Informed Librarian Online -- Guest Forum -- www.informedlibrarian.com
Information Literacy and Confirmation Bias: You Can
Lead a Person to Information, but Can You Make Him Think?
by Mark A. Allan
Abstract: Many librarians teach information
literacy skills, including how to identify “fake new”, without
knowingly incorporating tools to address confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is
discussed, along with its inclusion within various credibility and information
literacy models. Techniques that librarians can utilize or teach to their
patrons to overcome confirmation bias are presented.
The recent elections have drawn attention to the amount
of ‘fake news’ that is generated by information producers across the
political spectrum. Much of this misleading content may be read in its entirety
and subsequently passed on via social media. However, much is also merely
glanced at and forwarded on to other individuals. Scholarship by Gabielkov,
Ramachandan, Chaintreau, and Legout published in 2016 has shown that when using
social media, 59% of people approvingly forward links to their friends without
having read the linked articles (as cited in DeMeyers, 2016, p.
It’s possible that in these cases a rudimentary
sort of information literacy assessment has taken place. The forwarder
may have done a cursory appraisal of the resource’s title – was it
from an authoritative source? Is the author an expert? If the forwarder has
read the content of a social media post, he may also have evaluated it according
to a set of mental criteria. Despite any such analysis, there are indications
that fake news informs and reinforces viewpoints (Silverman & Singer-Vine,
2016; Firozi, 2017). One explanation for this behavior could be that
readers/forwarders of incorrect/fake news are agreeing with the resource’s
title and/or content based upon their own existing bias.
Needless to say, librarians who perceive themselves as
gatekeepers to information are concerned. Indeed, they have the opportunity to
educate students and the public about evaluating information (Lenker, 2016, p.
511-512). When asked by the Informed Librarian Online if there was a
topic that interests me and that I would like to write about, I responded I
would be interested in writing about cognitive bias, in particular, confirmation
bias. Given a personal interest in psychology, but without a degree in this or a
related field, I wondered if confirmation bias might have something to do with
the consumption and dissemination of ‘fake news.’ Therefore, I
started to search the literature with an eye toward promoting a discussion of
how to address confirmation bias in information literacy sessions. Any errors or
biases in the following piece are my own. I welcome constructive
Confirmation bias (also known as congeniality or myside
bias) is a cognitive bias in which individuals are biased to seek and favor
information that confirms their existing beliefs (Reber, Allen, & Reber,
2009). When individuals are initially exposed to a particular viewpoint, they
are likely to continue to hold that point of view when exposed to disconfirming
information. (Reber et al., 2009). This bias has been seen to be extremely
powerful. In one experiment published by Westen, Blagov, Harenski, Kilts, &
Hamann in 2006, brain scans showed activation of an area of the brain associated
with reward and pleasure when individuals resolved a quandary confirming their
initial beliefs (as cited in Shermer, 2006, p. 1).
Much of confirmation bias and other cognitive biases may
be due to the theory that the brain has two systems for processing information
(Kahneman, 2011, p. 20). The first system (System 1) includes the act of jumping
to conclusions based upon past experiences or education, and the second system
(System 2) encompasses critical thinking (Kahneman, 2011, pp. 20-22). While
System 1 is automatic, fast, and always working; System 2 is less involved in
everyday tasks and is slow, lazy and easily distracted (Kahneman, 2011, pp
20-50). Incorrect beliefs (including biases) that emerge from System 1’s
operation must be identified and countered by System 2. (Gilbert, 1991, as cited
in Kahneman, 2011, pp. 80-81)
That said, we live in a world inundated in all kinds of
information with varying degrees of quality, which support seemingly innumerable
agendas. Circumstances, events, and the information available about these
matters change. There are also individuals motivated to trick or take advantage
of people easily influenced by information which corresponds with their beliefs
(Firozi, 2017). In order to make informed decisions, we need to use System 2.
Given the power of confirmation bias in validating preexisting conclusions and
informing individual’s information seeking behavior, one may assume that
this topic is commonly addressed in information literacy sessions. However, an
informal posting to
Literacy Instruction Discussion List (ILI-L) resulted in only a few responses
from librarians who are teaching about confirmation bias or other cognitive
biases (Allan, 2016).
