Blog Archive

Saturday, November 20, 2021

11-19-2021-2351 - Cognitive Bias Update - STIP VALID DCAT USA NAC DOM 10-20, 2000/1900(amnestic indoctrination) - original text missing, no reference or citation to prior work or author, unpaid subjects/researchers/physicians/etc., etc..

 In social psychologyfundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are",[1] that is, to see a person's given action to be reflective of their personality as a whole rather than being brought on by current and recent circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

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

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[edit]

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

NameTypeDescription
Additive biasThe tendency to solve problems through addition, even when subtraction is a better approach.[11][12]
Agent detectionFalse priorsThe inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent.
Ambiguity effectProspect theoryThe tendency to avoid options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown.[13]
Anchoring or focalismAnchoring biasThe tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor", on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject).[14][15]
Anthropocentric thinkingAvailability biasThe tendency to use human analogies as a basis for reasoning about other, less familiar, biological phenomena.[16]
Anthropomorphism or
personification
Availability biasThe tendency to characterize animals, objects, and abstract concepts as possessing human-like traits, emotions, and intentions.[17] The opposite bias, of not attributing feelings or thoughts to another person, is dehumanised perception,[18]a type of objectification.
Attentional biasAvailability biasThe tendency of perception to be affected by recurring thoughts.[19]
Attribute substitutionOccurs 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.
Automation biasFalse priorsThe tendency to depend excessively on automated systems which can lead to erroneous automated information overriding correct decisions.[20]
Availability heuristicAvailability biasThe 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.[21]
Backfire effectConfirmation biasThe reaction to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one's previous beliefs.[22] Note: the existence of this bias as a widespread phenomenon has been disputed in empirical studies.
Base rate fallacy or
Base rate neglect
Extension neglectThe tendency to ignore general information and focus on information only pertaining to the specific case, even when the general information is more important.[23]
Belief biasTruthinessAn effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.[24]
Berkson's paradoxLogical fallacyThe tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities.[25]
Clustering illusionApopheniaThe tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).[15]
Common source biasAnchoring biasThe tendency to combine or compare research studies from the same source, or from sources that use the same methodologies or data.[26]
Compassion fadeExtension neglectThe predisposition to behave more compassionately towards a small number of identifiable victims than to a large number of anonymous ones.[27]
Confirmation biasConfirmation biasThe tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[28]
Congruence biasConfirmation biasThe tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.[15]
Conjunction fallacyExtension neglectThe tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than a more general version of those same conditions.[29]
Conservatism bias
(belief revision)
Anchoring biasThe tendency to revise one's belief insufficiently when presented with new evidence.[5][30][31]
Continued influence effectConfirmation biasThe tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[32] cf. Backfire effect
Contrast effectFraming effectThe enhancement or reduction of a certain stimulus' perception when compared with a recently observed, contrasting object.[33]
Curse of knowledgeWhen better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people.[34]
DeclinismThe predisposition to view the past favorably (rosy retrospection) and future negatively.[35]
Decoy effectFraming effectPreferences 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.[36]
Default effectFraming effectWhen given a choice between several options, the tendency to favor the default one.[37]
Denomination effectFraming effectThe tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g., coins) rather than large amounts (e.g., bills).[38]
Disposition effectProspect theoryThe tendency to sell an asset that has accumulated in value and resist selling an asset that has declined in value.
Distinction biasFraming effectThe tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.[39]
Dread aversionProspect theoryJust as losses yield double the emotional impact of gains, dread yields double the emotional impact of savouring.[40][1]
Dunning–Kruger effectThe tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.[41]
Duration neglectExtension neglectThe neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its value.[42]
Hot-cold empathy gapThe tendency to underestimate the influence of visceral drives on one's attitudes, preferences, and behaviors.[43]
End-of-history illusionThe age-independent belief that one will change less in the future than one has in the past.[44]
Endowment effectProspect theoryThe tendency for people to demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[45]
Exaggerated expectationThe tendency to expect or predict more extreme outcomes than those outcomes that actually happen.[5]
Experimenter's or
expectation bias
Confirmation 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.[46]
Forer effect or
Barnum effect
Egocentric biasThe 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.[47]
Form function attribution biasIn 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.[48]
Framing effectFraming effectDrawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.
Frequency illusion or
Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
Availability biasThe 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).[49] 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.[50][51] It was named after an incidence of frequency illusion in which the Baader–Meinhof Group was mentioned.[52]
Functional fixednessAnchoring biasLimits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used.[53]
Gambler's fallacyLogical fallacyThe 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."[54]
Gender biasFalse priorsA widely held[55] set of implicit biases that discriminate against a gender. For example, the assumption that women are less suited to jobs requiring high intellectual ability.[56] Or the assumption that people or animals are male in the absence of any indicators of gender.[57]
Hard–easy effectThe tendency to overestimate one's ability to accomplish hard tasks, and underestimate one's ability to accomplish easy tasks[5][58][59][60]
Hindsight biasSometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency to see past events as being predictable[61] before they happened.
Hot-hand fallacyLogical fallacyThe "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the belief that a person who has experienced success with a random event has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts.
Hungry judge effectJudicial decision making and mood may be affected by physiological factors such as what the judge had for breakfast.
Hyperbolic discountingExtension neglectDiscounting 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.[62] Also known as current moment bias, present-bias, and related to Dynamic inconsistency. A good example of this: 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.
