Saturday, 6 June 2015

List of cognitive biases

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of a collection of articles which has a direct, or indirect relevance for the development of the UDP. Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Universal_Debating_Project 
Jump to: navigation, search
Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics.
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[1] Some are effects of information-processing rules (i.e. mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Such effects are called cognitive biases.[2][3] Biases in judgment or decision-making can also result from motivation, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Some biases have a variety of cognitive ("cold") or motivational ("hot") explanations. Both effects can be present at the same time.[4][5]
There are also controversies as to whether some of these biases count as truly 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. This kind of confirmation bias has been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[6]
The research on these biases overwhelmingly involves human subjects. However, some of the findings have appeared in non-human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has also been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[7]


Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases[edit]

Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human behavior in general. They arise as a replicable result to a specific condition: when confronted with a specific situation, the deviation from what is normally expected can be characterized by:
NameDescription
Ambiguity effectThe tendency to avoid options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown".[8]
Anchoring or focalismThe tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor", on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information that we acquire on that subject)[9][10]
Attentional biasThe tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring thoughts.[11]
Automation biasThe tendency to excessively depend on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[12]
Availability heuristicThe 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.[13]
Availability cascadeA 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").[14]
Backfire effectWhen people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening their beliefs.[15]
Bandwagon effectThe tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[16]
Base rate fallacy or base rate neglectThe tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) and focus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).[17]
Belief biasAn effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.[18]
Bias blind spotThe tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[19]
Cheerleader effectThe tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[20]
Choice-supportive biasThe tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.[21]
Clustering illusionThe tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).[10]
Confirmation biasThe tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[22]
Congruence biasThe tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.[10]
Conjunction fallacyThe tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.[23]
Conservatism or regressive biasA certain state of mind wherein high values and high likelihoods are overestimated while low values and low likelihoods are underestimated.[24][25][26][unreliable source?]
Conservatism (Bayesian)The tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence.[24][27][28]
Contrast effectThe enhancement or reduction of a certain perception's stimuli when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.[29]
Curse of knowledgeWhen better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people.[30]
Decoy effectPreferences for either option A or B changes in favor of option B when option C is presented, which is similar to option B but in no way better.
Denomination effectThe tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g. bills).[31]
Distinction biasThe tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[32]
Dunning-Kruger effectThe tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their ability.[33]
Duration neglectThe neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value
Empathy gapThe tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others.
Endowment effectThe fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[34]
EssentialismCategorizing people and things according to their essential nature, in spite of variations.[dubious – discuss][35]
Exaggerated expectationBased on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of the conservatism bias).[unreliable source?][24][36]
Experimenter's or expectation biasThe 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.[37]
Focusing effectThe tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.[38]
Forer effect or Barnum effectThe observation that individuals will 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.
Framing effectDrawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.
Frequency illusionThe illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (not to be confused with the recency illusion or selection bias).[39] Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.[40]
Functional fixednessLimits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.
Gambler's fallacyThe tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results 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."
Hard–easy effectBased on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in judgments is too conservative and not extreme enough[24][41][42][43]
Hindsight biasSometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable[44] at the time those events happened.
Hot-hand fallacyThe "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
Hyperbolic discountingDiscounting 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.[45] Also known as current moment bias, present-bias, and related to Dynamic inconsistency.
Identifiable victim effectThe tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified person at risk than to a large group of people at risk.[46]
IKEA effectThe 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 result.
Illusion of controlThe tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.[47]
Illusion of validityBelief that furtherly acquired information generates additional relevant data for predictions, even when it evidently does not.[48]
Illusory correlationInaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.[49][50]
Impact biasThe tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.[51]
Information biasThe tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[52]
Insensitivity to sample sizeThe tendency to under-expect variation in small samples
Irrational escalationThe phenomenon where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. Also known as the sunk cost fallacy.
Less-is-better effectThe tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not jointly
Loss aversion"the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".[53] (see also Sunk cost effects and endowment effect).
Mere exposure effectThe tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.[54]
Money illusionThe tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[55]
Moral credential effectThe tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Negativity effectThe tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person they dislike, to attribute their positive behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to the person's inherent nature.
Negativity biasPsychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[56]
Neglect of probabilityThe tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.[57]
Normalcy biasThe refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Not invented hereAversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group. Related to IKEA effect.
Observer-expectancy effectWhen 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).
Omission biasThe tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).[58]
Optimism biasThe tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence effect, positive outcome bias).[59][60]
Ostrich effectIgnoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Outcome biasThe tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Overconfidence effectExcessive 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.[24][61][62][63]
PareidoliaA vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism biasThe tendency for some people, especially those suffering from depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them.
Planning fallacyThe tendency to underestimate task-completion times.[51]
Post-purchase rationalizationThe tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pro-innovation biasThe tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an invention or innovation's usefulness throughout society, while often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses.
Pseudocertainty effectThe tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[64]
ReactanceThe urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
Reactive devaluationDevaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with an adversary.
Recency illusionThe illusion that a word or language usage is a recent innovation when it is in fact long-established (see also frequency illusion).
Restraint biasThe tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effectRhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the defense's use of the phrase "If the gloves don't fit, then you must acquit."
Risk compensation / Peltzman effectThe tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Selective perceptionThe tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflexThe tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[28]
Social comparison biasThe tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour potential candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths.[65]
Social desirability biasThe tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in one self and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[66]
Status quo biasThe tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).[67][68]
StereotypingExpecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effectThe tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.[69]
Subjective validationPerception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
Survivorship biasConcentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn't because of their lack of visibility.
Time-saving biasUnderestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed and overestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost) when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
Unit biasThe tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an item. Strong effects on the consumption of food in particular.[70]
Well travelled road effectUnderestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
Zero-risk biasPreference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Zero-sum heuristicIntuitively judging a situation to be zero-sum (i.e., that gains and losses are correlated). Derives from the zero-sum game in game theory, where wins and losses sum to zero.[71][72] The frequency with which this bias occurs may be related to the social dominance orientation personality factor.

