Anchoring Bias occurs when a person's expectation about one thing is affected by something mostly or entirely irrelevant they saw, heard, or thought before, such as an irrelevant number. In other words, it occurs when a person's beliefs or behaviors are influenced by a specific piece of information far more than they should be given how much evidence that information actually provides.
Attention Bias occurs when some information or evidence holds a disproportionate amount of a person's attention because of that person's environment or history, or because of people's natural instincts.
|
The Availability Bias occurs when someone's prediction about an event's frequency or probability is unduly influenced by how easily they can recall examples of that event. We have a whole mini-course about combating availability bias .
A Bias Blind Spot is a tendency to see oneself as being less biased or less susceptible to biases (such as those listed in this article) than others in the population.
: "In fact, viewing yourself as rational can backfire. The more objective you think you are, the more you trust your own intuitions and opinions as accurate representations of reality, and the less inclined you are to question them. 'I'm an objective person, so my views on gun control must be correct, unlike the views of all those irrational people who disagree with me,' we think." - |
Choice-Supportive Bias is a cognitive bias whereby someone who has chosen between different options later remembers the option that they chose as having more positive attributes than it did at the time (while they remember options they did not choose as having more negative attributes than they'd had at the time).
Confirmation Bias refers to a tendency for people to seek out, favor, or give more weight to information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses (even if the information isn't true) than information that contradicts their prior beliefs.
The Denomination Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people tend to be more likely to spend a given amount of money if it is composed of smaller individual sums than if it is composed of larger individual sums.
Hindsight Bias refers to a tendency to perceive past events as being more predictable than they were before they took place.
Optimism Bias is the tendency to be unduly optimistic about the probability of future good and bad events, overestimating the probability of positive ones while underestimating the probability of negative ones.
Motivated reasoning occurs when you are disposed to interpret new evidence in ways that support your existing beliefs, or that lead to the outcome you wish was true, even when that evidence doesn't truly support your beliefs.
What are the types of bias.
There are three main types of bias.
1. Explicit biases are prejudiced beliefs regarding a group of people or ways of living. Racism, sexism, religious intolerance, and LGBTQ-phobias are examples of explicit biases. If you think that all people of group X are inferior, then you have an explicit bias against people of group X.
2. Implicit biases are unconscious beliefs that lead people to form opinions or judgments, often without being fully aware they hold the unconscious beliefs. If you subtely distrust people of group X without even realizing you're doing it, then you have an implicit bias against people of group X.
3. Cognitive biases differ from explicit and implicit biases: they are a group of systematic patterns in how our beliefs, judgments, and actions differ from what they would if we were completely rational. If most people systemtaically misjudge certain types of information in such a way that you come to false conclusions, then people have a cognitive bias related to that type of information.
There is no consensus among academics regarding how many cognitive biases exist. Some have found ~40 , others find >100 , and Wikipedia lists over 180 .
As we’ve seen above, cognitive biases often appear when one is faced with a decision and has limited resources (such as time, understanding, and cognitive capacity).
For instance, when buying a banana, you can't consider every single possible other use of that money to determine whether a banana is truly the single best use. You are limited in both how much time you have to think and how much total cognitive capacity you have.
Using fast heuristics or relying on our intuition is often an effective way of coming to conclusions in these situations because such approaches require fewer resources than careful thinking. While our intuition is often reliable, there are certain cases where our intuitions systematically produce inaccurate beliefs and unhelpful behaviors - these are what we refer to as "cognitive biases".
Even when we have plenty of time to think and aren't hitting a limit on our cognitive resources, people can still be prone to cognitive biases. For instance, there are certain automatic rules of thumb that our minds evolved to use since they worked quite well for the survival of our ancestors. Unfortunately, these rules of thumb can sometimes lead us to false conclusions and unhelpful behaviors in the modern world.
Cognitive biases are not good or bad in themselves. They are an unavoidable effect of not having infinite intelligence and infinite time to think, and hence the need to rely on heuristics and intuition. We call a tendency a cognitive bias when it leads to systemic inaccuracies in our beliefs or unhelpful behaviors. In that sense, by definition, cognitive biases cause systematic problems.
However, cognitive biases do not always lead to negative outcomes in every instance. For instance, overconfidence may cause a person to try something very difficult, that they ultimately succeed at. On the other hand, for every one person who succeeds due to overconfidence, there may be multiple other people that try something that's unrealistic due to overconfidence and end up failing.
Just knowing about specific cognitive biases is a great first step to identifying them in yourself, but knowledge of the biases is often not sufficient to cause you to identify them. Once you’ve done that, it can be helpful to get to know the most common cognitive biases (such as the ones presented above) so that you can look out for them in your own thinking.
Yes and no. It is possible to reduce the influence of cognitive biases on your thinking (and this can be very beneficial!). So you may be able to avoid a cognitive bias in many particular instances. But it's not possible to completely remove all of your cognitive biases.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to overcome all of your cognitive biases completely. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t do anything. A good first step on the path to getting your cognitive biases under control is familiarizing yourself with them
Here are a few of our interactive tools that might help:
The Planning Fallacy
The Sunk Cost Fallacy
Improve Your Frequency Predictions
Political Bias Test
Rhetorical Fallacies
Are Your Overconfident?
Calibrate Your Judgement
How Rational Are You, Really?
Metal Traps ,
However, just knowing about your cognitive biases isn’t enough . You need to take action! Here are some practical steps we recommend:
Biases such as overconfidence, confirmation bias, and the illusion of control can be reduced or avoided by having multiple points of view. Surrounding yourself and listening to people with diverse experiences, systems of beliefs, and expertise reduces the chances of falling into one of the said biases. This is also true for the source of information: it is less likely that you fall into a cognitive bias if you look for other data sources and conflict.
Actively seeking evidence against your current point of view (on important decisions) can be a helpful way to combat biases like overconfidence, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning.
