Meet Maria Panagiotidi – a UX Researcher with a PhD in Cognitive Psychology, a background in Cyberpsychology, who is currently a Head of UX Research at Oyster HR. Maria is also a digital creator, published a weekly newsletter and hosts a UX podcast with her two friends.
Maria frequently shares her insights on the intersection of psychology and UX through different platforms, discussing neurodiversity and UX, culturally sensitive research, and advocating for the importance of inclusivity and diversity in UX.
🧠 blending cognitive psychology with UX research
🌐 the importance of inclusivity and diversity in UX research
🔄 overcoming cognitive biases in UX research
💡 practical advice for making UX research neurodiverse-friendly
👩💻 experiences and challenges as a neurodivergent woman in tech
Let’s dive right in!
Hi Maria, tell us a little bit about yourself!
I’m a UX Researcher with a PhD in Cognitive Psychology — currently Head of UX Research at Oyster HR, an HR tech company enabling other companies to hire talent all over the world. My role involves managing a small team of UX Researchers while also conducting cross-functional research.
Before immersing myself fully in UX, I spent my days as a university lecturer specialising in Cognitive Psychology and human-computer interaction. My journey doesn’t stop at academics and UX, though—I’m proudly on the autism spectrum and celebrate diversity in all its forms.
I’m also a creator:
– UX Psychology substack: weekly newsletter focused on the relationship between psychology and UX
– UX Guide to the Galaxy: podcast on UX with two friends (UX Designers)
Cognitive psychology and UX research
To give our readers a little background, what initially drew you to the field of cognitive psychology, and how did that interest evolve into a career in UX research?
I’ve always been fascinated with learning and trying to understand human behavior and how things work.
This curiosity was only fuelled by my time working with patients as an assistant psychologist, where I encountered conditions like hemispatial neglect—a disorder that makes people unaware of one side of their visual field — offering insight into how the brain influences cognition.
This experience, coupled with my own neurodivergent perspective (which I was not aware of at the time), deeply influenced my academic and professional journey.
It wasn’t until I landed a role at a video game/HR tech startup after my PhD that I stumbled into design and UX research.
Collaborating with the designer there, I realised that UX was essentially applied psychology.
This was a revelation for me and even after returning to academia, my focus remained on human-computer interaction, bridging my interests in psychology and technology.
In your opinion, what is the most underrated psychological concept or principle that has a significant impact on UX design and research?
Most underrated? One that comes to mind that rarely makes an appearance in articles and lists is the ‘curse of knowledge’, a cognitive bias that refers to our inability as experts to see something from a beginner’s perspective. Once we become highly knowledgeable in a topic, we struggle to recall what it was like when we were new to that information.
The term was first coined in the 90s and first observed in Elizabeth Newton’s experiments for her PhD. In one of the experiments, participants were asked to tap out a well-known song (e.g. Happy birthday to you” and have a listener guess the song.
The tappers vastly overestimated how easy it would be for the listener to guess correctly, because the tappers could not ignore their own knowledge of the song’s melody. This demonstrated our difficulty imagining a less informed perspective. Since then, the curse of knowledge has been demonstrated extensively in fields like communication, education, and design.
In UX and Product, the curse of knowledge can lead us to make false assumptions about users and create experiences that are confusing or overwhelming for novices. For example, assuming familiarity with complex workflows and failing to provide onboarding or overestimating user skills and motivation to learn new interfaces.
The curse frequently strikes when we are experts on a product. Extensive knowledge makes it harder for them to empathise with new users’ struggles. To overcome this, we must make a conscious effort to see the interface through a beginner’s eyes.
User research and testing with actual target users who aren't product experts is crucial. Observing real people attempt to use the product provides valuable insight into flaws that may have gone unnoticed otherwise.
How has your background in cognitive psychology helped you in understanding and predicting user behavior in digital environments?
