What Is Self-Serving Bias? Psychology, Examples, And More

Reading Time: 9 minutes

UX design decisions frequently rely on user research, data, and experience. However, cognitive biases can skew these decisions, resulting in poor design choices and subpar user experiences. 

One notable cognitive bias is the self-serving bias, which influences how designers perceive their successes and failures.

Self-serving bias is a psychological tendency where individuals attribute positive outcomes to their skills and efforts while blaming external factors for failures. 

In UX design, this can manifest in various ways—designers may credit their expertise for a product’s success but attribute its failure to user ignorance or external constraints. 

This bias affects individual designers and entire UX teams, leading to flawed decision-making and resistance to constructive feedback.

Understanding and mitigating self-serving bias is crucial for creating compelling, user-centered designs. This article from Design Journal explores the self-serving bias in psychology, why it occurs in UX, its impact on design, and strategies for overcoming it.

What is self-serving bias?

Self-serving bias is a psychological tendency where individuals attribute positive outcomes to their abilities and efforts while blaming external factors for failures. 

This bias helps protect self-esteem but can lead to distorted thinking and poor decision-making.

For example, a designer may take credit for a successful product launch, believing their design skills were the key factor. 

However, if the product fails, the company might blame market conditions, poor development execution, or user ignorance rather than acknowledging potential flaws in its design choices.

Self-serving bias is a form of self-serving attribution in which success is internalized and failure is externalized. 

It is closely related to other cognitive biases like confirmation bias and hindsight bias, which further reinforce distorted perspectives.

Self-serving bias psychology

Self-serving bias is deeply rooted in human psychology, particularly in interpreting successes and failures to maintain self-esteem and motivation. It is a fundamental aspect of attribution theory, which explains how people assign causes to events.

The psychological foundations of self-serving bias:

Attribution theory (Heider, 1958)

Fritz Heider introduced the concept of attributions, dividing them into:

• Internal attributions – Successes are credited to personal ability, effort, or intelligence.
• External attributions – Failures are blamed on situational factors like bad luck, unfair circumstances, or external constraints.

Weiner’s attribution model (1972)

Bernard Weiner expanded this idea by introducing three key dimensions of attribution:

• Locus of control: Is the cause internal (personal effort) or external (market trends)?
• Stability: Is the cause consistent over time (natural talent) or temporary (bad weather)?
• Controllability: Is the outcome within a person’s control (skill improvement) or beyond it (economic downturn)?

These dimensions influence whether people take credit for success and deflect blame for failure.

Self-esteem and ego protection

Psychologists argue that the self-serving bias functions as a defense mechanism. Studies show that people subconsciously distort reality to preserve self-worth. 

Research by Mezulis et al. (2004) found that self-serving bias is more substantial in individualistic cultures (like the US and Europe) than in collectivistic cultures (like Japan and China), where societal harmony is prioritized over individual recognition.

Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)

According to Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory, people experience psychological discomfort when faced with contradictory beliefs or feedback. 

To reduce this discomfort, they may:

• Dismiss or rationalize negative feedback.
• Overemphasize positive data that supports their self-perception.

This explains why UX teams may ignore critical usability reports while focusing on user praise.

Illusory superiority (Dunning-Kruger Effect, 1999)

The Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests that people with low expertise often overestimate their abilities. 

In UX design, a team might believe their product is intuitive, even if user tests indicate otherwise. This overconfidence fuels self-serving bias, making designers less receptive to constructive criticism.

Real-world study on self-serving bias

A meta-analysis of 266 studies (Mezulis et al., 2004) confirmed that the self-serving bias is universal but varies based on personality, culture, and context. For example:

• Athletes credit wins to training but blame losses on referees or lousy weather.
• CEOs attribute company growth to their leadership but blame downturns on economic factors.
• Designers may celebrate high engagement due to their UI but blame usability issues on user inexperience.

Why do self-serving bias occur in UX?

In UX design, a self-serving bias can distort how designers interpret feedback, data, and outcomes, leading to flawed decision-making. 

