Cognitive Biases and Influence: I

Cognitive biases affect how we acquire, interpret, and process information. When we make decisions, they cause systematic deviations from rationality. Although cognitive biases enable us to address issues more rapidly than we could using strict logic, they can cause us to make epically bad decisions. These properties make cognitive biases useful as tools of influence, especially when the goal of the influencer is not what others might regard as objectively justifiable on rational grounds.

Familiarity with this use of cognitive biases helps limit the incidence of abuses. Here's Part I of a catalog of influencing techniques that exploit cognitive biases.

Outcome Bias

The Outcome Bias is the tendency to evaluate a proposition based not on its general validity, but instead on a known outcome in one or more specific instances. For example, we might not adopt a particular technological solution if we believe that it failed in some previous application, even in the absence of a sound argument that the current proposal would yield analogous results.

To limit the effects of Outcome Bias, require that advocates restrict their arguments to the application at hand, without reference to past outcomes. If people want to use such data, require that they demonstrate applicability on strict logical grounds.

Cascade effects

Some cognitive biases belong to a grouping that can be called cascade effects, in which an idea propagates largely because members of a group observe its adoption by other members of the group. Two of these phenomena are the Availability Cascade and the Bandwagon Effect. Groupthink, the Abilene Paradox, and Peer Pressure can also be understood in terms of cascade effects. Influencers who wish to exploit cascade effects might seek to influence "thought leaders" first, and then use their endorsements to persuade others.

To determine Familiarity with the use of
cognitive biases as tools of
influence helps limit the
incidence of abuseswhether cascade effects are in play, track the sequence of conversions among adopters of the advocated proposition. If the early adopters are thought leaders, but are not the authors of the proposition, it's possible that the authors are employing cascade effects.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is the tendency to err in assessing either our own competence, or the competence of others. The more expert we are, the greater is our awareness of our own limitations; the less expert we are, the more likely we are to rely on our assessment of others' demeanor as a proxy for competence. For example, if people seem to lack confidence, we tend to question their competence. And the more complete is our grasp of a complex situation, the less confident we tend to appear when we express ourselves about it.

People who consciously exploit this effect might tend to project extreme confidence when they engage in discussions. They know that confidence makes their arguments seem more valid.

We'll continue next time with Part II of this catalog.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Read Kruger and Dunning's original paper, courtesy the American Psychological Association.

For more about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see "The Paradox of Confidence," Point Lookout for January 7, 2009; "How to Reject Expert Opinion: II," Point Lookout for January 4, 2012; "Devious Political Tactics: More from the Field Manual," Point Lookout for August 29, 2012; "Overconfidence at Work," Point Lookout for April 15, 2015; "Wishful Thinking and Perception: II," Point Lookout for November 4, 2015; "Wishful Significance: II," Point Lookout for December 23, 2015; and "The Paradox of Carefully Chosen Words," Point Lookout for November 16, 2016.

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Long-Loop Conversations: Anticipation

In virtual or global teams, conversations are sources of risk to the collaboration. Because the closed-loop response time for exchanges can be a day or more, long-loop conversations generate misunderstanding, toxic conflict, errors, delays, and rework. One strategy for controlling these phenomena is anticipation.

The Ups and Downs of American Handshakes: II

Where the handshake is a customary business greeting, it's possible to offend accidentally. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for handshakes in the USA.

On Facilitation Suggestions from Meeting Participants

Team leaders often facilitate their own meetings, and although there are problems associated with that dual role, it's so familiar that it works well enough, most of the time. Less widely understood are the problems that arise when other meeting participants make facilitation suggestions.

When the Answer Isn't the Point: II

Sometimes, when we ask questions, we're more interested in eliciting behavior from the person questioned, rather than answers. Here's Part II of a set of techniques questioners use when the answer to the question wasn't the point of asking.

Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques.

See also Effective Communication at Work, Critical Thinking at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 24: The Stupidity Attribution Error

In workplace debates, we sometimes conclude erroneously that only stupidity can explain why our debate partners fail to grasp the elegance or importance of our arguments. There are many other possibilities. Available here and by RSS on July 24.

And on July 31: More Things I've Learned Along the Way: IV

When I have an important insight, or when I'm taught a lesson, I write it down. Here's Part IV from my personal collection. Available here and by RSS on July 31.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership

On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:

• Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio 44017: November 7, Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
   

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented 6:00 PM June 29 (Eastern Time), Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. You can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.