Mapping Myths - Wrong statements

In this part in the series of Causal Cognitive Mapping Myths I write about wrong, false or incorrect statements in cognitive maps.
I once provided the following example:

clouds -> rain

This might be a causal relationship expressed by a person who assumes that clouds cause rain. A critical comment I received complained about the physical inaccuracy and that the possibility of such inaccuracies entering a map is a weakness of the method. Yes, I see where this comes from. But you apply the right rules to the wrong game.

Purpose of Causal Cognitive Mapping

Causal Cognitive Mapping is not about capturing an accurate picture of the real physical world. Actually, it is pretty much the opposite. It seeks a most diverse picture of a given topic, issue or thing. Metaphorically speaking, it seeks to construct different realities of the people involved. Therefore, if you want to capture the real physical world as accurately as possible, Causal Cognitive Mapping may not be a good method for that purpose (although it can have a role in that activity as well).

Umbrellas cause rain

Anyway, so why is it good to map "clouds" -> "rain" or let us even say "umbrellas" -> "rain"? Just enable interviewees to make mistakes. Why? Because there is a difference between telling someone that it is nonsense that umbrellas cause rain as opposed to someone seeing the alleged causal relationship drawn on a map before him or her and realise himself/herself that it is nonsense. Once the mistake is codified you can for instance ask for a bipolar opposite for the umbrella statement. The interviewee might notice, "Hey wait a second, wasn't there this one time when it rained and I left my umbrella at home?"

What you basically do when enabling mistakes is creating ownership. If you "own" a mistake, chances are high you will be happy if you spot it and fix it yourself. With a cognitive map you additionally provide the means for instant reflection. You not only own it but also see it and have the means to manipulate (improve) it.

Being a valuable consultant / mapper

I outlined a simple example. Now imagine you were mapping a topic you do not know anything about - where for all you know umbrellas might cause rain. In the "telling the mistake" scenario you are pretty much useless because you just do not know when a mistake a mistake is. However, in the "let them discover their mistakes" you are a pretty valuable asset.

Or not

Finally, as a disclaimer, I should point out that I did not have the use case in mind above where you use Causal Cognitive Mapping for pushing participants in certain directions or so. Also keep in mind that "enable mistakes" is as much a technique as "avoid mistakes".


(C) CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), Jo. Richter, http://causal-cognitive-mapping.blogspot.com/2017/03/mapping-myths-wrong-statements.html