Recognizable questions

- Why do I notice evidence for my own opinion so quickly?

- Why do I find information that contradicts my belief to be weaker or less reliable more quickly?

- Why do two people seem to look at the same information and still both become more convinced of their own position?

- Why do I sometimes remember examples that confirm my opinion better?

- How can I examine my own beliefs more honestly?

- And how do I know whether I’m rejecting a source because of its quality — or because I don’t like its conclusion?

What is confirmation bias?
The confirmation bias, often called confirmation bias, is the human tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that supports existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses.
Psychologist Raymond Nickerson described how this phenomenon can take different forms. For example, we may notice or seek confirming information more easily, while information that goes against our expectations is examined more critically.
That doesn’t mean someone consciously thinks: I only want to see information that proves me right. The process can be much more subtle.

I have a belief
        ↓
Relevant information
stands out faster
        ↓
“Told you so”

Confirmation bias is not a sign that someone is stupid, badly informed, or intentionally dishonest. It is a human tendency that can affect anyone.

Why can our brain do this?

An existing belief gives us a framework for understanding new information. That is often useful: without prior knowledge, we would have to assess every situation from scratch.

But that framework can also make information that fits it easier to process than information that conflicts with it.

Researchers Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha also showed that not everything called confirmation bias has the same cause. People often use a so-called positive test strategy: when they have a hunch, they mainly examine situations in which they expect the hunch to be correct. Such a strategy can often be very useful, but under certain circumstances it can also lead to wrong conclusions.

So confirmation bias does not simply mean:

“People don’t want
to know the truth”

It can arise from normal ways in which our brain searches for and organizes information.

Everyday example

Suppose you think:

“Dogs are unreliable.”

During a walk you encounter eleven dogs. Ten walk past calmly. One dog barks loudly at you.

At the end of the day you think:

“See? Dogs can’t be trusted.”

10 calm dogs
       +
1 barking dog
       ↓
“Told you so”

The barking dog was real. You didn’t make it up.

The question is only: did you weigh all the information equally?

Confirmation bias often works with real facts. The distortion can happen because some facts get much more attention than others.

Counterevidence can be judged more harshly

Confirmation bias is not just about which information we seek. The way we evaluate evidence can also be influenced by what we already believe.

In a well-known study by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper, people who were for and against the death penalty were shown research material supporting different conclusions. On average, participants were more critical of research that went against their existing position and more favorable toward research that supported it.

That shows why the same information can be judged very differently by two people.

The same information
        ↓
“Strong evidence”
or
“Weak research”

This does not mean that people automatically move further apart after every counterargument. The study mainly shows that existing beliefs can influence how we evaluate new evidence.

Confirmation bias does not mean your belief is wrong

This distinction is essential.

If someone shows confirmation bias, that does not prove their belief is false.

You can be right and still mostly notice evidence that supports you.

You can be wrong and still examine certain arguments very carefully.

Confirmation bias
        ≠
proof that a
belief is false

The concept is about how we process information, not directly about the truth of the final conclusion.

That is why a better question is:

“Am I judging evidence for and against my belief by the same standard?”

How can this happen within tight-knit belief communities?

Confirmation bias can occur in any environment where people share strong beliefs.

That can be a religious community, but also a political movement, company, circle of friends, activist group, online community, or community of former members.

When people mainly encounter information from within their own circle, they naturally see more examples that fit the shared worldview.

That does not mean information from one’s own group is automatically wrong or unreliable.

The relevant question is:

“Is information that does not fit my current belief also being examined fairly?”

How can this be recognizable among Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Within the official publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are various indications about examining information.

In Insight on the Scriptures, for example, it says that a person should read God’s Word with a receptive mind and set aside prejudice and preconceived ideas.

At the same time, official publications teach that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not read or listen to information they consider apostate. In an official explanation about apostasy, for example, it says that loyal Witnesses do not want to read or listen to apostate ideas out of curiosity or under pressure.

From the psychology of confirmation bias, you can place a general research question alongside that:

“How do I determine which information is reliable enough to take into account?”

That question is not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A former Witness may, for example, mainly follow videos, websites, and personal stories from other ex-JWs and therefore also mainly encounter information that aligns with their current beliefs.

JW
can seek confirmation

Ex-JW
can seek confirmation

Politically left or right
can seek confirmation

Everyone can do it

Psychology does not tell us what conclusion someone should draw about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It helps examine whether the same standards are being used for information that feels comfortable and uncomfortable for our existing belief.

“But some sources really are unreliable, aren’t they?”

Absolutely.

Critical thinking does not mean every source, opinion, or claim should be given equal weight.

