Professor James Herricks stated, ‘due to compromised individual and societal opinions, as well as opinions not counted for due to apathy,  bias is not homogeneous, nor agreeable with tested truths, rather, it is pliable and imperfect, the outcome of an ongoing power struggle between clashing subjectivity, dogma, justified action and personal experience.’

Simply explained, any deviation from facts of truth can be manipulated.

 

​

 

Examples of Bias and How To Manage Them

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________​

 

The psychology, cognitive ability, cultural and spiritual values of individuals profoundly shape their bias and, responses to further information inputs. The subject is too wide to examine critically within this lesson note. We examine three common forms to give practitioners insight and explain bias's complex character and influence on negotiated outcomes.

​

• Conforming Bias

• Confirmation Bias

• Anchoring Bias

 

While the study of bias is categorized into several general categories, practitioners may choose to research and examine some of the other more commonly recognized forms of bias not covered in this lesson.

These include;

​

   *  Availability Heuristic                                                                             *  Hindsight Bias

   *  Overconfidence Bias                                                                            *  Dunning-Kruger Effect

   *  Stereotypical Bias                                                                                 *  Implicit Bias

   *  In-group Bias (favouring others)                                                          *   Out-group Bias (disfavouring others)

   *  Selection Bias                                                                                       *  Observer Bias

   *  Publication Bias (Media Bias)                                                               *  Funding Bias

   *  Cultural Bias                                                                                          *  and many more

 

These categories can encompass numerous specific biases, with researchers continuously exploring and identifying different forms of bias across various disciplines. Recognizing and understanding these biases is crucial for improving critical thinking, decision-making, and research integrity.

 

 

Conforming Bias

​

Conformity is the tendency to adjust beliefs and opinions to fit in with and please others.  Instead of making decision independently of others, individuals take cues, seeking acceptance from the group they associate with and adjust their beliefs to conform with those people. 

​

Agreeableness is the condition of being socially homogenous, friendly and considerate, but its weakness is that individuals usually surrender their personal moral rights and legal entitlements as a result. Social behavioural surveys indicate that once a consensus of between 12% and 15% is achieved within a group, 78% of the remaining individuals respond with the same actions or make the same decision, even if they know that the decision is wrong.

​

Influence on Perspectives:

​

Conformists tend not to want to ‘rock the boat,’ or be subject to group disapproval. They require the approval of their broader society and social groups, often failing to communicate clearly and accurately and assert their inner desires or needs.  They struggle to accept criticism and avoid conflict, leading  to ambiguity of opinion and behaviours which may appear to be contradictory or oppositional.

​

When confronted with defeat or loss, conformists become indifferent, unemotional and detached.  This is most evident when they experience sudden break downs of relationship and the abandonment of friends seeking to make significant changes and the establishment of new beginnings.

​

Outcomes

​

Often insecure and uncertain, conformists are slow to ‘open up,’ being reluctant to tell you everything until they are certain you approve of or accept their rhetoric, beliefs, expectations and explanations.

​

If they are complicit in or cause for conflict, whether through mistaken belief, ignorance or malicious intent, they will avoid confronting the real issues and engage in ‘skiamachy,’ a phycological process of counterfeit argument often referred to as ‘battle of the shadows.’ Too often the battle is with their own internal insecurity. This becomes the source for the supply of irrelevant information, and for many, a reluctance to accept reality.

​

Cautionary Note

​

Entrenched conformity tends to force people to project their insecurities, fears, or unresolved issues onto others. By attributing these negative traits to someone else (the group they conform with), they try to avoid confronting their own shortcomings, culpability and vulnerabilities.

Almost always, the inability to find resolution on entirely acceptable terms for the conformist is attributed to a failing of the mediator or negotiator.

 

 

Confirmation Bias

​

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information that reinforces preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. This bias gives disproportionate weight to information supports a person’s view while disregarding or undervaluing evidence that contradicts that information.

