Confirmation bias is a psychological tendency to favor information or data that aligns with one’s preexisting beliefs, opinions or values. People disregard information that contradicts these characteristics. This cognitive bias can greatly influence designers’ thought processes, skew their interpretation of data and impair decision-making.
Author and Human-Computer Interaction Expert, Professor Alan Dix explains one form of bias and how to overcome it.
The roots of confirmation bias lie deep within the psychological makeup of individuals. Bias is the tendency to observe events and consider concepts through mental “filters.” Some biases, such as implicit bias, can color a person’s view of the world. Many people can make snap judgments which they base on preconceived notions and stereotypes—and not even be aware of it.
Confirmation bias is a product of the natural inclination to seek consistency and coherence in human belief systems. The desire for cognitive consistency can lead people to selectively gather and interpret information that supports their existing beliefs. To seek information with this attentional bias, they will focus on evidence that supports and dismiss proof to the contrary. This selective attention and interpretation of information form the crux of confirmation bias. It can affect information processing, problem solving and decision making—often for the worse.
Examples of this bias include when individuals:
Believe news sources that align with their political views and dismiss those that don't.
Dismiss medical advice that contradicts their beliefs about healthcare.
Engage mostly with content and groups of people that share similar viewpoints on social media platforms.
Remember instances that confirm their stereotypes and disregard those that contradict them.
Interpret scientific studies in a way that aligns with their existing beliefs, regardless of the actual findings.
Seeing is believing—at least some of the way. Confirmation bias can decide what an individual observes and considers.
© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0
Like other types of biases—such as anchoring bias and the framing effect, as well as social desirability bias—confirmation bias comes from several psychological factors. These include human reliance on heuristics. Heuristics are cognitive or mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making processes. These heuristics—such as availability and representativeness—can lead people to favor pieces of information that conform to the beliefs they already have.
Moreover, the human tendency to seek social validation and avoid dissonance further reinforces confirmation bias. These cognitive processes, while helpful in certain situations, can be hazardous to good design. Because they’re so close to how a person processes the world around them, these processes can form blind spots. They can hinder the ability to objectively evaluate information and consider concrete evidence. As a result, even individuals who deem themselves open-minded might not be able to make properly informed decisions in many contexts of user experience (UX) design.
In UX design, this unconscious bias can subtly creep into various stages of the design process. Hard to detect, it can influence both design decisions and user research in many ways.
Confirmation bias poses significant challenges to the validity and reliability of user research in UX design. When designers or researchers conduct user interviews, surveys or usability testing, they may unintentionally introduce biases. These can come up in their questioning, analysis and interpretation of data. For example, researchers may use wording bias, and ask leading questions that elicit responses that confirm their assumptions. Alternatively, they may selectively focus on data that supports their preconceived notions. This can lead to skewed findings and hinder or even prevent the discovery of valuable insights.
Such bias can compromise the validity of the user insights a designer gathers. For example, a designer or researcher may misguide a focus group so individuals’ responses come out only on one train of thought or track of perspective. Interpretations can obscure the real user needs and impair the effectiveness of UX research. Potentially, it can lead to costly design decisions that don't even align with the actual user needs. So, it can cause harm that results in anything from poor visual design to even worse problems in the final product designed.
How UX researchers ask questions can lead respondents: for example, “Do you like the new, improved design or the old one?”
© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0
In design debates, individuals can tend to favor and defend their own design choices while they dismiss alternative points of view. This can lead to a lack of critical evaluation and a limited understanding of the potential strengths and weaknesses of different design approaches. Teams who recognize and overcome confirmation bias in design discussions can foster a more collaborative and inclusive environment. In that atmosphere, they can find that diverse viewpoints and true innovation have a far greater chance of flourishing.
Confirmation bias can also appear in user feedback analysis. Designers may selectively focus on positive feedback and reviews that confirm their design decisions. Meanwhile, they’ll ignore or downplay negative feedback. This can lead to a skewed understanding of user preferences and hinder the iterative design process. It’s therefore vital to actively seek out and consider diverse feedback. Then, designers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of user needs and make well-informed design decisions.
Some designers or researchers fall prey to confirmation bias, as well as other types of cognitive biases. A vital point to remember is that it can happen at any stage of the design process. Designers may exhibit a preference for data that aligns with their preconceived notions about the user or design requirements, and build on shaky foundations. For example, one of the most hazardous aspects of a designer’s bias is how it can overlook such vital concerns as accessibilty in design. While bias can affect decisions positively or negatively in the main, in design terms it can be a major menace when assumptions and design misfires cost brands in terms of money and reputation.
