- Strategy
Understanding cognitive biases to build better digital products
December 8 — 2025
It is tempting to believe that human beings are rational masters of their own decisions. However, the neurological reality is quite different: the vast majority of daily choices are made on "autopilot."
The brain is a formidable machine, but it is energy-intensive. To remain efficient, it has developed mental shortcuts called heuristics. These mechanisms allow for the rapid processing of information without the need to analyze everything in depth. This is where cognitive biases reside.
For digital design and strategy specialists, understanding these principles is the key to creating intuitive interfaces that respect the natural functioning of the human mind, rather than fighting against it.
Relative value: Anchoring and loss aversion
The first principle to remember is that information is never evaluated in absolute terms, but always through comparison.
Take loss aversion. Psychologically, the pain of losing $10 is far more intense than the pleasure of gaining $10. This is why the framing of a message—emphasizing what one risks losing rather than what one stands to gain—radically modifies user behavior.
This phenomenon is amplified by anchoring bias. The brain has an excessive tendency to rely on the first piece of information it receives. A famous study illustrates this phenomenon: two groups were asked to estimate the age at which Gandhi died after being exposed to absurd anchors (9 years old for the first group, 140 years old for the second). The group exposed to the number 9 gave a final estimate that was significantly lower than the group exposed to the number 140.
In digital design, the first price or the first visible option acts as this anchor. It defines "normality" for the rest of the navigation.
In digital design, the first price or the first visible option acts as this anchor. It defines "normality" for the rest of the navigation.
Choice paralysis: A question of organization
It is often said that too much choice kills the choice. Faced with complexity, the brain looks for an emergency exit: the default option. If a form or configuration is complex, the vast majority of users will never change the pre-set settings.
However, recent research nuances this "paradox of choice": the problem is not so much the number of options as the way they are presented. To avoid paralysis, the solution is not always to reduce the offering, but to structure it better (for example, via clear filters or categories). Choice architecture then becomes a tool to reduce mental load without sacrificing the richness of the catalog.
From influence to manipulation: The gray area
These techniques are powerful. There is a fine line between a good user experience (UX) and a Dark Pattern (or deceptive interface).
Ethical influence relies on facts to aid decision-making. For example, displaying "Only 2 seats left at this price" on a travel site. If true, this is crucial information about scarcity.
Manipulation relies on lies or opacity. If this same message is accompanied by a fake countdown timer that resets when the page is refreshed, it crosses the line into deception.
The regulatory context is evolving rapidly. In Europe, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has formally banned deceptive interfaces since 2024. Although Canada still has few specific laws of this nature, this global trend signals that design ethics are becoming a legal imperative, not just a moral one.
Conversely, it is sometimes necessary to introduce useful friction. Contrary to the received idea that everything must be seamless, adding a confirmation step for an irreversible action (such as deleting an account) is an essential protection mechanism for the user.
AI: A new distorting mirror
The arrival of artificial intelligence adds a new layer of complexity to cognitive biases.
We oscillate dangerously between over-reliance and under-reliance. On one hand, there is a tendency to blindly follow an algorithm's recommendations. Studies show that even experts (doctors, developers) undergo a powerful anchoring effect when improving AI suggestions, exploring fewer alternatives once a first answer is provided.
On the other hand, as soon as the AI makes a flagrant error, it is rejected outright, much more severely than a human error would be.
But the most fascinating phenomenon remains anthropomorphism. Why do we say "Thank you" to conversational AI tools?
When the AI wishes us good luck or adopts a cordial tone, it creates the illusion of a relationship. This anthropomorphism is a strategic engagement tool that weaves an emotional bond. The danger lies in confirmation bias: AI, designed to be a helpful assistant, will often seek to confirm the user's opinions rather than challenge them. By treating it like a person, one risks forgetting that it is a mirror of existing data and biases.
Towards more conscious design
Cognitive biases are neither inherently good nor bad. They are survival mechanisms.
For digital professionals, they serve as an indispensable analytical framework. They can be used to reduce mental load, streamline an action, or aid in decision-making. Or, they can be exploited to trap the user. The difference lies not in the technique, but in the intention. Understanding the brain provides the means to build not only better, but fairer.
