List of cognitive biases

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm and/or rationality in judgment. They are often studied in psychology, sociology and behavioral economics.[1]

For common errors in logic, see List of fallacies.

Although the reality of most of these biases is confirmed by reproducible research,[2][3] there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[4] Several theoretical causes are known for some cognitive biases, which provides a classification of biases by their common generative mechanism (such as noisy information-processing[5]). Gerd Gigerenzer has criticized the framing of cognitive biases as errors in judgment, and favors interpreting them as arising from rational deviations from logical thought.[6]

Explanations include information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive ("cold") bias, such as mental noise,[5] or motivational ("hot") bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects can be present at the same time.[7][8]

There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill; a way to establish a connection with the other person.[9]

Although this research overwhelmingly involves human subjects, some findings that demonstrate bias have been found in non-human animals as well. For example, loss aversion has been shown in monkeys and hyperbolic discounting has been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[10]

Belief, decision-making and behavioral

These biases affect belief formation, reasoning processes, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general.

Anchoring bias
Main article: Anchoring (cognitive bias)

The anchoring bias, or focalism, is the tendency to rely too heavily—to "anchor"—on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject).[11][12] Anchoring bias includes or involves the following:

Apophenia
Main article: Apophenia

The tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things.[17] The following are types of apophenia:

Availability heuristic
Main article: Availability heuristic

The availability heuristic (also known as the availability bias) is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.[20] The availability heuristic includes or involves the following:

  • Anthropocentric thinking, the tendency to use human analogies as a basis for reasoning about other, less familiar, biological phenomena.[21]
  • Anthropomorphism or personification, the tendency to characterize animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing human-like traits, emotions, and intentions.[22] The opposite bias, of not attributing feelings or thoughts to another person, is dehumanised perception,[23] a type of objectification.
  • Attentional bias, the tendency of perception to be affected by recurring thoughts.[24]
  • Frequency illusion or Baader–Meinhof phenomenon. The frequency illusion is that once something has been noticed then every instance of that thing is noticed, leading to the belief it has a high frequency of occurrence (a form of selection bias).[25] The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon is the illusion where something that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards.[26][27] It was named after an incidence of frequency illusion in which the Baader–Meinhof Group was mentioned.[28]
  • Implicit association, where the speed with which people can match words depends on how closely they are associated.
  • Salience bias, the tendency to focus on items that are more prominent or emotionally striking and ignore those that are unremarkable, even though this difference is often irrelevant by objective standards. See also von Restorff effect.
  • Selection bias, which happens when the members of a statistical sample are not chosen completely at random, which leads to the sample not being representative of the population.
  • Survivorship bias, which is concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility.
  • Well travelled road effect, the tendency to underestimate the duration taken to traverse oft-travelled routes and overestimate the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.

Cognitive dissonance
Main article: Cognitive dissonance
  • Normalcy bias, a form of cognitive dissonance, is the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
  • Effort justification is a person's tendency to attribute greater value to an outcome if they had to put effort into achieving it. This can result in more value being applied to an outcome than it actually has. An example of this is the IKEA effect, the tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on objects that they partially assembled themselves, such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the end product.[29]
  • Ben Franklin effect, where a person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person.[30]

Confirmation bias
Main article: Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[31] There are multiple other cognitive biases which involve or are types of confirmation bias:

  • Backfire effect, a tendency to react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one's previous beliefs.[32]
  • Congruence bias, the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.[12]
  • Experimenter's or expectation bias, the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[33]
  • Observer-expectancy effect, when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
  • Selective perception, the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
  • Semmelweis reflex, the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[15]

Egocentric bias
Main article: Egocentric bias

Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a different perception of oneself relative to others.[34] The following are forms of egocentric bias:

  • Bias blind spot, the tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[35]
  • False consensus effect, the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.[36]
  • False uniqueness bias, the tendency of people to see their projects and themselves as more singular than they actually are.[37]
  • Forer effect or Barnum effect, the tendency for individuals to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests.[38]
  • Illusion of asymmetric insight, where people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.[39]
  • Illusion of control, the tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.[40]
  • Illusion of transparency, the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others, and to overestimate how well they understand others' personal mental states.
  • Illusion of validity, the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of one's judgments, especially when available information is consistent or inter-correlated.[41]
  • Illusory superiority, the tendency to overestimate one's desirable qualities, and underestimate undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-average effect", or "superiority bias".)[42]
  • Naïve cynicism, expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.
  • Naïve realism, the belief that we see reality as it really is—objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who do not are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.
  • Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.[5][43][44][45]
  • Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a given task.[46]
  • Restraint bias, the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
  • Trait ascription bias, the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
  • Third-person effect, a tendency to believe that mass-communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves.

Extension neglect
Main article: Extension neglect

The following are forms of extension neglect:

  • Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect, the tendency to ignore general information and focus on information only pertaining to the specific case, even when the general information is more important.[47]
  • Compassion fade, the tendency to behave more compassionately towards a small number of identifiable victims than to a large number of anonymous ones.[48]
  • Conjunction fallacy, the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than a more general version of those same conditions.[49]
  • Duration neglect, the neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value.[50]
  • Hyperbolic discounting, where discounting is the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs. Hyperbolic discounting leads to choices that are inconsistent over time—people make choices today that their future selves would prefer not to have made, despite using the same reasoning.[51] Also known as current moment bias or present bias, and related to Dynamic inconsistency. A good example of this is a study showed that when making food choices for the coming week, 74% of participants chose fruit, whereas when the food choice was for the current day, 70% chose chocolate.
  • Insensitivity to sample size, the tendency to under-expect variation in small samples.
  • Less-is-better effect, the tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not jointly.
  • Neglect of probability, the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.[52]
  • Scope neglect or scope insensitivity, the tendency to be insensitive to the size of a problem when evaluating it. For example, being willing to pay as much to save 2,000 children or 20,000 children.
  • Zero-risk bias, the preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

False priors

False priors are initial beliefs and knowledge which interfere with the unbiased evaluation of factual evidence and lead to incorrect conclusions. Biases based on false priors include:

  • Agent detection bias, the inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent.
  • Automation bias, the tendency to depend excessively on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[53]
  • Gender bias, a widespread[54] set of implicit biases that discriminate against a gender. For example, the assumption that women are less suited to jobs requiring high intellectual ability.[55] Or the assumption that people or animals are male in the absence of any indicators of gender.[56]
  • Sexual overperception bias, the tendency to overestimate sexual interest of another person in oneself, and sexual underperception bias, the tendency to underestimate it.
  • Stereotyping, expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.

