Bias when forming a collection of fine and decorative arts has been addressed through heuristics or mental shortcuts. Here, I approach bias differently to emphasize how important it is not only when we collect but in daily life.

One important study relevant to this area is “Collection Development and Bias” by B. Quinn (2012). In a day when allegations of bias target libraries, this article is particularly meaningful. It is a well-researched compilation of summaries of papers related to the development of library collections that exhibit disparity in their holdings, thereby suggesting bias.

Fine and decorative art, plus collectibles, are more difficult to address for bias. Yet partialities are part of the process when collectors collect. I can vouch for this myself in my collecting habits.

Another examination that surfaced was from a 2018 newspaper article that indicated that there was “institutional bias” against female artists in the U.K. Labour Party. Their research revealed that about three-quarters of the works acquired were created by men.

In a recent article I published in Psychology Today, I quoted work by Codignola and Mariana, in which the famous collector Pinault “purchased more art produced by men than women (82.1 percent compared to 17.9 percent),” again supporting bias toward male artists for both institutional and private collections. Of course, availability and quality (which are more difficult to evaluate than numbers alone) were not assessed in this study. These variables could make an important difference in proportions.

Summary of My Approach

Here, I go over some selected evidence from Quinn’s paper (2012) that shows definite bias in the development of library collections. The beauty of Quinn’s study is that library collections are approachable in terms of bias because books can be categorized. If one book category is included in the collection significantly more than another, unless there is a logical reason, bias is suggested. This approach cannot be used as easily in individual collections where categories blur, and reasons one object was chosen over another cannot only be complex but unwieldy to assess.

Secondly, I include a select group of common behavioral biases (2011) that influence collectors when they buy and sell in the hope of aiding them in recognizing this behavior. When possible, I reflect on how the bias has influenced me.

Lastly, I provide a list of references readers can use to explore and thereby more easily recognize their prejudices when collecting. In understanding this area, the collector can make better decisions related to their buying and selling and thus become a more astute collector.

Evidence from Library Studies

One study of Ohio Libraries included in the 2012 paper examined whether the type of library, public or academic, made a difference in their collection. The authors found that conservative titles were observed more in public libraries and liberal titles were more frequent in academic libraries. One can conjecture that bias played a part in this finding, but it was not specifically discussed.

Among the other book collections covered in the Quinn paper was another statewide study, this time in California. It examined books in public vs. academic libraries for pro-choice or pro-life selections. The 580 academic and public institutions studied were three times more likely to have pro-choice books in their collections over pro-life. The authors concluded that those who chose the books for these collections could be prejudiced against choosing pro-life material.

There are multiple examples comparable to the above in Quinn’s paper. What his work suggests is that bias is present when library collections are formed, almost certainly unbeknownst to the selector(s). This leads to a misrepresentation of available books.

Common Bias in Human Behavior that Influences Collectors.

Since the power of bias is so strong in the development of library collections, it must readily influence collectors of fine and decorative art as well.

I can easily see that the endowment effect (that we value what we own more than the same or similar pieces which someone else owns) is alive and well. It certainly has affected me. Ownership bias—a sense of ownership that develops after a dealer allows a piece to be placed in a potential buyer’s home; this enhances the value of the “loaned” art, and the potential buyer is more likely to buy—has also entered the equation for me.

Optimism bias, a cognitive basis that leads people to believe they are at a lesser risk of negative events than others, is also prevalent. Overall, this can be helpful, but in terms of collecting, it can lead to judgments not in line with reality. Optimism bias falls right in line with overconfidence (overestimation of our knowledge and ability to control). When a collector is overconfident, again, poor collecting choices can be made.

In summary, among pitfalls when collecting, we often overlook our bias and focus on external events. Still, it is the internal over which we have control, not the external. Therefore, focusing on these foibles rather than those outside ourselves will bring us a greater advantage.