This cognitive bias causes individuals to attribute successes to their skills while blaming failures on external factors. Here’s why it happens in UX:

Emotional investment in design

Designers invest time, effort, and creativity in crafting user experiences, making it difficult to detach emotionally from their work. 

When users or stakeholders provide critical feedback, designers may perceive it as a personal attack rather than constructive input. 

This emotional attachment can make them defensive, leading them to dismiss negative feedback instead of using it as an opportunity for improvement.

Overconfidence in skills

With experience and expertise, designers often develop strong confidence in their abilities. While confidence is essential, overconfidence can become problematic when designers assume their intuition is superior to user insights. 

This belief may lead them to ignore usability research, testing, or feedback that contradicts their initial design ideas, resulting in a product that doesn’t fully align with user needs.

Selective interpretation of data

Confirmation bias often accompanies self-serving bias, causing UX teams to interpret data in a way that supports their original design choices. 

Instead of objectively analyzing usability testing results, they might focus on positive responses while downplaying critical issues. 

This selective interpretation can prevent necessary iterations and improvements, leading to designs that overlook usability problems.

Blame-shifting to external factors

When a design fails to perform well, it’s easier to attribute the failure to factors beyond the designer’s control rather than acknowledge potential flaws in the design itself. 

Designers might blame constraints such as tight deadlines, stakeholder demands, or user errors instead of reflecting on whether their design choices contributed to the poor outcome. 

This shift in responsibility prevents learning and growth, making it harder to refine the design process effectively.

How to avoid self-serving bias in UX?

Self-serving bias can hinder a designer’s ability to make objective decisions, impacting the effectiveness of a product. 

Overcoming this bias requires conscious effort and structured approaches to ensure that user needs remain prioritized. Here’s how UX teams can mitigate self-serving bias:

Rely on data-driven decisions

Instead of making design choices based on intuition or personal preferences, designers should use user data to inform their decisions. 

Methods such as A/B testing, heatmaps, session recordings, and surveys provide objective insights into how users interact with a product. 

By prioritizing data-driven design over assumptions, teams can ensure their design decisions align with user behavior and preferences rather than personal biases.

Encourage constructive feedback

Creating a culture of open and constructive feedback helps counter self-serving bias. Encouraging peer reviews, design critiques, and cross-functional discussions ensures that multiple perspectives are considered before finalizing design choices. 

Designers should be open to challenges from colleagues, as external viewpoints can highlight blind spots and lead to more refined, user-friendly solutions.

Adopt a user-centric approach

Designers should prioritize user needs over personal attachment to their work to prevent bias from influencing decisions. 

Conducting usability tests, gathering qualitative feedback, and engaging with real users throughout the UX design process helps validate assumptions. 

Focusing on what users want rather than what designers believe is best makes the final product more intuitive and effective.

Conduct post-mortems

Objectively analyzing successes and failures is essential for continuous improvement. After launching a product or feature, teams should conduct post-mortem meetings to assess what worked, what didn’t, and why. 

This practice encourages designers to acknowledge their mistakes, learn from them, and make better-informed decisions in future iterations rather than attributing failures to external factors.

Diversify perspectives

Bringing in different viewpoints—such as those of developers, marketers, researchers, and even customer support teams—can help counteract individual biases. 

Each discipline offers unique insights into user needs and business goals, preventing designers from getting too attached to their perspectives. Collaborative decision-making leads to well-rounded solutions that consider both usability and business impact.

Use third-party evaluations

External UX consultants, blind usability tests, or unbiased audits can help uncover biases that internal teams might overlook. 

Since external reviewers are not emotionally invested in the design, they can provide neutral, objective feedback. 

Conducting blind usability tests, where testers do not know the designer’s intentions, further ensures that feedback is based purely on user experience rather than preconceived expectations.

Self-serving bias examples in design

Self-serving bias can subtly influence how UX teams interpret outcomes, often leading to flawed reasoning and missed opportunities for improvement. 

