MECHANISMS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THINKING AND BIASES

Biases and prejudices are deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs that influence the perception, interpretation and evaluation of information about the world and social groups around us. Unlike simple cognitive errors, biases and prejudices often carry an emotional weight and are associated with belonging to a particular social group (in-group or out-group). Their impact on cognitive processes can be both subtle and unconscious, as well as overt and decisive in shaping our judgments and decisions. One of the key mechanisms through which biases influence thinking is the confirmation bias. People tend to seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs while ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence. For example, if a person holds a prejudice against a certain ethnic group, they are more likely to notice and recall negative behaviors from members of that group while explaining away or disregarding their positive actions—even in the absence of objective justification. This reinforces the initial bias over time [3].  There exists a complex and dynamic interplay between thinking and biases. Prejudices, as preformed and often emotionally charged attitudes, significantly affect how information is received, processed, and stored. At the same time, cognitive processes can either reinforce, modify, or resist existing biases.  Prejudices are also closely linked to categorization and social identity. Social identity theory posits that individuals strive for positive self-esteem, which is partially shaped by their membership in certain social groups ("us"). This leads to in-group favoritism, where one’s own group is perceived more positively and superiorly compared to out-groups ("them"). This process may be accompanied by the out-group homogeneity effect, where members of out-groups are seen as more similar to each other than members of the in-group, further reinforcing stereotypes [2]. 

The emotional component of biases plays a crucial role in their influence on thinking. Strong negative emotions, such as fear or anger, can distort rational thought, leading to emotional reasoning—where judgments are based on feelings rather than facts. For instance, prejudice against a particular immigrant group may evoke discomfort during interactions, which is then interpreted as confirmation of their " dangerousness," even in the absence of real threats.  Additionally, biases can activate stereotypes—generalized and simplified beliefs about members of a social group. While stereotypes can be positive or negative, they often lead to group attribution errors, where traits observed in individual group members are unjustifiably extended to the entire group. For example, encountering a rude representative of a certain profession may lead to a negative stereotype about all professionals in that field.  It is important to note that the influence of biases on thinking can be implicit (unconscious). Even individuals who consciously reject prejudices may still unconsciously display them in judgments and behaviors. Implicit associations formed during socialization and under the influence of cultural stereotypes can automatically activate when encountering members of certain groups, affecting perception and interpretation [1].  Biases and prejudices exert a profound and multifaceted influence on thinking, distorting perception, interpretation, and evaluation of information. Understanding these mechanisms and consciously striving for objectivity are crucial steps toward more rational and fair decision-making, as well as fostering harmonious interpersonal and intergroup relations. Confirmation bias leads individuals to favor information that aligns with their existing beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. Selective perception further filters information, causing people to pay more attention to data that supports their views. Biases also shape memory reconstruction, where past experiences are recalled in ways that reinforce preexisting prejudices. Attribution biases systematically distort how people explain behaviors—attributing in-group successes to internal factors (e.g., skill) and failures to external factors (e.g., circumstances), while doing the opposite for out-groups. Emotions like fear and anger amplify irrational judgments, and social conformity can strengthen group-level biases [4]. 

However, critical thinking serves as a vital tool in countering biases. By objectively analyzing information, questioning assumptions, and evaluating reasoning processes, individuals can mitigate the influence of prejudices and cultivate more balanced perspectives.   Understanding the mechanisms of how biases interact with thinking is essential for making fairer decisions and fostering a more equitable society. As a result, biases and prejudices have a profound and multifaceted impact on cognition, distorting perception, interpretation, and the evaluation of information. Understanding these mechanisms of influence and consciously striving for objectivity are fundamental steps toward more rational and fair thinking, as well as establishing harmonious interpersonal and intergroup relationships.  Confirmation bias is the tendency of individuals to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms their existing beliefs while disregarding or devaluing contradictory evidence [1]. This tendency is one of the key mechanisms through which biases shape cognition. For example, if a person holds a negative bias against a particular social group, they will more easily recall negative behaviors of that group’s members while overlooking or attributing positive behaviors to external factors. This process reinforces the initial bias in their thinking. Selective perception—prejudices also influence how people perceive information from their environment. Selective perception refers to the tendency to pay more attention to information that aligns with one’s beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence [5].