Social biases[edit]

Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.
NameDescription
Actor–observer biasThe 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 hypothesisAttributing more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe or as personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.
Egocentric biasOccurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would credit them with.
Extrinsic incentives biasAn exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself
False consensus effectThe tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.[73]
Forer effect (aka Barnum effect)The tendency 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. For example, horoscopes.
Fundamental attribution errorThe tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[74]
Group attribution errorThe 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.
Halo effectThe 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).[75]
Illusion of asymmetric insightPeople perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.[76]
Illusion of external agencyWhen people view self-generated preferences as instead being caused by insightful, effective and benevolent agents
Illusion of transparencyPeople overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
Illusory superiorityOverestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-average effect", or "superiority bias".)[77]
Ingroup biasThe tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
Just-world hypothesisThe 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 luckThe tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event
Naïve cynicismExpecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself
Naïve realismThe 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 don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.
Outgroup homogeneity biasIndividuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.[78]
Projection biasThe tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one's future selves) share one's current emotional states, thoughts and values.[79]
Self-serving biasThe 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).[80]
Shared information biasKnown as 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).[81]
System justificationThe 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. (See also status quo bias.)
Trait ascription biasThe tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
Ultimate attribution errorSimilar 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.
Worse-than-average effectA tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are difficult[82]

Memory errors and biases[edit]

