[Read Part 1] [Read Part 2] [Read Part 3]
Introduction
Modern psychology research has a WEIRD bias, relying heavily on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic societies. Scientists long assumed that human minds everywhere work the same, but evidence shows WEIRD people are psychological outliers. Henrich and colleagues famously argued that Westerners, including university students who dominate study pools, are “among the least representative populations” for generalizing about humanity. If even basic processes like perception can differ across cultures, then what about our mental shortcuts and biases? In recent years, researchers and the public have started questioning whether classic findings on “human nature” truly apply to non-Western contexts, like India’s diverse societies.
One area under scrutiny is cognitive biases, the systematic patterns of deviation from rational judgment that sites like yourbias.is catalog. These biases were largely documented in Western labs. Is your brain “WEIRD,” or do these biases look different in India and other cultures? Below, we try to understand common cognitive biases and how they might shift in Indian society (across different regions) and in other non-WEIRD populations.
Cultural Influences on Cognitive Biases
Our culture shapes how we see and judge things. India, with its focus on community, strong families, diverse religions, and past as a colony, can change how certain biases appear. Even within India, social rules vary by region (like city vs. village, North vs. South), which can also affect biases.
For example, Indians raised in more collectivistic settings often focus on community and context, which can counter some individual-centered biases typical in the West.
Educated Indians in cities might act like Americans or Europeans in some tests. Crucially, studies show that the same person’s biases can change in a new cultural environment. One classic finding, Indians living in India tended to see themselves in a more positive light (self-enhancing), while those who moved to Canada became more modest. This suggests that many biases aren’t fixed in our brains but are influenced by how we’re raised and our surroundings.
Below we examine common cognitive biases (based on the yourbias.is list of 24 biases) and look at how each might manifest in India versus WEIRD settings, also noting parallels from other non-WEIRD cultures. Each bias is briefly explained, followed by cultural nuances supported by research findings.
Social Attribution and Self-Perception Biases
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE): This is when people judge others based on their personality without considering the situation. Westerners often do this, like assuming someone is rude for being late instead of thinking about traffic. Indians are less likely to do this. A study showed that as Americans got older, they blamed people’s personalities more, while Indians often blamed the situation. In other words, an Indian might attribute that late arrival to a train delay or family duty rather than the person’s laziness (In American-inspired corporate culture in India, the opposite is also gradually visible. That means bosses will blame you without understanding the context). This culturally taught focus on context means Indian reasoning tends to be more holistic and less individual-blame-oriented than American reasoning. (Notably, East Asian cultures like China show a similar reduction in FAE, emphasizing circumstances over personal traits.) However, within India there could be variation, urban Indian youth exposed to individualistic values might show a moderate FAE, though generally the tendency to consider situational reasons remains stronger than in the U.S..
Self-Serving Bias: People usually take credit for their successes but blame outside factors for their failures. While Westerners often credit their own skills for wins, they blame luck or others for losses to protect their self-esteem. This isn’t entirely universal. Indians also show this bias, but with a difference. A study found that Indians gave more external reasons overall, yet showed an even stronger self-serving pattern than Canadians. In other words, an Indian might generally say “things happen due to context or fate,” but when it comes to their own outcomes, they especially minimize personal fault.
That said, other work indicates collectivist cultures sometimes favor a self-effacing bias (being modest about successes). For example, an older study found Indians who had moved to Canada exhibited less self-serving (more self-critical) biases, perhaps reflecting cultural norms of humility in their new environment. So within India’s diverse society, self-serving bias might be strong in some contexts (e.g. competitive urban workplaces) but weaker in others (e.g. traditional settings valuing humility).
In contrast, collectivist cultures elsewhere often replace self-serving bias with in-group-serving bias, crediting one’s group for successes. A study comparing Americans and Saudis found Saudis showed less individual self-serving bias but more in-group favoritism, a pattern likely relevant to family- and community-centric India as well.
Halo Effect: The halo effect means letting one positive quality of a person (e.g. attractiveness or a prestigious degree) color our overall judgment of them.
This bias is common everywhere but can wear different “halos” across cultures. In hierarchical societies like India, status and titles might strongly halo judgments. For example, people may assume a doctor or IAS officer is morally upright in all ways, due to their position. Similarly, fair skin or an elite school pedigree might create a halo in Indian contexts, given social biases.
While robust cross-cultural data on halo effects are sparse, it’s reasonable that halo effects are amplified by cultural values, e.g. respect for elders or gurus in India could lead to less questioning of their wrong actions (a positive esteem casting a wide halo).
Westerners have their own halos (celebrity worship, etc.), but the specific traits that trigger halos differ. Regardless of culture, being aware of this bias is important so we don’t let one admired trait blind us to a person’s faults or the facts.
In-Group Bias (and Out-Group Bias): In-group bias is the tendency to favor those who belong to our own group (family, community, ethnicity, etc.) and sometimes to derogate outsiders. This bias exists in all human societies, but it varies in intensity. India’s collectivist ethos and strong kinship networks can make in-group bias especially dangerous, loyalty to one’s family, caste, religion, or region often runs deep. For instance, one might hire a cousin over a more qualified stranger, reflecting in-group favoritism.
Research in social psychology supports this pattern, collectivist societies show stronger in-group biases and sometimes even harsher treatment of out-groups. In a multi-country experiment, people in more collectivist cultures were more willing to punish out-group members, even when it meant everyone lost out (so-called “anti-social punishment”). This suggests that in tight-knit societies, the divide between “us” and “them” can strongly skew judgment and behavior.
Notable, within India, in-group bias can differ by region or community, e.g. in metro cities like Mumbai with diverse populations, people may develop broader in-groups (friend circles cutting across caste/religion), whereas in rural areas or areas with ethnic conflict, group lines may be more rigid. By contrast, many Westerners, while not free of in-group favoritism, often define the “in-group” more individualistically (e.g. friend groups or ideological groups rather than extended family) and may show relatively less automatic nepotism.
