Cognitive mapping is a mapping method used to create a visual representation of a person’s (or a group’s) mental model for a process or concept. It can be a useful tool throughout user research, from gathering data to analyzing findings and articulating similarities and patterns. A cognitive map helps break down complex research questions, establish priorities for followup research, and add clarity to abstract concepts.

In cognitive mapping sessions, users are asked to create a map of a process, concept, or problem. The cognitive map is a representation of users’ mental models. The representations obtained from interviews can further be used in guiding the design process.   

This article outlines how to use cognitive mapping in user interviews:

• When to Use Cognitive Mapping 
• Running a Cognitive Mapping Interview
• Variations on the Basic Cognitive Mapping Method
• Benefits of Cognitive Mapping in User Research
• Disadvantages of Cognitive Mapping 

   

When to Use Cognitive Mapping 

Cognitive mapping as a means of data collection is best suited for: 

Exploratory and discovery-based research. Data from a cognitive mapping session is unpredictable—no two maps will look alike. This is for two reasons: first, each user holds a different mental model, and second, the cognitive mapping user interview is unstructured, free-form (i.e., if two different researchers interviewed the same user in two different sessions, the resulting cognitive maps would have some differences even though they would both represent the same mental model). Conversation will jump around and participants will expand on ideas unpredictably. This unstructured format can help uncover new themes and insights because participants have the freedom to contribute in a natural, stream-of-consciousness way. Thus, cognitive mapping interviews will benefit discovery research, when a theme, pattern, or hypothesis is still evolving.

Research about specific topics with complex relationships or process components. Cognitive mapping is helpful for exploring research questions with ambiguous aspects that are tough to communicate verbally.  

PAR (Participatory Action Research). PAR is a collaborative research method used to gather information to use for future change (usually, within social and environmental issues). Traditionally, it used to empower people (who are directly affected by an issue) by offering them a primary, active role towards change. In the context of UX, cognitive mapping can help participants uncover new ideas by externalizing and visualizing their existing knowledge. For example, when we used a cognitive mapping approach for our design-operations research, several participants felt that the sessions clarified their understanding of the subject. One participant said “this was personally so helpful for me to do this. I’m leaving with several ideas of things to go do."

Running a Cognitive-Mapping Interview

Presession Checklist 

1. Prime (but don’t overprime) the participant. Before the interview day and at the start of the actual interview explain the reason for the interview and how the data from it will be used. Warn participants that you will invite them to write, draw, and move sticky notes around throughout the session. However, do not use the phrase “cognitive mapping,” so people don’t start researching the topic and study for the interview.  
2. Prepare and practice.   
   • Get used to the method. Compared to traditional user interviews, cognitive mapping sessions are more unpredictable and require flexibility and improvisation. Your first 2-3 cognitive mapping sessions will likely offer more learnings on the method than on the topic you want to study. Consider running a practice session with a team member before the actual sessions.
   • Decide on your approach. There are two primary things you should decide ahead of time: 
     1. Introduction. A good rule of thumb is to begin with a word-association exercise to generate ideas, then move to explore those terms’ meanings and relationships to other words, forming either an organizational structure or groups of categories. 
     2. Overall Flow. Plan ahead of time if you want your session to be free-form (participants create their own maps) or structured (participants fill in a given skeleton structure — e.g., a mind map, concept map, Venn diagram). 
3. Figure out logistics.  An observer can help you with setting up the technology, recording the sessions, and notetaking. If you have multiple team members involved in the sessions, assign distinct roles (and have researchers rotate through accordingly depending on experience and expertise):  
   • Facilitator. The primary role of the facilitator is to conduct the interview. The facilitator is responsible for introducing the team, instructing the participant on the method, and asking the questions.  
   • In-room notetaker. The in-room note-taker should focus on taking notes regarding not only what participants say, but also how they do it: 
     • How and where do participants place items on the map? 
     • What physical gestures do they make throughout the interview? What content do these gestures relate to?
     • When are the participants unsure or ambiguous? 

It helps to have the in-room notetaker also be responsible for the setup of the technology (and any technology-driven logistics between sessions). This approach frees the primary facilitator to focus on making the participant feel comfortable and on creating the cognitive map.  

4. Remote observer(s). If more than two team members participate in the research, don’t place them in the same room as the participant. Instead, live-stream the session and have them observe remotely, taking notes in the same collaborative spreadsheet as the in-room notetaker (see below). If you have back-to-back sessions scheduled with participants and your observers are colocated, assign one observer to handle logistics like welcoming the next participant and preparing each batch of paperwork.  

