Decision-Making Traps Part 4: The Confirming-Evidence Trap

In our previous post in this series, we introduced “The Hidden Traps in Decision Making” by John S. Hammond, Ralph L. Keeney, and Howard Raiffa, in which they describe six traps in organizational decision-making that can adversely affect performance. This week’s post covers the fourth trap, the “The Confirming-Evidence Trap” that leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it. This not only affects where we go to look for evidence, but also how we interpret the information that we receive.

Big Sky sees this trap in our clients especially when executives are biased based on their past experience and knowledge, or if they are pushing for their pet projects. For example, when we help client prioritize investments, we find that some executives are very surprised with how an objective process is at odds with their “gut.” For a great read on this phenomenon, check out Moneyball by Michael Lewis. Clients who are in “The Status-Quo” and “The Sunk-Cost” traps also succumb to “The Confirming-Evidence” trap.

Techniques to overcome:

1. Confirm that you are examining all the evidence with equal rigor
2. Find someone you respect to play the devil’s advocate
3. Be honest with yourself about your motives (are you gathering information to confirm what you already think?)
4. While seeking advice of others, don’t ask leading questions that invite confirming evidence

Our next post in this series will discuss the “The Framing Trap” outlined in the article and will be posted next week.