For instance, a person with political bias may focus more on news highlighting their party’s successes while dismissing or viewing the opposition’s achievements with skepticism. Prejudices act as a filter, selectively distorting the information that enters cognition and significantly affecting how past events are recalled and interpreted.  People tend to remember and reinterpret past experiences in ways that confirm their existing biases[3]. For example, someone who has had negative experiences with a certain group in the past may recall even neutral subsequent encounters in a way that reinforces their initial prejudice.   Attribution biases are systematic errors in how people interpret the causes of their own and others' behaviors. Biases play a significant role in these interpretations. For instance, in cases of ingroup favoritism, individuals tend to attribute their group’s positive behaviors to internal factors (skill, character) and negative behaviors to external factors (circumstances, pressure). Conversely, when negative attitudes toward an outgroup exist, the outgroup’s negative behaviors are attributed to internal factors, while their positive behaviors are explained by external influences [4]. 

Prejudices often carry strong emotional weight. Emotions such as fear, anger, or hatred can overshadow rational thinking. In emotional reasoning, people base judgments on feelings rather than facts. A strongly biased individual may react emotionally to information that contradicts their prejudice, impairing their ability to analyze rationally.  The social environment also plays a crucial role in the interaction between biases and cognition. Group norms and social influence can lead individuals to adopt and reinforce existing biases. Conformity—the tendency to align with group opinions—means that if a particular bias is dominant in a group, individuals may accept and reflect it in their thinking to gain social acceptance [5].  Despite the strong influence of biases on cognition, thinking itself can play a vital role in countering them. Critical thinking—the ability to analyze information objectively, draw reasoned conclusions, and evaluate one’s own thought processesenables individuals to recognize and mitigate their own biases more effectively. There is a continuous and reciprocal relationship between cognition and biases. Biases shape thinking through confirmation bias, selective perception, memory reconstruction, attribution biases, and emotions, while social influence reinforces biases at the group level. However, critical thinking provides essential tools for reducing the impact of biases and achieving a more objective thought process. Understanding the mechanisms of interaction between biases and cognition is crucial for making fairer decisions [6]. 

Biases in social communication represent a significant obstacle to effective interaction, mutual understanding, and social cohesion. They distort the perception of information, foster stereotypical interpretations of others’ behavior and motives, and contribute to the creation of barriers in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Rooted in cognitive biases, cultural norms, and emotional reactions, prejudices not only undermine the objectivity of judgments but also perpetuate systemic discrimination, exacerbating social inequality. Thus, it can be said that prejudices and biases in society influence fundamental aspects of social interaction and cognitive processes, distorting the perception, interpretation, and evaluation of information about various social groups and their members. These persistent attitudes, reinforced by cognitive biases, emotional reactions, and social norms, lead to unfair judgments, discrimination, and hinder the formation of equitable and harmonious relationships between people. Overcoming their influence requires conscious efforts at both individual and societal levels, directed toward developing critical thinking, empathy, expanding intergroup contact, and creating an inclusive environment that fosters objective perception and respect for diversity [8].

A multifaceted approach that combines a variety of techniques is recommended to more successfully influence biases in thinking. These include latent methods for assessing unconscious biases that may not be detected in direct interviews. Also, analyzing people's actual behavior in intergroup interaction situations helps to detect biases that people do not verbally express or even realize. Examining how prejudice manifests itself in language, media content, and social networks can show how prejudice translates into discriminatory behavior. In terms of educational programs, introducing trainings that teach how to analyze sources of information and recognize cognitive distortions (e.g., projection, halo effect) can help identify the complexities of interpersonal relationships and prevent simplistic conclusions about intergroup relations [7]. Organizing joint projects between groups (volunteering, cultural exchanges) to break stereotypes through personal experience refutes negative stereotypes and helps to form more realistic and positive perceptions. 

References:

1. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242-261
2. Nelson, T. D. (2002). Psychology of prejudice. Allyn & Bacon.
3. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
4. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 88-115.
5. Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129–134.
6. Eberhardt, J. L. (2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking.
7. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.
8. Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”: A review of its conceptual basis and empirical evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(6), 465–484.