Cognitive Biases in Testing Explained
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•463 views
This document discusses various cognitive biases that can affect testing, including anchoring bias, relativity bias, decoy effect, endowment effect, IKEA effect, confirmation bias, negativity bias, sunk costs fallacy, paradox of choice, and procrastination. It provides examples of how each bias could influence test planning, design, advocacy, estimation, negotiation, and other aspects of the testing process. The document concludes by acknowledging references used to research cognitive biases.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Cognitive Biases in Testing Explained
Similar to Cognitive Biases in Testing Explained (20)
More from TEST Huddle
More from TEST Huddle (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Cognitive Biases in Testing Explained
- 1. Cognitive Biases in Testing Srikanth Krishnan, Oracle www.eurostarconferences.com @esconfs #esconfs
- 2. Cognitive Biases in Testing Srikanth S Krishnan Sr. Director QA Oracle India
- 3. Guess the percentage of African Nations in the UN.
- 4. What is a Cognitive Bias ?
- 5. It is the human tendency to make systematic errors in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence.
- 6. Heuristics Statistical mis-estimates Memory errors Social Constructs
- 7. Tester’s Delusion Spots Test Planning Test Design Test Advocacy
- 8. Anchoring
- 9. Guess the percentage of African Nations in the UN.
- 10. Will you be happier if you get a 100% hike? Anchoring
- 11. Bidding after stating the last 2 digits of social security number
- 12. Why are black pearls more expensive?
- 13. occurs when people consider a particular value for an unknown quantity before estimating that quantity
- 14. Effect on Estimation New Feature vs. regression testing of existing features
- 16. Relativity
- 17. Would you mind walking 5 min to save Rs 100 on a Rs 500 pen?
- 18. Would you mind walking 5 min to save Rs 100 on a Rs 7000 suite?
- 19. Decoy Effect or Asymmetric dominance effect
- 21. Option A Option B Features 400 300 Cost 3800 2000
- 22. Option A Option B Option C Features 400 300 350 Cost 3800 2000 4500
- 23. People not only compare things, but also compare things that are easily comparable.
- 24. The Price of Ownership Endowment Effect
- 25. How much would you pay for a Coffee Mug ?
- 26. Applies to ideas as well as objects.
- 27. People not only compare things, but also compare things that are easily comparable.
- 28. The more effort you put into something the more ownership you feel. IKEA Effect
- 29. Ex. Manager from Finance
- 30. Test repository clean up Suite1 Created with 100 man days effort Suite2 Created with 30 man days effort Which one will you get rid of? (assume same coverage)
- 31. Effect of Expectation Confirmation bias: Self-Fulfilling Prophesy
- 32. How do you get more women in the orchestra?
- 33. Positive vs. negative Test cases.
- 34. Seeing patterns where none exist.
- 36. e xi st. e xis t. 20 12 4 31
- 38. Influence of great UI.
- 39. Negativity Bias More attention is given to negative than positive experiences
- 40. The lingering effect of a nasty bug.
- 41. Sunk Costs
- 42. Concorde Fallacy “I have spent so much time doing the setups.”
- 43. Concorde Fallacy Why test a project that has been scrapped?
- 44. Cost of Zero
- 47. Concorde Fallacy No Cost to QA
- 49. Concorde Fallacy More is not always better
- 51. Concorde Fallacy Why don’t we keep this server just in case?
- 52. Procrastination
- 53. Concorde Fallacy Choose your own deadline
- 54. Concorde Fallacy The hockey-stick effort curve
- 55. Concorde Fallacy Milestones and distributed deadlines
- 58. References and Acknowledgements Predictably Irrational – Dan Ariely Nudge – Thaler & Sunstein Blink – Malcolm Gladwell Sway – Brafman (Ori & Rom) Wikipedia
- 59. Concorde Fallacy Thank You
Editor's Notes
- The first section “Tester’s reality describes the common pain points in Test Design. The second section describes the concept of a mind map and how to create one. The third section describes an approach to leverage mind maps for test design.
- The first section “Tester’s reality describes the common pain points in Test Design. The second section describes the concept of a mind map and how to create one. The third section describes an approach to leverage mind maps for test design.
- Strategies for rationality -Overcoming -Channeling Checklists in a complex environment, Gawande states that experts are up against 2 difficulties - the fallibility of human memory when it comes to mundane, routine matters that are easily overlooked under the strain of more pressing events and secondly, people can lull themselves into skipping steps even when they remember them - after all certain steps don't always matter...until one day they do. Black Hat Thinking Within Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats process, Black Hat Thinking explores ways that an idea may not fit the situation, problems we may need to overcome, faults, or why something may not work. During Black Hat Thinking we consider obstacles, existing or potential downsides, and concerns. The single word that best describes the nature of the Black Hat is “caution.” If we are not cautious, we risk damage, danger, and disaster both for ourselves and for others. Black Thinking Hat protects us from harm. Premortem (overcomes groupthink) when the organization has almost come to an important decision but has not formally committed itself, gather for a brief session a group of individuals who are knowledgeable about the decision. The premise of the session is a short speech "Imagine that we are a year into the future .We implemented the plan now as it now exists. The outcome was a disaster. Please take 5-10 mins to write a brief history of that disaster. Reference class forecasting Using distributional information from other ventures similar to that being forecasted is called taking an "outside view" and is a cure to the planning fallacy. A large database of project plans and outcomes. Channeling Choice architecture It describes the way in which decisions are influenced by how the choices are presented. It is in arranging the choice architecture in a certain way that individuals can be nudged in a certain way without taking away their freedom of choice. A simple example of a nudge would be placing healthy foods in a school cafeteria at eye level, while putting less healthy junk food in harder to reach places. Individuals are not prevented from eating whatever they want, but the arranging of the food choices in that way has the effect of decreasing consumption of junk food and increasing consumption of healthier foods.