Is ‘reverse’ expectation bias a thing?

[CapMan]

As I’ve become more acutely aware of the evils of expectation bias I wonder if I am now suffering from something I’d call reverse expectation bias.

In my definition this is the expectation that there should be no difference in sound (even if one might exist) leading to not hearing / observing any change in sound quality.

I’m half serious / half joking here! I no longer trust my ears

 

[Iving]

Expectation Bias is a subjective phenomenon arising out of Cognitive Dissonance. The latter is psychological conflict which arises because of the reward anticipated after an Instrumental/Operant decision. Beliefs or understandings are shifted post hoc to fit the decision.

The driver of all conditioning is the reward. Stereotypically we audiophiles think of cables and the like. But these mental processes happen in all domains of human existence. How much more beautiful a person becomes once we have decided upon marriage.

The "reverse" type you envisage is perfectly plausible, but really would be an instance where the belief or understanding "no difference" was generated to justify a less obvious reward. Examples might be the money remaining in your bank account the result of not buying something. Or being right (an unfortunately pervasive human disposition) on an audio forum.

 

[CapMan]

Great reply - thanks. I’m in a ‘fewer boxes, few cables, less clutter’ mindset at the moment - perhaps this bias is helping rationalise that downsizing

 

[sergeauckland]

As I’ve become more acutely aware of the evils of expectation bias I wonder if I am now suffering from something I’d call reverse expectation bias.

In my definition this is the expectation that there should be no difference in sound (even if one might exist) leading to not hearing / observing any change in sound quality.

I’m half serious / half joking here! I no longer trust my ears

I never have, as it was always clear that one hears what one wants to hear and disregards the rest. (Thanks Paul Simon)

In my case, I've known from my early training what should be audible and what shouldn't, so my expectation bias is that I won't hear a difference. Consequently, in blind tests I don't. Now, whether in any particular blind test I should be able to hear a difference is besides the point. I don't think I can, so don't.

A few times I've thought I could hear something odd with my system, I've got the measuring instruments out and either found the cause, or indeed couldn't and the 'something odd' quickly went away.

Expectation bias is so strong, at least with me, that the only thing I trust is my instruments, as they have no bias at all.

S.

 

[flipflop]

In my definition this is the expectation that there should be no difference in sound (even if one might exist) leading to not hearing / observing any change in sound quality.

The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests

An ongoing controversy within the high-end audio community is the efficacy of blind versus sighted audio product listening tests. In a blind...

seanolive.blogspot.com

In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material.

 

[amirm]

Reverse bias does exist but in my experience, it is a much smaller factor. To wit, many times I measure something that looks good then listen. I then notice it doesn't sound good only to find that I have an EQ enabled. I turn it off and then hear it like it is. This means reverse placebo was not powerful enough to override what I was hearing.

 

[Vincent Kars]

To the best of my knowledge, expectation bias is interpreting what you senses tells you in accordance with what you expect. There is no "direction" positive or negative. Basically it is very much like experience, repeating the same interpretation error on a routinely basis.

 

[Iving]

Reverse bias does exist but in my experience, it is a much smaller factor. To wit, many times I measure something that looks good then listen. I then notice it doesn't sound good only to find that I have an EQ enabled. I turn it off and then hear it like it is. This means reverse placebo was not powerful enough to override what I was hearing.

This scenario, as I read it, has an alternative explanation. Assuming sufficient aggregate experience with hardware (likely in your case as a measurements-orientated reviewer), your SQ expectations were actually realistic and roughly proportionate. There was no psychologically-generated distortion hinged on Instrumental reward. You found a technical explanation (EQ setting) for the disrepancy between what you reasonably expected to hear, and what you did hear. There was no Expectation Bias as such.

If you had had an emotional (reward) stake in the product; e.g., you perhaps thought of buying it for personal use - or were otherwise motivated favourably - then your expectation of good SQ would have been catapulted beyond what might have been proportionate given the good measurements (I assume this is what you meant by "measure something that looks good"). You were much more likely to notice it didn't sound good (subjectively greater than otherwise SQ delta) - and find the explanation.

otoh If you had had an emotional stake in the product the other way - you were thinking of selling one yourself - or were otherwise motivated away from the product - then the SQ delta would have been smaller and you might not have noticed the SQ problem or its explanation.

Without evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to think your judgement was reasonably objective and lacking in Expectation Bias, "reverse" or otherwise.

