Point Lookout: a free weekly publication of Chaco Canyon Consulting
Volume 21, Issue 16;   April 21, 2021: Choice-Supportive Bias

Choice-Supportive Bias

by

Choice-supportive bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to assess our past choices as more fitting than they actually were. The erroneous judgments it produces can be especially costly to organizations interested in improving decision processes.
A possibly difficult choice

You're probably aware that certain patterns of thinking known as cognitive biases can lead us to make decisions that turn out to be less than ideal. A cognitive bias is the tendency to make systematic errors of judgment based on thought-related factors rather than evidence. For example, a bias known as self-serving bias causes us to tend to attribute our successes to our own capabilities, and our failures to situational factors. These tendencies occur outside our awareness, and they occur more often than objective evidence can support.

The effects of some cognitive biases are especially costly. They not only cause us to make less-than-ideal decisions, but they also affect our ability to mitigate the effects of other cognitive biases. One such cognitive bias, known as the bias blind spot, causes us to recognize the impact of cognitive biases on the judgment of others, while failing to recognize similar or even identical effects on our own judgment. [Pronin 2002]

A second example of a bias that affects our ability to mitigate the effects of cognitive biases is choice-supportive bias. [Mather 2000] [Lind 2017] Among the effects of choice-supportive bias is distortion of our assessments of the quality of our past choices, which compounds the difficulty of improving our decision processes. That's why mitigating the effects of choice-supportive bias is of special interest to organizations that have recognized the need to monitor and continuously improve the quality of their decision-making processes.

Initiatives designed to mitigate the effects of choice-supportive bias on decision making can benefit from understanding how choice-supportive bias can affect decisions in organizations. With that goal in mind I offer the insights below.

Mistaken evaluation of past choices
In perhaps its must subtle form, choice-supportive bias can cause us to adopt a strong belief that a choice turned out well, when in fact it did not. The belief can be so strong that it can suppress any desire to evaluate the choice. In this way, the bias can cause us to neglect to conduct the customary review that we use to evaluate similar choices.
The unexamined Lacking a clear and objective view of the
quality of our past choices, improving our
decision processes can be difficult indeed
choice can thus present significant risk to the organization. Because we believe that all is well, much time can pass before we become aware of problems. And because lost time cannot be recovered, correcting the effects of a bad choice might not be possible.
A choice that seemed suitable at first might seem less so with the passage of time. When assessing the quality of decisions, pay special attention to those that weren't assessed with care because they seemed so obviously correct at first.
Choice-supportive memory distortion
If we do try to evaluate a past choice, choice-supportive bias has many tricks it can play. One is memory distortion. Memory plays a role in choice evaluation because we must examine the options we had at the time we made our choice, and we must examine what we knew about those options or other conditions. We also examine what we thought would happen as a result of our choice and compare that to what actually did happen.
Although we might find some of this needed information in documents and messages, we must also rely on memory. And memory is subject to distortions. Because of choice-supportive bias, we tend to be better able to recall data that supports the choice under evaluation. And we tend to be less able to recall data that calls that choice into question. We search memory more diligently for choice-supportive recollections, and less diligently for recollections that raise doubts about the choice. These effects of choice-supportive bias suggest possible synergies with confirmation bias. [Nickerson 1998]
Reduce dependence on memory by keeping records of the context of past decisions. Documenting options that were rejected and uncertainties surrounding past decisions can be very helpful in assessing decision quality.
Choice-supportive standards adjustments
When we evaluate the merits of past choices, we do so against a set of standards. The results of these evaluations are therefore strongly affected by the standards we use. By adjusting the standards we apply, we can generate evidence supporting a claim that the choice was wise. Standards adjustment thus "rigs" the evaluation process.
To be effective, these standards adjustments must not appear to be transparently outcome-motivated. Techniques employed to make these adjustments seem more legitimate include revising the evaluation process as a part of a larger program seemingly separate from the evaluation; hiring a consultant to "bring the standards up to date," or to improve the evaluation process, or to actually conduct the process; or deferring the evaluation of the choice long enough that people forget that it hasn't happened, and then just cancelling it altogether. This last method is equivalent to eliminating the standards.
Detect these effects by searching for correlations between standards revision efforts and decisions that might have been controversial or questionable.
Misattribution of coincident phenomena
Here the term "coincident phenomena" denotes events or conditions whose occurrence (or nonoccurrence) is retrospectively attributed to the choice in question. The misattribution of coincident phenomena is the mistaken conclusion that something that happened (or did not happen) after we made a particular choice was actually a result of that choice. It's analogous to the rhetorical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Think of the old joke about the man who habitually and continually snaps his fingers. When asked why he does so, he responds, "To keep the elephants away." When the questioner responds, "But there are no elephants around here," the man replies, "Don't you see? It works!"
Advocates of controversial decisions sometimes seek post-decision justification by claiming credit for phenomena that occur after the decision, but which weren't cited or anticipated during the decision process. Tracking the incidence of these claims can reveal decision quality assessments that might improve with closer examination.

