Skip to main content

Bridging Perception and Reality: Addressing Cognitive Biases in Therapeutic Practice

Bridging Perception and Reality: Addressing Cognitive Biases in Therapeutic Practice

Kevin William Grant
August 26, 2023

Understanding cognitive biases, particularly those related to self-assessment of intelligence and abilities, is crucial as it can impact decision-making, educational outcomes, and interpersonal relationships.

In the intricate dance of psychotherapy, both therapist and client bring not just their experiences and insights to the table but also a set of cognitive biases—systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. These often-unconscious inclinations can quietly mold perceptions, decisions, and interactions. While cognitive biases extend across various facets of human life, in the context of psychotherapy, they take on a particularly poignant significance. They can shape everything from the initial assessment and diagnosis to the chosen treatment modalities and the evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. Addressing and navigating these biases is not just a matter of enhancing the precision of the therapeutic process; it is about ensuring its very integrity.

This article delves deep into the world of cognitive biases in psychotherapy, shedding light on their influence and offering insights for practitioners who seek to ensure the highest standards of care and effectiveness in their interactions with clients.

Cognitive Bias

Cognitive biases are systematic psychological patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, leading individuals to perceive reality through a distorted lens (Haselton et al., 2005). These biases often arise due to the brain's attempt to simplify information processing. While they can be adaptive in some situations, they can often lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation.

One particularly salient cognitive bias relevant to the perception of one's intelligence is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This effect posits that individuals with low ability in a specific domain are likelier to overestimate their competence, while those with high capacity might underestimate their competence (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). A core reason behind this effect is that the skills necessary to produce correct answers in a domain are the same skills required to evaluate one's abilities accurately. In other words, lacking the skills to have correct answers, people also lack the skills to recognize when they are making mistakes, leading to an inflated self-assessment (Dunning et al., 2003).

Another bias that can play into the belief of one's superiority in intelligence or abilities is the "above-average effect" or "illusory superiority." This is the tendency for people to rate themselves as above average in various domains, including intelligence, even when objective measures suggest otherwise (Svenson, 1981). This bias can lead to overconfidence in one's abilities and can also be rooted in the need for positive self-evaluation and the human inclination to maintain self-esteem.

Understanding cognitive biases, particularly those related to self-assessment of intelligence and abilities, is crucial as it can impact decision-making, educational outcomes, and interpersonal relationships. Recognizing and mitigating these biases can lead to more accurate self-assessment, improved decision-making, and better interpersonal understanding.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias wherein individuals with low ability in a given domain tend to overestimate their competence. In contrast, those with high ability may underestimate their competence (Dunning, 2011). Initially identified by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, this phenomenon reveals a paradoxical relationship between ability and self-awareness: often, those who are least skilled are unaware of their deficiencies, mainly because they lack the very skills needed to evaluate their competence accurately (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

The psychology behind the Dunning-Kruger Effect can be attributed to metacognitive deficits. Specifically, to recognize one's incompetence, a certain level of expertise is required; with it, individuals can critically evaluate their performance and the quality of their decisions (Dunning et al., 2003). For those with higher competence, the underestimation of their skills might arise from the erroneous assumption that if they find tasks easy, others must too. This "curse of expertise" leads them to undervalue their unique skills or knowledge (Dunning, 2007).

There are several reasons why this occurs:

  • Lack of Metacognitive Skills: One of the critical insights from Dunning and Kruger's work is that the skills required to be competent in a domain are also required to evaluate competence in that domain. This means that those who lack the ability also lack the self-awareness to recognize their deficits. They do not know what they do not know.
  • Mistaken Benchmarks: People often compare their abilities to those around them rather than an objective standard. If everyone in a group performs poorly, an individual might consider their performance adequate or superior relative to peers, even if it is objectively lacking.
  • Overconfidence is a general cognitive bias where individuals overestimate their abilities or knowledge in various areas. It is not exclusive to the Dunning-Kruger Effect but plays a part in it.
  • A mismatch between Self-assessment and Reality: People might receive positive feedback for their efforts (even if they are misguided), leading them to believe they are more competent than they are.
  • Failure to Seek Feedback: People need to actively seek feedback or be exposed to expert performance to understand what actual competence looks like clearly.

On the flip side, highly competent individuals tend to underestimate their ability for a couple of reasons:

  • Familiarity with the Domain: As people become more knowledgeable or skilled in a particular domain, they may believe that many tasks or knowledge are "common sense" and assume that others possess the same understanding.
  • Higher Standards: Experts often compare themselves to other experts. So even though they are at the top of their field, they see themselves as average within their peer group.