Framing effect
Main article: Framing effect (psychology)

The framing effect is the tendency to draw different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented. Forms of the framing effect include:

  • Contrast effect, the enhancement or reduction of a certain stimulus's perception when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.[57]
  • Decoy effect, where preferences for either option A or B change in favor of option B when option C is presented, which is completely dominated by option B (inferior in all respects) and partially dominated by option A.[58]
  • Default effect, the tendency to favor the default option when given a choice between several options.[59]
  • Denomination effect, the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g., coins) rather than large amounts (e.g., bills).[60]
  • Distinction bias, the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[61]
  • Domain neglect bias, the tendency to neglect relevant domain knowledge while solving interdisciplinary problems.[62]

Logical fallacy
Main article: Fallacy
  • Berkson's paradox, the tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities.[63]
  • Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.
  • G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it.[64]
  • Gambler's fallacy, the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. The fallacy arises from an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."[65]
  • Hot-hand fallacy (also known as "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand"), the belief that a person who has experienced success with a random event has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
  • Plan continuation bias, failure to recognize that the original plan of action is no longer appropriate for a changing situation or for a situation that is different from anticipated.[66]
  • Subadditivity effect, the tendency to judge the probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.[67]
  • Time-saving bias, a tendency to underestimate the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed, and to overestimate the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
  • Zero-sum bias, where a situation is incorrectly perceived to be like a zero-sum game (i.e., one person gains at the expense of another).

Prospect theory
Main article: Prospect theory

The following relate to prospect theory:

  • Ambiguity effect, the tendency to avoid options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown.[68]
  • Disposition effect, the tendency to sell an asset that has accumulated in value and resist selling an asset that has declined in value.
  • Dread aversion, just as losses yield double the emotional impact of gains, dread yields double the emotional impact of savouring.[69][70]
  • Endowment effect, the tendency for people to demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[71]
  • Loss aversion, where the perceived disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it.[72] (see also Sunk cost fallacy)
  • Pseudocertainty effect, the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[73]
  • Status quo bias, the tendency to prefer things to stay relatively the same.[74][75]
  • System justification, the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest.

Self-assessment
  • Dunning–Kruger effect, the tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.[76]
  • Hot-cold empathy gap, the tendency to underestimate the influence of visceral drives on one's attitudes, preferences, and behaviors.[77]
  • Hard–easy effect, the tendency to overestimate one's ability to accomplish hard tasks, and underestimate one's ability to accomplish easy tasks.[5][78][79][80]
  • Illusion of explanatory depth, the tendency to believe that one understands a topic much better than one actually does.[81][82] The effect is strongest for explanatory knowledge, whereas people tend to be better at self-assessments for procedural, narrative, or factual knowledge.[82][83]
  • Impostor Syndrome, a psychological occurrence in which an individual doubts their skills, talents, or accomplishments and has a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as a fraud. Also known as impostor phenomenon.[84]
  • Objectivity illusion, the phenomena where people tend to believe that they are more objective and unbiased than others. This bias can apply to itself - where people are able to see when others are affected by the objectivity illusion, but unable to see it in themselves. See also bias blind spot.[85]

Truth judgment

Other
Name Description
Action bias The tendency for someone to act when faced with a problem even when inaction would be more effective, or to act when no evident problem exists.[87][88]
Additive bias The tendency to solve problems through addition, even when subtraction is a better approach.[89][90]
Attribute substitution Occurs when a judgment has to be made (of a target attribute) that is computationally complex, and instead a more easily calculated heuristic attribute is substituted. This substitution is thought of as taking place in the automatic intuitive judgment system, rather than the more self-aware reflective system.
Curse of knowledge When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people.[91]
Declinism The predisposition to view the past favorably (rosy retrospection) and future negatively.[92]
End-of-history illusion The age-independent belief that one will change less in the future than one has in the past.[93]
Exaggerated expectation The tendency to expect or predict more extreme outcomes than those outcomes that actually happen.[5]
Form function attribution bias In human–robot interaction, the tendency of people to make systematic errors when interacting with a robot. People may base their expectations and perceptions of a robot on its appearance (form) and attribute functions which do not necessarily mirror the true functions of the robot.[94]
Fundamental pain bias The tendency for people to believe they accurately report their own pain levels while holding the paradoxical belief that others exaggerate it.[95]
Hindsight bias Sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as having been predictable[96] before they happened.
Impact bias The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.[46]
Information bias The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[97]
Interoceptive bias or Hungry judge effect The tendency for sensory input about the body itself to affect one's judgement about external, unrelated circumstances. (As for example, in parole judges who are more lenient when fed and rested.)[98][99][100][101]
Money illusion The tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[102]
Moral credential effect Occurs when someone who does something good gives themselves permission to be less good in the future.
Non-adaptive choice switching After experiencing a bad outcome with a decision problem, the tendency to avoid the choice previously made when faced with the same decision problem again, even though the choice was optimal. Also known as "once bitten, twice shy" or "hot stove effect".[103]
Mere exposure effect or
familiarity principle (in social psychology)		 The tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.[104]
Omission bias The tendency to judge harmful actions (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions).[105]
Optimism bias The tendency to be over-optimistic, underestimating greatly the probability of undesirable outcomes and overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias, and compare pessimism bias).[106][107]
Ostrich effect Ignoring an obvious negative situation.
Outcome bias The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Pessimism bias The tendency for some people, especially those with depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them. (compare optimism bias)
Present bias The tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the present time when considering trade-offs between two future moments.[108]
Plant blindness The tendency to ignore plants in their environment and a failure to recognize and appreciate the utility of plants to life on earth.[109]
Prevention bias When investing money to protect against risks, decision makers perceive that a dollar spent on prevention buys more security than a dollar spent on timely detection and response, even when investing in either option is equally effective.[110]
Probability matching Sub-optimal matching of the probability of choices with the probability of reward in a stochastic context.
Pro-innovation bias The tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention or innovation's usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses.
Projection bias The tendency to overestimate how much one's future selves will share one's current preferences, thoughts and values, thus leading to sub-optimal choices.[111][112][113]
Proportionality bias Our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracy theories.[114][115]
Recency illusion The illusion that a phenomenon one has noticed only recently is itself recent. Often used to refer to linguistic phenomena; the illusion that a word or language usage that one has noticed only recently is an innovation when it is, in fact, long-established (see also frequency illusion). Also recency bias is a cognitive bias that favors recent events over historic ones. A memory bias, recency bias gives "greater importance to the most recent event",[116] such as the final lawyer's closing argument a jury hears before being dismissed to deliberate.
Systematic bias Judgement that arises when targets of differentiating judgement become subject to effects of regression that are not equivalent.[117]
Risk compensation or Peltzman effect The tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Surrogation Losing sight of the strategic construct that a measure is intended to represent, and subsequently acting as though the measure is the construct of interest.
Turkey illusion Absence of expectation of sudden trend breaks in continuous developments
Parkinson's law of triviality The tendency to give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. Also known as bikeshedding, this bias explains why an organization may avoid specialized or complex subjects, such as the design of a nuclear reactor, and instead focus on something easy to grasp or rewarding to the average participant, such as the design of an adjacent bike shed.[118]
Unconscious bias or implicit bias The underlying attitudes and stereotypes that people unconsciously attribute to another person or group of people that affect how they understand and engage with them. Many researchers suggest that unconscious bias occurs automatically as the brain makes quick judgments based on past experiences and background.[119]
Unit bias The standard suggested amount of consumption (e.g., food serving size) is perceived to be appropriate, and a person would consume it all even if it is too much for this particular person.[120]
Value selection bias The tendency to rely on existing numerical data when reasoning in an unfamiliar context, even if calculation or numerical manipulation is required. [121][122]
Weber–Fechner law Difficulty in comparing small differences in large quantities.
Women are wonderful effect A tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.

