Projection bias
Projection bias is a cognitive bias that describes the human tendency to overestimate the degree to which their future preferences and tastes will align with their current preferences and tastes. This bias is a type of misforecasting that occurs when individuals assume that their emotional states and desires will remain unchanged over time.
How it works
Projection bias operates by causing individuals to make decisions based on their current emotional and psychological states, projecting these states into the future. When thinking about future circumstances, people tend to assume that their current desires and challenges will continue to influence them in the same way, leading to a misalignment between predicted and actual future experiences.
Examples
- People on a diet may buy more food than they need because they project their current hunger into the future, failing to account for a decrease in appetite.
- A person might invest in a long-term gym membership while motivated, assuming they will maintain that same level of enthusiasm for exercise in the coming months, only to lose interest later.
- Newly formed couples may make binding commitments like buying a house together, due to a projection bias wherein they underestimate how their feelings might change over time.
Consequences
The primary consequence of projection bias is poor decision-making that leads to regret and suboptimal outcomes. In economics, this can manifest in financial misjudgments, such as overestimating willingness to pay for future events. In personal life, it can lead to choices that are incongruent with one’s eventual preferences, leading to dissatisfaction.
Counteracting
To counteract projection bias, individuals can practice mindfulness by acknowledging the potential for changes in their emotional states and preferences. Engaging in scenario planning, where multiple future scenarios are considered, or consulting with neutral third-party advisors can also mitigate the impact of this bias. Additionally, reflecting on past changes in preferences can provide perspective on the fluid nature of desires over time.
Critiques
While projection bias is widely acknowledged, its degree of impact varies among individuals. Some critics argue that it oversimplifies human behavior by assuming emotional states are static rather than dynamic. Critics also suggest it lacks consideration of individual differences in emotional regulation and adaptation.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility
Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003)
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209-1248
The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior
Simonson, I. (1990)
Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 150-162
Prospection: Experiencing the Future
Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007)
Science, 317(5843), 1351-1354
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Projection bias manifests in practice
Context
A mid-stage food-tech startup built a meal-planning subscription that lets users pick weekly menus and receive pre-portioned ingredients. Early testers loved the convenience during a seven-day pilot, so the product team used that enthusiasm to set aggressive long-term retention and supply commitments.
Situation
After a successful seven-day trial with 3,200 users, the product and growth teams extrapolated weekly usage into an annual retention forecast and negotiated six‑month supply contracts with ingredient vendors. Pricing, marketing messaging, and hiring plans were all aligned to the projected subscription base they assumed would keep choosing the same meals month after month.
The Bias in Action
Team members assumed that the preferences and routines demonstrated during the short pilot would persist, failing to account for fluctuating factors like weekends, holidays, social plans, seasonal tastes, and menu fatigue. Product managers used the pilot's 42% weekly reorder rate as a proxy for long-term customer lifetime value, and finance baked that into revenue and hiring models. Because the pilot period captured a temporary state (users motivated to try something new and keen to reduce cooking effort), planners overprojected steady demand and ignored evidence that appetite and schedules change. Decisions were made under the implicit belief that users' current tastes and circumstances would remain stable over months.
Outcome
Within three months of launch active subscribers dropped to 18% of the original cohort, far below the forecasted 42% retention. The company was left with excess inventory orders and monthly vendor minimums they could not meet, leading to $120,000 in perishable waste in the first quarter and renegotiation penalties. Revenue projections missed targets by $1.2 million for the first year and hiring plans had to be frozen, slowing product development and eroding investor confidence.