THE SHORT ANSWER
Cognitive biases are recurring tendencies that can shape judgment, such as seeking confirming evidence, anchoring on an initial number or continuing because of past investment. Awareness helps frame checks, but it does not guarantee unbiased decisions.
Focus on the decision consequence
| Pattern | Decision risk | Practical check |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmation bias | Only supportive evidence is sought | Ask what would disconfirm the view |
| Anchoring | The first number dominates estimates | Estimate independently before comparing |
| Availability | Vivid recent cases feel typical | Check the wider base rate |
| Sunk-cost effect | Past investment justifies future loss | Compare future options from today |
| Overconfidence | Uncertainty is understated | Use ranges and record calibration |
| Survivorship bias | Visible successes hide failures | Define the missing comparison set |
Do not diagnose every disagreement as bias
People can reach different conclusions because they have different evidence, objectives or risk tolerances. A bias label can become a shortcut for dismissing someone without addressing their reasoning.
Research on bias-reduction methods is uneven and context-dependent. The APA review cited here found limited tested mitigation in its specialist domain, so OpenSkool does not present one checklist as a cure.
Evidence & context: American Psychological Association
Change the process around the judgment
- Write criteria before seeing the options.
- Seek evidence that could change the preferred view.
- Make estimates independently before group discussion.
- Separate past cost from future value.
- Assign someone to develop the strongest alternative explanation.
- Review outcomes without rewriting the original forecast.
Run a pre-decision bias check
Choose one live decision. Record the first number or preferred option, the evidence you hope is true, a plausible disconfirming observation, and which missing cases could change the picture. Revisit the note after the outcome.
Sources & further reading
- Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky and Kahneman, Science, 1974. Foundational experiments and arguments about heuristics in judgment. Later research has refined the field, so the article avoids treating a short bias list as a complete theory.
- Cognitive biases can affect experts’ judgments
American Psychological Association. A research summary and domain-specific systematic review. It supports cautious treatment of bias and debiasing, not universal effect sizes or guaranteed remedies.
Examples and exercises are illustrative unless attributed to a source. No independent expert review is claimed.
A correction, a counterexample or an experience worth sharing?
Join the conversation ↗