Summer 2025 SOWK 588 Week 03 - Using Metacognition to Check Biases

title: Summer 2025 SOWK 588 Week 03 - Using Metacognition to Check Biases date: 2025-06-13 20:18:42 location: Heritage University tags:

  • Heritage University
  • MSW Program
  • SOWK 588 presentation_video: > “” description: >

Week three is a synchronous class week, with class taking place on Saturday (06/14/25). In reading Edin and Shaefer (2016), students will have the opportunity to learn about the challenges faced by those who live on $2 per day, and there will be a forum for them to relate to rural and migrant communities. In Linquiti (2022), he focuses on understanding cognitive dissonance and its effect on biases. There are forums for students to consider their way of thinking and reflect on the textbook content. During class we will continue to consider thinking styles and biases. Students will also be introduced to system thinking. The agenda for the in-person class includes:

  • Engage in activities that illustrate metacognitive processes and thinking styles.
  • Explore cognitive reflection and the difference between intuitive and analytical reasoning.
  • Reflect on the impact of cognitive dissonance and bias in policy analysis.
  • Apply systems thinking concepts to examine the limitations of conventional problem-solving.

The learning objectives this week include:

  • Differentiate between System 1 and System 2 thinking and identify how each influences policy analysis and decision-making.
  • Identify common forms of cognitive dissonance and describe how dissonance can cause bias.
  • Recognize common cognitive traps and reflect on their potential impact.
  • Apply principles of systems thinking to reframe conventional problem-solving approaches and anticipate unintended consequences in policy interventions.
  • Share relevant experiences and challenges faced by people in our community.
  • Engage in critical thinking related to our thinking styles.
  • Define cognitive dissonance and describe how trying to avoid it may create bias in policy analysis.
  • Explain how the speed of cognition, the nature of an analyst’s motivating objective, and the affective content of cognition can have adverse impacts on the quality of policy analysis.

Plan for Week Three

Agenda

  • Engage in activities that illustrate metacognitive processes and thinking styles.
  • Explore cognitive reflection and the difference between intuitive and analytical reasoning.
  • Reflect on the impact of cognitive dissonance and bias in policy analysis.
  • Apply systems thinking concepts to examine the limitations of conventional problem-solving.

Learning Objectives

  • Differentiate between System 1 and System 2 thinking and identify how each influences policy analysis and decision-making.
  • Identify common forms of cognitive dissonance and describe how dissonance can cause bias.
  • Recognize common cognitive traps and reflect on their potential impact.
  • Apply principles of systems thinking to reframe conventional problem-solving approaches and anticipate unintended consequences in policy interventions.

Your Thinking Style: Developing a Visual Metaphor

I’d like to get us started today by discussing metacognition, or reflecting on your thought processes and how you think.

[Individual Activity] Visual Metaphor of Your Thinking Style Take about 5 minutes to sketch a visual metaphor representing how your mind processes information under pressure (e.g., a hamster wheel, a tangled ball, a spotlight).

[Small Group Activity] Share Visual Metaphor of Your Thinking Style Consider the relationship to cognitive speed, emotion, and motivation.

[Whole Group Activity] Debrief Visual Metaphor of Your Thinking Style What are some examples people came up with?

Cognitive Reflection Test (1 of 3)

The Linquiti (2022) offers three questions based on Frederick (2005)s work to illustrate the different between system 1 thinking (or fast/heuristics/intuitive) and system 2 thinking (slow/complex/analytical). Frederick had three questions, but the examples (e.g., baseball/ball cost, lillypads expanding, and machine making widgets) have been shared frequently making them not as effective as a tool to measure. Toplak and his associates set out in 2014 to develop some additional questions.

I’m going to go through a few of them with you.

[Small Group Activity] Cognitive Reflection Test

Read the question, give people some time to consider, share results with people around them.

If John can drink one barrel of water in 6 days, and Mary can drink one barrel of water in 12 days, how long would it take them to drink one barrel of water together?

correct answer: 4 days intuitive answer: 9 days

Cognitive Reflection Test (2 of 3)

The second questions is:

[Small Group Activity] Cognitive Reflection Test

Read the question, give people some time to consider, share results with people around them.

