Spotlight on Common Cognitive and Professional Biases Affecting Assistance Animal Practice

No practitioner is completely objective. Every person brings previous experiences, education, values, beliefs and assumptions into professional practice. These mental shortcuts, known as cognitive biases, help people make decisions efficiently but can also influence judgement in ways that are inaccurate, unfair or inconsistent with evidence.

Biases are a normal part of human thinking and are not a sign of poor character or intentional discrimination. However, ethical practitioners recognise that unchecked bias may affect assessment, training, animal welfare decisions, occupational therapy recommendations, recruitment, supervision, funding recommendations and organisational leadership.

Recognising bias is therefore an essential component of reflective practice, cultural humility and evidence-informed decision-making.

The following biases are among the most relevant to occupational therapy and assistance animal practice.

Initial Impression and Judgement Biases

Anchoring Bias

Allowing the first piece of information received to disproportionately influence all later judgement.

Example: Reading a referral stating a handler is “difficult” before meeting them and unconsciously interpreting subsequent interactions through this lens.

First Impression Bias

Forming a lasting opinion based on the first few minutes of interaction.

Example: Assuming a nervous applicant lacks confidence to handle an assistance dog when they are simply anxious during assessment.

Halo Effect

Allowing one positive characteristic to influence judgement in unrelated areas.

Example: Assuming a highly educated applicant will automatically provide excellent animal care.

Horn Effect

Allowing one perceived weakness to negatively influence overall judgement.

Example: Judging a handler as generally unreliable because they arrived late due to inaccessible transport.

Primacy Effect

Remembering and valuing information presented first more strongly than later information.

Recency Effect

Giving excessive weight to the most recent event while overlooking the person’s longer history.

Example: Allowing one poor training session to outweigh months of successful progress.

Contrast Effect

Evaluating someone relative to the previous person assessed rather than against objective standards.

Example: Rating an average handler very highly because they were assessed immediately after a very inexperienced handler.

Information Processing Biases

Confirmation Bias

Seeking evidence that confirms existing beliefs while overlooking contradictory evidence.

Example: Noticing only behaviours supporting an initial opinion that a handler is unsuitable.

Availability Bias

Judging likelihood based on memorable previous experiences rather than objective evidence.

Example: Assuming a particular breed is unsuitable because one previous dog from that breed failed training.

Representativeness Bias

Assuming someone fits a stereotype because they resemble previous examples.

Example: Assuming every veteran with PTSD will require similar assistance animal tasks.

Framing Bias

Being influenced by how information is presented rather than the information itself.

Example: Viewing identical assessment outcomes differently depending on whether they are described as “80% successful” or “20% unsuccessful.”

Salience Bias

Paying disproportionate attention to information that is particularly noticeable or emotionally striking.

Belief Perseverance

Continuing to believe something despite clear evidence demonstrating otherwise.

Blind Spot Bias

Recognising bias in others while believing oneself to be largely objective.

Hindsight Bias

Believing an outcome was obvious after it has occurred.

Example: Saying, “I knew that partnership would never work,” despite limited evidence at the time.

Outcome Bias

Judging the quality of a decision solely by its outcome rather than the quality of the decision-making process.

Clinical Reasoning Biases

Diagnostic Overshadowing

Incorrectly attributing new concerns to an existing diagnosis.

Example: Assuming anxiety is “just autism” rather than recognising a genuine welfare or occupational issue.

Premature Closure

Stopping the assessment too early after reaching an initial conclusion.

Search Satisficing

Finding one explanation and failing to continue looking for additional contributing factors.

Overconfidence Bias

Overestimating one’s own knowledge, judgement or expertise.

Automation Bias

Over-relying on technology, algorithms or standardised tools without applying clinical judgement.

Commission Bias

Preferring to take action even when observation may be more appropriate.

Omission Bias

Avoiding necessary action because inaction feels psychologically safer.

Social and Interpersonal Biases

Fundamental Attribution Error

Overestimating personal characteristics while underestimating environmental influences.

Example: Assuming poor attendance reflects laziness rather than inaccessible transport, fatigue or caring responsibilities.

