Confirmation Bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs, while giving less attention or weight to information that contradicts them. In Bible study, this often manifests as reading only commentaries that agree with one's denomination or tradition.
Source: Peter Wason (1960) – Public Domain
Also known as: myside bias, confirmatory bias, motivated reasoning
Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values, and to discount, dismiss, or avoid information that challenges them. It operates at every stage of cognition — in what information we seek, how we interpret ambiguous evidence, and what we choose to remember.
Confirmation bias is among the most extensively documented cognitive biases in psychology, identified in research by Peter Wason in the 1960s and subsequently studied across dozens of domains. It does not require conscious deception — most people who exhibit it believe sincerely that they are being fair and thorough. The bias operates automatically, shaping perception before conscious reasoning begins.
In biblical interpretation, confirmation bias is particularly dangerous because the stakes are high and the material is complex enough to support multiple readings. A reader who holds a strong predisposition — whether theological, denominational, or cultural — will unconsciously notice verses that support it, gravitate toward commentaries that confirm it, and interpret ambiguous passages in the most favorable direction. The sheer volume of Scripture means that nearly any position can find some textual support if one looks only where the evidence seems to converge.
The ancient Jewish practice of hevruta (paired study) and the Berean model of checking claims against primary sources both implicitly address confirmation bias by building in external checks on one's own reading. Modern biblical scholarship counteracts it through peer review, engagement with opposing exegetes, and the requirement that interpreters account for evidence that cuts against their conclusions. Recognizing confirmation bias is the first step toward a more honest and fruitful encounter with the biblical text.
- 1You read only commentaries from your own theological tradition and dismiss scholars from other traditions without engaging their arguments
- 2When a passage seems to contradict your beliefs, you immediately search for an alternative reading rather than sitting with the tension
- 3You remember verses that support your view with precision but cannot recall or engage with passages that complicate it
- 4You describe the scholarly consensus as 'liberal' or 'fundamentalist' whenever it disagrees with your position
- 5Your study of a passage ends when you have found enough support for what you already believed
Confirmation bias is not a modern problem — it is named and warned against throughout Scripture. Proverbs 18:17 notes that 'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.' The Bereans in Acts 17:11 are commended precisely because they did not simply accept Paul's interpretation but 'examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.' Jesus rebuked those who 'searched the Scriptures' yet refused to come to him (John 5:39) — an early portrait of selective engagement with sacred texts. Paul's warning in 2 Timothy 4:3 about those who accumulate teachers who say what 'their itching ears want to hear' describes the social dimension of confirmation bias operating in communal Bible study.
State your prior belief explicitly
Ask: Before reading this passage or consulting this source, what do I already believe about this topic? Can I state it clearly?
Write down your existing view before you begin studying. This makes the prior belief explicit rather than invisible, so you can watch for moments when it shapes your reading. If you cannot state your prior belief, you cannot detect when it is controlling your interpretation.
Seek the strongest opposing reading
Ask: What is the best scholarly argument against my current interpretation? Who makes it, and what is their evidence?
Find a commentary or scholar who holds a different position and read their strongest argument — not a straw-man version. If you are a Calvinist studying election, read Arminius or Thomas Oden. If you hold a historical-critical view of a passage, read a careful confessional commentary. The goal is to encounter the best version of what you do not currently believe.
Identify passages that complicate your view
Ask: What verses or passages sit in tension with my current interpretation? Have I engaged with them honestly?
Use a concordance or topical index to locate passages that cut against your position. List them. For each one, ask: 'If I were coming to this verse with no prior view, what would I naturally read it to say?' Compare that natural reading to the interpretive move you make to harmonize it with your existing belief.
Evaluate your evidence asymmetry
Ask: Am I holding the evidence for my view and the evidence against it to the same standard of scrutiny?
Confirmation bias often shows up as asymmetric skepticism: demanding rigorous proof for claims that challenge your view while accepting weaker evidence for claims that support it. Ask whether you would accept the same quality of argument if it ran in the opposite direction.
Update proportionally
Ask: After engaging with contrary evidence, has my confidence in my original view changed at all? If not, why not?
You do not have to change your view — but if rigorous engagement with contrary evidence produces zero change in confidence, ask whether that is because the evidence genuinely does not warrant change, or because confirmation bias is preventing you from updating. A Berean response (Acts 17:11) is open to revision when the evidence supports it.