We all make snap judgments without considering context. Tools and activities that share theories about psychology allow us to better understand human attitudes and behaviour (including our cognitive limitations) which can help us build greater understanding, empathy, and compassion for ourselves and others.  

Here are a number of social psychological explanations that offer insight into human behaviour. Social psychology examines how our social world influences how people think, feel and act. People may benefit from activities, tools, presentations or workshops which explain the various ways people form attitudes, and why they respond in ways that may lead to harm creation.

Here are a number of psychological insights into human cognition and behaviour that we think are worth knowing:

• Heuristics
• Confirmation bias
• Motivated to defend our worldviews
• Fundamental attribution error
• In-group and out-group bias
• Bystander effect

‍

Heuristics

The human brain makes countless decisions every day. However, making well thought out decisions is cognitively effortful, and therefore our brain seeks ways to conserve energy. It achieves this by using mental shortcuts, also known as heuristics.

Heuristics allow us to make quick judgements. However, often at a cost - these judgements do not consider all available information. When we rely on heuristics, we may overlook important information and rely on generalisations. This can lead to biased, unfair, and discriminatory decisions. Snap judgements are often made in digital spaces - we may assume a number of characteristics about an individual.

It is important to recognise the role that heuristics play in decision-making so that we can acknowledge our own limitations and identify ways to actively challenge the assumptions we’ve made. Some heuristics are the availability, representativeness, and anchoring heuristic, sunk cost fallacy, and confirmation bias.

• The availability heuristic occurs when a decision is made based on the most available information in your memory, rather than considering all available information.
• The anchoring heuristic occurs when we rely heavily on the first piece of information we receive to make a decision.
• The representativeness heuristic occurs when we make a decision based on how closely it matches a prototype or stereotype.

Understanding why and when we use heuristics can help us recognise our own and others limitations in decision-making.

‍

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias refers to the tendency for people to search for, process and interpret information depending on their existing attitudes, worldviews and expectations - we are biased from the get go!

Encountering information that conflicts with our existing attitudes or actions produces a mental state called cognitive dissonance. Being motivated to reduce discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, we are prone to seek information in line with our current attitudes and actions.

Understanding confirmation bias allows people to appreciate why it is hard to change others' minds. It can also allow us to reflect on instances when we may be biased in how we search for, process and recall information.

Questions to consider:

• Which parts of the story/situation already align with my beliefs?
• Which parts of the story/situation do not align with my beliefs?
• Did I discount any information or lines of arguments that had merit?
• What would considering an alternate point of view look like?
• Is there evidence that supports an opinion that is different from my own?

‍

Motivated to defend our worldviews

We are motivated to defend our worldviews and values. This means that we filter information through the lens of our own beliefs, experiences, and expectations. We are especially motivated to defend beliefs which are tied to an important identity. When our beliefs about the world are shaken, it can leave us feeling uncertain, anxious, and vulnerable.

By knowing why we are motivated to protect our beliefs, we can cultivate empathy and understand that challenging someone’s worldview can be emotionally difficult for them. It may also encourage us to reflect on instances when we have shown potential biases when confronted with different perspectives.

Questions to consider:

• What experiences have shaped my beliefs?
• Who are the people that have shaped my worldview?
• Am I motivated to seek the truth, even if it challenges my own beliefs?
• How do I feel about myself when my views are challenged?
• How do I feel about the person that challenges my worldviews?
• Which beliefs do I hold onto more strongly?

‍

Fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error is a cognitive bias in which we tend to overemphasise personality-based explanations for other people’s behaviours, and underemphasise situational factors. For instance, we tend to attribute being late to as a personality factor - e.g. lazy, rather than taking into account situational factors that may have contributed to the individual being late, such as, an unexpected road closure.

Research has shown that awareness of the fundamental attribution error reduced the extent to which people made judgements based on personality. Instead, people were more likely to take into account situational factors (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Although knowing about the fundamental attribution bias does not eliminate it completely, it can encourage individuals to recognise instances when they may have underestimated situational factors and prompt a consideration of factors that could be influencing the person’s behaviour.

‍

In-group and out-group bias

Individuals have a tendency to form groups with people who share similar attitudes or characteristics to them, known as their in-group. An out-group consists of those who do not belong to your group. Membership bias refers to the tendency to perceive in-group members in a more positive light than out-group members. The tendency to create distinctions between “us and them” can have dramatic effects on social perception and judgement.

We feel psychologically comforted by people with similar attitudes and beliefs, as it reinforces our own worldview. Group membership may be based on cultural ethnicity, religious beliefs, worldviews or political affiliation. Membership bias gives rise to ethnocentrism and stereotyping processes. Biases based on group membership have also been shown when groups are formed on unimportant or random characteristics (e.g. by coin toss; Billig & Tajfel, 1973).  

Research shows we have different reactions to a behaviour depending on whether they have been performed by an in-group or out-group member. We show greater derogation to out-group members. This may also mean that in some situations we are lenient or do not hold in-group members accountable to the same extent as we do to out-group members.

Why is this important? Out-group animosity has been shown to be a driver of content on Facebook and Twitter (Rathje, Van Bavel, & Van Der Linden, 2021). This type of content often uses negative language, and increased angry reactions towards out-group members. Understanding our desire to form in-groups and out-groups helps us understand the “us versus them” mentality that exists online.

Strategies that can reduce out-group bias:

1. Education to create awareness on biases that impact how we think and behave towards those we consider different to ourselves.
2. Creating opportunities for interaction and co-operation with out-group members. By encouraging interaction between people from different backgrounds, and worldviews we can reduce group membership bias. Ensure that different voices and perspectives are being heard and acknowledged.
3. Fostering and modelling empathy. This can be achieved by modelling inclusive behaviours, and participating in exercises that encourage people to place themselves in others’ shoes.

‍

Bystander effect

The bystander effect is a phenomenon whereby people are less likely to intervene in an emergency situation as the number of people in the situation increases. This occurs due to a diffusion of responsibility.

Research shows that the awareness of the bystander effect increases intervening in an emergency situation (Bearman, Barnes, Klentz, and McQuirk, 1978).  




‍

‍