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 indeedchoice 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! Top Next Issue
Do 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!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:
- Self-Serving Bias in Organizations
- We all want to believe that we can rely on the good judgment of decision makers when they make decisions
that affect organizational performance. But they're human, and they are therefore subject to a cognitive
bias known as self-serving bias. Here's a look at what can happen.
- 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.
- Motivated Reasoning
- When we prefer a certain outcome of a decision process, we risk falling into a pattern of motivated
reasoning. That can cause us to gather data and construct arguments that erroneously lead to the
outcome we prefer, often outside our awareness. And it can happen even when the outcome we prefer is
known to threaten our safety and security.
- Seven More Planning Pitfalls: I
- Planners and members of planning teams are susceptible to patterns of thinking that lead to unworkable
plans. But planning teams also suffer vulnerabilities. Two of these are Group Polarization and Trips
- Risk 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.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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