[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information

## Details

**Authors** Fisher and Kiel

**Year** 2018

**Publisher** Psychological Science

**Discipline** Cognitive Science

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618792256) 
10.1177/0956797618792256

## In authors' words

### Abstract

One of the mind’s most fundamental tasks is interpreting incoming data and weighing the value of new evidence. Across a wide variety of contexts, we show that when summarizing evidence, people exhibit a binary bias: a tendency to impose categorical distinctions on continuous data. Evidence is compressed into discrete bins, and the difference between categories forms the summary judgment. The binary bias distorts belief formation—such that when people aggregate conflicting scientific reports, they attend to valence and inaccurately weight the extremity of the evidence. The same effect occurs when people interpret popular forms of data visualization, and it cannot be explained by other statistical features of the stimuli. This effect is not confined to explicit statistical estimates; it also influences how people use data to make health, financial, and public-policy decisions. These studies ( N = 1,851) support a new framework for understanding information integration across a wide variety of contexts.

### What they set out to do (purpose)

Humans have a tendency to be binary. This paper explores the binary bias.

### What they found (results)

The binary bias has a stronger influence on the formation of beliefs and attitudes than the previously documented factors of order and salience. The binary bias appears to be a pervasive aspect of cognition with extensive real-world implications. The human tendency to categorize things in a binary manner can impede the formation of accurate mental models of phenomena (as the world exists in shades of gray - not balck and white); see relationships (falsely) as only cause and effect (rather than webs of causality) and narrows our perspectives on things towards bivalency in lieu of multivalency.

## Commentary

### In short

Systems thinking (DSRP) shifts this paradigm away from the binary bias and towards a more spectrum-based thought process.

### In more detail

Fisher and Keil, 2018 explicate that humans have a tendency to treat evidence as binary. As a result, their beliefs that formed from binary evidence are distorted because they have inaccurately weighed the evidence, based on the severity of statistical estimate. Importantly this bias influences ”how people use data to make health, financial, and public-policy decisions.” They highlight this pervasive binary bias as one of the largest dangers of categorization, especially when applied to the serious issues above. In one study 154 participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups (scientific reports, eyewitness testimonies, social judgments, or consumer reviews). They were then shown 5 statements about the relationships between and among the materials they had observed. The results of the study were, “that the binary bias has a stronger influence on the formation of beliefs and attitudes than the previously documented factors of order and salience.” Binary thought tends to be damaging to both mental models

and deep understanding of concepts and problems. They wrote, “the binary bias appears to be a pervasive aspect of cognition with extensive real-world implications.” In other words, the human tendency to categorize things in a binary manner can impede the formation of accurate mental models of phenomena (as the world exists in shades of gray - not black and white); see relationships (falsely) as only cause and effect (rather than webs of causality) and narrows our perspectives on things towards bivalency in lieu of multivalency. Thus, systems thinking (DSRP) shifts this paradigm away from the binary bias and towards a more spectrum-based thought process.

Relationships (R) refer to the act of relating things using action and reaction. In other words, explicitly working with concepts while being aware of the relationships, systems, and distinctions between them. Infants show evidence of relating as early as seven months of age, while experiments with adults show the varied and sophisticated ways relating occurs across the lifespan. A review of peer-reviewed journals across disciplines indicates:

1. The existence of Relationships (i.e., R as a noun/object); 2. The act of Relating between and among things (i.e., R as a verb/action); 3. That the relationship between “action” and “reaction” (i.e., R(a ↔r)) is elemental to (1) and (2) above; and, 4. That the human tendency is heavily weighted toward Di, Spw, and the relative absence of Relationships. Further, when relationships are identified they are often seen as linear causal rather than webs of causality. Finally, Relationships that are drawn are rarely identified (RDi) or Systematized (RDS). 5. Items 1-4 are fundamental “patterns of mind” agnostic to content area (across disciplines) and throughout the lifespan of humans. Yet, where Relationships are concerned, the difference between thinking (ie., cognition) and systems thinking (i.e., systematic metacognition) is not in the R(a ↔r) structure of cognition itself, but in the willful and purposeful attempt to see (i.e., be aware of) the R(a ↔r) structure that is at work when thinking.

**Patterns it shows** S

**How to cite this** Fisher and Kiel (2018). The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information. Psychological Science.