Association fallacy
Main article: Association fallacy

Association fallacies include:

  • Authority bias, the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure (unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.[123]
  • Cheerleader effect, the tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[124]
  • Halo effect, the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one personality area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).[125]

Attribution bias
Main article: Attribution bias

Attribution bias includes:

  • Actor-observer bias, the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality).
  • Defensive attribution hypothesis, a tendency to attribute more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe or as personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.
  • Extrinsic incentives bias, an exception to the fundamental attribution error, where people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself
  • Fundamental attribution error, the tendency for people to overemphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior[113] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[126]
  • Group attribution error, the biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.
  • Hostile attribution bias, the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign.[127]
  • Intentionality bias, the tendency to judge human action to be intentional rather than accidental.[128]
  • Just-world hypothesis, the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
  • Moral luck, the tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event.
  • Puritanical bias, the tendency to attribute cause of an undesirable outcome or wrongdoing by an individual to a moral deficiency or lack of self-control rather than taking into account the impact of broader societal determinants .[129]
  • Self-serving bias, the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).[130]
  • Ultimate attribution error, similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

Conformity
Main article: Conformity

Conformity is involved in the following:

  • Availability cascade, a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").[131] See also availability heuristic.
  • Bandwagon effect, the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[132]
  • Courtesy bias, the tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone.[133]
  • Groupthink, the psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
  • Groupshift, the tendency for decisions to be more risk-seeking or risk-averse than the group as a whole, if the group is already biased in that direction
  • Social desirability bias, the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in oneself and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[134] See also: § Courtesy bias.
  • Truth bias is people's inclination towards believing, to some degree, the communication of another person, regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or being untruthful.[135][136]

Ingroup bias
Main article: Ingroup bias

Ingroup bias is the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups. It is related to the following:

  • Not invented here, an aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group.
  • Outgroup homogeneity bias, where individuals see members of other groups as being relatively less varied than members of their own group.[137]

Other social biases
Name Description
Assumed similarity bias Where an individual assumes that others have more traits in common with them than those others actually do.[138]
Pygmalion effect The phenomenon whereby others' expectations of a target person affect the target person's performance.
Reactance The urge to do the opposite of what someone wants one to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain one's freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
Reactive devaluation Devaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with an adversary.
Social comparison bias The tendency, when making decisions, to favour potential candidates who do not compete with one's own particular strengths.[139]
Shared information bias The tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).[140]
Worse-than-average effect A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are difficult.[141]

Memory

In psychology and cognitive science, a memory bias is a cognitive bias that either enhances or impairs the recall of a memory (either the chances that the memory will be recalled at all, or the amount of time it takes for it to be recalled, or both), or that alters the content of a reported memory. There are many types of memory bias, including:

Misattribution of memory
Main article: Misattribution of memory
In psychology, the misattribution of memory or source misattribution is the misidentification of the origin of a memory by the person making the memory recall. Misattribution is likely to occur when individuals are unable to monitor and control the influence of their attitudes, toward their judgments, at the time of retrieval.[142] Misattribution is divided into three components: cryptomnesia, false memories, and source confusion. It was originally noted as one of Daniel Schacter's seven sins of memory.[143]

The misattributions include:

  • Cryptomnesia, where a memory is mistaken for novel thought or imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[144]
  • False memory, where imagination is mistaken for a memory.
  • Social cryptomnesia, a failure by people and society in general to remember the origin of a change, in which people know that a change has occurred in society, but forget how this change occurred; that is, the steps that were taken to bring this change about, and who took these steps. This has led to reduced social credit towards the minorities who made major sacrifices that led to a change in societal values.[145]
  • Source confusion, episodic memories are confused with other information, creating distorted memories.[146]
  • Suggestibility, where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
  • The Perky effect, where real images can influence imagined images, or be misremembered as imagined rather than real