​

Confirmation bias is common, a cognitive shortcut we use when gathering and interpreting information. Evaluating the value and probity of evidence takes time and energy, so our brain looks for short cuts to make the process more efficient. Often expressed as, ‘told you so’ or ‘I knew that would happen’ and at its lowest form, the language of resignation and a presumptuous disposition that reinforces inattentiveness, unintelligent reasoning and leads to judgemental and narcissistic behaviours towards those that are perceived as wrong.

​

Influence on Perspectives:

 

Confirming behaviour limits curiosity and openness to ‘learning and experience,’ the natural instincts that enable understanding of the ‘big picture.’ When challenged, individuals may become more entrenched in their views, strengthening their commitment and justifications to existing assumptions or ideologies and expressing their positions in a manner referred to as ‘belligerent,’ ‘dogmatic,’ or ‘pig headed.’  

 

Typical behaviours include overstepping boundaries of social conduct and ignoring the feelings and opinions of others, assuming authority or familiarity without appropriate basis or consent and displaying certainty when there they have no knowledge or experience.

 

Outcomes:

 

In organizational contexts, confirmation bias can result in suboptimal decisions as decision-makers overlook important contradictory but critical information. This causes individuals to avoid or ignore challenging or contradictory information, resulting in the manipulation of information to affirm their existing view.

 

This condition was clearly demonstrated in the 2024 U.S. elections, where the Democrats believed they had won the elections months before the vote, and failing to listen to independent pollsters, and failed to take action to counter the grass root concerns of lower and middle-class Americans.

 

Predisposition beliefs (conformation bias) lead to a failure to correctly analyse evolving facts and communication failures because of a failure to recognise critical facts between individuals or groups with differing beliefs, experiences and viewpoints.

​

Cautionary Note

​

Individuals prone to confirmation tend to agree with ‘what-ever’ when in groups or in counselling sessions, but when they step away, revert to their previous flawed ideology and beliefs. Clinging to preexisting beliefs or opinions, they disregard contrary evidence and resist change resulting in deadlocks or stagnation and procrastination.

​

Any agreement reached may reflect a superficial consensus because confirmation bias prevents alignment with the ‘now facts,’ leading to future conflicts or dissatisfaction.  These individuals almost always feel pressured to conform and later express dissatisfaction saying their true opinions were not heard which can lead to resentment and deteriorate relationships, affecting future negotiations.

 

 

Anchoring Bias

​

Anchoring bias refers to the tendency to make decisions based on the first piece of information encountered (the "anchor") when making decisions.  That information becomes a pivot from which subsequent judgments and evaluations are influenced, even if it is irrelevant or incorrect.

​

An example of this bias was evident in the Tversky and Kahneman experiment, which involved all United Nations (UN) members to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations. After being shown a random number (the anchor), despite knowing the number of seats, a disproportionate number were significantly influenced by the initial number, illustrating the anchoring effect.   When pre-emptive research is not done objectively and impartially, or in low-skill-capable environments, the 'anchor' could be referred to as the 'tail that wags the dog.'

 

Influence on perspectives

 

The first number or piece of information presented can significantly influence later judgments. Apparent in low functioning individuals    anchoring bias can lead to cognitive overload, where individuals may not have the capacity to process all relevant information fully. They then rely on the anchor as a simplifying heuristic.

  

Outcomes

​

Studies have shown anchoring bias in all sectors, including pricing, judicial decisions, and medical diagnoses. For instance, jurors may rely on the initial sentencing recommendations as anchors, which can influence their final verdicts.These individuals tend to take the first offer of settlement or act as an anchor that affects all future discussions. Negotiators may adjust their counteroffers based on the initial proposal rather than an objective assessment of value.

​

Cautionary Note

​

Practitioners, as impartial umpires within the resolution process, must be attentive to the impaired cognitive ability of individuals exhibiting high-functioning anchoring bias.

​

Suggestions and alternative views may be misconstrued as ‘facts’ while primary evidence is relegated or ignored as being considered superficial, leading to maligned outcomes and possibly exposing practitioners to future civil claims by those they represent.

​​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​