Persuasive Communication - How Audiences Decide. 2nd Edition

234 Understanding Intuitive Decision Making

Like the recall bias, the imagination bias also works in reverse. People asked to form a mental

image of a resort rated the resort more highly when given a verbal description that made the image

easy to construct, but decreased their ratings when given numerical data on the resort that were not

image evoking.^320 Similarly, readers asked to imagine taking a vacation trip increased their evalu-

ations of the trip when it was described in an easy-to-visualize narrative. But they lowered their

evaluations when the trip was described in an unordered list of attributes.^321

Undue Optimism: The Appeal of Best Case Scenarios

Because positive information is more accessible and easier to bring to mind than negative informa-

tion,^322 audiences tend to fi ll empty schema slots about future outcomes with positive information.

The audience’s bias toward a positive future leads them to overestimate the likelihood they will

contribute to charity, vote in an upcoming election, or have a long-lasting romantic relation-

ship.^323 Similarly, college students’ undue optimism leads them to overpredict their performance on

examinations^324 and to underpredict the amount of time it will take them to complete class assign-

ments.^325 Perhaps the undue optimism bias explains why many remain unconvinced by arguments

against risky pursuits such as playing the lottery and day trading, and unfazed by arguments for

quite reasonable pursuits such as saving money and exercising more.

The Confi rmation Bias: The Power of Previously Acquired Information

The confi rmation bias leads audiences to distort newly acquired ambiguous or even contradic-

tory information that fi lls schema slots so as to make it consistent with information they acquired

earlier.^326 For example, recruiters tend to unconsciously distort the new information they acquire

about applicants during job interviews in a way that confi rms their pre-interview impressions.^327

In one study, 64 mock recruiters were asked to read résumés of job applicants for a sales position

and then to observe and evaluate video recordings of the job applicants’ interviews. Mock recruiters

who had read more favorable résumés rated the same applicants as giving better answers to their

questions, as displaying more sales-consistent traits, and as making more persuasive statements dur-

ing the interviews than recruiters who had read less favorable résumés.^328 Another study fi nds that

both mock recruiters’ and actual recruiters’ pre-interview impressions of job applicants’ résumés

signifi cantly infl uence the questions they ask the applicants during job interviews—the stronger the

résumé, the easier the interview questions.^329

The confi rmation bias has also been found to infl uence juror decision making. Because jurors

hear the prosecution’s evidence before they hear the defendant’s testimony, they are more likely to

accept the prosecution’s evidence, even if it is later discredited, and to become more critical of the

defendant’s testimony.^330 Defense attorneys can counteract this tendency by having their strongest

witnesses testify fi rst. Ordering witness testimony from strongest to weakest leads jurors to hand

down the fewest number of guilty verdicts.^331

In addition to fi rst impressions, prior decisions can also lead to the confi rmation bias. For

example, one study revealed that nine out of 10 voters who watched televised U.S. presidential

debates believed their preferred candidate won the debate.^332 Another study asked people who

either strongly supported or opposed the death penalty to read two contradictory reports. The

fi rst report presented evidence that the death penalty was a deterrent to crime, whereas the

second report presented evidence to the contrary. Members of both groups claimed the report

favoring their opinion was “better conducted” and “more convincing” than the other report.

Surprisingly, each group became even more convinced of the correctness of their initial opinion

after reading the report that contradicted their opinion.^333 A similar study fi nds that the more