Other memory biases
Name Description
Availability bias Greater likelihood of recalling recent, nearby, or otherwise immediately available examples, and the imputation of importance to those examples over others.
Bizarreness effect Bizarre material is better remembered than common material.
Boundary extension Remembering the background of an image as being larger or more expansive than the foreground [147]
Childhood amnesia The retention of few memories from before the age of four.
Choice-supportive bias The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.[148]
Confirmation bias The tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. See also under § Confirmation bias.
Conservatism or Regressive bias Tendency to remember high values and high likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies as lower than they actually were and low ones as higher than they actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough.[149][150]
Consistency bias Incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[151]
Continued influence effect Misinformation continues to influence memory and reasoning about an event, despite the misinformation having been corrected.[152] cf. misinformation effect, where the original memory is affected by incorrect information received later.
Context effect That cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out-of-context memories are more difficult to retrieve than in-context memories (e.g., recall time and accuracy for a work-related memory will be lower at home, and vice versa).
Cross-race effect The tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of a race other than their own.
Egocentric bias Recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as bigger than it really was.
Euphoric recall The tendency of people to remember past experiences in a positive light, while overlooking negative experiences associated with that event.
Fading affect bias A bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[153]
Generation effect (Self-generation effect) That self-generated information is remembered best. For instance, people are better able to recall memories of statements that they have generated than similar statements generated by others.
Gender differences in eyewitness memory The tendency for a witness to remember more details about someone of the same gender.
Google effect The tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.
Hindsight bias ("I-knew-it-all-along" effect) The inclination to see past events as having been predictable.
Humor effect That humorous items are more easily remembered than non-humorous ones, which might be explained by the distinctiveness of humor, the increased cognitive processing time to understand the humor, or the emotional arousal caused by the humor.[154]
Illusory correlation Inaccurately seeing a relationship between two events related by coincidence.[155] See also under Apophenia § Notes
Illusory truth effect (Illusion-of-truth effect) People are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one. See also under Truthiness § Notes
Lag effect The phenomenon whereby learning is greater when studying is spread out over time, as opposed to studying the same amount of time in a single session. See also spacing effect.
Leveling and sharpening Memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection over time, often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of certain details that take on exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of the experience lost through leveling. Both biases may be reinforced over time, and by repeated recollection or re-telling of a memory.[156]
Levels-of-processing effect That different methods of encoding information into memory have different levels of effectiveness.[157]
List-length effect A smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the length of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases as well.[158]
Memory inhibition Being shown some items from a list makes it harder to retrieve the other items (e.g., Slamecka, 1968).
Misinformation effect Memory becoming less accurate because of interference from post-event information.[159] cf. continued influence effect, where misinformation about an event, despite later being corrected, continues to influence memory about the event.
Modality effect That memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when the list items were received via speech than when they were received through writing.
Mood-congruent memory bias (state-dependent memory) The improved recall of information congruent with one's current mood.
Negativity bias or Negativity effect Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[160][113] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[126]
Next-in-line effect When taking turns speaking in a group using a predetermined order (e.g. going clockwise around a room, taking numbers, etc.) people tend to have diminished recall for the words of the person who spoke immediately before them.[161]
Part-list cueing effect That being shown some items from a list and later retrieving one item causes it to become harder to retrieve the other items.[162]
Peak–end rule That people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average of how it was at its peak (e.g., pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended.
Persistence The unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.
Picture superiority effect The notion that concepts that are learned by viewing pictures are more easily and frequently recalled than are concepts that are learned by viewing their written word form counterparts.[163][164][165][166][167][168]
Placement bias Tendency to remember ourselves to be better than others at tasks at which we rate ourselves above average (also Illusory superiority or Better-than-average effect)[169] and tendency to remember ourselves to be worse than others at tasks at which we rate ourselves below average (also Worse-than-average effect).[170]
Positivity effect (Socioemotional selectivity theory) That older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories. See also euphoric recall
Primacy effect Where an item at the beginning of a list is more easily recalled. A form of serial position effect. See also recency effect and suffix effect.
Processing difficulty effect That information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[171] See also levels-of-processing effect.
Recency effect A form of serial position effect where an item at the end of a list is easier to recall. This can be disrupted by the suffix effect. See also primacy effect.
Reminiscence bump The recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods.[172]
Repetition blindness Unexpected difficulty in remembering more than one instance of a visual sequence
Rosy retrospection The remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
Saying is believing effect Communicating a socially tuned message to an audience can lead to a bias of identifying the tuned message as one's own thoughts.[173]
Self-relevance effect That memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar information relating to others.
Serial position effect That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to recall, followed by the items at the beginning of a sequence; items in the middle are the least likely to be remembered.[174] See also recency effect, primacy effect and suffix effect.
Spacing effect That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a long span of time rather than a short one.
Spotlight effect The tendency to overestimate the amount that other people notice one's appearance or behavior.
Stereotype bias or stereotypical bias Memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender).
Suffix effect Diminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the list that the subject is not required to recall.[175][176] A form of serial position effect. Cf. recency effect and primacy effect.
Subadditivity effect The tendency to estimate that the likelihood of a remembered event is less than the sum of its (more than two) mutually exclusive components.[177]
Tachypsychia When time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts.[178]
Telescoping effect The tendency to displace recent events backwards in time and remote events forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events, more recent.
Testing effect The fact that one more easily recall information one has read by rewriting it instead of rereading it.[179] Frequent testing of material that has been committed to memory improves memory recall.
Tip of the tongue phenomenon When a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information, but is frustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought to be an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[144]
Travis syndrome Overestimating the significance of the present.[180] It is related to chronological snobbery with possibly an appeal to novelty logical fallacy being part of the bias.
Verbatim effect That the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim wording.[181] This is because memories are representations, not exact copies.
von Restorff effect That an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items.[182]
Zeigarnik effect That uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.