Understanding the Dunning-Kruger Effect is vital in both educational and professional contexts. It underscores the importance of feedback and external evaluations, as cognitive biases can often skew self-assessment. In professional settings, this knowledge can help make better personnel decisions, train programs, and foster a culture of continuous learning.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is an essential reminder of the limits of self-awareness and the value of seeking external feedback and continuous learning. It is also a caution against assuming that confidence always equates to competence.

Psychology Research Findings

Research in psychology has consistently demonstrated a range of cognitive biases that lead individuals to overestimate their abilities and intelligence, viewing themselves in a more favorable light than is warranted. One of the most well-documented phenomena in this realm is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Dunning and Kruger (1999) found that individuals with lower abilities in specific domains tend to overestimate their competence due to their inability to recognize their mistakes. In essence, lacking proficiency in a domain often means lacking the metacognitive skills required to accurately evaluate one's performance (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

Beyond this, the "above-average effect" or "illusory superiority" is another cognitive bias that has received substantial attention. Most people believe they are above average in various domains, from driving skills to intelligence, even when statistical evidence contradicts these beliefs (Svenson, 1981). This overconfidence is not just restricted to skills; Alicke (1985) introduced the concept of the "better-than-average" heuristic, suggesting that people see themselves as superior to most others on socially desirable attributes, including perceived intelligence.

Additionally, confirmation bias can further solidify these inflated self-perceptions. Once individuals have an established belief about their intelligence or abilities, they tend to seek out, recall, and favor information that confirms this belief while ignoring or discrediting contradicting information (Nickerson, 1998).

These biases not only affect individual self-perception but can also influence decision-making, goal-setting, and interpersonal relationships. Recognizing and understanding these biases for personal growth and fostering more accurate self-assessment is crucial, leading to improved decision-making and better life outcomes.

How Cognitive Bias Impacts Psychotherapy

Cognitive biases can significantly impact psychotherapy outcomes. Both therapists and clients bring their own biases into the therapeutic process, which can influence various facets of therapy, from assessment to intervention and termination. Here is how:

  • Confirmation Bias: This is the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms pre-existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). For therapists, this bias might manifest as over-reliance on initial assessments, potentially missing out on evolving client needs. Clients may also dismiss new insights or feedback that aligns differently with their existing self-perception or beliefs about their problems.
  • Availability Heuristic refers to the reliance on immediate examples that come to mind. Suppose a therapist recently attended a seminar on a particular therapeutic technique. In that case, they might be biased towards using that technique, even if it is not the best fit for the current client (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).
  • Fundamental Attribution Error: This is the tendency to attribute others' behaviors to their character rather than external factors (Ross, 1977). A therapist might attribute a client's missed sessions to resistance or lack of motivation rather than exploring external factors, such as logistical issues or fear.
  • Negativity Bias: People tend to remember and be affected more by negative experiences than neutral or positive ones. This might mean that a perceived negative comment or event overshadows numerous positive interactions in therapy, potentially hampering the therapeutic alliance (Baumeister et al., 2001).
  • Self-serving Bias: Clients may attribute positive outcomes to their efforts and adverse outcomes to external circumstances or the therapist's shortcomings. While this can serve as a protective mechanism for self-esteem, it can also hinder accountability and growth in therapy (Miller & Ross, 1975).

The awareness and management of these biases are crucial for effective therapeutic outcomes. Regular supervision, continuing education, and self-reflection can help therapists recognize and mitigate their biases. Likewise, integrating psychoeducation and metacognitive strategies into therapy can assist clients in recognizing and challenging their own biases.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect, which highlights the tendency for individuals with low ability in a specific domain to overestimate their competence (and for experts to underestimate theirs), has implications in psychotherapy. While the primary research on the Dunning-Kruger Effect did not focus on psychotherapy, the principles can be extrapolated to this context.

  • Therapist Competence: Novice therapists, particularly those in the early stages of their training, might overestimate their therapeutic abilities or the effectiveness of their interventions. This can limit their willingness to seek supervision or feedback, hindering their growth and potentially impacting client outcomes. On the other hand, more experienced therapists might need to pay more attention to their unique skills, which might prevent them from imparting these skills to trainees (Dunning, 2011).
  • Client Self-assessment: The Dunning-Kruger Effect can influence clients' inaccurate self-assessment of their problems or their progress in therapy. Those who need insight into their issues may believe they require less assistance or might resist interventions, thinking they already possess the necessary skills or knowledge for change. This could affect the therapeutic alliance and the overall trajectory of therapy (Lambert, 2013).
  • Therapeutic Relationship: The Dunning-Kruger Effect can impact the therapeutic relationship. If therapists overestimate their competence, they might dismiss client feedback or miss crucial cues. On the other hand, clients who overestimate their understanding of their issues might need more support to navigate the therapeutic process effectively (Norcross & Wampold, 2011).
  • Training and Supervision: Recognizing the potential for cognitive biases, including the Dunning-Kruger Effect, can inform training and supervision in clinical psychology and related fields. Encouraging self-reflection, regular feedback, and continuous professional development can mitigate the impact of these biases (Falender & Shafranske, 2004).

