Normalcy bias: what it is and how it affects us

Cognitive biases are "traps" of the mind that make us deviate from "objective" reality and that lead to errors, when deciding on certain situations or proposing effective solutions to issues.

One of these biases is the normality bias., which makes us downplay emergency situations and their possible effects. In this article we will see what exactly this bias consists of, what consequences it entails, why it occurs and how we can combat it.

• Related article: "Cognitive biases: discovering an interesting psychological effect"

Normality bias: what is it?

Normality bias is a cognitive bias that makes us believe, irrationally, that nothing bad will ever happen to us because it never has. In other words, everything will always be "normal" and nothing will break with that normality. This bias is activated in emergency situations or disasters, as we will see below.

Basically, people with the normality bias report difficulties (or even the inability) to react to situations they have never experienced before (which are often traumatic, dangerous, or emergency). This occurs because they underestimate the possibility of such a disaster occurring, and once it does, they underestimate its possible effects.

In other words, it would be that tendency to believe that everything will work as it normally does, that is, with the daily normality, without unforeseen events. It is estimated that around 70% of people present the bias of normality in emergency or disaster situations.

opposite bias

As an interesting fact, to say that the bias opposite to the normality bias is the so-called inclination to negativity, which would be precisely that tendency to believe and think that bad things will happen to us.

It would also focus much more on the bad things than the good, tending to be negative or pessimistic at all times. Thus, this bias is not adaptive either, because it makes us pessimistic people focused on thinking that everything bad will come.

The bias in emergencies

The normality bias can appear in emergency situations or disasters; Let's put ourselves in a situation to understand it better: let's imagine that we have never experienced anything too traumatic, or that we have never been exposed to an emergency situation.

What will happen when we encounter one of them and manifest the normality bias? That it will probably be hard for us to believe that it is really an emergency, and the situation will not seem “real” to us. Our brain will have activated this bias, through which it will analyze the novel and stressful situation as if it were not really stressful., and as if it were something normal.

Thus, this bias can be counterproductive in emergency situations, since if in such a situation, our mind makes us believe that the emergency is not real (or that "there is no such thing"), we will not implement the necessary resources to deal with this situation, we will not be able to help and we will also be in danger.

In this sense, then, the normality bias is neither very adaptive nor effective for survival.

consequences of bias

Thus, in emergency situations (for example a fire, a call for help from someone, a robbery...), if our mind activates the normality bias, we will underestimate this situation, believing that it is not so serious, that it is not real or that it will not lead to effects harmful.

In addition, the normality bias prevents us from preparing (both physically and mentally) for the possibility of a catastrophe.

Another of the consequences of the normality bias, as we already mentioned, is the inability to face the situation in an adaptive way, which means that we do not implement the necessary resources to face it; that we do not mobilize, do not ask for help, do not help, etc.

Through this bias, our mind is unconsciously sending us the following message: “If a disaster has never happened here before, now it doesn't have to happen”.

On the other hand, people with this bias, when faced with a novel and/or dangerous situation, interpret the warning signs that indicate such danger, in a way totally optimistic, downplaying their importance and also, taking advantage of any ambiguity in the context to understand that the situation "is not as serious as seems".

This is a mistake and can put us in danger; Let us remember that biases usually lead to inappropriate, ineffective or irrational processing of information, and that end up originating in us judgments or deviant, erroneous or dysfunctional beliefs. This is also what happens, then, with the normality bias.

When bias does not appear

What happens when we do not manifest the bias of normality in emergency situations? Many things can happen, since each person reacts differently.

There are people who mobilize more easily in emergency situations; others, on the other hand, are blocked and have difficulties deciding what to do more or less quickly (which does not mean that they show the normality bias). And so a long etcetera, since in unforeseen situations, it is not easy to anticipate how each person will act.

An American journalist, Amanda Ripley, studied people's responses to emergency or disaster situations., and found the following: according to her, there are three response phases when we react to a disaster: the first phase is denial (denying that this is happening; we could even frame here, the bias of normality), the second is that of deliberation (think: what do I do now? how do I act?), and the third is the decisive moment (to act or not to act).

Each person advances in a different way through these three phases; there are people who remain in the first, others in the second, and finally some in the third (where they move on to action, to mobilization).

Causes

A hypothesis has been proposed to explain the origin of the normality bias.. This hypothesis mentions the way in which the brain processes new information; according to her, stress would decrease the probability of adequately processing information.

It is also interesting to know that even when the brain is calm, it takes between 8 and 10 seconds to process new information.

Thus, trying to explain it in a fairly synthesized way, in the bias of normality, the brain would have a hard time coming up with an “acceptable” response to what is happening, and for this reason it would end up developing exactly the opposite idea, which is that "nothing relevant is happening" or "nothing worrisome".

• You may be interested in: "Cognitive Psychology: Definition, Theories, and Main Authors"

How to combat normalcy bias?

Surely the best way to combat this bias is to be aware that it can happen to us, but also that we can avoid it, if we are aware of that possibility. Thinking rationally and realistically, although it is not always easy, can help us.

On the other hand, different responses have been proposed, which are structured into four phases or stages, to combat the normality bias (referred to on a large scale). These consist of:

1. Preparation

In this first stage, it is recognized that there is a possibility of a disaster. Plans are designed to deal with them in case it happens.

2. warning or alert

It is reported that a catastrophe is happening (unambiguously), so that people are aware of the seriousness of the situation and can begin to mobilize.

3. Impact

Emergency plans are activated; Emergency, rescue and relief teams intervene. That is, it begins to act.

4. Consequences

An attempt is being made to reestablish the balance that has been broken as a result of the catastrophe. Supplies and necessary post-disaster relief are provided.

Bibliographic references:

• Morales, J.F. (2007). Social psychology. Publisher: S.A. McGraw-Hill / Interamericana of Spain
• Myers, D.G. (nineteen ninety five). Social psychology. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Mexico.
• World Health Organization. (2003). Mental health in emergencies. Geneva: Department of Mental Health and Drug Addiction/World Health Organization.
• Rodríguez, J., Davoli, Z. and Perez, R. (2006). Practical guide to mental health in disaster situations. Iris, Institutional Repository for information exchange. Pan American Health Organization.