Confirmation BIas

Confirmation bias is the tendency to take evidence and use it to confirm a pre-existing conclusion. The evidence does not need to be supportive of your conclusion, or even representative of the issue.

We see this working together with the Backfire effect when we try using facts to correct our audiences pre-existing opinions.

SOcial Identity Bias

This theory shows how human beings have a very strong tendency to favour our own group (in-group) over those in other groups (out-group).

It is easy to see this bias in politics. Red hats (Republicans in the US, Liberals in Canada) are far more likely to respond negatively to the Blue hat group (Conservatives in Canada, Democrats in the States) even if the information presented reflects their own objective opinion. We reject the information not because it is wrong, but because it is delivered by the wrong team.

False Consensus Effect

Simply put, you are not the norm – even if you think you are.

The False Consensus Effect puts your individual perception or feelings and uses them as a proxy for how all those around you will think, act or feel.

This effect creates a real challenge for communicators. The great enemy of any campaigner is our initial response and allowing our own personal response to stand as a proxy for all those around us.

Dunning Kruger Effect

The Dunning Kruger effect shows that the less we know, the more confident we are in our opinion and expressing that opinion.

As we gain more knowledge and experience, we are more aware of how much more there is to know about the issue. The complexities become more clear.

This is another challenge for communicators. Simply providing more facts to an audience who already feel they completely understand an issue creates conflict. Moving your audience towards full and complete understanding of an issue may take years and a tremendous amount of money.

Backfire Effect

Information provided to an audience intended to refute an argument has a tendency to reinforce the audiences pre-existing position.

Flat earthers are an excellent example. One assumes that simply showing a flat earther a photo of a round earth and presto, you win the argument.

Instead, the flat earther will explain the conditions for why the photograph is fake, or the camera lens creates a curvature, or even that humans have never been to space and thus the photo is not real. Regardless of the reason, the evidence presented reinforces the pre-existing position of the audience – ergo it backfires.

Active Information Avoidance

No one likes bad news, but active information avoidance is the tendency to avoid information that may contradict our expectations. This bias is more prevalent in financial situations such as avoiding negative information about a stock, but it is also very important in politics.

By putting our heads in the sand and ignoring information that may contradict our pre-existing beliefs, we surely do not make things better, but we are able to ensure less internal conflict.

By avoiding information, we reduce conflict and tensions.

Bias Blind Spot

We are remarkably resistant to observing our own biases.

Clearly, we can see how the biases on this page, and the hundreds of other biases, impact others but we are blind to their impacts in our own decision making.

Decide Campaigns works with content creators from many different backgrounds to ensure we are always open to our biases and how we can best address the biases of our audience.