Types of Biases

We have listed what we think are some of the most  frequent and important biases that occur and have included examples where we thought they would help explain the bias.  Are there more types of bias than what we've listed here?  Yes, there are a whole lot, and we have a link at the bottom of this page that will take you to a list.

Implicit Bias:

Definition: There are various definitions of implicit bias, all of which include the idea that biases can occur outside of conscious awareness and/or conscious control.

As noted in the introduction to biases, and the discussion of the neurological bases for biases (see links below), humans recognize patterns in order to navigate the complexities of the world we live in.  This, along with socio-cultural upbringing, is seen as cause and basis of implicit biases.

Given the extent to which people are often unable to see the degree to which they might actually have biases (which some might call "preferences"), research into this topic has been an important exploration of this phenomenon.

   To take an online test for Implicit Biases

Confirmation Bias (AKA "Believing is Seeing") - Everything you look for and all that you perceive has a way of proving whatever you already believe.

This is a really, really, really, really important kind of bias.  We have discussed it somewhat in our article about the scientific method, but we want to devote more attention to it here in a separate article.

Definition: Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.  Often, this involves ignoring any information that might invalidate one's perceptions, and it leads to the logical fallacy called "Cherry Picking."

More specifically, confirmation bias says that when you seek information (facts, data) about reality, you only look for, or recognize that which supports what you already believe, and if you find it, you stop there.  You either disattend, or ignore , or don't look further and deeper to avoid finding anything that might contradict your preexisting beliefs and perceptions about reality.

So, for example, If you think it is really safe to drive over the speed limit, you'll not take into account data regarding auto accidents caused by excessive speed. 

Or, if you believe private gun ownership reduces crime, you only look at data comparing two similar towns, one that allows concealed carry and one that does not, and find the former has a lower crime rate, thereby confirming what you already believe, and you don't look to compare this data with areas where gun ownership and crime are high (e.g., some inner city areas with high gang presence). 

Or when you hear that 60% of the population opposes some legislation, without looking further to find out that only half of that group opposes it because the don't like what it does, while the other half opposes it because it doesn't do as much as they want it to do, which means only the first half (i.e., only 30%) want to overturn the legislation.

In some cases, this bias can be rather harmless, but in others, it can lead to disastrous results, gross misperceptions that lead to bad decisions, that can even result in death.

Thing is, when folks look for confirmation of preexisting notions and assumptions, they can not only ignore that which might disprove their preconceptions, but they may embrace things that are outright false (like "urban legends").

To make this concrete, there can be large number of facts and data about something, that folks can manipulate statistically to present an inaccurate picture, but it can easily be embraced by those seeking confirmation of something they already consider to be true. 

Status Quo Bias - AKA Aversion to Change Bias, this bias is a preference for keeping things the way they are, it includes a wish to avoid risk that might occur should things change.  In other words, this is a bias against change. 

Here's an example involving automotive insurance in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  This is something that really happened in the early 1990s.  

Both states initiated tort reform programs with two options for their automobile insurance.  One was an expensive options that included the full right to sue, and the other was a less expensive option which had limited rights to sue.  We don't know why they did it this way, but the two states offered one option as a default option. 

BUT they did not offer the SAME as default.  In New Jersey, the cheaper option with limited right to sue was given as default, while in Pennsylvania the more expensive option with full rights to sue was given as default. 

To make this clear, default = status quo.  If people chose "default," they were in effect choosing "status quo."

Now what makes this interesting was that the two states did NOT offer the same option as default (status quo), AND in both states folks chose the default option over the other one. In New Jersey the majority chose the cheaper option, while in Pennsylvania they chose the more expensive option.

Bias blind spot – the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people.

Choice-supportive bias – the tendency to remember one's choices as being better than they actually were.

Self-serving bias - the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures.  It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests.