A background in cognitive psychology can provide a solid foundation for understanding human behavior and it has been helpful to me in various ways. First of all, cognitive psychology offers insights into how people perceive, remember, think, and solve problems.
It also teaches us about human errors and ways to prevent them. Applying these principles to UX helps in creating interfaces that align with users’ cognitive processes. As a researcher, I often work with designers and offer advice from a psychology perspective.
A background in cognitive psychology also equips one with the skills to design and conduct effective user research and usability testing, which are essential to help us understand and predict user behavior.
A deep understanding of psychological research methods and statistical analysis, and having a lot of hands-on experience with mixed research methods have been extremely helpful when it comes to designing and executing studies.
What common psychological biases do you need to account for in UX research and how do you mitigate them?
This could have taken a few pages but I’ll focus on a few key ones.
-
Confirmation Bias: This refers to the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It’s very commonly seen when Product Managers or Designers ask UX researchers to validate specific hypotheses or designs they have. I find that even changing the wording around this can help us mitigate this; encourage your team to use “test” instead of validate. Another way to mitigate its effect is by using mixed-methods research (combining qualitative and quantitative methods) to balance subjective interpretations with (more) objective data.
-
Anchoring Bias: This bias describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. A way to mitigate this is by providing participants with a range of options or scenarios in usability tests and surveys to prevent the first piece of information from overly influencing their responses. Using randomized control trials can also help counteract the effects of anchoring.
-
Recency and Primacy Bias: These two biases are a result of the way our memory works and refer to the tendency to remember the very first (primacy) and the latest (recency) information more heavily than data in the middle. It can affect researchers and Product teams as well as participants. For example, when conducting user interviews we are more likely to remember the very first and the last participants we interview. A way I used to mitigate this effect is to randomise the order I analyze user interviews. From the participant perspective, longitudinal studies can be very helpful to balance out these effects by tracking user behaviour over time.
-
Social Desirability Bias: This refers to the tendency of respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favourably by others. This can lead to overreporting of “good” behaviour/traits or underreporting of “bad” behaviour/traits. A way to mitigate this is by ensuring anonymity and confidentiality for all research participants and making them aware of this. When it comes to user interviews, using indirect questioning techniques can help participants provide more honest and natural responses.
Neurodiversity
Drawing from your own experiences on the autism spectrum, are there any unique insights that you’re bringing to your UX research practice that might not be commonly considered?
That’s a great question. My personal experiences as a neurodivergent UX professional have definitely shaped my approach to research in some unique ways.
For one, my ability to hyperfocus and dig deep into topics that fascinate me has been a huge asset. When I’m captivated by an aspect of UX (or anything, really), whether it’s a specific methodology or a broader conceptual question, I tend to immerse myself fully. This intense focus allows me to develop expertise that informs my research practice in ways that might differ from my neurotypical colleagues.
At the same time, it hasn’t all been easy and always positive… I’ve had to consciously work on certain skills that seem to come more naturally to others, particularly in the interpersonal domain. Reading facial expressions and navigating complex social dynamics during user interviews used to really trip me up. Over time, I’ve learned to compensate by being very direct in my communication and asking for clarification whenever I’m unsure. I never assume I know what a participant means – it’s always better to ask for clarification and be certain.
My sensory sensitivities have also made me acutely aware of how elements like auto-playing videos or busy visual design can derail a user’s experience, especially for neurodivergent individuals. When I feel overwhelmed by sensory input during my own online interactions, it reinforces the importance of giving users control over potentially disruptive stimuli. This firsthand understanding definitely influences the recommendations I make as a UX researcher.
Perhaps most significantly, though, my neurodivergence has made me unafraid to question the status quo when it comes to research or organizational practices.
If something seems inefficient or unethical to me, I'm compelled to speak up… This is a common trait among autistic professionals - we're less susceptible to social pressures to stay quiet.
While it has the potential to initially upset people, I believe it’s essential for keeping our field accountable and moving forward in a positive direction. I’m currently leading a team of researchers and honesty and openness are two things I constantly encourage.
