2. What influences me?
3.2.5 · 35–55 minutes · reflect, test, discuss, review
2. What influences me?
What you will learn
- Recognise asymmetric evidence search and standards.
- Plan a test that could weaken a preferred thesis.
- Apply consistent source checks to favourable and unwelcome claims.
3.2 · The Human Side
The Human Side
The Human Side · the work you will do
- 1What do I know?
- 2What influences me?
- 3How do I act?
- 4Record and review
Before you begin
Your first decision
You have told your club that DailyCup is your best idea. A positive article feels convincing. A negative payment record suddenly seems unreliable. Would you judge the same evidence differently if you had recommended another company?
Record your first answer before continuing.
Video coming soon · about 3 minutes
Looking for Reasons to Agree
Use the narration below while the recording is being made, then try the decisions in this lesson.
Read the full narration
You have told your club that DailyCup is your best idea. A positive article feels convincing. A negative payment record suddenly seems unreliable. Would you judge the same evidence differently if you had recommended another company?
In this lesson, notice what affects your own judgement. You do not need to invest real money or share personal financial information.
Once you have defended an idea, changing your mind can feel like losing an argument. Confirmation bias can affect what you search for and how you interpret it. You do not have to be dishonest for this to happen. The useful question is whether you apply the same evidence standard to information you like and information you would rather not see.
Ten articles may all repeat one company press release. One well-reconciled payment record might tell you more about a specific claim. Check where each claim began, how it was measured and whether the sources are independent. A critic can have an incentive and still produce valid evidence. A friendly source can be mistaken.
Before searching again, finish this sentence: “I would weaken my case if…” Make the condition observable. For DailyCup, you might inspect a defined customer group’s repeat visits over a specified period. A useful test must be capable of disappointing you. If the measurement later needs changing, explain why; do not quietly move it to protect your original answer.
Give a partner your source list before telling them your recommendation. Ask them to identify the strongest and weakest items. Then compare their judgements with yours. Keep a credible opposing argument in your investment case and explain the weight you give it. Changing your view after better evidence is a contribution to the group’s work.
Pause for the worked example and the choices. Use the feedback to improve the explanation, then apply it to the fictional case. Keep your first view as well as any revision.
Which source did you accept most quickly? Choose one uncomfortable piece of evidence and state the same quality checks you would apply to supportive evidence.
Your idea can start to feel like your identity
Once you have defended an idea, changing your mind can feel like losing an argument. Confirmation bias can affect what you search for and how you interpret it.
You do not have to be dishonest for this to happen. The useful question is whether you apply the same evidence standard to information you like and information you would rather not see.
Research and nuance
Confirmation bias describes seeking or interpreting evidence in ways that favour an existing belief. It can occur without deliberate dishonesty. A preferred thesis, prior public recommendation or sense of identity can make supportive information easier to accept. The practical issue is the standard applied to evidence, not whether an opponent can be labelled biased. Check your own search and interpretation as well.
Count sources, not headlines
Ten articles may all repeat one company press release. One well-reconciled payment record might tell you more about a specific claim.
Check where each claim began, how it was measured and whether the sources are independent. A critic can have an incentive and still produce valid evidence. A friendly source can be mistaken.
Research and nuance
Ten articles may repeat one press release. A single reconciled ledger may bear more directly on a material claim. Ask about independence, relevance, date, definitions and method. Incentives matter on both sides, but a critic’s financial interest does not make the underlying evidence false. Seek the strongest credible challenge rather than a weak objection that is easy to dismiss.
Write what would change your mind
Before searching again, finish this sentence: “I would weaken my case if…” Make the condition observable. For DailyCup, you might inspect a defined customer group’s repeat visits over a specified period.
A useful test must be capable of disappointing you. If the measurement later needs changing, explain why; do not quietly move it to protect your original answer.
Research and nuance
Write a specific observation that would materially weaken the case before gathering more material. Identify how it will be measured and what alternative explanation predicts it. A test that can only confirm the thesis is not a fair challenge. Avoid moving the threshold afterward merely because the result is unwelcome; explain legitimate changes in measurement or context openly.
