Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that occurs when individuals seek out and interpret information in a way that supports their preexisting beliefs and values. This leads to a biased perception of reality, as people will favour evidence that confirms their views while dismissing or overlooking contradictory information.
Several factors contribute to confirmation bias. One of these is the inherent desire for consistency in our beliefs and values, making it difficult to accept new information that contradicts our thoughts.
Additionally, people often attune to evidence that bolsters their views due to the sense of cognitive ease it provides. This mental shortcut, or heuristic, allows for faster decision-making.
Types of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias affects the way people gather and process information. They tend to focus on information that reinforces their beliefs and ignore evidence that challenges these beliefs. It does this through several types of biased mental processes.
Its ability to process information quickly, boost self-esteem, and reduce stress by removing contradictions and conflict all contribute to the flourishing of confirmation bias.
Cognitive dissonance is an additional explanation of the adaptive nature of confirmation bias. To reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by cognitive dissonance, people adjust to confirmation bias by avoiding information that contradicts their beliefs and seeking evidence that supports them. These adaptive variations lead to the variations in forms that this bias takes.
Biased Search for Information
The biased search for information is a type of confirmation bias where individuals actively seek out evidence that supports their existing beliefs while ignoring or disregarding contradictory information. This selective approach to data collection can lead to a distorted understanding of a subject and hinder objective decision-making processes.
Experiments have consistently demonstrated that individuals have a tendency to engage in one-sided hypothesis testing, wherein they primarily seek out evidence that aligns with their existing premise. Instead of doing a comprehensive review of pertinent facts, individuals formulate queries in a manner that elicits a positive response favoring their hypothesis.
Evidence in real-world circumstances is frequently complex and mixed. Various contradicting beliefs about someone, for example, could each be supported by focusing on one facet of his or her conduct. As a result, any search for evidence in support of a hypothesis is likely to be fruitful.
One example is how the way a question is phrased can substantially alter the answer. People who are asked the question “Are you happy with your appearance?” for example, report higher levels of satisfaction than those who were asked, “Are you unhappy with your appearance?”
Individuals differ in their ability to defend their views against external attacks in the context of selective exposure. Individuals engage in selective exposure when they seek knowledge that is congruent, rather than inconsistent, with their personal ideas.
People with high levels of confidence are more likely to seek contrary information to their personal stance in order to create an argument. This might manifest as oppositional news consumption, in which individuals seek alternative partisan news to counterargue.
Individuals with low confidence avoid contradicting information in favour of information that supports their personal position. People generate and assess evidence in biased arguments that support their own views and opinions. Increased confidence reduces individuals’ desire for information that supports their personal ideas.
Biased Interpretation of Information
In biased interpretation of information, individuals unconsciously interpret evidence in a way that confirms their preconceived beliefs. This can result in misinterpretation of data and failure to recognize alternative explanations for the observed evidence. Researchers need to be aware of this bias to ensure their analysis is accurate and objective.
One study on biased interpretation took place during the 2004 United States presidential election. It involved participants who reported having strong feelings about the candidates.
They were shown statements from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry, or a politically neutral public person who appeared to contradict one another. They were also provided additional statements that explained the apparent conflict.
Participants had to determine whether each individual’s comments were inconsistent based on these three pieces of information. There were big differences between these assessments, and people were much more likely to see contradictions in the words of the candidate they didn’t like.
The participants in this experiment made their decisions while being observed by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. Participants’ emotional centers were stimulated as they analyzed contradictory remarks made by their preferred candidate. This did not happen with the other figures’ statements.
The experimenters concluded that the various reactions to the claims were not due to errors in passive reasoning. Instead, the participants were actively working to reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by reading about their preferred candidate’s unreasonable or hypocritical actions.
Biased Memory
Biased memory occurs when an individual’s memory of events, facts, or experiences favours information that supports their existing beliefs and prejudices. This is also known as “access-biased memory,” “selective recall,” or “confirmatory memory.”
Memory biases, including selective recall and recall bias, can lead to a distorted perception of reality, perpetuating stereotypes and reinforcing preconceived notions. One example is the “Kids These Days” effect, where presentism memory bias paints a bleak picture of younger generations.
