Seeing Isn’t Always Believing: How Selective Perception Shapes Project Decisions | Blog Post

For every decision we make, we collect information, consciously or subconsciously, before we take action. But humans are remarkably susceptible to a range of cognitive and behavioural tendencies that influence our judgment. One of the most powerful, yet often overlooked, is selective perception.

Selective perception is our tendency to notice, interpret, and remember information that confirms our existing beliefs, values, or expectations, while ignoring or discounting information that contradicts them. Although selective perception is not a bias, it is the behaviour that results from several other biases such as optimism bias, confirmation bias, and in-group bias.

Let’s say a project manager favours a particular contractor because they share an alma mater (a classic example of in-group bias). That personal connection may cloud the project manager’s ability to objectively assess the contractor’s performance, even when their performance is not up to par.

The Classic Card Trick

In 1949, psychologists Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman ran a fascinating experiment: they showed students hands of playing cards, but with a twist, some cards had their colours reversed. For example, a red three of spades or a black ace of diamonds were presented. Each card was flashed briefly, between 10 milliseconds and 1 second, until the student correctly identified it.

If you haven’t noticed yet, the image of the cards above includes a red three of spades.

What Bruner and Postman found was striking: it took up to four times longer for participants to correctly identify the incongruent cards. They observed four types of reactions:

• Dominance – Also called perceptual denial, where people simply “correct” the card in their minds to something that fits their expectations. For example, a red three of spades might be seen as a black spade or a red heart. A whopping 96% of participants showed this reaction.
• Compromise – The brain tries to meet reality halfway, reporting the card as something like a purple six of spades, for example.
• Disruption – Participants become confused and unable to identify the card at all, especially after repeated exposure to trick cards.
• Recognition – The most accurate response, where the participant correctly identifies the anomaly.

This experiment revealed how deeply our perceptions are shaped by what we expect to see, especially when those expectations are built on years of experience.

Jumping to Conclusions: It’s Not Just About Cards

Selective perception extends far beyond playing cards. In a 1954 study, Hastorf and Cantril explored how perception is influenced by individual biases, using a controversial football game between Princeton and Dartmouth as a case study (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954). They showed that fans from each school viewed the same game differently. Princeton students perceived Dartmouth as playing more roughly and committing more infractions, while Dartmouth students either saw both sides as equally aggressive or placed more blame on Princeton.

The conclusion? People don’t just passively observe events – they interpret them through the lens of personal loyalties, expectations, and prior experiences.

This study illustrated that “there is no such thing as a ‘game’ existing independently of the observer”, highlighting the subjective nature of reality. Their findings have had lasting implications in psychology, demonstrating that perception is not objective but rather filtered through personal and social lenses, especially in emotionally charged or competitive contexts.

A similar dynamic was observed in a 1985 study during coverage of the 1982 Beirut massacre. Research by Vallone et al. (1985) titled: “The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre,” examined how individuals with strong pre-existing attitudes perceive media neutrality. They presented pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students with identical news segments about the 1982 Beirut massacre. Both groups perceived the same coverage as biased against their respective positions, believing that the media favoured the opposing side. This effect was more pronounced among participants with greater knowledge of the conflict. The researchers identified two contributing mechanisms: first, supporters evaluated the fairness of the media’s presentation based on their own beliefs about the issue; second, they exhibited selective recall, remembering more negative references to their side.

The study concluded that perceptions of media bias are influenced by individuals’ existing attitudes and cognitive biases, leading to the phenomenon where neutral reporting is viewed as hostile by opposing supporters.

These studies underline a key point: our perceptions are rarely neutral. Instead, they are filtered through a complex web of beliefs, emotions, and past experiences. There are also several supporting studies that show how perceived alcohol consumption – as opposed to actual consumption – lead to riskier behaviour (Burian et al., 2003; Wilson & Abrams, 1977).

What This Means for Project Management

Project environments are built on decisions, negotiations, and constant human interaction. Selective perception can silently undermine these processes if left unchecked. Here’s how it plays out in real-world projects:

• Prioritisation Bias: Executives must decide which projects get funded. The financial manager champions Net Present Value (NPV), the head of engineering prioritises technical performance, and HR emphasises employee wellbeing. Each perspective is shaped by experience – and the most senior voice often wins, even if it’s not what’s best for the business.
• Interpretation Differences: A procurement activity is running two weeks late. The procurement manager shrugs it off as a minor issue. The project manager sees it as yet another sign of procurement unreliability. The client interprets it as a red flag for project execution. These differing perceptions spark unnecessary escalations that waste time and energy.
• Feedback Filters: A client provides constructive feedback on a design. One engineer takes it personally, feeling their competence is under attack. Another sees it as an opportunity for growth and learning to deal with clients. The same input, different perceptions – shaped by experience and mindset.

Unless acknowledged and addressed, selective perception can create blind spots, misaligned expectations, and interpersonal friction. But it doesn’t have to.

How to Keep Perception Bias in Check

Selective perception can lead to blind spots, misaligned expectations, and tension among stakeholders unless managed with open communication, active listening, and regular realignment on goals and facts.  The most effective remedy for selective perception is conscious self-reflection. Here are a few simple but powerful questions to ask yourself before making a judgment:

• Do I expect a certain outcome from this situation?
• Do I have a motive for seeing the facts a certain way?
• Am I making assumptions based on limited, outdated, or no information?
• If I had no prior expectation, would I interpret this differently?
• Have I considered the views of people who don’t share my perspective?
• Have I thought about the consequences of being wrong?

References

Burian, S. E., Hensberry, R., & Liguori, A. (2003). Differential effects of alcohol and alcohol expectancy on risk‐taking during simulated driving. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 18(3), 175-184.

Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129.

Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 577.

Wilson, G. T., & Abrams, D. (1977). Effects of alcohol on social anxiety and physiological arousal: Cognitive versus pharmacological processes. Cognitive therapy and research, 1, 195-210.