A properly conducted study does not have to be judged in the same way as an anonymous social media post. Expertise, method, evidence, transparency, and possible interests can also be relevant.

So confirmation bias does not mean:

“You have to take all sources equally seriously.”

The more interesting question is:

If this source had concluded
the exact opposite...

would I judge the quality
the same way?

That helps distinguish between criticizing the quality of evidence and criticizing because we do not like the conclusion.

What information do I seek out myself?

Confirmation bias can begin even before we evaluate information.

Suppose someone wants to know whether coffee is healthy.

They may search for:

“Why coffee is healthy”

and then find many arguments in favor of coffee.

But someone with the opposite expectation may search for:

“Why coffee is unhealthy”

and encounter a completely different set of information.

My search query
      ↓
The information
I encounter
      ↓
My view
of the subject

That is why it can be useful not only to look for confirmation of your own hunch, but also to consciously seek well-supported counterarguments.

A powerful question: what would change my mind?

One of the most useful ways to examine a belief is to ask yourself in advance:

“What evidence could make me change my mind?”

If you can answer that, you know better what your belief is actually based on.

When the answer is:

“Nothing.”

it may be worth examining whether the belief is still testable.

That does not mean you should change your mind with every new argument. Strong beliefs can have very good reasons.

The question is whether counterevidence is in principle given a fair chance.

Look for the strongest counterargument

Another exercise is to temporarily stop asking yourself:

“Why am I right?”

and instead:

“What is the best argument from someone who disagrees with me?”

Why am I right?
        ↓
Seeking confirmation

What would show
that I’m mistaken?
        ↓
Testing conviction

In doing so, it helps, when safe and practical, to look at the other side’s position from their own sources instead of reading only what opponents say about it.

The goal is not to doubt everything.

The goal is to understand why you think what you think.

Confirmation bias and identity

Some beliefs are relatively impersonal. Whether one brand of vacuum cleaner is better than another usually does not touch on who you are.

Other beliefs can become closely tied to identity, family, faith, morality, or an important community.

New information can then mean more than just:

“Maybe I was wrong about a fact.”

It can also feel like:

“What does this mean for who I am?”

That can make it harder to calmly examine conflicting information.

This topic therefore relates to other psychological processes such as cognitive dissonance, social identity, and motivated reasoning.

What can you do with it?

You do not have to switch off confirmation bias entirely. That is probably unrealistic. But you can develop ways to recognize it sooner.

What exactly do I believe now?

What evidence supports my belief?

What evidence speaks against it?

Have I investigated that counterevidence myself?

Am I using the same standard for both sides?

Do I trust this source because the method is sound, or because I like the conclusion?

What information would actually make me change my mind?

You can also deliberately look at several reliable perspectives. Not because the truth is always exactly in the middle, but because you can assess a belief better when you also understand what the strongest arguments against it are.

Questions to reflect on

Which belief would I find hardest to revise?

What information do I naturally seek out?

What information do I avoid — and why?

Which sources do I trust, and on what is that trust based?

Do I know the strongest argument of someone who thinks differently?

Have I looked at that argument from the original source, or mainly through people who disagree with it?

Do I notice a weak argument just as quickly when it supports my own view?

Would I use the same standard of evidence for a belief I do not agree with?

Which facts would really change my conclusion?

And perhaps the most important:

Am I examining
evidence?

or

am I mainly defending my
conclusion?

Summary

Confirmation bias is the human tendency to seek or interpret information that fits existing ideas more easily, while information that conflicts with them may be evaluated differently or more critically. The phenomenon has been extensively described in psychological research.

Confirmation bias does not mean that your belief is automatically false. Nor does it mean that all sources are equally reliable.

The key question is:

“Am I using the same standard for evidence that supports me as for evidence that contradicts me?”

Critical thinking therefore does not mean only critically examining the beliefs of others. It also means being willing to seriously examine your own preferred explanation.

Sources and further reading

Raymond S. Nickerson (1998), Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises, Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. A comprehensive overview of confirmation bias and the various ways in which existing beliefs can influence the search for and interpretation of information.
Joshua Klayman & Young-Won Ha (1987), Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing, Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228. Important nuance: much behavior described as confirmation bias can be understood as a positive test strategy, which is sometimes efficient but can also lead to systematic errors.
Charles G. Lord, Lee Ross & Mark R. Lepper (1979), Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. A classic study on the influence of existing beliefs on the evaluation of new evidence.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Reading, Insight on the Scriptures. An official publication stating that prejudices and preconceived ideas should be set aside when reading God’s Word.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – official explanation of apostasy. It states that loyal Witnesses do not want to read or listen to apostate ideas. This source is used to present the organization’s own guideline factually, without drawing a conclusion for the reader.