Cognitive Design

Designs that return us to the past are having a growing impact. Retro design intentionally resurrects or recycles an artifact from the past feeding nostalgia and triggering reminiscing in consumers.  We see retro designs in cars, buildings, furniture, websites, movies, fashion, restaurants, advertising and almost everything in our culture. Retro design shows no signs of being a fad but is morphing and expanding, reflecting a fundamental and perhaps unquenchable consumer need.

This consumer need is infact a cognitive need generated from  the longing for the past often in a romanticized or idealized form (nostalgia). As an emotional state, nostalgia serves several important psychological functions including: reinforcing our sense of self, regenerating meaning and strengthening social connections (see this excerpt from the handbook of experimental existential psychology).

Remembering the past – even if we reconstruct it a bit to meet psychological needs – can be a bittersweet experience. Invoking it can create a state of cognitive dissonance (holding two or more conflicting beliefs or emotions at once). For example, a product might be designed to remind you of the happy times you had with your grandparents but at the same time remind you that they are no longer alive.

Retro design plays off of (paternalistically we hope) a strong cognitive bias held by most people – “remember the good old past”.  Longing for the past, seems to be so strong that we will buy into any past even if it is not part of our experience. Specifically, younger people will buy retro products rooted in artifacts from earlier generation’s experience. This means I will be pulled in by the retro effect even if what is being recycled was not part of my personal childhood or earlier life experience.  Paul Grainge calls this the “aestheticization of nostalgia”. Something satisfies my longing for the past  if I can recognize that it comes from a stylized past - it does not need to be part of my personal past.

Reminiscing goes a step further in that it allows me to relive or remember personally experienced episode from my past. So the retro design of the new Ford Mustang might remind me of my first car and the time I….  This invokes another powerful cognitive effect – Savoring. In this case I am savoring the past which can put me in a state of pleasure, pride, gratitude or even awe.  

So what are the implications for the cognitive designer? When using retro effects we should:

1. Be clear what unmet cognitive need we are trying to satisfy (opportunity to tell my story, relive sense of pride from earlier time, discharge longing for the past, etc.)

2. Decide between reminding users of “the past”, something in the past, or something in their past

3. Support the reconstructive aspects of memory (romanticizing the past) in ways that lead to optimal cognitive functioning

4. Manage potential cognitive dissonance (bittersweet memories) to ultimately help the user savior the past 

Retro design hold the potential for creating rich cognitive states that transform otherwise ordinary artifacts into vivid personal experiences.

Prospective memory or remembering to remember is an important cognitive function especially in an interrupt driven, complex, demographically aging world.

For example, you are driving home from work and  remember that you need to water the plants. How will you remember to do that when you get home? 

We typically think about memory retrospecitively as the encoding, storage and recall of past events. Prospective memory is about the encoding, storage and recall necessary for carrying out intended actions at the right time in the future.   We are trying to set an internal reminder for ourselves.

Of course there are more serious examples – a nurse remembering to double check the type and dose of a medication before administering it to a patient, remembering to buckle your seat belt up before driving your car and remembering to file your taxes on time.  

Defining artifacts that support and enhance the prospective memory of users in everyday situations at home and at work is fundamental to good cognitive design.   

And it is happening everywhere. To bring this point home one of the things we ask students to do in the Cognitive Design course at Northwestern University is to go out and look and make a list of the artifacts they find that support prospective memory. Here is what they bring back:

Built into artifacts I otherwise use:

• -Dryer and oven alarms

• -Low battery alerts in smoke alarms, cell phone, computers

• -Seat belt, required maintenance and low fuel alerts in your car

• -Show reminders in digital TV

• -Formal or inform bulletin boards (posting items on the fridge)

• -Vendor reminders (service your car, furnace, etc.)

• -Electronic health reminders from physician’s office

Artifacts dedicated to supporting prospective memory:

• -To do list
• -Calendar or planner (paper or electronic)

• -Programmable reminders on your watch, phone and PDA

• -Programmable reminders in exercise equipment

• -Medication/pill organizer and dispenser

• -Electronic memory aids for Alzheimer or brain injury patients 

There are even Internet-based general purpose reminder service (e.g. Memo to Me) that will automatically remind you about birthdays, anniversaries and other important dates. Check it out, the basic service is free.

So what can cognitive science tell us about how to design artifacts to better manage the prospective memory load for users? Fortunately, there were several books published in 2007 that review the state of the art of prospective memory research. We  will discuss them in this blog with a special eye towards design implications.  And there are some very provocative ideas.

BTW – with a simple sensor, alarm and tiny never-die battery we can invent “the remember to water me” flower pot so that you will never forget to water the plants again.