CEO of Experience Dynamics, Frank Spillers explains the bias designers can have in web design for accessibility:
If designers fail to address confirmation bias in their design work, particularly detrimental effects include:
Design decisions may stand on limited or biased information. That narrow perspective doesn't consider alternative viewpoints or user needs. This may be the case in user feedback, for example. A researcher might be so convinced about the success of their design that they focus only on positive user feedback. Meanwhile, they dismiss any negative comments or declared pain points as outliers.
Confirmation bias can also affect the overall decision-making process within the design team. It can lead to suboptimal choices and potentially hinder project success.
Confirmation bias can lead to the acceptance of solutions that aren’t truly effective or user-centered. If the designer only seeks out information that confirms their preconceived ideas, it can result in flaws that might even extend to precarious areas. For example, the brand might release a design with accessibility flaws in its user interface (UI) design. It might even run the risk of legal repercussions. Alternatively, it could address confirmation bias early on and prevent this.
If designers ignore contradictory evidence due to confirmation bias, their design solution may end up with a poor user experience. The design may not adequately address the diverse needs and perspectives of the users. Here again, the flaw in, for example, the UI design may go unheeded until much later and involve even deep-seated accessibility issues. Then, it will cost more to put right.
If designers fail to address confirmation bias, they may miss out on innovative ideas and opportunities that contradict their initial assumptions. This will limit the potential of their designs.
Design solutions that confirmation bias influences may earn negative feedback from users and negative associations with the brand. This could damage the reputation of the designer, the design team or even the brand as a whole.
It’s crucial to address confirmation bias early on in the design process. Teams need to ensure that design decisions can stand on comprehensive and unbiased information. That will ultimately lead to more effective and user-centered outcomes.
How many “Yes”s are in this “No”?
© Interaction Design Foundation, CC BY-SA 4.0
While confirmation bias can pose significant design challenges, designers can use several strategies to minimize its impact.
The first step in overcoming confirmation bias is to acknowledge its existence and the potential impact it can have on our design process. A large part of open-mindedness is to recognize that bias is inherent in human cognition and that individuals are susceptible to it. With that in mind, designers can cultivate a mindset of openness and curiosity. This will help them challenge their assumptions and seek alternative perspectives.
To counter confirmation bias, it’s essential to actively look for contradictory evidence and diverse viewpoints. Designers can do this through rigorous user research methods. For example, they can conduct user testing with representative samples and seek feedback from a diverse range of users.
To accommodate cognitive diversity well, designers must recognize that users have different needs, preferences and cognitive abilities. When designers embrace this diversity, they can create inclusive designs that cater to a wide range of users. So, it’s important to conduct user research with diverse user groups. It’s also essential to consider the needs of users with different cognitive profiles and provide multiple pathways for interaction and information access. Designers can then mitigate the effects of confirmation bias. They can go on to create more accessible and inclusive experiences.
UX Content Strategist Katrin Suetterlin explains the nature of inclusive design:
Quantitative data can provide objective evidence to challenge biased assumptions or interpretations. When designers or researchers use data analytics in the design process, they can identify certain trends and patterns in user behavior. These are ones that they may otherwise overlook due to confirmation bias.
User testing can serve as a reality check. It can provide a platform for users to voice their thoughts and feedback about the design. When designers conduct rigorous user testing with a diverse group of users, they can uncover a wide range of user perspectives. This can help counteract confirmation bias.
UX Strategist and Consultant William Hudson explains how best to approach testing:
Iterative design processes like user-centered design and agile methodologies can help lessen the impact of confirmation bias. This is because they emphasize continuous feedback and iteration. When designers incorporate regular feedback loops, they can validate their assumptions. They can also identify potential biases and make informed design decisions that have their basis in user insights. This iterative approach helps designers discover new opportunities. It also permits teams to identify design flaws and adapt to changing user needs.
A culture of critical thinking and open dialogue within design teams can overcome confirmation bias. Designers should encourage healthy skepticism, promote diverse perspectives and foster an environment that values evidence-based decision-making. They can challenge their own biases in that environment. They can also promote a more objective and inclusive design process. They can achieve this in several ways. These include design critiques, peer reviews and interdisciplinary collaboration, where team members can challenge assumptions and provide constructive feedback.
Assign someone to play the role of devil's advocate. A team member who stays mindful to bring up opposing viewpoints can help challenge prevailing assumptions and points of view. Their presence can lead to a more balanced consideration of evidence.
