Projection Bias | Cognitive Biases | Sales Repository

Encourage buyers to envision themselves using your product, making the purchase feel inevitable

Introduction

Projection Bias is a subtle but pervasive cognitive distortion: we assume that others think, feel, or value things the same way we do. This bias creeps into communication, forecasting, and product or policy design—where we unconsciously treat our own preferences, current moods, or experiences as universal. It simplifies decision-making but often distorts reality.

(Optional sales note)

In sales, projection bias can quietly sabotage deals. A salesperson might assume that a buyer values speed or design as much as they do, overlooking the client’s actual priority—risk, cost, or compliance. Recognizing projection bias helps sales professionals ask better questions and adapt communication to real, not imagined, perspectives.

This article defines projection bias, explores how and why it emerges, illustrates its effects across contexts, and outlines ethical, testable debiasing steps for professionals.

Formal Definition & Taxonomy

Definition

Projection Bias is the tendency to overestimate how much others share our current beliefs, emotions, or preferences (Loewenstein, O’Donoghue & Rabin, 2003). It leads us to project our present state or mindset onto others—or even onto our future selves.

Taxonomy

•Type: Affective and cognitive bias

•System: Mostly System 1 (automatic, intuitive) with partial System 2 correction through deliberate reflection.

•Bias family: Related to false consensus effect, empathy gap, and egocentric bias.

Distinctions

•Projection vs. False Consensus Effect: False consensus concerns perceived agreement with others; projection bias specifically involves transferring one’s current state (emotion, need, or belief) onto others or future scenarios.

•Projection vs. Empathy Gap: Empathy gap is difficulty predicting how different emotional states will affect decisions; projection bias extends this to assuming others share our current state.

Mechanism: Why the Bias Occurs

Cognitive and Emotional Drivers

1.Egocentric anchoring: We start reasoning from our own perspective and adjust insufficiently toward others’.

2.Affective carryover: Current emotional or physical states (hungry, tired, anxious) distort judgments about future or other people’s preferences.

3.Information asymmetry: Our own experiences feel vivid and accessible; others’ are abstract.

4.Cognitive efficiency: Assuming similarity simplifies prediction but sacrifices accuracy.

Related Principles

•Anchoring and adjustment: We anchor on our own viewpoint and under-adjust (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).

•Availability heuristic: Our feelings and experiences are more readily available than others’.

•Motivated reasoning: We prefer believing others see the world “our way” because it validates our beliefs (Kunda, 1990).

•Temporal discounting: We assume future preferences will resemble current ones (Loewenstein et al., 2003).

Boundary Conditions

Projection bias strengthens when:

•Decisions involve emotion or self-relevance.

•Time pressure limits perspective-taking.

•Teams are homogeneous (shared culture or background).

It weakens when:

•Data or user feedback reveals actual variation.

•Individuals practice empathy or structured scenario thinking.

•Environments promote open disagreement and curiosity.

Signals & Diagnostics

Red Flags in Language or Thought

•“Everyone hates long forms.”

•“I’d never buy that, so no one else will.”

•“They’ll understand what I mean.”

•Designing features “for myself” instead of for the intended audience.

•Forecasting with personal enthusiasm rather than external validation.

Quick Self-Tests

1.Substitution test: Am I substituting my own view for diverse user data?

2.Empathy check: Do I have evidence for what others value—or am I assuming?

3.Time-shift audit: Would I make the same choice if my mood or context changed?

4.Stakeholder mirroring: Have I asked how their priorities differ from mine?

(Optional sales lens)

Ask: “Am I assuming the buyer’s criteria match mine—or have I confirmed their decision drivers in their own words?”

Examples Across Contexts

Context	How It Shows Up	Better / Less-Biased Alternative
Public/media or policy	Policymakers assume citizens value convenience over privacy.	Conduct participatory research to capture lived perspectives.
Product/UX	Designers build interfaces they personally like.	Use ethnographic research or usability testing across demographics.
Workplace/analytics	Managers assume team motivation mirrors their own incentives.	Ask teams directly and pilot multiple reward formats.
Education	Instructors assume students learn best through the methods they prefer.	Combine varied teaching modalities and gather feedback.
(Optional) Sales	Seller assumes prospect prioritizes innovation, not cost.	Ask open-ended questions about the buyer’s metrics of success.