Another strategy recommended by researchers who studied cognitive biases in physicians, is to consciously consider the options you dismissed at first, so you can reach a more considered answer.
Emotional biases can be considered a subcategory of cognitive biases. What separates them from other cognitive biases is that they are based on e motions such as anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise . When we're experiencing emotions, we may act in a biased way that is concordant with that emotion. For instance, anxiety may cause us to overestimate the chance of something being dangerous.
Emotional biases are linked to emotional dispositions (commonly known as ‘temperament’). Different emotional dispositions may even lead to different emotional reactions to the same occurrence of events.
Emotional biases may help us explain optimism and pessimism biases .
Cognitive biases interfere with impartiality, and they can negatively impact critical thinking in a myriad of different ways. Here are several:
Motivated reasoning leads us to underestimate the arguments for conclusions we don’t believe in and overestimate the arguments for conclusions we want to believe;
Availability bias messes with our critical thinking because it leads us to asses risk by how readily examples come to mind, rather than considering all of the relevant examples;
We are also prone to blind spot bias, meaning that we are less likely to identify biases in our own judgment than in other people's.
Cognitive biases affect decision-making in at least two ways: they help decision-making by speeding it up and cutting necessary corners when we have limited time or cognitive power, but they also hinder decision-making by causing us to come to false conclusions or take unhelpful actions in certain cases.
Research has shown some correlation between gender or sex and specific biases. For instance, researchers found that male investors tend to show greater overconfidence and optimism biases, while female investors tend to exhibit more anchoring and hindsight biases. The research makes no claims about what causes such gendered differences - e.g., socialization or biology or a mix of both.
Gender stereotypes are explicit biases, which means they are not cognitive biases. However, there are many cognitive biases that involve gender stereotypes. For example, masculine bias is the tendency to assume a person is a male based on stereotypes after hearing gender-neutral information about them, and the tendency to use gender as a description only when describing women.
Gender stereotypes are also a sign of binary thinking .
Research has shown some cognitive biases are correlated with depression . This has been found to be the case for negative interpretation bias (the tendency to interpret ambiguous scenarios as negative) and pessimistic biases, which lead people to predict future situations as unrealistically negative.
Cognitive behavioral therapy is based on the assumption that individuals with depression have distorted negative beliefs about themselves or the world (known in CBT as "cognitive distortions").
Yes. They have been studied since the early 1970s by cognitive psychologists, sociologists, and behavioral economists.
Just like every other human being, scientists can exhibit cognitive biases.They may exhibit overconfidence bias or fall prety to selection biases, for example. This has been researched as it relates to the replication crisis social psychology faces today .
There is even research on the presence of cognitive biases in scientific contexts and occuring within academic publications. Nobody, not even scientists, are immune to cognitive biases!
Both. We are born with a tendency for some cognitive biases, but we can also learn specific aspects of these biases. Our brains have evolved to be prone to all sorts of cognitive biases because those biases have been helpful in the survival of our ancestors in the environment (and under the constraints) in which they lived.
But the details of some specific cognitive biases are learned as we move through the world. For example, humans have evolved a tendency to engage in motivated reasoning, but which conclusions motivate your reasoning is something you aren’t born with and are impacted by your experiences and learning.
Want to understand cognitive biases on a deeper level? Learn about a few of the mind's mistakes with our interactive introduction to cognitive biases!
The Missing Heritability Problem: Are We About to Overturn 100 Years of Research?
Who is right about your money: traditional economists or self-help authors?
Does astrology work? We put 152 astrologers to the test
Translate this page from English...
*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.
| ||
Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)
Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1941) | ||
| ||
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .
To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .
Critical thinking skills help you to:
Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.
Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.
Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.
In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:
Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.
The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:
Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.
Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.
However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.
You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.
However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.
You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.
There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.
However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.
When encountering information, ask:
Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:
If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
Plagiarism
Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.
Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.
Critical thinking skills include the ability to:
You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.
Ask questions such as:
A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:
Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.
Being information literate means that you:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.
Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.
On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/
Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.
✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Diane f. halpern.
1 Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Emerita, Altadena, CA 91001, USA
2 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA; ude.naivarom@nnud
Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. A high IQ is correlated with many important outcomes (e.g., academic prominence, reduced crime), but it does not protect against cognitive biases, partisan thinking, reactance, or confirmation bias, among others. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests. Similarly, some scholars argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Other investigators advocate for critical thinking as a model of intelligence specifically designed for addressing real-world problems. Yes, intelligence (i.e., critical thinking) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem such as COVID-19, which we use as an example of contemporary problems that need a new approach.
The editors of this Special Issue asked authors to respond to a deceptively simple statement: “How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems.” This statement holds many complexities, including how intelligence is defined and which theories are designed to address real-world problems.
For the most part, we identify high intelligence as having a high score on a standardized test of intelligence. Like any test score, IQ can only reflect what is on the given test. Most contemporary standardized measures of intelligence include vocabulary, working memory, spatial skills, analogies, processing speed, and puzzle-like elements (e.g., Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition; see ( Drozdick et al. 2012 )). Measures of IQ correlate with many important outcomes, including academic performance ( Kretzschmar et al. 2016 ), job-related skills ( Hunter and Schmidt 1996 ), reduced likelihood of criminal behavior ( Burhan et al. 2014 ), and for those with exceptionally high IQs, obtaining a doctorate and publishing scholarly articles ( McCabe et al. 2020 ). Gottfredson ( 1997, p. 81 ) summarized these effects when she said the “predictive validity of g is ubiquitous.” More recent research using longitudinal data, found that general mental abilities and specific abilities are good predictors of several work variables including job prestige, and income ( Lang and Kell 2020 ). Although assessments of IQ are useful in many contexts, having a high IQ does not protect against falling for common cognitive fallacies (e.g., blind spot bias, reactance, anecdotal reasoning), relying on biased and blatantly one-sided information sources, failing to consider information that does not conform to one’s preferred view of reality (confirmation bias), resisting pressure to think and act in a certain way, among others. This point was clearly articulated by Stanovich ( 2009, p. 3 ) when he stated that,” IQ tests measure only a small set of the thinking abilities that people need.”