It’s vital to create an environment where individuals feel safe to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution. Team members need to feel secure to speak their minds, free from the specter of managerial or group suppression. This is an essential way to encourage open discussion and help counteract groupthink.
Team members need a signal, some assurance they can feel safe to proceed with their responses.
Conduct blind reviews of work or proposals. Such reviews can help reduce bias as they remove identifying information. That will allow a more impartial evaluation.
Involve stakeholders with different perspectives. When designers actively seek diverse perspectives, such as from product developers and other brand or department personnel, they can uncover hidden insights and challenge their assumptions. From there, they can proceed to create more inclusive and user-centered designs.
UX Designer and Author of Build Better Products and UX for Lean Startups, Laura Klein explains the value of cross-functional teams.
Employ red teams—groups who pretend to be the “enemy”—to actively challenge existing strategies or plans. That can help identify weaknesses and potential biases in decision-making.
For a premortem analysis, a designer imagines a scenario where a project or decision has failed—and then works backward to identify potential causes. These causes include biases that may have contributed to the failure that they have imagined.
Keep a record of design decisions and the thought process behind them. Regularly review and reflect on these decisions to identify and address any biases that may have influenced the design direction.
When designers and their design teams incorporate these approaches, they can help ensure that they mitigate confirmation bias and make more informed, objective decisions. They can therefore produce more inclusive, thoughtful and effective designs, even when working alone.
Remember, it’s crucial to be aware of and understand confirmation bias in UX design. That mindfulness will help ensure designers create user-centric products and services. The ultimate goal is to design with the users’ needs and expectations at the forefront. Design teams who manage to strip as much bias away as possible can enjoy a more objective and user-centered design process throughout. That will help lead to products and services that truly meet the users' needs and expectations.
Take our course on User Research - Methods and Best Practices.
Read this piece for more in-depth insights: Confirmation Bias in UX by Jennifer Junge.
Discover further information in C is for Confirmation Bias by Oz.
Go to Confirmation Bias: The Silent Killer of UX Design + Examples by Jeremy Gallimore for additional helpful details.
Consult Confirmation bias in UX by Torresburriel Estudio for further insights and tips.
Designers identify their own confirmation biases during the design process when they actively seek out and consider information that challenges their preconceptions. This involves a few key strategies:
1. Diverse feedback: Designers collect feedback from a broad range of users and stakeholders. This diversity ensures exposure to various viewpoints, revealing blind spots in the designer's thinking.
2. Empathy mapping: When designers create empathy maps, they place themselves in their users' shoes. This technique helps them understand different user perspectives, reducing the risk of bias.
3. User testing: When designers conduct iterative user tests with prototypes, they can observe real user behaviors and preferences. This direct evidence can counteract personal biases.
4. Question assumptions: Designers continuously question their assumptions, and ask why they favor certain solutions over others. This self-reflection helps identify biases that come from personal preference rather than actual user need.
5. Seek contradictory information: To actively look for evidence that contradicts their hypotheses encourages designers to adopt a more balanced view. This mitigates confirmation bias.
Take our Master Class How to Get Started with Usability Testing with Cory Lebson, Principal and Owner of Lebsontech LLC.
Designers can collect user research data free from confirmation bias if they adopt a neutral stance and use structured methodologies. Here are steps to ensure unbiased data collection:
1. Define clear objectives: Start with clear, unbiased research questions that do not presuppose any answers.
2. Use a mix of methods: Combine quantitative and qualitative research methods. This blend allows for a comprehensive view of user behavior and attitudes.
3. Random sampling: Ensure the user sample represents a wide demographic. Randomly selecting participants reduces the risk of sampling bias.
4. Blind testing: Consider blind testing scenarios where possible. This means to keep participants uninformed about the study's specific goals to avoid influencing their responses.
5. Ask open-ended questions: Encourage participants to share their thoughts freely. Open-ended questions help the researcher not to lead the participant toward a specific answer.
6. Seek contradictory evidence: Actively look for data that contradicts initial assumptions. This approach helps balance the interpretation of results.
7. Peer review: Share research findings with peers for feedback. Objective critiques can help identify any overlooked biases.
When designers meticulously plan and execute user research with these principles, they can gather data that truly reflects user needs and behaviors, and so minimize the impact of confirmation bias.
Take our Master Class How to Conduct Effective User Interviews with Joshua Seiden, Co-Author of Lean UX and Founder of Seiden Consulting.
Designers can take several steps to ensure confirmation bias does not influence feature prioritization:
1. Gather diverse input: Seek opinions from a wide range of users and stakeholders to get varied perspectives on feature importance.