Credibility Tests, a Standard, and a
Recent tests, standards, and frameworks provide varying
opportunities for recognizing the importance of confirmation bias and other
cognitive biases within their paradigms. It is noteworthy that the very
prominent CRAP (Currency, Reliability, Authority and Purpose/Point of View) and
CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) credibility tests only
go so far with bias assessment. While both call for examining the content,
reputation of the author, and vested interests, these criteria may be
subjective. How is a reader to know if their assessment is being prejudiced by
internally held beliefs that have not been examined? These tests, as well as
CARS or IMVAIN in the school setting (Gardner, 2016) are often utilized in
With regard to higher education, the Association of
College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education (Standards) were approved in 2000 and stated
that, “An information literate individual is able to... Incorporate
selected information into one’s knowledge base” (2000, p. 2-3).
While Standard Three goes on to indicate that such a student “determines
whether the new knowledge has an impact on the individual’s value
system,” and will use “consciously selected criteria”, it does
not seemingly address the importance of unconscious dispositions. (ACRL, 2000,
p. 11, 12).
In 2016, the ACRL rescinded the Standards and adopted
the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Framework).
Although the Framework’s six frames are not to be considered absolute,
it appears to contain multiple frames wherein contemplation and
discussion of confirmation bias can take place. The Authority is Constructed and
Contextual frame seems to be the most likely frame to encompass this
conversation. According to the frame, a disposition developed by learners is one
that “develop(s) awareness of the importance of assessing content with a
skeptical stance and with a self-awareness of their own biases and
worldview” (ACRL, 2016, p.4).
Reducing Confirmation Bias
So what tools can librarians
provide students and the public to make better decision making
when confronted with inaccurate or deliberately misleading information? Multiple
studies indicate that just knowing that bias exists does not mean that one
identifies it in one’s self. (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004. p. 785).
It also effects very knowledgeable people, who often demonstrate a
bias consistent with their own outlook.
(Taber & Lodge, 2006, as cited in Kahne & Bower, 2016, p. 7). However,
it appears that instructing students in finding and evaluating content does have
an impact on students’ judgment. Research conducted by Kahne & Bower
(2016, p. 23) indicates that media literacy does indeed improve the judgment of
students when encountering experimental social media ‘posts’.
Librarians, pat yourselves on the back!
Librarians can provide motivation to use authoritative
sources and not utilize biased content. An “accuracy motivation”
(Hart, Albarracín, Eagly, Brechan, Lindberg, & Merrill, 2009 p. 558)
can occur when a non-biased result is perceived as an important personal
outcome. (Hart et al., 2009 p. 577). Librarians can potentially communicate the
importance of non-biased fact and conclusion-finding during information literacy
sessions. However, accuracy motivations are not always effective. Confirmation
bias was found to be larger when disagreeable information was “high
or moderate in quality rather than low in quality”, possibly due to
personal defensive motivations. (Hart et al., 2009 p. 577). In the current
social and political environment where the public’s distrust of media and
arguably science and higher education is substantial, one might be tempted to
point to this result as a possible explanation.
Additionally, peer pressure may also be useful in
mitigating the use of biased content. Jonas states that “impression
motivation” by trying to achieve “favorable interpersonal
consequences” might reduce confirmation bias (2005, p. 978).
Therefore, requiring individuals to present research results in an audience
setting where neutrality or an unbiased outlook is encouraged could curtail
bias. (Hart, et
al., 2009, p. 582). While this technique may not be possible in “one
shot” instruction sessions, it may be workable in an information literacy
course or other settings. Even so, it may be of limited value due to the need to
establish a neutral social environment for every different topic a researcher
A common strategy for spotting confirmation bias that
many librarians already employ is to ask researchers to identify when a piece of
information causes an emotional response. This can be seen as a red flag that
the information source is itself biased and is intentionally attempting to make
the researcher angry by using inflammatory words and/or content. Even if an
analysis results in no provocative words or content being found in the source,
the reader should attempt to objectively examine his own reaction. This is known
as self-regulation, to “self-consciously monitor one’s cognitive
activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results educed...
with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either
one’s reasoning or one’s results” (Facione, 2013, p. 7). An
information resource triggering an emotional or knee-jerk reaction should cause
the researcher to hesitate and further examine the source as well as to seek
additional information before making use of it or sharing on social media.
Therefore, librarians need to continue to encourage information seekers to
monitor their own thought processes.