See also

Footnotes
  1. Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW (2005). "The evolution of cognitive bias" (PDF). In Buss DM (ed.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.
  2. "Cognitive Bias – Association for Psychological Science". www.psychologicalscience.org. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  3. Thomas O (2018-01-19). "Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: What do we know and where do we go from here?". Management Review Quarterly. 68 (2): 107–143. doi:10.1007/s11301-018-0135-9. ISSN 2198-1620. S2CID 148611312.
  4. Dougherty MR, Gettys CF, Ogden EE (1999). "MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood" (PDF). Psychological Review. 106 (1): 180–209. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.180.
  5. Hilbert M (March 2012). "Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making". Psychological Bulletin. 138 (2): 211–37. doi:10.1037/a0025940. PMID 22122235.
  6. Gigerenzer G (2006). "Bounded and Rational". In Stainton RJ (ed.). Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Blackwell. p. 129. ISBN 978-1405113045.
  7. MacCoun RJ (1998). "Biases in the interpretation and use of research results" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 49 (1): 259–287. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259. PMID 15012470.
  8. Nickerson RS (1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 2 (2): 175–220 [198]. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175. S2CID 8508954.
  9. Dardenne B, Leyens JP (1995). "Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (11): 1229–1239. doi:10.1177/01461672952111011. S2CID 146709087.
  10. Alexander WH, Brown JW (June 2010). "Hyperbolically discounted temporal difference learning". Neural Computation. 22 (6): 1511–1527. doi:10.1162/neco.2010.08-09-1080. PMC 3005720. PMID 20100071.
  11. Zhang Y, Lewis M, Pellon M, Coleman P (2007). A Preliminary Research on Modeling Cognitive Agents for Social Environments in Multi-Agent Systems (PDF). 2007 AAAI Fall Symposium: Emergent agents and socialities: Social and organizational aspects of intelligence. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 116–123.
  12. Iverson GL, Brooks BL, Holdnack JA (2008). "Misdiagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in Forensic Neuropsychology". In Heilbronner RL (ed.). Neuropsychology in the Courtroom: Expert Analysis of Reports and Testimony. New York: Guilford Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-1593856342.
  13. Kim M, Daniel JL (2020-01-02). "Common Source Bias, Key Informants, and Survey-Administrative Linked Data for Nonprofit Management Research". Public Performance & Management Review. 43 (1): 232–256. doi:10.1080/15309576.2019.1657915. ISSN 1530-9576. S2CID 203468837. Retrieved 23 June 2021.
  14. DuCharme WW (1970). "Response bias explanation of conservative human inference". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 85 (1): 66–74. doi:10.1037/h0029546. hdl:2060/19700009379.
  15. Edwards W (1968). "Conservatism in human information processing". In Kleinmuntz B (ed.). Formal representation of human judgment. New York: Wiley. pp. 17–52.
  16. "The Psychology Guide: What Does Functional Fixedness Mean?". PsycholoGenie. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  17. Carroll RT. "apophenia". The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved 17 July 2017.
  18. Tversky A, Kahneman D (September 1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 143452957.
  19. Fiedler K (1991). "The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (1): 24–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.24.
  20. Schwarz N, Bless H, Strack F, Klumpp G, Rittenauer-Schatka H, Simons A (1991). "Ease of Retrieval as Information: Another Look at the Availability Heuristic" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 February 2014. Retrieved 19 Oct 2014.
  21. Coley JD, Tanner KD (2012). "Common origins of diverse misconceptions: cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking". CBE: Life Sciences Education. 11 (3): 209–215. doi:10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074. PMC 3433289. PMID 22949417.
  22. "The Real Reason We Dress Pets Like People". LiveScience.com. 3 March 2010. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
  23. Harris LT, Fiske ST (January 2011). "Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?". Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 219 (3): 175–181. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000065. PMC 3915417. PMID 24511459.
  24. Bar-Haim Y, Lamy D, Pergamin L, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH (January 2007). "Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study". Psychological Bulletin. 133 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.1. PMID 17201568. S2CID 2861872.
  25. Zwicky A (2005-08-07). "Just Between Dr. Language and I". Language Log.
  26. Bellows A (March 2006). "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon". Damn Interesting. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
  27. Kershner K (20 March 2015). "What's the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon?". howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 15 April 2018.
  28. "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon? Or: The Joy Of Juxtaposition?". twincities.com. St. Paul Pioneer Press. 23 February 2007. Retrieved October 20, 2020. As you might guess, the phenomenon is named after an incident in which I was talking to a friend about the Baader-Meinhof gang (and this was many years after they were in the news). The next day, my friend phoned me and referred me to an article in that day's newspaper in which the Baader-Meinhof gang was mentioned.
  29. Michael I. Norton, Daniel Mochon, Dan Ariely (2011). The "IKEA Effect": When Labor Leads to Love. Harvard Business School
  30. Lebowitz S (2 December 2016). "Harness the power of the 'Ben Franklin Effect' to get someone to like you". Business Insider. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  31. Oswald ME, Grosjean S (2004). "Confirmation Bias". In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 79–96. ISBN 978-1841693514. OCLC 55124398 – via archive.org.
  32. Sanna LJ, Schwarz N, Stocker SL (2002). "When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 28 (3): 497–502. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.387.5964. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.497. ISSN 0278-7393. PMID 12018501.
  33. Jeng M (2006). "A selected history of expectation bias in physics". American Journal of Physics. 74 (7): 578–583. arXiv:physics/0508199. Bibcode:2006AmJPh..74..578J. doi:10.1119/1.2186333. S2CID 119491123.
  34. Schacter DL, Gilbert DT, Wegner DM (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). Macmillan. p. 254. ISBN 978-1429237192.
  35. Pronin E, Kugler MB (July 2007). "Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43 (4): 565–578. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011. ISSN 0022-1031.
  36. Marks G, Miller N (1987). "Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review". Psychological Bulletin. 102 (1): 72–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72.
  37. "False Uniqueness Bias (Social PsychologyY) – IResearchNet". 2016-01-13.
  38. "The Barnum Demonstration". psych.fullerton.edu. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  39. Pronin E, Kruger J, Savitsky K, Ross L (October 2001). "You don't know me, but I know you: the illusion of asymmetric insight". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (4): 639–656. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.639. PMID 11642351.
  40. Thompson SC (1999). "Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 8 (6): 187–190. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00044. ISSN 0963-7214. JSTOR 20182602. S2CID 145714398.
  41. Dierkes M, Antal AB, Child J, Nonaka I (2003). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0198295822. Retrieved 9 September 2013.
  42. Hoorens V (1993). "Self-enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison". European Review of Social Psychology. 4 (1): 113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040.
  43. Adams PA, Adams JK (December 1960). "Confidence in the recognition and reproduction of words difficult to spell". The American Journal of Psychology. 73 (4): 544–552. doi:10.2307/1419942. JSTOR 1419942. PMID 13681411.