Ask someone to challenge the evidence
Give a partner your source list before telling them your recommendation. Ask them to identify the strongest and weakest items.
Then compare their judgements with yours. Keep a credible opposing argument in your investment case and explain the weight you give it. Changing your view after better evidence is a contribution to the group’s work.
Research and nuance
Ask another pupil to inspect the source register without being told your preferred conclusion first. Then reveal the direction of each claim and discuss any changes in treatment. This original exercise is a way to improve a research process, not a diagnosis. Preserve conflicting evidence in the memo and explain why one argument receives more weight rather than quietly removing it.
Many headlines, few independent sources
A fictional analyst collects 10 positive articles:8 repeat the same company release,2 contain distinct interviews. One negative article links to a reconciled payment dataset. Assume no further verification has yet occurred.
- The 8 repeated articles do not create 8 independent confirmations of the release.
- The 2 interviews may add information, but inspect whether they use independent evidence or repeat the same claim.
- The negative dataset must be checked on the same relevance, provenance, definition and reliability criteria.
Neither 10 positive headlines nor 1 negative dataset settles the thesis automatically. Identify the material claim each source can actually test.
Put it into practice
1. Blind-rate the cards
Rate a reconciled till file, voluntary poll, unsupported rumour and company release before learning whether they support the preferred thesis.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
Use the same criteria for every direction of evidence. A source’s usefulness is question-specific; a supportive label should not improve a weak method.
2. Write a disconfirmation plan
State one material DailyCup assumption, a contrary observation, data source and response if the observation occurs.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
For durable profitable demand, use a defined post-promotion repeat/contribution measure. A sustained shortfall could lower cash estimates or justify deferring expansion. Set the standard before reveal.
3. Audit a search history
Your notes contain six positive summaries and no attempted counter-test. Write the next research question.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
Seek the strongest credible alternative explanation and evidence capable of distinguishing it. More supportive reading can still be useful, but not as a substitute for the missing test.
Notice your own judgement
Which source did you accept most quickly? Choose one uncomfortable piece of evidence and state the same quality checks you would apply to supportive evidence.
Original On Judgement teaching. Research and further reading: Likierman; Duke; Yale teaching.
Jargon buster
Confirmation bias
Selective search or interpretation favouring an existing belief.
Motivated reasoning
Reasoning influenced by a desired conclusion or commitment.
Independent corroboration
Additional evidence not merely repeating the same original claim.
Disconfirmation
Evidence or testing that could weaken a hypothesis.
Moving the goalposts
Changing the acceptance standard to protect a preferred conclusion.
Symmetric standards
Applying comparable evidence tests to opposing claims.
Knowledge check
Make each choice on the page. Feedback explains the reasoning. Use Try again after revisiting an idea.
AQA connection and further reading
AQA 7138 applied links: AO 2–AO 4 evidence, analysis and evaluation (4.2); uncertainty and change (3.3.4), with quantitative interpretation in Annex 6 where used. Named psychological effects and calibration methods are investing enrichment, not specified AQA content. Classroom exercises illustrate processes; they do not diagnose individual traits.
AQA 7138 specification
Primary curriculum reference; links and original classroom rubrics are interpretive, not endorsement.
Likierman · six elements explained by London Business School
Public LBS explanation checked on 1 November 2026. Six elements are attributed to Sir Andrew Likierman; the three-area grouping and investing exercises are On Judgement adaptations, not his published model or an endorsement.
Andrew Likierman · Judgement at Work: Making Better Choices
Publisher book page. The full book has not been reviewed; teaching uses the publicly explained six-element framework with original examples.
Nickerson (1998) · Confirmation Bias
Research review supporting the brief concept definition; original source-card and counter-test applications.
Understand yourself as an investor
Name the contrary evidence you initially wanted to dismiss. Did you apply the same source standard to both sides?
Keep this reflection private unless you choose to share. Use evidence from the fictional exercise; no personal finances or fixed investor-personality label is required.
Take forward
Recognise asymmetric evidence search and standards. Plan a test that could weaken a preferred thesis. Apply consistent source checks to favourable and unwelcome claims.