An additional important strategy librarians can teach is
to “consider the opposite” while reading and critically evaluating
information resources (Lord, Lepper, & Preston, 1984, p. 1231). In the Lord
study, groups of students were given evidence on two opposing sides of a
proposition. One group of students was directed to “Ask yourself at each
step whether you would have made the same high or low evaluations had exactly
the same study produced results on the other side of the issue”; whereas
another was directed to be “as objective and impartial as possible”
(Lord, 1984, p. 1233). Students engaging in considering the opposite
after reading evidence for both a supporting and an opposing proposition were
shown to be less polarized in belief - less subject to their bias - following
the assignment, whereas the group told not to be biased remained so. (Lord,
1984, 1236). Additionally, multiple studies have shown that bias might
be overcome by considering multiple plausible alternatives (Lilienfeld,
Ammirati, & Landfield, 2009, p. 393).
The Lord study also indicated that students instructed
to “consider the opposite” were more even-handed in choosing
questions for further investigation to determine if two opposing propositions
were supported. (Lord, 1984, p. 1237). This study seems to indicate that
students’ information search strategies would be less biased if they are
asked to consider opposing or different explanations before
Librarians need to make clear to their students that our
default mode of thinking is System 1 and that System 2 needs to be activated for
non-biased thought. (Kahneman, 2011, p. 24-25). Just trying to be objective is
not enough, only by considering opposing and/or different views do we reduce
bias. This may have an effect not only upon evaluating information but also upon
searching for it.
Librarians need to teach that recognizing and
counteracting one’s own predispositions are necessary to analyzing and
searching for information, whether using social media or undertaking an
assignment. Doing so not only benefits the initial reader, but can also be seen
as a way to limit the spread of fake news and other inaccurate information.
While some popular models for evaluating the credibility
of information do not currently include the element of confirmation bias, they
can easily be tweaked. CRAP or CRAAP could be revised to SCRAP or SCRAAP,
thereby indicating the importance of self-examination or self-awareness. The new
tests would be indicative of the importance of initially recognizing one’s
own cognitive biases, including confirmation bias, in the evaluation process.
While an S could be added to the end of the original acronym(s), this could
imply that a person’s own cognition is the least important factor in the
test. In models such as the ACRL’s Framework, confirmation bias and ways
to mitigate it should be utilized and addressed.
Given the importance of confirmation bias in
subconsciously guiding the information evaluation and gathering processes, it is
important that methods for minimizing confirmation bias be emphasized in
information literacy sessions. If initially inserting the self into the
evaluation process does not happen, one’s unconscious bias has already
come home to roost.
Allan, M. (2016, November 8). Design: Teaching Cognitive
Bias in Information Literacy [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000).
Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Retrieved from
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016).
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Retrieved from
Confirmation bias. (2009). In Reber, A., Allen R., &
Reber, E., The Penguin dictionary of psychology. London, UK: Penguin. Retrieved
Gabielkov, M., Ramachandran, A., Chaintreau, A., &
Legout, A. (2016). Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter. ACM
SIGMETRICS Performance 2016
, 44(1), 179-192.
Gardner, L. (2016). Teaching information literacy now.
School Library Journal. Retrieved from
Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe.
American Psychologist, 46(2), 107-119.
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan,
I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being
correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to
information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-588.
Jonas, E. (2005). Giving advice or making decisions in
someone else's place: The influence of impression, defense, and accuracy
motivation on the search for new information. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 977-990.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for
democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning
and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1),
Lenker, M. (2016). Motivated reasoning, political
Information, and information literacy education. Portal: Libraries and
the Academy, 16(3), 511-528.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K.
(2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting
cognitive errors promote human welfare?. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 4(4), 390-398.
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984).
Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social
judgment. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 47(6), 1231-1243.
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004).
Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self
versus others. Psychological Review, 111(3),
Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism
in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political
Science, 50(3), 755-769. doi:10.1111/ j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Westen, D., Blagov, P., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., &
Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of
emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S.
presidential election. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947-1958
Copyright 2017 by Mark A. Allan.
About the author:
Mark A. Allan has been employed at Angelo State
University’s Porter Henderson Library for over fifteen years. As of
March, 2017, he is the Assistant Director for Research and Instruction Services.
He stays active in the Texas Library Association, and may be contacted at