Most theories of intelligence do not directly address the question of whether people with high intelligence can successfully solve real world problems. For example, Grossmann et al. ( 2013 ) cite many studies in which IQ scores have not predicted well-being, including life satisfaction and longevity. Using a stratified random sample of Americans, these investigators found that wise reasoning is associated with life satisfaction, and that “there was no association between intelligence and well-being” (p. 944). (critical thinking [CT] is often referred to as “wise reasoning” or “rational thinking,”). Similar results were reported by Wirthwein and Rost ( 2011 ) who compared life satisfaction in several domains for gifted adults and adults of average intelligence. There were no differences in any of the measures of subjective well-being, except for leisure, which was significantly lower for the gifted adults. Additional research in a series of experiments by Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that participants with high cognitive ability were as likely as others to endorse positions that are consistent with their biases, and they were equally likely to prefer one-sided arguments over those that provided a balanced argument. There are several newer theories that directly address the question about solving real-world problems. Prominent among them is Sternberg’s adaptive intelligence with “adaptation to the environment” as the central premise, a construct that does not exist on standardized IQ tests (e.g., Sternberg 2019 ). Similarly, Stanovich and West ( 2014 ) argue that standardized tests of intelligence are not measures of rational thought—the sort of skill/ability that would be needed to address complex real-world problems. Halpern and Butler ( 2020 ) advocate for CT as a useful model of intelligence for addressing real-world problems because it was designed for this purpose. Although there is much overlap among these more recent theories, often using different terms for similar concepts, we use Halpern and Butler’s conceptualization to make our point: Yes, intelligence (i.e., CT) can be enhanced and used for solving a real-world problem like COVID-19.
One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson ( 2020, p. 205 ): “the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life.” Using this definition, the question of whether intelligent thinking can solve a world problem like the novel coronavirus is a resounding “yes” because solutions to real-world novel problems are part of his definition. This is a popular idea in the general public. For example, over 1000 business managers and hiring executives said that they want employees who can think critically based on the belief that CT skills will help them solve work-related problems ( Hart Research Associates 2018 ).
We define CT as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed--the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions, when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. International surveys conducted by the OECD ( 2019, p. 16 ) established “key information-processing competencies” that are “highly transferable, in that they are relevant to many social contexts and work situations; and ‘learnable’ and therefore subject to the influence of policy.” One of these skills is problem solving, which is one subset of CT skills.
The CT model of intelligence is comprised of two components: (1) understanding information at a deep, meaningful level and (2) appropriate use of CT skills. The underlying idea is that CT skills can be identified, taught, and learned, and when they are recognized and applied in novel settings, the individual is demonstrating intelligent thought. CT skills include judging the credibility of an information source, making cost–benefit calculations, recognizing regression to the mean, understanding the limits of extrapolation, muting reactance responses, using analogical reasoning, rating the strength of reasons that support and fail to support a conclusion, and recognizing hindsight bias or confirmation bias, among others. Critical thinkers use these skills appropriately, without prompting, and usually with conscious intent in a variety of settings.
One of the key concepts in this model is that CT skills transfer in appropriate situations. Thus, assessments using situational judgments are needed to assess whether particular skills have transferred to a novel situation where it is appropriate. In an assessment created by the first author ( Halpern 2018 ), short paragraphs provide information about 20 different everyday scenarios (e.g., A speaker at the meeting of your local school board reported that when drug use rises, grades decline; so schools need to enforce a “war on drugs” to improve student grades); participants provide two response formats for every scenario: (a) constructed responses where they respond with short written responses, followed by (b) forced choice responses (e.g., multiple choice, rating or ranking of alternatives) for the same situations.
There is a large and growing empirical literature to support the assertion that CT skills can be learned and will transfer (when taught for transfer). See for example, Holmes et al. ( 2015 ), who wrote in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , that there was “significant and sustained improvement in students’ critical thinking behavior” (p. 11,199) for students who received CT instruction. Abrami et al. ( 2015, para. 1 ) concluded from a meta-analysis that “there are effective strategies for teaching CT skills, both generic and content specific, and CT dispositions, at all educational levels and across all disciplinary areas.” Abrami et al. ( 2008, para. 1 ), included 341 effect sizes in a meta-analysis. They wrote: “findings make it clear that improvement in students’ CT skills and dispositions cannot be a matter of implicit expectation.” A strong test of whether CT skills can be used for real-word problems comes from research by Butler et al. ( 2017 ). Community adults and college students (N = 244) completed several scales including an assessment of CT, an intelligence test, and an inventory of real-life events. Both CT scores and intelligence scores predicted individual outcomes on the inventory of real-life events, but CT was a stronger predictor.
Heijltjes et al. ( 2015, p. 487 ) randomly assigned participants to either a CT instruction group or one of six other control conditions. They found that “only participants assigned to CT instruction improved their reasoning skills.” Similarly, when Halpern et al. ( 2012 ) used random assignment of participants to either a learning group where they were taught scientific reasoning skills using a game format or a control condition (which also used computerized learning and was similar in length), participants in the scientific skills learning group showed higher proportional learning gains than students who did not play the game. As the body of additional supportive research is too large to report here, interested readers can find additional lists of CT skills and support for the assertion that these skills can be learned and will transfer in Halpern and Dunn ( Forthcoming ). There is a clear need for more high-quality research on the application and transfer of CT and its relationship to IQ.
A pandemic occurs when a disease runs rampant over an entire country or even the world. Pandemics have occurred throughout history: At the time of writing this article, COVID-19 is a world-wide pandemic whose actual death rate is unknown but estimated with projections of several million over the course of 2021 and beyond ( Mega 2020 ). Although vaccines are available, it will take some time to inoculate most or much of the world’s population. Since March 2020, national and international health agencies have created a list of actions that can slow and hopefully stop the spread of COVID (e.g., wearing face masks, practicing social distancing, avoiding group gatherings), yet many people in the United States and other countries have resisted their advice.
