How Cognitive Biases Trick Our Brain

When observing a product priced at 9 euros, marked down from 15 euros, consumers often perceive this as a favorable transaction. This initial reference point, the anchor, influences the subsequent evaluation. If the product had simply been listed at 9 euros without context, the perception of its value would likely be much lower. The established anchor of 15 euros creates a perceived economy, subtly steering the decision away from the core question: is the product worth 9 euros on its own merits?

What is observed here is a cognitive bias, meaning a deviation from what the rational response should be.

Traditional education suggests that sound decision-making involves systematically gathering data, analyzing it objectively, and processing it logically. However, real-world decision-making rarely follows this strict, methodical path. Instead, an initial idea surfaces almost immediately, driven by the brain’s faster processing mechanisms, before any deliberate verification takes place.

The initial idea that surfaces during decision-making stems from what is termed the fast thinking system, often referred to as System 1. This intuitive thought process generates quick suggestions. Subsequently, an individual might exert the effort required to verify these suggestions using System 2, the slow thinking system. Cognitive biases manifest when the fast system is allowed to dominate the decision-making process, and the slower system fails to provide adequate scrutiny or verification.

Confirmation bias describes the tendency to filter incoming information based on what is already believed. Since attention cannot be paid to every piece of surrounding information without becoming overwhelmed, the brain filters data in a biased manner. This results in assigning greater importance to information that confirms prior assumptions while diminishing the significance of data that challenges existing viewpoints.

Consider a political debate between two candidates where one candidate is supported by the viewer. At the conclusion of the debate, the supporter will naturally conclude that their preferred candidate scored more points. Conversely, a friend holding opposing political views will arrive at the exact opposite conclusion after watching the identical event. Both individuals experienced different debates because each was selectively attentive to the points scored by their favored candidate.

When a group of five friends attempts to decide on a restaurant, the process often defaults to expediency rather than consensus. Typically, one person proposes a strong suggestion, perhaps an Italian restaurant, and the others acquiesce with simple agreement, such as 'why not, okay.' Consequently, the group proceeds to the Italian restaurant, even though the other four individuals might have preferred different options or even shared a similar, unexpressed better idea.

Those who disagree tend to stifle their disagreement because they do not want to cause trouble or be bothersome.

Groupthink occurs because the decision process is either poorly organized or simply allowed to emerge organically. This structure ensures that the first idea presented, or the one voiced most forcefully, gains disproportionate weight. If a hierarchy exists, the leader's suggestion carries more influence, compelling those in disagreement to suppress their objections to avoid conflict or appearing difficult.

The availability bias describes how the fast thinking system gravitates toward information simply because it is present and accessible, rather than because it holds the greatest importance or relevance. A striking illustration emerged during the COVID-19 crisis when case numbers were constantly compared across nations. Although experts repeatedly noted that these numbers were meaningless without accounting for differing national testing policies, the comparison persisted because the raw case data was readily available.

This tendency illustrates prioritizing readily available information over actively seeking out the specific data required for a truly informed judgment.

The most effective defense against cognitive biases involves proactively seeking assistance from others to create an alert system. This means encouraging team members or friends to point out instances where overconfidence or bias might be influencing a judgment.

A robust decision-making method ensures that choices are made based on the appropriate criteria utilizing the correct tools, preventing reliance on instinct, which remains highly susceptible to influence from cognitive biases.