Skip to main content

Table 4 Moral biases relevant for bioethics with type of bias, short description, and an indication for what type of bioethics this bias may be most relevant to assess

From: Biases in bioethics: a narrative review

Type of bias

Bias

Definition/short description

Type of bioethics

Framing

Tinting, coloring

The tendency to give tinted or colored presentations of states of affairs, arguments

A, ER, EA, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Nudging

The tendency to “push” the interlocutor or decision-maker in a specific direction

A, EA, PEC

 

Terminology

The tendency to talk about groups in terms of their conditions (“diabetics,” “epileptics” etc.)

A, ER, EA, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Embeddedness

The tendency that basic conceptions are personally, socially, and culturally embedded

A, EA, CEC

 

Standpoint adherence

The tendency to stick to one’s standpoint despite strong evidence against it

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Impartiality illusion

The tendency to think that one’s work is impartial

ER, EA, ELS, PEC

 

Expectation bias

Conflict of interest

The tendency to provide outcomes in accordance with what is expected

Shaping the perception of a situation or task in a subconscious manner

A, ER, EA, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Delimiting effect

Directing the debate by defining what is the issue or what is an ethical question (or not)

A, EA, CEC, PEC

Moral theory bias

Theory dominance

The tendency to let one theoretical perspective dominate the analysis. Ignoring other relevant perspectives (objections or practical problems)

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Bias towards inadequate moral perspectives

The tendency to rely on arguments from an erroneous or inadequate moral theory or perspective or to rationalize a preferred conclusion by appeal to arguments that underpin a preferred conclusion

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Conceptual bias

Structural asymmetries in ethics that can influence ethical judgments

A, ER, EA, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Theoretical direction-lessness

Lack of theoretical foundation (in moral philosophy) or lack of well-founded principles

A, ER, ELS, CEC

Analysis bias

Myside bias

The tendency to evaluate or generate evidence, test hypotheses, or analyze or address moral issues in a manner biased toward their own prior perspectives, opinions, attitudes, or positions

A, EA, CEC

 

Specification, interpretation, or balancing bias

Bias in the process of specification, interpretation and/or balancing of moral norms, values or principles

A, EA, PEC

 

Moral fictions

The tendency to endorse false statements to uphold cherished or entrenched moral positions in the face of conduct that is in tension with these established moral positions

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Moral errors

“Moral fallacies” due to various biases, such as psychic numbing, the identifiable victim effect, victim-blaming etc

A, EA, CEC, PEC

Argu-mentation bias

False analogy

False equivalence

Using an analogy that has morally relevant differences from the analog

False analogies are related to making misleading or false comparisons and availability bias

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Inferring from description to prescription

Arguing from empirical facts (about peoples’ opinion) to ethical conclusions

A, ER, EA, CEC

 

Using ambiguous concepts

The tendency to use unclear or ambiguous concepts that can confuse or confound the argument

A, ER, EA, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Repulsion and moral disgust

The tendency to appeal to repulsion or moral disgust in order to obtain an argumentative effect

A, CEC

 

Straw man argument

Giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument by (covertly) replacing it by a different argument

A

 

Argument selection

The tendency to select (counter-)arguments that are easy to rebut or to present them in uncharitable ways

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Argumentum ad hominem

Attacking the character, motive, or attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself

A

 

Relevance fallacy

Presenting a sound argument, which fails to address the issue in question

A

 

Red herring

The tendency to divert an argument to unrelated issues (Ignoratio elenchi)

A

 

Experience paradox

An appeal to personal experiences in bioethics debates where the experiences express vested interests or are not representative of those involved

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Petitio principii

The tendency to assume the conclusion of an argument, i.e., "begging the question," which is a kind of circular reasoning

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Argumentum ad populum

The tendency to assert that everyone (else) agrees (also called “bandwagoning”)

A, CEC

 

Either-or fallacy

The tendency to create a false dilemma in which the circumstances are oversimplified (also referred to as “false dichotomy”)

A, CEC

 

Card stacking, cherry picking

The tendency to select facts, examples, analogies, thought experiments that fit to one’s conclusion

A, ELS, CEC, PEC

 

Double standards

The tendency to demand less from one’s own arguments than from opponents’

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Hasty generalization

The tendency to “jump to conclusions” or generalizing quickly and/or sloppily

A

 

Unclear or mispresented argument

The tendency to present the argument one is attacking or opposing in a misleading manner or in a way that the opponent does not recognize or acknowledge

A

 

Controversial premises

The tendency to presume controversial premises without discussing their truthfulness or adequacy

A, EA, PEC

 

Implicit theoretical assumptions

The tendency to make implicit crucial theoretical assumptions and definitions and drawing strong conclusions without showing how they rely on these assumptions

A, EA, CEC, PEC

 

Conclusion bias

The tendency to draw conclusions beyond the limitations or premises of the argument

A, EA, CEC, PEC

Decision bias

Simplification bias

The tendency to base decisions on illusory correlations and to be insensitivity to base rates

A, EA, ELS, CEC

 

Verification bias

The tendency to base decisions on illusions of control and self-serving bias

A, EA, PEC

 

Regulation bias

The tendency to make framing errors and regret avoidance

A, EA, CEC

  1. A Agitation, ER Empirical Research, EA Ethical analyzes, ELS Ethics literature synthesis, CEC Clinical ethics consultation, PEC Philosophical, Ethical, and Conceptual analyzes