Main article: List of memory biases
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:
NameDescription
Bizarreness effectBizarre material is better remembered than common material.
Choice-supportive biasIn a self-justifying manner retroactively ascribing one's choices to be more informed than they were when they were made.
Change biasAfter an investment of effort in producing change, remembering one's past performance as more difficult than it actually was[83][unreliable source?]
Childhood amnesiaThe retention of few memories from before the age of four.
Conservatism or Regressive biasTendency 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[25][26]
Consistency biasIncorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[84]
Context effectThat 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 effectThe tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of a race other than their own.
CryptomnesiaA form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[83]
Egocentric biasRecalling 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.
Fading affect biasA bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[85]
False memoryA form of misattribution where imagination is mistaken for a memory.
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.
Google effectThe tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.
Hindsight biasThe inclination to see past events as being more predictable than they actually were; also called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect.
Humor effectThat 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.[86]
Illusion of truth effectThat 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.
Illusory correlationInaccurately remembering a relationship between two events.[24][50]
Lag effectSee spacing effect.
Leveling and SharpeningMemory 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.[87]
Levels-of-processing effectThat different methods of encoding information into memory have different levels of effectiveness.[88]
List-length effectA 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.[89][further explanation needed]
Misinformation effectMemory becoming less accurate because of interference from post-event information.[90]
Modality effectThat 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 biasThe improved recall of information congruent with one's current mood.
Next-in-line effectThat a person in a group has diminished recall for the words of others who spoke immediately before himself, if they take turns speaking.[91]
Part-list cueing effectThat being shown some items from a list and later retrieving one item causes it to become harder to retrieve the other items[92]
Peak–end ruleThat 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.
PersistenceThe unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.[citation needed]
Picture superiority effectThe 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.[93][94][95][96][97][98]
Positivity effectThat older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
Primacy effect, Recency effect & Serial position effectThat 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.[99]
Processing difficulty effectThat information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[100]
Reminiscence bumpThe recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods[101]
Rosy retrospectionThe remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
Self-relevance effectThat memories relating to the self are better recalled than similar information relating to others.
Source confusionConfusing episodic memories with other information, creating distorted memories.[102]
Spacing effectThat information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a long span of time rather than a short one.
Spotlight effectThe tendency to overestimate the amount that other people notice your appearance or behavior.
Stereotypical biasMemory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender), e.g., "black-sounding" names being misremembered as names of criminals.[83][unreliable source?]
Suffix effectDiminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the list that the subject is not required to recall.[103][104]
SuggestibilityA form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
Telescoping effectThe tendency to displace recent events backward in time and remote events forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events, more recent.
Testing effectThe fact that you more easily remember information you have read by rewriting it instead of rereading it.[105]
Tip of the tongue phenomenonWhen 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 an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[83]
Verbatim effectThat the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim wording.[106] This is because memories are representations, not exact copies.
Von Restorff effectThat an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items[107]
Zeigarnik effectThat uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.

Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases[edit]

A 2012 Psychological Bulletin article suggested that at least eight seemingly unrelated biases can be produced by the same information-theoretic generative mechanism that assumes noisy information processing during storage and retrieval of information in human memory.[24]

See also[edit]

Portal iconPsychology portal
Portal iconSociology portal
Portal iconThinking portal
Portal iconLogic portal

Notes[edit]