Attribution Bias

Making assumptions about why people behave in certain ways without sufficient evidence.

Affinity Bias

Feeling more positively towards people who share similar backgrounds, interests or experiences.

Similarity Bias

Preferring people who think or communicate similarly to ourselves.

In-Group Bias

Showing preference towards individuals perceived as belonging to one’s own group.

Out-Group Bias

Making less favourable assumptions about people perceived as different.

Authority Bias

Giving excessive weight to the opinions of senior professionals without critically evaluating the evidence.

Gender Bias

Making assumptions based upon gender identity or gender stereotypes.

Age Bias (Ageism)

Assuming capability based upon chronological age rather than individual assessment.

Disability Bias (Ableism)

Assuming disability automatically limits competence or quality of life.

Cultural Bias

Evaluating others according to one’s own cultural norms.

Language Bias

Confusing communication style or English proficiency with intelligence or competence.

Weight Bias

Making assumptions based upon body size or weight.

Socioeconomic Bias

Allowing income, occupation or education to influence perceptions of competence.

Attractiveness Bias

Allowing physical appearance to influence judgement.

Organisational and Leadership Biases

Status Quo Bias

Preferring existing practices simply because they are familiar.

“We’ve always done it this way.”

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Continuing with a poor decision because substantial time or money has already been invested.

Example: Continuing to train an unsuitable assistance dog because two years of training have already occurred.

Escalation of Commitment

Persisting with an unsuccessful course of action despite increasing evidence that change is needed.

Groupthink

Prioritising group agreement over critical thinking.

Normalisation of Deviance

Accepting unsafe practices because they have become routine.

Survivorship Bias

Learning only from successful cases while ignoring unsuccessful ones.

Optimism Bias

Underestimating risks because of unrealistic optimism.

Negativity Bias

Giving excessive attention to negative information while overlooking strengths.

Loss Aversion

Avoiding change because potential losses appear greater than potential gains.

Assistance Animal-Specific Biases

Breed Bias

Making assumptions about suitability based solely on breed.

Every dog should be assessed individually according to temperament, health and task suitability.

Rescue Versus Purpose-Bred Bias

Assuming one source of dogs is inherently superior without considering individual assessment.

Size Bias

Assuming larger dogs are always more capable or smaller dogs are less effective.

Colour Bias

Allowing coat colour to influence perceptions (for example, “Black Dog Syndrome” or assumptions about white dogs).

Handler Appearance Bias

Making assumptions based upon clothing, grooming or physical appearance.

Disability Stereotype Bias

Assuming certain disabilities automatically predict success or failure with an assistance animal.

Previous Team Bias

Allowing experiences with previous handlers or dogs to influence judgement about a new partnership.

Funding Bias

Allowing funding source or financial circumstances to influence recommendations.

Trainer Preference Bias

Believing one’s preferred training philosophy is always superior without considering evidence or individual circumstances.

Reputation Bias

Allowing an individual’s organisational reputation to outweigh objective evidence.

Therapy Dog Versus Assistance Animal Bias

Confusing the roles, rights or expectations of different categories of working animals.

Reducing the Influence of Bias

Recognising bias is only the first step. Ethical practitioners actively implement strategies that reduce its influence on professional judgement.

Useful approaches include:

• using structured assessment tools;
• relying on objective evidence rather than assumptions;
• documenting clinical reasoning;
• seeking second opinions where appropriate;
• participating in reflective supervision;
• considering alternative explanations;
• actively looking for evidence that contradicts initial impressions;
• involving handlers in shared decision-making;
• using multidisciplinary review for complex decisions;
• undertaking regular professional development on diversity, inclusion and cultural humility.

Before making significant decisions, practitioners should ask themselves:

• What evidence supports this conclusion?
• Have I considered alternative explanations?
• Could unconscious bias be influencing my judgement?
• Am I judging this individual against objective standards or against previous experiences?
• Would another experienced practitioner likely reach the same conclusion?
• Have I genuinely considered this person’s strengths as well as their challenges?

By continually reflecting on these questions, occupational therapists strengthen fairness, improve decision-making and ensure that assistance animal services remain ethical, inclusive and evidence-informed.