<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Anchoring bias</strong></a> or <strong>focalism</strong> is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a cognitive bias where an individual depends too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the &quot;anchor&quot;) to make subsequent judgments during decision making. Once the value of this anchor is set, all future negotiations, arguments, estimates, etc. are discussed in relation to the anchor. Information that aligns with the anchor tends to be assimilated toward it, while information that is more dissonant or less related tends to be displaced. This bias occurs when interpreting future information using this anchor to gauge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The example initially given in the Wikipedia article uses an initial price for a car set as a starting point for negotiations. However, experience can come into play as anchor points for evaluation of situations and employment negotiations etc.</p>
<p>Early research found that experts (those with high knowledge, experience, or expertise in some field) were more resistant to the anchoring effect (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wilson, et al. 1996</a>). Since then, however, numerous studies have demonstrated that while experience can sometimes reduce the effect, even experts are susceptible to anchoring.</p>
<p>In a study concerning the effects of anchoring on judicial decisions, researchers found that even experienced legal professionals were affected by anchoring. This remained true even when the anchors provided were arbitrary and unrelated to the case in question (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Englich, et al. 2006</a>).</p>
<p>Also, this relates to goal setting, where more experienced individuals will set goals based on their past experiences which consequently affects end results in negotiations (<a href="https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Harvard Law, 2019</a>).</p>
<p>An anchoring bias can also lead to a backfire effect, a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. The phrase was first coined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nyhan &amp; Reifler (2010)</a>.</p>
<p>Anchoring biases can be formed as a result of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>illusory correlations</strong></a>, which are phenomena within Psychology where people have been known to perceive a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A false association may be formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's attention (Pelham &amp; Blanton, 2013). This phenomenon is one way stereotypes form and endure (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mullen &amp; Johnson, 1990</a>).</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., &amp; Strack, F. (2006). Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts' Judicial Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32 (2): 188–200. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152</a></p>
<p>Harvard Law (2019). The Anchoring Effect and How it Can Impact Your Negotiation. <em>PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School</em> <a href="https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/</a></p>
<p>Mullen, B., &amp; Johnson, C. (1990). Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. <em>British Journal of Social Psychology. 29</em>(1): 11–28. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x</a>.</p>
<p>Nyhan, B., &amp; Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. <em>Political Behavior, 32</em>(2), 303-330. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2</a></p>
<p>Pelham, B. W. Blanton, H. (2012). Conducting Research in Psychology: measuring the weight of smoke (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. pp. 11–12.</p>
<p>Wilson, Timothy D.; Houston, Christopher E.; Etling, Kathryn M.; Brekke, Nancy (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. <em>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 125</em>(4): 387–402. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-19T04:17:09.713Z
Thanks, I'm familiar with the anchoring heuristic, and I see the similarity, but I think it's a little too far removed from what I described.  The anchoring bias is only effective within a single domain, while the bias I have in mind is across domains; the anchoring bias is relatively short-lived, usually affecting a single negotiation, while the bias I described is more general; and the anchoring bias has a strict ordering to it, that is not applicable in the case I describe.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-20T09:05:38.743Z
OK, thanks @ArnonWeinberg for the feedback. I'll keep searching for alternatives which may fit the bill.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-18T08:48:12.173Z
2021-03-18T08:48:12.173Z
Chris Rogers
<p>I found what I was looking for.  It's called the <a href="https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gell-Mann Amnesia</a> effect:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
well. ... you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors
in a story, and then turn the page to national or international
affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the
page, and forget what you know.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That quote is attributed to Michael Crichton, who named the effect after his physicist friend Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered it.</p>
<p>This effect is not studied in psychology as far as I can tell, so it may not be real, but having a name for it helps learn at least that much.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-21T01:42:08.510Z
2021-03-21T01:42:08.510Z
Arnon Weinberg
<p>I've run across descriptions of this bias before, but cannot find it right now...  I checked Wikipedia's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases" rel="nofollow noreferrer">list of cognitive biases</a> to no avail.</p>
<p>Basically, people working in some domain and having expertise in it, naturally tend to notice the problems in that area, such as incompetence of other people working in their field, bad policies and poor management decision making, etc, resulting in a disproportionate distrust of their own field of expertise.  For example, healthcare workers are <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ebiom.2015.06.028" rel="nofollow noreferrer">more likely to be vaccine hesitant</a> because they distrust their own industry more than most due to personal experience with incompetence, mismanagement, politics, and corruption within their field.</p>
<p>However, this distrust does not carry over to other domains.  So for example, watching a movie that portrays something you have domain knowledge in, you will quickly notice the inaccuracies and misrepresentation, but portrayals of domains outside your expertise will naturally be believable and perceived as accurate.  Similarly, reading news stories about topics that you have expertise in, you will notice inaccuracies and bias immediately, but fail to recognize that the same level of inaccuracy and bias must exist in domains outside your area of expertise, implicitly treating such news stories as accurately reported.</p>
<p>What is this bias called?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-18T07:51:24.447Z
Very interesting question. I have noticed that too
Chris Rogers
<terminology><bias><expertise><trust>
Bias distrusting area of expertise while implicitly trusting other domains?
Arnon Weinberg
# Bias distrusting area of expertise while implicitly trusting other domains?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-18)

I've run across descriptions of this bias before, but cannot find it right now... I checked Wikipedia's [list of cognitive biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) to no avail.