  44. Hoffrage U (2004). "Overconfidence". In Pohl R (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1841693514.
  45. Sutherland 2007, pp. 172–178
  46. Sanna LJ, Schwarz N (July 2004). "Integrating temporal biases: the interplay of focal thoughts and accessibility experiences". Psychological Science. 15 (7): 474–481. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00704.x. PMID 15200632. S2CID 10998751.
  47. Baron 1994, pp. 224–228
  48. Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mayorga M, Peters E (18 June 2014). "Compassion fade: affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need". PLOS ONE. 9 (6): e100115. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j0115V. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100115. PMC 4062481. PMID 24940738.
  49. Fisk JE (2004). "Conjunction fallacy". In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 23–42. ISBN 978-1841693514. OCLC 55124398.
  50. Barbara L. Fredrickson and Daniel Kahneman (1993). Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65 (1) pp. 45–55. Archived 2017-08-08 at the Wayback Machine
  51. Laibson D (1997). "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting". Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112 (2): 443–477. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.337.3544. doi:10.1162/003355397555253. S2CID 763839.
  52. Baron 1994, p. 353
  53. Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC (2011). "Automation Bias – A Hidden Issue for Clinical Decision Support System Use". International Perspectives in Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Vol. 164. IOS Press. pp. 17–22. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-709-3-17.
  54. Tackling social norms: a game changer for gender inequalities (Gender Social Norms Index). 2020 Human Development Perspectives. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
  55. Bian L, Leslie SJ, Cimpian A (December 2018). "Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts that emphasize intellectual ability". The American Psychologist. 73 (9): 1139–1153. doi:10.1037/amp0000427. PMID 30525794.
  56. Hamilton MC (1991). "Masculine Bias in the Attribution of Personhood: People = Male, Male = People". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 15 (3): 393–402. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00415.x. ISSN 0361-6843. S2CID 143533483.
  57. Plous 1993, pp. 38–41
  58. "Evolution and cognitive biases: the decoy effect". FutureLearn. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  59. "The Default Effect: How to Leverage Bias and Influence Behavior". Influence at Work. 2012-01-11. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  60. Why We Spend Coins Faster Than Bills by Chana Joffe-Walt. All Things Considered, 12 May 2009.
  61. Hsee CK, Zhang J (May 2004). "Distinction bias: misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (5): 680–695. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.484.9171. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680. PMID 15161394.
  62. Mike K, Hazzan O (2022). "What Is Common to Transportation and Health in Machine Learning Education? The Domain Neglect Bias". IEEE Transactions on Education. 66 (3): 226–233. doi:10.1109/TE.2022.3218013. ISSN 0018-9359. S2CID 253402007.
  63. "Berkson's Paradox | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki". brilliant.org. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  64. Kristal AS, Santos LR, G.I. Joe Phenomena: Understanding the Limits of Metacognitive Awareness on Debiasing (PDF), Harvard Business School
  65. Investopedia Staff (2006-10-29). "Gambler's Fallacy/Monte Carlo Fallacy". Investopedia. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  66. Tuccio W (2011-01-01). "Heuristics to Improve Human Factors Performance in Aviation". Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research. 20 (3). doi:10.15394/jaaer.2011.1640. ISSN 2329-258X.
  67. Baron, J. (in preparation). Thinking and Deciding, 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Baron 1994, p. 372
  69. de Meza D, Dawson C (January 24, 2018). "Wishful Thinking, Prudent Behavior: The Evolutionary Origin of Optimism, Loss Aversion and Disappointment Aversion". SSRN 3108432.
  70. Dawson C, Johnson SG (8 April 2021). "Dread Aversion and Economic Preferences". SSRN 3822640.
  71. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Richard Thaler coined the term "endowment effect."
  72. (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Daniel Kahneman, together with Amos Tversky, coined the term "loss aversion."
  73. Hardman 2009, p. 137
  74. Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193
  75. Baron 1994, p. 382
  76. Kruger J, Dunning D (December 1999). "Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–1134. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367. S2CID 2109278.
  77. Van Boven L, Loewenstein G, Dunning D, Nordgren LF (2013). "Changing Places: A Dual Judgment Model of Empathy Gaps in Emotional Perspective Taking" (PDF). In Zanna MP, Olson JM (eds.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 48. Academic Press. pp. 117–171. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-407188-9.00003-X. ISBN 978-0124071889. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-05-28.
  78. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1977). "Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 20 (2): 159–183. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0.
  79. Merkle EC (February 2009). "The disutility of the hard-easy effect in choice confidence". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 16 (1): 204–213. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.204. PMID 19145033.
  80. Juslin P, Winman A, Olsson H (April 2000). "Naive empiricism and dogmatism in confidence research: a critical examination of the hard-easy effect". Psychological Review. 107 (2): 384–396. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.384. PMID 10789203.
  81. Waytz A (26 January 2022). "2017 : What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?". Edge.org. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  82. Rozenblit L, Keil F (September 2002). "The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth". Cognitive Science. Wiley. 26 (5): 521–562. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1. PMC 3062901. PMID 21442007.
  83. Mills CM, Keil FC (January 2004). "Knowing the limits of one's understanding: the development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Elsevier BV. 87 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.09.003. PMID 14698687.
  84. "Imposter Syndrome | Psychology Today".
  85. "Objectivity illusion". APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved 2022-01-15.
  86. Klauer KC, Musch J, Naumer B (October 2000). "On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning". Psychological Review. 107 (4): 852–884. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852. PMID 11089409.
  87. "Why do we prefer doing something to doing nothing". The Decision Lab. 30 September 2021. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  88. Patt A, Zeckhauser R (July 2000). "Action Bias and Environmental Decisions". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 21: 45–72. doi:10.1023/A:1026517309871. S2CID 154662174. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  89. Gupta S (7 April 2021). "People add by default even when subtraction makes more sense". Science News. Retrieved 10 May 2021.
  90. Adams GS, Converse BA, Hales AH, Klotz LE (April 2021). "People systematically overlook subtractive changes". Nature. 592 (7853): 258–261. Bibcode:2021Natur.592..258A. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y. PMID 33828317. S2CID 233185662.
  91. Ackerman MS, ed. (2003). Sharing expertise beyond knowledge management (online ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0262011952.
  92. Quartz SR, The State Of The World Isn't Nearly As Bad As You Think, Edge Foundation, Inc., retrieved 2016-02-17
  93. Quoidbach J, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD (January 2013). "The end of history illusion" (PDF). Science. 339 (6115): 96–98. Bibcode:2013Sci...339...96Q. doi:10.1126/science.1229294. PMID 23288539. S2CID 39240210. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-13. Young people, middle-aged people, and older people all believed they had changed a lot in the past but would change relatively little in the future.
