when faced with technology or system challenges is one of the many ways that Cognitive Empathy can be objectively applied to practical, real-world Design solutions.
The Design practitioner’s view into both the human need, as well as the business goals, provides the necessary visibility to practically “Balance” Design solutions between business metrics, technical feasibility, and meaningful human outcomes.
Cognitive Empathy in Design Delivery
Objectively determining ideal needs, goals, and outcomes of the human actor serves the function of Human Centered Design by clearly identifying, and continually prioritizing, the human measures of success for the solution.
It is much easier to determine what benefit the human actor hopes to achieve when viewing the problem statements from the actor’s psychological perspective.
As the Human Centered Design process shapes Design solutions to meet objectively identified human needs, the role of Cognitive Empathy shifts to become a practical mental checkpoint throughout Design delivery and implementation.
Design practitioners acting with Cognitive Empathy are able to incorporate the human actor’s perspective when troubleshooting business, technology, or system limitations throughout the end-to-end Design and Delivery process. This continued focus on the perspective of the human actor throughout the Delivery process maintains a meaningful connection between the solution and the human actor, even as code rolls off the digital presses.
Cognitive Empathy gives Design practitioners a method to objectively apply team understandings of the human perspective, mental model, and referable research observations, to technical challenges with the intent of balancing delivery feasibility against the needs of the human actor.
Cognitive Empathy From Understanding to Solution
During different phases of the Human Centered Design process, the benefits of Cognitive Empathy shift to continue to meet the needs of the human actor.
The application and value of Cognitive Empathy within Human Centered Design evolves throughout the Design and Delivery process, based on the corresponding uses and goals of each Design process phase.
When included during problem framing exercises, Cognitive Empathy serves as a way to better understand the needs of human actor. During ideation phases, Cognitive Empathy plays the role of motivation, prioritization, and goal identification for team brainstorming. During iteration stages, Cognitive Empathy provides a functional perspective, driving tactical Design solutions. During research and assessment, Cognitive Empathy gives the Design team a way to contextualize feedback and actor responses.
Although a demonstrated method for determining a human actor’s perspective need, identified priority, or expected outcome, Cognitive Empathy must still be objectively rendered into a Design solution that creates an associated level of meaningful benefit as a reflection of the identified human need.
Objective Empathy in Human Centered Design — Part 3
This article is the second part of a series, condensed from the longer article: Objectivity Is The Most Important Design Skill.
