Every day, people in Thailand—like in many countries—make decisions, big and small, often based on the information that comes most readily to mind. Whether it’s choosing a school, selecting healthcare options, or even deciding which road to take during rainy season, human judgment is rarely as objective as we might assume. One powerful but often unnoticed force at play is “availability bias,” a psychological phenomenon that shapes thinking and behavior based on the information most easily recalled, rather than all relevant facts [Simply Psychology], [Encyclopedia Britannica].
Availability bias, also known as the availability heuristic, is the tendency to judge the frequency or probability of events by how easily examples come to mind. This shortcut, while useful in many everyday situations, can also lead to systematic errors in thinking. For instance, if a Thai news program repeatedly highlights stories of dengue fever outbreaks, parents may overestimate their child’s risk of infection, even if statistics show a low incidence in their area [National Geographic].
In practical terms, availability bias has direct consequences for personal and public health, education, and safety in Thailand. For example, after hearing about several motorcycle accidents on the news, people might avoid riding motorcycles even though, statistically, the majority of trips are uneventful. Conversely, if the media reports more stories about successful entrepreneurs than stories of failed businesses, young Thais may overestimate their own chances of business success—potentially leading to risky investments [Harvard Business Review].
According to cognitive psychologists, the availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples when evaluating a specific topic, concept, event, or decision. As described in an influential study by Nobel Prize-winners Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, people tend to assess the likelihood of events based on what comes to mind quickly and vividly, rather than all possible evidence [Kahneman & Tversky, 1973].
Expert opinion underscores just how pervasive this bias can be. A Thai university psychology lecturer explains, “People are naturally influenced by recent news or memorable events, such as floods or outbreaks. This sometimes makes them overestimate rare risks and underestimate more common ones.” Such beliefs can influence daily choices, like buying excessive insurance for rare risks while neglecting more likely but less publicized dangers, such as chronic diseases.
One clear Thai example is the public anxiety about airplane safety compared to road safety. Plane crashes are rare but highly publicized in the media, making them seem more likely than they actually are. Road traffic accidents, by contrast, occur frequently in Thailand, yet receive comparatively less dramatic coverage—even though they are statistically a much greater threat [WHO Road Safety Report].
This cognitive bias doesn’t just affect individuals—it shapes policy and national debate. Public health authorities sometimes struggle to motivate vaccination for diseases that do not appear frequently in the news, as people underestimate their threat. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, when stories about surges appeared in headlines, there was a spike in precaution-taking behaviors. Yet in quieter periods, risk perception would drop, even if threats still remained [Nature Human Behaviour].
Availability bias also plays a role in Thai education. Students and parents may fixate on recent reports of prestigious university admissions, underappreciating the broader range of career success through vocational or technical education. Educators point out that this phenomenon reinforces a culture of “name brand” degrees, potentially at the expense of equally valuable skills and trades.
Thai cultural context further intensifies these effects. In Thai society, where deference to social consensus and family opinion carries weight, stories retold within families or social networks can be misremembered and magnified through repetition. A teacher in Bangkok interviewed by the Bangkok Post noted, “When parents gather during school events, stories of one student’s extraordinary achievement can quickly shift community expectations, even if such cases are exceedingly rare.” This tendency echoes what scientists call “emotional salience”—the more emotionally charged an example, the more likely it is to be recalled and shape judgment [Psychology Today].
Looking to the future, combating availability bias will be essential in a society where information is increasingly shaped by social media algorithms and fragmented news. In the Thai context, social media platforms can amplify certain stories, making rare events seem commonplace while downplaying more relevant but less sensational risks. This distortion has real-life policy and health consequences, affecting everything from resource allocation in hospitals to citizen cooperation during emergencies.
For Thai readers, awareness is the first defense. Practical steps can help counteract availability bias: seek out reliable statistical data, question whether a memorable story truly represents the bigger picture, and consult a diverse range of sources—especially when making high-stakes decisions about health, education, and safety. Educators and public health officials, meanwhile, can help by communicating local statistics and using relatable stories for context, while clarifying how rare (or common) certain risks actually are.
By understanding availability bias and actively challenging it, Thais can make more informed choices—both as individuals and as a society.