  94. Haring KS, Watanabe K, Velonaki M, Tossell CC, Finomore V (2018). "FFAB-The Form Function Attribution Bias in Human Robot Interaction". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 10 (4): 843–851. doi:10.1109/TCDS.2018.2851569. S2CID 54459747.
  95. Kara-Yakoubian M (2022-07-29). "Psychologists uncover evidence of a fundamental pain bias". PsyPost. Retrieved 2022-11-27.
  96. Pohl RF (2004). "Hindsight Bias". In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 363–378. ISBN 978-1841693514. OCLC 55124398.
  97. Baron 1994, pp. 258–259
  98. Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (April 2011). "Extraneous factors in judicial decisions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (17): 6889–6892. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.6889D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018033108. PMC 3084045. PMID 21482790.
  99. Zaman J, De Peuter S, Van Diest I, Van den Bergh O, Vlaeyen JW (November 2016). "Interoceptive cues predicting exteroceptive events". International Journal of Psychophysiology. 109: 100–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.09.003. PMID 27616473.
  100. Barrett LF, Simmons WK (July 2015). "Interoceptive predictions in the brain". Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 16 (7): 419–429. doi:10.1038/nrn3950. PMC 4731102. PMID 26016744.
  101. Damasio AR (October 1996). "The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 351 (1346): 1413–1420. doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0125. PMID 8941953. S2CID 1841280.
  102. Shafir E, Diamond P, Tversky A (2000). "Money Illusion". In Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds.). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press. pp. 335–355. ISBN 978-0521627498.
  103. Marcatto F, Cosulich A, Ferrante D (2015). "Once bitten, twice shy: Experienced regret and non-adaptive choice switching". PeerJ. 3: e1035. doi:10.7717/peerj.1035. PMC 4476096. PMID 26157618.
  104. Bornstein RF, Crave-Lemley C (2004). "Mere exposure effect". In Pohl RF (ed.). Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 215–234. ISBN 978-1841693514. OCLC 55124398.
  105. Baron 1994, p. 386
  106. Baron 1994, p. 44
  107. Hardman 2009, p. 104
  108. O'Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999). "Doing it now or later". American Economic Review. 89 (1): 103–124. doi:10.1257/aer.89.1.103. S2CID 5115877.
  109. Balas B, Momsen JL (September 2014). Holt EA (ed.). "Attention "blinks" differently for plants and animals". CBE: Life Sciences Education. 13 (3): 437–443. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0080. PMC 4152205. PMID 25185227.
  110. Safi R, Browne GJ, Naini AJ (2021). "Mis-spending on information security measures: Theory and experimental evidence". International Journal of Information Management. 57 (102291): 102291. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102291. S2CID 232041220.
  111. Hsee CK, Hastie R (January 2006). "Decision and experience: why don't we choose what makes us happy?" (PDF). Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 10 (1): 31–37. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.178.7054. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.007. PMID 16318925. S2CID 12262319. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-04-20.
  112. Trofimova I (October 1999). "An investigation of how people of different age, sex, and temperament estimate the world". Psychological Reports. 85 (2): 533–552. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.533. PMID 10611787. S2CID 8335544.
  113. Trofimova I (2014). "Observer bias: an interaction of temperament traits with biases in the semantic perception of lexical material". PLOS ONE. 9 (1): e85677. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...985677T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085677. PMC 3903487. PMID 24475048.
  114. Leman PJ, Cinnirella M (2007). "A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories". Social Psychological Review. 9 (2): 18–28. doi:10.53841/bpsspr.2007.9.2.18. S2CID 245126866.
  115. Buckley T (2015). "Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?". Scientific American Mind. 26 (4): 72. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0715-72a. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  116. "Use Cognitive Biases to Your Advantage, Institute for Management Consultants, #721, December 19, 2011".
  117. Fiedler K, Unkelbach C (2014-10-01). "Regressive Judgment: Implications of a Universal Property of the Empirical World". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (5): 361–367. doi:10.1177/0963721414546330. ISSN 0963-7214. S2CID 146376950.
  118. Forsyth DR (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 317. ISBN 978-0495599524.
  119. "Unconscious Bias". Vanderbilt University. Retrieved 2020-11-09.
  120. "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable Amount To Eat". ScienceDaily (November 21, 2005)
  121. Talboy A, Schneider S (2022-03-17). "Reference Dependence in Bayesian Reasoning: Value Selection Bias, Congruence Effects, and Response Prompt Sensitivity". Frontiers in Psychology. 13: 729285. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.729285. PMC 8970303. PMID 35369253.
  122. Talboy AN, Schneider SL (December 2018). "Focusing on what matters: Restructuring the presentation of Bayesian reasoning problems". Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied. 24 (4): 440–458. doi:10.1037/xap0000187. PMID 30299128. S2CID 52943395.
  123. Milgram S (October 1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 67 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516. S2CID 18309531.
  124. Walker D, Vul E (January 2014). "Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive". Psychological Science. 25 (1): 230–235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969. PMID 24163333. S2CID 16309135.
  125. Baron 1994, p. 275
  126. Sutherland 2007, pp. 138–139
  127. Anderson KB, Graham LM (2007). "Hostile Attribution Bias". Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 446–447. doi:10.4135/9781412956253. ISBN 978-1412916707.
  128. Rosset E (2008-09-01). "It's no accident: Our bias for intentional explanations". Cognition. 108 (3): 771–780. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001. ISSN 0010-0277. PMID 18692779. S2CID 16559459.
  129. Kokkoris M (2020-01-16). "The Dark Side of Self-Control". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 17 January 2020.
  130. Plous 2006, p. 185
  131. Kuran T, Sunstein CR (1998). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation". Stanford Law Review. 51 (4): 683–768. doi:10.2307/1229439. JSTOR 1229439. S2CID 3941373.
  132. Colman A (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0192806321.
  133. Ciccarelli S, White J (2014). Psychology (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. p. 62. ISBN 978-0205973354.
  134. Dalton D, Ortegren M (2011). "Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias". Journal of Business Ethics. 103 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8. S2CID 144155599.
  135. McCornack S, Parks M (1986). "Deception Detection and Relationship Development: The Other Side of Trust". Annals of the International Communication Association. 9: 377–389. doi:10.1080/23808985.1986.11678616.
  136. Levine T (2014). "Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A Theory of Human Deception and Deception Detection". Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 33: 378–392. doi:10.1177/0261927X14535916. S2CID 146916525.
  137. Plous 2006, p. 206
  138. "Assumed similarity bias". APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved 2022-01-15.
  139. Garcia SM, Song H, Tesser A (November 2010). "Tainted recommendations: The social comparison bias". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 113 (2): 97–101. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.002. ISSN 0749-5978.
  140. Forsyth DR (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  141. Kruger J (August 1999). "Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (2): 221–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221. PMID 10474208.
  142. Payne BK, Cheng CM, Govorun O, Stewart BD (September 2005). "An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89 (3): 277–293. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.392.4775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277. PMID 16248714.