Attentional Bias – this has to do with what we choose to pay attention to.  It is an implicit cognitive bias defined as the tendency of emotionally dominant stimuli in one's environment to preferentially draw and hold attention.  Some might call the the "Cup half empty vs the cup half full" bias.  It sounds a little like confirmation bias, since it relates to what we choose to pay attention to, but it doesn't really concern what we ignore.  Some call it the "Oh, look, something shiny" bias.

Deciding to vote for a candidate who has a broad array of goals, some of which may actually not be in the particular voters best interest, because one of the goals is important to the voter.  This could include an elderly voter choosing to vote for someone who wants to eliminate social security, because that candidate is opposed to equal rights for homosexuals.

Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.  Some like to call this the "Lemming effect."

Believing something many folks believe and saying, "If they all believe it, it must be true."

Hostile media effect - the tendency to see a media report as being biased due to one's own strong partisan views.

When a news story reports something negative about a candidate from a person's own political party, saying that report is obviously biased, because the news outlet favors the other political party.

Hindsight bias - sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, or "Monday-morning-quarterbacking" - the tendency to see past events as being predictable.  That is, after something happens, looking back and saying, "Oh, they should have known better than to do that, because what happened next was predictable," when, in fact, it might not have been predictable at all beforehand.

After a peace negotiation fails because one side refused to participate, saying the should have known in advance that would happen.

Belief bias - when one's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by one's belief in the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

Fred's hard work is the reason he got rich.  If one believes that riches only come to those who work hard, this appears to be a logical statement.  However, it just happens that Fred inherited all his money.  It was strictly luck - he didn't work for a penny of it.

Attribution bias - Here's rather self-centered form of bias.  It involves attributing different causes for one's own behavior than for the behavior of others.  Simply put, in this bias, we say that our own behavior is mostly caused by context, the environmental factors occurring that motivate our actions. 

On the other hand, we don't see the behavior of others as that context driven.  Instead we attribute the causes to their personality, or some other mental attribute, such as intelligence.

Fred is walking down the street.  Behind Fred, a car stopping for a light that has suddenly turned red, skids toward the intersection.  Fred jumps off the sidewalk onto the lawn of the house he is walking next to.  Now, someone seeing Fred do this might conclude that he is fearful (a personality attribute), but Fred might well simply see it as a reaction to a noise suggesting a car might come careening up onto the sidewalk.  

Another example: We see Fred trip on something on the sidewalk, we say this resulted from the fact that Fred is clumsy, or too inattentive.  But if we trip on something in the sidewalk, we say it's because there's a crack in the sidewalk.

This is NOT to say that one, or the other is appropriate.  We humans do exhibit some repeating patterns of behavior in different context which can be seen as "personality," but at the same time, it is the context that activates these behaviors.

What we ARE saying is that this tendency to be biased in our attributions can limit our ability to perceive realities about ourselves and other people.

Okay, okay, you say, but why is this "attribution bias" so important that it has to be discussed here?  The answer is: Because when it comes to viewing others it can lead to harmful stereotyping, especially when the personality attribution is a disservice to the other (e.g., he's just "lazy," and so are all the people in his ethnic group).

Blame the victim bias - closely related to the fundamental attribution bias, this is the tendency to say that people only get what they deserve.  This is a part of a general bias toward personal responsibility, that is, ignoring the role of the environment, including chance and opportunity, and holding everyone personally responsible for everything that happens to them.

This is a favorite tactic in politics, where politicians do everything possible to thwart their opponents, then blame the opponents for not succeeding.

Fred got robbed, because he was walking down a dark street alone.   Or, we blocked every bill in Congress presented by the other side, but if they had done a better job, their bills would have passed--in other words, it's their fault the bills didn't pass.

Many of these biases form the psychological  bases for committing a number of logical fallacies. 

 To read about the neuropsychological basis for biases 

 To read about bias detection

 To see a long list of cognitive biases (will open in a new window, or tab)

 To view our Logical Fallacies Page 

 To view our Science Page