Humans are stupid.
We all are, because our brain has been made that way. The most obvious evidence of this built-in stupidity is the different biases that our brain produces. Even so, at least we can be a bit smarter than average, if we are aware of them. This is a data blog, so in this article I’ll focus only on the most important statistical bias types – but I promise that even if you are not an aspiring data professional (yet), you will profit a lot from this write-up. For ease of understanding, I’ll provide two examples of each bias type: an everyday one and one related to online analytics!
And just to make this clear: biased statistics are bad statistics. Everything I will describe here is to help you prevent the same mistakes that some of the less smart “researcher” folks make from time to time.
The most important statistical bias types
There is a long list of statistical bias types. I’ll cover those that can most affect your job as a data scientist or analyst. These are:
- Selection bias
- Self-selection bias
- Recall bias
- Observer bias
- Survivorship bias
- Omitted variable bias
- Cause-effect bias
- Funding bias
- Cognitive bias
Statistical bias #1: Selection bias
Selection bias occurs when you are selecting your sample or your data wrong. Usually this means accidentally working with a specific subset of your audience instead of the whole, rendering your sample unrepresentative of the whole population. There are many underlying reasons, but by far the most typical I see is collecting and working only with data that is easy to access.
Everyday example of selection bias:
Please answer this question: What’s people’s overall opinion about Donald Trump’s presidency?
Most people have an immediate and very “well-informed” answer for that. Unfortunately for many of them, the top source of that information is their Facebook feed. Very bad and sad practice, because what they see there does not show the public opinion – it’s only their friends’ opinion. (In fact, it’s even narrower, because they see only the opinion of friends who are active and posting to Facebook – so extroverts and 25-35-year-olds are probably overrepresented.) That’s classic selection bias: easy-to-access data, but only for a very specific, unrepresentative subset of the whole population.
Note 1: I do recommend blocking your Facebook feed for many reasons, but mostly so you don’t get narrow-minded: FB News Feed Eradicator!
Note 2: If you want to read another classic selection bias story, check how Literary Digest made a similar mistake (also referred to as undercoverage bias) ~80 years ago!
ONLINE ANALYTICS EXAMPLE OF SELECTION BIAS:
Another example of selection bias is when you send a survey out to your newsletter subscribers asking what new product would they pay for. Of course, interacting with your audience is important (I send out surveys to my Newsletter Subscribers sometimes too), but when you analyze these survey results, you should be aware that your newsletter subscribers do not represent your potential paying audience.
There might be a bunch of people who are willing to pay for your products, but aren’t a part of your newsletter list. And on the other hand, there might be a lot of people on your list who would never spend money on your products — they are around just to get notified about your free stuff. And that’s only one reason why surveying is simply the worst research method (see the rest below). By the way, for this particular example, I’d suggest fake door testing instead!
Statistical bias #2: Self-Selection bias
Self-selection bias is a subcategory of selection bias. If you let the subjects of your analyses select themselves, that means that less proactive people will be excluded. The bigger issue is that self-selection is a specific behaviour – that may correlate with other specific behaviours – so this sample does not represent the entire population.
Everyday example of self-selection bias:
Any type of polling or surveying. E.g. if you use surveys to research successful entrepreneurs’ behaviour, your results will be skewed for sure. Why? Because successful people most probably don’t have time or motivation to answer or even take a look at random surveys. So 99% of your answers will come from entrepreneurs who think they are successful, but in fact are not. In this specific case, I’d rather try to lure people who are proven to be successful into face-to-face interviews.
Online analytics example of self-selection bias:
Say you have an online product – and an accompanying knowledge base with 100+ how-to articles. Let’s find out how good your knowledge base is by comparing users who have read at least 1 how-to article to the users who haven’t. We find that the article-reading users are 50% more active in terms of product usage than the non-readers. The knowledge base performs great! Or does it? In fact, we don’t know, because the article-readers are a special subset of your whole population, who might have a higher commitment to your product and thus more interest in your knowledge base. In other words, they have “selected themselves” into the reader group. This self-selection bias leads to a classic correlation/causation dilemma that you can never solve with data research, just with A/B testing.
Statistical bias #3: Recall bias
Recall bias is another common error of interview/survey situations, when the respondent doesn’t remember things correctly. It’s not about bad or good memory – humans have selective memory by default. After a few years (or even a few days), certain things stay and others fade. It’s normal, but it makes research much more difficult.
Everyday example of recall bias:
How was that vacation 3 years ago? Awesome, right? Looking back we tend to forget the bad things and keep our memories of the good things only. Although it doesn’t help us to objectively evaluate different memories, I’m pretty sure our brain is like that for a good reason.
