By Dr. Gary L. Deel, Ph.D., J.D.
Faculty Director, School of Business, American Public University
This article is the first part of a two-part series on confirmation bias and how it affects human reasoning.
Confirmation bias is a well-understood psychological phenomenon, and it is something to which we, as humans, are all susceptible. Essentially, confirmation bias is predicated on the reality that questioning what we think — especially in the presence of others — can be painful and embarrassing. As a result, we have a natural inclination toward seeking out information that supports our preconceived beliefs and ignoring information which conflicts with those beliefs.
What Drives Confirmation Bias?
Confirmation bias is driven by two primary motivators. One is a personal desire for a belief to be true. For example, imagine that you really like Coca-Cola and you believe that it is a healthy beverage. If Coca-Cola wasn’t healthy, it would be harder for you to drink it without a sense of guilt. So you might understandably be resistant to information or evidence that Coca-Cola is not in fact healthy, because you want it to be healthy for your own sake.
The other motivator is a desire to maintain respect from our peers when we commit to a claim or an idea. Suppose that you and a friend are arguing about how many Super Bowls quarterback Tom Brady has won. You think that the answer is seven, so you stake your claim and defend it vehemently.
Personally, you don’t really care whether the answer is seven or any other number, but you’ve now committed to your answer with your confident assertion. Here, you might resist any evidence that suggests Tom Brady has in fact only won six Super Bowls. That’s not because you want Brady to have won seven games, but because you’d rather not endure the embarrassment of having to admit to your friend that you were wrong.
Idolatry and Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias becomes particularly pronounced when you’re dealing with idolatry, especially concerning public figures. Imagine, for example, that it’s the year 2000 and you are a huge Bill Cosby fan. After all, Cosby was at that time “America’s Dad,” and he was beloved by millions of fans. So imagine you’re one of them, and you regularly talk up Cosby’s virtues with your friends and family. Everyone who knows you knows that Bill Cosby is your hero.
But then, in 2005, everything changes. Cosby is accused of sexual assault by the first of what would eventually be many women, and the house of cards that you’ve built to support your idol collapses.
You don’t want to believe that Cosby is capable of this behavior, because you’ve invested far too much emotional currency in your support for him. Also, you’ve made your support very public with friends and family, so Cosby’s scandal comes with a high cost to your own credibility in the eyes of others.
So ask yourself: Under such circumstances, do you think you’d be more inclined to embrace information which shows Cosby is guilty, at the expense of your confidence in your own judgment and the respect that you’ve earned from others up to now? Or do you think you might be eager to look for information which suggests that Cosby is innocent, which would then preserve your dignity and your reputation with everyone you know? The argument for Cosby’s innocence — no matter how far-fetched and delusional — becomes a necessity for both your mental stability and your social integrity.
In the second part of this series, we’ll turn to the 2020 election and look at how confirmation bias played out among many supporters of President Donald Trump.
About the Author
Dr. Gary Deel is a Faculty Director with the School of Business at American Public University. He holds a J.D. in Law and a Ph.D. in Hospitality/Business Management. Gary teaches human resources and employment law classes for American Public University, the University of Central Florida, Colorado State University and others.