Could instruction in CT encourage more people to accept and comply with simple life-saving measures? There are many possible reasons to believe that by increasing citizens’ CT abilities, this problematic trend can be reversed for, at least, some unknown percentage of the population. We recognize the long history of social and cognitive research showing that changing attitudes and behaviors is difficult, and it would be unrealistic to expect that individuals with extreme beliefs supported by their social group and consistent with their political ideologies are likely to change. For example, an Iranian cleric and an orthodox rabbi both claimed (separately) that the COVID-19 vaccine can make people gay ( Marr 2021 ). These unfounded opinions are based on deeply held prejudicial beliefs that we expect to be resistant to CT. We are targeting those individuals who beliefs are less extreme and may be based on reasonable reservations, such as concern about the hasty development of the vaccine and the lack of long-term data on its effects. There should be some unknown proportion of individuals who can change their COVID-19-related beliefs and actions with appropriate instruction in CT. CT can be a (partial) antidote for the chaos of the modern world with armies of bots creating content on social media, political and other forces deliberately attempting to confuse issues, and almost all media labeled “fake news” by social influencers (i.e., people with followers that sometimes run to millions on various social media). Here, are some CT skills that could be helpful in getting more people to think more critically about pandemic-related issues.
Early communications about the ability of masks to prevent the spread of COVID from national health agencies were not consistent. In many regions of the world, the benefits of wearing masks incited prolonged and acrimonious debates ( Tang 2020 ). However, after the initial confusion, virtually all of the global and national health organizations (e.g., WHO, National Health Service in the U. K., U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) endorse masks as a way to slow the spread of COVID ( Cheng et al. 2020 ; Chu et al. 2020 ). However, as we know, some people do not trust governmental agencies and often cite the conflicting information that was originally given as a reason for not wearing a mask. There are varied reasons for refusing to wear a mask, but the one most often cited is that it is against civil liberties ( Smith 2020 ). Reasoning by analogy is an appropriate CT skill for evaluating this belief (and a key skill in legal thinking). It might be useful to cite some of the many laws that already regulate our behavior such as, requiring health inspections for restaurants, setting speed limits, mandating seat belts when riding in a car, and establishing the age at which someone can consume alcohol. Individuals would be asked to consider how the mandate to wear a mask compares to these and other regulatory laws.
Another reason why some people resist the measures suggested by virtually every health agency concerns questions about whom to believe. Could training in CT change the beliefs and actions of even a small percentage of those opposed to wearing masks? Such training would include considering the following questions with practice across a wide domain of knowledge: (a) Does the source have sufficient expertise? (b) Is the expertise recent and relevant? (c) Is there a potential for gain by the information source, such as financial gain? (d) What would the ideal information source be and how close is the current source to the ideal? (e) Does the information source offer evidence that what they are recommending is likely to be correct? (f) Have you traced URLs to determine if the information in front of you really came from the alleged source?, etc. Of course, not everyone will respond in the same way to each question, so there is little likelihood that we would all think alike, but these questions provide a framework for evaluating credibility. Donovan et al. ( 2015 ) were successful using a similar approach to improve dynamic decision-making by asking participants to reflect on questions that relate to the decision. Imagine the effect of rigorous large-scale education in CT from elementary through secondary schools, as well as at the university-level. As stated above, empirical evidence has shown that people can become better thinkers with appropriate instruction in CT. With training, could we encourage some portion of the population to become more astute at judging the credibility of a source of information? It is an experiment worth trying.
Historical records show that refusal to wear a mask during a pandemic is not a new reaction. The epidemic of 1918 also included mandates to wear masks, which drew public backlash. Then, as now, many people refused, even when they were told that it was a symbol of “wartime patriotism” because the 1918 pandemic occurred during World War I ( Lovelace 2020 ). CT instruction would include instruction in why and how to compute cost–benefit analyses. Estimates of “lives saved” by wearing a mask can be made meaningful with graphical displays that allow more people to understand large numbers. Gigerenzer ( 2020 ) found that people can understand risk ratios in medicine when the numbers are presented as frequencies instead of probabilities. If this information were used when presenting the likelihood of illness and death from COVID-19, could we increase the numbers of people who understand the severity of this disease? Small scale studies by Gigerenzer have shown that it is possible.
The process of analyzing arguments requires that individuals rate the strength of support for and against a conclusion. By engaging in this practice, they must consider evidence and reasoning that may run counter to a preferred outcome. Kozyreva et al. ( 2020 ) call the deliberate failure to consider both supporting and conflicting data “deliberate ignorance”—avoiding or failing to consider information that could be useful in decision-making because it may collide with an existing belief. When applied to COVID-19, people would have to decide if the evidence for and against wearing a face mask is a reasonable way to stop the spread of this disease, and if they conclude that it is not, what are the costs and benefits of not wearing masks at a time when governmental health organizations are making them mandatory in public spaces? Again, we wonder if rigorous and systematic instruction in argument analysis would result in more positive attitudes and behaviors that relate to wearing a mask or other real-world problems. We believe that it is an experiment worth doing.
We believe that teaching CT is a worthwhile approach for educating the general public in order to improve reasoning and motivate actions to address, avert, or ameliorate real-world problems like the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that CT can guide intelligent responses to societal and global problems. We are NOT claiming that CT skills will be a universal solution for the many real-world problems that we confront in contemporary society, or that everyone will substitute CT for other decision-making practices, but we do believe that systematic education in CT can help many people become better thinkers, and we believe that this is an important step toward creating a society that values and practices routine CT. The challenges are great, but the tools to tackle them are available, if we are willing to use them.
Conceptualization, D.F.H. and D.S.D.; resources, D.F.H.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, D.F.H.; writing—review and editing, D.F.H. and D.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
No IRB Review.
