Why the First Explanation We Hear Becomes Our “Truth”: The Cognitive Trap We All Fall Into
Have you ever noticed that after hearing a convincing explanation, almost everything that follows seems to confirm it?
Someone says, “He’s lazy.” You begin to notice the times this person arrives late, puts things off, or shows little initiative. But you may overlook the moments when they help others, take responsibility, or work hard.
Or imagine that a doctor initially suggests your symptoms may be related to stress. There is a risk that both you and others will continue interpreting those symptoms primarily through this initial assumption, paying insufficient attention to other possible explanations.
Does this mean we deliberately deceive ourselves? Not at all.
Our brains constantly process enormous amounts of information. To navigate this complexity, we rely on past experiences, assumptions, and mental shortcuts. These often help us make decisions, but under certain circumstances, they can also lead to errors.
One such trap occurs when the first piece of information we receive becomes a reference point through which we begin interpreting everything that follows.
1. The anchoring effect — when the first number influences our judgment
In psychology, this phenomenon is known as the anchoring effect.
It refers to our tendency to rely too heavily on the initial information we receive — our “anchor” — when making a decision or judgment, even when that information has little or no relevant basis.
In a classic study conducted in 1974, psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman asked participants to observe a spinning wheel of fortune. The wheel stopped at either 10 or 65. Participants were then asked to estimate what percentage of African countries were represented in the United Nations.
Although the number produced by the wheel had no connection to the correct answer, it influenced participants’ estimates. The median estimate was 25% among those exposed to the number 10, compared with 45% among those exposed to 65.
A number that should have been irrelevant nevertheless influenced their judgment.
What does this look like in everyday life?
If you first hear that an item costs €500, a price of €300 may later seem like a bargain, even if the item’s actual value is considerably lower.
If you initially hear a negative comment about someone, you may begin evaluating their behavior more critically.
If someone confidently offers a specific explanation for your problem, that explanation may influence how you interpret what happens next.
It is important to understand that the anchoring effect is not the same as the primacy effect. Anchoring specifically involves an initial reference point influencing a subsequent judgment. The first impression, meanwhile, can influence how we perceive a person or situation as a whole.
2. First impressions — how initial information colors everything that follows
In 1946, psychologist Solomon Asch studied how people form impressions of others based on descriptions of their personality traits.
His research showed that impressions can be influenced not only by which traits are mentioned, but also by how they are presented and the order in which they appear.
Imagine being given two descriptions of the same person.
The first: “He is intelligent, hardworking, critical, and occasionally stubborn.”
The second: “He is stubborn, critical, hardworking, and intelligent.”
The traits are similar, but the first description may create a different initial impression from the second. Once that impression has formed, new information may be interpreted in ways that fit the existing perception.
This does not mean that first impressions always prevail or that people cannot change their minds. However, an initial impression can, under certain circumstances, influence what we pay attention to and how we explain other people’s behavior.
For example: If we initially perceive a colleague as arrogant, we may interpret their silence as a sign of superiority. If we perceive the same person as shy, their silence may seem like a sign of insecurity.
The behavior is identical. Our interpretation is what changes.
3. Confirmation bias — we tend to notice what confirms our beliefs
Once an initial impression has formed, another psychological mechanism may come into play: confirmation bias.
This refers to our tendency to seek out, notice, and interpret information in ways that support our existing beliefs or assumptions.
Imagine that you are convinced: “Nothing ever works out for me.”
Something goes wrong during the day. You arrive late for an appointment, make a mistake, or do not receive the response you were hoping for. These events become evidence that your belief is correct.
But if you also manage to solve a difficult problem, help someone, or accomplish something meaningful that same day, you may dismiss it as a coincidence and quickly forget about it.
A cycle begins to develop:
We hold a particular belief.
We notice information that supports it.
This information reinforces our original belief.
Over time, the belief may become even harder to question.
A similar process can occur in relationships, at work, in politics, and in matters of health.
If we are convinced that someone is untrustworthy, we may notice their mistakes more readily than the situations in which they act honestly.
However, confirmation bias is not inevitable. We can change our beliefs, especially when we deliberately examine the evidence and look for information that challenges our initial assumptions.
4. Why don’t we always question our assumptions?
One explanation is that our attention and cognitive resources are limited. We cannot analyze every everyday decision from every possible angle.
That is why we often rely on mental shortcuts, or heuristics.
For example, if a particular method has worked for us in the past, we may choose it again without evaluating every alternative. If someone speaks confidently, we may give their statements greater credibility. If a situation resembles something we have experienced before, we may assume that it has a similar cause.
These shortcuts are not inherently bad. They are often useful and help us navigate everyday life efficiently. Problems arise when an initial assumption is treated as an established fact and alternative explanations are no longer adequately considered.
The popular claim that the brain always chooses the easiest path is also an oversimplification. Our thinking is influenced by the complexity of the task, our motivation, experience, emotions, available time, and the information at hand.
The goal is not to abandon fast thinking, but to recognize when a situation calls for closer examination.
5. Why is it so difficult to admit that we were wrong?
Imagine that you have believed in a particular theory for years, defended it in conversations, and based your decisions on it. Suddenly, information emerges that challenges that theory.