Debiasing Playbook (Step-by-Step)

Step	How to Do It	Why It Helps	Watch Out For
1. Elicit external perspectives early.	Gather stakeholder or user input before forming conclusions.	Replaces assumption with evidence.	Input fatigue if overused.
2. Separate current state from forecast.	Record mood or context during predictions.	Exposes emotional contamination.	Requires honest reflection.
3. Run counter-scenarios.	Ask, “What if others think the opposite?”	Builds perspective flexibility.	Can feel uncomfortable or slow.
4. Test with “unlike me” groups.	Pilot with users from different backgrounds or roles.	Reveals variance hidden by similarity.	May surface tension or conflict.
5. Use structured empathy tools.	Empathy maps, role-play, or user diaries.	Makes others’ contexts vivid.	Risk of oversimplifying personas.
6. Quantify divergence.	Measure actual vs. assumed preferences.	Turns empathy into data.	Needs reliable metrics and samples.

(Optional sales practice)

Use “assumption logs” in CRM—each forecasted motive or risk must be confirmed with client quotes or behavior before acceptance.

Design Patterns & Prompts

Templates

1.“What evidence do I have that others share this view?”

2.“How might a person with opposite needs see this?”

3.“What will future-me think about this choice?”

4.“Who benefits or loses if my assumption is wrong?”

5.“List two data points that could contradict my forecast.”

Mini-Script (Bias-Aware Conversation)

1.Manager: “Our customers will love this premium add-on.”

2.Analyst: “What makes us confident about that?”

3.Manager: “It’s what I’d choose.”

4.Analyst: “Let’s test it with customers who bought the base plan first.”

5.Manager: “Good call—our preferences may not match theirs.”

Typical Pattern	Where It Appears	Fast Diagnostic	Counter-Move	Residual Risk
Assuming others share your priorities	Strategy, design	“Do we have external data?”	User/stakeholder validation	Biased sampling
Designing for self	Product, UX	“Would a first-time user see this the same way?”	Inclusive testing	Overgeneralized personas
Mood-based forecasting	Planning, hiring	“Am I hungry, tired, or stressed?”	Mood logging	Ignoring long-term variability
Overconfidence in universal appeal	Marketing	“What’s the evidence others want this?”	A/B testing	Cultural blind spots
(Optional) Assuming buyer motives mirror seller’s	Sales forecasting	“Have I confirmed their priorities?”	Direct buyer interviews	Anchoring on prior deals

Measurement & Auditing

To evaluate progress in reducing projection bias:

•Assumption-to-evidence ratio: Count how many claims are validated vs. inferred.

•Diversity audit: Track the range of user segments consulted in research or design.

•Pre/post empathy mapping: Compare initial assumptions to post-feedback insights.

•Decision review logs: Flag when personal preference influenced forecasts or prioritization.

•Forecast calibration: Check whether predictions align with real user or stakeholder behavior.

Adjacent Biases & Boundary Cases

•False Consensus Effect: Assuming others agree with you broadly, not just emotionally.

•Empathy Gap: Underestimating how emotions shift preferences.

•Egocentric Bias: Overvaluing one’s own viewpoint in judgments.

Edge cases:

Shared cultural or professional norms sometimes make mild projection accurate—e.g., peers in the same technical field. The key is testing, not assuming, shared perspective.

Conclusion

Projection Bias narrows empathy and blinds us to difference. It leads to products, forecasts, and conversations built on self-reference rather than insight. The antidote isn’t intuition suppression—it’s curiosity, validation, and structured feedback loops.

Actionable takeaway:

Before deciding, ask—“Am I assuming others see it like I do, or have I checked?” That pause can transform good judgment into sound judgment.

Checklist: Do / Avoid

Do

•Validate assumptions with real data or quotes.

•Test across diverse users and contexts.

•Record emotional state during forecasting.

•Ask peers to challenge “self-based” reasoning.

•Use empathy maps or interviews to expand perspective.

•(Optional sales) Verify buyer motives through their own words.

•Practice time-separated reflection (decide tomorrow, review today’s rationale).

•Reward perspective diversity in teams.

Avoid

•Assuming others’ motivations mirror yours.

•Using personal taste as a proxy for audience insight.

•Ignoring emotional context in forecasting.

•Designing or communicating for “people like me.”

•Confusing empathy with assumption.

References

•Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics.**

•Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin.

•Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science.

•Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Empathy gaps in emotion and judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.