2. Use data-driven decision making: Base decisions on user data and analytics rather than personal opinions or anecdotes. This approach ensures decisions have a basis in actual user behavior and needs.
3. Set clear criteria: Establish objective criteria for feature prioritization. Criteria might include user demand, the impact on user experience, and alignment with business goals. This ensures that decisions come from a basis of predefined standards rather than subjective preferences.
4. Implement A/B testing: Test different features with real users to see which ones truly enhance the user experience. This empirical evidence can challenge preconceived notions about what features are most valuable.
5. Conduct regular reviews: Regularly review feature prioritization decisions with the team. Question the reasons behind each decision and explore if bias influenced those choices.
6. Encourage open debate: Foster an environment where team members feel comfortable to challenge decisions and assumptions. This can help uncover and mitigate biases that might affect prioritization.
If designers adopt these steps, they can minimize the impact of confirmation bias on feature prioritization. They can therefore help ensure that decisions are user-centered and data-driven.
Watch as UX Strategist and Consultant William Hudson explains the benefits of data-driven design:
Designers can prevent confirmation bias from leading to the exclusion of key user groups or personas if they actively engage in inclusive research practices and constantly question their assumptions. Here's how:
1. Broaden research scope: Start with a wide lens for user research to include diverse user groups. Ensure that you represent various demographics, abilities and backgrounds.
2. Challenge assumptions: Regularly question and test any assumptions about user needs or behaviors to prevent bias from narrowing the design focus prematurely.
3. Use representative samples: Ensure the research sample accurately reflects the diversity of the user base. This might mean to go beyond the most accessible or vocal users.
4. Engage in empathy exercises: Adopt empathy-building activities, such as persona development and empathy mapping, to understand and appreciate the perspectives of different user groups.
5. Incorporate diverse feedback: Actively seek and prioritize feedback from underrepresented groups during user testing sessions. This helps identify and correct any oversights or biases.
6. Adopt a collaborative approach: Work with stakeholders, including members from underrepresented groups, to review and critique the design. This collaboration helps uncover any unintentional exclusion. If designers implement these strategies, they can ensure their work remains inclusive. This will minimize the risk of excluding key user groups due to confirmation bias.
In UI design, designers can make color scheme and layout choices free from confirmation bias if they employ objective methods and seek broad feedback. Here are the steps to achieve this:
1. Rely on user data: Use data from user research to guide color and layout decisions. Preferences, behaviors and needs that a designer identifies through research can inform design choices more accurately than personal preference.
2. Adopt accessibility guidelines: Follow established guidelines for accessibility, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), to ensure that color schemes and layouts cater to all users, including those with visual impairments.
3. Use A/B testing: Test multiple color schemes and layouts with real users to see which perform better in terms of usability and user engagement. This empirical approach helps identify the most effective design options based on user response rather than designer bias.
4. Gather diverse feedback: Seek feedback from a diverse group of users and stakeholders. Different perspectives can reveal biases and preferences that a designer might not have considered.
5. Implement design systems: Use design systems and style guides that outline color and layout standards based on best practices and user research. This standardization can reduce the influence of personal bias in design decisions.
When designers integrate these strategies, they can ensure their color scheme and layout choices are user-centered and inclusive. This can minimize the impact of confirmation bias on their design process.
Watch our Master Class Design With Data: A Guide To A/B Testing with Zoltan Kollin, Design Principal at IBM.
To choose design tools and methodologies whereby confirmation bias does not affect their decisions, designers can follow these steps:
1. Define needs and objectives: Clearly outline what you need from a tool or methodology, and focus on project requirements rather than personal preference.
2. Research broadly: Explore a wide range of tools and methodologies, including new and less familiar options. This broadens your understanding and helps you discover the best fit for your project.
3. Seek diverse opinions: Consult with a variety of colleagues and peers from different backgrounds and with different levels of experience. Their insights can offer new perspectives and challenge your preconceived notions.
4. Evaluate against criteria: Set up objective criteria to evaluate tools and methodologies. Criteria could include efficiency, user-friendliness, cost and support for collaboration. Compare your options against these criteria to make an informed choice.
5. Conduct trials: Where possible, test the tools or methodologies on a small scale before you fully commit. Practical experience can reveal strengths and weaknesses that weren't apparent through research alone.
6. Reflect and adjust: Be willing to reconsider your choices if they don't meet the project's needs as expected. Flexibility allows you to adapt from a basis of actual outcomes rather than to stick to a biased initial decision.
If designers follow these steps, they can ensure that project needs and objective evaluation guide their choices, and reduce the impact of confirmation bias on their decision-making process.