One can easily imagine an analysis in depth similar to the above for a bias that might be called choice-disparaging bias. If such a bias exists, it could account for behavior that disparages past choices or actions with intensity out of proportion to the evidence that the choices were unwise. Although I'm unaware of any reports of serious studies or experiments that might provide evidence for such a choice-disparaging bias, I have personally witnessed behavior that would be consistent with it. The phrase, "I told you so," comes to mind. As an exercise, we might all benefit from rewriting this post so as to describe the mechanisms and effects associated with choice-disparaging bias. Enjoy! Go to top Top  Next issue: The Self-Explanation Effect  Next Issue

101 Tips for Effective MeetingsDo you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Footnotes

Comprehensive list of all citations from all editions of Point Lookout
[Pronin 2002]
Emily Pronin, Daniel Y. Lin, and Lee Ross. "The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28:3 (2002), 369-381. Available here. Retrieved 11 March 2014. Back
[Mather 2000]
Mara Mather and Marcia K. Johnson. "Choice-supportive source monitoring: Do our decisions seem better to us as we age?," Psychology and Aging 15:4 (2000): 596-606. Available here. Retrieved 6 April 2021. Back
[Lind 2017]
Martina Lind, Mimì Visentini, Timo Mäntylä, and Fabio Del Missier. "Choice-supportive misremembering: A new taxonomy and review," Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017), 2062. Available here. Retrieved 6 April 2021. Back
[Nickerson 1998]
Raymond S. Nickerson. "Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises," Review of General Psychology 2:2 (1998), 175-220. Available here. Retrieved 22 April 2021. Back

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

This article in its entirety was written by a 
          human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.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 Cognitive Biases at Work:

An unfinished building, known as SzkieletorThe Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest
A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.
Boeing 737 MAX grounded aircraft near Boeing Field, April 2019On Standing Aside
Occasionally we're asked to participate in deliberations about issues relating to our work responsibilities. Usually we respond in good faith. And sometimes we — or those around us — can't be certain that we're responding in good faith. In those situations, we must stand aside.
Braided streams in Grewingk Glacier RiverRisk Acceptance: One Path
When a project team decides to accept a risk, and when their project eventually experiences that risk, a natural question arises: What were they thinking? Cognitive biases, other psychological phenomena, and organizational dysfunction all can play roles.
A dog in despairBe Choosier About Job Offers: I
A serious error some job seekers make is accepting an offer that isn't actually a good fit. We make this mistake for a variety of reasons, including hating the job-search process, desperation, and wishful thinking. How can we avoid the error?
A metaphor for preventing risk propagationThe Risk Planning Fallacy
The planning fallacy is a cognitive bias that causes underestimates of cost, time required, and risks for projects. Analogously, I propose a risk planning fallacy that causes underestimates of probabilities and impacts of risk events.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

A well-festooned utility poleComing June 26: Additive bias…or Not: I
When we alter existing systems to enhance them, we tend to favor adding components even when subtracting might be better. This effect has been attributed to a cognitive bias known as additive bias. But other forces more important might be afoot. Available here and by RSS on June 26.
A close-up view of a chipseal road surfaceAnd on July 3: Additive bias…Not: II
Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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:

Reprinting this article

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

Follow Rick

Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters Follow me at LinkedIn Follow me at X, or share a post Subscribe to RSS feeds Subscribe to RSS feeds
The message of Point Lookout is unique. Help get the message out. Please donate to help keep Point Lookout available for free to everyone.
Technical Debt for Policymakers BlogMy blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your organization!
Go For It: Sometimes It's Easier If You RunBad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we love the work but not the job.
303 Tips for Virtual and Global TeamsLearn how to make your virtual global team sing.
101 Tips for Managing ChangeAre you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt?
101 Tips for Effective MeetingsLearn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.
Exchange your "personal trade secrets" — the tips, tricks and techniques that make you an ace — with other aces, anonymously. Visit the Library of Personal Trade Secrets.
If your teams don't yet consistently achieve state-of-the-art teamwork, check out this catalog. Help is just a few clicks/taps away!
Ebooks, booklets and tip books on project management, conflict, writing email, effective meetings and more.