  1. Jump up ^ Dougherty, M. R. P.; Gettys, C. F.; Ogden, E. E. (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. 
  2. Jump up ^ Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. (1972). "Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness". Cognitive Psychology 3: 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3. 
  3. Jump up ^ Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed. ed.). New York City: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139466028. 
  4. Jump up ^ Maccoun, Robert J. (1998). "Biases in the interpretation and use of research results" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology 49 (1): 259–87. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259. PMID 15012470. 
  5. Jump up ^ Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises" (PDF). Review of General Psychology (Educational Publishing Foundation) 2 (2): 175–220 [198]. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175. ISSN 1089-2680. 
  6. Jump up ^ Dardenne, Benoit; Leyens, Jacques-Philippe (1995). "Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Society for Personality and Social Psychology) 21 (11): 1229–1239. doi:10.1177/01461672952111011. ISSN 1552-7433. 
  7. Jump up ^ Alexander, William H.; Brown, Joshua W. (1 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. 
  8. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 372
  9. Jump up ^ Zhang, Yu; Lewis, Mark; Pellon, Michael; Coleman, Phillip (2007). "A Preliminary Research on Modeling Cognitive Agents for Social Environments in Multi-Agent Systems" (PDF). pp. 116–123. 
  10. ^ Jump up to: a b c Iverson, Grant; Brooks, Brian; Holdnack, James (2008). "Misdiagnosis of Cognitive Impairment in Forensic Neuropsychology". In Heilbronner, Robert L. Neuropsychology in the Courtroom: Expert Analysis of Reports and Testimony. New York: Guilford Press. p. 248. ISBN 9781593856342. 
  11. Jump up ^ (Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and non-anxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin.
  12. Jump up ^ Goddard, Kate; Roudsari, Abdul; Wyatt, Jeremy C. (2011). "Automation Bias – A Hidden Issue for Clinical Decision Support System Use." International Perspectives in Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-709-3-17
  13. Jump up ^ Schwarz, N.; Bless, Herbert; Strack, Fritz; Klumpp, G.; Rittenauer-Schatka, Helga; Simons, Annette (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. Retrieved 19 Oct 2014. 
  14. Jump up ^ Kuran, Timur; Cass R Sunstein (1998). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation". Stanford Law Review 51: 683. doi:10.2307/1229439. 
  15. Jump up ^ Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert; Stocker, Shevaun L. (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. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.497. ISSN 0278-7393. 
  16. Jump up ^ Colman, Andrew (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 0-19-280632-7. 
  17. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, pp. 224–228
  18. Jump up ^ Klauer, K. C.; Musch, J; Naumer, B (2000). "On belief bias in syllogistic reasoning". Psychological Review 107 (4): 852–884. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.852. PMID 11089409. 
  19. Jump up ^ Pronin, Emily; Matthew B. Kugler (July 2007). "Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Elsevier) 43 (4): 565–578. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011. ISSN 0022-1031. 
  20. Jump up ^ Walker, Drew; Vul, Edward (2013-10-25). "Hierarchical Encoding Makes Individuals in a Group Seem More Attractive". Psychological Science 20 (11): 230–235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969. 
  21. Jump up ^ Mather, M.; Shafir, E.; Johnson, M.K. (2000). "Misrememberance of options past: Source monitoring and choice" (PDF). Psychological Science 11 (2): 132–138. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00228. PMID 11273420. 
  22. Jump up ^ Oswald, Margit E.; Grosjean, Stefan (2004). "Confirmation Bias". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 79–96. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398. 
  23. Jump up ^ Fisk, John E. (2004). "Conjunction fallacy". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 23–42. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398. 
  24. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Martin Hilbert (2012) ""Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making"". Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211–237; Also at http://www.martinhilbert.net/HilbertPsychBull.pdf
  25. ^ Jump up to: a b Attneave, F. (1953). "Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency". Journal of Experimental Psychology 46 (2): 81–86. doi:10.1037/h0057955. PMID 13084849. 
  26. ^ Jump up to: a b 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. 
  27. Jump up ^ DuCharme, W. M. (1970). "Response bias explanation of conservative human inference". Journal of Experimental Psychology 85 (1): 66–74. doi:10.1037/h0029546. 
  28. ^ Jump up to: a b Edwards, W. (1968). "Conservatism in human information processing". In Kleinmuntz, B. Formal representation of human judgment. New York: Wiley. pp. 17–52. 
  29. Jump up ^ Plous 1993, pp. 38–41
  30. Jump up ^ Ackerman, Mark S., ed. (2003). Sharing expertise beyond knowledge management (online ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780262011952. 
  31. Jump up ^ Why We Spend Coins Faster Than Bills by Chana Joffe-Walt. All Things Considered, 12 May 2009.
  32. Jump up ^ Hsee, Christopher K.; Zhang, Jiao (2004). "Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (5): 680–695. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.680. PMID 15161394. 
  33. Jump up ^ Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (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): 1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367. CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.64.2655. 
  34. Jump up ^ (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Richard Thaler coined the term "endowment effect."
  35. Jump up ^ Maria Trochatos reviews The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought by Susan A. Gelman
