How confirmation Bias destroys your product | Entrepreneur

The most dangerous words in product development are: “Our users will love this.” I have heard this statement in countless product meetings, usually followed by months of technical work and ending with the quiet disappointment of the acceptance of users. The perpetrator? Confirmation prejudice – The crazy tendency of our brain to find information that supports what we already believe.

As product managers we are adopted to make decisions. We analyze markets, collect demands and priorities priorities. The problem is that as soon as we have developed a hypothesis about what users want, we start filtering all incoming information through that lens. Ambous feedback is interpreted as supportive. Negative feedback is labeled as “edge cases”. And gradually we construct an alternative reality where our product decisions are always brilliant.

Related: how entrepreneurs can overcome confirmation

The User Research Theater

“User Research Theater” refers to going through the movements of talking with users without being really open to your assumptions. You may recognize these symptoms in your organization:

• Cherries who pick positive quotes from user sessions and ignore negative patterns

• Asking leading questions that have been designed to generate specific answers

• Limit your research to users who already love your product

• Interpreting silence or confusion as an agreement

• Reject negative feedback like “they just don’t get it yet”

Look, I get it. You have already told your leaders and investors about the great route map of the position. You have hired engineers based on certain technical assumptions. Your entire company story can be built around a certain vision of what users want. Changing course feels impossible.

But staying on the doomed course is worse.

Related: Do you know what your customers want? Are you sure?

Break

So how do we actually repair this? How do we create processes that challenge our cherished assumptions instead of strengthening them? Here are some practical approaches that I have seen, work:

1. Separate data collection of interpretation

One team with whom I worked has hired a practice in which the people who held user interviews were not allowed to interpret the results. They could only document exactly what was said. A separate team – one without emotional investments in specific results – would then analyze the transcriptions. This reduced the tendency to hear what they wanted to hear during interviews.

This separation creates a healthy tension. The interview team focuses on asking good questions instead of leading users to predetermined conclusions. The analysis team sees patterns without being influenced by the tone of users or the interpersonal dynamics of the interview.

2. Actively search for restoring evidence

Make it a person’s specific task to play Devil’s lawyer during research planning. This person should ask: “How can we refute our hypothesis?” Instead of “how can we validate our idea?”

Instead of asking, for example, “would you use this function?” Try “what would you prevent this function?” The first question almost always gets a polite ‘yes’. The second gives you real obstacles that you have to overcome.

3. Note behavior, not just opinions

Users are notorously bad at predicting their own future behavior. They will tell you enthusiastically that they would definitely use your new function, but if it is launched, they will stay with their old habits.

I have found it much more valuable to observe what users actually do instead of what they say they will do. This means analyzing usage data of existing functions, creating prototype experiences where users can demonstrate preferences through actions and field studies where you view users in their natural environment.

4. Create a culture that rewards the course

If your team is punished because he admits that they were wrong, guess? They will double on bad ideas instead of recognizing the need to turn.

Smart companies build ceremonies that celebrate learning and adapting. Some startups have done “pivot parties” – actual parties when the team made an important course correction based on user insights. They literally came down champagne when they killed functions that showed research that it would not succeed. This sent a powerful message: learning is appreciated above stubborn perseverance.

5. Diversity your research participants

If you only talk to your most enthusiastic users, make an echo room. Make sure your research includes:

• Potential users who have opted for competitor products

• Former users who have left your product

• Current users who rarely deal with your product

• Users of different demography and use cases

This diversity helps to uncover blind spots in your understanding.

Related: 3 cognitive pitfalls that your company ruining you can unravel the prejudices in decision-making

The Paradox of Expertise

Here is the painful truth: the more experienced you are in your domain, the more sensitive you become to confirmation. You have seen patterns earlier. You have developed intuition. Sometimes this is incredibly valuable. Other times it makes you dangerously reckless.

The solution is not to ignore your experience. It is to link your hard -earned intuition to rigorous processes that test your assumptions. The best product leaders I know have kept strong convictions loosely. They make daring bets based on their expertise, but they quickly adapt when evidence contradicts their first hypotheses.

Ultimately, the market does not care about your brilliant vision or your elegant solution. It is only possible to matter if you have solved a real problem in a way that fits in with users’ lives. And the only way to know for sure is to constantly challenge what you think you know about your users.