Hello Reader,

The week after a plane crash, flight bookings drop. People who were perfectly comfortable boarding a 737 last month now find themselves hesitating, refreshing train schedules, doing math on driving times.

The crash statistics haven't changed. Flying is still safer than driving to the airport. What changed is what the mind can reach most easily: a vivid image, a news loop, a feeling of proximity to something terrible.

That's the mechanism. Not the facts. The reach.

Accessibility Bias is the mental shortcut where you judge the likelihood or importance of something by how easily an example comes to mind. The quicker and more vividly a memory surfaces, the more probable or significant your brain treats it as being.

Why Use It

Understanding this model doesn't make you immune to it. But it shifts you from passenger to navigator.

Without it, you mistake vividness for frequency. You mistake silence for safety. You make risk assessments based on the most recent dramatic event, rather than the full pattern of evidence.

With it, you can pause before a judgment and ask: am I measuring this, or am I remembering it?

• Vivid vs. representative: A memorable anecdote feels more informative than a quiet dataset—even when the dataset is larger and more reliable.
• Recent vs. typical: Whatever happened last week carries disproportionate weight over what happens most weeks.
• Dramatic vs. probable: Shark attacks generate more caution than icy roads, despite the gap in actual risk.
• Loud vs. important: The colleague who speaks most in a meeting often gets credited with the most insight.

The bias doesn't signal bad thinking. It signals fast thinking applied to a situation that deserves slower thinking.

When to Use It

Reach for this lens when:

• You're assessing risk, and one dramatic scenario is dominating the picture.
• A recent event (a failure, a conflict, a surprise win) is shaping a decision that should rest on longer-run patterns.
• You're evaluating a person's performance, and their most recent action is the only thing you can clearly recall.
• A news cycle or social feed has made one type of event feel suddenly common.
• You feel certain about a probability but haven't looked at the base rate.
• A team is anchoring its forecast on what went wrong last quarter, rather than on a broader sample.

How to Use It

In Jaws, the town of Amity closes its beaches after a single attack. The mayor fights to reopen them, not out of courage, but out of denial and economic pressure. The community, meanwhile, is paralyzed. One incident, rendered in full sensory detail, rewrites the town's sense of the water entirely. The ocean hasn't changed. The availability of a specific, terrifying image has.

Spielberg understood something Kahneman would later formalize: fear doesn't track probability. It tracks memorability.

Here's how to counter the pull:

• Name the example driving your judgment. What specific memory or event is making this feel likely or important? Write it down. Naming it reduces its grip.
• Find the base rate. Before acting on the accessible example, look for the full distribution. How often does this actually occur across a broader sample?
• Deliberately recall the quiet opposite. If a bad outcome is vivid, actively search for instances where the outcome was fine. The absence of dramatic stories isn't evidence of absence.
• Check the source of availability. Did this come to mind because it's genuinely common—or because it was recent, covered heavily, or emotionally charged?
• Separate signal from salience. Would this feel equally important if I hadn't seen it recently, or if it had been framed without drama?

Next Steps

This week, pick one judgment you're carrying: a risk you're avoiding, a decision you keep deferring. Write down the specific memory or story that seems to be anchoring it. Then write down three examples that point in the opposite direction. Notice whether the judgment holds once the accessible example shares the room with the others.

Where It Came From

The availability heuristic was identified by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1973, in a paper titled "Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability." They demonstrated that people systematically overestimate the frequency of events that are easier to recall, whether because of recency, vividness, or emotional intensity. Kahneman later placed it at the center of System 1 thinking in his 2011 work on fast and slow cognition. The insight crossed from behavioral economics into medicine, law, policy, and management: any domain where judgment under uncertainty is made by humans who remember some things more clearly than others.

Until next time: what you can recall most easily is not the same as what is most true.

Think Independently, JC

Share or Join 👉

• Discover hundreds of mental models in the Re:Mind App.
• Share this newsletter with a friend.
• Get insights from me on Instagram or Linkedin.