Cognitive mapping, mind mapping, and concept mapping are three powerful visual-mapping strategies for organizing, communicating, and retaining knowledge. They help us lay out complex ideas, processes, and recognize patterns and relationships. Cognitive maps, mind maps, and concept maps look and feel similar; this similarity causes confusion. They are three different ways of visualizing a mental model — whether it belongs to the designer, the researcher, or the user. Each has its strengths and benefits. This article is a comparison of these three popular types of diagramming and their uses in UX. Cognitive MapsCognitive maps are the umbrella term for all visual representations of mental models. All mapping techniques described in this article are instances of cognitive maps. Definition: A cognitive map is any visual representation of a person’s (or a group’s) mental model for a given process or concept. Cognitive maps have no visual rules that they need to obey: there is no restriction on how the concepts and the relationships between them are visually represented. History The idea of cognitive map originates from the work of the psychologist Edward Tolman, who is famous for his studies of how rats learned to navigate mazes. In psychology, it has a strong spatial connotation — cognitive maps usually refer to the representation of a space (e.g., a maze) in the brain. Cognitive maps have since been used in a range of fields; Colin Eden, an operations researcher, used the term in a broader sense to refer to a mental model representation of any type of process or concept (whether spatial or not).
Characteristics
Uses in UX
The next two sections describe two more-constrained types of cognitive maps: mind maps and concept maps. Mind MapsMind maps are the most simplistic, and thus straightforward type of cognitive maps. They have a clear hierarchy and format, and they are relatively quick to create and consume. Definition: A mind map is a tree that represents a central topic and its subtopics. History The core characteristics of mind maps are rooted in the development of semantic networks, a 1950s’ technique for representing knowledge. In 1974, British author Tony Buzan popularized the term 'mind mapping.'
Characteristics
Uses in UX Mind maps help organize a collection of information connected to a single topic and structure it in a systematic, meaningful way. In UX, they are helpful when doing categorical ideation work, such as:
Concept MapsConcept maps are a more complex version of mind maps. They place an emphasis on identifying the relationships between topics. Additionally, a node in a concept map can have several parents (whereas a node in a mind map will have just one). Definition: A concept map is a graph in which nodes represent concepts and are related through labeled, directed edges that illustrate relationships between them. History Concept mapping was developed in the 1970s by American professor Joseph Novak to help teachers explain complex topics in order to facilitate learning, retaining, and relating these new topics to existing knowledge.
Characteristics:
Uses in UX Concept maps help visualize complex concepts that are interconnected in various ways. They can support multiple perspectives and ways of looking at the same problem and can be used to:
The maps can be created individually or in a group (if the purpose is to create a shared understanding of an internal process, for example.) Methods ComparedWhen it comes to representing physical space, there are many types of possible maps: topographic maps, geologic maps, pedestrian maps, street maps, and so on. They are all flat representations of the surface of the earth, but highlight different properties of this surface. Cartographers apply different guidelines for designing a hiking map of a park, a highway map of a state, or a political map of a continent. Like the different maps of the earth, all types of cognitive maps are in some ways the same. UX practitioners must be cartographers of UX maps — adapting format and structure to best suit the needs and context of the map they are creating. Use this table as a quick guide to compare mind maps, concept maps, and cognitive maps.
To simplify when to use what, imagine introducing a new My Account view into a website. A mind map could be used to map the different sections, and corresponding sub-sections of content that would be within the My Account page. A concept map could map the larger website as a whole, and the different entry points that the user could use to access My Account, combined with what data could be exported or shared where. A cognitive map could be constructed in a user interview (by the participant) to uncover a participant’s current processes, mental models, and considerations for accessing and sharing personal account information. ConclusionThe three maps above are not the same as flowcharts, so an enumeration of steps should not be fit for a map. However, there are diverse benefits from visualizing a concept, idea, or process, whether it be through a cognitive map, mind map, or concept map, and both individually or amongst a team:
Taking fuzzy, abstract concepts and making them tangible enhance team communication and creates common ground. It’s also make it easy for a team member to immediately spot something on the map and say, “that’s not right.” Maybe your colleague is right, and something wasn’t captured correctly. Or maybe your colleague is wrong, and the map uncovers a misconception that would have otherwise lead to friction later in the project. Either way, the mapping exercise pinpointed something that required further discussion, which is far more efficient in the long run than proceeding on a project with a misaligned understanding. Cognitive maps, mind maps, and concept maps ultimately enhance our cognitive understanding. Using one technique over another will not make or break a project. Ideally, a combination of all three will be used as needed at different points in your process, depending on your needs. ReferencesBuzan, T. (1993) The Mind Map Book. London: BBC Books Eden, C. (1988) “Cognitive mapping”, European Journal of Operational Research, 36:1-13 Eppler, Martin J. (2006) “A Comparison between Concept Maps, Mind Maps, Conceptual Diagrams, and Visual Metaphors as Complementary Tools for Knowledge Construction and Sharing.” Information Visualization. Palgrave Journals. Kelly, G.A., (1995) The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Novak, J.D., Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tolman, Edward C. (July 1948). "Cognitive maps in rats and men". Psychological Review. |