The Dunning-Kruger Effect and its principles regarding self-assessment and competence have essential implications for therapists and clients. Maintaining an awareness of these biases can enhance the effectiveness and outcomes of therapeutic interventions.


Cognitive biases and systematic deviations from logical thought influence various domains of our lives, including psychotherapy. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, for instance, highlights how individuals with limited skills or knowledge in a particular area may overestimate their competence while experts may underestimate theirs. In the context of psychotherapy, such biases can have multifaceted impacts. Therapists, especially those in their careers, may need to pay more attention to their therapeutic abilities, potentially bypassing crucial feedback or supervision. Clients may also misjudge the extent or nature of their problems, influencing their openness to therapy and progress. Another notable cognitive bias is the confirmation bias, where therapists and clients might give undue weight to information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, potentially missing out on evolving insights.

Other biases, like the availability heuristic, fundamental attribution error, negativity bias, and self-serving bias, can further impact the therapeutic process and outcomes. For instance, therapists might lean towards a recently learned technique, even if it is not best suited for the client, or a single negative comment might overshadow several positive therapy sessions. Therapists and clients must be aware of these biases to ensure the most effective therapeutic outcomes. Regular supervision, continuous education, self-reflection, and metacognitive strategies integrated into therapy can help in recognizing and challenging these cognitive biases (Nickerson, 1998; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; Ross, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2001; Miller & Ross, 1975; Dunning, 2011).

Cognitive bias is critical to consider in psychotherapy for several reasons, both from the perspectives of the therapist and the client:

  • Influence on Diagnosis and Assessment: Cognitive biases can influence how therapists gather and interpret client information, leading to misdiagnoses or misunderstandings about the client's problems. For instance, confirmation bias might cause a therapist to selectively focus on information that aligns with an initial diagnosis, potentially overlooking critical data that suggests a different diagnosis or intervention approach.
  • Therapeutic Alliance: Biases can impact the relationship between the therapist and the client. Suppose a therapist holds biases (e.g., fundamental attribution error). In that case, they might misinterpret a client's behavior as resistance or lack of motivation rather than considering external factors, which can strain the relationship. Similarly, a client's biases might make them less receptive to therapeutic interventions, feeling misunderstood or dismissed.
  • Treatment Selection: Biases such as the availability heuristic can influence a therapist's choice of treatment modalities or interventions. If a therapist overly relies on a recently learned technique because it is fresh in their mind, they might neglect other potentially more effective treatments.
  • Evaluation of Progress: Both therapist and client can be influenced by biases when evaluating therapeutic progress. A therapist might attribute successful outcomes solely to their interventions, neglecting the client's efforts or external factors. Similarly, clients might attribute positive changes solely to their actions, minimizing the therapeutic process's impact.
  • Cultural Sensitivity and Competence: Biases related to culture, race, gender, or sexuality can lead to misunderstandings, missed interventions, or harm. Therapists need to be aware of their own potential biases to offer culturally sensitive and competent care.
  • Client's Self-perception and Engagement: Cognitive biases, such as the Dunning-Kruger Effect or self-serving bias, can impact how clients perceive their problems, their ability to change, and their role in the therapeutic process. Clients might overestimate their coping skills and undervalue the need for therapy or resist feedback and change.

Recognizing and addressing cognitive biases is foundational to ensuring high-quality psychotherapy. Unchecked biases can distort the therapeutic process, from assessment to intervention and evaluation. To ensure effective therapy, therapists must engage in continuous self-reflection, receive feedback and supervision, and adopt strategies to counteract biases, fostering an environment that encourages clients to do the same.



Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1621-1630.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.

Dunning, D. (2007). Self-image motives and consumer behavior: How sacrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 237-249.

Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance. In J. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). Academic Press.

Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83-87.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. American Psychological Association.

Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Andrews, P. W. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, 724-746. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

Lambert, M. J. (2013). Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. John Wiley & Sons.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 98-102.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.

Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143-148.

Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143-148.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.