IKEA effectEffort justificationThe 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.[63]
Illicit transferenceLogical fallacyOccurs when a term in the distributive (referring to every member of a class) and collective (referring to the class itself as a whole) sense are treated as equivalent. The two variants of this fallacy are the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division.
Illusion of controlEgocentric biasThe tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over other external events.[64]
Illusion of validityEgocentric biasOverestimating the accuracy of one's judgments, especially when available information is consistent or inter-correlated.[65]
Illusory correlationApopheniaInaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated events.[66][67]
Illusory truth effectTruthinessA tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity. These are specific cases of truthiness.
Impact biasThe tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.[68]
Implicit associationAvailability biasThe speed with which people can match words depends on how closely they are associated.
Information biasThe tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.[69]
Insensitivity to sample sizeExtension neglectThe tendency to under-expect variation in small samples.
Interoceptive biasThe 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.)  [70][71][72][73]
Irrational escalation or
Escalation of commitment
Logical fallacyThe 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.
Law of the instrumentAnchoring biasAn over-reliance on a familiar tool or methods, ignoring or under-valuing alternative approaches. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Less-is-better effectExtension neglectThe tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged separately, but not jointly.
Loss aversionProspect theoryThe perceived disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it.[74] (see also Sunk cost effects and endowment effect).
Mere exposure effectFamiliarity principleThe tendency to express undue liking for things merely because of familiarity with them.[75]
Money illusionThe tendency to concentrate on the nominal value (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[76]
Moral credential effectOccurs when someone who does something good gives themselves permission to be less good in the future.
Neglect of probabilityExtension neglectThe tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.[77]
Non-adaptive choice switching[78]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".
Normalcy biasCognitive dissonanceThe refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never happened before.
Observer-expectancy effectConfirmation biasWhen 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 (commissions) as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful inactions (omissions).[79]
Optimism biasThe tendency to be over-optimistic, underestimating greatly the probability of undesirable outcomes and overestimating favorable and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinkingvalence effectpositive outcome bias).[80][81]
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 effectEgocentric biasExcessive 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][82][83][84]
PareidoliaApopheniaA 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.
Plan continuation biasLogical fallacyFailure to recognize that the original plan of action is no longer appropriate for a changing situation or for a situation that is different than anticipated.[85]
Planning fallacyEgocentric biasThe tendency to underestimate one's own task-completion times.[68]
Present biasThe tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the present time when considering trade-offs between two future moments.[86]
Plant blindnessThe tendency to ignore plants in their environment and a failure to recognize and appreciate the utility of plants to life on earth.[87]
Prevention biasWhen 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.[88]
Probability matchingSub-optimal matching of the probability of choices with the probability of reward in a stochastic context.
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.
Projection biasThe tendency to overestimate how much our future selves share one's current preferences, thoughts and values, thus leading to sub-optimal choices.[89][90][91]
Proportionality biasOur innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracy theories.[92][93]
Pseudocertainty effectProspect theoryThe tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.[94]
Recency illusionThe 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",[95] such as the final lawyer's closing argument a jury hears before being dismissed to deliberate.
Systematic biasJudgement that arises when targets of differentiating judgement become subject to effects of regression that are not equivalent.[96]
Restraint biasEgocentric biasThe tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effectTruthinessRhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.
Risk compensation / Peltzman effectThe tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety increases.
Salience biasAvailability biasThe 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.
Scope neglect or
scope insensitivity
Extension neglectThe 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
Selection biasAvailability biasHappens when the members of a statistical sample are not chosen completely at random, which leads to the sample not being representative of the population.
Selective perceptionConfirmation biasThe tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflexConfirmation biasThe tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.[31]
Status quo biasProspect theoryThe tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversionendowment effect, and system justification).[97][98]
StereotypingFalse priorsExpecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effectLogical fallacyThe tendency to judge the probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.[99]
Subjective validationTruthinessPerception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
SurrogationLosing sight of the strategic construct that a measure is intended to represent, and subsequently acting as though the measure is the construct of interest.
Survivorship biasAvailability biasConcentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn't because of their lack of visibility.
System justificationProspect theoryThe 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.)
Time-saving biasLogical fallacyUnderestimations 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.
Parkinson's law of trivialityThe 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.[100]
Unconscious biasAlso known as implicit biases, are 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.[101]
Unit biasThe 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.[102]
Weber–Fechner lawDifficulty in comparing small differences in large quantities.
Well travelled road effectAvailability biasUnderestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-travelled routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse less familiar routes.
Women are wonderful effectA tendency to associate more positive attributes with women than with men.
Zero-risk biasExtension neglectPreference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.
Zero-sum biasLogical fallacyA bias whereby a situation is incorrectly perceived to be like a zero-sum game (i.e., one person gains at the expense of another).