No Informed Consent.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Charlotte Ruhl
Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate
BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University
Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
On This Page:
Implicit bias refers to the beliefs and attitudes that affect our understanding, actions and decisions in an unconscious way.
The term implicit bias was first coined in 1995 by psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald, who argued that social behavior is largely influenced by unconscious associations and judgments (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
So, what is implicit bias?
Specifically, implicit bias refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious way, making them difficult to control.
Since the mid-90s, psychologists have extensively researched implicit biases, revealing that, without even knowing it, we all possess our own implicit biases.
Kahneman (2011) distinguishes between two types of thinking: system 1 and system 2.
Implicit Bias | Explicit Bias | |
---|---|---|
Unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions. | Conscious beliefs and attitudes about a person or group. | |
Can influence decisions and behavior subconsciously. | Usually apparent in a person’s language and behavior. | |
A hiring manager unknowingly favors candidates who went to the same university as them. | A person making a conscious decision not to hire someone based on their ethnicity. | |
Can lead to unintentional discrimination and bias in many areas like hiring, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. | A person making a conscious decision not to hire someone based on ethnicity. | |
Measured using implicit association tests and other indirect methods. | Can be assessed directly through surveys, interviews, etc. | |
Very common, as everyone holds unconscious biases to some degree. | Less common, as societal norms have shifted to view explicit bias as unacceptable. | |
Improve self-awareness, undergo bias training, diversify your experiences and interactions. | Education, awareness, promoting inclusivity and diversity. |
Implicit bias (unconscious bias) refers to attitudes and beliefs outside our conscious awareness and control. Implicit biases are an example of system one thinking, so we are unaware they exist (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006).
An implicit bias may counter a person’s conscious beliefs without realizing it. For example, it is possible to express explicit liking of a certain social group or approval of a certain action while simultaneously being biased against that group or action on an unconscious level.
Therefore, implicit and explicit biases might differ for the same person.
It is important to understand that implicit biases can become explicit biases. This occurs when you become consciously aware of your prejudices and beliefs. They surface in your mind, leading you to choose whether to act on or against them.
Explicit biases are biases we are aware of on a conscious level (for example, feeling threatened by another group and delivering hate speech as a result). They are an example of system 2 thinking.
It is also possible that your implicit and explicit biases differ from your neighbor, friend, or family member. Many factors can control how such biases are developed.
Implicit biases become evident in many different domains of society. On an interpersonal level, they can manifest in simply daily interactions.
This occurs when certain actions (or microaggressions) make others feel uncomfortable or aware of the specific prejudices you may hold against them.
Implicit prejudice is the automatic, unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that influence our understanding, actions, and decisions. Unlike explicit prejudice, which is consciously controlled, implicit prejudice can occur even in individuals who consciously reject prejudice and strive for impartiality.
Unconscious racial stereotypes are a major example of implicit prejudice. In other words, having an automatic preference for one race over another without being aware of this bias.
This bias can manifest in small interpersonal interactions and has broader implications in society’s legal system and many other important sectors.
Examples may include holding an implicit stereotype that associates Black individuals as violent. As a result, you may cross the street at night when you see a Black man walking in your direction without even realizing why you are crossing the street.
The action taken here is an example of a microaggression. A microaggression is a subtle, automatic, and often nonverbal that communicates hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group (Pierce, 1970). Crossing the street communicates an implicit prejudice, even though you might not even be aware.
Another example of an implicit racial bias is if a Latino student is complimented by a teacher for speaking perfect English, but he is a native English speaker. Here, the teacher assumed that English would not be his first language simply because he is Latino.
Gender biases are another common form of implicit bias. Gender biases are the ways in which we judge men and women based on traditional feminine and masculine assigned traits.
For example, a greater assignment of fame to male than female names (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995) reveals a subconscious bias that holds men at a higher level than their female counterparts. Whether you voice the opinion that men are more famous than women is independent of this implicit gender bias.
Another common implicit gender bias regards women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).
In school, girls are more likely to be associated with language over math. In contrast, males are more likely to be associated with math over language (Steffens & Jelenec, 2011), revealing clear gender-related implicit biases that can ultimately go so far as to dictate future career paths.
Even if you outwardly say men and women are equally good at math, it is possible you subconsciously associate math more strongly with men without even being aware of this association.
Healthcare is another setting where implicit biases are very present. Racial and ethnic minorities and women are subject to less accurate diagnoses, curtailed treatment options, less pain management, and worse clinical outcomes (Chapman, Kaatz, & Carnes, 2013).
Additionally, Black children are often not treated as children or given the same compassion or level of care provided for White children (Johnson et al., 2017).
It becomes evident that implicit biases infiltrate the most common sectors of society, making it all the more important to question how we can remove these biases.
Similar to implicit racial and gender biases, individuals may hold implicit biases against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Again, that does not necessarily mean that these opinions are voiced outwardly or even consciously recognized by the beholder, for that matter.
Rather, these biases are unconscious. A really simple example could be asking a female friend if she has a boyfriend, assuming her sexuality and that heterosexuality is the norm or default.
Instead, you could ask your friend if she is seeing someone in this specific situation. Several other forms of implicit biases fall into categories ranging from weight to ethnicity to ability that come into play in our everyday lives.
Both law enforcement and the legal system shed light on implicit biases. An example of implicit bias functioning in law enforcement is the shooter bias – the tendency among the police to shoot Black civilians more often than White civilians, even when they are unarmed (Mekawi & Bresin, 2015).
This bias has been repeatedly tested in the laboratory setting, revealing an implicit bias against Black individuals. Blacks are also disproportionately arrested and given harsher sentences, and Black juveniles are tried as adults more often than their White peers.
Black boys are also seen as less childlike, less innocent, more culpable, more responsible for their actions, and as being more appropriate targets for police violence (Goff, 2014).