You may feel uncomfortable. You now have to do more than evaluate new information — you may also have to reconsider a long-held belief and perhaps acknowledge that you were wrong.
In psychology, a concept associated with this kind of tension is cognitive dissonance — the psychological discomfort that can arise when our beliefs, values, or actions conflict with one another.
For example, someone considers themselves a very honest person but discovers that they have acted dishonestly. They may acknowledge their mistake and change their behavior. Alternatively, they may try to justify it: “Everyone does it” or “I had no other choice.”
In other words, discomfort does not automatically lead someone to change their mind. It may encourage them to reconsider their beliefs, but it can also lead them to defend those beliefs even more strongly.
There is an important distinction here: cognitive dissonance is not the same as accommodation, a concept described by Jean Piaget.
Accommodation is the process of modifying our existing mental schemas so that they can account for new experiences. Cognitive dissonance, on the other hand, describes the tension we may experience when our beliefs or actions contradict one another.
Both concepts help explain why accepting new information is not always easy, but they describe different processes.
6. How can an initial assumption influence real-life decisions?
Let’s consider several situations.
In healthcare
When an initial explanation is offered for a set of symptoms, there is a risk that subsequent information will be evaluated primarily through that assumption. This is why it is important to consider how symptoms develop, examine alternative explanations, and conduct further assessments when necessary.
This does not mean the initial diagnosis is necessarily wrong. It means it should not automatically replace ongoing evaluation.
In relationships
If we have decided that our partner does not care about our needs, we may interpret their tiredness or silence as indifference. Yet other explanations are possible — stress, difficulty expressing emotions, or a need for time alone.
This does not mean we should ignore repeated disrespectful or harmful behavior. It means we should distinguish observable facts from conclusions about another person’s intentions.
At work and during investigations
If suspicions initially focus on a particular employee or a specific explanation for an incident, there is a risk that subsequent evidence will be interpreted in light of that assumption. It is therefore important to examine alternative explanations and distinguish facts from interpretations.
In these examples, an initial assumption does not automatically determine the outcome. It can, however, influence the information we seek, what we believe, and the questions we ask.
7. How can we avoid falling into this cognitive trap?
We cannot completely eliminate cognitive biases. However, we can develop the ability to recognize them and examine our conclusions more carefully.
1. Separate facts from interpretations
Ask yourself: “What do I actually know, and what am I merely assuming?”
Fact: Someone did not reply to my message.
Interpretation: They are ignoring me, they do not care about my needs, or they are angry with me.
The interpretation may be correct, but it has not yet been established as fact.
2. Look for evidence that challenges your beliefs
If you feel certain about an explanation, ask yourself:
What information might suggest that I am wrong?
Is there another plausible explanation?
Would I evaluate this situation in the same way if I had initially been told the opposite?
This approach can help reduce the influence of confirmation bias.
3. Deliberately consider the opposing viewpoint
Research by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper showed that deliberately considering opposing arguments can help reduce one-sided judgments.
This does not mean every viewpoint is equally well supported. The goal is to examine whether our conclusions are based on evidence rather than simply on what we already believe.
4. Don’t let the first number or claim become your only reference point
When evaluating a price, compare several offers and their actual value. When assessing health information, look for reliable sources and consult a professional when necessary. When evaluating someone’s behavior, consider the overall pattern rather than focusing on a single incident.
Several independent and reliable sources can help us develop a more balanced understanding. However, the quantity of information alone does not guarantee a correct conclusion — its quality and independence matter.
5. Notice when you feel the need to defend being right
If new information makes you angry, irritated, or eager to prove immediately that you are right, pause before responding.
Ask yourself: “Am I trying to understand what is true, or am I defending a belief I already hold?”
This question does not guarantee the right answer, but it can create space for a more deliberate choice.
6. Give difficult questions more time
The concepts of fast and slow thinking, described by psychologists and researchers, help explain why we sometimes react intuitively and at other times analyze a situation carefully.
In simple everyday situations, a quick response may be perfectly adequate. But when a decision is important, the consequences may be serious, or the information is contradictory, it is worth pausing, checking the facts, and considering several explanations.
In conclusion — are we really searching for the truth?
We like to think that we form our beliefs based on facts and logic. Often, we do. But our judgments are also influenced by past experiences, emotions, initial assumptions, and the way information is presented to us.
The first explanation we hear can become a reference point. From that point on, we may unconsciously select information that confirms it while paying insufficient attention to anything that gives us reason to doubt it.
Yet we do not have to remain trapped by our first assumptions.
We can learn to distinguish facts from interpretations, look for alternative explanations, and accept that our current understanding may sometimes be incomplete.
Perhaps the most important question is not simply: “Am I right?”
Perhaps it is more useful to ask:
“What would help me see this situation differently?”
Because the ability to reconsider our beliefs is not a sign of weakness. It is an important part of critical thinking and learning.
If you want to see how human attention, expectations, and perception can be exploited through manipulation, watch the film Focus.
References
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140.
Note: This article is intended for educational purposes and discusses psychological concepts and research. It is not a substitute for an individual medical or psychological assessment.