Evaluability Bias

Among the more recently described cognitive biases is one known as the Evaluability Bias. It is "the tendency to weight the importance of an attribute in proportion to its ease of evaluation, rather than based on criteria that are deemed as more relevant after reflection." [Caviola, et al. 2014] Said differently, when assessing the value of an option, we assign importance to the option's attributes. The Evaluability Bias causes us to tend to assign too little importance to attributes that are relatively difficult to evaluate, compared to the importance we assign to attributes that are relatively easy to evaluate.

What Evaluability Bias is

Caviola et al. provide a careful study of this phenomenon in the domain of charitable giving. They find that when deciding which charities to support, donors tend to assign too much importance to the "overhead ratio," an easily measured attribute that corresponds to the ratio of administrative expenses to total donations. And donors assign too little importance to cost-effectiveness, which is a much more difficult-to-measure quantity that is, essentially, the value of good works done per unit value of donations.

We can Evaluability Bias causes us to tend to assign too little
importance to attributes that are relatively difficult
to evaluate, compared to the importance we assign to
attributes that are relatively easy to evaluateunderstand other cognitive biases, described earlier in the history of cognitive biases, in terms of Evaluability Bias. One example is a bias known asscope insensitivity or scope neglect. [Kahneman 2000] Originally named extension neglect by Kahneman, scope neglect is the tendency to assign inappropriately low weight to the quantity, scale, or scope of the option in question. For example, when comparing the importance of abuse of different drugs, people tend not to take into account the scale of the drug's abuse: differences in the number of abusers of each drug.

Evaluability Bias and technical debt

In the workplace, Evaluability Bias can have alarmingly deleterious effects. For example, nearly every organization depends on rational decision-making in the context of software development, either because they produce software products, or because they have business technology functions that produce software for internal use.

And because technical debt is a live issue that can afflict all software, it's important to make rational decisions about retiring existing technical debt and about preventing formation of new technical debt. Evaluability Bias is relevant because those decisions inevitably involve choosing which instances of technical debt we will retire. One of the important attributes of these choices is the cost of not retiring it. The cost of not retiring a specific class or instance of technical debt is often neglected, but even when we consider it, it is an attribute most notoriously difficult to measure.

Last words

When consider training for ourselves or for others, we tend not to consider training in limiting the effects of cognitive biases in decision-making. Surely it would be helpful, even if calculating its value with any useful degree of accuracy would be challenging. Evaluability Bias, ironically, might be playing a role in preventing organizations from training their people in methods for limiting the effects of Evaluability Bias.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest

A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.

The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect

When we speak or write, the phrases we use have both form and meaning. Although we usually think of form and meaning as distinct, humans tend to assess as more meaningful and valid those phrases that are more beautifully formed. The rhyme-as-reason effect causes us to confuse the validity of a phrase with its aesthetics.

Motivated Reasoning

When we prefer a certain outcome of a decision process, we risk falling into a pattern of motivated reasoning. That can cause us to gather data and construct arguments that erroneously lead to the outcome we prefer, often outside our awareness. And it can happen even when the outcome we prefer is known to threaten our safety and security.

Illusory Management: II

Many believe that managers control organizational performance more precisely than they actually do. This illusion might arise, in part, from a mechanism that causes leaders and the people they lead to tend to misattribute organizational success.

Clouted Thinking

When we say that people have "clout" we mean that they have more organizational power or social influence than most others do. But when people with clout try to use it in realms beyond those in which they've earned it, trouble looms.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info