Together, these unconscious stereotypes, which are not rooted in truth, form an array of implicit biases that are extremely dangerous and utterly unjust.
Implicit biases are also visible in the workplace. One experiment that tracked the success of White and Black job applicants found that stereotypically White received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically Black names, regardless of the industry or occupation (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004).
This reveals another form of implicit bias: the hiring bias – Anglicized‐named applicants receiving more favorable pre‐interview impressions than other ethnic‐named applicants (Watson, Appiah, & Thornton, 2011).
We’re susceptible to bias because of these tendencies:
A key reason we develop such biases is that our brains have a natural tendency to look for patterns and associations to make sense of a very complicated world.
Research shows that even before kindergarten, children already use their group membership (e.g., racial group, gender group, age group, etc.) to guide inferences about psychological and behavioral traits.
At such a young age, they have already begun seeking patterns and recognizing what distinguishes them from other groups (Baron, Dunham, Banaji, & Carey, 2014).
And not only do children recognize what sets them apart from other groups, they believe “what is similar to me is good, and what is different from me is bad” (Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001).
Children aren’t just noticing how similar or dissimilar they are to others; dissimilar people are actively disliked (Aboud, 1988).
Recognizing what sets you apart from others and then forming negative opinions about those outgroups (a social group with which an individual does not identify) contributes to the development of implicit biases.
Another explanation is that the development of these biases is a result of the brain’s tendency to try to simplify the world.
Mental shortcuts make it faster and easier for the brain to sort through all of the overwhelming data and stimuli we are met with every second of the day. And we take mental shortcuts all the time. Rules of thumb, educated guesses, and using “common sense” are all forms of mental shortcuts.
Implicit bias is a result of taking one of these cognitive shortcuts inaccurately (Rynders, 2019). As a result, we incorrectly rely on these unconscious stereotypes to provide guidance in a very complex world.
And especially when we are under high levels of stress, we are more likely to rely on these biases than to examine all of the relevant, surrounding information (Wigboldus, Sherman, Franzese, & Knippenberg, 2004).
Influences from media, culture, and your individual upbringing can also contribute to the rise of implicit associations that people form about the members of social outgroups. Media has become increasingly accessible, and while that has many benefits, it can also lead to implicit biases.
The way TV portrays individuals or the language journal articles use can ingrain specific biases in our minds.
For example, they can lead us to associate Black people with criminals or females as nurses or teachers. The way you are raised can also play a huge role. One research study found that parental racial attitudes can influence children’s implicit prejudice (Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005).
And parents are not the only figures who can influence such attitudes. Siblings, the school setting, and the culture in which you grow up can also shape your explicit beliefs and implicit biases.
What sets implicit biases apart from other forms is that they are subconscious – we don’t know if we have them.
However, researchers have developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) tool to help reveal such biases.
The Implicit Attitude Test (IAT) is a psychological assessment to measure an individual’s unconscious biases and associations. The test measures how quickly a person associates concepts or groups (such as race or gender) with positive or negative attributes, revealing biases that may not be consciously acknowledged.
The IAT requires participants to categorize negative and positive words together with either images or words (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).
Tests are taken online and must be performed as quickly as possible, the faster you categorize certain words or faces of a category, the stronger the bias you hold about that category.
For example, the Race IAT requires participants to categorize White faces and Black faces and negative and positive words. The relative speed of association of black faces with negative words is used as an indication of the level of anti-black bias.
Professor Brian Nosek and colleagues tested more than 700,000 subjects. They found that more than 70% of White subjects more easily associated White faces with positive words and Black faces with negative words, concluding that this was evidence of implicit racial bias (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007).
Outside of lab testing, it is very difficult to know if we do, in fact, possess these biases. The fact that they are so hard to detect is in the very nature of this form of bias, making them very dangerous in various real-world settings.
Because of the harmful nature of implicit biases, it is critical to examine how we can begin to remove them.
Practicing mindfulness is one potential way, as it reduces the stress and cognitive load that otherwise leads to relying on such biases.
A 2016 study found that brief mediation decreased unconscious bias against black people and elderly people (Lueke & Gibson, 2016), providing initial insight into the usefulness of this approach and paving the way for future research on this intervention.
Another method is perspective-taking – looking beyond your own point of view so that you can consider how someone else may think or feel about something.
Researcher Belinda Gutierrez implemented a videogame called “Fair Play,” in which players assume the role of a Black graduate student named Jamal Davis.
As Jamal, players experience subtle race bias while completing “quests” to obtain a science degree.
Gutierrez hypothesized that participants who were randomly assigned to play the game would have greater empathy for Jamal and lower implicit race bias than participants randomized to read narrative text (not perspective-taking) describing Jamal’s experience (Gutierrez, 2014), and her hypothesis was supported, illustrating the benefits of perspective taking in increasing empathy towards outgroup members.
Specific implicit bias training has been incorporated in different educational and law enforcement settings. Research has found that diversity training to overcome biases against women in STEM improved with men (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014).
Training programs designed to target and help overcome implicit biases may also be beneficial for police officers (Plant & Peruche, 2005), but there is not enough conclusive evidence to completely support this claim. One pitfall of such training is a potential rebound effect.
Actively trying to inhibit stereotyping actually results in the bias eventually increasing more so than if it had not been initially suppressed in the first place (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). This is very similar to the white bear problem that is discussed in many psychology curricula.
This concept refers to the psychological process whereby deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more likely to surface (Wegner & Schneider, 2003).
Education is crucial. Understanding what implicit biases are, how they can arise how, and how to recognize them in yourself and others are all incredibly important in working towards overcoming such biases.
Learning about other cultures or outgroups and what language and behaviors may come off as offensive is critical as well. Education is a powerful tool that can extend beyond the classroom through books, media, and conversations.
On the bright side, implicit biases in the United States have been improving.
From 2007 to 2016, implicit biases have changed towards neutrality for sexual orientation, race, and skin-tone attitudes (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019), demonstrating that it is possible to overcome these biases.