5. Choose your materials and room. Cognitive-mapping interviews can be conducted in many different locations — at the participant’s office, in a third-party meeting room, or in a neutral, casual environment like a library or coworking space. When choosing a location, keep in mind that you will need large table (and potentially whiteboard space) for the mapping to take place. It is best to bring and set up the materials ahead of time, so that when the participant walks into the space everything is ready to go. 

6. Record the session. Ideally you should videorecord the sessions so that you will be able to review them later. The benefits of recording are: (1) rewatching the creation of the map may uncover insights not caught in the moment, (2) you can revisit sessions if you find that you need clarification during the analysis and (3) you can educate others on the method.  
7. Test your technology and logistics. You’ll also want to set up and test your notetaking method and documentation plans ahead of time. In our research, we set up a collaborative document (see below) where all three observers could take notes simultaneously. As each notetaker documented an observation, she coded it (using her own schema). This method allowed us to collect data and analyze it simultaneously in an iterative process. (Note: this approach does not replace formalized coding during more rigorous research analysis, but it’s intended to help researchers quickly understand themes and build out hypotheses from session to session.) 

Interview Process 

1. Opening. The opening sets the stage for the rest of the interview. Don’t rush, invest some extra time in explaining the purpose of the session. The goal of the opening is to make the participant feel valued and aware that speaking openly will have no negative consequences. The opening should put the participant at ease, ultimately making for a more relaxed interview.

a. Introduce yourself. Begin the opening by introducing yourself and stating the purpose of the research. For example, 

“I’m Sarah, a researcher at Nielsen Norman Group. This is my colleague Maria, who will be taking notes throughout our session. Thank you for taking the time to join us today. The purpose of our research is to learn more about how companies are organizing their design teams. We are really interested in your experience working as a design leader. We would like your honest answers. There is no wrong way of doing things.”

b. Introduce the method. Cognitive-mapping sessions are different from traditional interviews, so you’ll need to introduce the method as part of your opening. State the duration of the interview, run through what you’ll be asking the participants to do, and leave some time for questions. 

“Today’s session will last an hour. I’m going to be asking you to use the markers, stickies, and paper to visualize the topics (and relationships between them) that we ask you about today. There are no rules, no wrong way to do it, and don’t worry about spelling things perfectly. Nothing is off limits and you can use any of the materials you like. Do what you feel most comfortable with. Do you have any questions for us before we begin?”

c. Ask an initial trigger question. Prepare an initial warm-up question to start the conversation. It should be easy to answer an open-ended — for example, a free-association question: 

“When I say the words ‘design operations,’ what are the first terms that come to mind? Think out loud and write each word on a separate sticky.”  

2. Facilitating the session. After the initial trigger question, the facilitator should prompt the participant to continue to build out the map. The goal of the facilitator is to make the conversation flow and feel natural, rather than disjointed.

• “If these terms were to be grouped, how would you group them? Go ahead and do this.” 

• “Is there a relationship between these groupings? If so, do you mind showing us by drawing it?”

• “Let's focus on this one (point at a sticky note with a term on it). What makes up [read term on sticky].”

• “When you say [term on sticky], what comes to mind?”

It is helpful to prepare some topics and probing questions ahead of time to use as needed. (However, due to the unstructured nature of the interview, the sequence of the topics will vary from interview to interview.) Pivot through your topic list using phrases like: 

• "Let's circle back and give some attention to this area of the map, but through a new lens of [new topic]."

• “This feels really fleshed out. Is there anything else you want to include? (Give time for the participant to add any last thoughts.) If not, let’s flip to a new page and tackle the topic of [new topic].”

In some cases, you’ll have participants who are reluctant to write (and will revert to speaking). Aside from physical cues (like placing new stickies in front of them as they think aloud or turning to a new sheet of paper as the current one gets too crowded), you may want to offer additional verbal prompts until they are comfortable drawing or writing on their own: 

• “That is interesting. Let’s write that term down.” 

• “Go ahead and note for what you mean by that.” 

• “Where does that topic fit on the map?” 

• “At what point does what you’re referencing verbally occur? Can you show me on your map?”

3. Closing. Make sure to ask if the participant has anything else to share or add to the completed map(s). Thank the participant and make sure that the participant leaves feeling valued. If appropriate, the closing is also a good time to gather the participant’s thoughts on the method used. This input can inform your future use of cognitive mapping. 

“Do you have anything else you’d like to add about the topic or map? (Give the participant time to wrap up their closing thoughts or ideas.) What did you think about the method we used? Thank you very much for your time. What you’ve told us has been so useful and we really appreciate it.”