  143. Schacter DL (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  144. Schacter DL (March 1999). "The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience". The American Psychologist. 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182. PMID 10199218. S2CID 14882268.
  145. Butera F, Levine JM, Vernet J (August 2009). "Influence without credit: How successful minorities respond to social cryptomnesia". Coping with Minority Status. Cambridge University Press. pp. 311–332. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804465.015. ISBN 978-0511804465.
  146. Lieberman DA (2011). Human Learning and Memory. Cambridge University Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-1139502535.
  147. McDunn BA, Siddiqui AP, Brown JM (April 2014). "Seeking the boundary of boundary extension". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 21 (2): 370–375. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0494-0. PMID 23921509. S2CID 2876131.
  148. Mather M, Shafir E, Johnson MK (March 2000). "Misremembrance of options past: source monitoring and choice" (PDF). Psychological Science. 11 (2): 132–138. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00228. PMID 11273420. S2CID 2468289. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2009-01-17.
  149. Attneave F (August 1953). "Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 46 (2): 81–86. doi:10.1037/h0057955. PMID 13084849.
  150. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1977). "Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 3 (4): 552–564. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552. S2CID 54888532.
  151. Cacioppo J (2002). Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 130–132. ISBN 978-0262531955.
  152. Cacciatore MA (April 2021). "Misinformation and public opinion of science and health: Approaches, findings, and future directions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 118 (15): e1912437117. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11812437C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912437117. PMC 8053916. PMID 33837143. p. 4: The CIE refers to the tendency for information that is initially presented as true, but later revealed to be false, to continue to affect memory and reasoning
  153. Schmidt SR (July 1994). "Effects of humor on sentence memory" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 20 (4): 953–967. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.953. PMID 8064254. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-15. Retrieved 2015-04-19.
  154. Schmidt SR (2003). "Life Is Pleasant – and Memory Helps to Keep It That Way!" (PDF). Review of General Psychology. 7 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203. S2CID 43179740.
  155. Fiedler K (1991). "The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (1): 24–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.24.
  156. Koriat A, Goldsmith M, Pansky A (2000). "Toward a psychology of memory accuracy". Annual Review of Psychology. 51 (1): 481–537. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481. PMID 10751979.
  157. Craik & Lockhart, 1972
  158. Kinnell A, Dennis S (February 2011). "The list length effect in recognition memory: an analysis of potential confounds". Memory & Cognition. 39 (2): 348–63. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0007-6. PMID 21264573.
  159. Weiten W (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Cengage Learning. p. 338. ISBN 978-0495601975.
  160. Haizlip J, May N, Schorling J, Williams A, Plews-Ogan M (September 2012). "Perspective: the negativity bias, medical education, and the culture of academic medicine: why culture change is hard". Academic Medicine. 87 (9): 1205–1209. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182628f03. PMID 22836850.
  161. Weiten W (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations. Cengage Learning. p. 260. ISBN 978-0495093039.
  162. Slamecka NJ (April 1968). "An examination of trace storage in free recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 76 (4): 504–513. doi:10.1037/h0025695. PMID 5650563.
  163. Shepard RN (1967). "Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures". Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior. 6: 156–163. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7.
  164. McBride DM, Dosher BA (2002). "A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis". Consciousness and Cognition. 11 (3): 423–460. doi:10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00007-7. PMID 12435377. S2CID 2813053.
  165. Defetyer MA, Russo R, McPartlin PL (2009). "The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: a developmental study using the response signal procedure". Cognitive Development. 24 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002.
  166. Whitehouse AJ, Maybery MT, Durkin K (2006). "The development of the picture-superiority effect". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 24 (4): 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153.
  167. Ally BA, Gold CA, Budson AE (January 2009). "The picture superiority effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment". Neuropsychologia. 47 (2): 595–598. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010. PMC 2763351. PMID 18992266.
  168. Curran T, Doyle J (May 2011). "Picture superiority doubly dissociates the ERP correlates of recollection and familiarity". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 23 (5): 1247–1262. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21464. PMID 20350169. S2CID 6568038.
  169. Kruger J, Dunning D (December 1999). "Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–1134. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367. S2CID 2109278.
  170. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(2),
  171. O'Brien EJ, Myers JL (1985). "When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 11 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.12. S2CID 199928680.
  172. Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal & Poon, 1998
  173. Liang, Tingchang; Lin, Zhao; Souma, Toshihiko (2021). "How Group Perception Affects What People Share and How People Feel: The Role of Entitativity and Epistemic Trust in the "Saying-Is-Believing" Effect". Frontiers in Psychology. 12: 728864. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728864. PMC 8494462. PMID 34630240.
  174. Martin GN, Carlson NR, Buskist W (2007). Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 309–310. ISBN 978-0273710868.
  175. Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971
  176. Pitt I, Edwards AD (2003). Design of Speech-Based Devices: A Practical Guide. Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978-1852334369.
  177. Tversky A, Koehler DJ (1994). "Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability" (PDF). Psychological Review. 101 (4): 547–567. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.547. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-01-09. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
  178. Stetson C, Fiesta MP, Eagleman DM (December 2007). "Does time really slow down during a frightening event?". PLOS ONE. 2 (12): e1295. Bibcode:2007PLoSO...2.1295S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001295. PMC 2110887. PMID 18074019.
  179. Goldstein ED (2010-06-21). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning. p. 231. ISBN 978-1133009122.
  180. "Not everyone is in such awe of the internet". Evening Standard. 2011-03-23. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
  181. Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006
  182. Von Restorff H (1933). "Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld (The effects of field formation in the trace field)"". Psychological Research. 18 (1): 299–342. doi:10.1007/bf02409636. S2CID 145479042.

References
  • Baron J (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521437325.
  • Hardman D (2009). Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405123983.
  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991). "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1): 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193.
  • Plous S (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0070504776.
  • Sutherland S (2007). Irrationality. Pinter & Martin. ISBN 978-1905177073.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.