As mentioned, education is extremely important. Here are a few places to get started in learning more about implicit biases:
To find materials on implicit bias and related topics, search databases and other tools using the following keywords:
“implicit bias” | “implicit gender bias” |
“unconscious bias” | “implicit prejudices” |
“hidden bias” | “implicit racial bias” |
“cognitive bias” | “Implicit Association Test” or IAT |
“implicit association” | “implicit social cognition” |
bias | prejudices |
“prejudice psychological aspects” | stereotypes |
Yes, unconscious bias is the same as implicit bias. Both terms refer to the biases we carry without awareness or conscious control, which can affect our attitudes and actions toward others.
Implicit bias can impact our interactions with others by unconsciously influencing our attitudes, behaviors, and decisions. This can lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, even when we consciously believe in equality and fairness.
It can affect various domains of life, including workplace dynamics, healthcare provision, law enforcement, and everyday social interactions.
Some examples of implicit biases include assuming a woman is less competent than a man in a leadership role, associating certain ethnicities with criminal behavior, or believing that older people are not technologically savvy.
Other examples include perceiving individuals with disabilities as less capable or assuming that someone who is overweight is lazy or unmotivated.
Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice . B. Blackwell.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 (2), 181.
Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., Banaji, M., & Carey, S. (2014). Constraints on the acquisition of social category concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development , 15 (2), 238-268.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review , 94 (4), 991-1013.
Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 (2), 118-128.
Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of general internal medicine , 28 (11), 1504-1510.
Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological science , 30(2), 174-192.
Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of personality and socialpsychology,106(4), 526.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, 102(1), 4.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology , 74(6), 1464.
Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review , 94 (4), 945-967.
Gutierrez, B., Kaatz, A., Chu, S., Ramirez, D., Samson-Samuel, C., & Carnes, M. (2014). “Fair Play”: a videogame designed to address implicit race bias through active perspective taking. Games for health journal , 3 (6), 371-378.
Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education , 17 (3), 419-438.
Johnson, T. J., Winger, D. G., Hickey, R. W., Switzer, G. E., Miller, E., Nguyen, M. B., … & Hausmann, L. R. (2017). Comparison of physician implicit racial bias toward adults versus children. Academic pediatrics , 17 (2), 120-126.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.
Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2016). Brief mindfulness meditation reduces discrimination. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice , 3 (1), 34.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of personality and social psychology , 67 (5), 808.
Mekawi, Y., & Bresin, K. (2015). Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 61 , 120-130.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior , 4 , 265-292.
Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. The black seventies , 265-282.
Plant, E. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2005). The consequences of race for police officers’ responses to criminal suspects. Psychological Science , 16 (3), 180-183.
Rynders, D. (2019). Battling Implicit Bias in the IDEA to Advocate for African American Students with Disabilities. Touro L. Rev. , 35 , 461.
Sinclair, S., Dunn, E., & Lowery, B. (2005). The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children’s implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 41 (3), 283-289.
Steffens, M. C., & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles , 64(5-6), 324-335.
Watson, S., Appiah, O., & Thornton, C. G. (2011). The effect of name on pre‐interview impressions and occupational stereotypes: the case of black sales job applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 41 (10), 2405-2420.
Wegner, D. M., & Schneider, D. J. (2003). The white bear story. Psychological Inquiry , 14 (3-4), 326-329.
Wigboldus, D. H., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & Knippenberg, A. V. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition , 22 (3), 292-309.
Test yourself for bias.
Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
Can anyone explain the difference in a way which can be explained to some one who does not a have a clue about psychology? May be examples could help.
A heuristic is an approach to problem solving, a bias is a prejudice; so in what way do these terms confuse you?
I respectfully disagree. I have noticed that the term bias and heuristic are used interchangeably in the literature that could lead to confusion. The difference between them is subtle.
Can anyone explain the difference in a way which can be explained to some one who does not a have
Heuristics, biases and algorithms are all related terms. The simplest way to describe them is as follows:
A heuristic is a rule, strategy or similar mental shortcut that one can use to derive a solution to a problem. A heuristic that works all of the time is known as an algorithm . Consider the following scenario: you get lost in a maze, what can you do to escape? The solution is to place your hand on the outer edge of the maze and keep walking until you find the exit. Heuristics can help us make sense of the world in a reliable way and reduce our mental load. However, they aren't always perfect and there is also a tendency to use them inappropriately to form beliefs. A systematic error that results from the use of a heuristic is called a cognitive bias .
Per suggestions, the following should be noted:
While the use of heuristics of can lead to cognitive biases, not all cognitive biases are the result of heuristics. Generally, however, when an error in judgement or belief is identified empirically or anecdotally, there will be an attempt to account for it using heuristics.
Additionally, and more broadly, there is just as much ambiguity regarding the definition of cognitive bias in the literature.
For example, in this account of attribution biases, the following definition is provided:
Cognitive biases refer to systematic mistakes that derive from limits that are inherent in our capacity to process information. Because we are not capable of perceiving everything in our environment, our focus is automatically drawn to the most prominent or “eye-catching”—that is, perceptually salient—stimuli. This can lead us to formulate biased and inaccurate causal attributions (Taylor & Fiske, 1975). Specifically, we are prone to equate the most perceptually salient stimuli with the most causally influential stimuli. Shiraev, E. B., Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2016). Cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Taylor & Francis.
When the correct answer is described, they see for themselves how their own judgment is biased in systematic ways. Such personal demonstrations make Tversky and Kahneman's points in a salient, simple, and powerful way. What was innovative about their work was that it drew a connection between heuristics and biases: A heuristic is a rule of thumb used as such in different contexts. A cognitive bias is a systematic error in our thinking. Morvan, C., & Jenkins, W. J. (2017). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. CRC Press.
Heuristics are the "shortcuts" that humans use to reduce task complexity in judgment and choice, and biases are the resulting gaps between normative behavior and the heuristically determined behavior (Kahneman et al., 1982). Chipman, S. E. (Ed.). (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press.
