Asking the Wrong Questions (Step 3: Evaluate Information)

• Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for information that confirms your beliefs. If you are responsible for making important decisions, underline this mind trap and keep it squarely in your view because this trap snaps on a regular basis and you don’t want to make a crucial decision with lopsided information. To minimize this bias, ask yourself, “Am I being objective?” and actively seek out people who will articulate a contrary view. Look for people with inquisitive and truth-seeking styles who can help you explore all sides of a position.

• Anchoring is the tendency to give undue weight to the first information you receive. Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa^[1] asked people two questions that we invite you to answer:

  • Is the population of Turkey greater than 35 million?

  • What is your best estimate of Turkey’s population?

  They found that information in the first question, specifically the figure 35 million, influenced the answers to the second question. When they used 100 million in the first question, peoples’ estimates to the second question were much larger. The information anchored how they thought about the question. As you can imagine, anchoring is used as a negotiation technique, so be aware of how initial numbers and information can impact the way you evaluate subsequent information.

• The framing effect occurs when a person’s response changes based on the way the question is framed. Consider the example we mentioned previously: You need surgery and your doctor says to you, “92% of the patients survive surgery.” That sounds positive. Now let’s say the doctor says, “8% of the patients die in surgery.” That doesn’t sound as good, and people are more likely to reject the latter statement. The same odds of survival, but different acceptance due to the way the information is framed. When you gather information, look at the frame because it could unduly influence your decision. You want to focus on the information (e.g., odds of survival), not the way it is framed.

• Group think occurs when members of a tightly knit group try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. The Kennedy administration’s decision to invade Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and the George W. Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq have both been described as examples of group think. The ingredients for group think include an inner circle of advisors who are closely aligned and the absence of someone who holds an alternative viewpoint or plays devil’s advocate. A truth-seeking style is particularly valuable for surfacing the tough, but necessary questions.