Basically, people working in some domain and having expertise in it, naturally tend to notice the problems in that area, such as incompetence of other people working in their field, bad policies and poor management decision making, etc, resulting in a disproportionate distrust of their own field of expertise. For example, healthcare workers are [more likely to be vaccine hesitant](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ebiom.2015.06.028) because they distrust their own industry more than most due to personal experience with incompetence, mismanagement, politics, and corruption within their field.

However, this distrust does not carry over to other domains. So for example, watching a movie that portrays something you have domain knowledge in, you will quickly notice the inaccuracies and misrepresentation, but portrayals of domains outside your expertise will naturally be believable and perceived as accurate. Similarly, reading news stories about topics that you have expertise in, you will notice inaccuracies and bias immediately, but fail to recognize that the same level of inaccuracy and bias must exist in domains outside your area of expertise, implicitly treating such news stories as accurately reported.

What is this bias called?

**Tags:** terminology, bias, expertise, trust

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Very interesting question. I have noticed that too  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2021-03-21. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I found what I was looking for. It's called the [Gell-Mann Amnesia](https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/) effect:

> ... You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> well. ... you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors
> in a story, and then turn the page to national or international
> affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the
> page, and forget what you know.

That quote is attributed to Michael Crichton, who named the effect after his physicist friend Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered it.

This effect is not studied in psychology as far as I can tell, so it may not be real, but having a name for it helps learn at least that much.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-03-18. Score: 0

[**Anchoring bias**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)) or **focalism** is:

> a cognitive bias where an individual depends too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the "anchor") to make subsequent judgments during decision making. Once the value of this anchor is set, all future negotiations, arguments, estimates, etc. are discussed in relation to the anchor. Information that aligns with the anchor tends to be assimilated toward it, while information that is more dissonant or less related tends to be displaced. This bias occurs when interpreting future information using this anchor to gauge.

The example initially given in the Wikipedia article uses an initial price for a car set as a starting point for negotiations. However, experience can come into play as anchor points for evaluation of situations and employment negotiations etc.

Early research found that experts (those with high knowledge, experience, or expertise in some field) were more resistant to the anchoring effect ([Wilson, et al. 1996](https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387)). Since then, however, numerous studies have demonstrated that while experience can sometimes reduce the effect, even experts are susceptible to anchoring.

In a study concerning the effects of anchoring on judicial decisions, researchers found that even experienced legal professionals were affected by anchoring. This remained true even when the anchors provided were arbitrary and unrelated to the case in question ([Englich, et al. 2006](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152)).

Also, this relates to goal setting, where more experienced individuals will set goals based on their past experiences which consequently affects end results in negotiations ([Harvard Law, 2019](https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/)).

An anchoring bias can also lead to a backfire effect, a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. The phrase was first coined by [Nyhan & Reifler (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2).

Anchoring biases can be formed as a result of [**illusory correlations**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation), which are phenomena within Psychology where people have been known to perceive a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A false association may be formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's attention (Pelham & Blanton, 2013). This phenomenon is one way stereotypes form and endure ([Mullen & Johnson, 1990](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x)).

## References

Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts' Judicial Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32 (2): 188–200. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152>

Harvard Law (2019). The Anchoring Effect and How it Can Impact Your Negotiation. *PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School* <https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/>

Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. *British Journal of Social Psychology. 29*(1): 11–28. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x>.

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. *Political Behavior, 32*(2), 303-330. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2>

Pelham, B. W. Blanton, H. (2012). Conducting Research in Psychology: measuring the weight of smoke (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. pp. 11–12.

Wilson, Timothy D.; Houston, Christopher E.; Etling, Kathryn M.; Brekke, Nancy (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 125*(4): 387–402. <https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks, I'm familiar with the anchoring heuristic, and I see the similarity, but I think it's a little too far removed from what I described.  The anchoring bias is only effective within a single domain, while the bias I have in mind is across domains; the anchoring bias is relatively short-lived, usually affecting a single negotiation, while the bias I described is more general; and the anchoring bias has a strict ordering to it, that is not applicable in the case I describe.  
> **username_1**: OK, thanks @ArnonWeinberg for the feedback. I'll keep searching for alternatives which may fit the bill.  

---