Online analytics example of recall bias:
I hold data workshops from time to time. I usually send out feedback forms afterwards, so I can make the workshops better and better based on participants’ feedback. I usually send them the day after the workshop, but there was one particular case when I completely forgot and sent it one week later. Looking at the comments I got, that was my most successful workshop of all time. Except that it’s not necessarily true. It’s more likely that recall bias might have kicked in pretty hard. One week after the workshop none of the attendees would recall if the coffee was cold or if I was over-explaining a slide here or there. They remembered only the good things. Not that I wasn’t happy to get good feedback, but if the coffee was cold, I would want to know about it so I could get it fixed for the next time…
Statistical bias #4: Observer bias
Observer bias happens when the researcher subconsciously projects his/her expectations onto the research. It can come in many forms, such as (unintentionally) influencing participants (during interviews and surveys) or doing some serious cherry picking (focusing on the statistics that support our hypothesis rather than those that don’t.)
Everyday example of observer bias:
“Breaking news!” Sensationalist articles often come from poor research. It takes a very thorough and conscientious investigative journalist to be OK with rejecting her own null-hypothesis at the publication phase. If a writer spends 1 month on an investigation to prove that the local crime rate is high because of the careless police officers, she may find a way to prove it – leaving aside the counter arguments and any serious statistical considerations.
This – exacerbated by other common biases, like funding bias (studies tend to support the financial sponsors’ interests) or publication bias (surprising research results tend to get published, tempting researchers to extremize them) – led me to the conclusion that reading any type of online media will never get me closer to any sort of truth about our world. So I’d suggest that you consume trustworthy statistics rather than online media – or even better: find trustworthy raw data and do your own analyses to learn a “truer truth.”
Online analytics example of observer bias:
Observer bias can affect analytics research as well, such as when you are doing Usability Tests. As a user researcher, you know your product very well (and maybe you like it too), so subconsciously you might have expectations. If you are a pro User Experience Researcher, you will know how not to influence your testers with your questions – but if you are new to that field, make sure you spend enough time preparing good, unbiased questions and scenarios. Maybe consider hiring a professional UX consultant to help.
Note: in my workshop feedback example, observer bias can occur if I send out the survey right after the workshop. Participants might be under the influence of the personal encounter – and might not want to “hurt my feelings” with negative feedback. Workshop feedback forms should be sent 1 day after the workshop itself.
Statistical bias #5: Survivorship bias
Survivorship bias is a statistical bias type in which the researcher focuses only on that part of the data set that already went through some kind of pre-selection process – and missing those data-points, that fell off during this process (because they are not visible anymore).
Everyday example of survivorship bias:
One of the most interesting stories of statistical biases: falling cats. There was a study written in 1987 about cats falling out of buildings. It stated that the cats who fell from higher stories have fewer injuries than cats who fell from lower down. Odd. They explained the phenomenon using terminal velocity, which basically means that cats falling from higher than six stories reach their maximum velocity during the fall, so they start to relax and prepare to land, which is why they don’t injure themselves that badly.
As ridiculous as it sounds, as mistaken this theory turned out to be. 10 years later, the Straight Dope newspaper pointed out the fact that cats who fall from higher than six stories might have had a higher chance of dying, and therefore not being taken to the veterinarian – so they were simply not registered and didn’t become part of the study. And the cats that fell from higher but survived were simply falling more luckily, which is why they had fewer injuries. Survivorship bias – literally. (I feel sorry for the cats though.)
Online analytics example of survivorship bias:
Reading case studies. Case studies are super useful for inspiration and ideas for new projects. But remind yourself all the time that only success stories are published! You will never hear about the stories where someone used the exact same methods, but failed.
Not so long ago I read a bunch of articles about exit intent pop-ups. Every article declared that exit intent pop-ups are great and caused gains of 30%, 40%, even 200% in number of newsletter subscriptions. In fact it works pretty decently on my website too… But let’s take a break for a moment. Does it mean that exit-intent popups will work for everyone? Isn’t it possible that people who have tested exit-intent pop-ups and found that it actually hurts the user experience, the brand, or the page load time, simply didn’t write an article about this bad experience? Of course, it’s possible – nobody likes to write about unsuccessful experiment results… The point is: if you read a case study, think about it, research it and test it – and decide based on hard evidence if it’s the right solution for you or not.
4 more statistical bias types and some suggestions to avoid them…
This is just the beginning! Next week I’ll continue this article with 4 more statistical bias types that every data scientist and analyst should know about. And the week after, I’ll give you some practical suggestions on how to overcome these!
UPDATE: here’s Statistical Bias Types Explained – part 2
Stick with me and subscribe to my weekly Newsletters (no spam, just 100% useful data content)! And if you have any comments, let me know below!