  36. Jump up ^ Wagenaar, W. A.; Keren, G. B. (1985). "Calibration of probability assessments by professional blackjack dealers, statistical experts, and lay people". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36 (3): 406–416. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90008-1. 
  37. Jump up ^ Jeng, M. (2006). "A selected history of expectation bias in physics". American Journal of Physics 74 (7): 578–583. doi:10.1119/1.2186333. 
  38. Jump up ^ Kahneman, Daniel; Alan B. Krueger; David Schkade; Norbert Schwarz; Arthur A. Stone (2006-06-30). "Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion" (PDF). Science 312 (5782): 1908–10. doi:10.1126/science.1129688. PMID 16809528. 
  39. Jump up ^ Zwicky, Arnold (2005-08-07). "Just Between Dr. Language and I". Language Log. 
  40. Jump up ^ "There's a Name for That: The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon". psmag.com. Pacific Standard. 22 July 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2015. 
  41. Jump up ^ 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
  42. Jump up ^ Merkle, E. C. (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. 
  43. Jump up ^ Juslin, P; Winman, A.; Olsson, H. (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. 
  44. Jump up ^ Pohl, Rüdiger F. (2004). "Hindsight Bias". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 363–378. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398. 
  45. Jump up ^ Laibson, David (1997). "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting". Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 443–477. doi:10.1162/003355397555253. 
  46. Jump up ^ Kogut, Tehila; Ritov, Ilana (2005). "The 'Identified Victim' Effect: An Identified Group, or Just a Single Individual?" (PDF). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (Wiley InterScience) 18: 157–167. doi:10.1002/bdm.492. Retrieved August 15, 2013. 
  47. Jump up ^ Thompson, Suzanne C. (1999). "Illusions of Control: How We Overestimate Our Personal Influence". Current Directions in Psychological Science (Association for Psychological Science) 8 (6): 187–190. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00044. ISSN 0963-7214. JSTOR 20182602. 
  48. Jump up ^ Dierkes, Meinolf; Antal, Ariane Berthoin; Child, John; Ikujiro Nonaka (2003). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-19-829582-2. Retrieved 9 September 2013. 
  49. ^ Jump up to: a b c Tversky, Amos; Daniel Kahneman (September 27, 1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases". Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 185 (4157): 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. 
  50. ^ Jump up to: a b 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. 
  51. ^ Jump up to: a b Sanna, Lawrence J.; Schwarz, Norbert (2004). "Integrating Temporal Biases: The Interplay of Focal Thoughts and Accessibility Experiences". Psychological Science (American Psychological Society) 15 (7): 474–481. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00704.x. PMID 15200632. 
  52. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, pp. 258–259
  53. Jump up ^ (Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193) Daniel Kahneman, together with Amos Tversky, coined the term "loss aversion."
  54. Jump up ^ Bornstein, Robert F.; Crave-Lemley, Catherine (2004). "Mere exposure effect". In Pohl, Rüdiger F. Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. pp. 215–234. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. OCLC 55124398. 
  55. Jump up ^ Shafir, Eldar; Diamond, Peter; Tversky, Amos (2000). "Money Illusion". In Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press. pp. 335–355. ISBN 978-0-521-62749-8. 
  56. Jump up ^ Haizlip, Julie et al. "Perspective: The Negativity Bias, Medical Education, and the Culture of Academic Medicine: Why Culture Change Is Hard". Retrieved October 3, 2012. 
  57. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 353
  58. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 386
  59. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 44
  60. Jump up ^ Hardman 2009, p. 104
  61. Jump up ^ Adams, P. A., & Adams, J. K. (1960). Confidence in the recognition and reproduction of words difficult to spell. The American Journal of Psychology, 73(4), 544–552.
  62. Jump up ^ Hoffrage, Ulrich (2004). "Overconfidence". In Rüdiger Pohl. Cognitive Illusions: a handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-84169-351-4. 
  63. Jump up ^ Sutherland 2007, pp. 172–178
  64. Jump up ^ Hardman 2009, p. 137
  65. Jump up ^ Garcia, Stephen M.; Song, Hyunjin; Tesser, Abraham (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. Lay summary – BPS Research Digest (2010-10-30). 
  66. Jump up ^ 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. 
  67. Jump up ^ Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler 1991, p. 193
  68. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 382
  69. Jump up ^ Baron, J. (in preparation). Thinking and Deciding, 4th edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  70. Jump up ^ "Penn Psychologists Believe 'Unit Bias' Determines The Acceptable Amount To Eat". ScienceDaily (Nov. 21, 2005)
  71. Jump up ^ Meegan, Daniel V. (2010). "Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources". Frontiers in Psychology 1. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191. ISSN 1664-1078. 
  72. Jump up ^ Chernev, Alexander (2007). "Jack of All Trades or Master of One? Product Differentiation and Compensatory Reasoning in Consumer Choice". Journal of Consumer Research 33 (4): 430–444. doi:10.1086/510217. ISSN 0093-5301. 
  73. Jump up ^ Marks, Gary; Miller, Norman (1987). "Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review". Psychological Bulletin (American Psychological Association) 102 (1): 72–90. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72. 
  74. Jump up ^ Sutherland 2007, pp. 138–139
  75. Jump up ^ Baron 1994, p. 275
  76. Jump up ^ Pronin, E.; Kruger, J.; Savitsky, K.; Ross, L. (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. 