Analysis

A cognitive mapping session will have 3 data outputs: (1) the transcript (and the video) of the interview, (2) the map created by the participant during the session, and (3) the notes taken throughout the session by various note takers. 

Cognitive mapping is a qualitative research method and, thus, the mapping output will require qualitative analysis. Data will be sorted and coded in order to uncover the overarching themes. 

Single-session analysis. Analyzing one mapping session is similar to analyzing a traditional interview. Follow the steps below (or adapt them to your context and research needs):

1. Establish a few descriptive codes (for example, for physical gesture, behavior, challenge) ahead of time to guide note takers. These should be based on your research goals. 
2. After the sessions, use grounded theory (traditional methodology used for analyzing ethnographic or interview-generated data) to code what was said throughout the session. 
3. Analyze the map using a mix of descriptive (describe what was said) and interpretive (explain what was said) codes. Just as you would highlight specific phrases or sentences in a transcript, add your notes (codes) on a new-color sticky to the map. 
4. Combine the above three data outputs into themes by grouping things by subject or topic, then looking at similarities in actions, thoughts, emotions, or motivations. Subgroups should appear within the high-level groups. The names of these smaller clusters become your patterns or themes. Logistically, this process can be done in many ways — the key is to get all your data types into one place (a spreadsheet or a whiteboard are the most common). 

Multisession analysis. After you have analyzed each map individually, you’ll combine the data across multiple sessions. The goal of this phase is to compare patterns and themes across multiple participants to identify similarities and draw conclusions and insights. Begin by assessing what themes persist across several participants, and, conversely, what themes are unique to only one or a few participants. 

Consolidate the ideas and thoughts for themes that appear across participants. For example, in our DesignOps research, the analysis of the individual maps revealed that 9 out of 12 participants mentioned ideas around standardization, so we concluded that design standardization across an organization is an important component of DesignOps Sometimes you can go beyond identifying common themes and find relationships or “bridges” across ideas. For example, out of the 9 maps where standardization emerged, 7 connected it to processes and tools, whereas 2 connected it to career path and personal development.   

The main possible outcomes of multi-session analysis are:

• Rough agreement between users: Most of the users have approximately the same mental model and generate approximately the same cognitive map. (You’ll never have 100% agreement, given the open-ended nature of this exercise.) In this case, you can produce a stereotypical map as a deliverable from your research.
• Bimodal (or multimodal) maps: Users fall into two (or a small number) of groups; within each group there is a with a rough agreement on the map. In addition to generating stereotypical maps for each group, you should also aim to discover what causes users to belong to one or the other group (for example, the organization size may impact group membership). Because cognitive mapping is a qualitative method, you usually won’t have enough data points to reliably estimate the relative size of the groups in the real world, but you can try to match them up with personas or other existing classifications of users.
• Strong variability: There is no agreement on the overall map, because most users generate very different maps. Even in this case, there may be segments or regions of the map where you can identify rough agreement or bimodal submaps.

Analysis is a messy process, especially when dealing with cognitive maps. Consider involving others (notetakers or project peers) to discuss the themes and patterns as they emerge from the data. When reporting your findings, you have two primary goals: 

1. Communicate clear and concise findings. Aim to share only what is most relevant for your initial research questions, in order to keep insights digestible and relevant for stakeholders, developers, and other project members.  
2. Support your findings with proof. Backup your findings with tangible proof of the research you did; show a picture of a map and pull a quote from the transcript. Sharing research is as much about the findings as it is about evangelizing the power of the method (and of UX, in general). 

    

Variations on the Basic Cognitive Mapping Method

Over time, you should adapt the process to your facilitation style and context. Take the liberty to alter the method to suit your needs. Here are some ideas: 

Supply an Existing Framework or Set of Terms 

Instead of allowing participants to use their own approaches to mapping, supply them with a list of terms (think open card sorting meets mapping) or with a preexisting framework (often a mind map, concept map, or Venn diagram) for mapping. This approach works well in two specific cases. First, it can give a novice or quiet participant somewhere to start. Second, it can validate a preexisting model from past research (and thus you supply the terms and framework from that model, and see if the participant generates the same). 

Create a Group Map

Cognitive maps created individually can be adapted to represent a group in two ways: 1) by combine the results of individual interviews into a collective map or 2) by creating the map directly during a group discussion (think about the participants of a focus group cocreating a map together). This adaptation works well when the research priority is to surface patterns (whether openly amongst a team during PAR or during analysis of several consecutive sessions). 

