The Stories We Tell Ourselves: Confronting Confirmation Bias in Incident Investigations
Several months ago, my dad and I drove to Roanoke, Virginia, to watch my son compete in a collegiate boxing match. It was the kind of weekend that makes you grateful: time with family, a little adventure on the road, and a front-row seat to watch your child chase a dream.
One of the moments that has stuck with me most, however, had nothing to do with boxing. It was a lesson in how quickly the human mind can create stories that feel true in the moment yet aren’t rooted in reality.
The Missing Wallet
At one point during our drive, I pulled my wallet out of my pocket to pay a tollbooth fee. But instead of returning it to my pocket afterward, I set the wallet down elsewhere in the vehicle. Later, after we stopped at a rest area to use the facilities, I was heading toward the vending machine to purchase a soft drink when I realized my wallet was missing from my pocket. I hurried back to the truck as panic set in. My dad and I searched the floorboards, the seats and the ground around the parking spot. Nothing. My wallet was gone.
Almost immediately, my mind began jumping to conclusions. Maybe I’d left the wallet on my lap, I thought, and it fell as I exited the truck. But who had picked it up? I remembered a woman emptying a trash can near our truck. Then I considered the two men we held the door for on the way inside the rest area. Suddenly, I had constructed a whole story in my head: The woman found the wallet, the men noticed, and together they split the contents. I didn’t have any evidence or facts, just a story that felt true. So, I canceled my debit and credit cards and resigned myself to relying on my dad to fund the rest of the trip.
During the ride home, I was digging through the deep center console of my dad’s truck to find a phone charger when suddenly, there it was: my wallet, wedged into a corner where I hadn’t thought to look. Almost just as suddenly, all of my suspicions evaporated.
Confirmation Bias
Throughout the remainder of the drive, I could not stop thinking about how quickly my brain had determined blame and spun a supporting story. I truly believed my wallet was gone, but my certainty wasn’t grounded in reality. That’s an issue that can also arise during incident investigations.
After an event occurs, we want fast answers to our questions. What happened? How did it happen? Who’s responsible? In our rush to make sense of things, we risk filling in the blanks with our assumptions, potentially creating false narratives that validate our suspicions. This is confirmation bias at work. Essentially, once we’ve told ourselves a story that makes sense to us, our brains are hardwired to seek evidence that supports it while ignoring what doesn’t. But an investigation that confirms unsubstantiated ideas merely closes the case. It doesn’t lead to real learning.
A Different Approach
Traditional approaches to safety investigations often focus on determining who failed, which rarely paints the full picture. People seldom head into their workday hoping to make mistakes or cause harm. Their choices seem logical to them in the moment given their environmental conditions, job pressures and available tools. When we skip straight to blame, we miss opportunities to uncover and address systemic weaknesses, pressures and blind spots. We create neatly packaged explanations that feel right but omit the truth – just as I did with my “missing” wallet.
Over time, I’ve loved having conversations with William “Billy” Martin, CUSP, because he emphasizes the value of learning and context over accusations and blame. Billy will tell you that when something goes wrong, the most important question we must ask is not who made a mistake but how the choices preceding the incident seemed logical to those who made them. That shift in perspective helps us move beyond stories into reality, enabling deeper management insight into the complexities of frontline work.
My Challenge to Utility Safety Professionals
Incident investigations are intended to uncover facts, not prove someone’s theory. The process can be slow; it requires curiosity, humility and patience. With that said, here’s a three-pronged challenge I’d like to pose to all safety leaders reading this:
- Resist the urge to close an investigation using the first story that makes sense.
- Ask questions that reveal conditions at the time of the incident.
- Guard against confirmation bias by actively questioning your assumptions.
Conclusion
I laughed when I found my wallet inside the truck’s center console, but I also felt the sting of painting strangers in the worst possible light simply because I wanted a quick explanation.
In our line of work, the cost of creating stories is far greater than any minor personal embarrassment. We potentially miss learning opportunities that could ultimately enhance employee safety. So, the next time something goes wrong on the job, keep in mind that the first story we tell ourselves after an event occurs is rarely wholly accurate. Push yourself to look deeper. Challenge your assumptions. Doing so could make the difference between a recurring incident and a breakthrough in prevention efforts.
About the Author: Jamie Conn, CLCP, is a safety professional with over 20 years of experience working as a lineman for Blue Grass Energy Electric Cooperative. He earned a theology degree and is passionate about people, purpose and driving cultural change rooted in real-world experience.