Understanding these differences is key, what looks like “corruption” or nepotism through a Western lens may stem from deep-rooted in-group loyalty values in India. Conversely, India’s tradition of “Atithi Devo Bhava” (guest hospitality) shows that cultural norms can also encourage extending generosity to outsiders in certain contexts, countering pure out-group negativity.
Just-World Hypothesis (Belief in a Just World): This is the bias of believing that people get what they deserve, that the world is ultimately fair. In Western contexts, it often manifests as victim-blaming (assuming a victim must have done something to “deserve” their fate) or a general faith that good deeds are rewarded.
In India, there is a culturally embedded version of this idea, karma. The Hindu (and broadly Indian) concept of karma holds that a person’s actions will eventually influence their fortunes, either in this life or rebirth.
This karmic belief is essentially a supernatural form of just-world belief, linking ethical behavior to deserved outcomes. It’s widespread in Indian society (not only among Hindus, many others also intuitively endorse karma) and can reinforce the notion that if someone is suffering, it might be due to past deeds.
Studies have found karma belief to be common in India and even among some Westerners, overlapping with but distinct from the secular just-world belief.
The implication is that an Indian might rationalize inequality or misfortune with “karma” more readily than a Westerner would say “life is just unfair.” On one hand, this can provide comfort (believing in cosmic justice), but on the other it can lead to complacency or victim-blaming (e.g. assuming a poor person’s bad karma caused their poverty). Regional and individual differences exist: more religious or traditional communities may stress karma and just-world beliefs, while highly educated urban Indians might lean more to structural explanations (and indeed, many socially conscious Indians criticize blind faith in karma as a way to ignore injustice). Other non-WEIRD cultures often have similar concepts, for example, some East Asian cultures blend Buddhism and folk beliefs about fate in a way that echoes karma, and in the Middle East strong religious faith can also coincide with “just world” reasoning (“it is God’s will”).
Negativity Bias (and Optimism/Pessimism Biases): The negativity bias is our human tendency to give more weight to negative events or information than positive ones. This seems to be a pretty human-universal bias rooted in evolution (mistakes or dangers hurt more than equivalent gains help).
Indians, like others, can exhibit negativity bias, e.g. dwelling on a single criticism despite many compliments, or news media in India (as everywhere) sensationalizing negative stories because it grabs attention. However, cultural attitudes can modulate it. Indian society historically has philosophical strains that emphasize acceptance of suffering (think of teachings in Buddhism and Hinduism about life’s suffering and detachment). It’s possible that such cultural narratives help people cope with negative events better, though they don’t erase the basic bias. Meanwhile, optimism bias (overestimating that good things will happen to us) and pessimism bias (leaning toward expecting the worst) may tilt depending on context. Western cultures often encourage optimism and self-confidence, sometimes to an unrealistic degree whereas Indian culture sometimes prizes prudence and “saving for a rainy day.”
Anecdotally, many Indian parents lean toward caution and may instill a bit of pessimism (“don’t assume everything will be rosy”), potentially countering excessive optimism bias. On the other hand, surveys of unrealistic optimism have found it globally: people in many countries, India included, tend to think they are less likely than others to experience misfortunes. Cross-cultural research on optimism finds individualistic societies generally have higher self-enhancing optimism, while collectivist societies might report lower personal optimism but perhaps greater optimism for their group or family (a nuance of in-group bias).
A study comparing overconfidence (a form of optimism in judgment) across cultures found all groups showed some overconfidence, with only small differences, Indian and Chinese participants were slightly less overconfident than Americans and Brits in one experiment.
So, while the core bias of focusing on negatives or being unrealistically positive is human, the flavor of optimism/pessimism in India is tempered by cultural scripts (fate and luck, group orientation, etc.). It’s common, for instance, for Indians to say “bhagwan ke bharose” (leave it to God) after doing one’s effort, a mix of optimism (hope in divine justice) and realism (acknowledging one’s control is limited).
Groupthink: Groupthink is the tendency of groups to make poor decisions because dissent is suppressed in favor of consensus and harmony. The term originated from analysis of U.S. policy fiascos, but collective decision biases happen worldwide.
In India, certain conditions can make groupthink more likely, hierarchical workplaces where juniors won’t question a boss, or cultural respect for authority and elders that discourages “rocking the boat.” For example, in some organizations or even government bodies in India, subordinates may hesitate to point out mistakes in a plan out of deference, creating an echo chamber. This parallels patterns observed in other collectivist cultures e.g. researchers have noted that in East Asian teams, maintaining harmony can sometimes stifle honest feedback, a setup ripe for groupthink.
On the other hand, Indian decision-making also benefits from cultural traditions of consultation. If diverse perspectives are respected, groupthink can be avoided but that requires overcoming hierarchical biases. Across regions of India, one might see differences, perhaps more traditional North Indian businesses with a strong patriarch may be prone to groupthink, whereas a cosmopolitan tech startup in Bangalore with a flat structure might encourage open disagreement (closer to a Western style of mitigating groupthink).
Empirical studies on conformity, a related concept, show that collectivist cultures have higher conformity to group opinion. In a meta-analysis of the famous Asch line-judgment test across 17 countries, participants from places like Japan, Fiji (and likely India, though data for India specifically is scarce) conformed more to group wrong answers than participants from the US or UK. This suggests that Indians, steeped in collectivist norms of getting along, may be more susceptible to group pressure, which can feed groupthink. Recognizing this, some Indian managers now actively invite junior team members to voice contrary views to counteract the cultural bias toward polite agreement.
[To be Continued]