Jerry received both the 15th highest and the 15th lowest mark in the class. How many students are in the class?

correct answer: 29 students intuitive answer: 30 students

Cognitive Reflection Test (3 of 3)

The third questions is:

[Small Group Activity] Cognitive Reflection Test

Read the question, give people some time to consider, share results with people around them.

A man buys a pig for $60, sells it for $70, buys it back for $80, and sells it finally for $90. How much has he made?

correct answer: $20 intuitive answer: $10

Reference

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (June 13 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729

Reflecting on the Speed of Cognition

[Small Group Activity] Reflect on Speed of Cognition

  • What are some of the benefits and challenges of each way of thinking?
  • What are the use cases of system 1 and 2 thinking in general?
  • How do each system strengths/weaknesses show up in policy decisions?

[Whole Group Activity] Debrief Discussion

System 1 thinking prone to bias and cognitive error Used by analyst with relevant expertise, however, System 1 may yield high-quality results quickly System 2 thinking usually offers high-quality results, but may be infeasible given time, resource, and information constraints of real-world policymaking. (p. 129)

Cognitive Dissonance (1 of 2)

Our cognitive dissonance is as the basis of many of the biases that we have. It can be defined:

an internal intellectual and emotional dilemma we experience when there is a discrepancy (or tension or inconsistency) between an idea, concept, or belief that we hold as true or valid, and:

  • Another idea, concept, or belief we also hold as true or valid,
  • Actions we have previously taken or decisions we’ve made,
  • The views of an admired public person or party,
  • An ideology, political platform, or worldview to which we subscribe,
  • The views of our social reference group, such as our friends, family, and colleagues,
  • The way we earn our living, or
  • Our sense of self-esteem, identity, and of who we are.

Cognitive Dissonance (2 of 2)

[Small Group Activity] Defining Examples of Cognitive Dissonance or Bias

  • What kinds of information or perspectives would make you feel cognitive dissonance about that position?
  • How might cognitive dissonance influence the way we analyze social problems or recommend policies?

</div>

We have to Be able to Check Our Biases

When I was reading Linquiti (2022) and his discussion of biases, one example where I feel like I was able step out of my mindset was seeing articles about.

I have a almost instant aversion to anything that comes out of any of the administration currently. A few months ago, I remember seeing this in the news and thinking this doesn’t necessarily seem bad. Maybe there are unintended consequences… but seems good. I know the UN blocks a lot of the same things…

Reference

Venugopal Ramaswamy, S. (2025 April 22) Eight artififical dyes will be phased out of US food supply, Health Secretary RFK Jr. says. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/22/rfk-jr-food-artificial-dye-food-supply/83211595007/

Scared Straight 1999

[Whole Group Activity] Watch short video clip of Scared Straight 1999

Reference

ZF Heizenburg (2021, August 1) Scared straight 1999 uncensored / Tom Segura bikes! full episode. YouTube. https://youtu.be/UtDPardI2UE?si=2Mjh6lumOfTG3tXD

Scared Straight Programs as a Stand-Alone Strategy Are Not Effective

I’ve probably used this as an example, but I think it helps us see a easy to explore example of a potential policy or practice that is not effective.

These randomized trials, conducted over a 25-year period in eight different jurisdictions, provide evidence that ‘Scared Straight’ and other ‘juvenile awareness’ programs are not effective as a stand-alone crime prevention strategy. More importantly, they provide empirical evidence under experimental conditions - that these programs likely increase the odds that children exposed to them will commit offenses in future. Despite the variability in the type of intervention used, ranging from harsh, confrontational interactions to tours of the facility converge on the same result: an increase in criminality in the experimental group when compared to a no-treatment control. Doing nothing would have been better than exposing juveniles to the program. (p. 31)

Reference

Petrosino, A., Turpin‐Petrosino, C., Hollis‐Peel, M. E., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2013.5

Systems Thinking and Opposite Results

I’m excited to see where the textbook goes with talking about systems thinking, as chapter 12 dives more fully into it. Systems thinking is something I have been exposed to and really appreciate as a way of considering problems. I think it is a valuable method for engaging in system 2 thinking.

