Cognitive Biases and Influence: II

The term cognitive bias is, unfortunately, a bit opaque. Cognitive, which means "of or related to intellectual activity such as thinking, reasoning or remembering," is academic-sounding — rare in everyday conversation. Bias evokes bigotry, or things nefarious. In the present usage, bias refers to a systematic deviation. Thus, a cognitive bias is a systematic deviation from accurate memory or rational thought.

Because both the influencer and the influenced are potentially affected and unaware that cognitive biases are in play, the result, often, is a poor decision. Here's Part II of our exploration (Part I is "Cognitive Biases and Influence: I," Point Lookout for July 6, 2016).

Reactance

Reactance is the urge to do something other than what someone wants us to do. It arises from a need to resist a perceived constraint on our freedom of choice.

To exploit reactance, an influencer might pretend to advocate position Y and reject position X, in order to persuade the target to adopt position X. When there are multiple possible alternatives to X, this is a high-risk strategy, because the target might opt for a different Y instead of the X that the influencer prefers. But when there are only one or two alternatives to X, exploiting reactance can be very effective.

See "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012, for more about Reactance.

The Focusing Illusion

The Focusing Illusion (or Focusing Effect) is the Possibly too simply, a cognitive
bias is a systematic deviation
from accurate memory
or rational thoughttendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event or situation. For example, many would agree that "if I were rich, I'd be happy," even though careful research thoroughly contradicts this idea.

To use the Focusing Illusion, influencers usually draw attention to just one aspect of a proposition. This strategy might extend to financial models, data analysis, and research. For example, to support a product line extension, influencers might emphasize revenue projections, while paying less-than-adequate attention to support costs and competitive analyses. They might even exclude entirely from the case any reference to alternative opportunities unrelated to the proposed line extension, even though they might be more lucrative and less risky.

See "The Focusing Illusion in Organizations," Point Lookout for January 19, 2011, for more about the Focusing Illusion.

Apophenia

Apophenia is the perception of meaningful patterns unsupported by the actual data. Humans are superb pattern-finding engines, and sometimes we're a little too superb.

To use apophenia, the influencer identifies a series of "support points" — attributes of the situation that are consistent with the advocated proposition. As the number of support points grows, the influencer's target can experience an overwhelming sense that the influencer's conclusion is undeniable, because the pattern is so obvious. Omitted from consideration is any other thesis that could be equally or better supported by these same arguments, or any demonstration that no such alternative thesis exists.

See "Apophenia at Work," Point Lookout for March 14, 2012 for more about apophenia.

Researchers have identified over 200 cognitive biases experimentally. We've seen how influencers can exploit six of them. Only by educating ourselves and enhancing our awareness can we counter the advantages cognitive biases provide to influencers. First 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

For more about psychological reactance, see Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, by Sharon S. Brehm and Jack W. Brehm. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Available from Amazon.

For more about apophenia, see "Apophenia at Work," Point Lookout for March 14, 2012, and "Apophenia at Work," Point Lookout for March 14, 2012. More about reactance: "Reactance and Decision Making," Point Lookout for April 18, 2012, and "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012.

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

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:

Changing the Subject: II

Sometimes, in conversation, we must change the subject, but we also do it to dominate, manipulate, or assert power. Subject changing — and controlling its use — can be important political skills.

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.

Conceptual Mondegreens

When we disagree about abstractions, such as a problem solution, or a competitor's strategy, the cause can often be misunderstanding the abstraction. That misunderstanding can be a conceptual mondegreen.

Chronic Peer Interrupters: I

When making contributions to meeting discussions, we're sometimes interrupted. Often, the interruption is beneficial and saves time. But some people constantly interrupt their peers or near peers, disrespectfully, in a pattern that compromises meeting outcomes. How can we deal with chronic peer interrupters?

Many "Stupid" Questions Aren't

Occasionally someone asks a question that causes us to think, "Now that's a stupid question." Rarely is that assessment correct. Knowing what alternatives are possible can help us respond more effectively in the moment.

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 December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I

To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways require, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety. Available here and by RSS on December 13.

And on December 20: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: II

When we begin using new tools or processes, we make mistakes. Practice is the cure, but practice can be scary if the grace period for early mistakes is too short. For teams adopting new methods, psychological safety is a fundamental component of success. Available here and by RSS on December 20.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.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, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info