Biased recall is closely related to biased memory; it refers to the fact that people tend to remember information that supports their pre-existing beliefs while forgetting or downplaying information that contradicts those beliefs. Recall bias is a common issue in research, and taking steps to minimize its impact is crucial for obtaining reliable results.
Emotional conditions can also alter memory recall. Participants in a 2001 survey judged how they felt when they learnt that O. J. Simpson had been acquitted of murder charges.
One week, two months, and a year after the trial, they recounted their emotions and confidence in the verdict. The findings revealed that participants’ judgments of Simpson’s guilt shifted over time.
The more participants’ opinions of the judgement evolved, the less durable their memories of their initial emotional emotions became. Past appraisals of emotion closely reflected current appraisals of emotion when participants recalled their first emotional experiences two months and a year later.
Disconfirmation Bias
Disconfirmation bias, a closely related type of bias, occurs when individuals actively seek out and give more weight to evidence contradicting their beliefs, stereotypes, or prejudices. In doing so, they may dismiss or ignore supporting evidence. This form of bias can hinder critical thinking and open-mindedness, creating a distorted view of reality.
Halo Effect
The halo effect is another bias closely associated with the confirmation bias since it can be attributed in some cases to people’s tendency to confirm their initial impression of someone by forming later impressions of them in a biased manner.
This effect is the propensity for people to draw inferences about unrelated attributes based on their perceptions of a single trait. Good perceptions of a person, business, nation, brand, or product in one domain can have a positive or negative spillover effect on one’s thoughts and emotions in other domains.
A good example of the halo effect is when someone discovers that a person they have a favourable opinion of has committed tax fraud. Due to the favourable opinion, the individual may disregard the significance of this behaviour. They may even believe that the individual made a simple error.
The effect operates in both positive and negative dimensions (hence its alternative name, “horns and halo effect”). If the observer favours one aspect of something, they will have a favourable disposition toward all of its characteristics. If the observer dislikes one facet of something, they will have a negative predisposition toward all aspects of it.
Impacts of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias can have a significant impact on personal and interpersonal relationships. This cognitive bias causes individuals to favour information that confirms their existing beliefs, leading to attitude polarization and belief perseverance.
As a result, people tend to engage in one-sided conversations and might ignore or dismiss conflicting perspectives. This behaviour can lead to tension and reduced confidence in relationships, as well as an unwillingness to compromise or examine alternative viewpoints.
Decision-Making
Confirmation bias affects decision-making processes across various domains, from business to personal choices. The tendency to favour confirming information can create an emotional reaction and lead individuals to make decisions based on their emotions rather than objective data.
This bias may result in one-sided decision-making, limited perspective, and an overestimation of the probability of success. A well-known example of confirmation bias in decision-making is the well-known Stanford University study, where participants ignored evidence that contradicted their initial hypothesis.
In this classic experiment, 48 undergraduates who were either in favour of or against the death penalty were shown two alleged studies, one of which seemed to confirm and the other to contradict their preexisting opinions regarding the death penalty’s deterrent effectiveness.
Both proponents and opponents of the death penalty assessed the results and procedures that confirmed their own beliefs as the most convincing and affording proof, and they reported corresponding shifts in their beliefs as different results and procedures were presented. An increase in attitude polarization was the expected consequence of these assessments and changes in opinions.
References:
- Albarracin, D.; Mitchell, A.L. (2004) The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (12): 1565–1584, doi:10.1177/0146167204271180
- Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 May 4;9:211-7. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807.
- Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24.
- Fine, Cordelia (2006), A Mind of its Own: how your brain distorts and deceives, Cambridge, UK: Icon Books, ISBN 978-1-84046-678-2
- Levine, L.; Prohaska, V.; Burgess, S.L.; Rice, J.A.; Laulhere, T.M. (2001) Remembering past emotions: The role of current appraisals. Cognition and Emotion, 15 (4): 393–417, doi:10.1080/02699930125955
- Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109
- Murphy, Kevin R.; Jako, Robert A.; Anhalt, Rebecca L. (April 1993) Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78 (2): 218–225. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.218
- Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (2): 175–220, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
- Westen, Drew; Blagov, Pavel S.; Harenski, Keith; Kilts, Clint; Hamann, Stephan (2006) Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (11): 1947–1958, doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947
Last Updated on February 8, 2024