Confirmation Bias and Myside Bias

When modern societies and their organizations address complex problems, they aspire to do so rationally. We rely on experts and specialists for advice, wisdom, and approval of the approaches we adopt. We do this in every field, including software user interface design, urban planning, the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical procedures, and more. Or at least, we believe we do. But belief and reality differ from each other, sometimes dramatically, in part because of a phenomenon that has come to be known as myside bias.

Myside bias in brief

It's fair to say that researchers are still working out a consensus view of what myside bias is. Some regard it as interchangeable with confirmation bias [Nickerson 1998]; others hold that it's a type of confirmation bias; still others regard myside bias and confirmation bias as distinct.

As Wolfe puts it, "Although some authors use the terms interchangeably, confirmation bias typically refers to a biased search for or weighing of evidence, whereas myside bias refers to biases in generating reasons or arguments." [Wolfe 2011] That is, confirmation bias appears in the gathering and weighing of evidence, while myside bias appears in the way we use evidence in reasoned arguments. It is this view that I favor. Myside bias is our tendency to overlook or even dismiss flaws in our own rational arguments that we easily notice in the arguments of others.

The effects of myside bias

Along Myside bias is our tendency to overlook
or even dismiss flaws in our own rational
arguments that we easily notice
in the arguments of othersthe spectrum of the effects of myside bias, at the less-damaging end, we find the skepticism with which we treat the rational arguments of domain experts. At the more damaging end of that spectrum is our tendency to reject outright experts' recommendations. We might even relieve them of their positions and authority, or strip them of their credentials and certifications, or treat them with such disdain or disrespect that they voluntarily withdraw from the debate, or even resign their positions.

Myside bias is probably more likely to occur when the rational argument in question leads to conclusions different from our preconceptions. But "more likely" is the operative phrase. Myside bias can occur whether or not the conclusions of the argument in question align with our preferred positions, because it serves as a debate-rigging device. It helps us win arguments, whether we're on the "right" side or not.

It's probably for this reason that "red teams" are so effective in cyberdefense, business plan evaluation, military planning, and intelligence analysis. Red teaming might be providing a check on myside bias. And the scientific method, too, could be providing a check on myside bias through its requirement that independent researchers replicate results before the community grants acceptance. [Kolbert 2017]

Last words

In my own view, the term myside bias connotes binary polarity. That is, it suggests that there are only two sides: mine and not-mine. In actual interactions, though, we often find multiple sides, factions, alliances, schools of thought, or political parties. I wish we had settled on the term my-school bias, but oh well. Myside bias applies in any case: we tend to be better at noticing the shortcomings of the arguments others use than we are at noticing the shortcomings in the arguments we use for our own positions.  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

Footnotes

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 Emotions at Work:

Don't Staff the Ammo Dump

"Staffing the ammo dump" is the job of retrieving ammunition for someone else to use in a political attack on a third party. It's a dangerous role.

The Focus of Conflict

For some teams conflict seems to focus around one particular team member. The conflict might manifest itself as either organizational or interpersonal issues, or both, but whatever the problem seems to be, the problem is never the problem.

Smart Bookshelves

If you like to browse in bookstores, you probably know the thrill of new ideas and new perspectives. When I find a book worth reading, I want to own it, and that's how it gets to my shelf. Here are some tips to help you read more of what you really want to read.

Annoyance to Asset

Unsolicited contributions to the work of one element of a large organization, by people from another, are often annoying to the recipients. Sometimes the contributors then feel rebuffed, insulted, or frustrated. Toxic conflict can follow. We probably can't halt the flow of contributions, but we can convert it from a liability to a valuable asset.

Congruent Decision Making: II

Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

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