All that said, these are just my own personal experiences and perspectives. Every neurodivergent individual is exactly that – an individual. Our autism or ADHD or dyslexia might shape us, but it doesn’t define us. The real power lies in fostering UX teams with a true diversity of minds and experiences.
How to ensure your UX research methods are inclusive of neurodiverse perspectives, and what adjustments can one make to accommodate different cognitive styles?
As a neurodiverse UX researcher myself, ensuring inclusivity of different cognitive styles is something I’m deeply passionate about. I’ve had to navigate a world that often feels designed for neurotypical brains, so I’m always thinking about how we can adjust our research practices to be more accommodating.
One key aspect is offering flexibility in how participants engage with our research. For instance, some neurodiverse individuals might find a traditional in-person interview overstimulating or anxiety-provoking. Providing options like written questionnaires or asynchronous online tasks can allow them to contribute in a way that feels comfortable.
When in-person interaction is necessary, holding sessions in a quiet, distraction-free environment can make a world of difference. Also, it’s useful to allow users to have breaks or leave the session without providing a reason. Those are things I carried over from my career as an academic researcher working with neurodivergent individuals.
It’s also crucial to design research tasks that don’t rely solely on neurotypical strengths. Certain neurodivergent people often struggle with activities that are heavily verbal or that require a lot of working memory. Incorporating visual aids, allowing participants to refer back to written instructions, and breaking complex tasks into smaller steps can make the research experience much more manageable for most participants.
What benefits neurodivergent users can also make the experience better for neurotypical ones!
Clarity and specificity in our communication is another essential adjustment. Autistic brains often tend to take things very literally, so vague or metaphorical language in research prompts can be confusing. Being very explicit in instructions to participants and giving them a chance to ask questions for clarification can help with this. Regularly checking in to ensure participants understand what’s being asked of them is a simple but powerful way to foster inclusivity.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to approach neurodiverse perspectives with openness and flexibility in our analysis. It’s easy to interpret responses through a neurotypical lens and miss insights that come from a different way of thinking. I try to be very conscious of my own biases and to consider alternative explanations for patterns in the data. Collaborating with team members who have diverse cognitive styles is immensely valuable here.
At the end of the day, truly inclusive UX research means recognising that there's no one right way to think or process information. Everyone is different neurodivergent or not.
By designing our studies to accommodate a range of styles and by remaining open to unexpected insights, we can tap into the power of neurodiverse perspectives to build better products for all users.
Women in UX
What do you think is the best part of being a woman in the UX/tech industry?
That’s a good question, and it’s one that I’ve reflected on quite a bit. While there are certainly challenges that come with being in the gender minority in tech, I’ve also found that there are some unique advantages and opportunities.
One of the things I appreciate most about being a woman in UX is the sense of camaraderie and mutual support among female colleagues. The tech industry can feel like a “boys’ club” at times, so having a network of women who understand the specific challenges we face is incredibly valuable. I’ve been lucky to have some fantastic female mentors and collaborators over the years, and those relationships have been instrumental in my growth and success.
There’s also something to be said for the unique perspective that women bring to the table in UX and tech. As a neurodivergent and queer woman, I know that my approach is shaped by a complex intersection of identities and experiences.
My neurodivergence, for example, means I often think about problems in unconventional ways, while my queerness has made me particularly attuned to issues of inclusivity and diversity. While it’s a gross over-generalisation to say that all women think a certain way, I believe that many female (or non-binary) designers bring a sense of empathy, emotional resonance, and attentiveness to marginalized user needs.
In a field that’s all about understanding and serving diverse users, I believe that female perspectives — in all their varied, intersectional forms — are absolutely essential.
We bring a lived experience of navigating a world that isn't always designed with our needs in mind, which can lead to powerful insights and innovations.
If you’re interested to read more of inspiring interviews with women from the UX industry, check out our other Women in UX talks!