Anyway - The single point I am making on this thread is that reward is always the driver for Expectation Bias. There is only one phenomenon. It is not bipolar - except in so far as rewards can be pleasant (approach/anticipation) or unpleasant (withdrawal/avoidance). The explanation for Expectation Bias is to be found in the reward. Sometimes the reward is obvious. Sometimes it is not. Human beings are the most ulterior of creatures!

 

[CapMan]

It has taken a while to reach my current understanding that the room and speakers set the overriding character of what I hear. I think that is also playing into this notion of reverse expectation bias - that the changes in upstream components create marginal changes vs the room and transducers.

I am also acutely aware of how short my aural memory is.

 

[fpitas]

It has taken a while to reach my current understanding that the room and speakers set the overriding character of what I hear. I think that is also playing into this notion of reverse expectation bias - that the changes in upstream components create marginal changes vs the room and transducers.

I am also acutely aware of how short my aural memory is.

At least for me, my hearing changes with time of day etc., too. Things may sound a little brighter, darker etc but it's my ears. I confirm that by referring to the headphones.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It could very well be the case that many of us objectivist type audiophiles would be less likely to identify a difference between 2 things that sound very close to each other due to us not expecting to hear a difference. But, that doesn't really matter in the end because we're not interested in that angle. We're interested in people who clearly want to hear a difference and claim that they can hear a difference stepping up and proving those claims. All it takes is one really. If one golden-eared audiophile were to conclusively prove that he could for example identify a boutique cable from a bog standard average one in a blind test (assuming neither cable was doing any easily-measurable weird thing to the signal of course) then we'd have something to talk about.

If we're talking about say flapping our arms and flying, we aren't interested in all the people who don't believe it can be done and then go out in a field and flap their arms and lo and behold they stand there like idiots not lifting off the ground. We're interested in the one guy who claims he can do it and goes out in a field in front of witnesses and flaps his arms and flies around the field.

EDIT - I suppose it could be argued that this sort of bias might negatively impact a more generalized preference-type blind test. However, that's an easily-resolved issue. You simply set up the test so that the participants don't even know what is being tested. Is it a dac or amp? Speakers? Cables? I mean we can all certainly agree that some things do make an audible difference so if we don't know what's being changed we can't really be biased against the possibility of audible differences...

 

[egellings]

As I’ve become more acutely aware of the evils of expectation bias I wonder if I am now suffering from something I’d call reverse expectation bias.

In my definition this is the expectation that there should be no difference in sound (even if one might exist) leading to not hearing / observing any change in sound quality.

I’m half serious / half joking here! I no longer trust my ears

A bias in either direction will sway you away from understanding what's actually there.

 

[MattHooper]

Expectation Bias is a subjective phenomenon arising out of Cognitive Dissonance. The latter is psychological conflict which arises because of the reward anticipated after an Instrumental/Operant decision. Beliefs or understandings are shifted post hoc to fit the decision.

The driver of all conditioning is the reward. Stereotypically we audiophiles think of cables and the like. But these mental processes happen in all domains of human existence. How much more beautiful a person becomes once we have decided upon marriage.

The "reverse" type you envisage is perfectly plausible, but really would be an instance where the belief or understanding "no difference" was generated to justify a less obvious reward. Examples might be the money remaining in your bank account the result of not buying something. Or being right (an unfortunately pervasive human disposition) on an audio forum.

I think I'd disagree somewhat with that "reward-based" characterization of cognitive bias effects, even perhaps with regard to "expectation bias."

It seems to me "bias" is better construed more broadly as a range of perceptual errors - which arise from the way our brain works in trying to understand reality - continuous with all sorts of perceptual biases like optical or audible illusions. Presented with the checkerboard shadow illusion we will helplessly interpret some squares as brighter than others, even though they are identical in brightness (objectively). It's a form of "expectation bias" because it's an error based on "expectations" our perceptual system brings to the table. It's an outcome of a certain heuristic; not one based from desire/reward. Nor is it a case of "Cognitive dissonance." The brain just accepts the perception of one square being brighter than another. Cognitive dissonance may come in once someone shows you (by covering the shadow effect) that the squares are actually the same brightness. Now you have two strong, adjecent, competing believes for your mind to resolve. But the actual perceptual error is not based on nor causes "cognitive dissonance." And insofar as you believe any perception true, and don't have some other strong belief challenging it, cognitive dissoance seems the wrong phenemonon to adduce. It's just error.

This seems to be the case for many of our cognitive bias effects. Some of our errors may be driven by some desire/reward expectations, but far from all. It can just be little glitches and heuristics in how our brain works.

As for the Expectation Effect, if someone buys an expensive cable expecting it to change the sound, and then through this bias effect perceives a change, he isn't confronted with having to work out cognitive dissonance: just the opposite! Dissonance would arise insofar as his experience confounded his expectations.