  77. Jump up ^ Hoorens, Vera (1993). "Self-enhancement and Superiority Biases in Social Comparison". European Review of Social Psychology (Psychology Press) 4 (1): 113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040. 
  78. Jump up ^ Plous 2006, p. 206
  79. Jump up ^ Hsee, Christopher K.; Hastie, Reid (2006). "Decision and experience: why don't we choose what makes us happy?". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (1): 31–37. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.007. PMID 16318925. 
  80. Jump up ^ Plous 2006, p. 185
  81. Jump up ^ Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  82. Jump up ^ 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): 221–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221. PMID 10474208. 
  83. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Schacter, Daniel L. (1999). "The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights From Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience". American Psychologist 54 (3): 182–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182. PMID 10199218. 
  84. Jump up ^ Cacioppo, John (2002). Foundations in social neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 130–132. ISBN 026253195X. 
  85. Jump up ^ Walker, W. Richard; John J. Skowronski; Charles P. Thompson (1994). "Effects of Humor on Sentence Memory" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (American Psychological Association, Inc.) 20 (4): 953–967. Retrieved 2015-04-19. 
  86. Jump up ^ Schmidt, Stephen R. (2003). "Life Is Pleasant—and Memory Helps to Keep It That Way!" (PDF). Review of General Psychology (Educational Publishing Foundation) 7 (2): 203–210. 
  87. Jump up ^ Koriat, A.; M. Goldsmith; A. Pansky (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. 
  88. Jump up ^ Craik & Lockhart, 1972
  89. Jump up ^ Kinnell, Angela; Dennis, S. (2011). "The list length effect in recognition memory: an analysis of potential confounds". Memory & Cognition (Adelaide, Australia: School of Psychology, University of Adelaide) 39 (2): 348–63. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0007-6. 
  90. Jump up ^ Wayne Weiten (2010). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes and Variations. Cengage Learning. p. 338. ISBN 978-0-495-60197-5. 
  91. Jump up ^ Wayne Weiten (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations: Themes And Variations. Cengage Learning. p. 260. ISBN 978-0-495-09303-9. 
  92. Jump up ^ Slamecka NJ (1968). "An examination of trace storage in free recall". J Exp Psychol 76 (4): 504–13. doi:10.1037/h0025695. PMID 5650563. 
  93. Jump up ^ Shepard, R.N. (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. 
  94. Jump up ^ McBride, D. M.; Dosher, B.A. (2002). "A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: a process dissociation analysis". Consciousness and Cognition 11: 423–460. doi:10.1016/s1053-8100(02)00007-7. 
  95. Jump up ^ Defetyer, M. A.; Russo, R.; McPartlin, P. L. (2009). "The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: a developmental study using the response signal procedure". Cognitive Development 24: 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002. 
  96. Jump up ^ Whitehouse, A. J.; Maybery, M.T.; Durkin, K. (2006). "The development of the picture-superiority effect". British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24: 767–773. doi:10.1348/026151005X74153. 
  97. Jump up ^ Ally, B. A.; Gold, C. A.; Budson, A. E. (2009). "The picture superiority effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment". Neuropsychologia 47: 595–598. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.010. 
  98. Jump up ^ Curran, T.; Doyle, J. (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. 
  99. Jump up ^ Martin, G. Neil; Neil R. Carlson; William Buskist (2007). Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 309–310. ISBN 978-0-273-71086-8. 
  100. Jump up ^ "When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text." O'Brien, Edward J.; Myers, Jerome L. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 11(1), Jan 1985, 12–21. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.12
  101. Jump up ^ Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal & Poon, 1998
  102. Jump up ^ David A. Lieberman (8 December 2011). Human Learning and Memory. Cambridge University Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-1-139-50253-5. 
  103. Jump up ^ Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971
  104. Jump up ^ Ian Pitt; Alistair D. N. Edwards (2003). Design of Speech-Based Devices: A Practical Guide. Springer. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85233-436-9. 
  105. Jump up ^ E. Bruce Goldstein. Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-133-00912-2. 
  106. Jump up ^ Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006
  107. Jump up ^ 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. 
  108. Jump up ^ Kahneman, Daniel; Shane Frederick (2002). "Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment". In Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 49–81. ISBN 978-0-521-79679-8. OCLC 47364085. 
  109. Jump up ^ Slovic, Paul; Melissa Finucane; Ellen Peters; Donald G. MacGregor (2002). "The Affect Heuristic". In Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press. pp. 397–420. ISBN 0-521-79679-2. 

References[edit]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cognitive_biases&oldid=664945316"
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Welcome to Precision Universal Debate

  IMPORTANT Though the title of this p2p entry is the Universal Debating Project (at present) it has now been re-named the Precision Univers...

  • Consensus decion-making
    Blogger Ref Universal Debating Project Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and ...
  • Reliability of Wikipedia
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/Blogger Ref   http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Universal_Debating_Project     (Redirected from W...
  • Committee
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    Blogger Ref Universal Debating Project Jump to: navigation , search For othe...