Change the Medium

Don’t be afraid to experiment with your medium. A cognitive map can be created on a whiteboard, digitally (using a tool like Mural.co or Miro), or using a combination of tools (e.g., paper, sharpies, sticky notes, and white board) throughout the same session. 

Generate a Map as an Analysis Technique 

Though the focus of this article is on using cognitive mapping with participants in an interview, cognitive mapping can also be used to articulate the interviewer’s or observer’s understanding of the participants’ mental models afterward. In some cases, the derived map could then be validated, edited, and revised as a followup by the participant. 

Benefits of Cognitive Mapping in User Research

Cognitive mapping produces a visual representation of how a participant thinks about a particular issue or situation. The below characteristics make it a valuable technique in discovery-based, “messy” user research: 

• Flexible format. Cognitive mapping is far more unstructured than other research methods such as traditional interviews, qualitative surveys, and usability tests. This open-ended format encourages participants to provide any information they feel is related to the topic at hand. Because this approach allows for jumping around, it can uncover participants’ natural instincts and thought processes. 
• Paper trail of the session. In cognitive mapping sessions, all ideas are documented on paper. This paper trail provides a visual stimulus throughout the interview for both the facilitator and participant. The participant can point back and link current discussion to earlier ideas, often expanding further. The facilitator has a visual ‘map’ of previously mentioned concepts and can allude back in conversation reusing the exact language of the participant (and without relying on notes or memory). Additionally, the facilitator can use nonverbal cues (facial expressions, gestures,) from the participant to garner further insight. 
• Value to the participant. Participants often leave the session with a new understanding of the domain because they had to externalize existing knowledge in a visual, tangible way. By questioning themselves on how topics link together and determining where random chunks of ideas fit in, they gain a better grasp of the concept at hand. Additionally, having participants use their hands during the session can release some of the stress and anxiety often associated with interview situations.  
• Rich, multimedia data. Using cognitive mapping in an interview results in a rich set of data sources for analysis:  
  • The transcript and recording 
  • The artifact created by the participant 
  • A video of the creation of the artifact (which can capture hesitations, motions, gestures, etc.)  

     

Disadvantages of Cognitive Mapping 

Cognitive mapping, like any research method or skill, takes time to learn and perfect. Often the first attempts feel unproductive and messy. Discussed below are disadvantages to the method, all of which can be overcome with time and practice.  

• The map is only one input. The cognitive maps are an addition to a user-interview transcript, not a replacement. Do not lean on maps alone, but combine them with semistructured interviews. The maps will vary largely depending on the participants’ comfort with the method, experience, and personality. In some cases, participants’ maps can be directly compared. However, that will not be always easy because fidelity and formality will change from participant to participant. 

• The facilitator or interviewer will affect the quality of the data. A cognitive mapping session is a nuanced balancing act: the facilitator must listen and understand what the participant is saying, and, at the same time, offer prompts for mapping. The facilitator must read the participant, read the map, and get the participant to contribute in a productive way. Thus, each session likely requires a high level of improvisation and could be intimidating for novice researchers. Like with traditional user interviews, practice in low-stress scenarios (where the output is not a priority) and train new facilitators to the method by having them observe a series of sessions before taking on the role of lead facilitator. 
• There is an increased likelihood to roam from the research topic. This method is unstructured and unpredictable. It is easy for participants to stray from the question or prompt. It is the interviewer’s responsibility to help the participant circle back to the topic at hand (for example, by pointing back to the map, or giving a redirectional, linking prompt). 
• Some participants may feel discomfort with the method. Due to the nature of writing and ‘drawing’, some individuals may not be comfortable with cognitive mapping. This situation often manifests through cues such as minimal elaboration, constantly asking repeated questions around completing the task “correctly”, and spelling woes. The interviewer can help the participant feel at ease by reiterating that “there are no right or wrong ways” and to “spelling doesn’t matter.” However, in some cases, regardless of perfect facilitation, the participant will revert to a traditional interview. 

Conclusion

Cognitive mapping in user interviews can be a useful resource when researching a user’s perception of a problem, process, or organization. By producing a tangible representation of a user’s mental model, the researcher (and often the participants themselves) can better understand the problem space and its relationship to other people, topics, or processes.  

References 

Blanchflower, T. J. (2018) "Implications for the Design of Technology in Students’ Use of Tools and Signs in Notetaking from Texts" (Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.20/35235

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., (1998) “Making Strategy: the journey of strategic management”. London: Sage Publications Ltd.