Author and Consultant Editor, William Hudson explains what goes into user research:
Designers can conduct usability testing to reduce the impact of confirmation bias if they follow these steps:
1. Plan objectively: Start with the definition of clear, unbiased objectives for the usability test. Focus on what you need to learn rather than what you expect or hope to see.
2. Select diverse participants: Recruit a diverse group of users who represent the full spectrum of your target audience. This diversity helps ensure that a narrow user perspective does not skew findings.
3. Develop neutral testing scenarios: Create scenarios and tasks that do not lead users towards specific outcomes. Ensure the language is neutral and doesn't influence users' actions or opinions.
4. Use a blinded approach: If possible, conduct the tests in a way that the person administering the test does not know the expected outcomes. This helps prevent inadvertently guiding participants towards certain behaviors or answers.
5. Collect and analyze data objectively: Use quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to gather comprehensive feedback. Analyze this data without preconceived notions. Focus on the actual user experiences rather than expectations.
6. Seek external reviews: Have someone who isn’t involved in the project review the test plan, execution and findings. This external perspective can identify potential biases that internal team members might miss.
7. Iterate based on findings: Use the insights gained to inform design iterations. Be willing to challenge and change your design based on user feedback rather than personal attachment to initial ideas.
If designers implement these strategies, they can ensure their usability testing is thorough, unbiased and truly focused on improving the user experience.
Take our Master Class How to Get Started with Usability Testing with Cory Lebson, Principal and Owner of Lebsontech LLC.
Yes, technology and algorithms can indeed exacerbate confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. In the digital age, algorithms that social media platforms and search engines use play a significant role as they determine the content users see online. These algorithms often prioritize content based on individuals’ previous interactions, searches and likes. These create a feedback loop that reinforces existing beliefs. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the "filter bubble," where users become isolated in their informational bubbles, rarely encountering opposing viewpoints. This can lead to a more polarized society, as individuals become more entrenched in their beliefs without being exposed to alternative perspectives.
To combat this, it's crucial for designers and developers of these technologies to incorporate features that introduce diverse viewpoints and challenge users' preconceptions. Users can also take proactive steps by seeking out information from a variety of sources and being critical of the content they consume.
1. Lee, Y.-J. (2021). A Study on Confirmation Bias in Early User Experience Stage. Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(1), 355–360.
Lee’s study delves into confirmation bias in the initial user experience stage. It analyzes factors using a honeycomb model. It identifies confirmation bias in the impression stage and its relation to memory processing stages like sensory memory and long-term memory. The study categorizes confirmation bias into visibility, correlation, memory, clarity, universality, satisfaction, joy, and dissatisfaction. Findings reveal that visuality, clarity, universality, joy have minimal impact on confirmation bias, while satisfaction and dissatisfaction are key factors in correlation, memory, and emotional aspects. The research provides valuable insights for companies tailoring design patterns to mitigate confirmation bias effects.
2. Murata, A., Nakamura, T., & Karwowski, W. (2015). Influence of Cognitive Biases in Distorting Decision Making and Leading to Critical Unfavorable Incidents. Safety, 1(1), 44-58.
The study by Murata, Nakamura, and Karwowski delves into the pervasive nature of cognitive biases in incidents, crashes, collisions, and disasters, illustrating how these biases distort decision-making processes and contribute to undesirable outcomes. Through the analysis of five case studies involving incidents like a fire outbreak during cooking with an induction heating cooker and the Challenger space shuttle disaster, the research highlights how biases such as confirmation bias, groupthink, overconfidence, and framing biases significantly influence decision-making processes leading to critical incidents. The paper emphasizes the necessity of recognizing and eliminating cognitive biases to prevent such unfavorable events from occurring, stressing the importance of addressing these biases alongside human factors in ensuring safety and preventing disasters.
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman delves into the complexities of human thought processes, introducing readers to the concept of two systems that drive decision-making: System 1 and System 2. Through engaging narratives, Kahneman explores the impact of cognitive biases on various aspects of life, from corporate strategies to personal happiness. This groundbreaking book challenges readers to reevaluate their thinking patterns and equips them with tools to navigate decision-making in both professional and personal realms. With practical insights and a transformative approach to understanding the mind, Thinking, Fast and Slow has become a contemporary classic that reshapes perspectives on how people make choices.
Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now
You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.
We’ve emailed your gift to name@email.com.
Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now
Here’s the entire UX literature on Confirmation Bias by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:
We believe in Open Access and the democratization of knowledge. Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.
If you want this to change, , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge!