Here are some common self-serving examples of how it manifests in UX design:

Ignoring negative user feedback

A UX team introduces a new feature with a complex workflow, and users begin reporting difficulties navigating it.

Instead of recognizing potential design flaws, the team assumes users are merely resistant to change or unwilling to explore new functionalities. 

This mindset prevents them from addressing legitimate usability concerns, leading to frustration and potential user churn.

A more objective approach would involve analyzing feedback patterns, conducting usability tests, and iterating on the design based on real user struggles.

Read further on user feedback from Neilson Norman Group.

Overestimating a redesign’s impact

After investing significant time and resources into a website redesign, a company expects increased user engagement. However, key metrics such as time on site and conversion rates decline after launch. 

Rather than re-evaluating whether the redesign negatively impacted usability, the team attributes the drop to external factors like seasonal traffic fluctuations or algorithm changes. 

This self-serving bias prevents them from conducting a proper usability assessment, potentially leaving critical design issues unaddressed.

Read further on website redesign’s impact on user experience.

Taking sole credit for success

A startup rolls out a revamped user interface, and shortly after, they notice a spike in sign-ups. 

The UX team immediately attributes the increase to their design improvements without considering other influencing factors. 

However, at the same time, the marketing team had launched a high-budget campaign targeting new users. 

By not acknowledging these external efforts, the UX team risks misinterpreting the actual impact of their work and making misguided future decisions based on incomplete insights.

Ignoring cultural differences

A UX team designs an interface based on Western usability principles, assuming they apply universally. However, adoption rates are significantly lower than expected when the product launches in international markets. 

Instead of revisiting their design approach to accommodate cultural and linguistic differences, the team assumes users in those regions prefer outdated systems or are slow to adapt. 

This bias prevents them from recognizing the need for localization, such as adjusting navigation patterns, color symbolism, and content structure to suit different cultural contexts better.

Conclusion

Self-serving bias can hinder objective decision-making in UX design. While it may boost confidence, it can also lead to resistance to feedback and suboptimal designs. 

UX teams can create more effective, unbiased designs by prioritizing data, fostering diverse perspectives, and adopting a user-centered approach.

Recognizing and mitigating self-serving bias is key to continuous improvement and innovation in UX.

Subscribe to our Design Journal for exclusive design principles and stay ahead with the latest trends.

Frequently asked questions

What is self-serving bias with example?

Self-serving bias is a psychological tendency where people attribute their successes to internal factors (such as skill or effort) and blame failures on external factors (such as luck or situational constraints).

Example: A UX designer launches a new feature, and if users love it, they attribute the success to their design skills. However, they blame user resistance if the feature fails rather than acknowledging potential design flaws.

What is self-serving bias in psychology today?

In psychology today, self-serving bias is recognized as a common cognitive distortion that helps maintain self-esteem by skewing personal responsibility. 

It appears in various fields, including business, relationships, and decision-making, where individuals or teams protect their self-image by attributing success to ability and failure to external circumstances. 

This bias can hinder personal growth and lead to flawed UX, leadership, and performance evaluation decision-making.

What is the difference between self-serving bias and confirmation bias?

While both biases influence how people interpret information, they serve different psychological functions:

• Self-serving bias involves attributing successes to oneself and failures to external factors to maintain self-esteem.
• Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information to confirm pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Example: A UX team with a self-serving bias might blame poor engagement on market conditions rather than design flaws. In contrast, a team with confirmation bias may selectively interpret usability test results to support their original design decisions, ignoring negative feedback.

What is the opposite of self-serving bias?

The opposite of self-serving bias is self-effacing bias (or humility bias), where individuals attribute successes to external factors (such as teamwork or luck) and take personal responsibility for failures. 

While this bias can foster a learning mindset, excessive self-effacing tendencies may lead to low self-esteem or underconfidence in one’s abilities.

Example: A UX designer attributes the success of a well-received feature entirely to user research insights and team collaboration while blaming themselves for any usability issues, even if external constraints played a role.