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.

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:

Irrational Self-Interest

When we try to influence others, especially large groups or entire companies, we sometimes create packages of incentives and disincentives that are intended to affect behavior. These strategies usually assume that people make choices on rational grounds. Is this assumption valid?

Dealing with Condescension

Condescending remarks hurt. When we feel that pain, we often feel the urge to retaliate, even when retaliation might not be appropriate. Our responses are more effective when we understand where condescending remarks come from.

Inbox Bloat Recovery

If you have more than ten days of messages in your inbox, you probably consider it to be bloated. If it's been bloated for a while, you probably want to clear it, but you've tried many times, and you can't. Here are some effective suggestions.

Virtual Meetings: Dealing with Inattention

There is much we can do to reduce the incidence of inattention in virtual meetings. Cooperation is required.

The Limits of Status Reports: I

Some people erroneously believe that they can request status reports as often as they like, and including any level of detail they deem necessary. Not so.

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 June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.

And on June 21: Asking Burning Questions

When we suddenly realize that an important question needs answering, directly asking that question in a meeting might not be an effective way to focus the attention of the group. There are risks. Fortunately, there are also ways to manage those risks. Available here and by RSS on June 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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