Why do we keep fooling ourselves? Cognitive biases on the Northwest Missouri State University campus
Camilo Castelblanco- Northwest Missouri State University
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Jason McCain
Cognitive biases including the misinformation effect, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias are misleading ways of reasoning that can alter our perception of reality. Using questionnaires, this study investigated the extent to which these biases are present in the student-community of Northwest Missouri State University. Results indicated that more than 70% of the students would engage in risky or unproductive behaviors despite knowing the consequences. Similarly, a high proportion of students tended to believe in the information presented on social media after an event has happened. Lastly, a smaller segment of students tended to look for information that supported their beliefs.
Thank you for your presentation! Fascinating topic.
What got you interested in studying these topics?
Thank you for your comments, Whitney.
When I was taking Cognitive Psychology and reading “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, I got very interested in the way biases influence every aspect of our lives. I realized it affected me and I started wondering how it could affect other students on campus.
Love that book! I know what you mean about reading it and starting to wonder how it applies to everyday life.
I really appreciated the graphics you included on the poster and QR code with resources. Do you think if you would have done the same study across other universities in different regions you would find similar results or would they be drastically different?
That is a very good question, Haley. I think it would be really interesting to replicate the study in other schools across the country. Although I am not an expert by any means, I consider the results for social media use and trust (i.e. misinformation effect) could be similar. Young adults and college students tend to use these platforms to a similar extent.
Regarding confirmation bias, I think students in some regions across the country may be more “proud” or attached to their schools. Perhaps places with higher competitiveness in terms of sports, arts, etc.
Lastly, I would not be sure how cognitive dissonance would vary among subjects in different universities. For instance, the likelihood of driving while speaking on the phone depends on many factors including personal relationships, previous background/experiences/etc.
Hi Camilo! Great presentation. I was particularly interested in the answers participants gave in the cognitive dissonance study. For those who said ‘yes’, they would answer the phone while driving, it appears there are different circumstances that would determine their ‘yes’. Some would answer if it was an emergency, while others would decide to answer based on their multi-tasking skills. I’m wondering about the different thresholds people have when they decide to override their cognitive dissonance and pick up the phone. Do you have any input on this?
That is a great point, Sarah.
When participants were asked, “Why would you engage in such behavior?” they were allowed to explain in as much detail as they desired. Therefore, the categories in the presentation are just a general representation of their answers. And although a ‘specific threshold’ was not measured, many participants argued that picking up the phone was more important, because they cared for their friend/relative or because they feared an emergency was happening (among other reasons). In other words, most participants who would answer the phone were more concerned about the other person rather than personal consequences (e.g. possibility of an accident).
I hypothesize that in “real-life”, the threshold for picking up or not the phone could be determined by system 1 thinking (Kahneman); it would be almost automatic. In the study, I think participants’ threshold could depend on many factors like previous experiences with emergencies or car crashes, relationship with others, etc. Thus, it is hard to conclude.