Social[edit]

NameTypeDescription
Actor-observer biasAttribution 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).
Authority biasAssociation fallacyThe tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure (unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.[103]
Availability cascadeConformity biasA 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").[104]
Bandwagon effectConformity biasThe tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthinkand herd behavior.[105]
Ben Franklin effectCognitive dissonanceA 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.[106]
Bias blind spotEgocentric biasThe tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[107]
Cheerleader effectAssociation fallacyThe tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[108]
Courtesy biasConformity biasThe tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone.[109]
Defensive attribution hypothesisAttribution biasAttributing more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more severe or as personal or situational similarityto the victim increases.
Defensive othering effectAttribution biasOccurs when perceived similarities with the stigmatized group trigger a protective behavior of distancing (othering) self (or someone else) from "others" as a means to avoid a certain negative outcome associated with "others."[110](related to DAH).
Egocentric biasEgocentric 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 biasAttribution biasAn exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic motivations for oneself
False consensus effectEgocentric biasThe tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.[111]
False uniqueness biasEgocentric biasThe tendency of people to see their projects and themselves as more singular than they actually are.[112]
Fundamental attribution errorAttribution biasThe 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[91] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[113]
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.
GroupthinkConformity biasThe 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.
Halo effectAssociation fallacyThe 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).[114]
Hostile attribution biasAttribution biasThe "hostile attribution bias" is the tendency to interpret others' behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign.[115]
Illusion of asymmetric insightEgocentric biasPeople perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.[116]
Illusion of transparencyEgocentric biasThe 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.
Illusory superiorityEgocentric biasOverestimating 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".)[117]
Ingroup biasIngroup biasThe tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
Intentionality biasAttribution biasTendency to judge human action to be intentional rather than accidental.[118]
Just-world hypothesisAttribution biasThe 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 luckAttribution biasThe tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based on the outcome of an event.
Naïve cynicismEgocentric biasExpecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself.
Naïve realismEgocentric biasThe 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.
Not invented hereIngroup biasAversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group. Related to IKEA effect.
Outgroup homogeneity biasIngroup biasIndividuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.[119]
Puritanical biasAttribution biasRefers to 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 .[120]
Pygmalion effectThe phenomenon whereby others' expectations of a target person affect the target person's performance.
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.
Self-serving biasAttribution 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).[121]
Sexual overperception bias / Sexual underperception biasFalse priorsThe tendency to over-/underestimate sexual interest of another person in oneself.
Social comparison biasThe tendency, when making decisions, to favour potential candidates who don't compete with one's own particular strengths.[122]
Social cryptomnesiaA 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 the change in societal values.[123]
Social desirability biasConformity biasThe tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in oneself and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[124] See also: § Courtesy bias.
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).[125]
Trait ascription biasEgocentric biasThe 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 effectEgocentric biasA tendency to believe that mass-communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves.
Ultimate attribution errorAttribution biasSimilar 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.[126]

Memory[edit]

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 biasThe tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.[127]
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.[128][129]
Consistency biasIncorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[130]
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.[131]
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.[132]
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.
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.[133]
Lag effectThe 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 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.[134]
Levels-of-processing effectThat different methods of encoding information into memory have different levels of effectiveness.[135]
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. For example, consider a list of 30 items ("L30") and a list of 100 items ("L100"). An individual may remember 15 items from L30, or 50%, whereas the individual may remember 40 items from L100, or 40%. Although the percent of L30 items remembered (50%) is greater than the percent of L100 (40%), more L100 items (40) are remembered than L30 items (15).[136][further explanation needed]
Misinformation effectMemory becoming less accurate because of interference from post-event information.[137]
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.
Negativity bias or Negativity effectPsychological phenomenon by which humans have a greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive memories.[138][91](see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[113]
Next-in-line effectWhen 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.[139]
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.[140]
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.
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.[141][142][143][144][145][146]
Positivity effect (Socioemotional selectivity theory)That older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
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.[147]
Processing difficulty effectThat information that takes longer to read and is thought about more (processed with more difficulty) is more easily remembered.[148]
Reminiscence bumpThe recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime periods.[149]
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.[150]
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.
Stereotype biasMemory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g., racial or gender).
Suffix effectDiminishment of the recency effect because a sound item is appended to the list that the subject is not required to recall.[151][152]
SuggestibilityA form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
TachypsychiaWhen time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts.[153]
Telescoping effectThe 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 effectThe fact that you more easily remember information you have read by rewriting it instead of rereading it.[154]
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 to be an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[131]
Travis SyndromeOverestimating the significance of the present.[155] It is related to chronological snobbery with possibly an appeal to novelty logical fallacybeing part of the bias.
Verbatim effectThat the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim wording.[156] 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.[157]
Zeigarnik effectThat uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.

See also[edit]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases



No comments:

Post a Comment