I’m going going to share some work from Stroh and his text Systems Thinking for Social Change. To introduce the topic of systems thinking he lays out to article headlines based on true stories:

  • Homeless shelter perpetuate homelessness
  • Drug bust increases drug-related crime
  • Food aid increases starvation
  • ‘Get-tough’ prison sentences fail to reduce the fear of violent crime
  • Job training problems increase unemployment

Just like something like scared straight. He describes seemingly well-intentioned interventions can sometimes produce the opposite result when:

  • Address symptoms rather than underlying problems.
  • Seems obvious and often succeeds in the short run.
  • Achieve short-term gains that are undermined by longer-term impacts.
  • Produce unintentional negative consequences.
  • Leads us to assume that we are not responsible for the problem recurrence.

Reference

Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking For social change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Definition of Systems Thinking

Stroh (2015) builds on Meadows (one of the originators) definition of systems thinking to define it as follows:

Thinking of the whole as an interconnected set of elements organized in a way that it understands the connections so as to achieve a desired purpose.

(my combination as a definition)

Conventional Verses Systems Thinking

We can think about conventional thinking versus systems thinking especially related to:

  • Causality
  • Accountability and blame
  • Time horizon and impact
  • Optimization of approach
  • Strategy for change
Conventional Thinking Systems Thinking
The connection between problems and their causes is obvious and easy to trace. The relationship between problems and their causes is indirect and not obvious.
Others, either within or outside our organization, are to blame for our problems and must be the ones to change. We unwittingly create our own problems and have significant control or influence in solving them through changing our behavior.
A policy designed to achieve short-term success will also assure long-term success. Most quick fixes have unintended consequences: They make no difference or make matters worse in the long run.
In order to optimize the whole, we must optimize the parts. In order to optimize the whole, we must improve relationships among the parts.
Aggressively tackle many independent initiatives simultaneously. Only a few key coordinated changes sustained over time will produce large systems change.

(Innovation Associates Organizational Learning as cited in Stroh, 2015, Chapter 1)

Implementing Systems Thinking Through Structured Analysis

Systems thinking can be used though a type of structured analysis. We’ve all see the ice berg that is 70 or more percent under the water. Stroh (2015) offers it as model for analyzing problems.

We need to ask our what happened, and what’s been happening (both things we can see) and they allow us to react and anticipate. We also have to define the way things are the way they are and how the structure of the sytems make that happen through pressures, policies, power dynamics, perceptions, and purpose. As we get to more and more relevant whys, there is learning that we are able to leverage.

Cognitive Traps: Three Areas We Might Fall Into

Downsides of Defending Against Dissonance

  • Selective Exposure and Compartmentalization: We seek out information that aligns with our existing beliefs and isolate conflicting ideas to reduce discomfort.
  • Confirmation and Disconfirmation Bias: We give greater weight to evidence that supports our views and dismiss or scrutinize opposing evidence.
  • Group Bias: The Halo and Horns Effect: We evaluate individuals or groups more favorably or unfavorably based on a single trait or affiliation.
  • Aversion to Uncertainty and Risk: We prefer certainty and status quo over ambiguity, even if change might be beneficial.

Mood-Driven Mistakes

  • Priming: Our judgments and decisions are unconsciously influenced by recent exposures or emotional states.
  • Backfire Effect: When confronted with contradictory evidence, we may double down on our original beliefs rather than revise them.
  • Overconfidence Trap: We overestimate the accuracy of our knowledge, judgments, or predictions.

Mental Missteps

  • Framing: The way information is presented influences our decisions more than the content itself.
  • Anchoring: We rely too heavily on initial information (the “anchor”) when making subsequent judgments.
  • Availability and Mirror Imaging: We judge likelihoods based on easily recalled examples and assume others think as we do.
  • Coherence and the WYSIATI Phenomenon: We create stories that make sense with limited information, assuming “What You See Is All There Is.”

[Small Group Activity] Reflect on Cognitive Traps

Which cognitive trap do you think you’re most vulnerable to when analyzing policy?

Review Reflecting on Your Metacognition and Biases Handout and discuss.