One doesn't have to have some emotional investment in "reward" for even expectation effects to occur, for instance the "reward" of a cable sounding different or the "reward" of saving money because it didn't. It can just be as simple as a perceptual error based on the same kind of "glitch" that produces optical or audible illusions.
"I switched something" can make you perceive a change "something changed" even if you weren't expecting it.

 

[amirm]

otoh If you had had an emotional stake in the product the other way - you were thinking of selling one yourself - or were otherwise motivated away from the product - then the SQ delta would have been smaller and you might not have noticed the SQ problem or its explanation.

You are making excellent points. I sometimes surprise myself how little I care how something performs one way or the other. I guess it is because I test so much stuff.

 

[JaMaSt]

Anyway - The single point I am making on this thread is that reward is always the driver for Expectation Bias.

This certainly reflects a school of thought in the history of psychology, but it's by no means definitive or accepted by everyone. There are more evolutionary or embodied approaches which explain "inference making" as we move about and/or engage things in the world.

When we "hear" music it's a combination of feedforward (the music entering the ears) and feedback (our prior experiences and expectations). Our inferences serve us well. We'd be dead in about 1 day without making inferences about how the world "should" work. We make inferences every second we're awake. And it's not just humans. Actively making inferences about how the world should work is pretty much the definition of being an animal (as opposed to being a plant).

There is no fine line between feedforward and feedback in perception and cognition. And it works in both directions. But mostly it's "good enough". When we A/B/X test something, our limitations are exposed - but we didn't evolve to A/B/X minute changes in frequency responses, roll off filters, interconnects, DAC's, etc. It's conceivable that there exists somewhere in the universe a lifeform where a .0001db change at 1kHz could be detected or -130 dB noise floor would be intolerable. But it ain't us. We can get used to just about anything.

 

[CapMan]

It feels then that I am trapped in expectation hell!

If I downsize because I expect to hear no change will I then start to incur some kind of ‘regret’ bias because I downsized - arghh

 

[antcollinet]

I think it is also important to recognise that cognitive biases are happening at a subconscious level. Not necessarily based on what we consciously (for example) expect - but what the subconscious brain has learned to expect over your lifetime based on everything perceived in the moment.

Here is an example. Even when you consciously know how your brain is being fooled - it is still fooled.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It feels then that I am trapped in expectation hell!

If I downsize because I expect to hear no change will I then start to incur some kind of ‘regret’ bias because I downsized - arghh

Hasn't worked that way for me. I mean I haven't really "downsized" per se. But I've stopped up-sizing, lol. I've come to terms with the reality that I'm not going to hear anything different by changing an amp or a dac. And while I might hear something different by changing speakers, that difference isn't likely to be meaningful improvement...it will just be slight difference - a difference that will largely be mitigated by the process of EQing the speakers for my room. I don't regret anything. It's nice to be off the never-ending "upgrade" treadmill. It's also nice to not feel like I'm missing out on anything because I can't afford (or don't want) to drop $3000 on a dac or $500 on interconnect cables.

 

[JaMaSt]

I think it is also important to recognise that cognitive biases are happening at a subconscious level. Not necessarily based on what we consciously (for example) expect - but what the subconscious brain has learned to expect over your lifetime based on everything perceived in the moment.

Here is an example. Even when you consciously know how your brain is being fooled - it is still fooled.

The McGurk effect is an example of the "cross modal" nature of perception. Three different sensory/motor systems are activated when we are perceiving speech: Visual, Auditory and Articulatory (motor movements of speech apparatuses: lips, tough, diaphragm, etc). Even if we are not making a sound, our motor/articulatory centers of our brain are activated when we hear (or see lip movements) someone else speaking. This also happens when we are reading to ourselves.

I personally don't like the term "illusion" when describing such affects as shown in the video. It makes it sound "weird" or like we are some how being "fooled". We aren't. The brain gives equal weight to all sense modalities that are activated simultaneously in the perception of an event. The benefit of it's doing so can be observed when you are in a noisy crowd of people -- you are watching the lips of the speaker in front of you every bit as much as you are hearing them. Or when someone is whispering - you are looking at the lips probably more so than you are hearing them - and yet you can understand what they are saying.

 

[JaMaSt]

And to stir the pot a bit I'm a firm believer that if you are presented with a fake frequency response graph that shows an elevated 6 kHz dB spike you'll hear that spike. There are limits of course, but our ability to hear such changes is objectively limited and can be influenced by what we see as much as by what we hear. It's an expectation bias.