Cognitive biases are subconscious deviations in judgement leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgement and illogical interpretation. From an evolutionary point of view, they have developed because often speed was more important than accuracy. Biases occur due to information processing shortcuts (or heuristics – see Box 5.1), the brain's limited capacity to process information, social influence, and emotional and moral motivations. Cooper, N., & Frain, J. (Eds.). (2016). ABC of clinical reasoning. John Wiley & Sons.
Although this isn't a psychology reference, the definition is a tad weird:
Architects rely on precedent knowledge to design their next building, believing the past buildings worked well and the knowledge can be transferred to their new design, promising similar performances. Cognitive biases (illusions) and potential errors can occur when using precedent knowledge for analogical, pre-parametric and qualitative design thinking. Zarzar, K. M., & Guney, A. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding Meaningful Environments: Architectural Precedents and the Question of Identity in Creative Design (Vol. 4). IOS Press.
Although I am speculating, I would suggest the following explanation: strictly speaking, an error in normative reasoning need only occur once for it to potentially be the result of a cognitive bias. However, a cognitive bias would need to occur in a systematic manner in a study sample before it could be identified in empirical research and reported in the literature.
And that, my friends, concludes my demonstration on overkill .
Sign up or log in, post as a guest.
Required, but never shown
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Confirmation bias, hindsight bias, mere exposure effect, self-serving bias, base rate fallacy, anchoring bias, availability bias, the framing effect , inattentional blindness, and the ecological fallacy are some of the most common examples of cognitive bias. Another example is the false consensus effect. Cognitive biases directly affect our ...
Remember one of my "5 Tips for Critical Thinking": Leave emotion at the door. 6. The Sunk Cost Fallacy. Though labeled a fallacy, I see "sunk cost" as just as much in tune with bias as faulty ...
Thinking about these things and challenging your biases can make you a more critical thinker. Challenging others' biases: Respectfully pointing out biases in others can also help others think more critically, especially if they're unconsciously acting or speaking on their biases. "Even if we can't change others' biases, remember they may be at ...
The Misinformation Effect. The False Consensus Effect. The Halo Effect. The Availability Heuristic. The Optimism Bias. Other Kinds. Trending Videos. Close this video player. Although we like to believe that we're rational and logical, the fact is that we are continually under the influence of cognitive biases.
Being aware of these biases is crucial as they can impact our mental health functioning and overall well-being and hinder our ability to make informed decisions. Different Types of Cognitive Biases. Some examples of different types of cognitive biases include: 1. Actor-Observer Bias
Learning these biases, and being on the alert for them when you make a decision to accept a belief or opinion, will help you become more effective at critical thinking. Wikipedia lists 197 ...
Critical thinking is the discipline of rigorously and skillfully using information, experience, observation, and reasoning to guide your decisions, actions, and beliefs. You'll need to actively question every step of your thinking process to do it well. Collecting, analyzing and evaluating information is an important skill in life, and a highly ...
Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking is the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations. ... the representativeness heuristic, confirmation bias, attentional bias, and the anchoring effect. The field of behavioral economics, made popular by Dan Ariely (2008; 2010; 2012) and ...
12.2 Bias in Critical Thinking Theory and Pedagogy. Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are ...
There are numerous examples of cognitive biases, and the list keeps growing. Here are a few examples of some of the more common ones. 1. Confirmation bias. This bias is based on looking for or overvaluing information that confirms our beliefs or expectations (Edgar & Edgar, 2016; Nickerson, 1998).
Sources of Bias. Recognizing bias is an essential part of problem solving and critical thinking. It is important to be aware of potential sources of bias, such as personal opinions, values, or preconceived notions. Bias can have a profound effect on decisions, leading to outcomes that are not based on facts or evidence.
Confirmation Bias. Attribution Bias. Conformity Bias. Beauty Bias. Gender Bias. Bias refers to a tendency or preference towards a certain group, idea, or concept that influences our judgments and decisions. Our experiences, culture, social norms, and personal beliefs often shape these beliefs.
Explicit biases are prejudiced beliefs regarding a group of people or ways of living. Racism, sexism, religious intolerance, and LGBTQ-phobias are examples of explicit biases. If you think that all people of group X are inferior, then you have an explicit bias against people of group X. 2. Implicit biases are unconscious beliefs that lead ...
Cognitive bias is the tendency to act in an irrational way due to our limited ability to process information objectively. It is not always negative, but it can cloud our judgment and affect how clearly we perceive situations, people, or potential risks. Example: Cognitive bias. One common manifestation of cognitive bias is the stereotype that ...
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Contact Sales Learn More. Cognitive biases are inherent in the way we think, and many of them are unconscious. Identifying the biases you experience and purport in your everyday interactions is the first step to understanding how our mental processes work, which can help us make better, more informed decisions.
A weak sense critical thinker is skilled at using critical thinking tools to serve 'egocentric' and 'sociocentric' biases . Weak-sense critical thinkers can make strong and logical arguments, but they are not fair-minded as they lack the ability to take on the perspective of others ( Paul, 1992 ).
4. Critical Thinking as an Applied Model for Intelligence. One definition of intelligence that directly addresses the question about intelligence and real-world problem solving comes from Nickerson (2020, p. 205): "the ability to learn, to reason well, to solve novel problems, and to deal effectively with novel problems—often unpredictable—that confront one in daily life."
Implicit biases are an example of system one thinking, so we are unaware they exist (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). An implicit bias may counter a person's conscious beliefs without realizing it. For example, it is possible to express explicit liking of a certain social group or approval of a certain action while simultaneously being biased ...
Additionally, and more broadly, there is just as much ambiguity regarding the definition of cognitive bias in the literature. For example, in this account of attribution biases, the following definition is provided: Cognitive biases refer to systematic mistakes that derive from limits that are inherent in our capacity to process information.